Yves Rocheleau

[Bill C-77, May 10th, 1999]

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

Bill C-77 to deregulate interprovincial bus service is causing concern to both the businesses involved and the people served, especially those in the regions.

Is the Minister of Transport aware that by going after the cross-subsidization of links established by the Quebec transport commission, he is preparing to deprive people living in the regions of affordable inter city bus service?

[Sainte-Ursule Secondary School, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw attention to the remarkable performance by four musical groups from the Sainte-Ursule secondary school in Trois-Rivières at the Heritage Festival of Music in New York in mid April.

The only delegation from Quebec, in fact from Canada, to this competition, which brought together 90 groups from the United States, Sainte-Ursule school picked up two gold medals, one in the harmony category and the other in the stage band category and won a silver medal in the jazz vocal class.

To top it all off, this delegation won a special award for the vibrancy, enthusiasm and public spiritedness of these young people from my riding.

I congratulate them on proudly and worthily representing Quebec in this top-level competition and would draw particular attention to the work of the music director, David Labrecque.

[1999 Budget Implementation Act, May 4th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased, as a member of the Bloc Quebecois, to speak on Bill C-71 and more specifically on Motion No. 1 introduced by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

The budget is always an important issue, though it may be dry. But it is very important, in particular for Quebecers who give the federal government $30 billion in taxes every year, without being sure of reap all the due benefits from this annual collective effort, which is a huge effort on the part of Quebecers.

It cannot be said that the federal government is greatly involved in Quebecers' everyday lives. However, if there is one area where it does get involved, it is employment insurance.

What the federal government in recent years has been appalling, not to say dramatic, for thousands and thousands of Quebecers and Canadians. In 1990, about 90% of those who contributed to employment insurance were eligible for benefits when they had the misfortune—because it is a misfortune, something those on the other side and specifically the Minister of the Human Resources Development tend to forget—to lose their job.

We should be there as a community and as a government to support those individuals who have to go through such dire straits. In 1990, about 90% of those who contributed to insurance employment had the good fortune or privilege to receive benefits. Then the Conservatives began to fiddle with employment insurance, and the Liberals merrily carried on. Yet, the members opposite, who were then in the opposition, had condemned this. In spite of that—and this is typical—the government is still fiddling and only 36% of those who contribute to employment insurance are now eligible for benefits.

This, as we know, allowed the government to eliminate the deficit at the expense of low income taxpayers, low income earners and the most vulnerable people. The government took care to protect the interests of the wealthy. It has always found a way to justify the existence of tax shelters and, most of all, tax havens.

Since the Liberals took office, there has been one scandal here, in Ottawa, in the Conservative-Liberal tradition. I am talking about the family trust scandal that allowed a well known family to avoid paying somewhere between $400 and $700 million in federal taxes. These are not mere details. This happened in spite of the fact that the government and particularly the Department of Finance were fully aware of what was going on and in spite of the fact that the Auditor General of Canada expressed his disagreement before being put in his place by the accounting gurus, in particular those who develop tax schemes in Toronto. The auditor general—and I witnessed it personally—was simply told to mind his own business by these thinkers from Toronto who protect the interests of the rich in Canada and who develop these tax schemes to help them.

This budget has also created a precedent in Canadian history in that the rules of the game have been changed with regard to federal transfers to the provinces.

The government has decided that, from now on, these transfers will be made on a per capita basis according to the population of each province instead of being based on the needs of each province. It is a fundamental change and the results are brilliant. This means that, over the next five years, Ontario will get 47% of these transfers, whereas Quebec will get 8%. With this kind of management, it is no wonder Quebecers want out. It is one reason among many.

On of the reasons Quebecers want out and will be increasingly eager to get out—and this budget is part of that Canadian process—is the social union framework agreement, which is a major event in Canadian history, even though its name does not appear to mean much.

The term social union is a rather insignificant one, one that does not generate much discussion, but does imply an enormous impact on the new Canada of tomorrow, the new Canada of the year 2000 and beyond, the new Canada built here in Ottawa, which will be centralized and unitary. The provinces have recently given the federal government legal authorization to intervene in areas in which they have sole jurisdiction: health, education and social programs. These, according to the 1867 constitution, which we respect, were the exclusive jurisdiction—important words—of the provinces.

With that recent consent by the provinces, the federal government has been given authorization to get involved in these areas in order to turn this country in the future into a centralized and unitary country, one in which decisions will be made—efficiently, let us hope—so that it can have a competitive edge internationally, where it has been rather lagging behind until now.

This new Canada is looking for ways to be competitive, but everyone will pay a price as far as structure is concerned. This means that, slowly but surely, the provincial governments will find themselves turning into regional governments, with considerably diminished powers.

This means that Quebec is not only a province, but one just like the others. This means that the Quebec people has never been recognized as a distinct entity by the rest of Canada, and never will be. There is no such thing as a Quebec people in the context of a new unitary Canada. Such notions will have no place in the new Canada of tomorrow.

This means that there will be national standards in all sectors in which the federal government has a hand, including education, which was what Jean Charest, former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and now leader of the Quebec Liberal Party, argued for in 1997. There will be national standards to evaluate students and schools from coast to coast.

This is what the Canada of tomorrow will look like, with national standards set by Ottawa applying to all the provinces, which will become regional governments.

In my opinion, Canada has to centralize because of international pressure. Countries dealing with Canada want clearer rules. They want to know if there are disagreements between the provinces and the federal government. The government is in the process of clearing the way, without debate, for the federal government to have a free hand to sign whatever contracts it wishes, particularly international ones, legitimately and with full jurisdiction.

This is a necessity for Canada, but it is a disaster for Quebec.

If Quebecers remain in Canada, they will slowly disappear. It is Louisiana all over again. As the member for Saint-Maurice said, and it was perhaps the only time he showed any vision in his entire career, Quebec would be a larger version of New Brunswick. If Quebec decided to remain within the new structure of the Canada of tomorrow, it would become a larger version of New Brunswick.

All we Quebecers must ask ourselves if this is the kind of Canada in which we want to live, or whether it would not be simpler for Quebec to govern itself the way it wished, and Canada to do the same, and for both parties to enjoy the best possible relations that the good neighbours we have always been can have.

I hope that our fellow Quebecers will give some thought to this very important development in the history of Canada.

[Supply, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to tell you at the outset that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans.

I am very pleased to take part in this very important debate, even if it is quite technical. It is very important for the development of economically significant regions of Canada, like the maritimes and the coast of British Columbia and particularly Quebec.

I am very pleased to participate in this debate as member of Trois-Rivières, which is a maritime city, and also as labour critic, since it has an effect on the institutionalized disorder that we see in that industry. I believe there is too much reference to labour. As coast guard critic, I know that some people of the coast guard are also closely involved with the issues related to shipyards.

I will read, for the purpose of the debate, the motion introduced by the member for Saint John.

That this House calls the government to develop a new national shipbuilding policy to support the revitalisation of the Canadian shipbuilding industry by maintaining and advancing the degree of excellence and the technologies for which Canada is historically renowned, given that Canada has the longest coast line of any nation in the world and that historically Canadians are among the finest shipbuilders in the world.

I would now like to pay a very special tribute to my colleague and friend, the hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, who has done not only a remarkable job on this issue but a task that could be termed as colossal. Indeed, for more than a year, the member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière has travelled all across Canada and has met all stakeholders, builders, all shipyard operators that are members of the shipbuilders association, despite the fact that he is not all that fluent in English. Nevertheless, he managed to deal with the situation and he established excellent contacts with employers as well as with unions in the shipbuilding industry.

Through his efforts, he succeeded in bringing together, on Parliament Hill, on December 8, 1998, representatives of a large Quebec shipbuilding firm and almost all Canadian unions involved in the shipbuilding industry. According to a union representative, this was a first in Canadian history. He managed to bring together, to discuss the problems faced by shipyards, many stakeholders as closely connected to the industry as these people were. He pulled a major coup by bringing to the same table representatives from the four opposition parties, including three out of the four leaders, to make the necessary representations and put pressure on the government which, in this issue as in others, has proven to be inept. The purpose was to try to improve the way this very important industry has been treated.

This resulted in representations to the Standing Committee on Industry with a view to putting forward, through this committee, recommendations reflecting the comments or the vision of the labour representatives as expressed at this meeting. Unfortunately, in this issue as in others, the government lent a deaf ear and eventually only very reluctantly agreed to conduct a broad study, reportedly too wide focussed, on the productivity of shipyards. The timetable and specific goals of the study are said to be unclear.

This cannot be stressed often enough: it is totally nonsensical, ludicrous, and deplorable to be debating this issue today when we know how critical this industry is to Canada's economy.

Canada boasts the world's longest shoreline, three oceans—the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Arctic—and, as long as we are still part of it, the most important water route in the world, the Saint Lawrence River. In spite of all these very positive factors, shipbuilding in Canada is in a deplorable state, reportedly operating at merely 40% of its capacity.

Yet it is a high tech industry, because building ships is a complex operation. It is a category of industry that has to apply the most stringent of quality standards. It is a member of the ISO 9001, ISO 9002 club. ISO 9001 is for the aeronautical industry. This industry is governed by very demanding quality standards and the shipbuilding industry in Canada and in Quebec can hold its own with any other in the world.

This government, true to form, has been negligent. It is all very well to speak today of shipbuilding, but we know that this government has been negligent with the air transportation industry, with the rail industry, with the shipping industry, not just with shipbuilding.

Quebec has paid for that negligence. We have seen shipyards close down in Gaspé and Sorel, a small-scale one in Lévis, and Vickers in Montreal, all in the past 15 years.

I would like to return to the manpower issue. I am concerned, as I have already said, as the labour critic, by the references to labour costs. This does not hold up to analysis, according to the figures available to us. According to the 1994 figures provided to us by the shipbuilders, via the union of the marine workers federation, the CAW, shipyard labour costs $15 U.S. in Canada, while only 2 countries out of the 12 analyzed pay less than Canada: Taiwan and Greece. All the others pay more.

For example, while it costs $15 U.S. an hour in Canada, it costs $18 in Italy, $19 in France and the U.S., $24 in Norway, $27 in Japan, and $30 in Germany. These are the 1994 figures.

Thus, the argument that the industry is not competitive with other countries because labour costs are too high does not hold up to analysis.

But the best explanation for the disarray in the industry is to be found in the government's negligence. The Minister of Industry, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Transport and the Minister for International Trade keep passing the buck to one another on this. Even the Prime Minister did not answer the letter my colleague from Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière sent him several months ago. The Prime Minister did not even bother to answer the letter.

In 1993, in the red book, the Liberals, and in particular the Liberal candidates from the Quebec City area, made a firm commitment to do a serious study of the issue. In March 1998, grassroots Liberals raised the issue again and asked the government to take a firm stand and take action on shipbuilding, but it has not yet done so.

Hopefully, today's debate will make the government think and take the measures needed to improve the situation of this valuable industry. The government—and I am just talking common sense here—should act to make Canada and Quebec world leaders in shipbuilding. The government should stop dragging its feet and do what needs to be done to make Quebec and Canada the world leaders they should be.

[Bob White, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we learned today that Bob White, the head of the Canadian Labour Congress, will be leaving his job on Thursday during the meeting of the CLC being held in Toronto.

As the head of a union federation representing 2.4 million Canadian and Quebec workers, Bob White has fought, for 48 years, to obtain fair and equitable working conditions for all.

A man of integrity, he has always had a sense of the new realities of the labour market. He has also understood, beyond our constitutional differences, the reality and demands of modern Quebec. A great democrat, he has recognized Quebec's right to self-determination and respected its democratic process.

A few days before his departure as president of the CLC, the Bloc Quebecois would like to pay tribute to this man, who promoted such fundamental values as social justice, fairness, equality and solidarity. These are values we share with him.

[Irving Whale, April 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

The fishers of Îles-de-la-Madeleine are concerned about the federal government's decision to leave the PCBs from the wreck of the Irving Whale on the ocean floor.

Does the Minister of Fisheries realize the potential negative impact on fisheries products exports of the presence of PCB contaminated products, as a result of this negligence?

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

Yes, you are.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I do not appreciate the comment made by the member opposite. I am wearing this to show compassion for government employees.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would you please check if there is indeed a quorum?

[Division No. 360, March 23rd, 1999]

It is just beginning. The minister responsible for regional development should get used to it, because if there is one department that is the subject of all our criticism, it is his.

They like to attend all sorts of meetings to sing the praises of Canadian federalism as part of the government's only strategy, which is to be visible on the eve of a new election. They excel with public coffers, as we saw recently in Trois-Rivières, where for $200,000 they were after rather abusive things in terms of visibility. This is the only real concern of the government.

In 1982, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996, there was special back to work legislation, an intrusion into the field of labour relations involved in existing collective agreements. It is disgraceful.

It means that negotiating in good faith has become the exception for this employer, who also makes the laws. It has become the exception when the exception should be—and common sense tells us this—that the government, at times, when a situation becomes too difficult and the public interest is at stake, would resort to its lawmaking powers.

Today, it prefers to legislate rather than negotiate. That is typical of this government.

The farmers know it and the International Labour Organization knows it too. It is not for nothing that the ILO has on four occasions blamed the government, Progressive Conservative or Liberal, it makes no difference. For those who are unaware, the ILO is made up not just of governments and unions, but also of bosses, the good old friends of this government.

When one thinks of the Liberal empire in Canada, one immediately thinks of the healthy campaign funds that keep it going. So when these influential people criticize the federal government, it is no small matter and should be a source of concern for the President of the Treasury Board. As a good manager, he should be worried. He should be embarrassed today to have behaved like certain of his predecessors and taken the extreme action he is still taking today to force people back to work.

The President of the Treasury Board and the minister responsible for regional development are not the only ones to have shown their true colours. We could mention the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, but especially the government House leader right now. We mentioned him in our first speech. The member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell is a good example. Historically, he has always been very aggressive.

The government House leader has been like that throughout his career. That was how he was seen by the Prime Minister in the days of the rat pack. He made a name for himself in labour disputes, even supporting PSAC members on picket lines. What has become of his motivation today? What has become of his convictions? They are nowhere in evidence.

He is now in charge of doing the government's dirty work, while he used to unequivocally support the positions of the unions, which look a lot like the positions the union is still defending nowadays.

Let me conclude, much to the relief of the two stooges, by once again urging the President of the Treasury Board to take some responsibility for the consequences these so-called negotiations and the passing of special legislation will have.

Can the President of the Treasury Board imagine what the atmosphere in the workplace will be like day in and day out in the departments, now that the government has again use its special power, which is becoming the rule, now that both management and workers have again realized that the government has shown them no respect and no recognition and has treated them badly. It will be nasty.

I used to be a Quebec public servant, and things can get very nasty when decisions come from on high, when arbitrary and drastic measures are taken, as they were today, and especially when workers realize that their employer, instead of showing them some respect, would rather make their lives miserable.

I am convinced that the people in the Outaouais, the federal public servants in the Outaouais whose political stripes are well known, will remember this when the time comes. And that time may come much sooner than we expect.