Osvaldo Nunez

[Canada Elections Act, November 26th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by congratulating the hon. member for Richelieu on his excellent speech, especially the part on political party funding and his criticism of contributions made by large corporations to the traditional parties, including the Liberal Party.

I have a few figures, some examples of the incredible amounts contributed to the Liberal Party of Canada during the 1993 election campaign by companies such as Canadian Airlines, $9,000; Canadian Pacific, $64,000; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, $86,000; General Electric, $14,000; Bombardier, $45,000; Eaton's, $15,000; Molson, $53,000; Bank of Nova Scotia, $76,000; Canadian Bankers Association, $14,600; B.C. Inc., $52,000. Incredible, the amounts that were given to the Liberal Party in 1993 in the middle of an election campaign. How can a government look after the interests of the average individual when it is financed by Canada's large corporations? Would the hon. member for Richelieu care to comment?

[Canada Elections Act, November 26th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, who said he did not think this bill was being rushed through. I for one think it is. I think we do not have enough time to consider it fully. We are under great pressure to pass this bill forthwith or almost. That is undemocratic, especially when the opposition cannot express its views on legislation as important as this one.

I travelled in Latin America and I regularly meet people from foreign countries. They are very interested in the Canadian electoral system. They want their countries to have more democratic, more transparent election legislation.

While Canada has a democratic system, we could go one step further by having in our legislation provisions similar to those found in Quebec's legislation for example. In Quebec, only individual voters are allowed to finance electoral campaigns, not corporations and big companies as is currently the case in Canada.

There is another problem I would like to put to the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. Returning officers are appointed by the government. These people play a key role in an election. In Quebec, they are appointed by the Quebec director general of elections. Why not have a similar provision saying that, in Canada, returning officers shall be appointed by the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada in an objective and impartial fashion, on the basis of a competition, instead of on a patronage basis as is currently the case?

In almost every riding in Quebec, friends of the old Conservative regime were replaced with Liberals or friends of the Liberal Party. That is undemocratic, and something should be done about it. Returning officers should be appointed by the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada on the basis of an open competition. That is my question to the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.

[Canada Elections Act, November 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-63, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Referendum Act, at the report stage and more specifically to Group No. 5 and Motion No. 11 standing in the name of the hon. member for Bellechasse.

I fully support his motion to the effect that there should be an endeavour to conclude agreements between the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada and his provincial counterparts, and especially with Quebec's director general of elections, on the use of lists of electors.

I shall, if I may, add some general comments on this bill. This is my first chance to speak in the debate on Bill C-63.

The bill will make it possible to establish a permanent register of electors and would set the minimum duration of a federal election campaign at 36 days. The computerized register of electors will be established from information collected by means of an enumeration held outside of an electoral period, probably in the spring of 1997.

A preliminary list will be distributed within five days of issuing the writ for the next election. The lists will be used in other, subsequent consultations. The election campaign will therefore last a minimum of 36 days instead of 47, which is the case today.

Let us take a brief look at the history of the federal electoral legislation we are about to amend. On October 27, 1964, the federal government appointed an advisory committee headed by Alphonse Barbeau, with a mandate to inquire into the limitation and control of election expenses incurred during federal elections.

In its report, the Barbeau committee recommended as follows: one, political parties should be legally recognized; two, a degree of financial equality should be established among candidates and among political parties; three, an effort should be made to increase public participation in politics through tax concessions to donors; four, costs of election campaigns should be reduced, by shortening the campaign period, by placing limitations on expenditures by candidates and parties, and by prohibiting the payment of poll workers on election day; five, public confidence in political financing should be strengthened, by requiring candidates and parties to disclose their incomes and expenditures; six, a registry should be established to audit and publish the financial reports required, and to enforce the provisions of the proposed "Election and Political Finances Act"; seven, miscellaneous amendments to broadcasting legislation should be enacted to improve the political communications field.

These recommendations were implemented at the time of the reform of the electoral act in 1974, which included the following basic principles: first, a limitation of candidates' expenses; second, the publication of contributions to and the expenses of all political parties; third, the encouragement of individuals' participation through the according of tax credits for political contributions and government funding of political parties. These fundamental principles continue to underlie the federal electoral act and remain in effect.

At the end of the 1980s, the Conservative government set up the Lortie commission to review the Canada Elections Act. In its 1991 report, the commission refused to go along with the real and truly democratic funding of political parties.

Current federal regulations do not cover nomination campaigns, leadership campaigns, candidates' political activities prior to elections, party trust funds, most riding association activities and the activities of interest groups during campaigns.

Big business is the major contributor to the traditional political parties and has the greatest influence on government.

I have here a list of contributions to the Liberal Party of Canada's campaign fund in 1993. The list of contributors includes all the major companies and banks in Canada. The Bank of Montreal, for example, contributed $94,000; the Royal Bank, $88,000; the Toronto Dominion Bank, $80,000; SCN-Lavalin, $73,000; Bombardier, $49,994; Labatt, $62,000; Air Canada, $30,000; Nova Corporation of Alberta, $50,000, and so forth.

This really shows the influence of companies on policies of a government, of a political party. Today, the Liberal Party is funded in large part by big business, by the major banks, in Canada, and cannot therefore act in the interests of ordinary people, being too much influenced already by these political contributions.

Passed in 1977, under Premier René Lévesque, the Quebec Elections Bill provides that only an individual, not a company, can make a contribution. This legislation eliminates the political influence that some vested interest groups could have. Obviously, the objectives of those vested interest groups are more to change the thrust of public policy than to allow a political party whose ideology is close to that of a member of those groups to get into power, to stay in power.

The Quebec Elections Bill limits contributions to $3,000 per year, per elector. It is the director general of elections of Quebec who monitors the election expenses of political parties. Also, the official representative of each party must file a yearly financial report with the director general. This report is in the public domain.

Bill C-63 draws on the report of the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing, that is the Lortie Commission. This bill also draws on the recommendations of the chief electoral officer of Canada.

The permanent list of electors will abolish the need for the door to door census we previously had to do before each election. Thanks to that list, and the shorter electoral period, the country will save $30 million on each election.

Finally I would like to say I condemn the government for resorting to patronage when dealing with the election of the returning officers. Nearly all the officers have been replaced in Quebec, even though the chief electoral officer had said some of the returning officers should stay.

Once again, I suggest that these returning officers should be appointed by the chief electoral officer, following a competition, just like public servants. For all those reasons, I have some great reservations about Bill C-63 and I think I will vote against it.

[Old Age Security, November 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in September, I invited the retirees and preretirees in my riding of Bourassa to attend a meeting to exchange ideas and information on the old age security system, where the new seniors benefit was discussed.

I wish to extend my warmest thanks to the 200 participants, and particularly to the AQDR of Montreal North and the Regroupement des personnes à la retraite CTM-FTQ. I listened to what my constituents had to say. They are very concerned and they raised several points the Minister of Finance would do well to look into, including preserving the universality of the old age security system, reviewing the tax system in favour of low income seniors, and maintaining the retirement age at 65.

I urge the government therefore to take into account the demands made by retirees and preretirees in reforming the Canada Pension Plan.

[Citizenship Act, November 21st, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-223 on the oath of allegiance, tabled on March 6 by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce.

The hon. member proposes to replace the present oath of allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and

successors, with an oath of allegiance to Canada and the Constitution of Canada. The new text would read as follows:

I swear ( or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Canada and the Constitution of Canada, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

This is the fourth time the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce has tabled this kind of bill. The other bills were introduced in 1972, 1988, 1989 and 1991.

Some of the arguments made by the hon. member in support of this bill are as follows: the Queen is the head of state of several Commonwealth countries; it is hard to decide to whom our loyalty should go, when Canada has a disagreement with other Commonwealth countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia or New Zealand.

We note that citizens of British origin, which include the hon. member, represent only 23 per cent of the Canadian population. The remaining percentage consists of francophones, native people and people from many other countries.

As we know, all new citizens must swear allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors. Immigrants come from all over the globe: from China, India, Italy, Portugal, Poland, Chile, El Salvador, Algeria, Morocco, and so forth. In fact, more than one third of the Canadian population comes from countries other than Great Britain or France.

Immigrants come here and after three years' residence, they can apply for Canadian citizenship. Please note they did not apply for British or any other citizenship. Some of them are confused and do not understand to whom they are swearing allegiance. In fact, according to the present wording of the oath, they swear allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. To some people, swearing this oath of allegiance does not mean much, while others do so reluctantly. I myself swore allegiance to the Queen in 1978, when I became a Canadian citizen, and in 1993 before taking up my duties as a member of Parliament. I felt it was somewhat anachronistic to have to swear allegiance to a foreign queen.

According to the hon. member, Bill C-223 is entirely in line with the Canadianization of institutions, symbols and traditions that has been going on since the end of the Second World War. It is interesting to note that formerly, governors general were always British subjects. The Privy Council in London was the court of last resort. It has since been replaced by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Canadian citizenship has been in existence only since 1940. Before that time, Canadians were British subjects. The flag was adopted in 1964, followed by a Canadian national anthem.

According to public opinion polls, a significant percentage of Canadians believe it is time Canada broke its ties with the monarchy. This percentage is even higher in Quebec.

In 1994, acting on a specific request from the ministers, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, of which I am vice-chairman, started an analysis of the Citizenship Act, one of the main points of which is the oath of allegiance.

A number of witnesses analyzed the role of the monarchy, since the oath refers to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Some people wanted the oath to remain as is, since it reflects the constitutional nature of Canada, whose head of state is the Queen. Many witnesses, however, came out in favour of eliminating all references to the monarchy. They wanted the oath to give pride of place to Canada as a country. This would better reflect the diversity that is so typical of our society.

The committee decided to recommend a new version of the oath which would continue to refer to the monarchy while adding Canada. In a minority report, the Bloc Quebecois came out against this version.

Although I agree with eliminating any references to the Queen and to the monarchy in general, I cannot support the text proposed by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. This version favours swearing allegiance to the Constitution of Canada, which Quebec never ratified. We should recall that Quebec had certain demands and that despite its refusal to ratify the process, Canada decided in 1981 to patriate the Constitution. The federal government ignored the historic rights of the only French-speaking society in Canada.

In 1994, Australia, another Commonwealth country, removed all references to the queen in its oath of allegiance, which it calls "Pledge of Commitment".

The former Minister of Citizenship and Immigration had promised to table in the fall of 1994 a bill to amend the Citizenship Act, a promise the government has so far failed to keep. In 1995, the Department of Immigration had a meeting in Vancouver with ten authors and five public servants to revise and draft a new oath, which reads as follows:

"I am a citizen of Canada and I make this commitment to uphold all our laws and freedoms, to respect our people in their diversity, to work for our common well-being and to safeguard and honour this ancient northern land".

The wording is not the inspiration of the century, despite the $30,000 cost to taxpayers.

Shortly after her appointment in January, the new minister declared that the country needed a new oath of allegiance.

I have noted that the debate on the oath of citizenship and the monarchy is often very heated in English Canada, while it is not important in Quebec. This is another difference between Quebec and Canada. The Quebec National Assembly has just passed a motion calling essentially for the abolishment of the position of lieutenant-governor, as it is primarily symbolic and a hold over from a colonial past.

For these reasons and especially because Quebec was left out of the Constitution, I must vote against Bill C-223.

[Canadian Council For Refugees, November 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the national conference of the Canadian Council for Refugees is being held from November 21 to 25 at the Aylmer monastery. Commencing today, dozens of participants will assess the situation of refugees in Canada.

The CCR represents 138 associations across the country, all of which are dedicated to providing assistance to refugees. Since its creation in 1977, the Canadian Council for Refugees has been arguing that no individual should be deported to a country where he may be jailed or tortured.

I fervently hope this conference will produce positive measures to improve settlement requirements for those refugees who choose Canada and Quebec as their new home. The government should draw inspiration from the humane policies put forth by this organization, which I commend for the outstanding job it has done over the past 19 years.

[Petitions, November 21st, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am submitting a petition signed by 116 people from my riding of Bourassa, Montreal North and elsewhere.

The petitioners are asking Parliament to start procedures to abolish the Senate. Their request is based on a number of arguments, including the fact that the Senate is made up of non-elected people who are accountable to no one, that its annual operating budget is $43 million, and that it refuses to account to House of Commons committees for this money.

The petitioners point out that the Senate duplicates the work done by members of the House of Commons and, in this period of economic restraint, they wonder about the relevance of maintaining institutions that are as costly as they are useless.

[Canada Labour Code, November 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-66, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, which was tabled by the labour minister on November 4. This legislation implements reforms to the collective bargaining provisions of part I of the Canada Labour Code, which govern federally legislated private sector employers and unions.

The key components of this reform are: the creation of the Canada industrial relations board, with extensive powers; changes to the conciliation process; the establishment of the rights and obligations of the parties during a work stoppage; the requirement to continue essential services during a conflict; making the undermining of a trade union's representational capacity during a strike or lockout an unfair labour practice; improving access to collective bargaining for off-site workers; and a requirement to maintain services affecting grain shipments, in the event of a work stoppage.

I have many criticisms regarding this bill, but for now I will only deal with the issue of replacement workers. Clause 42 prohibits the use of replacement workers only when an employer uses them for the purpose of undermining a trade union's representational capacity. For example, if an employer refuses to negotiate while using replacement workers at the same time, the new Canada industrial relations board could prohibit such a practice.

However, a company merely has to negotiate with the union, even if only for the sake of it, to avoid this prohibition and continue to use scabs. It is inadmissible. It will be difficult, if not impossible, to demonstrate that this unfair practice seeks to undermine a trade union's representational capacity. In most cases, the conflict will have been resolved without such a practice being confirmed.

The basic principles of our collective labour relations system make it clearly illegitimate to hire replacement workers during a strike or a lock-out. This practice brings intruders into a dispute affecting exclusively two clearly identified parties, throws off the balance of power, and curtails the freedom of expression of strikers.

The rationale of economic pressure is that the loss of salary will be an incitement for the workers to be cautious and accept a settlement as soon as possible. It should be the same for the employer. At any rate, there is no comparison between the day to day economic hardship of strikers and that of an employer who can keep the production going with the help of management workers.

During a strike, employees can go into debt for a long time and jeopardize their professional career, not to mention their financial problems. During my long experience in the labour movement, I witnessed some tragic situations in this regard.

When an employer hires replacement workers, strikers have an immediate gut reaction of utter frustration. They feel personally targeted. They see this practice as unfair. The focus of the conflict shifts from working conditions to the hiring of scabs and job stealers. That frustration brings a degree of harshness into the conflict. That gut reaction of strikers is all the more serious since employment has become such a challenging problem in our society. Therefore, the use of replacement workers has a very negative impact on the strikers' behaviour.

Organized labour is very disappointed by the fact that the government has not totally prohibited the use of scabs in its amendments to the Canada Labour Code. Nancy Riche, Executive Vice-President of the Canadian Labour Congress, has condemned the government for once again not taking this opportunity to put an end to confrontation in the event of a strike or a lockout.

Clément Godbout, president of the FTQ, also complains that nothing in this bill prohibits the hiring of scabs. The FTQ represents almost 100,000 salaried employees under federal jurisdiction.

On October 22, I introduced Bill C-338 to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act. The purpose of this bill is to prohibit the use of replacement workers during a strike or a lockout, as is currently done in Quebec and in British Columbia.

The bill also contains provisions to ensure that essential services are maintained during a labour dispute. It is also aimed at maintaining a balance between the negotiating parties in order to shorten labour disputes and avert violence. My bill will affect some 700,000 Canadian workers under federal jurisdiction.

By introducing Bill C-338, I fulfilled a commitment I made to Canadian and Quebec workers. I think anti-scab measures are urgently needed.

I urge the numerous Liberal members who, in the past, supported this kind of measure to exert pressure on the labour minister and their government. For once, the government should listen to the demands of the unions in this area. The Bloc Quebecois and I will pursue our efforts until legislation to prohibit the hiring of replacement workers is passed.

Earlier, I was listening to the labour minister who said that the absence of a consensus between the unions and management led him to decide not to include real anti-scab provisions. Such an excuse is unacceptable. There will never be a consensus in this regard. The government should have the fortitude to made such important and crucial decisions, as the Quebec government did in

1. The measures taken at the time by the Quebec government are now instrumental in settling labour disputes as soon as possible.

I must say that I am also disappointed to note that the bill does not include any provision concerning the precautionary cessation of work for pregnant women. In Quebec, for instance, pregnant women are protected by the Act Respecting Occupational Health and Safety. However, Quebec women working for the federal government are not covered by this important provision.

I also regret that the bill introduced by the minister does not give RCMP employees the right to negotiate their working conditions through collective bargaining. I have a lot of reservations about this bill. We will have the time to express our concerns in committee and then to debate the issue in the House at third reading.

[Immigration, November 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have no congratulations to offer to either the minister or the RCMP. In early October, one woman died as a result of this smuggling.

In order to put an end to this unacceptable smuggling of people, which may involve accomplices in high places in Hong Kong, can the minister inform us of the steps that have been taken, and the agreements there have been, if any, with authorities in the countries of origin of these illegal immigrants?

[Immigration, November 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.

Although the Minister of Justice stated in this House last October 7 that some real progress was being made in the battle against the smuggling of illegal immigrants, we learned again this morning that the Canadian borders seem to have become a real

sieve, and that our country is being used as a means of transit for illegal immigrants from Asia headed for the United States.

In light of the intensification of this problem, can the minister tells us what additional efforts his government is bringing to bear on controlling the Canadian borders more effectively?