Maurice Dumas

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate at report stage of Bill C-78, an act to establish the Public Service Pension Investment Board and to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, the Canada Post Corporation Act, and so on.

This bill is of particular interest to me since I rose several times in this House to defend the rights of seniors as a spokesperson for seniors and seniors organizations.

The purpose of this bill is to make changes to public sector pension plans. Contrary to what the President of the Treasury Board said, federal employees and retirees are concerned about these changes. The Bloc Quebecois is obviously against this bill.

The amendments brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois are aimed at implementing a true joint management system for public sector pension plans.

On April 12, the President of the Treasury Board stated in this House that federal employees should not worry about the future. He said, and I quote:

Therefore, current and past federal public service employees need not worry about the future, because it is precisely to preserve the financial future of these pension plans that the government decided to act.

The pension plans of the public service, the RCMP and the armed forces have, in recent years, accumulated a total surplus of some $30 billion.

The Bloc Quebecois cannot allow the government to act unilaterally and make major changes to the employees' pension plans. It is a rip-off.

The Bloc Quebecois has always said the same thing about pension plans. They must not be changed to the detriment of seniors. This is certainly not the first time the government has tried to reduce its debt to their detriment. Seniors have always spoken out strongly.

The consultation of government's partners over several months was a failure. So there was no agreement on the necessary reforms.

Clearly, there is some similarity in strategy here with the federal government's control over the surplus in the employment insurance fund, which has accumulated in recent years. The federal government claims that this surplus belongs to it, as do the surpluses that concerns us in Bill C-78.

Seniors are no fools. I recently attended a demonstration on Parliament Hill. The message was clear: the surpluses belong to those who are retired, and they will never let the government appropriate it.

Furthermore, seniors do not want the government to appoint their friends to manage the surpluses by unilaterally creating a public sector pension investment board according to its criteria on equity.

This board cannot be independent of the government. I share the opinion of my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, who mentioned on April 12 that the government should follow the example of the Caisse du dépôt et placement in Quebec.

This is how the Bloc Quebecois came to ask the government to honour its promise to submit the management of the public service pension plan to a real system of joint management. A management board comprising representatives of the employer, employees and retired employees must be set up.

Bill C-78 does not move in that direction. The purpose of the joint management council proposed by the Bloc Quebecois would be to set up a pension fund, to plan its financing, to manage any surplus or deficit, to manage the plan itself and to ensure adequate financing for the benefits to be paid.

Also, all of the legislation concerning the federal public sector pension plans must be subject to the Pension Benefits Standards Act. Consequently, a number of judicial rules would control the use of any future surpluses. The regulations established under this piece of legislation will set out the criteria the employers will have to meet.

Pensioners want to be treated fairly. It is normal that the surplus that belongs to them be used in part to increase their benefits. The federal government's unilateral misappropriation of $30 billion is a true insult to seniors. The surplus should belong to both the employer and the employees.

We agree that pension plans should be allowed to be invested on the stock market, but we do not agree with the government taking the $30 billion surplus. As I said earlier, it is a rip-off. The surpluses should be used on the one hand to improve the pension plan and, on the other hand, to set up the retirement fund being created under Bill C-78.

Losses can also be incurred on the stock market. That is something we have to think about. The federal government should not neglect the people who worked all their lives to be able to enjoy a decent and well-deserved retirement.

Let us recall the “Goodbye Charlie Brown” episode, under the Mulroney government. Many seniors fight for their rights, and we should not forget that 1999 is the international year of the older person. Seniors should get everything they are entitled to. A commemorative stamp is not enough.

Also, this year's theme for international women's day was “Going strong”. Retired women are something of a majority among retired public servants, and they are sometimes among the most underprivileged. In the past, the Bloc Quebecois has often complained about continuous intrusions by the federal government.

For example, the federal government tried to put in place for 2001 a new benefit based on family income, which would have the effect of depriving a number of women of their only independent source of income. We realize that Bill C-78 will have an impact on the lifestyle of many retired people.

In 1995, the federal government also tried to amend the Income Tax Act, through Bill C-282, to eliminate the deduction for taxpayers over age 65 who are entitled to the disability income tax credit.

This in further evidence that the federal government is trying to pay off its debt on the backs of the underprivileged, and more particularly senior citizens.

The Bloc Quebecois is against Bill C-78, because it will allow the government to grab the $30 billion surplus in the public service pension plans. The amendments the Bloc Quebecois has moved are needed to correct this flaw.

[Subcommittee On The Study Of Sport In Canada, April 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, with the Minister of Industry now lobbying for professional sports millionaires, the Minister of Canadian Heritage has announced that she will not invest one more cent in amateur sport, thus dashing all the hopes the report of the subcommittee on the study of sport in Canada had raised among athletes and sports federations.

Will the government admit that the report on sport was basically nothing more than a huge smoke screen to hide the fact that it could not care less about amateur sport and that it intends to hand over millions of taxpayers' dollars to professional sports millionaires instead?

[Amateur Sport, April 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage stated that everyone supported the decision to let go women's hockey coach Danièle Sauvageau, which is patently false. Once again, the Liberal member's response was a shameless denial of the facts.

As for the hon. member for Bourassa, that staunch defender of professional sport, and feigned defender of amateur sport, his problems are far from over. While the Minister of Canadian Heritage is confirming that the recommendations in the report on the funding of amateur sport have been pigeonholed, how can he expect Hockey Canada to act on his suggestion that Danièle Sauvageau be appointed immediately as the coach for the 2002 Olympics?

According to the hon. member for Bourassa, Danièle Sauvageau was apparently let go because she was too pushy. In fact, all she was doing was claiming what was rightfully hers, and the Quebeckers in the Liberal caucus would do well to follow suit. At present they are not asserting themselves enough and not assuming their responsibilities when the time comes to defend Quebeckers.

[Aerospace Industry, April 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Madeleine Albright agreed on a 120 day period of reflection to review the American decision on our aerospace and defence exports.

Is the Minister for International Trade prepared to consult and involve the Government of Quebec in its discussions and considerations, given that Quebec will be severely affected if the Americans carry out their trade restrictions plan?

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, April 22nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I was listening to the hon. member for Mercier speaking of older workers in the private sector. This is, of course, not completely on topic, but since the hon. minister is with us in the House, I would like to point out that there used to be a fine program that provided assistance to the older workers, one that no longer exists.

Does my colleague believe that the minister will some day do something to help older workers, whether this is POWA or something else?

[Division No. 354, March 23rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak this morning to Bill C-76. However, 76 reminds me of other things. It rings another bell. It was the year the Parti Quebecois took office under René Lévesque.

I would quickly like to relate a bit of history before speaking to this debate. In 1966, the sovereignists received 8% of the vote; in 1970, 23%; and in 1973, 30%. Finally, in 1976, we came to power.

I will now move on to Bill C-76, which is anti-union and discriminatory legislation. I will quote two newspaper headlines “Treasury Board President imposes special legislation”, and “Ottawa forces blue collar workers back to work”. The same article had this to say about the government House leader “The Leader of the Government in the House, one of the Liberal members who sided with PSAC workers in 1991, when Brian Mulroney's Conservative government had imposed wage freezes—”

It is pretty surprising that these people are now singing a different tune. Back then, the Leader of the Government in the House was one of the so-called rat pack, which also included the present Minister of Canadian Heritage, the maverick Liberal MP for York South—Weston, a former candidate for the leadership of the Liberal Party and a former candidate for the position of Speaker of the House of Commons, whom the Liberal Party finally kicked out of its ranks. The member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell backed the alliance in those days. These members were dubbed the rat pack, and were known for giving the Progressive Conservative Party a hard time.

I could draw an analogy with France in the year 500 when Saint Rémi, while baptizing King Clovis of France, told the king to burn what he had worshipped. This is exactly what the present Leader of the Government in the House is doing. Having once defended the alliance, he is now going after it with special legislation.

The purpose of Bill C-76 is to force striking public servants of bargaining table 2 back to work. The bill also gives the government considerable leeway to impose whatever working conditions and salaries it wishes, including for correctional officers who have a strike mandate.

The federal government is pointing to the lost revenues of Prairie farmers and the backlog of tax returns due to picketing as justification for its bulldozer tactics.

I will give a brief historical background on public service negotiations.

Employer-employee relations between the federal government and public servants are governed by the Public Service Staff Relations Act, which came into effect in 1967. Placing public servants under this negotiating framework took them out of the broader framework of the Canada Labour Code.

At the time, the government justified this particular arrangement by committing to be a good employer as far as pay and working conditions are concerned, and by not taking advantage of its size and power to control the market.

Since then, particularly since the Liberals took office in 1993, these principles have been betrayed in every possible way. Using its legislative power, the government has falsified, undermined and subordinated the process of negotiation as no other employer could do. It has done so with its series of cutbacks, which have impacted heavily on public servants, and with its attempts to manipulate the taxpayers with demagoguery and the government's sizeable communication resources, as well as to abuse the House of Commons system, by giving MPs insufficient time and information to debate the matter thoroughly, as is the case now.

The federal government has abrogated the right to negotiate 8 times in the past 15 years. For 11 of those years, shipboard and hospital personnel have worked under a non-negotiated regime imposed by the federal government by legislative means, each time under the pretext that it was for the good of Canadians.

Those who work for the federal government have had to endure a whole series of unilaterally imposed laws. To name but a few, in August 1982, Bill C-124 froze the salaries of some 500,000 public servants. In December 1989, there was the back to work legislation, Bill C-49. With Bill C-29 in October 1991, the employer threatened unilateral imposition of its offer if it were not accepted.

The Labour Relations Board characterized this approach as unethical. The International Labour Organization noted that the federal government's action imposed serious restrictions on bargaining and urged the government to return to unrestricted bargaining.

Later, Bill C-113 imposed, in April 1992, a two year freeze and the unilateral extension of the collective agreement. The ILO lambasted the government for its lack of support of union rights.

In June 1993, Bill C-101 accorded the government the right to impose a vote on its final offers in any negotiations.

Now we come to the government currently in office, the Liberal Party. Bill C-17, in June 1994, continued the freeze for another two years and extended the collective agreement—six consecutive years of salary freeze. Once again, the ILO criticized the process.

With Bill C-31, still with the Liberals in office, in 1996, the federal government took up contracting out. In 1992, it closed the Pay Research Bureau, thus getting around having to take into account the facts and figures that disproved its assertions.

Bill C-26, on public service reform in 1993, gave the employer a significant advantage, judge and jury once again, on issues in the workplace.

As members know, up to now, the governments that have held office each in turn, be they Conservative or Liberal, have always been anti-union.

Bill C-76 is intended to bring about the return to work of public service employees currently on strike.

The bill also gives the government a lot of power to impose working conditions and salaries, including on correctional officers, who have a strike mandate.

Negotiations with correctional services employees, at table 4, led to a majority conciliation report, which was unanimously approved by union members. The employer tabled a minority report and the government should simply take into account the majority report that was submitted by a third party.

Negotiations at table 2, which concern general labour and trades, ships' crews, hospital services, general service and firefighters, did not lead to a majority conciliation report, since the chair of the conciliation board, the employer and the union tabled three different proposals. The gap between the offers from the employer and the union are not insurmountable, provided the government acts in good faith, something it is not doing right now.

Here is what is included in the bill. The government's offer for table 2 is lower than its previous proposal, and it is not the first time this happens. Sometimes, groups negotiate and when they are subjected to back to work legislation, the offers are invariably lower than those made previously.

The federal government was originally offering 2.75%, but has now lowered its proposed increase to 2.50%. As I said earlier, the government is obviously trying to take advantage of a situation where it is both judge and jury. It is to be noted that the salaries for workers represented at table 2 have been frozen for six years.

In addition to the pay increase, the other stumbling block is the regional rates of pay. It seems the government's offers are negligible in this regard. The government's offer for table 4 is unknown. There is a majority conciliation report, but the government seems to be ignoring it. The bill would allow the government to impose its own conditions, without taking into account the conciliation report that was unanimously approved by the union.

Here is the position of the Bloc Quebecois on Bill C-76. With this special legislation, the government is attempting to impose a collective agreement on table 2 and 4 employers, under the pretext of serving the taxpayers' interests. Quite some feat, when what the government really wants is to make use of them to violate the rights of workers.

In fact, the picketing could come to an end today, if the government wanted that to happen. It would merely have to accept the majority conciliation report for table 2 and binding arbitration for table 4.

Generally speaking, we are opposed to the use of special legislation, which would have the effect of denying the fundamental right to strike, particularly in the case of workers who have had to put up with this same treatment on numerous occasions already. On the other hand, we regret the inconvenience that the picketing by public servants has caused to Quebeckers and Canadians.

What we in the Bloc Quebecois want, is for an agreement to be reached between the government and the workers of tables 2 and 4, and for the services to which the public is entitled to be restored. There is a way of doing this: the government finally sits down at the bargaining table and negotiates in good faith, once and for all.

At table 4, a majority conciliation report accepted unanimously by the union is not taken into consideration by the bill. One wonders why, since this is a worthwhile agreement, one proposed by an independent conciliator, which the union finds acceptable and which would make it possible to avoid a strike. All of the fundamental principles of labour relations would be respected.

At table 2, the union says it is fully prepared to go to arbitration. It therefore agrees to bow to the judgment of an independent adjudicator, and the picketing would thus cease immediately. The problems cited by the government in order to impose the bulldozer legislation would cease to exist.

And what does the government have to say? That the union demands are unreasonable. If the union demands are so unreasonable, why refuse arbitration? What has this government got to lose?

In fact, this bill is nothing more than a show of strength in order to impose a collective agreement and avoid the usual process.

Our position is clear: the freedom to organize supposedly exists in Canada, and when they have good reason to do so, workers go on strike. That is part of a fair balance of power, except when the employer is the government and abuses its legislative power. Special legislation should be kept as a last resort, until the government returns to the bargaining table with an offer that is acceptable to the workers and resolves the problem democratically, in a civilized manner, through negotiations.

As a former trade unionist with the CEQ and the CSN, I cannot agree with Bill C-76. Like my Bloc Quebecois colleagues and my colleague from Trois-Rivières, I will oppose this bill.

[Mirabel Airport, March 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in an attempt to sort out the mess the federal government made of Mirabel, the Government of Quebec has just introduced a series of tax measures to turn the airport into an international free trade zone.

However, federal personal and corporate taxes will continue to apply.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. When will the federal government do its share to get the airport area up and running again by offering the same tax benefits as Quebec is offering for the Mirabel international free trade zone?

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, March 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague and neighbor.

In 1962, the Carter Commission was set up. If memory serves, the Prime Minister of Canada at the time was Mr. Diefenbaker. So the commission was created by the Progressive Conservatives.

My colleague told me this commission completed its work four years later when the Liberals were in power. Is what I am now saying correct?

[Competition Act, March 12th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, this is the first time I have risen in this House with the name of my new riding, because the name of Mirabel, the former international airport, was added yesterday.

Bill C-393, an act to amend the Competition Act, 1998, negative option marketing, is intended to prohibit this practice, that is invoicing for a good or a service the customer has not expressly approved.

This bill proposes an amendment to the Competition Act and is intended to prohibit this practice in the banking, trust company, co-operative credit association, telecommunications and broadcasting sectors. Contravention of this legislation could result in the charge of no fine to a fine of $100,000.

The director of the competition bureau would be required to report annually on this matter. The governor in council is authorized to make regulations to exempt services that require an exemption to remain competitive, for example, francophone broadcasting services.

This is the background of this bill. C-393 is the third attempt by the member for Sarnia—Lambton to prohibit negative option billing in the cable sector. However, Bill C-393 differs from its two predecessors because it gathers in much more than just cable companies.

In 1994, the CRTC authorized six new English language broadcasting services and only two French language ones.

In 1995, Canada's anglophone cable companies withdrew certain basic broadcast services and expanded the volume to include the services previously distributed on the basic service and the new services offered by the CRTC.

Consumers reacted vigorously to the upheaval in their schedules. Their reaction was described as a revolt, but consumers did not like anyone playing with the schedule, having to pay more for services they had had previously and having to pay for services they did not want.

They did not take kindly to having to refuse the new service, or receive it by default otherwise.

In 1996, the member for Sarnia—Lambton introduced Bill C-216, which was to amend the Broadcasting Act to prohibit negative option billing by cable companies.

Although the Bloc Quebecois agreed with the bill in principle, it was opposed to it for the following reasons: Bill C-216 represented interference in commercial relations between businesses and consumers, a field of provincial jurisdiction; the bill was impossible to enforce, there being no technology for providing television on demand; the member's bill would have required the explicit consent of all subscribers for a new channel to be broadcast, which, to all intents and purposes, prevented new channels from starting up.

The bill had a particularly unfortunate effect in Quebec, where negative option billing is needed to ensure the widest possible distribution of a broadcasting service, failing which the service would be too expensive or would never get off the ground.

The Senate amended the bill in order to protect the francophone market. The bill died on the order paper when the 1997 general election was called.

On November 25, 1997, the member for Sarnia—Lambton very laudably went at it again, this time with Bill C-288. The purpose of this bill was essentially the same as that of Bill C-216 and its objectives were almost identical. At the time, the bill was not made votable.

On April 23, 1998, the member for Sarnia—Lambton stubbornly, and I mean this as a compliment, introduced Bill C-393, another bill on negative option billing.

In the clause defining client, enterprise and service, the member proposes that the bill also apply to banks, trust companies, co-operative associations, broadcasting undertakings, telecommunications undertakings, and insurance companies. The bill says that certain services may be excluded by the governor in council by regulation.

Section 53.1(2) sets out the procedures that will have to be followed by businesses covered under this bill to make sure that the client is fully informed of the nature of the new service, of the date the new service is to begin, of its cost calculated monthly and annually, of the fact that the new service is not mandatory, of the fact that the client may obtain the new service by signing a business reply card, and of any other matter that may be prescribed.

Paragraph ( b ) of this section reads as follows: b ) the enterprise has received the express consent of the client for the purchase or reception of the new service by the client.

Section 53.1(3) says that the prohibition does not apply where the new service replaces another service for which the client has already paid a similar or higher fee, or where the new service is free of charge.

Subsection 53.1(4) deals with offences and punishment. Fines range from $0 to $100,000. This section also provides that officers and directors of a corporation are considered party to and guilty of the offence and liable to the punishment provided for the offence.

Clause 2 gives the Attorney General of Canada the authority to institute prosecutions. It requires the director of the Competition Bureau to report annually concerning the number of complaints received from the public, a description of the complaints and proceedings undertaken under the Act. The report must be tabled in both Houses.

Clause 4 gives the governor in council the authority to make regulations for carrying out section 53, therefore allowing the governor in council to exempt enterprises that would otherwise come under the act, to allow them to remain competitive.

The rest of the bill provides for consequential amendments to harmonize the Competition Act.

I remind the House that, under the Constitution, contracts, local trade and consumer protection are areas of provincial jurisdiction. I must stress this fact.

Under section 93 of the Canadian Constitution, which gives the provinces authority over matters related to property and civil law, contracts, local trade and consumer protection issues come under provincial jurisdiction. These powers enabled the introduction in the Civil Code of Quebec of a provision on contract formulation, attached in part.

The powers given to provinces by the Constitution Act enabled the Government of Quebec to pass the Consumers Protection Act, which prohibits negative option marketing.

I will conclude by recalling the position of the Bloc Quebecois. As I said earlier, our party agrees with the hon. member in theory and points out that the Government of Quebec introduced provisions prohibiting negative option marketing within the boundaries of Quebec.

But the Bloc Quebecois still opposes Bill C-393 as it opposed Bill C-216 and C-288, for the following reasons: this bill intrudes into provincial jurisdiction over trade—

[Mirabel Region, March 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, what they want at Mirabel is for the federal government to do its part. They want a clear answer. Quebeckers are waiting for the federal government to clean up the mess it made.

Will the federal government harmonize its taxes with those of Quebec so Mirabel may become an international free trade zone?