Yves Rocheleau

[Dredging Of St. Lawrence, March 26th, 1998]

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

The federal government is preparing to give its approval, without public hearings, for the St. Lawrence River to be dredged in order to meet Port of Montreal requirements.

Before giving the go-ahead, does the federal government intend to follow up on the request from the Government of Quebec and environmental groups that public hearings be held on this proposal in accordance with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act?

[The Budget, March 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I remind him that, on page 14 of the budget speech, reference is clearly made to criteria, and I quote:

—In particular, the Foundation will have the authority, subject to mutually agreed needs, merit and mobility criteria—

So, when we say the fund will be based on merit, it is not a figment of our imagination. The budget speech clearly alludes to needs, merit and mobility criteria.

As for mobility, one wonders what it means for Quebeckers. It may be a good thing for Canadians, but it is not necessarily the case for Quebeckers.

We also believe that Canadians should get to know their country better. Therefore, recipients of the Canada Millennium Scholarships who want to travel to study outside their home town or province will be provided help to do so.

I do not believe such opportunities are a priority for Quebeckers.

Since I could not do so earlier, I remind the hon. member that when the Minister of Human Resources Development says the federal government makes an enormous contribution to loans and grants in Quebec, he may not realize it but he should know that this supposedly enormous federal contribution has been of the order of 15% to 20% since 1990.

This is no big deal, particularly because every time the government gets involved in education, health and social programs, it directly contravenes the letter and the spirit of the Canadian Constitution, which it is supposed to respect. It is like the rules of the House of Commons, which are trampled whenever it suits certain people.

The same goes for the Canadian Constitution. When it does not suit the needs of this Parliament, of this government, it is simply flouted. This is probably one of the main reasons why it is in the interest of Quebeckers to leave this country and to deal with Canada on an equal footing, so that the rules of the game can be redefined, that we can be recognized as a people and that our province is no longer the laughing stock of this country.

[The Budget, March 10th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate on the budget. I will direct my remarks primarily at the millennium scholarships which, while little has been said, are evidence of the federal government's wish to change the rules of the game and shift the focus of decision making from the provinces to Ottawa in the next century.

We would enter a new era in Canada, and the millennium scholarships are a very good example, where centralization will be complete and Canada will behave like a unitary country, where provincial governments will increasingly be viewed as regional governments, thus flouting the Canadian Constitution, which gives the provinces very specific jurisdictions.

This is a direct attack on the whole issue of Quebec, because we are a people, not just a province, although a province is all we are considered to be right now. The debate is not over, because these issues are fundamental to the development of our societies.

As for the millennium scholarships, some context is required. The federal government wants to set up a special $2.5 billion fund, that would provide for approximately 100,000 scholarships averaging $3,000 over a ten-year period beginning, as it happens, two years from now. There are a number of criteria for awarding these scholarships, notably merit and mobility.

What people need to know is that, as this fund is being contemplated, tuition fees in Quebec are approximately $1,700, while they are about $3,200, or almost twice that amount, in Canada. In Quebec, student indebtedness stands at an average of $11,000, while it is $22,000 in the rest of Canada.

It must also be realized that, from 1993 to 2003, according to the federal government's budget, transfers to the provinces for education will have been reduced by $10 billion, including $3 billion for Quebec alone. These cuts have already greatly increased the debt load of students in Quebec and in Canada and of post-secondary institutions.

Just this morning I read in the paper that the CEGEP of Trois-Rivières is calling for help, because it is at the end of its rope. Who is listening? The MNA for Trois-Rivières, a Quebec minister, and not the federal government, which does not care and keeps making cuts at the expense of the provinces.

There are cries for help in my riding because the federal cuts have made it impossible to provide the services college students used to get. It is almost indecent on the part of the federal government to take cover in this fashion, while all the pressure is on the Quebec government, considering that federal measures contributed to the problems we are now facing.

We already have the Canada student loan program, but the federal government is adding the millennium scholarship fund, which will be based on merit. Quebec is being denied the right to opt out of that initiative, contrary to what was agreed in 1964 between the Lesage and Pearson governments, when the Canada student loan program was established. This right to opt out of the millennium scholarship fund is being denied to the people of Quebec. This is unacceptable. If the federal government respected the letter and the spirit of the Canadian Constitution, it would promptly congratulate Quebec on its good management of this provincial jurisdiction—the loans, grants and financial assistance sector—and automatically give Quebec the amount it expected to spend in that province through its millennium fund.

The underlying philosophy of the two programs is totally different. The millennium scholarship fund is based on merit, while the Quebec loans and grants program is based on the desire of students to pursue their education. Quebec then provides support to the students, based on their material and financial needs.

The Canadian scholarships, on the other hand, are going to be awarded according to merit, a pernicious notion contrary to the philosophy of the Quebec government loan and bursary program. So we will, obviously, end up with still more federal-provincial quarrels, stirred up by the Canadian government's trampling over the field of education because it is shaping the Canada of tomorrow, which involves all of the people of Quebec.

The Canada of tomorrow will have Quebec as a region, no longer a provincial government, and this will be the result of a decision made here in the Langevin Block with no consultation, particularly not with Quebec.

Speaking of debt, I would like to refer you to the words of Martin Roy, student association president at UQTR, the Université du Québec campus in my riding of Trois-Rivières. On February 5, when he learned of the federal government's plans relating to students in need, he said:

The needs are increasing every year. So far in 1997-98, UQTR's financial aid office has already handed out close to $400,000 in emergency funds to this clientele. They are increasingly in need of financial assistance to meet their basic needs for survival, not merit scholarships to finish their studies. At UQTR alone, these merit scholarships total close to $1.8 million.

Those merit scholarships, moreover, come from the private sector. Speaking of the private sector, a kind of near-privatization is taking place. This $2.5 billion is being entrusted to a foundation to be directed by none other than Yves Landry.

Six months ago, on October 22, 1997, in a speech to our Chamber of Commerce in Trois-Rivières, Yves Landry, who was not aware, I think, of the federal government's plans, said, and I quote:

—there was an urgent need to leave behind the old-style politicking slowly destroying us in Canada and to allow the provinces more power. It is suggested that the federal government give them authority in their respective fields of jurisdiction.

I do not understand Mr. Landry. He was either misinformed or conned. Nothing is impossible with these people. He was either misinformed or conned. Given Mr. Landry's views, I cannot understand why he agreed to serve as president of this foundation, which is completely at cross-purposes, because we never asked the federal government to look after this kind of scholarship.

In conclusion, I would like to read some passages from a remarkable and extremely perceptive article by Lysiane Gagnon that appeared on February 26. Mrs. Gagnon is known for views that are not normally very favourable to us. The article is entitled “A demagogic and provocative project”, and I quote:

Future generations will find no better illustration of the reign of Jean Chrétien 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.

Further on, she says:

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 Jean Chrétien, 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.

And further on:

If the Liberal 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.

With that, I conclude my remarks. I would like to thank those who helped with the pre-budget study in my riding and, on budget night, with the study of the finance minister's budget. Rapidly, they are: Michel Dupont, of the FTQ; Michel Angers, of the CSN; Yves St-Pierre, of Action-Chômage; Jean-Louis Lavoie, of the Mauricie St-Jean-Baptiste society; François Brunette, of the AQDR; Martin Roy, of the UQTR students' association; and Brian Barton, of the Trois-Rivières Solidarité populaire.

[McDonald's Restaurants, February 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, McDonald's recently announced the closure of its restaurant in Saint-Hubert, thus throwing sixty or so employees out of work.

The company claims the closure is justified by financial reasons. In reality, it is an obvious anti-union measure.

For a year now, McDonald's has been spending tens of thousands of dollars on lawyers and on public relations, using the biggest public relations firm in Canada, in order to trample the legitimate rights of some sixty young people who are working for minimum wage.

One of the young workers who lost his job for having tried to gain recognition of his rights summarized the situation very aptly “Just because we make hamburgers, that doesn't mean we don't deserve respect”. Basically, McDonald's scandalous anti-union attitude is sending a clear message to young people, giving them a choice between exploitation and unemployment.

McDonald's says “You deserve a break today”, but do its workers not also deserve a break?

[Canada Labour Code, February 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague from the Reform Party what he thinks about the fact that this bill contains no anti-scab provisions like those Quebec adopted in harmony in 1977.

In a situation where consensus was lacking on this sensitive matter, even in 1985 when Mr. Bourassa's Liberals were elected, the Quebec premier refused to give in to the demands of Mr. Scowen, one of his MNAs, and even a minister at one point.

Later on, in 1991, the Conseil du Patronat, despite a judgement in its favour from the Supreme Court, backed down in light of the social peace and harmony that had reigned in Quebec since the passing of the anti-scab legislation in 1977.

I would like to draw his attention to this letter, which I received from one of his fellow British Columbians, a Mr. Dave Cort of Cranbrook, who writes:

The right to honour picket lines is a simple right that all private citizens may use should she/he desire. However if you happen to work for a railway in this country you do not have this right and must face the humiliation and degradation day after day, time after time as long as the Canada Labour Code in its present form forces working class people to cross picket lines.

I would like to hear my hon. colleague's opinion on the fact that this time the government lacks the courage to amend the Canada Labour Code in that direction.

[Canada Labour Code, February 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today for the first time as the Bloc Quebecois labour critic. I am pleased to do so in connection with Bill C-19, which amends the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and makes consequential amendments to other acts.

In summary, this bill implements reforms to the industrial relations provisions of part I of the Canada Labour Code, to provide a framework for collective bargaining that enhances the ability of labour and management to better frame their own agreements and allows workplace disputes to be resolved in a timely and cost effective manner.

The key components are as follows: first, the creation of a representational board, the Canada Industrial Relations Board, with appropriate powers to allow for the timely and cost effective administration of the system. Second, streamlining of the conciliation process. Third, clarification of the rights and obligations of the parties during a work stoppage, including requirements for strike and lockout votes and advance strike and lockout notices. Fourth, a requirement for parties involved in a work stoppage to continue services necessary to protect public health and safety. Fifth, a requirement for the maintenance of services affecting grain shipments in the event of legal work stoppages by any third parties in the ports. Sixth, making the undermining of a trade union's representational capacity during a strike or lockout an unfair legal practice. Seventh, improving access to collective bargaining for off-site workers.

The text also repeals the provisions of the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act respecting trade unions.

This is a significant bill, if only because it affects 700,000 workers across Canada, 115,000 of them in Quebec. Its areas of application are enormous: for example, banks, interprovincial and international transportation, airports and air lines, broadcasting and telecommunications, port and shipping operations, grain handling. Many crown corporations are affected by the Canada Labour Code.

This bill addresses part I of the Canada Labour Code, which is on labour relations, while part II deals with occupational health and safety, and part III with labour standards, or in other words the working conditions in businesses governed by the federal government.

The bill before us was preceded by a vast consultation of stakeholders, which began in June 1995 and which led to the Sims report, named for the chair, which was released in February 1996, nearly two years ago.

Last spring, on the eve of the election, we were considering Bill C-66, which unfortunately did not come to fruition. Today we are looking at the newly arrived bill bearing number C-19.

We will oppose this bill, because, despite vast consultations, no doubt carried out in good faith, the reform is incomplete. The Liberal government lacked the political courage to do what it had to in a number of regards. We have criticisms of various aspects of this bill we are not happy with, starting with the government's change in the name from the Canada Labour Relations Board to the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

It claims to represent the parties. However the clause relating to this, clause 10(2) reads as follows:

—the members of the Board other than the Chairperson and the Vice-Chairpersons are to be appointed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister after consultation by the Minister with the organizations representative of employees or employers that the Minister considers appropriate to hold office during good behaviour for terms not exceeding three years each, subject to removal by the Governor in Council at any time for cause.

Therefore the organizations the minister considers appropriate will be consulted, without recourse necessarily—the approach suggested by the parties—to the lists of people suggested by the parties, as employers and employees, for the minister to choose from. That was not the approach chosen by the minister, because it will not automatically be the people considered representative of these associations who will represent them on the Canada Industrial Relations Board. So there is something wrong from the start, which makes this bill rather insensitive, given its pretensions.

There is also the case of the RCMP and its employees. For many years the employees have asked their employer, the federal government, for real power to negotiate their working conditions. A common occurrence in the West. There is nothing outlandish in requesting negotiations that could be successful. The people involved carry out very specific duties and represent the state in a unique capacity as peace officers, but do not have the right to strike. Everything is settled in advance, but they wanted the right to go to arbitration if both sides cannot come to an agreement. The government refused, letting RCMP managers be judge and jury, as has been the case for years, causing a great deal of frustration for RCMP employees.

It is very disappointing that, despite the golden opportunity provided by this broad consultation it was conducting, the government turned a deaf ear to the RCMP employees' representations, which seem legitimate to us.

The same can be said of public service employees, at least those represented by the Professional Institute of the Public Service and the Public Service Alliance, who have been asking for over ten years to be subject to the Canada Labour Code, and not just to the Public Service Staff Relations Act. This is a situation similar to that of the RCMP. It is a very unfair and unpleasant situation in that the government is both the legislating government and the employer making regulations.

There is no real collective bargaining taking place, it is prohibited, and working conditions are set by the employer. Quite legitimately, federal public service employees want to come under the Canada Labour Code, so that the legislator will no longer be judge and jury but rather have to participate in the normal bargaining process as we know it in the western world.

Compared to the current situation, whether one comes under the Canada Labour Code or the Canada Labour Relations Act makes a world of difference. One has to be a unionized employee, as I was in the Quebec public service, to realize how important things like working conditions are. Job security too is very important. Contrary to popular belief, there is no true job security in the federal public service. Since the employer also makes the laws, it is biased, and it can, even for political motives, lay people off.

For those who may not know it, there is no job security in the federal public service, while significant progress has been made in the private sector. There is currently no protection in the federal public service against the technological changes that may take place, at the expense of workers who are at the mercy of the decisions made by management. These workers have absolutely no say in the restructuring process that may take place following such changes.

We know how significant, traumatizing and threatening these changes can be for someone who earns a living working for the government. Public servants should be allowed to make suggestions to make it easier to cope with technological changes, so that these changes will cause a minimum of hardships to individuals, and so that the new technologies will be at the service of these human beings, and not the reverse.

We cannot understand the spirit that prevails among managers in the public service. We cannot understand why these people are not more open to such an approach. After all, private businesses, which are the most effective ones, adjusted to technological changes and they made sure their employees accepted these changes, so that the transition would be as smooth as possible.

Public service managers would be a little more modern in their approach if they were receptive to this type of ideas.

The fact that public servants are not governed by the Canada Labour Code but, rather, by the Public Service Staff Relations Act, has a direct impact on their career, which is very important when one works for this type of employer. It is a huge structure with many levels. Employees have no say in the job classification or description process.

If the government agreed to have its employees governed by the Canada Labour Code, these public servants would be able to discuss with their employer—more or less on an equal footing—the very important issues of job classification and description.

Similarly, the appointment, promotion and transfer processes are all very important issues during one's career. They are all part of what the public service refers to as a career plan, an individual's entire professional life, which is not recognized because the government plays the role of both judge and jury.

It is a simple matter of asking the government to give its employees the right to negotiate their working conditions, like millions of other workers in Canada, thereby reducing bargaining restraints by allowing new rights that could be called: the right to strike, such as they have in Quebec's public service, the right to arbitration and the right to grieve, which do not exist right now, the employer being both judge and jury, as we keep saying.

Where the problem arises, where the government has turned a deaf ear to these entirely legitimate claims by the employer, is on the issue of replacement workers. The government does not deserve our support on this, because it has shown a lack of political courage, given the strength of the arguments made.

I will read paragraph 42(2.1) in order to illustrate my point:

42.(2.1) No employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall use, for the demonstrated purpose of undermining a trade union's representational capacity rather than the pursuit of legitimate bargaining objectives, the services of a person who was not an employee in the bargaining unit on the date on which notice to bargain collectively was given and was hired or assigned after that date to perform all or part of the duties of an employee in the bargaining unit on strike or locked out.

You will have noted, as did my colleague, the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, last spring, the convoluted wording, behind which the meaning and particularly the government's will are difficult to find. The only obvious thing is this government's typical failure to take a stand, except where the Constitution is concerned.

Far from making it illegal to hire scabs, to call them what they are, or replacement workers, this practice legalizes, legitimizes, supports the hiring by an employer of such workers. When the bill says that no employer shall undermine a trade union's representational capacity, as in the passage I read earlier, what it is really setting out to do is to undermine the union's strike force with respect to the employer, who is authorized by law to hire replacement workers, or scabs.

It would have been so easy to follow Quebec's example. Here, as in many other areas, Quebec is an example of civilization and harmony. In 1977, René Lévesque, with the then Labour Minister Pierre-Marc Johnson, had the strong support of his cabinet, although there was no consensus among Quebeckers, any more than there is consensus among members of the Canadian public today. Management is obviously not keen on the idea. It was not keen in Quebec, it is not keen in Canada, it is certainly not keen in the United States, and it is probably not keen in France either. In all western countries, there is no doubt that it goes very much against an employer's grain to be prohibited from engaging replacement workers to maintain production when employees are on strike.

It is a question of balance of power, however. This was what the Government of Quebec realized in 1977, even though there was no consensus. But fortunately the legislation was passed in 1977. The Quebec Liberal Party took office in 1985, and never dared to tamper with Quebec's antiscab legislation, although Mr. Scowen, a cabinet member, was mandated by the government to study the issue and recommended that it be amended. In its wisdom, the Bourassa government decided not to follow his advice.

There was even a ruling by the supreme court in favour of the Conseil du patronat. Members have heard of the wonderful supreme court. Once again, in 1991, it overturned the law and authorized the Conseil du patronat to pursue its case to overturn the antiscab legislation. The Conseil du Patronat also had the wisdom, heaven only knows why, not to take advantage of the opening being handed to it by the Supreme Court to take its case further. That is very significant.

Why? Because further examination revealed that, since the introduction of antiscab legislation, strikes were 35% shorter and violence non-existent on picket lines. These are signs of civilization. These are signs of social progress that Canada, our neighbour, should be emulating. No, it preferred to turn a deaf ear to the very legitimate claims of unions in this regard.

The solution would simply have been to declare the hiring of replacement workers or scabs an unfair practice by the employer, just as other practices have been declared unfair under the Canada Labour Code. The definition of unfair practice is an important one. It is an allegation that an employer, a union or an individual has taken part in an activity prohibited under the Canada Labour Code.

Here are some examples of unfair practices: changing the conditions of employment after notification of an application for certification; negotiating in bad faith, if it can be demonstrated—this is an unfair practice recognized in the Canada Labour Code; interfering in the business of the union is an unfair practice on the part of the employer; failing to fulfil its duty of fair representation is an unfair practice on the part of the union; failing to provide members with financial statements is also an unfair practice under the Canada Labour Code and is subject to a penalty.

Why not simply recognize that the hiring of scabs is an unfair practice under the Canada Labour Code? This is the bill's major flaw.

The hiring of replacement workers should be recognized as an unfair practice. The government cannot plead ignorance, because our research is based on the opinions and representations made by labour unions during the consultations.

Let me read two paragraphs in the brief submitted by the CSN at the hearings:

The lack of antiscab provisions is a fundamental flaw that has the effect of prolonging labour disputes and creating an imbalance that prevents free collective bargaining.

The hiring of scabs during a labour dispute is a source of frustration and violence. The presence of scabs being escorted by private security agencies, when it is not the police paid for with our taxes, is upsetting. It is difficult for employees who have made the reputation of a business or of an institution to see scabs crossing the picket lines every day.

I also want to read the very moving testimony given at these hearings by Claude Tremblay, the president of the Ogilvie workers union. This strike in Quebec was a very long one because the employer hired scabs. I will read long excerpts from the brief submitted at the time by Mr. Tremblay:

The 110 workers I represent were more or less forced out on strike on June 6, 1994 after close to two years of unproductive negotiations with our new employer, the American giant Archer Daniels Midland (ADM). After an attempt to force us to accept its collective agreement, ADM took advantage of a loophole in the Canada Labour Code to impose it on us effective December 10, 1993. In fact, legal precedents applying to the Canada Labour Relations Board allow an employer to unilaterally modify working conditions, once the right to strike or lockout is acquired, even though our previous collective agreement called for it to be in effect until renewed. Unfortunately, these precedents provide—and the Canada Labour Code has nothing to say on the matter—that such clauses are illegal and do not prevent the employer from taking advantage of the legal vacuum.

Since this employer-imposed agreement did away with our seniority rights and the employer was threatening lay-offs that were not in order of seniority, we were forced to walk out in order to prevent the employer from doing this and also to force it to maintain what we had acquired over more than 30 years.

Powerful employers like ADM, and most of the employers subject to the Canada Labour Code, have plenty of power already without being given the additional power to impose their working conditions as soon as they are entitled to lock out workers.

As a union, we believe that collective agreements should be maintained by law, at least until the right to strike is exercised. As well, the act ought to permit inclusion in a collective agreement of a clause allowing the working conditions it contains to remain in effect until renewal.

The act not only authorizes the use of strikebreakers, it encourages it.

I will continue reading Mr. Tremblay's letter.

After nearly 16 months of striking we managed to wring an ordinary collective agreement—ordinary within the context of Quebec—out of ADM. However, it was extraordinary compared to the American pattern of agreement ADM had forced on its employees in over 138 collective agreements throughout its empire.

The paragraph that follows is very significant. There is no explanation for the government's insensitivity to these representations.

Day in and day out, week in and week out, month in and month out, we endured subtle, underhanded and persistent violence. The violence of watching scabs stealing our rights, trucks entering and leaving full of wheat or flour, the CUM police arresting colleagues for nothing, security guards hired by ADM spying on us with cameras on public roads and up to our doorsteps, as if we were some sort of scum.

The worst part was discovering on our return to work that the scabs had botched our production so badly as to threaten the quality of Five Roses flour. This reputation for quality is surely the best guarantee of our jobs. The law, however, encourages short-sighted employers to threaten the survival of a business by allowing them to use unskilled workers, only to give them a psychological advantage against us in negotiations.

How was this useful to ADM if, in its back to work agreement, the company not only agreed to fire these scabs but also promised not to rehire them for the duration of the collective agreement?

Not only does the Canada Labour Code not prohibit the hiring of scabs, but the employment office in Verdun was even called upon to recruit them. Two months after the end of a 15 month long strike, 29 of our members, those with the least seniority, were not called back to work. Yet, they too had fought for the seniority rules that eventually had those with more seniority called back to work. These guys all had between 12 and 26 years of seniority and good and loyal uninterrupted service. They had contributed to the UI plan during all these years. Just the same, they did not qualify for benefits, while the scabs, who had worked unlawfully for 16 months, were treated with kid gloves and got full unemployment benefits.

It seems to us that this is a system that clearly works against workers who democratically decide to fight for their rights, against powerful and faceless companies like ADM, which pocket more than US $500 million in net profits every year.

We are definitely in favour of prohibiting the use of scabs in the Canada Labour Code, in order to send a very clear message to foreign employers like ADM. Their investments are welcome in Canada and Quebec, provided that they show a minimum of respect for our ways. And these rules cannot be easily broken, because the Government of Canada, supposedly the government of Canadian workers, will have given us the tools to resist if they want to challenge the consensus.

To those who think that prohibiting the use of scabs changes the balance unfairly in favour of the unions, I say “Have a look at things in Quebec and draw your own conclusions”. Workers do not enjoy being on strike. They exercise their right to strike only when they have no other choice, because it always ends up costing them a lot. In passing, if you can get yourself a worthwhile job when you are on strike, you let me know, particularly when unemployment seems forever high.

Instead of changing the balance in favour of the unions, prohibiting employers to use scabs brings the forces back into balance to a point that favours more reasonable negotiations where both employer and union work to quickly find a common ground, develop relations that will enable them to reconcile their divergent interests and find solutions that reflect their convergent interests.

That is why we want—

—the Canada Labour Code to be amended to prohibit the use of strikebreakers within the same meaning as in the Quebec labour code.

It is regrettable that the Government of Canada was not more receptive to this appeal, a dramatic one from a president speaking reasonably, honestly and courageously on behalf of his membership in a desire to advance the cause by suggesting useful amendments to the Canada Labour Code. But this government preferred to listen to management and cronies, as it so often does.

In conclusion, I draw members' attention to this issue of antiscab legislation, which exists in Quebec, but not in Canada, giving a constitutional flavour to the debate. In Quebec right now there are three categories of workers, which might very well get unionized employees in Quebec governed by the Canada Labour Code thinking. On the eve of the next referendum, people should give some thought to the fact that Quebec—not that we are boasting—is ahead of Canada in this area.

There are three categories of workers: non-unionized workers, unionized workers governed by the Quebec labour code and unionized workers who are protected by antiscab legislation in Quebec, and Quebec workers whose employment is governed by the Canada Labour Code, and who, if they ever went on strike, could see scabs turn up at any time and take away their jobs because they are governed by Canadian legislation that applies in Quebec.

In a sovereign Quebec, all Quebec workers governed by the Quebec labour code would be safe from the sudden arrival of scabs to undermine their strike force. I think this is something that could become important when Quebeckers are called upon in the near future, I am sure, to decide which side they are on. I think that here, as in other matters, Quebec shows itself to be a civilized, and forward-looking society, whose progress on social issues is unparalleled in the western world.

[Canada Shipping Act, February 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to ask a question to the hon. member for Lévis, who made a brilliant speech on shipping, a few minutes before oral question period. My colleague very eloquently showed the laxness, carelessness, incompetence and negligence of the federal government regarding the management of the St. Lawrence River and all related activities, including port traffic.

The St. Lawrence River is the world's largest inland waterway and 85% of Quebec's population lives along its north and south shores. Yet, the federal government has always been negligent regarding the management of the St. Lawrence River. The hon. member for Lévis made a brilliant presentation on the environmental risks created by this laxness in the protection of the environment, including the dangers posed by oil tankers; as we know, the Quebec City bridge was recently hit twice by oil tankers.

Given all this, could the hon. member tell us how the St. Lawrence River and its neighbouring regions should be managed, in terms of economic and regional development, in the context of a sovereign Quebec?

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

You have to be pretty low.

[Supply, February 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the question asked by my colleague from Lotbinière, which seems most relevant.

I want to ask the member for Beauce if he is conscious of the lack of support for the Liberal Party of Canada, particularly its Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, in Quebec. Think about a former leader of the Liberal Party, Mr. Ryan, and the present leader, Mr. Johnson, two former leaders of the no side who faced us with complete honesty and with all their talent, both in 1980 and in 1995.

Think about Jean-Claude Rivest, Conservative senator and former special advisor to the Liberal premier, Mr. Bourassa, a federalist, who said at one point that never again would Quebec go through what it went through after Charlottetown. Think about André Tremblay, special constitutional advisor to Robert Bourassa in Charlottetown in 1992. Think about Cardinal Turcotte—and that tops it all—who, despite his very delicate functions, has had the courage to take a stand in this debate, knowing what kind of criticism he would draw because of that. Where does the Liberal Party of Canada stand in Quebec at this moment apart from the support it gets from Alliance Quebec? I would like my colleague from Beauce to respond to that.

[Supply, February 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask the hon. member what she thinks of the statement by her colleague for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine referring to the confusion over the question asked of Quebeckers in the 1995 referendum.

I will read her the 1992 referendum question on the Charlottetown Accord, and then the one from 1995. I would like to know where the confusion lies. In 1995, 94% of the people of Quebec spoke. I shall read the question the federal government asked in 1992: “Do you agree that the Constitution of Canada should be renewed on the basis of the agreement reached on August 28, 1992?” That was the 1992 referendum on the Charlottetown Accord.

And then in 1995 the question asked by the Government of Quebec was as follows: “Do you agree to Quebec becoming sovereign after making a formal offer to Canada of a new economic and political partnership under the terms of the draft bill on the future of Quebec and the agreement of June 12?”

I would like to know whether our Acadian colleague shares the view of her colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce on the confusion that clouded those two questions. It is very clear to us. The people of Quebec spoke out clearly in 1995. When it has a similar question put before it, soon I hope, there will be a resounding yes.