Yves Rocheleau

[Canada Labour Code, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, before looking specifically at Group No. 2 of motions, I would like to mention that I committed an almost unpardonable omission just now when I was listing all the groups of employees whom we would have liked to have seen receive more attention in the review of the Canada Labour Code.

I mentioned members of the RCMP, the Public Service Alliance of Canada and the Professional Institute of the Public Service, but I neglected to mention pregnant workers, on behalf of whom the unions made highly legitimate representations to us that we wish to convey to the House.

Unfortunately, because of the same process I explained earlier, because of the government's more specific approach this year to the bill before us, we are unable to introduce an amendment that would have made preventative withdrawal possible for pregnant or nursing workers in cases where the health of the mother or the unborn child is at risk. We find this regrettable and want these people to know that we are concerned about them.

I will comment on each of the amendments in Group No. 2, beginning with our own, which has to do with clause 6 on page 12 of the bill. Clause 6 reads as follows:

1. The Board may decide any matter before it without holding an oral hearing.

This seems excessive, to put it bluntly. We fail to see the validity of that provision. The information notes provided by the government do not convince us that this is appropriate. This could lead the board to take actions that might look like arbitration or abusive measures, and we are not at all convinced that this clause is appropriate.

Motion No. 7, proposed by the Reform Party, deals with clause 13, on page 14 of the bill, and concerns the spirit of the legislation. If I understand its position correctly, the Reform Party is very true to itself. The bill provides that scabs cannot take part in a vote on a union's representational capacity.

Under the Reformers' motion, these replacement workers, or scabs, would be allowed to take part in such a vote, something which we strongly oppose. We must not, in any way, legitimize the hiring of replacement workers, whether it is before, during or after the fact. Therefore, we will oppose this motion by the Reform Party.

Motion No. 8 deals with clause 16 on page 16 of the bill and has to do with employers' representatives. There is a provision with which we have trouble, and this is the reason for our motion. That provision reads:

(4.1) On application by one or more employers of employees in the bargaining unit, the Board may, if it is satisfied that the employer representative is no longer qualified to act in that capacity, revoke the appointment of the employer representative and appoint a new representative.

This provision deals with employers' representation on the board. It provides that the employers represented on the board may, for reasons of their own, deem the employer representative no longer qualified to represent them. We respect the fact that these employers may repudiate—to put it bluntly—their representative on the board, without going any further.

Based on the wording of the bill, the board may, if it is satisfied that the employer representative is no longer qualified to act in that capacity, revoke the appointment of the employer representative and appoint a new representative. We do not feel it is up to the board to interfere in such matters. It is up to the employers represented to proceed as they see fit and to designate those they see fit to designate.

The board's control over this aspect is a source of concern. Taken to the extreme, the board could decide to retain the representation made by a person whom the employer had indicated it no longer wished to be represented by. This therefore confers an undue control to the board, which is why we are presenting this motion.

Then we have the last motion in Group No. 2, on page 36. This is probably a marked improvement, and is the reason why the public is so pleased, as we must admit it is, with the work of the Simms commission and with the Simms report, which talks about the balance that may have been struck. This mechanism is an important one, and could be described as modern. It is a response to a need that is recognized in the report.

It is stated that the board can, despite a lack of evidence of majority support, certify a union when there has been unfair labour practice or serious infringement on the free choice of employees to free negotiation, to free representation. Thus, when the employer has obviously behaved in an unfair and abusive manner, when there has been intimidation or violence, the legislator may, via the board, authorize certification of a trade union, may certify it to represent a given employee group.

As you have seen, the Reform Party is opposed to such a thing. This is a societal choice, a social as opposed to purely economic point of view, where a deaf ear is turned regardless of even seriously unfair labour practices, as the government's explanatory notes indicate.

We on this side are vehemently opposed to this. I personally find it a very up to date, very generous point of view, provided of course that the board has set out clear guidelines.

It must be hoped that the board will show some wisdom, that it will ensure that it does not become common practice to give such accreditation without proper consultation or a vote. There would, I assume, have to be exceptional circumstances for this clause to be applied.

Those are, therefore, the comments I wanted to make on the four motions in Group No. 2.

[Canada Labour Code, May 7th, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-19, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing lines 3 to 9 on page 16 with the following:

“(4.1) On application by one or more employers of employees in the bargaining unit, the Board may revoke the appointment of the employer representative and appoint a new representative.”

[Canada Labour Code, May 7th, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 6.

[Canada Labour Code, May 7th, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-19, in Clause 2, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 31 and 32 on page 2 with the following:

“Minister, on the recommendation of the standing committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to human resources development, to hold office during good”

(b) by adding after line 35 on page 2 the following:

“(1.1) Before making a recommendation to the Minister under subsection (1), the committee referred to in that subsection shall hold public hearings to hear the representations of any person seeking nomination as a candidate for the offices of Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson or wishing to make representations with respect to any candidate under consideration by the committee.”

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-19, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 35 on page 2 the following:

“(1.1) The terms referred to in subsection (1) shall not be renewed.”

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-19, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 36 to 40 on page 2 and lines 1 to 14 on page 3 with the following:

“(2) Subject to subsection (3), the members of the Board other than the Chairperson and the Vice-Chairpersons are to be appointed by the Minister on the recommendation of the standing committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to human resources development, to hold office during good behaviour for terms not exceeding three years each, subject to removal by the Minister at any time for cause.

(2.1) Before the standing committee referred to in subsection (2) makes recommendations to the Minister for the purposes specified in that subsection, the committee shall hold at least one hearing at which it shall invite the organizations representative of employees or employers to submit names of candidates for the positions referred to in that subsection.

(3) The members of the Board appointed pursuant to paragraph 9(2)(e) are to be appointed by the Minister, on the recommendation of the standing committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to human resources development, to hold office during good behaviour for terms not exceeding three years each, subject to removal by the Minister at any time for cause.”

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-19, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 13 to 20 on page 5 with the following:

“12.03 (1) If the Chairperson of the Board is absent or unable to act, a Vice-Chairperson designated by the Minister acts as Chairperson for the time being, and a Vice-Chairperson so designated has and may exercise all the powers and perform all the duties and functions of the Chairperson.

(2) If the office of Chairperson is vacant, a person chosen by a vote of a majority of the members of the Board present when the vote is taken shall act as Chairperson.”

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-19, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 44 on page 7 with the following:

“tions, if any, to the Minister and to the standing committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to human resources development.”

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, the amendments that we are proposing to improve Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code.

First of all, and this is unfortunate, we will not be able to put forward all the amendments that we wanted to present, for reasons of procedure, given the nature of this bill, compared to that of last year's proposed legislation, which also sought to amend the Canada Labour Code, but which was never passed, seemingly for technical reasons in the Senate, and because a federal election was called.

There are amendments which we really wanted to propose again this year, but we were unable to do so for reasons of procedure, as I mentioned earlier. These amendments sought to have flour mills and other undertakings for the milling of grain come under provincial legislation, including the Quebec labour code, as opposed to being covered by the Canada Labour Code, as is currently the case. We cannot go any further for procedural reasons, as I said.

As for federal public servants, whether they are represented by the Public Service Alliance of Canada or the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, and also RCMP personnel, we have been defending these groups since we came to Ottawa, so that they too can be covered by the Canada Labour Code, as opposed to the Public Service Staff Relations Act, but unfortunately, again for reasons of procedure, we cannot table the appropriate amendments.

I now come to our amendments in Group No. 1, which address two issues: first, there is the role of committees, in particular the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, to which the Department of Labour reports and which deals with the Canada Labour Code and, second, vacancies, as well as the renewal of the terms of members of the Labour Relations Board, recently renamed the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

As for the committee, it is known that, historically, the Bloc Quebecois has defended in the House the fact that House committees are called upon to play a greater role in overall operations. Right now, one criticism is that committees are required to meet without really having many powers, because the executive feels free to do all sorts of things without first seeking the opinion of members, the House and committees.

We therefore suggest, for instance, that the appointment of members to the Canada Industrial Relations Board be by recommendation and that the committee be permitted to hold hearings, that the board submit an annual report, not just to the minister, but also to the committee, and that, in the case of appointments, the committee be involved in the entire process, that it perhaps even be allowed to call candidates to appear before it and to seek the opinion of the public with respect to the list of potential members.

These amendments are entirely consistent with the Bloc Quebecois' earlier positions calling for greater involvement by elected representatives in all aspects of operations in the interests of democracy.

I will come back to this often. The dramatic gesture by our colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, says a great deal not just about how things are done, but about what things are done. It is the whole operation of what we represent in democratic terms that is open to discussion and highly so, in my opinion. We in the Bloc Quebecois think that this is the sort of measure that will greatly strengthen the role of elected officials and democracy.

More specifically, everything that concerns the committee is in Motions Nos. 1, 3 and 5.

Motion No. 2 serves to ensure that the members of the Industrial Relations Board—the chairperson and the vice-chairpersons—cannot have their terms renewed after three or five years, as the case may be, to provide for an automatic turnover to provide the board with new blood. We consider that, by setting a time limit, the board will be revitalized, perhaps have new approaches, new influence networks and look differently at things.

Finally, Motion No. 4 pertains to vacancies. The law as it stands provides that the chairperson is to be replaced by the vice-chairperson in the event he is absent or ill. In the event the chairperson is absent or ill, or the position vacant, the bill provides that the minister will choose the person to replace the chairperson.

We think a vacancy, and not a temporary absence, in the position of chairperson should be filled by the individual chosen by a majority vote of the members of the board present. We think that, when people know each other, it would perhaps be more democratic and more fair to let those who know the field appoint a new chairperson in the case of a vacancy.

We know how gifted this government is at finding friends when it counts. We think this would be a fine time to call a halt to this sort of attitude, which we have seen all too often, and ensure that people close to events are invited to react and take action accordingly, designating a new chairperson to fill the vacant position.

That is the end of my remarks on the motions in Group No. 1.

[Coast Guard, April 21st, 1998]

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

The radio communication centre of the Canadian Coast Guard in the Magdalen Islands is closing down today. Yet, stakeholders from everywhere urged the minister to reconsider this irresponsible decision. The last ones to do so are the 34 volunteers of the Coast Guard Auxiliary, who handed in their resignation to protest that closure.

Considering the closure of the station and the absence of volunteer auxiliary members, how does the minister intend to ensure the safety of the 430 fishing boats and the 100 or so pleasure craft that navigate around the islands?

[Nunavut Act, April 20th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to follow up on a question that I put to the Minister of the Environment on March 25 and to which I received an unsatisfactory reply.

I am going back to the issue in the hope of getting more information. As we know, on March 23, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced his department's decision to agree to the Montreal port authority's request and authorize the dredging of the St. Lawrence River to a depth of about one foot, to further deepen the waterway from 11 to 11.3 metres.

The decision was immediately criticized by all environmental groups concerned by and involved in this long-standing issue, including Stratégie Saint-Laurent and St. Lawrence Vision 2000. Stratégie Saint-Laurent monitors all ZIPs or zones d'intervention prioritaire, including the Lac Saint-Pierre ZIP, whose members I salute. These people rightly care about the future and the development of Lac Saint-Pierre, this extraordinary body of water which could be seriously affected if the federal government continues in this direction without holding public consultations.

This is a major project to dredge off the bottom of the St. Lawrence River 350,000 metric tonnes. This potentially polluting material—this will have to be established—may be floating in the water of the St. Lawrence and carried by the current. We do not know. Consultations are required so we know what we are dealing with. We do not know either where this potentially polluting material would be disposed of.

We are talking about a major project involving the dredging of 350,000 metric tonnes. This work would be done without public consultation, even though the Quebec government has just demanded that the public hearings provided for under the law be carried out with respect to the port of Sorel, where 20,000 cubic metres are to be dredged,

We know about the public health protection requirements imposed by Environment Canada on individuals who are no longer allowed to pour dirt and sand in lakes or rivers to build a pier, for instance. In light of what society normally demands of private companies in terms of respecting the environment and ensuring through established standards and mechanisms that the environment is respected, what right does the Government of Canada have to authorize the dredging of 350,000 metric tonnes without complying with the legislative requirement for public hearings?

The fisheries and oceans minister's response was that consultations had taken place. But, according to Marc Hudon, of Stratégie Saint-Laurent, the groups that were consulted still have a great many questions to ask the government in spite of the consultations that have taken place.

I think that this is a matter of public interest with a capital P and a capital I. The port of Montreal may have wishes and concerns with respect to its ability to compete with foreign ports, which is understandable, but in the public interest, Environment Canada must take its responsibilities and show impartiality—

[C.D. Howe Institute, April 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the C.D. Howe Institute recently published two studies that should make all federalists, especially those favouring a hard-line approach towards Quebec, sit up and take note.

The way the federalists tell it, the sovereigntist offer of partnership is nothing more than a nasty separatist trick to hoodwink the public. According to the C.D. Howe Institute, the sovereigntist offer of partnership is a legitimate proposal and the Institute recognizes that agreements will be signed between Canada and a sovereign Quebec.

The way the federalists tell it, the federal government is a cash cow for Quebec. According to the C.D. Howe Institute, even with equalization payments factored in, Quebec families pay, on average, $652 more in taxes to the federal government than they receive in transfers and services.

There are therefore people in English Canada giving serious thought to Quebec's sovereignty proposal. This is an indication that common sense will prevail following Quebec's accession to sovereignty.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, March 31st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-36, the Budget Implementation Act, 1998.

I will be addressing part I of the bill in particular, which deals with the millennium scholarships, a project which everyone knows is very dear to the heart of the Prime Minister and member for Saint-Maurice.

We know these scholarships will come from a special fund of $2.5 billion, to be administered by a private foundation, starting with the year 2000 and running for 10 years. Some observers wonder, moreover, what is going to happen after that. If there is a need, why should the federal government not be responsible for it always?

This is already one somewhat foolish aspect of this project, which has just popped up out of the blue, or perhaps out of the head of our Prime Minister.

As you know, there is a hue and a cry in Quebec at the present time, and just about everyone is against this federal government project, from stakeholders in education at the kindergarten level right up to university presidents. This of course includes students and teachers via the CEQ and the Association étudiante du Québec. It should be pointed out, as well, that this coalition is being headed, most courageously, by President Shapiro of McGill University.

So, as I have said, this plan by the federal government is raising a great deal of opposition in Quebec. One of the best illustrations of this is a real gem written by Lysiane Gagnon on Thursday, February 26, in La Presse . Given her political opinions in general, Mrs. Gagnon is displaying remarkably clear thinking.

The article is entitled “A demagogic and provocative project”, and includes the following:

Future generations will find no better illustration of the reign of the current Liberal Prime Minister than these millennium scholarships: the perfect example of a superficial and demagogic policy, of window dressing that does nothing at all about the real problems and that may even create a few new ones.

These scholarships will swallow up money that should have been put towards improving the school system, and they will contribute to the further deterioration of relations, if they can possible get any worse, between Quebec City and Ottawa.

Is it pure coincidence or skilfully organized provocation? Hard to say. But one is stunned by this unbelievable federal intrusion in education.

—The decent thing would have been to substantially increase provincial transfer payments, now that Ottawa has put its fiscal house in order. This would not have been a question of generosity, but rather repayment of a blatant debt. But there was the vanity of the Prime Minister, who wants his name associated with some sort of government handout, not to mention the deep-seated need of any government for maximum visibility. A direct gift to taxpayers brings in more votes than turning money over to the provinces.

—Three years of budget cuts have left the universities in deep financial trouble, with the result that the quality of teaching and research is deteriorating.

And Ms. Gagnon goes on:

What is the point attracting more students on campus, if it is to give them an inadequate education and devalued diplomas?—If the Prime Minister was even remotely sincere in his wish to stimulate education, he would have provided assistance to schools, through the responsible governments. But obviously, when it comes to votes, it is more productive to distribute maple-leaf bearing cheques to post-secondary students—all the more so because they, unlike primary school students, have the right to vote.

The millennium scholarships will be grafted, God knows how, onto an already existing grant system. Either they will based on different criteria, and this will thwart provincial policies, or they will be based on the same criteria used for existing scholarships, and this will be a patent case of duplication of services.

It is probably in light of this that, yesterday, the Premier of Quebec made a proposal to his federal counterpart. The management of Canada being what it is, if Canadians ever want to have access to these scholarships—although we have doubts about the federal government's attitude—the government simply has to reach an agreement with the English speaking provinces concerned, as there is no grant program elsewhere in Canada. In Quebec, we have a loans and grants system. Such an agreement could meet identified needs and suit provincial governments. It is up to the federal government to come to an agreement with these provinces.

As usual, it is different in Quebec, where we have a very well organized grants and loans system.

This is the spirit in which, when they met yesterday, the Premier of Quebec, with the coalition I referred to earlier firmly behind him on this, gave the Prime Minister of Canada an amendment to be included in this bill as clause 46.1. Let me read it for the record. It concerns the right to opt out with compensation, which would be totally legitimate, appropriate and proper for the Canadian government to give the Quebec government in this context.

Under an agreement between the Lesage and Pearson governments, Quebec has had the right to opt out of loans programs since 1964, because the Canadian government is not involved with bursaries. If it now wants to get involved, why not include, in the same spirit, this opting out with compensation clause?

I will read this amendment, which we endorse and which would be added as clause 46.1.

46.1. When a province has established and administers a financial assistance program for students to ensure equal opportunities regarding post-secondary education, the ministers shall, at the province's request, conduct negotiations with this province to come to an agreement with respect to the fair compensation it should be paid in lieu of the foundation's activities in the province.

I think this would settle the matter. This is full of wisdom, as the Quebec government has often been these past few years, especially since 1994. I think it might meet both the needs of Canada, if these are indeed—which is questionable—needs expressed by the education community and the public, and those of the Quebec government and National Assembly in terms of use of funds and transfers. It is important to know that the coalition has the support of the Liberal Party as well as that of the public, including students. This would improve the grants and loans situation.

It seems to me that it would be the wise thing to do, in addition to being in keeping with the underpinnings of the Canadian Constitution, where it is clearly and plainly stated that education is under provincial jurisdiction. That is what we are asking for.

[Judges Act, March 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to ask my colleague a question.

We know about the difficulties raised by the very sensitive issue of salary increases, whether for MPs or judges. This raises all sorts of questions with the public, perhaps legitimately so.

Does he think that the Government of Canada could once again follow the lead of the Government of Quebec? A few years back, the Quebec government decided to use the equivalent of a job category in the civil service. It was decided that all those with sensitive positions, such as MNAs or judges, would receive the same increase as that arrived at more objectively, through negotiations between the employer, the Government of Quebec in this case, and government union representatives. This gives the whole proceeding an objective character.

What would the member think if such a procedure were to be used here in the Government of Canada?

[Millennium Scholarships, March 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today all of Quebec, from the premier to the entire coalition on education, has spoken out against the creation of the millennium scholarships.

As presented, these scholarships do not in any way meet Quebec's needs in the field of education. What is more, they penalize Quebec for its longstanding choice to keep tuition fees and student debt down to reasonable levels.

The education system in Quebec has suffered, and continues to suffer, from the deep cuts in transfer payments imposed by the federal government.

The federal government must allow Quebec to exercise its right to withdraw from the millennium scholarship program with full compensation, because investment in education in Quebec must be tailored to the needs Quebeckers have identified and not imposed unilaterally by a government anxious to enhance its visibility.