Jason Kenney

[Canada Labour Code, March 16th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the Bill C-19 amendments to the Canada Labour Code which my colleagues and I are opposing.

This is an anti-democratic bill which overrides the privacy rights of workers and collective bargaining, properly conceived.

Let me say at the outset that the Reform Party has, since its founding, supported the principle of collective bargaining. We believe that workers, by joining together democratically through an appropriate, open, transparent and democratic process, may decide, quite legitimately, to negotiate collectively and bargain collectively with their employers. That is a fundamental economic right which is recognized in every liberal democracy and which is also recognized by the Reform Party.

What Bill C-19 seeks to do, by amending the Canada Labour Code, is to change the legal framework within which those collective bargaining rights are exercised by people who work in industries regulated by the federal government.

This bill changes the name and the powers of the Canada Labour Relations Board to the Canada Industrial Relations Board. The cosmetic change of its name reflects a significant change in the powers which will be given to the board.

One of the principal objections I have to the bill is that the new board will have, as my colleague from Medicine Hat mentioned, the power to ban replacement workers in federally regulated industries. That means that a company which has done its level best in fair negotiation to provide a fair deal to its employees but which finds that the union leadership, for one reason or another, decides to strike, will be held ransom. Its livelihood and ultimately the livelihood of its workers will be held at the whim of the union leadership. This company will not have the right, if proscribed by the Canada Industrial Relations Board, to replace striking workers with people who can continue to provide those goods and services. In other words, the economic viability of various companies and indeed various industries can and may very well be threatened by this bill if it is passed.

As the hon. member mentioned, the government recognizes the flaw in empowering the CIRB to ban replacement workers by exempting those workers employed in the area of grain shipping and handling at the ports. In the past there have been several instances when those workers have gone on strike and caused enormous economic turmoil for prairie grain farmers because of their inability to export overseas the grain they have produced. These amendments do not really solve that problem. The ability to hire replacement workers will not necessarily mean that grain will move. What it does mean is that we are creating a double standard for workers, one standard for those who do not work in the grain handling unions and one standard for those who do.

If banning replacement workers is wrong in the grain handling situation, then it is wrong for those who do not handle grain, those who handle other commodities, those who provide other goods and services, those who are as essential to the Canadian economy as our grain workers.

We would seek to remove the provisions of this bill which, in a discriminatory way, create a double standard with respect to replacement workers.

Another serious concern I have with the bill is its treatment of the certification issue. This bill would empower the CIRB to certify a union local at a particular place of business even if the majority of the employees at that place vote against certification.

My colleagues will correct me if I am wrong, but I thought we were living in a democracy. I thought that in a democracy the majority, or at least a strong plurality, prevailed. However, in the case of the amendments to Bill C-19 the government is saying that the principle of democracy can be marginalized.

If a bunch of appointed members of this board, likely Liberal patronage hacks, decide that a particular local place of business is to be certified, it will be certified by that board even against the overwhelming objection of the people who work there.

My colleague mentioned the recent case of a Wal-Mart store in Nelson, British Columbia, which has similar legislation to that being introduced here, where the B.C. labour relations board ordered that the Nelson Wal-Mart employees be unionized even though they voted against it in their certification vote. A similar thing happened at a Wal-Mart store in Windsor, Ontario. We could see the same thing happening across the country in federally regulated industries if these amendments are passed.

We are also concerned about the question of privacy. This bill would undermine the privacy rights of union workers. This is a very serious consideration. People are often forced into a union. We are talking about a labour regime of closed shop unions where the board can force the people to be in a certified union. Now we are saying their privacy rights are to be compromised by this bill. This is really big brother manifest in this kind of legislation and that is why we are opposed to it.

What we ought to do is look at a fair, open and transparent regime for regulating labour unions. We have no objection to people legitimately exercising their collective bargaining rights. However, this bill would create a double standard, would jeopardize the privacy rights of workers and would jeopardize the livelihoods of many businesses and potentially some industries through its treatment of replacement workers.

Finally, this bill would override the principle of democracy which should govern the treatment of unions in the certification process. Frankly, I think it is an exercise of statist tyrannical power to tell a majority of workers that they are going to be forced into a union and forced to pay dues against their will. That is simply wrong.

We ought to look at bills like this at the level of first principles. So often we get buried in the details of technical amendments like this and we lose sight of first principles. One of the principles of liberal democracy is freedom. I know it is a quaint notion to some of my friends opposite on occasion. However, that notion dictates that people cannot be coerced by the state to surrender their freedoms without their consent. Bill C-19 would seek to circumscribe the economic freedoms of workers to not be unionized, not certified and not forced to pay union dues if they choose not to.

We ought to put Bill C-19 and these amendments back on the drawing board. As the Senate committee suggested, we ought to start all over again and listen to the business groups across this country that are speaking out against this. I have received several phone calls, letters and faxes from different businesses and business organizations that say this bill constitutes a very real threat to the competitiveness of the Canadian labour force and our labour markets.

I would ask all my hon. colleagues, including those on the Liberal side, to look beyond the spin they are getting from the labour department and look at the first principles behind this bill and vote against Bill C-19.

[Taxation, March 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the auditor general says that this is the wrong way to keep the books. The Institute of Chartered Accountants says that this is the wrong way to keep the books. Any reasonable objective person who knows about public accounting will say that this is inconsistent with the rules.

Why has the government not been forthcoming, clear and straightforward in the way it keeps the public accounts? If programs are good, then book them when they should be booked, but do not lie to Canadians about when those—

[Taxation, March 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are preparing for tax time. The Canadian tax system works on the principle of honest reporting of income, transparent self-reporting of income. This system would collapse if Canadians were allowed to play the same kind of games with their books the government is playing with the public books.

How can the government and the finance minister square the principle of honesty in accounting with his manipulation of the public accounts?

[Observance Of Two Minutes Of Silence On Remembrance Day Act, March 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think that was more a point of debate. I will simply say that that point of order points to the need for reform of the means by which we handle private members' business.

[Observance Of Two Minutes Of Silence On Remembrance Day Act, March 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to conclude debate on the bill. At the outset I thank members of all parties for their words and I think their support.

I would however put to the hon. member of the Bloc Quebecois that the bill is not proposing two minutes frivolously. This is a tradition which is decades old. It is what the Royal Canadian Legion has recommended as an appropriate period of observance. It is what the mother parliament, Westminister, has enacted by way of a motion. It is what the Ontario legislature has passed through unanimous vote. I suggest that two minutes, as the previous member has suggested, is not too much to ask for what we are commemorating.

However, if amendments were permitted to the bill I would be happy to remove the specific reference to two minutes and to have it stated as a moment of silence. I am not particularly concerned about the precise wording. I am more concerned about the sentiment which the bill attempts to express.

I also agree with the comments of the previous speaker that this kind of honorific statute is of no effect if the spirit of it is not taken up by Canadians.

One of the roles of parliament is to exercise national leadership. Part of that leadership should be in demonstrating the importance of our national symbols, one of which is a moment of silence. That is why I bring forward the bill as an act on the part of all members to provide us with an opportunity to exercise leadership in this regard. It would be for all Canadians to observe it.

It has happened, as the hon. member for Saint John has so eloquently pointed out, in the United Kingdom where this practice fell out of use. It has now led to a remarkable moving silence in every corner of the United Kingdom. There is no reason why we could not replicate that experience here.

In closing I refer to a anecdote about a particular Canadian soldier which would bring to mind the need for this kind of commemoration and to take it so seriously. I refer to a story reported in a book on direct democracy by a former member of this place, Patrick Boyer. He dedicated the book to a man by the name Gib Boxall who died at age 24 on June 9, 1944.

Gib Boxall was involved in the D-Day landing. He was one of the more than 1,000 Canadians who were killed in that war. When Canadian Sergeant Alf Allen was asked about his experience in digging some of the graves for Canadian soldiers, he said that he came across the body of Gilbert Boxall and said:

He came from Canwood in northern Saskatchewan, grew up in the Depression and had very little of this world's goods. He'd never have had been the stick man in a British Guards parade but as a dedicated working man there was none better. He landed in the assault wave on, gave first aid on the beach and in the battle inland. On D-plus 3, running to a chap he heard calling for help, he was cut down and killed. On his body we latter found five dried shell dressings—he'd five wounds prior to being killed. He never said a word to anybody, just crawled away somewhere, put a dressing on and went back in.

That is the kind of heroism and courage which we can never do enough to recognize and commemorate. For that reason, I want to close by inviting all members to support this bill and to seek unanimous consent to make it a votable bill.

[Observance Of Two Minutes Of Silence On Remembrance Day Act, March 12th, 1998]

moved that Bill C-279, an act to promote the observance of two minutes of silence on Remembrance Day, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise to speak to Bill C-279, an act to promote the observance of two minutes of silence on Remembrance Day.

I rise to speak to this bill with a heavy heart. Many Canadians and parliamentarians will ask why it is necessary for this place to consider a bill to formalize what is regarded as a widespread and widely accepted custom, namely the observance of moments of silence on November 11, a custom which originated in the British empire and was then adopted by the Commonwealth since Armistice Day which marks the ending of the first and great war in 1918. The reason I bring forward this bill is precisely that custom, which is so deeply entrenched in our history, is increasingly falling out of practice.

It is not to exaggerate for one to say that many young Canadians have become disconnected from our history, from our traditions and, in particular, from a proper appreciation of the enormous sacrifices made by our war dead in the two great wars.

This is an observation that I draw not only from anecdotal evidence which I suppose any member of this place may be aware of. One might easily be aware of the growing degree to which people are not taught about the great military history of this country and of the enormity of the sacrifices made by our war generations. It is not simply an anecdotal observation, it is borne out by recent public opinion research.

In fact, what led me to consider introducing this bill was a recent public opinion survey conducted by a new research institute called the Dominion Institute. It recently asked young Canadians a number of questions about Canadian history. They were rather simple and straightforward questions. The questions were what we would assume would be absolutely essential to any kind of historic and cultural literacy about this country.

What the poll found, among other things, was that among young Canadians, teenagers and those in their early twenties, 64% did not know the name of our first prime minister. Only 15% knew when our Constitution was repatriated from Great Britain. When asked to name two countries which Canada fought against in the first world war, 39% guessed France and Britain. One in ten had no answer at all.

When they were asked questions about the interment of Japanese Canadians in the second world war, 68% had no knowledge of this.

The results were shocking. Sixty-five per cent did now know what D-Day stands for. Only 35% of young Canadians know that it stands for the invasion of Europe at the end of the second world war.

Sixty-nine per cent of young Canadians did not know that the battle of Vimy took place in the first world war. That was perhaps the most important battle in the great and glorious military history of this country.

Sixty-seven per cent of young Canadians surveyed by the Dominion Institute did not know which war Remembrance Day marks the end of.

In other words, we have allowed a creeping ignorance to develop not only in young Canadians but I would argue within our citizenry as a whole about the enormity of the sacrifices made and the central importance of our military history. It is for that reason that I have brought forward this bill.

The Dominion Institute suggested, among other things, that one of the remedies that could be found to increase an understanding and appreciation of our military history would be to formalize the increasingly disrespected custom of the solemn silence on Remembrance Day.

In many Canadian schools, in many Canadian workplaces, in many retail shopping malls, in many public spaces, in many public squares of Canada, one can pass by the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month with the normal hubbub of human activity with hardly a moment's notice.

Many Canadians, many tens of thousands of Canadians, recognize Remembrance Day. They gather around the cenotaphs and memorials. They gather at the Legion halls in their communities across this country. They remember and they stop for a moment of silence to pay tribute to their war dead.

However, many millions more do not pay that tribute. If we owe one thing to those who died for this country and for our freedom, it is to remember them. It is to remember the struggles in which they fought.

I was also moved to bring this bill when thinking about a recent experience I had shortly before Remembrance Day last year. I was at the Lester Pearson airport in Toronto and observed at the entrance to the security area of the airport a elderly veteran with his Legion hat and poppy. He was trying to offer poppies to passers-by, to travellers entering the security area of the airport.

I watched this man who must have been in his early eighties who likely fought in the second world war. He stood there with a forlorn expression on his face for some time because traveller after traveller passed him by and did not even acknowledge this man, this hero of the second world war.

I stood and watched for several minutes. Not a single person approached him, regarded him, commended him or spoke to him. Not a single person bothered to stop and take a poppy from him.

It brought me great sadness to think about what must have passed through this man's mind as he saw these busy travellers, business people, Canadians all, none of whom seemed to even have a moment's notice for him and the sacrifice he and the poppy represented.

That is why I think we must make, in this country, a concerted effort to pay proper respect to our war dead, to revive the tradition of a fulsome national commemoration of Remembrance Day which was really a moment in years past.

Shortly after the second world war this entire country and every other country in the British empire, now the Commonwealth, would stop in their tracks at 11 o'clock on Remembrance Day. Every business place would shut down. Factories would stop their equipment. Cars would pull to the side of the road. Local and national broadcasters would cease broadcasting.

Every place one went there would be a remarkable national silence not just around the cenotaphs in the various communities but in every place where Canadians were; in private or in public this sacred moment of observance was respected.

With this bill, I hope this Parliament will begin to call on all Canadians to respect once more that tradition in a way that it deserves to be respected. I also bring forward this bill as part of a growing concern among not only Canadians but our friends in Great Britain.

Two years ago the British Westminster Parliament, our mother Parliament, passed a motion which was very similar to my private member's bill as part of a major national campaign launched by the Royal Legion to increase in a dramatic way the observance of what is known there as Armistice Day.

The Royal Canadian Legion has launched a similar campaign. It has called on the federal government to help sponsor a two minute wave of silence that will sweep across the country at 11 o'clock on November 11 beginning on Remembrance Day 1999.

The Royal Canadian Legion, on behalf of its 533,000 members, has therefore endorsed this bill and urged this House to pass it.

Recently the provincial legislature of Ontario passed a private member's bill sponsored by Mr. Morley Kells, MPP, bill 112, which is almost identical to the bill before us. This bill from the Ontario legislature received royal assent in October.

What this bill would seek to do is not require anything of Canadians, not coerce them or create a new government program or bureaucracy but simply to invite and encourage them on behalf of our war dead, in expressing our gratitude to the many dedicated men and women who bravely and unselfishly gave their lives for Canada, to stop for two minutes and observe the silence.

The bill provides a number of practical suggestions as to how this might be done, by participating in the traditional Remembrance Day commemoration at a memorial or cenotaph, by pulling to the side of the road if they are driving, by gathering in common areas in their workplaces to observe the silence, to stop assembly lines where possible, to shut down factories for two minutes.

We have recently read stories in the newspapers about how unions and employers have struck agreements to continue working through Remembrance Day and to no longer respect it as a statutory holiday let alone a moment of silence. It encourages schools, colleges, universities and other public institutions to observe the silence and it encourages Canadians to attend services held in places of worship.

The bill is a very simple one. Some might say it is merely a symbolic thing and that it is not our business to be involved in encouraging respect for symbols. However, in observing the current controversy we are experiencing with respect to the Canadian flag and its place in this House and in this country, we can see how enormously powerful symbols really are.

For that reason I call on all my colleagues and all Canadians not to be flippant about symbols such as this but to consider the need to increase and deepen the understanding of the sacrifice represented by Remembrance Day by taking every step we possibly can to invite all Canadians to do honour to the war dead such as Colonel McCrae whose words from In Flanders Fields are inscribed just outside the walls of this place and whose statue we pass every day on our way into this place.

Let us resolve, hopefully with the passage of this bill, to begin to do greater honour than we have in recent years to the sacred memory of our war dead.

[Cfb Calgary, March 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, these people have been talking to the local officials and they are outraged with the way this government is treating Calgary to a double standard.

When it comes to the Downsview air force base in the Minister of National Defence's riding they get a special deal for the land. When it comes to the Collège militaire in Quebec, they get a special deal. But when it comes to CFB Calgary, the elected officials are saying that they are being penalized by this government, which will not let the Canadian lands corporation negotiate.

Why do you have an unelected senator telling Calgary elected officials that they are going to have to pay through the nose for this land they own?

[Cfb Calgary, March 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, when the government closed CFB Calgary, it was clear they were punishing Calgarians for not electing Liberals.

Now Calgary wants to use some of the CFB land to build a veterans' hospital, some low income housing and a college but the government has dispatched unelected Senator Dan Hays, president of the Liberal Party, to tell Calgary's elected officials they are going to have to pay through the nose to buy the land they already own.

Why is the government forcing Alberta taxpayers to pay millions for land they already own?

[Gabrielle Léger, March 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to a highly respected Canadian woman. We were saddened to learn that Gabrielle Léger, the wife of the former governor general, His Excellency the Hon. Jules Léger.

Her courage and strength of character earned Mrs. Léger the respect of all Canadians. When the governor general became seriously ill, she stood by his side. Mrs. Léger became the first woman to deliver the Speech from the Throne after the governor general suffered a stroke that left him unable to speak clearly.

Her contributions to Canadian heritage were recognized when the Gabrielle Léger award was instituted by the Heritage Canada Foundation and when Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau announced a scholarship was being created in her honour and that of her husband.

Let us pay tribute to the memory of Mrs. Léger and her many contributions to Canada.

[The Budget, March 9th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, on the weekend I happened to be in the hon. member's constituency of Vancouver East. I understand the difficult social and economic conditions of which she speaks.

The east end of Vancouver in many respects is a tragic scene of economic devastation and social problems. For six years now British Columbia has been governed by a New Democratic government which has raised taxes and in so doing increased unemployment, reducing opportunities for the people who now find themselves on skid row in Vancouver.

The same thing happened in Ontario. Bob Rae raised taxes and unemployment skyrocketed. If we look at Ontario we see that the Mike Harris government has cut taxes, revenues have gone up, with them health care spending has gone up and so too has employment. Unemployment has gone down.

I ask the hon. member to compare her constituency to the city of Calgary, for instance, which is in the province that has the lowest provincial taxes in the country and an unemployment rate of approximately 5%, nearly a third of what it is in the east end of Vancouver.

Could she comment on the regional disparities with respect to taxes and economic growth which exist in the country?