Antoine Dubé

[Petitions, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition concerning the Lévis railway station.

Although the decision was made this past Friday, I felt obliged to present this petition bearing 155 signatures opposing the closing of the Lévis station and supporting the continued use of the Montmagny subdivision trunk line between Harlaka and Saint-Romuald.

All told, the Minister of Transport has chosen to ignore 11,241 people.

[The Budget, February 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on the last day of the session before the holidays, or December 11, 1997, I questioned the Minister responsible for International Trade about what was happening about the guarantee of funding for the Spirit of Columbus platform, which MIL Davie had managed to bring in after several months of efforts.

That platform has been anchored in the port of Quebec since August 30 of last year, but the wait on the guarantee of financing from the Export Development Corporation, which reports to the Minster of International Trade, has been going on for more than a year.

As the minister's response was not very helpful, I am back at it again today to try and get some more details.

The minister said:

I spoke with Mr. Landry some months ago. I directed the EDC to speak with the Quebec SDI. Meetings were held. He had spoken with the MIL-Davie union president.

The federal government feels this is a very important undertaking. I respect the recommendations made by the EDC and the SDI on behalf of the governments of Quebec and of Canada.

We have been waiting ever since. From time to time in this House, every couple of months, I bring it up again. I know this is a complex matter, but we are now at the end of February, and next week the House adjourns. Dominion Bridge, which owns the shipyards, is doing everything it can. It has even got new investments from American ECO, which is currently discussing a take-over of Dominion Bridge, and therefore of the yards.

There are two other platform projects, each costing in excess of $100 million, Amethyst II and Amethyst III, for which applications have been made. The Government of Quebec is prepared to contribute. As long ago as September 20, the SDI had given its agreement in principle for this project. Now that we are talking in excess of $300 million for these platforms, we are still waiting on the federal government and the Export Development Corporation to find out what is going on about the guarantee of financing.

I would like to give a quick review, in a few seconds, of one other Liberal government commitment. In 1993 it had promised a summit on the future of marine construction in Canada. This was picked up on by then New Brunswick Premier McKenna who reminded the government of it at a federal-provincial conference before his resignation.

Now here we are in 1998, 5 years later, and there is no sign whatsoever of a symposium or summit on marine construction in Canada.

[Canada Labour Code, February 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am obliged to respect the opinions of the Reform member, because he is saying that we in the Bloc defend the interests of Quebec. I will not deny it. He is absolutely right.

The Bloc Quebecois is here mainly to defend Quebec's interests. Our candidates ran only in Quebec—as you can see, we have no members from Ontario or the West—but we still maintain a dialogue with people from the other provinces, like those in the West.

The difference is obvious. I am not saying my colleague does not represent his part of the country well, but there is clearly a different mentality. I have always maintained there were two countries within Canada, and the Reform member is confirming the fact. Things are quite different in Quebec.

However, it bothers me to hear people saying that giving more rights to workers as a group is a step backwards. When we respect individual rights more, it is in fact a step forward. This is not what we are seeing in the western world. The 101 countries—I do not know where he got them from—but, generally speaking, the number of social measures in OECD countries is on the rise.

On the subject of the Quebec charter of rights, he forgot a number of sections. He might also have mentioned the United Nations' charter. It supports freedoms of expression and of association. Employees of a company have the fundamental right to join together in a union to collectively defend their individual rights. As individuals, they could never manage it on their own.

[Canada Labour Code, February 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I should tell you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans. I will therefore be making a 10-minute speech.

We are debating Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, Part I. This bill stems from another bill, Bill C-66, which died on the Order Paper last spring because, six months before the end of the traditional four-year mandate, the current Prime Minister decided to call an election, thus taking some opposition parties unawares. He saw what was happening in the maritimes and, sensing that the Employment Insurance Act was not going down too well, he chose to take the other political parties by surprise. Many bills, including this one, died on the Order Paper as a result.

He probably made the right decision from an election point of view, since he kept his majority, although the actual number of Liberal members is lower.

Despite this delay, the problem with Bill C-19 is the same as with calling an election early: it leaves some unfinished business.

In many respects, as our critic on this issue, the hon. member for Trois-Rivières, indicated, there are many improvements, many positives. But there are also serious deficiencies.

What are these main deficiencies? First, RCMP employees are not included. The bill does not address their expressed wish to become subject to the labour code, to be unionized.

It also falls short of the expectations of federal employees, the Public Service Alliance of Canada. Government employees are subject to the Public Service Staff Relations Act instead of the Labour Code.

Incidentally, federal public service employees do not enjoy the same kind of job security as their Quebec counterparts. There is not as much job security in the federal public service. One only has to look, for example, at the cuts being made in the Quebec City region by the defence department, which are affecting large numbers of people. Many federal public servants are left to fend for themselves, because these cuts have been made over a three-year period that will end at the end of March, with no replacement program and no early retirement program in place.

What is the federal government doing? It is in the process of privatizing its public service. The public service has been trying to continue to provide government services by contracting out, which is a strange way of doing things. This is not the object of today's debate. I just wanted to say that, unfortunately, the Canada Labour Code does not apply to these public servants.

The Bloc Quebecois opposes some of the proposed amendments to the Canada Labour Code because they do not meet Quebeckers' needs. I do not know if they meet the needs of people in the other regions of the country—I will leave it to the other parties to judge—but we want to protect Quebeckers' interests, even if the Canada Labour Code affects only 10% of unionized workers in Quebec.

There are three groups of workers in Quebec. First, there are those who are not unionized and who, of course, are not protected by collective agreements. Nothing will change for these workers. Then there are those who are regulated by the Quebec labour code, which includes provisions prohibiting the use of replacement workers, commonly called scabs. Finally, the third and last group is those 10% of Quebeckers who are subject to the Canada Labour Code.

Who are they? They are people working in banks, in interprovincial and international transportation, airports obviously and all the airport transportation companies, all the airlines, broadcasting, telecommunications, harbour operations, longshoremen and grain handlers.

I would like to take a closer look at the last two categories, because in the Quebec City region right now there is a strike that, for a number of reasons, has dragged on in the Port of Quebec. The same parties may not always be at fault, but it is recognized that, since the introduction of anti-scab legislation in Quebec, strikes—and this is important—are 35% shorter than before. Anti-scab legislation is therefore one way of limiting the length of strikes. It does not increase, but decreases, the length of strikes, a very important point.

I was listening to what the Reform member had to say. Although he is opposed, he said that strikes should not go on too long. The very benefit of anti-scab legislation is that it prevents strikes from dragging on longer than necessary. I remember some long strikes in Quebec, for instance that of the Ogilvie workers, because they are in the grain sector.

This brings me to another point. Why grain and not potatoes? Why not butter? Why not other food products considered essential, such as milk? Why grain? We Quebeckers import grain because we do not produce enough of our own. We import, or receive I should say, western grain and then ship it to international markets through our ports, particularly those along the St. Lawrence Seaway, but we also use it to raise hogs, cattle, and so on.

So, what has been the result in Quebec City? There have been cases of violence. The absence of anti-scab legislation affects not just the length of strikes, but the incidence of violence. I am not condoning violence. I do not think violence should be condoned. But the fact remains that, when a strike drags on and scabs might be or are used, the result is almost always violence in labour relations. When violence occurs before a strike ends, there can be physical effects and problems in terms of labour relations.

It is not a matter of just settling a labour dispute, but of settling it well. The parties, and this is the advantage of a negotiated settlement, must reach a collective agreement that they both will honour following negotiations. The resulting work atmosphere is better as is productivity. The company is better off in terms of profits, and the workers are better off, because greater profits mean better benefits and collective agreements for the workers.

This should be the aim of the Canada Labour Code. Instead, measures in these areas remain for the most part unchanged and a practice that even Quebec employers have shunned since 1977, that is the use of replacement workers, will be allowed to continue.

[Rail Transportation, February 20th, 1998]

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

On February 22, 1996, the National Transportation Agency accepted CN's application to abandon the rail line along the St. Lawrence to Lévis. Since then, there have been numerous postponements, while petitions with more than 11,000 signatures have been presented in the House of Commons expressing opposition to this and calling for the station at Lévis to be maintained.

It being no longer possible under the Transport Act to delay the decision past February 21, what does the minister intend to do concerning the station and rail line at Lévis?

[Canada Shipping Act, February 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I would say to the member for Trois-Rivières that there would finally be a government with full jurisdiction that would handle shipping like any normal country would. A normal country would act like the United States, the Scandinavian countries, and the other countries in the world with shipyards. In those countries, they build ships with the help of the government, not in conflict with it, and the passage of ships flying foreign flags with tax advantages and of old vessels that do not meet the standards is not allowed.

A normal country looks after normal things, such as its future in shipping and its economic development, and does not wait for the Senate to wake it up when it comes to shipping issues, the way the Liberal Party has. It is unbelievable. They do not come any slower.

[Division No. 89, February 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the member for Halifax West is also concerned about shipping.

In fact, he comes from a region that is greatly affected by it. Although the bill does not address the issue of navigational aids, he is right to be worried about what is being done in that regard.

On this topic, we in Quebec deplore the fact that icebreaking is now the responsibility of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Since the Liberals have been in office, we have lost a lot of icebreakers and now we can no longer ensure marine traffic in winter. This winter, it was not too noticeable, because the weather was warmer than usual, but I agree fully with what my colleague said about safety.

I did not, however, understand his reference to birds. I do not know what he meant.

[Division No. 89, February 19th, 1998]

Very low indeed, as the member for Trois-Rivières has pointed out.

Some people are citing the Brander-Smith report, which proposes, because of the shoals in the St. Lawrence, that ships with double hulls be built as quickly as possible. With its usual lack of speed, the Liberal government intended to pass this legislation in 2007, in ten years. In the meantime, what we see sailing past are old tubs, most of them under foreign flags. And we should not be worried.

This is the time to be building new ships. For ten years now they have been warning foreign ships about the 20-year limit, but they are still letting them in. Fortunately, in this instance, we have the senators. For once in their lives, at least, they will have proven their usefulness. The senators are trying to get the government to wake up.

The government also turned a deaf ear when other key players spoke. Last August, at the federal-provincial conference held in St. Andrews, the former premier of New Brunswick told his fellow premiers that action was urgently required. He urged the federal government to take action in the shipping industry. Since his resignation, we have not heard him say anything more about the issue, but still, nothing has been done.

I personally do not approve of using delaying tactics to hold up this bill. What I want is a real bill on a real shipping policy, a real shipbuilding policy. This is what workers want, especially but not exclusively in Quebec.

The hon. member for Saint John moved a similar motion last fall. Each party had one speaker address the issue. Everyone, including the opposition, was in agreement, whether in western Canada or in Ontario. After all, the Great Lakes region is also interested in shipping. The parliamentary secretary comes from that region. I know that he is interested in this.

But what is the government waiting for to establish a true shipping policy, a true shipbuilding policy? It should do like the United States, where $400 million is earmarked every year to replace the U.S. merchant fleet. It should do like most countries of the world, where shipyards get some support because they are considered important.

Shipping is actually the cheapest mode of transportation. If this activity is conducted properly, if measures such as double hulling are taken, we can avoid accidents or incidents, particularly those involving oil. It is the least expensive mode of transportation, and the least dangerous one from an environmental point of view.

However, using old ships to carry oil can have a major environmental impact, if they sink like the Irving Whale . This is why the world fleet must be renewed. Ships entering Canadian waters must be safe. Otherwise, they should get stiff penalties, so that they will think twice before entering our waters and threatening the environmental safety of Canada and of Quebec.

These are the main points I wanted to make on this issue. I will be pleased to answer any questions.

[Division No. 89, February 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding, we have a huge shipyard that is as big as the one in the riding of the hon. member for Saint John. I pay attention any time the issue of shipping is raised because of its connection with shipbuilding.

My riding is right across from Quebec City, on the opposite shore of the St. Lawrence River, on which there is a lot of shipping. So, we in Lévis want to see as many ships as possible. But at the same time, we want to make sure that, should an accident occur, these ships will not harm the environment. Bill S-4 deals with liability for shipping accidents and oil pollution damage.

Personally, I was not in favour of looking for ways to delay passage of this bill, essentially because this bill should have been passed a long time ago. Why has it not been passed into law yet? Because last year, Prime Minister Chrétien decided to call an early election because he feared the impact of the Employment Insurance Act reform on people in the maritimes. That was not a bad idea, since the government majority fell significantly from what it was in the last Parliament, and had he waited until the fall, he would probably have ended up with a minority government.

It may have been a good move for the Prime Minister, but not for this bill to amend the Canada Shipping Act, which was first passed in 1932. The changes will be implemented in stages because the government is not quite ready to put all the new provisions into effect. The government has decided to make the changes required in two stages, and this part covers only what the government is almost forced to do as a signatory to the 1976 international convention, which was to come into force in 1990, but whose implementation was later postponed to March 31, 1996, at the latest. But the government negotiated an extension which took us to this year.

In the end, having signed an international convention, the government can no longer delay passage of this legislation. When someone does something because he can no longer postpone it, it shows how little he cares about it. The government does so because it is obliged to, because other countries on the international scene have already done so, and it is among the last stragglers, so now it is acting in order to save face. I am shocked by this. The people of Lévis whom I represent, the workers at the Lévis shipyards, are also shocked by the low priority this government gives to shipping. The message it is sending to them is discouraging.

In 1993, the Liberals were so hot to gain power that the Prime Minister's current chief of staff was a Liberal candidate in Quebec City. All the candidates in that region signed an undertaking stating that they found this issue so important that they were going to hold a summit on the future of the shipyards and of shipping as a whole. He was not elected, of course. Perhaps that is why nothing has happened in the area of shipping since then. The government stalls. Then, if the polls seem favourable, an election is called and shipping is forgotten altogether.

This is the most neglected sector in the area of transport. It seems to be the last to get any attention, so much so that the former president of the Canadian shipowners, Mr. Bell I think, waited until after the election to reach his decision, not wishing to get involved in politics.

He had been in that position for a dozen years or so. He commented: “Things are going so badly. They change ministers just about every two years, in transport and for shipbuilding. We cannot figure out where we stand. Things are going so badly that I have decided to step down, because the message I am getting is that this is not an important issue for the Liberal government”.

Almost a year into the second Liberal mandate, the Senate finally turns up with this. I am like everybody else. I will not go on any longer on this point, or the parliamentary secretary will be rising to bring me back on topic.

Generally things are not at their fastest in the Senate. When the Senate is faster than the House of Commons and the Liberal government, that means the latter are very slow indeed. It would be almost impossible to get any slower. When the senators push the government to pass something, things are happening. Things are going awry. It has come to that. This is almost a distress call.

We will of course support this bill and help it through as quickly as possible so there are no problems and to avoid any incidents. We know what the Irving Oil disaster cost taxpayers. There were other incidents in the St. Lawrence. There was the Exxon Valdez . Twice ships have run into the Quebec City bridge. Fortunately, hulls were not damaged and there was little oil spilled. We managed to avoid any catastrophes. Is the government going to wait for an environmental catastrophe to happen before introducing a bill?

The Senate is sending the Liberal government a wake-up call.

[Petitions, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a petition bearing 239 signatures, which combine with the 10,847 I have already tabled in the House, for a total of 11,086 people who have signed the petition, which reads as follows:

“We would like VIA Rail to continue to use the Lévis intermodal train station and also the Montmagny subdivision trunk line between Harlaka and Saint-Romuald for the operation of the Chaleur and Ocean trains”.