Paul Crête

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the minister about another aspect of her speech. She says Canada is the best country in the world to live in and anyone can enjoy it. As far as I am concerned, I see things differently. Overall, it is true that Canada is well positioned among western countries, but there are groups in our society which are less fortunate than others and the government should try to improve their situation.

I would like to draw your attention to the aboriginal people. Given the statistics on suicide, alcoholism and various other social problems, I wonder if the best way to help aboriginal women would not be to thoroughly examine the relationship between the natives and the federal government and to review, or discard altogether, the Indian Act, in order to put an end to the shameful way Canada has been treating native peoples over the last century.

[West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995, March 15th, 1995]

Mr. Chairman, if it is already indicated in the Canada Labour Code, then it is a matter of clarification. If it is already in the Canada Labour Code, it would be unnecessary to say what it says in the bill, because this would mean adding something that already exists in the Canada Labour Code. Here, certain clauses restrict the rights of the parties, but we do not want any restrictions on the rights of the parties. This is in line with getting rid of the mediator-arbitrator, but it is an additional element that could apply even if the amendment on the mediator-arbitrator is rejected.

[West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995, March 15th, 1995]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the last amendment on our list because it is a little different. That amendment provides that in clause 11, on page 5, line 17, all the words after the word "agreement" be deleted. That clause reads as follows: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to limit or restrict the rights of the parties to the collective agreement to agree to amend any provision of the collective agreement-and the clause goes on-amended by or pursuant to this Act, other than a provision relating to the term of the collective agreement, and to give effect thereto."

The purpose of our amendment is to delete all the words after the word "agreement" so that the parties will have much more freedom to agree on provisions other than those provided for in the bill, more particularly relating to the term of the agreement.

We would like the parties to have the opportunity, if they so wish, to negotiate provisions other than those in the bill, and especially a back to work agreement. It would be important for the parties to have some breathing space to do that.

[West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995, March 15th, 1995]

Mr. Chairman, I rise to provide some response to the question the minister asked and to draw attention to what I see as a contradiction between the bill and the excellent decision to set up a board of inquiry. There have been a lot of problems in this sector of labour relations for a number of years. The minister says it is time to clean things up, understand what is going on, change the rules and take the appropriate corrective action.

At the same time, the bill repeats the same old traditional pattern of making special laws for ports, as has been done for a number of years. The practice has always been to decide for the parties. We would expect, and this is the focus of our amendments rather than the elimination of the notion of arbitrator, that the minister would want to change the way things are done, just as the board of inquiry should bring about effective changes in practices and ways of operating.

We must remember that they got to this point because they knew from the outset that this was the way it worked in the sector. Therefore, from the outset, they negotiated knowing that, in the end, they would reach this point and that there might be special legislation because of what has happened in the past. What we must give them is the message that this longstanding pattern no longer works and must be changed.

Therefore, adopting a special law is no solution. We are telling them to return to work and to their bargaining responsibilities, to resume negotiations with a mediator so that they are not relieved of their responsibility, but are rather confronted with it, and will have to reach an agreement as they are the interested parties. This is the meaning of the amendments we made.

[West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995, March 15th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I have been a member of this House for 15 or 16 months now, and I would not have thought that we would have to pass two special pieces of legislation for the same port in such a short time. In little over a year, this is the second time we see that there is something wrong in this work environment.

If I remember correctly, last year the minister in charge, the Minister of Human Resources Development, possibly because of the scope of his duties or maybe because known facts were not taken into account, did not follow up on that special legislation and, now, we have to pass back to work legislation for another group of workers.

Not only did we not learn anything from last year's experience, but we do not seem to be learning very much from the present situation either. I was watching the news on TV, tonight, and I noticed that the transportation sector is in turmoil over labour relations. There are potential labour disputes in the railway industry and in ports all over Canada. The message this legislation sends will be important for future negotiations in these sectors.

If the parties are not convinced of the importance of agreeing among themselves, if we give them the habit of waiting for a third party to settle their problems for them, we create the type of work relations which now prevail in the port of Vancouver. I think that an imposed solution is unacceptable and never brings about suitable results. Therefore, it is important that we send the message to other economic sectors that parties must pursue negotiations as far as the process allows.

The official opposition felt that a debate on this legislation was urgently needed, but I think citizens have a right to know that this urgency is not the result of this one incident. It is the result of the government's lack of foresight, as it has known about the problems at the port of Vancouver for some time now.

The government was aware of problems in this area but did nothing about them. And now, it steps in and says to the people involved, as if they were children, that because they could not work things out among themselves that it is going to have to do it for them. This only perpetuates the idea that they do not have to negotiate with each other to find durable and constructive ways to improve their working climate.

The minister's announcement that an investigating committee will be struck is interesting, but we must ensure that the parties will participate and will find solutions. I think that even if we agree that a mediator must be named and that people must be legislated back to work, the current legislation should allow negotiations to carry on and should not impose an outside solution which, at any rate, will never satisfy anyone.

I think that we will know we have succeeded in transforming labour relations at the port of Vancouver when a collective agreement is signed without third-party intervention and when all of the parties concerned have the impression that they signed an agreement which is to their advantage.

When both parties are ready to be reasonable, they will realize that working conditions are better during a period covered by a collective agreement when it is signed and accepted by all parties involved. This is how we can break the vicious cycle that labour relations at the port of Vancouver have been stuck in.

Hopefully, this will be the last time during this Parliament that we will have to bring in special legislation, because it is always a sign that the system is ineffective.

[La Pocatière Experimental Farm, March 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the sheep industry in Canada and Quebec was stunned to find out in the last budget about the closure of the experimental farm in La Pocatière, which was established in 1910. Against all expectations, the federal government is slowing down the growth of this booming sector.

These cuts are totally inconsistent with the red book commitments on research and development and defeat the efforts made by research establishments in the last few years.

The federal government must review its R&D financing policy and end blind cuts which unfairly penalize growing agricultural sectors.

We hope that common sense will prevail and that the Minister of Agriculture will reconsider his decision as soon as possible, as requested by the committee for the survival of the experimental farm in La Pocatière.

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for her convincing speech on the continuous struggle of women towards equality. I have two daughters and I do hope that they will live in a society where equality will be even more of a reality.

My question concerns some measures which seem in contradiction with the objectives and arguments stated by the hon. member.

First, one of the recommendations made by the Liberal majority on the human resources development committee provides that future UI beneficiaries, that is those who never received UI benefits before-this means a majority of young people and women-will have to work a greater number of weeks than other beneficiaries to be eligible for UI benefits and these benefits will be less than those that will be paid to people who have already been in the system for years. This seems to be

in contradiction with the principle governing the UI system and with your concept of equality.

Second, the same committee recommended that, in the future, students will have to run up higher debts, something which will affect women even more than men since, in the course of their careers, there are times when they are not gainfully employed, for example when they decide to stay at home to raise their children. Consequently, these women will be burdened with larger debts and for a longer period of time. That also seems to be a contradictory measure.

Finally, there is the plight of women who do not receive any welfare or UI cheques and who are not eligible for programs such as the assistance program for independent workers, which helps people start businesses.

Does the hon. member not agree that the government could have made an extra effort regarding these three areas, or should at least, through the social program reform, ensure that women in Canada and Quebec are not adversely affected by recommendations which are neither appropriate nor adequate in terms of helping them get where they should get in the future?

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking in this debate in order to point out a number of contradictions in the budget, in the way cuts are made, cuts I would describe as bad.

The first thing I would like to draw to the attention of this House is the cuts in research and development, particularly in the agricultural sector. In this period of worldwide change, this time of market globalization, it is very surprising for a government to be cutting out all research in such a draconian and definitive fashion in the area of ovine production-production for the development of sheep farming. This type of production is both ecological and a source of diversification for a number of regions in Canada.

The decision was made in the budget to close the experimental farm at La Pocatière. This is a federal experimental farm, the oldest one in Quebec, which, only two years ago, was given the exclusive mandate for research in sheep farming for all of eastern Canada and in fact for Canada as a whole. A few years ago, a new sheep barn was built there at a cost of $10 million-money simply forgotten today. We are told that this farm will be closed, despite the fact that the sheep industry should get the most out of investment in research and development.

This situation is in blatant contradiction with the Liberal Party program and the guidelines of the present government on support to the agriculture industry. It is a contradiction, and I believe the government should reverse its decision and continue to pay the cost of research and development in sheep production

so that this industry can receive the support it needs to take its rightful place in the Quebec and Canadian market.

Another example of bad cuts in the budget is the substantial increase in port tariffs planned for the various harbours that come under Ports Canada and which are along the St. Lawrence River, among other places. They decided to raise port tariffs by 25 per cent and the ultimate result of this increase will be that a certain number of boats which would otherwise have docked in these ports will refuse to do so. For example, in Cacouna harbour, in my riding, the increase in port tariffs will achieve the opposite effect to that intended, which is to increase government revenues.

The result of the increase in port tariffs will be that fewer boats will dock there. This may cause an overall decrease. This is the kind of misjudgment of the situation which will have a negative impact on all ports, especially on the St. Lawrence, where 13 ports can be considered profitable when it comes to efficiency. This across-the-board increase in port tariffs will make some hitherto profitable ports stop being profitable and will make them a drain on the federal budget. I think that it is important that the federal government reconsider its decision to increase port tariffs by 25 per cent, because all users know that it will have an impact.

People who make calls for tenders, shipowners who entertain the idea of docking ships in Cacouna harbour or another could very well end up going to the east coast of the United States. We are going to eventually end up with even more harbour facilities which are not used as they should be and which will be increasingly in the red.

I think that these are examples where the government sets out in good faith to cut spending, but cuts in the wrong places and implements cuts which have negative repercussions for the economy of certain regions, like the one I represent, the riding of Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup.

Another example is transportation subsidies. Everyone agrees that these subsidies, which perhaps created an artificial market, must be abolished. The Minister of Transport was favourably disposed to recommendations that these subsidies be eliminated gradually, so that the impact on the regional economy could be evaluated. The Minister of Finance, however, has decided to cut them drastically starting July 1, 1995.

It is not possible at this time to predict the effect this will have on eastern Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. It is not known if it will be beneficial or disastrous, or if some businesses will not be forced to close their doors during the summer of 1995 because of this decision.

Why did the government not follow the recommendations of the industrial commissioners of eastern Quebec, of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, of all the stakeholders in this sector ultimately, and reduce these subsidies gradually over four or five years? That would have allowed the various industries, whether in the forestry sector, dairy production, furniture manufacturing, or processing, to adapt, to explore new markets and to meet the new challenges of competition.

I think that a decision such as this one will lead on the short term to an increase in unemployment. I need not tell you that our economy does not adapt very quickly to change. Some people will lose their jobs and will not find others right away because the first step will be to rebuild the regional economy, to create an industrial fabric corresponding to the new market conditions resulting from the abolition of transportation subsidies.

This is another example of how, in the budget, the federal government has ignored the complex nature of markets and is making decisions that will have a major negative impact on the short term. This impact could have been reduced by taking into account the recommendations made by the various stakeholders in the local economy.

I would like to give one last example, which I think is even more meaningful, namely the Federal Office of Regional Development's withdrawal from capital assistance programs for small business. Under the pretext of saving, we will kill a very lucrative small business start-up market.

For example, a small winery like the one in my riding obtained a subsidy to build a warehouse, which allowed it to expand its market and secure a significant market share. This type of assistance will disappear. Consultants will help businesses find their way around the bureaucratic maze, but this type of assistance will not help launch small businesses. In this regard, I think that the federal government made the wrong decision.

I gave several examples of less than effective cuts which will be counter-productive on the long term, so that we will end up with an even larger deficit and regions will become even more dependent on transfers. The results will be the opposite of what the government is trying to achieve.

Of course, the government argues that it has to do this in order to cut spending. But we have not looked at the other side of the coin. For example, why did they decide to give family trusts until 1999 before eliminating the tax deferral and preferred beneficiary provisions?

It is a little like coming home one night to find a burglar and telling him: "It is now 11 at night; I will come back tomorrow morning around five o'clock, but in the meantime, keep quiet and do not steal anything".

We are telling Canada's wealthy families that have taken advantage of family trusts that they have five years to empty these trusts. At the end of the day, they will still be able to make the most of this unacceptable tax dodge.

Another way we could have saved money is by eliminating duplication in the area of manpower where, in Quebec alone, $250 million is wasted every year. I wanted to give these two examples to show that, if the government had taken action in the right places, it would not have been obliged to resort to such senseless measures as cutting Canada's only experimental sheep production research farm, which is located in La Pocatière.

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the hon. member who has just spoken, that everyone agrees, in fact, that there is a need to control federal government spending, which has been out of control for a number of years and which has brought us to financial disaster.

In a world where markets are said to be increasingly dealing with internationalization and globalization and where our producers need help in research and development to enable them to deal with worldwide competition, where, in his opinion, is the logic in suddenly stopping all research and development in the area of sheep production by deciding to close the one experimental farm that worked in this area and that had a national mandate across Canada? What message is being sent to sheep producers in Canada when they are told they will have no more support in research and development?

Why was the decision made to take everything away from this sector? Is this not what might be called a poor cut, as compared with others, which could be made where there would be no direct impact on an important sector of agricultural production, such as sheep production-a form of production making agricultural diversification possible, particularly in Quebec and Alberta? What, in his opinion, is the logic behind such a decision?

[Grain Export Protection Act, March 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, March 1, I received an unsatisfactory response from the Minister of Human Resources Development.

I asked him whether the human resources investment fund infringed on the powers of the provinces and perpetuated the inefficient management of the labour force.

The minister's answer was very vague. He told me that my question had nothing to do with the fund's goal.

Since then, I acquired a copy of an information sheet for the staff of the human resources department which gave examples of some activities that could become part of the human resources investment fund. I will list them: putting more emphasis on employment development services, literacy and basic skills training, training and on-the-job training, assistance for child care and the earned-income supplement.

If the human resources investment fund will be covering these kinds of activities, how can the minister say that the fund will not infringe on the provinces' jurisdiction over manpower?

When it comes down to it, we can say that the minister made the same error during the debate on Axworthy's social program reform: the situation was properly diagnosed, they realized that the current system did not work, but they prescribed the wrong treatment.

Once again, they have decided that Ottawa must manage the fund, even though it is well known that the provinces manage areas directly related to manpower training much more efficiently.

Another possible activity is implementing a national strategy based on the job market. How can the minister suggest such an option when we all well know that, for years now, there have been 1.5 million jobs available in Canada for approximately 500,000 unemployed people, and that the breakdown in the equation lies between the job market and training.

The solutions suggested to us are the same old solutions, the federal government will come and tell the provinces how to do their job in their areas of jurisdiction. Does the minister not realize that this kind of attitude is entirely out of touch with our solutions for the future, for the 21st century, a future in which the idea that "small is beautiful" will be much more relevant than huge structures with national bureaucracies telling the local workforce should adjust?

With this fund, is the minister not going to perpetuate the same vision he has today, so that at a local level, in each community, manpower management committees will have to be devised to try to bring together again all the stakeholders and achieve what this federal system is unable to achieve, assuming of course that it can be done at a local level at least? Could the minister not take another approach, an approach to truly put manpower training back into the hands of the provinces who express such an interest, as Quebec has, where there is a consensus among unions, employers and the education sector.

All stakeholders involved in the manpower sector in Quebec have been saying for a long time that the best way to address the unemployment problem is to ensure a good fit between training, job creation measures and the unemployed who are waiting for a job. So could the minister not reconsider his decision and ensure that people at the grassroots who have the means to find solutions are allowed to do so, that is in Quebec and in the other provinces seeking the same types of responsibilities in the area of manpower training?