Bernard St-Laurent

[Labour Relations, March 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the events of the last few days have exposed the many shortcomings of the federal labour relations legislation. The two special acts voted in over the last two weeks to bring workers back to work are the most recent examples of the warped effects of archaic federal legislation.

Cabinet is hiding behind proposed reforms to the Canada Labour Code which apparently are now being studied. Yet, the provisions on strikebreakers have been well known for several years. It has been 17 months since the Liberal government was elected, and still nothing has been done regarding the issue.

When the time comes to bring in laws denying workers their rights, the government can work quite quickly, but when it comes time to correct provisions which victimize workers, the Liberals are happy enough to adopt an intolerable wait-and-see policy.

[Canada Labour Code, March 20th, 1995]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-317, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act (scabs and essential services).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to move, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, an anti-scab bill. This bill would prohibit the hiring of scabs by employers under federal jurisdiction, by crown corporations or by the Canadian public service and would also legislate on the maintenance of essential services during a strike or a lockout within the public service or crown corporations.

This bill is to allow for labour relations to take place in a civilized context so that, in many cases, social peace can be restored.

It is inconceivable that the federal government has not yet passed such a legislation when more than 70 per cent of Canadian workers are already protected against scabs, that is in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. The lack of a federal anti-scab legislation is often the cause of the worsening of labour-management negotiations. During negotiations, the equity of pressure tactics amounts to the respect of the parties. An anti-scab legislation means the respect and dignity of workers.

It is high time that the federal government take some measures to put an end to labour disputes such as the one at Ogilvie Mills of Montreal, which have been on strike for nine months now.

(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Air Safety, March 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Part III of Transport Canada's Estimates indicates that steps were taken to implement Transport Safety Board recommendations regarding serious deficiencies in the inspection of commercial aircraft.

How can the minister hope to convince us that his department will be able to carry out more thorough inspections and improve follow-up when $12 million were cut from the $82.2 million budget of the departmental unit responsible for these inspections?

[Canada Labour Code, March 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. After waiting for several months, the federal government has started distributing a working paper on future anti-scab legislation. The proposals in the working paper are unacceptable to workers, in several respects.

Will the minister agree not to interfere in union matters by requiring, for instance, that 60 per cent of union members must be in favour for anti-scab provisions to apply during a labour dispute?

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

You know, Mr. Speaker, each minute the House sits is very important and certainly costs taxpayers a lot of money. I have great respect for the Reform Party's hypothetical budget, but if we start hypothesizing about hypothetical budgets in the House of Commons, we better change its name to House of Utopia.

I think our taxpayers deserve more respect than that. I have respect for the Reform Party and its budget, but unfortunately-or perhaps fortunately; Canada will decide after the referendum-this party is not in power. Let us look at more factual matters, matters before us today and that we have to deal with. Much as I respect Reform Party members, the fact remains that their Party's budget is nothing more than a piece of paper for the time being.

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we were promised a tough budget focused on renewal. Tough, it was for sure. But it was tough for the disadvantaged, once again, with social programs being blithely cut directly and indirectly. As for the renewal part of it, it did not quite make it. There was

no provision for job creation. Let us look at a few examples to justify my remarks.

I represent the riding of Manicouagan. In this riding, social programs take on considerable importance because the rate of unemployment is higher than the national average and also because the distances between villages is a serious impediment to the region's economic development.

When I say the rate of unemployment is high, it is true. And when the minister once again with a vengeance went after the most disadvantaged, that is the unemployed, well, the people in our area were affected on February 27 by the tabling of this budget. Already, in a region like ours, where, east of Natashquan, 85 per cent of the population depends on fishing, the people had to work 12 weeks in 1994 instead of the previous 10, in order to qualify for unemployment insurance.

In my riding, and more particularly east of Natashquan, managing to have six weeks' work was quite an achievement, given that the department of fisheries, on the other hand, was cutting quotas in order to preserve stocks. I do not question the merits of this, but people were losing weeks of work on the sea so stocks could be preserved. When you try to relate these two, that is, preservation of stocks and therefore fewer weeks of fishing, on the one hand, and the need for more weeks of work to be eligible for unemployment insurance, on the other, things do not add up once again.

In his February 27 budget, the Minister of Finance found another way to go after the people of Manicouagan. Just like that, he said that he was going to cut their unemployment insurance cheques by 10 per cent. In a way, he makes no distinction between people who live in Manicouagan, Saint-Hubert, Laurier-Sainte-Marie or Charlevoix.

In addition, my region is affected by the $300 million cuts to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The unemployment rate is very high, as I said, and, consequently, many people live in housing managed by the CMHC. For unemployed people, and for those who have gone a step further and receive social assistance, finding low-rental housing is of capital importance. With one stroke of the pen, the minister added another hardship to the lives of the needy who, like you and me, will always be in need of lodging.

There are vital needs that the government must not play with if it wants to maintain the standard of living, such as food and lodging. In one speech, the Minister of Finance went after both simultaneously.

By skimming 10 per cent from unemployment insurance cheques, he took away quality and a good part of the food. By cutting the CMHC's funding by $300 million, he deprived many households, many families, often single-parent families, might I add, according to the statistics, of decent housing. Therefore, how much respect can the government really have for the population if it is not even committed to keeping just the basic elements that make up society's standard of living? If that is not taking it out on the needy, I do not know what is.

People in my riding will also be affected by changes to the health care and education system, but naturally, in an indirect way. Indirect because the minister calls these indirect cuts "decentralization". Allow me to explain. The minister anticipates that transfer payments to the provinces will be cut by $7 billion. Now, we all know that the provinces use that money to provide health care and education to their population. Yes, there is duplication, because the provinces are already administering these programs. But it is not decentralization, it is dumping the deficit in the provinces' backyards.

They are offloading the deficit because the provinces will get $7 billion less but will still be expected to provide the same services. However, the federal government is careful not to withdraw completely from health care and education for the simple reason that it wants to standardize these areas and raise standards so that it will be a little more costly for the provinces to operate in these fields.

They cut their financial support every year but still manage to give just enough to impose standards that end up costing a lot of money. They cut financial support without giving the provinces any additional decision-making powers. The minister calls this "decentralization", but in truth it amounts to offloading their deficit onto the provinces.

When people get sick in my riding on the North Shore, where the roads are inadequate, they must be transported by plane. We must give financial help to some doctors so that they can travel to remote areas like the North Shore. One does not choose to get sick in Kuujjuaq or Natashquan any more than in downtown Toronto.

There is also the gasoline tax. Again, the Minister of Finance did not discriminate, but that is not necessarily a good thing. Let us not forget that unemployed people looking for jobs hope that any dollar they put in their gas tanks will yield results. This measure will affect them indirectly once again. The budget does not say anything about job creation. The Liberal government got elected on its red book promises by shouting from the rooftops that they would create jobs.

In the first year of his mandate, the Minister of Finance and all the other Liberal members proclaimed to all and sundry that they would address the deficit by creating jobs. Yet, the February 27 budget showed us the true face of the Liberal Party, which does not do anything to create jobs. Instead, they went after the most needy while protecting their friends and being careful to keep up appearances and look good, which is important to the Liberal Party, of course. When I say that they are protecting their friends, I am referring among other things to family trusts.

However, I will not elaborate on this, because I do not have enough time.

This budget is a skilful political juggling act but in fact, there is nothing in it which really addresses the real social problems by creating jobs.

[Tragedy In Blanc-Sablon, March 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I wish to extend our sympathies to the families affected by the tragedy that struck Blanc-Sablon, in my riding of Manicouagan, on Friday.

At two o'clock Friday morning, tonnes of snow came tumbling down the mountain to devastate the tiny North Shore village of Blanc-Sablon. A father and his son were killed. It is a miracle that the mother, who was buried under the snow for hours, survived. Had it not been for the outstanding courage of local residents, who defied extreme cold and winds of over 100 kilometres per hour, the toll could have been even worse.

Again, this goes to show that, in Quebec, there are exceptional people prepared to face exceptional circumstances, and the Bloc Quebecois salutes the extraordinary solidarity displayed on this occasion.

[Firearms Act, March 13th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, our concerns with regard to the legislation on gun control are shared by many of my fellow Canadians. We cannot, however, remain insensitive to the statistics on the number of shooting deaths.

Firearms are involved in over one third of the homicides in Canada. Most of the homicides in the past six years were committed with shotguns or hunting rifles. In three cases out of four, a murdered wife was slain with a hunting shotgun or rifle.

Closer to home, in Quebec, between 1990 and 1992, there were 1,293 deaths attributable to shootings-an average of 425 deaths annually. Three deaths by shooting out of four, in Quebec as well, were suicides, for a total of approximately 300 suicides annually. These sombre statistics are very eloquent. They cannot therefore be ignored. It was essential to ensure a strict application of the provisions of the Criminal Code on the use of firearms. Moreover the regulations in force under the old legislation governing the acquisition, storage and transportation of firearms were incoherent and difficult to apply.

The Minister of Justice had to make them understandable and accessible to everyone. But, did he do so? Let us take the time to consider a few paragraphs.

The Bloc Quebecois favours gun control without discriminating against those who use firearms reasonably and responsibly. I gave some statistics earlier. Here are some more. A descriptive study on suicides, homicides and accidental deaths by shooting was done on a data base available in the files of the coroner. For example, a number of files were examined by the Quebec coroner. The tally of deaths caused by firearms: from 1990 to 1992, 38 accidental deaths; from 1992 to 1993, 572 suicides; from 1991 to 1993, 227 homicides.

The goal of this study was to obtain information on the firearm used, its owner and the situation leading to the incident, in addition to the characteristics of the victims and the circumstances of the incident.

Thus we can see that guns are the preferred means used by people who want to end it all. Let us look at the specific aspects of this kind of death. Between 1990 and 1992, a gun was used in 26 per cent of all suicides. This percentage varies by age group. Thirty-seven per cent of all people under 20 years of age use a gun to commit suicide. In the 20 to 29 age bracket, this percentage drops to 27 per cent, and bottoms out at 25 per cent for people 30 years of age and older.

What is the age of the victim? The rate at which people 10 years of age or older use a gun to commit suicide is 5.2 per 100,000. However, we find the highest rate in the 15 to 24 age bracket, which is 7 per 100,000. Men, in a proportion of 92.7 per cent, use guns to commit suicide, compared to women who, naturally, make up the difference of 7.3 per cent.

I would like to continue by citing an interesting statistic which, unfortunately, concerns my region. The average annual suicide rate varies from 1.9 to 16.5 per 100,000 depending on the region. The rate is highest in the north of Quebec and in Abitibi.

As you can see, guns are not always put to good use in my riding. The riding of Manicouagan has a very high unemployment rate, which exceeds the average in other ridings.

Geography has somewhat isolated us from big centres, and this is an added stress weighing on residents and is also one of the contributing factors to the high suicide rate. The isolation factor should be considered in the analysis. However, this region is graced with all of nature's splendours, and, like the North Shore region, offers its residents so much untouched nature and free access to the oldest sports on earth: hunting and fishing.

As you guessed, residents of the North Shore need their guns to hunt. They can put them to a full and healthy use and they have proved this for many years.

With or without regulations, these people are able to make proper use of their weapons-for recreational purposes, needless to say.

Although it is important that Bill C-68 meet one of the goals established, namely gun control-no one in the Bloc Quebecois is against this-, we must be very careful not to dig too deeply into taxpayers' pockets under the pretext of exercising some control.

We must ensure, among other things, that the registration fees collected by the department are not a kind of hidden tax. The Bloc Quebecois is very wary of this.

Although we certainly agree with the principle that firearms must be better controlled and monitored, we should also be honest enough to admit that since a large number of firearms are used by suicidal people, gun control and registration will not solve the problem of suicide. Let us not forget that those who try to kill themselves with firearms may do so because they already have them in their possession; if not, the vast majority of them will simply use something else.

In closing, yes, the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of better gun control. We must, however, avoid imposing extra costs on people like those in my riding who do not need them. These people are fed up with having to pay more and more all the time.

With all its facilities designed to control the system, the department is certainly in a position to control travel costs, so that Quebec taxpayers, including those in Manicouagan, do not have to pay excessive costs.

[Property Rights, February 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, amending the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms so as to include the right to enjoyment of property is not a new idea. The entrenchment of a property right was an objective of the former Liberal government of 1968. Indeed, the Prime Minister of the time, Mr. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who had also been a Minister of Justice, proposed the adoption of a charter designed to ensure the constitutional protection of certain rights including, of course, the right to enjoyment of property.

As you know, that motion was rejected. In 1978, some provinces squarely opposed the idea, which was included in a bill on constitutional reform, Bill C-60. As I recall, those provinces included Manitoba and Prince Edward Island.

In 1980, the federal government proposed a new measure to guarantee the right to enjoyment of property. Again, the provinces strongly opposed the idea. Consequently, I have to tell the hon. member that, if he hopes to see section 7 of the Constitution Act, 1982, amended so as to include such a right, he has a very difficult task ahead of him. To give you an idea of how difficult this would be, assuming it can be done, it is important to look at the technical aspects of the issue for a moment.

First, since the charter is part of the Constitution, it can only be changed by way of an amendment to the Constitution itself. This first requires resolutions from the Senate and the House of Commons, something which is not easily obtained, and, second, resolutions from the legislative assemblies of at least two thirds of the provinces, the latter representing at least 50 per cent of the Canadian population. That also is not going to be easy to get.

This latter condition implies that Ontario or Quebec will have to be one of the provinces that support a draft amendment, since together, they represent more than 50 per cent of the population. Furthermore, the Constitution Act, 1982 provides under section 38(2), I believe, that the resolution must be adopted by a majority of the members of a legislative assembly, as opposed to a majority of the members present at the time of voting, if the proposed amendment derogates from the legislative powers, the proprietary rights or any other rights or privileges of the legislature or government of a province. That would be the case here if the Charter were amended to include property rights. As the hon. member can see, his motion is practically dead in the water.

So far, judgments up to the Supreme Court, have failed to establish that property rights should be protected under the 1982 Charter. This was even ruled out in the Irwin Toys Ltd. judgment, an important decision supported by a majority on the Supreme Court, which stated that the intentional exclusion of property rights from section 7 and its replacement by the "security of the person" had a twofold effect. First, one can conclude that on the whole, economic rights, generally designated by the term "property rights", are not covered by section 7. However, that does not mean that no rights with economic overtones could not be covered by the term "security of the person".

In other words, there are some serious reservations because of the potential negative impact. Many groups have expressed their concerns about the possible entrenchment of property rights in the Constitution. I will mention some of their concerns as well as some of their priorities.

Aboriginal people are, for instance, apprehensive about the potential impact on their land claims and property rights. Nowadays this is a sensitive issue, and land claims are sacro-sanct. The unions are worried about a conflict between the rights of workers and the rights of those who own the resources. Environmental groups wonder about the legislative impact if property rights were entrenched in the Constitution, rights that are entirely legitimate.

The provinces should be concerned that entrenchment of property rights would allow the courts to obstruct the application of laws that protect important community interests, including legislation on planning and land use, ownership of moveable goods and real estate, and even legislation on health and safety.

Entrenchment would have clearly unpredictable and even absurd consequences for municipal by-laws on zoning, environmental regulations and spousal property rights in the case of marriage breakdown.

Take, for example, the case of a man and a woman who separate, who get a divorce. The family patrimony act, a provincial statute, provides that in case of marriage dissolution, the house shall be sold and the proceeds of sale divided between the ex-spouses. In the event that the Constitution is amended to include the right to property, as is being proposed by my Reform colleague, that would mean that the ex-spouse who bought the house could contest the provincial legislation under the Canadian Charter simply by saying that his or her right to enjoyment of property is being interfered with. The other spouse would thus be completely deprived of his rights under the provincial legislation. There would be no solution to the dispute. The lack of sense of such an amendment is therefore readily apparent.

The entrenchment of the right to property in the Canadian Charter is also dangerous and represents an intrusion of the federal government into an area of jurisdiction reserved exclusively for the provinces under section 92(13) of the Constitution

Act, 1867, which states that only the provinces may make laws regarding property and civil rights in each province.

Furthermore, how will the courts interpret the right to property, since in Quebec, the civil law governs this right and the courts interpret it from a civil law point of view, while in the other provinces a common law interpretation is used?

In conclusion, I would like to point out that no one can say that this right is less respected in Canada than elsewhere in the world. It is clear that, for the official opposition, the real interest in such an amendment probably stems from considerations of a completely different sort. It is clear that the addition of such a right to legislation transcending the powers of the federal and provincial governments, such as the Charter of Rights, and entrenching enduring values for regulating the life of society constitutes, for the federal government, a powerful means of once again interfering in an exclusively provincial area of jurisdiction.

[Labour Relations, February 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's predecessor spent almost 15 months examining the issue and the problem still remains unsolved.

Does the minister realize that Ogilvie Mills workers cannot wait for a new incumbent to start the whole process from scratch? The minister must settle the issue quickly, in the days to come. We are asking for a deadline, for a date.