Paul Crête

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, seasonal workers are honest users of the system and are only guilty of supporting the seasonal economy in the regions.

Will the minister acknowledge that regions whose economy is largely based on forestry, the fisheries and tourism, as is the case in eastern Quebec and eastern Canada, will be among the principal victims of his reforms and that they will become second-class regions with second-class unemployed workers?

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Human Resources Development.

With his reforms, the minister has taken the first step towards establishing an employment insurance system that discriminates against seasonal workers, whose benefits will be reduced depending on the number of weeks they were on unemployment insurance in the past.

Will the minister acknowledge that this is a complete contradiction of the recommendations of his task force on seasonal employment and of his own commitments, in that he is creating a two-tier system in which seasonal workers will be treated like second class unemployed workers?

[Supply, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, when the government member is surprised that the opposition parties have similar views on certain things, this is perhaps the time to twig to the fact that, when you make campaign commitments, the decent thing to do is to honour them.

When you say you are going to create jobs, you are supposed to have corresponding policies. When you defeat a government like the former Conservative one by saying that its policies were unacceptable, you have to meet the commitments you made subsequently. The idea is not to win elections, but to carry out mandates you have been given. This is the goal and what must be achieved.

There is a lesson for the government in this. For two years the Liberal government said there was no problem in Quebec. It told Canadians that there was no problem in Quebec, that, if it did its job right, there would be no more Quebec problem. But then they found themselves with 49.4 per cent of the people of Quebec saying yes to sovereignty. The Prime Minister is the intermediary between Canadians and Quebecers. Canadians realized that he had lost touch with reality and should perhaps be removed so people could talk directly.

I think it important that the message be understood. Our objective should be effective government. On this point a number of parties could agree, why not have the same idea? Federalists should basically promote very broad decentralization if they really want this country to continue to function.

In any case, throughout the world today, the solution lies in small groups, which have the tools to develop and do so successfully, controlling the course they want to take and making their own choices.

[Supply, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I agree with some aspects of what the previous speaker said. Canadians have every right to criticize the present Liberal government because it was elected on a platform of jobs, jobs, jobs, but in the end it is just coasting. It creates jobs piecemeal, while just as many are being lost, so that net job creation is zero.

This government plays a lot with words, and I think that is significant. Instead of unemployment insurance it now says employment insurance, but for heaven's sake, the contents should be what it says on the label. There should be something to help evaluate the impact in terms of job creation and helping us to get out of this mess.

We in the Bloc Quebecois are concerned about job creation. We see in these reforms a lot of measures that will have a negative impact on job creation, including the fact that young people who come on the labour market and fail to accumulate 910 hours will remain dependent, will go back on welfare and well become part of the welfare cycle. This is wrong and lends further credence to the fact that this is a lost generation, and that we cannot accept.

We in the Bloc Quebecois have a different perception of employment. We agree with the Reform Party in some respects. There is also a structural and organizational problem in Canada.

We have developed a system in which one government has the power to collect taxes and spend money in jurisdictions it does not know and does not control, and has developed a fantastic bureaucracy to be able to function. This has created a lot of public service jobs but today, at the operational level, we realize this no longer works. Yes, we have a problem with the plumbing. We will have to deal with a number of things, but we also have a problem with the architecture: I am referring to the fact that governments do not have clearcut jurisdictions.

From the federalist point of view, which I do not share, one could say it is entirely normal that in Canada international relations come under the jurisdiction of a federal Parliament. However, manpower is a not an area in which the federal government can be effective, and this is borne out by unemployment rates that are unacceptable, that are much too high and that show a significant spread. There are marked differences between the regions in central Canada and around the federal government, and more distant regions.

The maritimes, Quebec and other regions outside larger urban centres always seem to have higher unemployment rates than the metropolitan areas. The system puts the regions at a disadvantage, which means that young people must look for employment elsewhere. If we keep the 910-hour standard, you will see a large number of young people between the ages of 18 and 23 who may have managed to get summer jobs in their own regions but will have to leave to get jobs in the city, and we are just going to aggravate this exodus.

Yes, the Bloc is concerned about employment, but as far as the solutions are concerned, we think it is also a matter of the structure and management of manpower training and also the fact that it should be more closely related to the needs of the people concerned and integrated with our educational resources.

When we have a government like the one in Quebec that is responsible for the Labour Code, for occupational health and safety legislation and for labour standards, and we have another government that is going to introduce five measures dealing with issues such as wage subsidies and income supplements, this will further complicate the system. Someone somewhere in the Department of Human Resources Development will then be able to say he is an expert on something no one else understands.

This means he can justify his job, but this is not efficient, and in North America we can no longer afford to operate this way. If we want to be competitive on international markets, decision making must be brought as close as possible to the people. That should be

the government's objective. If the federal government does not adjust and act accordingly, it will be swept away.

[Supply, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this opposition motion which demands:

That this House condemn the government for choosing to reform unemployment insurance in a way that maintains overlap and duplication in the manpower sector and thus prevents the government of Quebec from adopting a true manpower development policy of its own.

This opposition day follows on an historical event yesterday in the Quebec National Assembly, when all members present voted unanimously in favour of the following motion-96 in favour and no one against, a fairly rare occurrence in any parliament:

That the National Assembly reaffirm the consensus expressed in this House on December 13, 1990, on the occasion of the ministerial statement on manpower adjustment and occupational training, to the effect that:

Quebec must have sole responsibility for policies pertaining to manpower adjustment and occupational training within its borders and patriate accordingly the funding allocated by the federal government to these programs in Quebec;

Within the current constitutional framework and in order to improve services to customers-

All Quebec MLAs, whether Parti Quebecois, Quebec Liberals, Action démocratique du Québec, everyone in the Quebec House unanimously adopted this motion, which continues:

-Quebec must take over the control and management of various services pertaining to employment and manpower development and all programs that may be funded through the Unemployment Insurance Fund within Quebec's borders and must therefore receive the funding appropriate to such responsibilities;

What they told the Quebec Legislative Assembly was not "Let the federal government give money to the unemployed in voucher form so they can take Quebec courses under an agreement between the federal and the provincial governments". No, what they said was "Turn all of the responsibility over to Quebec, and it will handle things". This statement was supported by both the sovereignist government party and the federalist opposition in Quebec.

They also stated:

The Government of Quebec and representatives of business, labour and the co-operative sector agree to oppose any initiative by the federal government that would constitute an invasion of Quebec's prerogatives.

To find an example of this one need look no further than clauses 61 and 59 of the bill which show that, where no agreement is in place between the federal and provincial governments, the province will be penalized because the unemployed will not receive vouchers to purchase courses in Quebec. If this is not invasion of our prerogatives, what is it? Is this not the kind of behaviour the federal government has been accused of for years?

The reform as presented is not what Quebec wants. The consensus against it, which we have voiced here on numerous occasions, took on a particular historical value with the National Assembly's motion of yesterday.

Continuing to quote the motion:

Therefore, it asks the government and the Minister of Employment to immediately undertake formal discussions with the federal government in order to ensure the respect of the consensus and the promotion of the interests of the Quebec people.

What the MLAs who reached agreement on this, whether federalist or not, was not "We must accept the planned reform as presented by the federal government". They said it was necessary to "immediately undertake formal discussions with the federal government in order to ensure the respect of the consensus and the promotion of the interests of the Quebec people".

This initiative by Quebec is therefore entirely legitimate. And if the present federal government is not listening, if it fails to change its reforms accordingly, it will be up against a wall. And as a result, it will again fail to deal with the problem.

Why is Quebec so keen on controlling this jurisdiction? Because as much as $500 million will be invested in five new employment measures. And by 2001 and 2002, it may be $750 million. These employment measures affect all of the areas over which Quebec has jurisdiction.

Canadian federalism is a very good example of inefficiency. Although Quebec is responsible for the Labour Code, occupational health and safety legislation and labour standards, the federal government will set up programs relating to wage subsidies and income supplements, a job creation fund, assistance for unemployed entrepreneurs, and a system of loans and bursaries. We will take a closer look at some of these to show the potential for conflict.

For instance, the job creation fund. If Quebec wants an active employment policy, it must be according to the federal government's development model. If the Quebec government feels that the federal model is not the one it wants, and if current reforms are supposed to promote manpower mobility and get people out of the resource regions when we in Quebec prefer to promote growth in our regions, we will be stuck with this model forever.

Another example is assistance for unemployed entrepreneurs, the program referred to as self-employment assistance. In Quebec the so-called Paillé plan was implemented. If Quebec wants to develop these measures, it will not be able to control them all, and we get a situation where people who receive self-employment assistance do not get the Paillé plan. If they are on the Paillé plan, they do not get self-employment assistance. This creates situations in which young business people wanting to start up have to knock on the doors of two governments. This reform will not resolve the situation.

My final example involves the loans and grants program. You may be sure that, in the medium term, the program, which is intended to provide grants to the unemployed looking for work will conflict with Quebec's loans and grants program for irregular students. We will start making comparisons, we will look at workers' behaviour to see whether they would not do better in a regular educational program than under the federal program. This will raise the level of the cacophony between the two governments.

This is why, I think, the wish of Quebecers expressed in the National Assembly may be readily understood.

Furthermore, after the consensus was reaffirmed, following the affirmation that Quebec must be solely responsible for manpower adjustment policy, the minister of employment was told to discuss matters with the federal minister. She did so right away yesterday. She wrote the Minister of Human Resources Development to tell him she was ready to discuss matters within the context of the mandate given her by the National Assembly. The mandate is to promote the interests of the people of Quebec and ensure respect of the consensus that Quebec must take control in this area.

Why are we having such a hard time getting the federal government moving on this? When we toured Canada, last year, with the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, we found in several circles that there was a willingness to take over, through decentralization, certain aspects such as manpower training. Why is it that the federal government has not yet moved in that direction?

The answer can be found in certain elements of the unemployment insurance reform. This reform adds to an already complex decision making process, thus assuring the bureaucrats running the national network that their empire will endure. The best way to perpetuate a bureaucracy is to make it more complex, thus justifying the existence of more assistants, more advisers, more this and more that, in the end making the product less accessible to the client they are supposed to serve.

If there is one thing the government can be blamed for, it is its inability to cut through this bureaucracy and do what the people really want. I think that the federal government was being called to order by the motion passed by the Quebec National Assembly. The National Assembly has put the federal government squarely in front of its responsibilities.

It must listen to the consensus conveyed by the Quebec National Assembly. I will stress that 96 voted for the motion, none voted against and none abstained. All the members present in the National Assembly supported this motion. I would ask the Quebec members on the government side this: Are you willing to move a similar motion giving Quebec sole responsibility for policies

pertaining to manpower adjustment and occupational training within its borders, and supporting the other proposals put forward? Are you listening to Quebecers as National Assembly members were?

Are you willing to take action in your caucus, in committee, so that this reform can provide any province with a real opportunity to opt out and set up its own program, to have a real employment development policy, and to opt out of existing manpower development programs. The array of federal and provincial labour development programs is the laughing stock of all public services, with their confusing names and objectives. These things have never been properly clarified.

The federal government claims it is making an effort, that we could agree on a set of rules. It is wondering why we on this side are not yet satisfied. It is because the federal government wants control over the guidelines. This means that, every time we want to change the way these programs are run, we must first negotiate a federal-provincial agreement, a kind of administrative agreement.

This is unacceptable, in my opinion. Before any administrative aspect is negotiated, there must be agreements on the substance of the issue, and the Quebec consensus on the need to transfer all federal budgets allocated to this sector and to repatriate control over and management of the various employment services must be recognized.

Quebec now faces a rather special situation. Because the federal government decided to maintain its network of employment centres, it is significantly reducing the number of points of service. This will result in fewer services being provided to unemployed individuals. These centres will serve a larger area than before. At the same time, another network set up by the Centre Travail Québec and the Société Québécoise de la main-d'oeuvre is also active in the field.

In the days before the referendum, this government told us: "Yes, we will take into account the fact that you are a distinct society. We will take into account the aspects that make Quebec different". However, after the referendum, we came back here and it was business as usual. It is always the same thing. The federal government claims to be able to do better than Quebec in the manpower sector. That view is not shared by anyone in Quebec, particularly in light of the results.

The auditor general once said that the federal government did not have adequate control over its employability support programs. These programs are not effective, as evidenced by the fact that one million Canadians are out of work. Yet, the government remains insensitive to this fact and cannot bring itself to giving Quebec exclusive jurisdiction over the manpower sector.

I am prepared to bet that, if the manpower sector was delegated to Quebec tomorrow, within about ten years there would be a significant change in attitude. Since the stakeholders would be closer to the field, Quebecers would benefit from a program better integrated with the education network. Ultimately, the existing gap between the number of available jobs and the number of available workers would be filled.

This is where our record is the worst; Canada has an international reputation with the OECD for performing very badly in this area, because we administer things at a distance, with no attention to local needs.

In closing, I would like to invite the federal government, particularly those members representing regions of Canada with economic and social objectives, and realities that are different from those of the ridings close to Ottawa, to make their points of view heard in caucus. This will ensure that regions so desiring may be given the necessary tools for development, and the attitude that there is one mandatory national standard can be scrapped.

It would be heaven on earth, if all we needed for automatic bottom-line results was to set standards. If that were the case, with all the standards we have in Canada all of our problems would be solved by now.

Essentially, the solution for Quebec lies in this consensus in the National Assembly, in which all of the parties agreed to the same thing: that Quebec be given control of the tools relating to manpower, even under the present federal arrangement. When we have this we will be able to get things done properly together. And we are asking our minister of employment-because she is answerable not only to her government but to all of the Parliament of Quebec in the National Assembly-to carry out formal discussions with the federal government aimed at ensuring that this consensus is respected and the interests of the people of Quebec promoted.

The government will be judged on whether it agrees to integrate this consensus into its reform. If it does so, it will have Quebecers' gratitude. If it does not, this will be proof once more that more than 50 per cent of Quebecers ought to have voted yes on October 30, so that we might finally escape from this unwieldy system which benefits neither Quebec nor Canada.

[Supply, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I was much interested in what the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine said about the relevance of changing the system based on a number of weeks to one based on a number of hours.

He gave us the example of people who will probably benefit from this. However, the problem with this reform does not necessarily lie in the fact that the number of hours is changed.

Saying that someone will have to work 910 hours to become entitled to UI benefits for the first time means that young people, those who return to the labour market, women who left it several years ago or who worked at home will now have to work for 26 weeks, 35 hours a week, to get UI benefits. The eligibility period has almost doubled.

There are aspects of the reform which are unacceptable and I hope the government will correct them. I will give another example which concerns the ridings of Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine and Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup. I am talking about the fact that, under the new system, seasonal workers will lose part of their benefits. After three years, people who receive unemployment insurance every year, such as workers in the tourist or fishing industry, will see their benefits reduced from 55 per cent to 50 per cent of their weekly insurable earnings. They are going to be penalized because they work in seasonal industries.

Now that the reform has been tabled, could it not be possible for the government to bring forward amendments to correct these things which will have a devastating effect on regions such as eastern Quebec?

My question to the member is this: What does he think about the possibility of our young people leaving our regions because of the increase in the number of hours it takes to be eligible for unemployment insurance?

Will the requirement to work 910 hours, which is the equivalent of 26 weeks at 35 hours a week, result in our young people leaving the regions in greater numbers?

I have another question that I want to ask of the member, reminding him that, yesterday, the National Assembly of Quebec also endorsed the current position of the government of that province by a 96 to 0 vote. It was a unanimous decision.

I would like to ask him if he would be willing to table in the House a motion which would read as follows: "Quebec must have sole responsibility for policies pertaining to manpower adjustment and occupational training within its borders and patriate accordingly the funding allocated by the federal government to these programs in Quebec". Would he be willing to table such a motion, which was adopted unanimously by the only parliament that represents Quebecers only, in order to settle the issue of manpower once and for all? Would he be prepared to ask the federal parliament to adopt such an attitude?

[Manpower Training, December 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, what Quebec wants is for the federal government to withdraw from this area where it has proven totally ineffective over the past 15 years.

Does the minister realize that by sending cheques directly to the unemployed, his department is preventing Quebec from putting in place a real manpower policy, just to give the federal government visibility with the unemployed?

[Manpower Training, December 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

In June 1994, the federal government offered to transfer budgets for several manpower training programs to the Government of Quebec. Daniel Johnson rejected the proposal out of hand, calling it a bargain basement agreement. Ottawa is now offering to give assistance the unemployed directly.

Will the minister admit that his reform proposal does not even go as far as the offer made in June 1994, in that the plan is no longer to transfer budgets to the Government of Quebec but to send cheques to the unemployed directly? Does he recognize that the federal government is not, in fact, withdrawing from the area of manpower?

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, November 23rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-96-and this may surprise you-seems to me to insult Quebec federalists. A lot of federalists in Quebec still felt, in the last referendum, that the federal government deserved one last chance to demonstrate its desire for change. Bill C-96, which was tabled before the referendum and which the federal government is still having debated in the House simply as if nothing had happened, represents the federal government's decision to interfere more systematically and with a basis in law-a new approach.

The bureaucratic powers in Ottawa have now decided to incorporate into legislation the intrusions by the federal government over the past years in the area of manpower through its control over the unemployment insurance fund. This is particularly significant and a bit of a blow to Quebec federalists and to the consensus in Quebec on the question of manpower.

There is, for example, Ghislain Dufour, the spokesperson and chief executive officer of the Conseil du patronat du Québec, who is not exactly considered a separatist or a sovereignist in Quebec. He says that now is the time, following the close result in the referendum, for the federal government to make it clear it is in favour of change and therefore acknowledge the consensus in Quebec on training and manpower. It is time the federal government agreed to give Quebec full responsibility for manpower to

put an end to the duplication and unnecessary expenditure in this sector.

We hear the same message from Gérald Ponton of the Association des manufacturiers du Québec. In the days that followed the referendum, he said it was absolutely vital that one level of government withdraw, if manpower practices were to be effective. For this to work in Quebec, it is the federal government that will have to withdraw. We must not forget that the whole matter of training is part of government activity, it does not simply come out of thin air.

As Quebec is already responsible for the labour code, which covers the vast majority of Quebec workers, for occupational health and safety, for minimum labour standards and for all regulations on professional qualifications, professional conduct and mass layoffs, giving Quebec responsibility for the entire area of training is like giving it an extra piece of equipment in its tool box. The Government of Quebec already has the networks, like the education network, for it to get involved in occupational training, among other areas, in order to ensure that young people coming along and workers needing retraining receive what they need efficiently and appropriately.

The auditor general, in his latest report, concluded that employee training costs were highest in Quebec in terms of the money spent by the federal government.

This is further proof, with the numbers to support it, that the federal government should withdraw from this sector.

But, instead, it forges ahead with Bill C-96; it insists on interfering everywhere, and on signing agreements with municipal governments, various agencies, and even the provinces. But nowhere does it say that these agreements will be in keeping with the provinces' policies.

In a way, this is the continuation of the monolithic state, and this is the terrible insult to Quebec federalists who want to see the Canadian Constitution and the Canadian structure revamped so that the federal government assumes only those responsibilities which come under its jurisdiction and which would be acceptable to federalists.

I also believe that this is the proof that, after all, sovereignists are right. Even with the warning it was served on October 30, the government is unable to shift gears and proceed with the adjustments that would allow it to meet Quebecers' aspirations; the only way for Quebec to have the tools it needs will be for the province to hold another referendum and separate.

What could be said to get the government to reverse its decision to pass this bill? What could make the government withdraw from this sector? I believe it would take two conditions which will be easily attainable. First, the federal government must stop using the unemployment insurance fund as a cash cow; now that it can no longer borrow money abroad, it has discovered a domestic market, namely employee and employer UI contributions. As a result, this year, in 1995-1995, it has accumulated a five billion dollar surplus, while it cut the number of weeks during which beneficiaries are entitled to UI benefits and increased the number of weeks of work required to qualify for UI. It has some nerve.

This is quite a message for the workers of Quebec and Canada, especially seasonal workers; it says that in order to be able to encroach on a field of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, the federal government is going to squeeze money out of those who need it the most. Let us take a worker in peat production, forestry or agriculture in general; because of those measures, instead of becoming entitled to unemployment benefits after 12, 13 or 14 weeks and receiving them for the rest of the year if his job is to continue the following year, the worker will have to find work for 14 or 15 weeks; otherwise, he will not be able to fulfil the requirements and receive a full year's income either from work or unemployment.

We know that unemployment insurance is not financed by the government, but exclusively by employer and employee contributions. Let us try to transpose this situation into another type of insurance program. You pay premiums, but you have no control whatsoever on the contract which determines how you will obtain insurance benefits; the decision is entirely up to the government. Instead of being eligible for benefits during 30 or 35 weeks, you will receive them for 25 or 30 weeks only, and there will be a four or five-week waiting period during which you will have to go on welfare. That is what is happening in Quebec this year. Between September 1994 and September 1995, the number of welfare recipients increased by 20,000 because of changes made by the federal government and now they are announcing, for next week, a new reform which will raise eligibility requirements yet again.

This also sends a message to federalists who believe there can be a difference between Canada and the United States. This government keeps trying to copy the American model, but that will never give the expected results. Canadians, particularly those of the Maritimes and Eastern Quebec and all those who really want more balance in our society and an adequate distribution of wealth and expenses, will have to stand up and say: "No; we will no longer accept that kind of action on the part of the government. It will have to restrain its activities to its own constitutional jurisdiction and withdraw once and for all from such areas as manpower training."

That is why I think the government should listen to the provinces, take note of the consensus in Quebec and withdraw Bill C-96

completely, because it already has rejected our amendment which would have given the provinces an opting out option.

Since that they have rejected the amendment, the only other solution is to withdraw the bill itself so that we can clarify the situation and so that Quebec can have sole jurisdiction in the area of manpower training and take all the necessary measures to face the challenges of our changing society.

Given the arguments presented, I hope the government will have the decency to withdraw that bill.

[Canada Labour Code, November 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks with a quote by the present Minister for Human Resources Development who said, on November 23, 1994, in a letter he sent me: "I wish to inform you that I am presently examining all aspects of the Canada Labour Code, including the issue of limiting the use of replacement workers, with the view to updating and improving the code to bring it more into line with today's realities". We are now in November 1995, and we still have been given notice that this overhaul of the Canada Labour Code would take place.

In the meantime, a member of the Bloc proposed a private bill, which is before us today and which, in my opinion, makes good horse sense. There has been anti-scab legislation in Quebec since 1979. We have witnessed a 35 per cent decrease in labour disputes in Quebec since that date. This has led to decreased tension in labour relations, and has avoided very awkward situations that would have ended in unacceptable assaults.

To find out what occurred in Quebec before the adoption of anti-scab legislation, one need only remember the Ogilvie conflict. Unfortunately, this company came under the Canada Labour Code which contains no anti-scab provision, and that poisoned labour relations.

Learning from this experience, learning from what has been done in Quebec in this area, it would be very important for Parliament as a whole to pass this anti-scab legislation at second reading.

On October 17, 1995, the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell said that it was not appropriate to amend only one aspect of the Labour Code, that it was not the best way to proceed, and that the whole code should be revised. I recall last year's statement by the minister who said that we cannot wait forever for the government to act, if it does not take action. I believe that when a member chooses as a vehicle a private member's bill, and proposes an amendment which could improve Canadian legislation, it should be taken advantage of and that he should be given as much leeway as possible.

This kind of legislation, which will make it possible for all Canadian workers to be covered by anti-scab legislation, is something of a sign of respect for workers. In the past, gains were made by labour unions, and also by the population, in Quebec, for instance, where minimum working conditions are set out under legislation which is a bit like the collective agreement of non unionized workers. This is why, if we passed anti-scab legislation which covered federal civil servants as a whole, it would somewhat remedy an unacceptable situation. I think this could be compared to the minimum wage issue.

A few months ago, it was because the Bloc questioned the fact that the minimum hourly wage within the federal government was still four dollars that the government reacted, a few weeks later and rectified the situation by order in council. This is completely unacceptable.

Now we are faced with another situation in which the inaction of the present government and of preceding governments as well is perhaps more of an ideological choice. We have to remember that some of the members of this government voted in favour of the recent anti-scab legislation tabled in the House. A number of these people are now in cabinet, and it would be most inappropriate for them to vote against the present bill.

The advantage of such a private member's bill is that it does not necessarily require party solidarity. It will be a recorded division. So we will have an opportunity to see whether those in favour of anti-strikebreaking legislation a few years ago, who are now members of Parliament, will be consistent and let Canada give itself legislation that-I would like to say, will set the record straight-will give workers governed by the Canada Labour Code the same rights as Quebecers.

This is all the more important given the example we have just seen in Ontario.

The Government of Ontario decided to abolish this right. I believe that in the coming years we will witness disgraceful acts, bodily assaults; relations between employers and employees will grow more bitter and create all kinds of problems that the antiscab bill prevents.

To give a concrete example of this, one or two years ago in Quebec, the Conseil du Patronat du Québec had a favourable judgement from the Superior Court which would have allowed it to have the antiscab legislation quashed by the Supreme Court. We are not talking of a union here but of the Conseil du Patronat du Québec. They thought preferable not to take their case to the Supreme Court, even if they could have won in that instance, because they realised, in the time it took to get that judgment, that, in a majority of cases, antiscab legislation contributes to better labour relations.

Let us remember what happened as regards the definition of essential services. During the first few years, there were a few problems: what should be considered an essential service and who should define them? We used the experience we had gained so far to come up with the most adequate bill possible, in order to give the workers who come under the Canada Labour Code the opportunity to be properly covered and also to give the employers who are subject to this code the chance to enjoy better labour relations.

With an antiscab legislation, we will not have to deal in the future with so many situations as the one we had with the Ogilvie workers.

This is why I would ask members of this House to put their partisanship aside for the second reading of this bill and to determine if, given the way they perceive quality labour relations in the future, in the 20th century, it would not be better to pass this piece of legislation, to promote it internationally and to gain from Quebec's experience in that field?