Francine Lalonde

[Port Of Montreal, March 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the minister has finally responded to the wishes of the union, which has been asking for a mediator for quite some time, because previously, labour relations have been excellent. What is needed is a permanent solution to the dispute.

Why did she not take similar action in the case of the railway transportation dispute?

[Port Of Montreal, March 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. The port of Montreal has been paralysed for thirteen days. Last week, the minister announced that she intended to appoint a mediator to help settle the dispute.

Could the minister explain why she was in such a hurry to pass back-to-work legislation only a few hours after a lockout was declared in the railway transportation industry, but has yet to appoint the mediator requested by the workers to help settle the dispute at the port of Montreal?

[Business Of The House, March 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to passing that legislation today. We are aware of the impact of a work stoppage in a sector such as railway operations. The minister said that Canada must be a reliable supplier and she also pointed out the economic consequences of such a conflict. However, she did not say anything about the plight of those who-and they did not do it for the fun of it-had to walk out under very unpleasant conditions.

As far as I know, Canada has a labour code. If back-to-work legislation is tabled every time the Labour Code is invoked by workers who have no other means to negotiate a settlement, this means that the mechanisms required to ensure strict and fair labour relations do not exist.

What this bill really does is prove the employers right. I wish that were not the case, but just take a look at the newspapers and read the recommendations made by commissioner Hope, who reviewed the issue. He says that the employers were very uncompromising and that, in fact, the unions' demands were never taken into consideration.

It is very easy to speak against a given union or union member. However, let us not forget that company managers and

executives often enjoy personal benefits, salaries, bonuses and stocks which do not make any sense and which do not exist in other countries. I always think of Japan, where the gap between employers and employees' salaries is much narrower than it is here.

Canadian workers are in a difficult situation. No one mentions the fact that, over the years, they waived many rights to preserve a single one: the right to a job. It is important that these workers can tell all Canadians that they made concessions, but that they are not prepared to lose the essential in an industry which needs skilled workers.

It is important to remember, although this is not necessarily popular, that workers have acquired certain rights and that, at the very least, they have the right to exercise this kind of pressure-not an easy thing to do-to show that they exist and to avoid being crushed by the system.

I would have liked to hear the minister talk about people. If the government decided to intervene every time certain behaviours were found to be harmful to the economy, it would often have cause to do so, not only in labour disputes. It would intervene in the case of companies whose practices do not promote productivity. Workers are not pawns, they are people. If a company is to be productive, workers must have working conditions that reflect a minimum of fairness, otherwise the cost will be far greater than that of a strike that does neither party any good.

Yes, some workers are on strike, but others have been locked out. And others were swept along because they refused to cross picket lines. All things considered, we are not very happy about the situation.

However, this does not mean we should deny these workers their rights. Canadians should at least be told about the conditions they gave up for the sake of one, and that these workers should have access to a fair and equitable settlement. Today, we should confirm their right to use pressure to defend their position and to engage in free collective bargaining. Otherwise, if employers can always count on the government to deal with their problems, they will never agree to a fair settlement.

Sure, they have certain constraints. Sure, these constraints are genuine. But in a situation like this, there are always two parties, and employers cannot take the position that only their interests should guide Parliament and the government. For these reasons, because we want to encourage free collective bargaining, because we want workers to be able to stand up for their rights and because we want Parliament to respect its own legislation-I am referring to the Canada Labour Code-we will not agree to fast tracking this legislation today.

[Grain Export Protection Act, March 20th, 1995]

Clearly, I could not use these words in reference to you. This is not news for you, because you already know full well that this sort of unfair situation cannot be allowed

to develop so blatantly on the assumption that the workers alone will always be asked to contribute an ever increasing share.

Today, tomorrow and in the coming days, we will be talking about railway workers. We will see that they too, with each successive collective agreement, have had to forgo working conditions they previously enjoyed. This is the truth. They have done so in order to take refuge in what they considered essential in a time of unemployment-a sort of job guarantee.

And now, because the employer is not budging-and we will have to see what the government does in this-we are about to see these workers as well lose some of their working conditions.

As regards this particular bill, I understand and I share the desire for harmonious labour relations. However, when it is unreasonably assumed that the right to strike may be withdrawn without provision being made for sufficient means to settle working conditions, I do not expect grain transportation to be harmonious and secure. This will not be the case. History has shown us that this has not been the case in the past; it will most likely not be the case in the future.

I would add, particularly since the government has not seen fit yet to propose anti-strikebreaking legislation, which would allow re-establishment of a balance of power. If we want to establish labour relations, and in the area of essential services as well, which permit a balance-and not only the appearance of a balance but real healthy labour relations-attention must be paid as well to the balance of power. Many provinces have a provision for this, and it has proved its worth.

As for our case, the work that remains to be done at the federal level to ensure labour relations that permit public enjoyment of the services they are entitled to, but without the cost of the cuts we must face being passed on to the workers concerned, will involve paying greater attention to finding this balance. This is the only way to ensure that the same protection accorded to grain in Canada is accorded to health and life in the provinces.

[Grain Export Protection Act, March 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what the hon. member had to say, and I realize that the grain industry is very important to the Canadian economy and to western Canada in particular. But I would like to say that grain is surely not more important than the lives and health of our fellow countrymen.

But people's lives and health, and these are under provincial jurisdiction, can also be affected by a labour dispute. What was the best solution found after a lot of research and trial and error? In order to strike a balance between the right of workers to strike and the priority right of individuals to health and safety, it was determined that the best solution was to establish the principle of essential services. Essential service does not mean the right to strike is taken away.

Those who dream of the day there will be no more strikes should realize that taking away the right to strike does not guarantee there will be no more strikes. In fact, history has shown that before the right to strike existed, there were many, extremely rough strikes, for the simple reason that there was no legislation. The strikes were there before the right to strike. If we want labour relations to be more harmonious, if we want grain and health to be priorities, we must ensure that labour relations are more conducive to dispute settlement.

We must not forget that, especially at a time when for more than ten years, in many cases, workers have had to tighten their belts, make all kinds of concessions and pay more and more taxes, when the economy starts picking up, these workers would like to have their modest share, at least. We must not forget that in this country, we see executives of private companies getting outrageously high salaries and benefits, although they are hardly as productive as Japanese companies. In Japan, the gap between the salaries or incomes of executives and employees is much narrower than in this country.

We cannot afford an economic model where executives can earn whatever they please and workers will just have to tighten their belts and watch others take their share of the profits. We must not forget why we have labour legislation. We have labour legislation because we had to deal with the flagrant injustice that existed at the time. And if we think that bringing all this back will lead to prosperity and harmonious labour relations in this country, I have got news for you. It will not happen.

[Social Program Reform, March 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the minister that the last federal-provincial conference on this issue was scheduled for April 18 and that the previous government was in power at the time.

Here is my supplementary. Will the minister finally agree to comply with the Quebec National Assembly's unanimous resolution, made on April 14, 1994, to abide by the unanimous consensus among all stakeholders that Quebec has to have exclusive jurisdiction over manpower training?

[Social Program Reform, March 13th, 1995]

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

Now that the federal government has announced its decisions concerning social program reform, the Quebec government is requesting that a federal-provincial conference of ministers responsible for manpower be held as soon as possible to discuss the consequences of the federal measures announced, in particular the reduction in transfer payments.

Does the Minister of Human Resources Development intend to call as soon as possible this spring a conference on the impact of his social program reform, as requested by Quebec?

[The Budget, February 28th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, if I understood well the question of the hon. member, he is wondering if we are not asking in fact for a transfer of tax points. That was the position we adopted and the minority report of the Committee on Human Resources Development refers to a transfer of tax points.

However, it is important to make a point about standards. In all regions of Canada where the members of the Committee have travelled, il was clear that everywhere, except in Quebec, people want strong national standards. As far as they are concerned, Quebecers want, with a few exceptions, to have their own standards.

Quebecers are a people, even though they do not always call themselves that way et they want to make their own standards. Often, those standards are higher than elsewhere for reasons I will not explain here, but it is nevertheless a fact. It is true for daycare services, it is true in the case of the Act on handicapped people, and I could go on.

But being a distinct people with regional differences, it is normal that Quebec wants to create its own standards. This is what I had to say on that issue. From a philosophical point of view, the economic or social organization is different from one people to another. You only have to study peoples as a whole or even peoples having a comparable level of social expenses to see that choices are different according to peoples, their history, their priorities or simply because they are different from one another.

It is therefore on that basis, without explaining it with rational arguments, that one can understand and defend the idea that the people of Quebec wants its own standards.

[The Budget, February 28th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

First, I want to say that if I talked about surpluses in the unemployment insurance fund, it is because these surpluses are due to the cuts that have been made. However, my hon. colleague gives me the opportunity to say that what the federal government is about to do with its Human Resources Investment Fund is to provide itself with a fat account, because it will be supplied both by the programs presently financed through the Consolidated Revenue Fund and-this is made very clear in the budget-by the reallocation of the moneys saved by a new reform of unemployment insurance.

That means that the government will provide itself with a big fund to take action in areas of provincial jurisdiction. It will not even bother any longer to try to negotiate or impose its standards, it will take action.

The last step is the centralization in Canada of social programs since the transfer of jurisdictions, because at that time at least they sought approval by Parliament. The last step deals with direct involvement in day care services, in income supplements, because the minister's objective was to be able to take up, through federal funds, the assistance, employability and job development services, yes, but for people able to work, who from now on would not be under provincial jurisdiction but who would, because of the long term unemployed provisions, fall under the central government's control.

So, there is indeed a large reform under way, but that reform, instead of going in the direction of recognizing provincial jurisdictions, is going in the direction of giving, through funding, direct power to the central government. This government does not care about overlap and duplication. It does not care about co-ordinating its operations and setting a strategy with the provinces, which means that in fact the government will completely take over the area of manpower. Under the circumstances, it is easy to understand why it does not want to hand over manpower training to Quebec.

[The Budget, February 28th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is always difficult to pick up the momentum one had in the first part of a speech. I am sure that we lost our listeners and viewers during the vote.

I just would like to add very quickly that there is something I find very surprising in this budget, and that is the role of the unemployment insurance fund. As we saw, the federal government is withdrawing from funding health care, education and social assistance. This spring, it passed Bill C-17, which tightened up eligibility criteria so that fewer people were entitled to UI, and received smaller benefits for a shorter period of time.

The UI fund allowed the federal government to pay itself back for the loan it had made during the recession and consequently to present a more favourable picture. But this is not all. Since the government did not lower premiums but reduced eligibility, it was able to make some incredible forecasts. This year and next, there will be a difference of $5 billion between expenditures and revenues.

What is this money going to be used for? Naturally, the government proposes, first, to reduce the deficit. Does it propose to reduce contributions, to help small and medium size businesses? No. It proposes to let a surplus of $5 billion accumulate. What it also proposes, to finance the creation of a human resources investment fund, as the budget calls it, through a new reform of unemployment insurance, is to divert money from UI to this new fund.

In fact, the unemployment insurance fund is the cash cow of the federal government. It will protect it from the effects of the next recession. By withdrawing from the financing of social programs and the CAP in particular, the federal government leaves the provinces in a position where they will have to deal with the consequences of a future recession and a future increase in the numbers of the poor, while insulating itself from such consequences. How? By having surpluses in the unemployment insurance fund.

Who generates such a surplus? Companies, of course. But not any company, the ones that are labour-intensive, that is the low-tech companies, those where things are done manually. The companies where wages are the lowest. These companies and these workers contribute in a large part to the unemployment insurance fund. Companies with more technology and higher wages, because of ceilings, are exempt. And this means that the fund is financed by workers and companies which are not the main beneficiaries of the fund. Not only do they help give the federal government some protection against the next recession, they also allow it to show a lower deficit since the money is added to the federal budget. We recommended that it not be included anymore.

Finally, not only do we see more cuts in social programs, nothing whatsoever in the way of employment, and continued interference by the federal government in areas where there is money to be had and where it can call the shots, but in the case of manpower training, the federal government no longer says that the provinces know best. That is not what it says. It maintains control over job training and all manpower issues. As I said, it does not want to withdraw from areas where there is money to be had.

However, the money in the unemployment insurance fund comes from labour-intensive corporations employing a lot of low-paid workers and from these workers. Let me conclude by saying that the workers are really the ones who foot the bill since the corporations pass on their costs onto the consumer.

It is really a shame to see the federal government use this fund to shamelessly guard against whatever the future holds, while workers will have to pay more taxes and will run into more problems in the areas of health, education and welfare.

There is another important issue I want to address and it is linked to the new national standards that we can expect with the Canada social transfer. Throughout the budget speech, we are told "This is the beginning of a new era in Canada. We have finally realized that provinces know best", especially, may I add, in tough times. But there is more.

With this new Canada social transfer, the federal government will be able to withdraw during the next recession and still have the power to set new standards.

What are we told? We are told that, for two years, this Canada social transfer will be funded at the average combined rate of CAP and EPF and that, for two years, health care standards will apply, so that the federal government will be able to withhold

payments to provinces who do not comply. We are also told that the Canadian assistance plan, or CAP, the source of half of the social program funding in Canada, no longer exists. The only responsibility that remains is to make welfare payments without minimum residency requirements.

The bottom line is that the government, by dropping CAP, wants to be seen as generous and mindful, at last, of the role of provinces. But the fact is that the government is retreating because it can no longer afford CAP. It does not want to invest the money needed to give its share to Ontario, a province that suffered a lot during the last recession. The government was in a bind and either had to find more money, or penalize Quebec. So, it decided to put on a show of openness, but at the same time to prepare with the provinces new standards applicable, as Mr. Martin said, to the Canada social transfer.

No more cuts, no more centralizing. Let the people and the provinces take care of all the problems and the debt. But the federal government got itself some breathing space by using the money of workers and small businesses.