Jean Dubé

[Regional Development Agencies, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot blame my colleague from New Brunswick for being concerned, but have no fear the Tories are here.

It is a pleasure for me to rise before the House in response to Motion No. 224, calling upon the government to dissolve all regional development agencies.

For years, successive federal governments grappled with the problem of regional economic disparity. In 1969 the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was created in an attempt to address the situation.

Later in 1982 the department evolved into the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. Both these endeavours failed to adequately address the specific problems facing the many diverse regions of the country.

One of the major criticisms of these two departments derives from its often poor focus on a centrally devised, one size fits all answer to regional problems.

Canadians wanted a greater say in developing their own programs to respond to their own economic problems. They were no longer willing to accept Ottawa's often ill advised solutions being thrust upon them.

As a result, in 1987 the Progressive Conservative government disbanded DRIE and announced a new direction for regional economic development policy in Canada. New agencies were created for the western and Atlantic provinces, moving much of the government's regional development decision making out of Ottawa and closer to the people served. Western economic diversification was created to help expand and develop the business face of the economy in the western provinces.

The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency was given a legislative mandate to increase opportunity for economic development in Atlantic Canada and to enhance the growth of earned income and employment opportunities in that region.

ACOA has enabled many small and medium size businesses in Atlantic Canada to create jobs that otherwise would not exist. Its involvement in the economy of the region has resulted in an important net positive contribution.

Since its inception ACOA has had a total employment impact of 82,000 jobs. ACOA's investment has created $233 million annually in new export sales. Each dollar invested in the business by ACOA, its provincial government and private sector partners results in $5 of benefit to the Atlantic region.

Similarly the return to the government in taxes, savings and employment insurance payments equals $3 for every dollar invested by the government. ACOA has a proven performance record in achieving real results in our Atlantic economy.

Dissolving ACOA would have a devastating effect on most Atlantic Canadians. Unlike the western region whose economy presently leads the nation, Atlantic Canada continues to struggle particularly with the serious downturn in the fishery.

There are presently over 25,000 fishers and fish plant workers in Atlantic Canada who were forced from the fishery by the downturn in the fishery and who are subsequently awaiting word from the government on a new TAGS program.

The Progressive Conservative Party was the first to champion the cause of tax relief for ordinary Canadians. However, the cancellation of this regional development agency would provide little or no tax relief for these 25,000 individuals.

Unemployment figures are still too high in Atlantic Canada. The best way to confront the serious unemployment situation is to encourage Canadians young and old to start their own business.

Figures show that 94% of all new jobs in the country are created by small and medium size enterprises. We need ACOA to help people start and to expand their own businesses. It has the ability to provide individuals with much needed capital along with expertise on how to begin new ventures.

Most chartered banks in Atlantic Canada are quite reluctant to support small business ventures unless they are willing to provide about 30% to 50% of their own equity to the project. Unfortunately most aspiring entrepreneurs are incapable of meeting this demand. Therefore, without ACOA having taken a chance on individual projects, many would not have got off the ground.

Atlantic Canada need ACOA to reduce the regional economic disparity that exists among provinces. Therefore we cannot support the motion.

[Canada Labour Code, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to point out to you that the House cannot continue to sit for lack of quorum.

[Canada Labour Code, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, many months have gone by. Much work has been done. Many speakers have been heard. A report called “Seeking a Balance” was even presented to the minister with many comments on how to make the Canada Labour Code fair for all parties involved, both labour and employers.

As we all know, federal labour jurisdiction encompasses some very important sectors of our economy, for example, interprovincial transportation, aeronautics, broadcasting, banks and shipping. The federal government also has jurisdiction over labour matters involving the federal public service. In all, federal labour legislation governs about 10% of the Canadian workforce.

This is the reason why we as legislators must make sure changes that will be made to part I of the Canada Labour Code are changes dated 1998 and not 1965. We must make sure that these changes serve today's and future generations of workers and employers.

In November 1996 Bill C-66 was introduced to parliament. It was rushed through the House of Commons like we expect the government will want to do with Bill C-19. Then as is the custom the Senate social affairs committee gave Bill C-66 careful consideration. PC senators outlined major flaws with the bill especially with respect to the privacy issue, replacement workers and certification as a remedy. This is the issue I wish to delve into at this time.

Here we are on May 7, 1998 speaking on many flaws that still exist and proposing solutions to these flaws. As the member of parliament for the riding of Madawaska—Restigouche, elected democratically by the citizens of my great riding, I have a lot of difficulty with a clause which states: “The board may certify a trade union despite the lack of evidence of majority support”.

Having a sentence like this in a bill from a democratically elected House, the House of Commons of Canada, should certainly raise many eyebrows. Whatever happened to democracy? Mr. Speaker, do you think the Prime Minister is travelling too much to Cuba?

Clause 46 states that if the employer “has failed to comply with section 94 and the board is of the opinion that, but for the unfair labour practice, the trade union could reasonably have been expected to have had the support of a majority of the employees in the unit”.

What does the government consider to be unfair labour practice? Let me shed some light on the interpretation that was given to a clause much like the one before us now.

As stated previously by an hon. member, consider the case last winter in which a majority of 151 to 43 employees of Wal-Mart in Windsor voted against unionization. The Ontario Labour Relations Board ruled that the employer had engaged in unfair labour practices and made them all join the steelworkers union.

What was the unfair labour practice? What big bad deed did the employer practice in? What action was so reprehensible that almost three-quarters of the employees voting against unionization had to be overturned?

Managers of the store when they were asked whether the store would close if it were unionized followed the legal advice they had received and refused to comment. They did not say anything. That was an unfair labour practice. What were they supposed to say? A yes would almost certainly have been judged to be intimidation but a no might well have led to a lawsuit had higher labour costs would in fact put the store out of business.

In the OLRB's view, the managers' refusal to answer was such a grievous violation of workers rights that it invalidated not only that vote but any future votes as well. Since the managers could not avoid unfair labour practice by saying yes, saying no, or saying nothing, it is reasonably clear that legislation of this sort draws its principal inspiration from Lewis Carroll. Following the Ontario decision, a similar situation was under way in British Columbia.

This shows how a bad decision can snowball. We should take a stand against this attempt to void a democratic vote on a mere whim. It is ridiculous.

During the 1997 election campaign, the Progressive Conservative Party promised to strengthen the protection conferred by labour laws on workers by increasing their democratic rights. We would have required a secret ballot with respect to matters involving union representation. It can therefore be argued that increasing workers' democratic rights includes respecting the wishes expressed in a secret ballot.

What is the point of holding a vote, if it can be overturned for any old reason? In support of my argument, I wish to refer to the conclusions of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, which, as I said earlier, made an exhaustive study of Bill C-66.

In its report, the Senate committee wrote as follows:

Your committee has heard concerns that the provision in Clause 46 which would allow the Canada Industrial Relations Board to certify a trade union as a remedy for employer unfair labour practices, runs counter to the principle that certification should be based solely on the majority support of the employees in the bargaining unit. We strongly endorse the principle of majority support as a basis for certification and note that Bill C-66 retains the Board's authority to verify support by holding a representation vote in any case. We strongly recommend that the Board exercise the jurisdiction it has under section 29(1) of the Canada Labour Code and order a representation vote as a matter of course.

We believe that the concerns that have been expressed to the committee on this clause are serious and urge the utmost caution in applying this exceptional provision. Though a number of provincial labour statutes include similar provisions, they are used by provincial labour boards in rare cases, where an employer commits a serious unfair labour practice and where a representation vote is unlikely to provide a true measure of the employees' wishes.

We recommend, therefore, that in interpreting and applying Section 99.1, the Canada Industrial Relations Board should respect the findings of the Sims Task Force, namely, that this is an unusual remedy which should be reserved for “truly intolerable conduct” by an employer. Your committee has concerns about whether the recent use of a similar clause by the Ontario Labour Relations Board in the Wal-Mart case is in fact an appropriate use of such a measure.

In its report, the Senate committee, the majority of whose members are Liberals, would probably have proposed an amendment deleting clause 46 if it had had the time.

I therefore hope that members of the House will support this amendment.

[Canada Labour Code, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would call notice that we do not have a quorum.

[Canada Labour Code, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully and with interest to my colleagues from both sides of the House, especially to the parliamentary secretary. I agree with many of her comments. Although she commented in good faith, she gave the government's position and at times failed to shed sufficient light on some of the provisions of this bill.

Bill C-19 is a very important piece of legislation. For all intents and purposes it regulates the lives and work of about 750,000 Canadians who work either directly for the federal government or for federally regulated companies in the banking, telecommunications and transportation sectors.

This bill is very important for the number of citizens it affects. It is just as important as the Canada Labour Code. This kind of legislation is not amended very often. Bill C-19 is probably the first major review of the rules that have regulated the workplace for the past 25 years.

The object of the bill is important because it affects the delicate relationship between management and the workers. It affects the delicate equilibrium that ought to be maintained at all times between the investors, the bosses, the risk takers and the job creators on one hand and the workers, the people who bring their lives efforts to service of the enterprise on the other hand.

Therefore we must seek just and fair remuneration, working conditions and social benefits which create a milieu that is fair, just and rewarding for the workers.

Regarding the motions moved by our colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois, Motion No. 1 for example provides in essence that, instead of being appointed by the governor in council or by cabinet, the chairperson and vice-chairperson of the board would be appointed by the minister, on the recommendation of the House committee dealing with matters relating to human resources development. This committee would have to hold public hearings before making a recommendation.

Our party will support this motion put forward by our colleague from the Bloc Quebecois. This is something that already exists in Ontario. It ensures a more open appointment process. The public hearings should not, however, be allowed to turn into a circus.

Motion No. 2 of our colleague states that the five-year term of the chairperson and vice-chairperson shall not be renewed. I must say that our party will vote against this motion. It makes no sense not to renew their mandate if they are competent.

Now turning to Motion No. 3. Instead of being appointed by the governor in council, members of the board, whether full time or part time, would be appointed by the minister, on recommendation of the House committee dealing with matters relating to human resources development. The committee would have to hold public hearings before making a recommendation. Our party will support this motion.

Motion No. 4 states that if the chairperson of the board is absent or unable to act, a vice-chairperson designated by the minister shall act as chairperson. This part is similar to what the bill currently provides.

If the office of chairperson is vacant, a replacement would be elected from within the board instead of being designated by the minister. We will vote against this motion. What this amendment is supposed to achieve is not really clear. Is it intended as a temporary measure? Otherwise, it contradicts the Bloc amendments calling for the chairperson to be appointed on the recommendation of the committee of the House of Commons. This provision seems to be pointless since it is unlikely that the position would remain vacant for several months. The other provisions of the bill seem to properly address these concerns.

As for Motion No. 5, it provides that, when a member of the board is subject to an inquiry, the judge would be required to submit his findings to both the minister and the committee of the House of Commons. We will support this motion. Should a problem arise, the matter would be referred to the members of this House, who could suggest an appropriate course of action. This reinforces accountability to Parliament.

[Questions Passed As Orders For Return, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member thinks 45 days is bad, listen to this one. Question No. 21 has been on the Order Paper since, believe this or not, October 3, 1997.

The parliamentary secretary has repeatedly promised the House he will make inquiries as to when Question No. 21 will be answered. I recommend that the parliamentary secretary come out from behind the curtain and tell us when Question No. 21 will be answered.

[Holidays Act, May 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on March 17, I asked the Minister of Finance why he continued to discourage people from saving for retirement.

I explained to the House that a number of financial experts were discouraging middle class Canadians over 50 from investing in RRSPs. With the new seniors benefit, the money they save today will not make up for the tax they will have to pay later.

This is only one of the weaknesses in the seniors benefit the Minister of Finance announced over two years ago.

Many have been critical of it. Here are some of their concerns. With current marginal tax rates, the recovery of 20% of income over $26,000 means that middle income seniors would have a marginal income tax rate of 60% to 70%.

Middle income Canadians will no longer have anything to gain by saving for their old age. Seniors choosing to remain in the labour market will discover they are keeping only 30% of their salary.

When the income of a couple entitles them to the benefit, the husband and the wife will each receive a cheque, but the wife's entitlement to a pension will depend on the husband's income.

A study commissioned by the Canadian Real Estate Association also revealed that seniors who live alone and who have an income exceeding $31,000 will see their financial situation deteriorate, as well as couples with a total income of $26,000.

When there is an increase from the present situation, that increase will not exceed $120 a year in most cases. However, middle income seniors could lose from $3,000 to $7,000 a year compared to what they are getting under the present system.

Even middle income seniors who choose to stay with the old system will pay more taxes since the age credit and the pension benefit credit will be abolished when the new seniors benefit is implemented.

Indeed, with the implementation of the seniors benefit, the Liberals propose to abolish the old age pension, the pension benefit credit, the age credit and the guaranteed income supplement.

They are still refusing to provide a thorough analysis of the impact of these measures on tomorrow's retirees.

Instead of encouraging individual responsibility, the proposed benefit will discourage everybody from saving for their retirement, except for the wealthiest people. It will also prompt a lot of seniors to get out of the labour force since they would keep only 30% of their salary.

The Progressive Conservative Party intends to force the government to fully disclose to Canadians the financial impact of the proposed seniors benefit. Canadians of all ages must understand the consequences of this new benefit.

We must prevent the government from destroying the foundations of our national retirement income system.

I encourage all Canadians to write to their respective MPs to express their opposition to the new seniors benefit proposed by the finance minister and to tell the minister to get his hands out of their pockets.

[Canada Lands Surveyors Act, May 6th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for the housekeeping comment.

The reason for that comment was to identify the patronage appointments that the government will be making.

[Canada Lands Surveyors Act, May 6th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for being attentive to my speech.

If I was a minister of the crown I could probably answer better what the member is asking. I sort of agree with the member's comments, but I think his question would be better directed to government.

[Canada Lands Surveyors Act, May 6th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, when I spoke of the five members I meant the five non-executive members. With the executive members I think the hon. member's number is accurate.

I believe the patronage appointments are more in the area of five, not three, because the five directors that are to be appointed by the minister are certainly going to be, as far as I am concerned, patronage appointments.