Nick Discepola

[Environmental Assessment, November 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, our major newspapers reported today that federal and provincial environment ministers are expected to sign an agreement very shortly on environmental assessment.

Under this national agreement on environmental harmonization, the Canadian government will transfer major responsibilities to provinces.

This agreement, which was the subject of arduous negotiations during the past two years, is especially important because it will help improve environmental protection while eliminating duplication and jurisdictional conflicts.

In the throne speech in February, our Prime Minister launched an appeal to all Canadians to work together to protect the environment. This agreement is the appropriate response to this appeal and is a reflection of the many agreements concluded between our government and provincial governments to make our Canadian federation more efficient.

[Exports, November 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in today's issue of La Presse there is a scoop from journalist Claude Picher, who tells us that exports will experience a remarkable growth over the next five years.

According to Mr. Picher, the Export Development Corporation will release tomorrow its five year projections, and it is expected that the annual growth rate of our exports will be slightly above 8 per cent.

As you know, the Export Development Corporation is a Canadian crown corporation whose primary mandate is to provide financial and risk management services to exporters. According to the EDC, 40 per cent of Canadian production will be exported in the coming years.

Given that exports provide five million jobs in Canada, including 1.2 million in Quebec, we have every reason to be pleased by the EDC's projections.

[Canada Labour Code, November 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is also with great pleasure that I support the motion to refer Bill C-66 to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development.

This committee stage will be the last step in a long series of consultations that were held across Canada on this bill which updates the Canada Labour Code.

I believe the labour minister clearly demonstrated how seriously he took this reform. He also showed some remarkable qualities as a conciliator and a unifier. His objective was a balanced, fair and

equitable reform. He certainly reached this objective since all the parties involved largely approved the bill.

Of course, all the parties would have liked the minister to totally support their own position, and many will go before the committee to seek amendments in their favour. It is normal, predictable and quite in line with the political and parliamentary tradition of this country.

However, all those who participated in the numerous consultations on the reform said they were satisfied that the minister had respected the consensus reached by the parties. I am not surprised. I know the labour minister is a man of his word who says what he means and does what he says.

I am happy that others have now discovered his great qualities. Under the circumstances, it is rare for labour and management to agree on something, particularly on the qualities of a labour minister.

Naturally, the Bloc Quebecois members maintain that the minister did not go far enough, that he should have adopted the unions' position with his eyes closed. Once again, the Bloc Quebecois members are lapsing into excess and abuse. It is always all or nothing. They cannot find a middle ground or reach a consensus.

Let us take for example the clause of the bill dealing with replacement workers. The Bloc is saying: "We must do what is done in Quebec, ban them entirely". Indeed, in the 1970s, the Quebec government passed legislation banning replacement workers. The economic and social context in 1996, on the eve of the next millennium, is quite different from what it was 20 years ago, and businesses are restructuring. They must face competition not only from other Canadian businesses, but also from competitors all over the world. In many cases, unfortunately, this results in hundreds of lay-offs.

We are no longer in the era of all or nothing draconian solutions. The labour minister understood that well and wants to modernize the Labour Code to ensure that everyone has rights and that the parties seek to resolve their disputes before resorting to a strike or a lockout.

If Bloc members look closely at Bill C-66, they will see that everything has been provided to rationalize procedures and to allow the parties to talk to each other, to resolve disputes among themselves or to call upon the Canada Industrial Relations Board to assist them. It is in this perspective that the minister has provided that, under normal circumstances, employers will have the right to use replacement workers during a legal work stoppage.

However, the minister did not want to leave workers without any resources, which is why his formula is so brilliant in my opinion. Should an employer use replacement workers to undermine the union's capacity to ensure proper representation, this would be perceived as an unfair practice, thus warranting the referral of the matter to the board.

If, after reviewing the case, the board determines that the employer's action does constitute an unfair labour practice, the board will now have the power to ban the use of replacement workers for the duration of the dispute. That is what I call an articulate and modern position suited to the working world of the year 2000. Employers have rights, and so do the workers.

In addition, the minister proposed other amendments which complement this important measure and give it even more value. First, he restructured the board. In the future, the new Canada Industrial Relations Board will be composed of a chairperson and neutral vice-chairpersons appointed by the government. Each case heard by the new board will be presided over by one of its neutral vice-chairpersons.

Unlike its predecessor, this will be a representational board made up of an equal number of members representing employers and employees. This was not the case in the past. In the future, both employees and employers will have a say. They will be able to take an active part in the board's decision making process. For me this is a major step forward and the Bloc members should at least recognize it for what it is.

Also, Bill C-66 sets out a new procedure to be followed before a work stoppage. The notice to bargain may be served four months ahead instead of three months, to give the parties more time to discuss and reach an agreement. A secret vote on any planned work stoppage must be held within 60 days of a strike or lockout. Again, the government wants the parties to fully realize the importance of such action and not make any rash decisions.

Another major amendment proposes that workers who have been on strike or locked out will be first in line for their old jobs. It is important for employees to know that once a work stoppage has ended, no one else will be able to take their jobs. In a nutshell, I believe workers have made important gains with this reform, and they are well aware of this.

I find it unfortunate that Bloc members act as the unconditional mouthpieces of unions. As the fine representatives of all the people who elected them, including employers, I believe they should make allowances and not see everything in black and white. Above all, they should support the fair and balanced bill the Minister of Labour has put before us. I urge them to think about all this.

They could take advantage of the standing committee meetings to ask the minister any question they may have. I hope that, when

Bill C-66 comes back to us, they will agree to support this excellent reform of the Canada Labour Code.

[Speech From The Throne, November 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will not have time to deal with the two questions in a brief response. I will discuss the issue of political uncertainty and its effect on the economy of Montreal and of the province as a whole.

The member for Longueuil only has to walk or drive through the streets of Montreal to see the devastating effects that this region has had to put up with for a long time. I am proud of the measures recently announced by our government to help Montreal's economy. It is sad and deplorable that the Quebec premier did not invite the federal government to the socio-economic summit. If he cared about Quebec's interests, he would at least have invited the federal government. Yet, Bloc Quebecois members are asking us why we do not do more for Montreal.

We are not the ones dreaming in technicolour, it is Bloc Quebecois members and separatists. The facts speak for themselves. Let us take a look at the unemployment rate. It is no coincidence. After all, we have the same policies for Quebec as for other provinces, and for Montreal as for other major cities. We do not devise policies to punish Quebec.

We must ask ourselves why the unemployment rate is two points higher in the Montreal region. the Canadian average is around 9.6 per cent, while the rate for Quebec is 12.6 per cent.

Why is it that the uncertainty affects the Quebec and Canadian economies indirectly and directly? It is not good for Quebec and it is not good for Canada. I hope some day they understand that.

[Speech From The Throne, November 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I too will share my time with a colleague. I would also like to congratulate you on your appointment, Mr. Speaker.

I am also happy to participate in this debate, even though we are speaking about the throne speech that was delivered on February 27, 1996.

The very fact that we are still discussing the throne speech eight months later shows the importance of this document. I see the throne speech as a kind of business plan for the government. The fact that we are still debating this business plan shows how important it is.

With your permission, I will not go over the whole plan but, as my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works, pointed out, I will address the part of the throne speech dealing with national unity.

Notwithstanding the actions we took in the weeks following the referendum, there remains some confusion, especially in Quebec, on the various measures our government took to try to settle the basic issue of Canadian unity.

There are obstacles, but I listened with interest to the comments made about the throne speech by members of the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party, who, I must point out, were nowhere to be seen during the referendum debate. Today, they claim to be concerned about Canadian unity. That is not true. If they were really concerned about Canadian unity, instead of criticizing our government day in and day out and making no proposals to advance the debate on Canadian unity, they would have expended their energy on settling the matter and especially on trying to convince our colleagues and fellow citizens in western Canada to make an effort to understand a little better what Quebec has been seeking for so long.

It was clearly specified in the throne speech.

We were very clear in the speech from the throne what this government wanted to do. The Reform Party member who spoke prior to me stated that we have no vision of Canada, that we have no plan for Canada. Nothing could be further from the truth. I question, based on his intervention, whether he even took the time to read the speech from the throne.

As I said in French, the speech from the throne is a blueprint of where our government wants to take this country. In the speech from the throne we talk about modernizing the federation. More important, we talk about the different areas of responsibilities that our government is willing to withdraw from.

I want to quote from the speech from the throne concerning the areas which have been a sore point for most provinces. The throne speech states: "The government will not use its spending power to create new shared cost programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction without the consent of the majority of the provinces, and any new program will be designed so that non-participating provinces will be compensated provided they establish similar programs in their province".

In the province of Quebec this has been a very sore point for many years. Traditional past governments, in order to penetrate or impede on some provincial jurisdiction, would through their spending powers introduce their own programs and thereby bypass the province totally.

Our government was clear. We wrote it down. We stated that we will no longer do that. Why? We feel we have to work with the provinces because they are our partners. We cannot always look at the other levels of government as our enemies. If we are going to get Canada back on track, as we have done over the past two or three years, of which I am very proud, we are going to have to take new initiatives and work with the provinces.

We also stated in the speech from the throne that the government will work the provinces and Canadians to develop agreed upon values and principles to underlie the social union and to explore new approaches to decision making in social policies. That is very clear.

The Reform Party says we do not want to do anything and that we are not working with the provinces. The newly appointed Minister of Human Resources Development has spent a considerable amount of time, as did his predecessors, in negotiating manpower training with the provinces. It is a long process, but we made the ground rules and the blueprints in our speech from the throne which lay out very clearly where we are headed.

In essence, what we are saying is: "Hey, provinces, we are willing to work with you. Let us sit down and define which level of government is best able to deliver the services". After all, there is only one taxpayer in this country. Whether it is a municipal government, a provincial government, a federal government or even a school board, there is still only one taxpayer. Quite often these levels ignore that fact.

What we are saying is that we should look at the powers. We are looking at the responsibilities. We said it again in the speech from the throne. The government is prepared to withdraw totally from some sectors.

The government is going to withdraw from manpower training. That is well under way and in the province of Quebec it has been accepted with open arms. The government is also willing to withdraw from areas such as social housing, mining, sports and recreation.

The government has worked with the provinces on these matters, but there are probably some jurisdictions that it needs to retain, such as the environment. Obviously, pollution does not stop at a provincial border. The rivers which are polluted do not stop at a provincial border. The federal government still has to be responsible to a certain degree.

Tourism and food inspection are two others areas in which the federal government is willing to work with the provinces.

What we said in the speech from the throne is that we are prepared to renew the federation. It is incumbent-and the proof is in the longevity of our beautiful country-on every generation to look at Canada and to mould it for its needs and for the needs of future generations. That is what our blueprint states.

I would like to touch on the different things that we have done to respond to the commitments made by our Prime Minister in the weeks preceding the referendum. Again, most people seem to have forgotten them rather quickly.

During the referendum we promised that we would transfer manpower training to the provinces. We have done that. We delivered on that promise.

We promised to recognize regional vetoes. I recall very vividly that debate. I was out west at that point in time. I remember that British Columbians felt they were a separate area and that they should be recognized as a region. Our government listened. Instead of creating four regional vetoes, we went ahead and recognized five regional vetoes. We gave all the regions a veto. Quebec, after all, is the only province that had constitutional change imposed on it against its will.

I have one minute left. I will take that very important minute to appeal to my western colleagues to work with our government. They can use whatever phrase they want. The Liberal Party chose to use distinct society. Let us try to work together to recognize the distinct reality of Quebec. One has to be blind not to recognize that

Quebec has a different language and a different culture. Let us work together to enshrine that in the Constitution.

Yes, we did make exceptions for provinces. British Columbia, for example, in order to join Confederation, required that the national railway be built. In 1892 that dream was realized. Where would British Columbia be today if that dream had never been fulfilled?

If there were only eight residents on Prince Edward Island, all eight would either be senators or members of Parliament. We recognize that even a small province can contribute to Canada.

I make an appeal to the premiers of the provinces to work with our government. I make an appeal for all parties to work with our government to solve the Canadian unity problem once and for all.

[Translation]

[Jacques Parizeau, November 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last Monday, Jacques Parizeau indicated that his government had built a $19 billion reserve to prepare for a victory of the yes side in the October 1995 referendum.

Why would the Quebec government set up an emergency fund that is equivalent to the Bank of Canada reserve if, as the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois have been claiming, sovereignty is not a source of concern for the financial markets?

Why did separatists choose not to tell Quebecers that they were ready to play Russian roulette with their savings?

How can Lucien Bouchard claim that he was not informed of the building of this reserve since he was the one designated by Jacques Parizeau to prepare the negotiations with Canada in the event of a victory of the yes side?

All these questions deserve an answer, and I address them directly to the BQ member for Roberval.

[Leader Of The Bloc Quebecois, October 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc leader is upset because the Liberal convention was such a success. His frustration is understandable; after all, his party was never able to develop, let alone put forward, a meaningful electoral platform.

He feels frustrated looking back on the Bloc's convention in April 1995, where delegates spent most of their time developing strategies to change the temporary status of their party instead of developing party policy and direction.

The separatist member for Roberval can shout and threaten all he wants, the fact remains that he heads a party that has lost its relevance since Lucien Bouchard left to run the government in Quebec.

The Bloc's separatist blueprint no longer meets the people's expectations, as they will be told loud and clear in the next election.

[Liberal Party, October 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the delegates at the national Liberal convention held in Ottawa this past weekend have achieved a consensus on a number of important issues.

It should be noted that our government's deficit reduction strategy has received overwhelming endorsement from convention delegates. Diversion tactics such as tax reductions, as attractive as they may be in the short term, would jeopardize the government's fiscal health.

Liberals from all over the country have chosen to support a strategy that will lead to the complete elimination of the deficit by the turn of this century. That is how we will ensure job creation, sustainable social programs and real economic recovery.

[Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) Act, October 22nd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, since I have been singled out in this debate, I feel I have an obligation to speak up even if I spoke earlier. I have a point to make. True, previous governments have always made appointments. Just before the last

election, the previous government gave us the finest example of patronage.

It is wrong to say in this House that this bill is aimed only at rewarding and placing our Liberal friends. We have no lessons to receive from Bloc Quebecois members or the PQ government.

The day after the PQ government was elected, they fired a whole bunch of people, starting with none other than the President of Hydro-Quebec, who was respected by everyone and doing an excellent job. Coincidentally, they replaced him with a PQ member. They also systematically replaced all foreign delegates who refused to serve their cause. These officials were dismissed and replaced with separatists. This government has no lesson to receive from them.

The purpose of this bill is to cut positions. I will give you a few examples: the number of appointments will be reduced from 29 to 5. Appointees will serve for 5 years instead of 10. Future governments will thus be prevented from always replacing appointees or increasing their numbers.

As for my re-election, I did lose the Island of Montreal, my greatest city, because I served as mayor of the City of Kirkland, something I am proud of. I challenge them to come and campaign in my riding. We will fight them and we will win. We will take another 20 seats in Quebec in the next election.

[Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) Act, October 22nd, 1996]

It will be my pleasure, Madam Speaker.