Len Taylor

[Competition Act, March 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this important private members' initiative.

I too wish to congratulate the member for Lambton-Middlesex for her dedication to this issue. She and her office have worked diligently with some in the industry to achieve a goal. I am very happy to spend time in support of her work.

I was very pleased to hear the interventions of the other members this afternoon which indicated that there is a great need to make changes in the Competition Act to support the communities we represent and the economy of our country. At the same time, the debate indicates there is considerable support for the bill and the ideas that go along with strengthening the bill.

The member for Huron-Bruce gave us a good indication about what someone from within the industry thinks of the need for the bill. I was grateful for his intervention because it strengthened my confidence in the overall outlook on the bill.

For the benefit of those who are hearing about this for the first time, Bill C-221 is an act to amend the Competition Act, which creates an offence for manufacturers and distributors of motor vehicles and farm equipment to engage in certain marketing practices with their dealers. In virtually all cases, franchise agreements provide that a dealer shall not carry any other line or "dual" without the written permission of the manufacturer. In practice we know that permission is rarely forthcoming.

I come from a farming area in northern Saskatchewan where the communities are very small. The people who farm in those communities have great distances to travel for their support. In the past, farm dealers have driven throughout our area as they do in other parts of Canada. Over the years, the economics of rural Canada with a sparse population with decreasing incomes from the farm have led to a lot of changes in the way in which the agriculture industry is serviced. Where we once had many dealers, we now have a handful.

It makes it very difficult because there are many different product lines and there is a lot of loyalty to the original product lines on the farms scattered throughout northwest Saskatchewan and elsewhere. Fewer dealers and a great number of product lines results in many farmers finding it difficult to obtain the parts and service for the equipment they originally bought.

This private members' initiative gives the opportunity to some of the dealers currently carrying single product lines to recognize, understand and support the marketplace within their area. Many different product lines are not able to be serviced under the current arrangements. It would be marvellous if the local single product line dealer in one community could provide parts and service for many of the product lines that exist within that dealer's community. It would be of great benefit to the whole region.

At the same time, there might be an opportunity for new dealerships to open their doors, servicing not just one product line but several product lines. They could service the entire community. Rural Saskatchewan, particularly the remote rural part where several members of this House come from, is currently so underserviced by the equipment dealers.

I am very proud of the equipment dealers that currently function within northwest Saskatchewan and Saskatchewan in general. They have had a very difficult time throughout the past 10 years with the decline in farm prices. They have stuck with their communities and they work hard in them. Quite often they and their staff volunteer their time in the communities for everything from coaching minor hockey and baseball through to calling some of the church bingos that still exist throughout the riding. I am very grateful that those people are able to contribute to the communities in the way they do. This legislation offers greater opportunities for those people to remain in our communities and for others like them to find themselves there as well.

I do not want to go on at great length because there are others who wish to speak to this bill. The restrictions that have been put in place have certainly increased costs and reduced availability within the marketplace. I hope that this bill has the support of the members of the House.

The member for Lambton-Middlesex has certainly done her homework with regard to this bill. She has talked to everyone in the industry from the Ontario Farm Implements Dealers Association through to dealers across Canada. I know they have contacted her because some of them from Saskatchewan have contacted me asking to whom they can direct some of their information, concerns and support.

I am also aware that the Minister of Industry has tried to address this issue through the competitions bureau and that earlier this year the competitions bureau was to hold hearings and should have reported on this. I would have been happier to be standing here today supporting a government bill that I knew was going through all three readings in this House and that I could vote in favour of to ensure that with government support the legislation would go through and this would have full government support.

In the absence of government support and in the absence of a bill presented by the Minister of Industry, I am very happy to be able to stand today and support the private member's initiative by the member for Lambton-Middlesex. As I said earlier, I commend the bill to the House. I would hope that members of the House will find it in their power to put some pressure on the government to see that this type of legislation finds its way into reality.

The member's diligence, dedication and hard work in this regard should have its rewards. I only hope that they are forthcoming.

[Criminal Code, March 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last week the human resources development minister responsible for the unemployment insurance fund said some pretty incredible things that greatly concerned me. I am concerned because I think the spoken words underline a complete misunderstanding of the needs of Canadians and a misunderstanding of his own ministerial responsibilities.

In the House of Commons the minister responded to a question I asked him by accusing union leaders of forcing ordinary people into the streets of New Brunswick with "all kinds of false and erroneous information to exploit them". In answer to another question he said that union leaders should "stop exploiting vulnerable people in our society". I wonder who is exploiting whom.

The people of New Brunswick have had a lot to say about the changes being forced upon them by this government, not the least of which have been the changes to the unemployment insurance fund. We all know that the fund itself is in a surplus position because the government has cut the benefits and restricted eligibility. Where some 70 per cent of the unemployed used to receive benefits, now only some 40 per cent are eligible. At a time of high unemployment, one would expect the insurance fund to be in a deficit but this government is forcing the surplus position and that can only be achieved by exploiting the people who need it the most.

Perhaps the minister has not noticed but the people of New Brunswick and the people of other parts of Canada have noticed and they do not like what they see. Perhaps the minister has not noticed or perhaps he does not care, but ordinary, real people do not go out on to the streets, take up placards and demonstrate against their government unless they are frustrated and angry.

Those are words that accurately describe the feelings of the people who are out on the streets of New Brunswick. They are frustrated and they are angry at the changes being forced upon them. They are also the ones who are driving the demonstrations. They are demanding that their leaders do something about the issue.

Perhaps the minister has not noticed but the democratically elected leaders and those who work for them have recognized this frustration, this anger and this need for social programming that the ordinary, real citizens of New Brunswick and elsewhere have expressed.

The minister has chosen to attack his opponents instead of their ideas possibly because he has no real response to those ideas. If cutting the program and building a surplus in the fund to eventually apply against the national debt is the government's goal, then it is doing fine. However, if it is working with people through the difficult times between jobs or working with the economy to create the jobs needed to put people back to work, then it has failed miserably and it must be held accountable.

When the minister is asked to be accountable, he responds by questioning the credentials of those who express their concerns. When the head of the Canadian Labour Congress asks to be heard and asks for a meeting, the minister says: "I would not speak to Bob White if he was standing in the middle of the Sahara Desert with a glass of cold water and I had been there riding a camel for two weeks and was dry as a bone". What kind of an insulting comment is that?

Certainly the minister has a responsibility to meet with and discuss the important issues of his department with the people who are democratically elected to represent the people most affected by the decisions of that department.

I remain concerned that the minister has failed to understand that the real people of New Brunswick and other parts of Canada who are unemployed but want to work are simply looking for work. In the absence of work, they want to know that the insurance program they support will be there to support them. When the large profitable corporations are shedding jobs and the federal government is not there to protect them, they are going to turn to their other representatives for help.

I ask the minister to reconsider his comments and tell us that he will work to design an employment insurance program that benefits, not penalizes, those whose only real goal is to find and maintain a decent job.

[Trade, March 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats and Canadian farmers are concerned that the federal government has not responded strongly enough to recent actions by the American congress.

The minister knows that the collapse of the American farm bill means that the subsidy levels for corn can revert to $7. The price guarantees for wheat are at $9. The U.S. government has reduced grazing fees on government lands by 20 per cent, creating another subsidy for beef producers.

Can the minister of agriculture assure Canadian producers with all sincerity that he is vigorously challenging these U.S. violations of our trade agreements?

[Employment, March 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are starting to understand the failures of the completely unaccountable free market economic system.

Statistics Canada released the results of a study yesterday showing that most of the jobs being created in Canada are low wage often temporary service sector jobs which are demoralizing the

people who must rely on them for their family incomes. This comes at a time when the corporate and government sectors are also downsizing and laying off reasonably well paid long term employees despite their recording of large corporate profits.

The work world is changing dramatically and it is obvious the federal government is pushing the negative aspects of that trend. New Democrats believe that corporations must be accountable. That is why we support the implementation of a new Canadian code of corporate citizenship.

We call on the government to stop apologizing for their friends in the banks and instead ask them to take some of the responsibility for the long term healthy future of the Canadian economy.

[Translation]

[Employment, March 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today in Question Period the Minister of Human Resources Development said that the democratically elected union leaders in Canada were not representing their members and that they were exploiting real people.

Does the minister not understand that these real people are concerned about the real lack of jobs and the real need for a comprehensive unemployment insurance program which protects them and their real families while profitable corporations and governments are shedding jobs? Will he not take a second look at his comments of earlier today and apologize to those people who only want real work?

[Public Service Of Canada, March 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's announcement by the President of the Treasury Board concerning a lifting of the freeze on public service wages must be taken with a grain of salt. We cannot forget that collective bargaining in the federal public service has been suspended for almost six years during which time there has been massive job loss throughout all departments and agencies.

Let us keep in mind that the Treasury Board package offered yesterday ties the new wage package to privatization, further contracting out of existing jobs, and additional schemes that make it easier for people to leave the public service, things the New Democratic Party find completely unacceptable.

Again, we are seeing the Liberals supporting the collective bargaining process but setting the terms of the negotiations before they even begin. The Liberals seem once again to want their cake and eat it too.

[Canada Labour Code, March 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. The party's position on nuclear matters is quite clear. As members know, the issue in front of the House is labour legislation. It is people involved in existing industries. They are people who have collective bargaining rights and those rights must be respected. Regardless of the future position of the nuclear industry and whether there are federal funds available to continue subsidizing it, as it has been for years, the workers in the industry deserve the respect and protection that they have been afforded in the past. I think we should keep the issue centred on that for the debate today.

[Canada Labour Code, March 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today on Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code relating to nuclear undertakings. Like my colleagues on the opposition benches, I

extend my congratulations to the minister on his appointment. He has served this country well in his other capacities in opposition and in government. I look forward to working with him in his capacity as Minister of Labour.

I was appointed by my leader on January 10, 1996 as the New Democratic Party labour critic. I have spent a considerable amount of time over the last few weeks bringing myself up to speed with the various legislation the government may be engaged in, such as the review of the Canada Labour Code, and with various union responses to government undertakings in this regard. I will enjoy the debates with the minister and the Liberal government over the next year relating to human activity and the conditions affecting Canadians in the workplace.

The government and the opposition seem to think this bill is nothing but housekeeping; that it simply transfers from one level of government to another a process that should be simple and easy to understand. My colleagues in the Reform Party want to extend this across the board, beyond the specific legislation. That is another matter entirely.

We have a very specific bill here aimed at the workers of Ontario Hydro. I want to make clear at the outset that I was one of those in the House today denying unanimous consent to speed all aspects of the bill through the House today.

I did that simply because I do not believe that all aspects of this legislation have been heard by members of the House. I think reference to the committee will be useful in that members of the House, particularly members of the opposition, might be able to hear from some of those people who will be affected directly by this legislation to assist them in making up their minds about whether this is the proper thing to do.

I do not feel comfortable as a member of the House having to make decisions affecting people's lives when I have not heard all sides of the story, especially as they would be presented in argument to us as legislators.

Let me put forward a couple of matters that have come to my attention. I will repeat some of the things the minister put on the table because it is important to understand the full context in which the bill is being brought to us.

As indicated, before 1994 workers at nuclear power plants in Canada came under the jurisdiction of provincial labour legislation. In Ontario this would be the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

In 1993 the Society of Ontario Hydro Professional and Administrative Employees applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board to be certified under the Canada Labour Code; in other words, federal jurisdiction. The application ended up in litigation before the Supreme Court of Canada. In 1994 the supreme court decided the nuclear operations of Ontario Hydro did fall within federal jurisdiction.

A certification was requested by the workers of Ontario Hydro under the Canada Labour Code. The supreme court upheld them in this decision. The decision also applied therefore to nuclear workers in Quebec and New Brunswick, and that is where I believe some of the confusion exists today.

If they were under provincial jurisdiction and the workers wanted to be under federal jurisdiction, and the supreme court agreed with them to be under federal jurisdiction, why is the government today moving with great haste to put them back under provincial jurisdiction?

I want to clarify this contradiction. I cannot in all good conscience stand here and agree with the members of the government and the members of the opposition in allowing this to go through. It is important that the workers, especially those who are part of that application just two years ago, are heard by the members of the House and consulted and perhaps listened to.

The legislation today puts labour relations involving nuclear workers back under the jurisdiction of provincial labour relations instead of under the Canada Labour Code. The government says the legislation is needed because it is too difficult for provincial utilities to manage their labour relations if their workforce is under two different jurisdictions. Non-nuclear hydro employees are still covered by provincial legislation.

Obviously, as the minister indicated, the legislation is intended for the Ontario Hydro workforce but will apply in future after negotiations with Quebec, New Brunswick and even Saskatchewan.

I have been informed that both the Society of Ontario Hydro Professional and Administrative Employees and the power workers union in Ontario are opposed to this legislation. We have not heard that indicated in the debate today.

The workers want to continue to be covered by the Canada Labour Code because in all fairness they are quite worried about how they might be treated by the present Ontario government. The provincial government has already legislated away rights and benefits of public sector employees and has taken provincial labour legislation back 20 years.

The Mike Harris government in Ontario is not a friend to public sector workers. For the federal government to arbitrarily send workers under federal labour legislation under the arm of the Harris government has many of them quite fearful.

As I understand it, the unions say the federal government introduced Bill C-3 without notice or consultation with them. They believe the government is pushing this through because the federal and provincial governments want to strengthen management's hand

when the power workers' contract is about to expire and contract negotiations are about to begin.

The unions believe that this move may have implications on how workers, who may not be pleased with the process and who may be considering strike action, will be dealt with. In other words, the provincial government will have the ability to legislate all striking hydro workers back to work without consideration of the collective bargaining process. This could have severe consequences concerning the hydro union's rights if nuclear operations are sold or transferred as is being considered within the Ontario context.

There is a great deal to be considered under these circumstances. As many members know, the privatization of the system in the province of Ontario is under serious consideration.

It would be improper for the federal government to be seen intervening on behalf of an employer at a sensitive point in the collective bargaining process. I believe that is exactly what is being carried on right now. There is no credible justification for this legislation and certainly no credible justification for the haste with which the legislation is proceeding. Certainly the timing is suspect.

The legislation is being advanced with unseemly haste and without consultation or opportunity for appropriate review, not just by the people who are involved but by the members of this Chamber who have a duty to question every aspect of government legislation before it becomes law. We are not being given, under the process that is being advocated today, the opportunity to do that.

I have not been able to gather a consensus in the industry or among the workers on this issue. Without that consensus, it is the duty and the responsibility of politicians and parliamentarians to try to seek one before legislating rights. In fact, the proposed legislation goes far beyond anything that was previously suggested in discussions that had taken place.

No explanation has been provided why the initiative is proceeding independent of the current review of the Canada Labour Code.

Just a couple of days ago the minister tabled the Sims report that deals extensively with part I of the Canada Labour Code. No doubt there will be significant amendments come forward to the Canada Labour Code. Members will be first of all reviewing, consulting and debating amendments that the government is going to put forward.

I do not feel comfortable without having the benefit of a thorough and broad debate of the Sims report and the amendments that the government will bring forward in making decisions relating to changes in the Canada Labour Code and jurisdiction at this point.

The government should reconsider the haste with which it is moving today. Certainly it should not proceed with this proposed legislation until its details have been carefully considered, fair consultation has been taken and all the affected parties brought in, consulted with, talked to and all of the issues put on the table.

Certainly members of this Parliament owe the nuclear workers in the province of Ontario the benefit of the doubt when they consider the future potential of labour legislation in the province of Ontario.

I did not want to prolong debate but I wanted to make sure that those matters were put on the table today. I appreciate the House's indulgence for that.

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, while the hon. member has dealt with the question of the deficit, I wonder if he is concerned about the human deficit which unemployment is causing the people of Canada. Is he prepared to talk to the Minister of Finance to deal with it?

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech of the hon. member and the answer to the question to which he responded.

I could not help but notice that he, like the Minister of Finance, put a lot of stock in the financial deficit of the country, the plans the government has put in place, the targets and the forecasting it has done with respect to the deficit.

I cannot help thinking the hon. member has forgotten about the second deficit we have, the second problem we have to fight, the human deficit caused by the number of job losses that have occurred in Canada, the number of people unemployed from coast to coast, the number of people willing, ready and able to take up work to support the country, to pay taxes and to help reduce the financial debt of the country. However, those people have been denied jobs by the private sector and by the policies of the government and they will continue to be denied jobs.

There are no plans in the budget to deal with unemployment. There are no targets set to bring down unemployment. There are no forecasts for what the rate of unemployment will be at the end of this budgetary period. There is a complete lack of understanding on the part of the government with respect to jobs.

The government talks about its partnership with the private sector in creating jobs. I read a piece in the New York Times which talked about how the private sector in the United States has dealt with jobs over the last few years, a time of prosperity. AT&T has cut 123,000 jobs since 1990. Delta Airlines has cut 18,000 jobs. Eastman Kodak has cut 16,000 jobs. IBM has cut 35,000 jobs. Sears has cut 50,000 jobs. DEC has cut 20,000 jobs. Lockheed Martin has cut 15,000 jobs.