Jean Dubé

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is no small feat to forge social policies for the people of this country. Our society expects that government will take care of the elderly, our young people, our workers and other individuals facing personal crises and needing a helping hand.

These are values Canadians are not prepared to sacrifice. Yet they know they come at a price. The challenge for any government is to balance these values against fiscal responsibility.

You may think this is patently obvious, but as I read the budget, I realized these fundamental principles were well worth repeating.

These concepts and values have been ignored by this government. This government claims to be sympathetic, yet it threatened seniors with a hidden project it never unveiled as part of its platform. This government claims to be concerned about workers, but the budget has nothing to say about job creation measures for the young and the not-so-young people of this country.

Finally, this government claims to be fiscally responsible, but that responsibility is at the expense of the businesses and workers whose contributions to employment insurance continue to add to the Minister of Finance's coffers.

Not to mention that the finance minister in the hopes of polishing his own image has downloaded many of his cuts to the provinces. The provinces were expecting concrete measures to match the federal government's rhetoric about reinvesting in health care and education. What they got was a serious reality check.

The Liberals have failed to restore the $6 billion they have taken out of transfers to the provinces for health care, education and social assistance since they came to power. Not only will most provinces lose out on cash transfers over the next five years, but the federal Liberals have had the arrogance to undertake what they call a major initiative in education without consulting with the provinces. I will say more on that later.

In the maritimes where I am from not many provincial politicians are applauding the federal government. In fact I think the only one who thinks this budget is good for his province is Russell MacLellan, the premier of Nova Scotia. Talk about being out of the loop. His province will lose about $14 million in cash transfers over the next five years. Reality. But Nova Scotians need not worry too much. Within a couple of weeks they will elect a new premier who will actually fight for their best interests and get them off their knees.

In New Brunswick, which is not too far from P.E.I., the Liberal provincial Minister of Finance who is from my hometown had no praise to sing. This is a guy who has sheepishly accepted the federal government's cuts over the past few years. He finally woke up to find “one-third of what we spend in this province is devoted to health care and this particular budget adds no new money to that area”. There are no new dollars being directed to the provinces for health care as a result of this budget.

With this budget this government has shown once again that it is without vision and is satisfied with piecemeal solutions. A perfect example is the proposed millennium fund, a public relations exercise at best. It shows just how much the government just does not get what the problems are.

Today students are faced with tremendous debts because of tuition fee hikes. The student debt load ought to be of primary importance to all Canadians. Student debt affects more than just students. It is an obstacle to the sustained economic growth of our country. Canada simply cannot allow so many of its young people to be crushed by their debts.

Reductions in post-secondary education transfer payments by the Minister of Finance have forced provincial governments to reduce the financial resources of their colleges and universities.

They in turn have been forced to raise tuition fees. This has led to such a rapid increase in the student debt load that it has become a serious threat to the economic future of our young people. In 1997 students owed an average of $25,000.

The Liberals are making a great song and dance about the Canadian millennium scholarship foundation. A problem of this size will not be solved by putting a little more money in the pockets of a very small number of students. Only a very limited number of students will be helped by these scholarships. In fact, 93% of them will not get a red cent.

To add insult to injury, the millennium fund only kicks in in two years. This government's philosophy is that young people are the future of our society. It keeps forgetting that they are also very much a part of the present with needs that must be answered today.

The program does not deal with structural problems such as transfer reductions and the cost of education, which are the fundamental causes of the debt load.

We must make sure young Canadians stay in Canada, and we must give them the same opportunities their parents had. We must absolutely put an end to the tragedy called the brain drain.

Taxes are too high in Canada. They kill initiative, they make investors look elsewhere, thus depriving our country of jobs, and they push enterprising Canadians to seek a better future abroad. I urge the government to set aside partisan politics and to listen to reason. Payroll taxes kill jobs.

Reducing employment insurance premiums is a sure way to promote job creation in small and medium size businesses, in every economic sector. It only makes sense, and everyone agrees, except of course the federal government.

The Minister of Finance's tax cut for low income Canadians is an insult. The only thing this tax cut is going to do in my hometown is maybe drum up some business for the coffee shops, because for many of my constituents all they are going to be able to afford with the minister's tax cut is an extra cup of coffee a week. It is absolutely ridiculous.

Fiscal balance was primarily achieved because of the sacrifices made by the workers, employers and taxpayers of this country. Canadians are the real heroes in this budget. It is thanks to them that our finances are in better shape.

Even though the budget does nothing to thank Canadians for their efforts, I can to assure them that a nice blue sky is looming on the horizon.

[Employment Insurance, February 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in December, the government maintained employment insurance premiums at $2.70 in spite of the fact that the actuary in charge of the EI fund believed the fund could run on a $2 premium.

In his very first budget, the Minister of Finance stated that payroll taxes were a barrier to employment.

Will the minister draw inspiration from his own words and give small business and Canadian workers the tax break they deserve, which is required to promote job creation?

[Canada Labour Code, February 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Lakeland on his presentation.

We in the PC Party have a lot of concerns, but this part of the legislation has not been visited in 25 years. I believe we are very close, but I think with more consultation we can all come forward with good solutions.

I have two questions for the member. We have concerns about replacement workers, as does the hon. member, and about off site workers and certification not requiring the majority of votes of employees. As was mentioned last week in the presentation on their behalf and on behalf of the other parties in the opposition there were some problems in this regard.

I have a question on work stoppage at ports. We support the section that would prevent labour disputes, other than those between employees, stopping the flow of grain at the ports. Would the hon. member see this section going a little further and make it apply to elevators in western Canada and in Ontario? Potato farmers and the pulp and paper industry could be affected as well.

Another section in the bill, section 7 dealing with the power of the CIRB to determine seniority, affects pilots. The board has the power to determine the question of seniority. This is troublesome for airline pilots as seniority determines their progression and promotion in ways that are drastically different from others industries.

To give the board the power to change the practices that are used worldwide in the aviation industry could cause undue problems. I would like to know the member's comments on this section.

[Canada Labour Code, February 19th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am not from a grain area, I am from New Brunswick. But the member for Brandon—Souris is the only member of our party who is from western Canada, and believe me, I know about grain. I did not know anything before I came to this place, but I know now.

As far as the comment of the member is concerned, in my speech I supported the movement of grain in Canada.

I would also want to look at other industries. Hopefully it applies to all ports and all unions. That is my understanding. I do not know if it is his understanding. If grain is shipped through western Canada, through eastern Canada or wherever, farmers should be able to ship that grain through whatever means available, whether it be via trains or the ports. They are all federally regulated.

The comments of the hon. member are well taken. I certainly approve of that.

[Canada Labour Code, February 19th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Calgary Northeast to give me the opportunity to stand again and speak more on this matter.

I agree with the hon. member. One of the situations that I put in my speech is when we look at the situation of the store manager where the vote was 151 to 43, and they installed the union anyway, what is the recourse for the company here? What is the recourse for the employees who did not want it?

There are other vehicles that we can put in place. When there is a strike, where it becomes violent and tension starts to build is when replacement workers are brought in. There is no vehicle put in place where the employer and the unions can meet in trying to alleviate this tension, this violence. I suggest that we might even talk about having a vehicle put in place to bring down violence in Canada.

In every strike, where it starts is exactly right there. When replacement workers start to come in, we see broken windows, we see everything happening.

Coming back to that 151 to 43, I wonder if the government today would pass legislation if we had the same vote, 151 against and 43 for. Would it pass legislation anyway?

[Canada Labour Code, February 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, severeal months after indicating its intent to introduce a bill to amend part I of the Canada Labour Code, the government has finally got around to introducing Bill C-19 in the House.

One might have thought that, after such a long wait, the government would have made some constructive changes. One might have thought that it would also have taken the time to amend its bill so as to respond to the legitimate concerns voiced on all sides during the last Parliament. But no.

In June 1995 the Minister of Labour appointed a task force of labour relations experts chaired by Andrew Sims to conduct an independent review and recommend changes to part I of the Canada Labour Code. Its report “Seeking a Balance”, also referred to as the Sims report, was released in February 1996.

After consultation with unions and business representatives, the former Minister of Labour introduced Bill C-66 in November 1996 during the last Parliament. Bill C-66 was rushed through the House of Commons. The Senate social affairs committee gave it careful consideration and PC senators outlined major flaws in the bill, especially with respect to replacement workers, off site workers and union certification without the majority vote.

On November 6, 1997 the Minister of Labour introduced Bill C-19, vastly similar to its predecessor Bill C-66. The minor amendments proposed to the bill do not go far enough to allay some of the concerns raised during the last Parliament.

Unfortunately, the government chose to make half-hearted changes. Instead of concerning itself with developing the best legislation possible, it chose the easy route.

This is a great pity, for the bill we are examining is intended to substantially modernize industrial relations. This is the first time in 25 years that part I of the Canada Labour Code has undergone a thorough revision.

That is one more reason to make sure the proposed changes stand up to the closest of scrutinies. If we have to wait another 25 years for any changes to this bill, let us make sure that the proposed amendments are properly tailored to the reality of today's and tomorrow's work place.

Our actions throughout this entire process will be prompted by that concern, to develop a bill that is fair and equitable for all. The Sims report is entitled “Seeking a Balance”, and that is what we too are seeking, a balance between interests and parties.

Like a number of the others who have spoken out, we too hope that the government will make an effort to resist the temptation to ram this bill through without allowing the lawmakers time to analyze the impact of these amendments.

Let us be perfectly clear, it is not our wish to delay passage of this bill unduly. What we do want is for all parties concerned to have the opportunity to bring out their points of view.

We know how important the proposed changes to the Canada Labour Code are. As I indicated earlier, we have legitimate concerns, which we hope to address in greater detail at subsequent stages of this bill.

For the moment, our reservations are such that we cannot vote in favour of this bill as this stage in the legislative process.

One of the concerns we have with the bill as it stands deals with replacement workers. Understandably this is one of the most contentious issues for all parties concerned. For the Sims task force this issue is one of the few on which the authors could not agree.

One of the authors argued in favour of a complete ban on the use of replacement workers, as is the case in labour legislation in Quebec and British Columbia.

The majority argued against a general ban on the use of replacement workers and said:

There should be no general prohibition on the use of replacement workers.

Where the use of replacement workers in a dispute is demonstrated to be for the purpose of undermining the union's representative capacity rather than the pursuit of legitimate bargaining objectives, this should be declared an unfair labour practice.

In the event of a finding of such an unfair labour practice, the Board should be given the specific remedial power to prohibit the future use of replacement workers in a dispute.

Bill C-66 did not stipulate clearly that there was no ban on the use of replacement workers. Instead it stated that no employer or person shall use the services of a replacement worker for the purpose of undermining a trade union's representational capacity.

During Senate hearings no one seemed to know how the terms of the bill would be interpreted. For instance, this is what Nancy Riche of the Canadian Labour Congress had to say:

“This is a very interesting clause but no one seems to know how it will be interpreted. We will know that only after the first case has been heard by the CIRB.”

What constitutes an unfair labour practice and what constitutes undermining a trade union's representational capacity were left in the air for the new Canada Industrial Relations Board to interpret.

In their report senators from all parties urged the new CIRB to respect the findings of the Sims task force in interpreting and applying the provisions concerning replacement workers.

As a result the government made changes to the replacement workers provisions in Bill C-19. The bill now stipulates that no employer or person shall use a replacement worker for the demonstrated purpose of undermining a trade union's representational capacity rather than the pursuit of legitimate bargaining objectives.

While this formulation comes closer to what the Sims task force had in mind, in our opinion it is still not made clear enough that it is an exceptional measure meant to address reprehensible behaviour on the part of an employer.

As senators argued in Bill C-66, there is a fundamental difference between using replacement workers to ensure that the employer may carry on its normal business during a strike and using them for the purpose of undermining a union's representational capacity. The mere use of replacement workers does not in and of itself raise the presumption of unfair bargaining practices. These arguments still ring true in Bill C-19.

The bill as it stands does not properly address the meaning of the wording used. As further evidence, here is what the Ottawa Citizen has said about these provisions in its November 21, 1997 editorial. It stated:

Technically, the ban (on replacement workers) would apply only to workers whose employment would undermine the “representational capacity” of the union.

But since strikes are a tool unions use in representing workers, and replacement workers make strikes less effective, it is hard to imagine any of them that would not fit that definition—

Furthermore, an article in the Financial Post expressed the following concerns:

—now that they've had time to read the fine print, the major industries affected aren't so pleased—The revised code will still allow federally regulated industries, some of which are key to keeping the economy running, to use replacement workers during a strike or lockout, but not if it is seen to undermine a union's representational capacity.

What this means exactly isn't entirely clear. Also, the wording of this provision may prevent management transferring people from other parts of the company to keep operations going.

Another big concern of ours has to do with unions having access to lists of off site workers.

The Sims work force recognized the need to balance the opportunity for off site workers to consider the benefits of collective bargaining or take advantage of these benefits against their right to privacy and personal security.

With Bill C-66, the government legislated that the new Canada industrial relations board may provide an authorized representative of a labour union a list of the names and addresses of employees who normally work at home for an employer and allow this representative to contact them.

Even though the minister stated he had consulted the Department of Justice to make sure the privacy of off site workers would not be jeopardized, the Senate committee heard the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, who had serious reservations about the provisions of the bill.

The minister at the time even suggested that the privacy commissioner's concerns were not legitimate. He tried to minimize them by intimating that they arose from management lobbying.

However, the offices of the privacy commissioner and the information commissioner are independent offices, accountable to Parliament and no one else, the same way that the auditor general is for instance. By minimizing these concerns, the minister could justify sweeping them under the carpet.

Granted, the current minister tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to correct the situation with Bill C-19. He added a statutory prohibition on the use of information provided under this clause.

In addition, he further defined the board's power to release information to off site workers or to instruct the employer to do so through its electronic communications system.

Unfortunately, these amendments do not appear to be enough. This time, the minister's officials consulted with the privacy commissioner, who said that he still had some reservations about the provisions of the bill, particularly the infamous clauses 50 and 54.

I am running out of time so I will only address one other issue of concern even though there are more. It is the case of the new board's ability to allow certification without a majority of employees having voted for unionization. The board can do this if it feels there has been an unfair labour practice on the part of the employer. In Bill C-19 the legislation remains unchanged on this point.

In the 1997 election we proposed to strengthen worker protection under federal labour laws giving workers more democratic powers by requiring secret ballots and votes on union representations and decisions.

Such reforms were enacted by former Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in Britain. They have proven so popular with workers that they are now endorsed by the Labour Party under Tony Blair.

Instead of ensuring more democratic power to workers, the government has chosen the way of ill-conceived legislation that has proven to have bizarre interpretations in other jurisdictions, to say the least.

I would like to bring to the attention of the House a situation that occurred recently in Windsor where the Ontario Labour Relations Board, armed with provisions similar to those in Bill C-19, ruled that a minority of workers could impose their will on the majority because of an alleged unfair labour practice on the part of management.

What was the unfair labour practice? The managers of the store asked whether it would close if it were unionized, followed legal advice and refused to comment. What were they supposed to say? A yes almost certainly would have been judged to be intimidation, but a no would have led to lawsuits had higher labour cost in fact put the store out of business.

It would also have helped the union's case immeasurably, which an employer should not be obligated to do. In the OLRB's view, the managers' refusal to answer was such a grievous violation of workers' rights that it invalidated not only this but any future vote.

Since the managers could not avoid unfair labour practices by saying yes, saying no or saying nothing, it is reasonably clear that legislation of this sort has some peculiar implications.

Knowing the implications of such provisions, we should be wary of enacting the same ones here.

I will end by touching very briefly on a few other issues that concern us regarding the bill.

We support the provisions to the effect that the grain would continue to move in the event of a work stoppage at ports. However, we are prepared to look at the impact of extending this protection to other sectors.

We also feel that the repeal of part II of the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act is suspicious and could deprive Canadians of valuable information on unions.

These issues and many more will be reviewed when Bill C-19 is examined in committee. Again, I hope we can conduct a serious and thorough review of this bill. It will ensure the quality of the legislation passed by this House.

[Petitions, February 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise today to present two petitions, both dealing with pay equity.

The first requests Parliament to ask the President of the Treasury Board for authorization to pay the amount owed to all concerned employees, calculated based on what they know is owing to each employee.

The second calls on Parliament to put an end of this pay discrimination by implementing the results of the joint study through negotiations with the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the union representing these workers.

[Campbellton Courts, February 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, several civil cases are not being heard in the Campbellton trial division, because there are not enough judges.

A mother requiring a support order must wait eight to nime months. And not a single small claims case has been heard for a year now.

Is the minister willing to assume her responsibilities and ensure that access to courts is no longer in jeopardy in this region?

[Ice Storm, February 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to convey my sincere appreciation to the people of Madawaska—Restigouche who rallied together in support of our friends in Quebec during the recent ice storm.

Countless truckers and volunteers from throughout the riding set aside their daily business to give their unconditional support.

I personally travelled with a caravan of trucks carrying food, firewood and local Red Cross blankets from Restigouche and Madawaska to Quebec.

I saw firsthand the devastation encountered by the victims and I can only imagine the pain and suffering they have endured under these cold winter conditions.

I also saw the warm smiles on their faces as we pulled up and began to load their vehicles with supplies. It is acts of kindness such as these that should make every one of us proud to be Canadian.

[Customs Act, February 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House of Commons to speak on Bill C-18, an act to amend the Customs Act and the Criminal Code.

As stated by previous speakers, this piece of legislation concerns the authority we are prepared to accord customs officers. Bill C-18 would grant designated customs officers the power to arrest without warrant and to release from custody any cases where an arrest without warrant by a peace officer is permitted. These designated officers can detain such individuals until they are able to hand them over to peace officers as defined under section 2 of the Criminal Code.

This bill received unanimous support from members of the justice committee, which included my colleague from West Nova on behalf of the PC caucus. On his behalf and on behalf of our caucus I would like to commend the representatives from the customs and excise workers union for their very informative presentations given in support of this bill.

Part of my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche runs along the Canada-U.S. border and is home to many customs and excise workers. I therefore have firsthand knowledge of the many duties and responsibilities these federal employees discharge on a daily basis. Bill C-18 gives these border employees needed resources to keep our country safe.

Ironically this government bill comes forward for debate from the justice committee without amendment less than a week after this House debated Bill C-211, a private member's bill sponsored by my Reform colleague from Langley—Abbotsford.

That bill dealt with granting peace officers additional authority with respect to arrest warrants for offenders who have breached their conditions of parole. The Liberals unfortunately continued to reject this worthwhile bill. Apparently what is good for the government goose is not good for the opposition gander.

In any case I will attempt to restrict my comments to the substance of this legislation, Bill C-18. One of the most positive elements of Bill C-18 is the proposal to add a section to the Customs Act which would allow customs officers to handle impaired driving situations in the same way peace officers do.

This section of Bill C-18 is so important because it gives our customs officers more power to respond to individuals who enter Canada and who are suspected of being impaired drivers. As we discussed several months ago in the House, Canada has more than enough problems with its domestic drunk drivers. This section of Bill C-18 would help clamp down on the import of drunk drivers.

Bill C-18 will also confer on customs officers any responsibilities which fall to a peace officer under sections 495 to 497 of the Criminal Code, as well as under subsections 493(3) and 497(3) upon the designation by the Minister of National Revenue.

Another section of Bill C-18 however clearly states that these designated officers may not use their new found responsibilities for the sole purpose of searching for evidence. This appears to be a reasonable limitation on individual rights.

The final portion of Bill C-18 is technical in nature, proposing two amendments to the Criminal Code which will ensure its correspondence with the new section of the Customs Act.

There were some concerns regarding the potentially negative consequences of Bill C-18. At the justice committee my colleague, the hon. member for West Nova, raised the possibility of responsibilities being downloaded to customs officers without the appropriate resources being allocated by the federal government. Officials from both Revenue Canada and the customs employees union happily reported that this would not be the case.

In closing, I would like to emphasize the non-partisan nature in which Bill C-18 was handled. The government acted in response to an expressed concern from customs employees. The opposition parties raised legitimate concerns at the committee level with respect to potentially negative consequences of the bill yet there was not any political grandstanding or obstacle placed in the path of dealing with this needed piece of legislation. It was dealt with in a responsible and constructive manner. Perhaps this is a lesson which we can draw on in the future.