Jean-Pierre Blackburn

[The Budget, March 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin this debate by talking about the current budget, which I would describe as responsible and credible. It is also a budget that strengthens both Quebec and Canada.

Why is it that we can say Quebec and Canada will be stronger after this budget? First of all, because we have resolved the fiscal imbalance issue. While the party opposite, the Liberal Party, refused to even recognize that notion, we of the Conservative Party, through the voice of our Prime Minister, recognize that a fiscal imbalance did exist in this country. Indeed, the federal government had a lot more money than the provinces, which was affecting their flexibility.

I am going to focus on the province of Quebec right now, since I am a member from Quebec. What we have just done today is hand over $4.1 billion over two years to Quebec, which is additional funding to correct the fiscal imbalance. What is most interesting about all this is the fact that the Bloc Québécois was asking for $3.9 billion over three years. They have approximately 50 members here in the House of Commons. For 14 years, they have been making all kinds of requests, without ever getting any results, without ever being able to do anything themselves, because they are always in opposition. All they can do is complain.

In 14 months, with our Prime Minister and 10 members from Quebec, we have resolved the issue of the fiscal imbalance with this payment of $4.1 billion over two years. I would like to be in Quebec Premier Jean Charest's shoes today. If $4.1 billion over two years had just been added to my coffers, I would be very proud of the federal government. Indeed, that would give me plenty of flexibility to better meet the needs of the province of Quebec and its citizens.

I would like to talk about a few other aspects of this budget that I also find interesting. There is the issue of families. To the Conservative Party—as a member of this party—family has always been very important to us. Last year, the Prime Minister granted $1,200 for children six and under, for child care. It is up to the parents to decide how to use that money, whether they prefer to have someone come into their home to care for their child or whether they want to send their child to a day care. It is up to the parents and they get $1,200 a year for that purpose.

This year, we approached this from another angle to address children 18 and under in one family. A $2,000 tax credit will be given for every child 18 and under to help families better position themselves to meet the immediate needs of their children. A $2,000 tax credit represents roughly $350 in cash that people will receive per child.

The other thing we are doing for families involves RRSPs. We know that we will increasingly need older workers since there are fewer and fewer people in the job market and there will be a labour shortage. In that context, if our seniors want to continue to work on a temporary basis, and want to continue to be active in society and become involved, the age limit for RRSPs is being raised from 69 to 71. People will be able to continue to contribute to their RRSPs and not have to withdraw from them until they are 71.

The other interesting aspect as far as family is concerned, has to do with workers. A $500 benefit will help support workers in the labour market. We realize that these people have expenses to get to work, that they invest and need more help. In this context, we are giving a $500 benefit to our workers.

Often little is done for truckers. We know that the previous governments decreased their help. When truckers are on the road and have to stop at a restaurant for food, only 50% of their meal expenses were deductible. We are going to raise this from 50% to 80%. This is another step in helping our truckers.

As for the environment, some have talked about it. All manner of grand proposals were made. But when it came time to take action, they backed off. Our government decided to show that it is taking all this seriously. What are we doing about the environment? First, there is the $1.5 billion Canada ecotrust established this year to improve our air quality and also to clean up our lakes, rivers and oceans.

We also have about $4.5 billion in global environmental initiatives for this year.

One measure that may have particularly impressed citizens yesterday is promoting the purchase of energy efficient vehicles in order to reduce greenhouse gases and improve air quality. This will be accomplished by providing a credit of $2,000 for the purchase of such automobiles.

Why are we doing this? If we do encourage Canadians to choose these vehicles when making a purchase, and we contribute to improving air quality, this in turn will encourage businesses to carry out even more research into renewable fuels and improving the environment in Canada. This measure shows that we are serious and that we want to push companies to really work harder in this area.

There is also something that not many opposition members probably even noticed. That is festivals. There will be an additional $30 million a year for them. As a result of the sponsorship scandal, this entire area had been overlooked. People were asking us to do something to support festivals in the regions of Quebec. There are big events in Montreal, of course, but there are also festivals and other events regionally. These people were asking for government support. Thirty million dollars will therefore be earmarked for them. I know that a lot of people will be very happy to hear this. When we see the budget breakdown, we will see how it will all work out.

I am Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, and when a budget is introduced, I almost automatically look at what it means for the regions.

There are two aspects. First, there is the manufacturing sector, that is to say, the companies that produce goods and services.

We just told our companies—like those in the forest industry, for example sawmills, pulp and paper and various manufacturers—that they will be able to write off the investments they make in new equipment over the next two years more quickly and that they will be able to do so in just two years. If these companies do it in two years, it will mean a return on their investment. This will be attractive to them. If they take action—and we believe that they will thanks to this measure—the regions of Quebec are going to see new investment in sawmills, pulp and paper plants and other manufacturing. This measure should also make our companies more competitive on foreign markets, more productive, and therefore more profitable. It applies to small and medium-size companies, of course, but also to large manufacturers.

The other aspect to which I wanted to draw the House’s attention concerns our farmers. What are we doing more specifically for our farmers and for our fishers and small businesspeople?

The ceiling on the capital gains exemption had been fixed at half-a-million dollars per year for nearly 20 years. We have just raised that to three-quarters of a million dollars. As a result, our farmers will now have an opportunity to transfer a farm to their children or other people who could take over the business. The same applies to fishers, which is important, and also to small businesses.

Farmers were complaining about the Canadian agricultural income stabilization program. They wanted changes. We told them we would make changes; and we have done that. We will replace the program, so to speak, with a support system for farmers. This year, as a matter of fact, we are adding $1 billion in agricultural support.

Finally, there is the infrastructure program. People are more or less aware of what goes into an infrastructure program. First, there are big projects, such as major highways. We have set aside $16 billion for those; altogether, $33 billion over seven years to strengthen the infrastructure program.

In Quebec, more precisely, the federal government recently invested $40 million to support Phase III. At present, many regional projects are waiting to start. No doubt, shortly after its election, the new government in Quebec will match our investment of $40 million. That will enable us to support specific projects.

In substance, it is a good budget. It is not a show-off budget; it is serious and credible.

I understand very well why the Bloc Québécois has decided to support us. Indeed, they knew perfectly well that voting against this budget was not an option. At the same time, we have a right to question their presence here in this House of Commons, to the extent that, in addition, they confirm that they will support our budget.

[Industry, March 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in this House about two weeks ago, our government indeed paid $18 million to the National Optics Institute for the next three years. Of course, that institute has additional demands, but the file is now being analyzed.

I would also ask the hon. members to wait for the budget presentation later this afternoon.

[National Optics Institute, March 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, our government has supported the National Optics Institute for many years.

Last year, we renewed a funding agreement of $6 million annually over a three-year period. The announcement was made six months ago. I was at the press conference. Naturally, they are asking for additional funds. All organizations tend to ask for more from the government. However, we also have budget constraints and we have entered into discussions with the Minister of Industry to determine how we can further support the National Optics Institute in Quebec City.

[Canada Labour Code, February 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me an opportunity to take part in this debate.

Allow me to mention right away that the members of the Bloc Québécois are trying to take the example of what happens in Quebec and apply it to the whole country.

Unfortunately this is not the case with Bill C-257, which would no longer allow the use of replacement workers. I am myself a Quebecker and I understand very well what happens in Quebec, but when we talk about services on a national scale, it is not the same thing as in a province. What are the major services managed federally? We are talking about everything connected with travel, that is, when we take a plane, a train or a boat, everything to do with ports and also trucking, particularly the transportation of goods. It is the federal government that manages the major sector of travel.

Another example is our interpersonal communications and also our global communications. This is what is called telecommunications. The federal government manages Canada Post. Once again these are national matters. Another example is the transactions that take place when we pay for what we purchase, that is, banking transactions and banks.

These are three major sectors of activity that are managed federally. If a strike occurs in one of these sectors, regardless of where the strike takes place in the country, it has an immediate impact from one end of Canada to the other. For instance, what would happen if someone cut a telephone cable when replacement workers cannot be used? There would be no more 911 service, no more banking services possible, no more Internet. We can see the impact of such an act. Canada’s whole economy would be paralyzed, because we could not use replacement workers.

The airlines are another example. Let us say that the baggage handlers decide to go on strike and will no longer load baggage on the planes. Immediately, if it happens in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver, Canada’s transportation economy is completely paralyzed. This is another example of the major role played by the federal government in this area, hence the necessity to maintain a balance and not put our country in a situation where the economy would be faced with total chaos. This is what is at stake here. Allow me also to say that the Bloc Québécois bill, as drafted, did not and unfortunately does not provide for essential services.

Let us imagine, once again, a situation in which essential services are not provided. What situation would we be putting our country in? That is why we are asking for the support of the opposition members, and more specifically of the Liberal Party, which has publicly said, in recent hours, that in point of fact, seeing that this Bloc Québécois bill did not provide for essential services to be maintained, it was not able to support that bill. Given this, we understand how that is case, because this bill makes no sense. We cannot put our economy at risk of being completely paralyzed.

As I said, balance is extremely important in labour relations. That is what we have at present in Part I of the Canada Labour Code, which was amended in 1999 and works very well. I would point out that an employer that used replacement workers in a labour dispute could not do so in order to bust the union. It could not do it for that reason. As well, even if it used replacement workers, a worker who was on strike would be able to go back to his or her job at the end of the strike.

I would point out that if Bill C-257 were in force right now, in the case of the strike we have just had at CN where there was a dispute between two unions—because the strike would still be going on, technically—we would have had to wait until the vote was over, to wait three or four weeks, before the employees could go back to work, even though there is now an agreement in principle between the union and Canadian National. Try to imagine three or four weeks more with no trains in the country. What kind of economy would we have? All areas of economic activity would be paralyzed. Last week, potash mines in Saskatchewan closed down, and there were serious problems at the ports in Vancouver and in the forestry industry. That is how it is from one end of the country to the other. Now imagine three or four weeks more.

People can be full of goodwill, but there are things that apply at the provincial level that cannot be applied Canada-wide because of the importance of the economic sectors that are managed by the federal government, including transportation, telecommunications and banking.

I thank the members who took the time in committee to examine this bill and put it under a microscope. It is clear to them that this bill had in fact been slapped together and failed to provide for essential services. Given this, we will be voting against Bill C-257.

[Canada Transportation Act, February 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I just listened to the hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence. He is going from one situation to another. At one point he was talking about the Canada Transportation Act, which we are going to amend, and then he started talking about the labour dispute at CN over the last few days.

I do not think that the hon. member is drawing the right connections. The recent labour dispute at CN resulted in the Department of Labour and I myself as the minister taking action to appoint mediators so that the two parties could arrive at a negotiated settlement. As the labour minister, I had certain decisions to make in order to bring the dispute to an end and ensure that Canadians get the service they deserve.

When companies no longer have the raw materials they need to continue production; when remote communities are no longer receiving the food and fuel they need to stay safe and maintain their quality of life; when companies are closing, like the potash mines in Saskatchewan and other similar situations; and when the forest sector is dying, the Minister of Labour has responsibilities he must carry out.

The hon. member must know that we are a minority government and need opposition support in order to pass back-to-work legislation, as we did last Friday morning.

It was not until just a few minutes before our back-to-work bill was to be introduced that one of the opposition members told us the Liberal Party would support it.

The hon. member was saying he played a role. Could he please tell me what exactly he did to end the dispute? I would like to hear what he has to say.

[CN Rail, February 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. The strike is in its fourteenth day, and I have not had any questions from opposition members about Canadian National and the strike by its workers.

The member is quite right to refer to the serious impact this is having on the country's economy, which is nearly paralyzed at present by the strike. In the next few minutes, we will be introducing a bill to force workers at Canadian National to return to work.

[Railway Operations Legislation, February 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, it is important to respect the bodies that were set up to support the parties. The Canada Industrial Relations Board is a body to which the parties can refer, when there is a dispute, to get an opinion, and that was done.

It was on Monday that the Canada Industrial Relations Board issued its decision. Immediately after that, a notice was sent to the parties, informing them that we could no longer wait, that the Canadian economy had been affected enough, that people were losing their jobs, and that businesses were not receiving the raw materials essential to their production and were not able to deliver their products. We also sent the mediator immediately.

Let us look back at the sequence of events. On Monday evening, the parties were notified. On Wednesday afternoon, the notice of motion is given in this House because, as we know, such a notice must be given. It is compulsory and it involves a 48 hour wait time. And now we are here this morning.

The day before yesterday, I asked the member for Bourassa whether the Liberal Party would support our efforts to pass a bill, so as to help CN Rail and its employees by putting an end to this strike. It is only this morning, barely a half-hour ago, that the member informed me that the Liberal Party would indeed support our initiative.

Why did it take so long to inform us, considering that we are a minority government and we cannot pass legislation without the opposition's support? It is in this context that we asked for their support.

I should add that I am grateful to get that support now, even though I would have preferred to get it a few days earlier.

[Railway Operations Legislation, February 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, this strike of the opposing Canadian National Railway and the UTU, the union, is having a major impact on our economy. We have problems in the port of Vancouver. We have problems on the Prairies. We also have problems in Quebec, Ontario and the Maritimes. The whole economy of the country is almost paralyzed because of this strike.

This strike affects not only one enterprise. The Canadian National Railway is all over the country. When the stock is not getting to the employer's enterprise, immediately it cannot produce, and immediately the employer will decide that it will shut down the company for days or for weeks, and we do not know for how long.

That is why we cannot let the situation go on like it is now. We have to act. We have been waiting. We thought that maybe they would find an agreement, but when we realize this is not possible we cannot wait weeks and months. We have to act. It is our responsibility as parliamentarians. It is for this reason that people have elected us.

I repeat that what I would like to see is an agreement between both parties. That would be best for everyone. But when we realize that it has been so long and there is no solution before us to get an agreement, we have to act. It is for this reason that we have tabled this today. There are 2,800 employees involved in this strike and we hope that before the bill is tabled they can find an agreement.

[Railway Operations Legislation, February 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the member should know that, within the Department of Labour, our primary responsibility is to help the parties during collective bargaining.

This collective agreement was ending last December 31 and our conciliators were already at work. They kept working throughout January. At the end of January, when the conciliation period had ended, we immediately sent mediators to help the parties to ensure that they could come to an agreement.

Of course, in this country, there is the right to go on strike. The union used its right to go on strike. This is what it did on February 10. The parties could not come to an agreement, despite mediation. The Canada Industrial Relations Board has to be respected as well. The parties have the right to consult the Canada Industrial Relations Board as to whether a strike is legal or illegal. We have respected this mechanism. However, at some point, this cannot go on forever. Action must be taken before the consequences become catastrophic. It is in this context that, last Monday night, I called the parties to tell them that we would send our chief mediator to work with them.

Let me talk about our chief mediator, Elizabeth McPherson. She is the same person whom we had suggested during the recent strike between film actors and producers in Canada. There was a dispute between these various groups in each province. We made them an unsolicited offer of a mediation service to support the parties. It is this same person, Elizabeth McPherson, who helped the parties to reach an agreement that will be submitted soon. Once again, this was a major strike for the country. We thought that, with Jacques Lessard, the other mediator who is at the table, we would have two experienced people, two experts. Of course, the parties must be willing to cooperate.

[Railway Operations Legislation, February 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this morning, we are taking a special procedural measure because of the importance of the economy, which is now somewhat paralyzed by a labour dispute between CN and the United Transportation Union.

The first question we must ask is the following: Why should the government introduce this bill? What is at stake? What is at stake is the Canadian economy or the operation of the Canadian economy. What does the operation of the Canadian economy rely on? At what point can we say that things are going well in Canada and that we have economic prosperity? The answer is when companies can receive the goods they need to manufacture their products and, once manufactured, they can deliver them to the consumers and businesses who need them.

At this time, the economy is paralyzed. The situation is such that businesses in many areas are not receiving their goods. Some must even stop production and, as a consequence, people are being laid off.

If Canada's economy is paralyzed, who will pay the price? We will all pay the price. Every Canadian will have a price to pay. The government uses the money it receives from businesses and taxpayers to offer services to Canadians. If businesses cannot operate and lose money as a result, there will be consequences. Some may go bankrupt, people will lose their jobs and will not earn money. Another consequence is that revenue coming into the country will stop coming in.

Also at issue is international credibility. If our merchandise is not delivered to the countries that are expecting it, they will no longer count on us. That is what is happening in our economy right now. I would like to give some concrete examples from the existing situation.

Right now, in Vancouver, about 15 boats are moored at the Port of Vancouver. These boats cannot unload their goods or load goods they have to deliver elsewhere. This means that the port is blocked and half paralyzed. Some companies have to pay fines because they cannot deliver their goods by the agreed-upon deadlines.

Here is another example: British Columbia forestry. Forestry companies transport wood by train, by Canadian National. Canadian National is not currently in a position to offer its regular services. Some say its service levels are between 60% and 75%. The union says its service levels are at 25%. Either way, the result is that companies are calling us and writing us to say that they will shut down this or that sawmill and that they will have to temporarily discontinue operations because the train is not delivering the goods.

Here is one more example. In the Prairies, grain transportation is being affected. Grain is that part of the country's major economic activity. Once the grain gets to the Port of Vancouver, it has to be loaded onto boats and delivered. The boats have to cross the sea to deliver the goods to other countries. Economic activity is paralyzed. There are also two potash mines in Saskatchewan that have closed their doors and two more are getting ready to do the same. Many jobs will be lost.

Ford, in Ontario, is another example. This week, in St. Thomas, work shifts had to be cut, and another one will be cut today. We are talking about 2,400 jobs. How does the auto industry work? Parts have to be delivered when an automobile is being built. The problem is that these parts are no longer being delivered, which brings the assembly line to a halt. And that is not all. Once the vehicle has been built, it has to be put on a train to be delivered to its destination. Right now, this cannot be done because CN no longer provides this service to companies as it usually does.

Here is another example. When a business closes its doors, people wrongly believe that its employees are the only ones who are affected, but it goes way beyond that. There are contractors who are associated with that business. If it shuts down, the contractors can no longer sell their product to that business.

Right now, this has an impact on all aspects of economic activity in Ontario. I see the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord who is here and who knows how important the forest industry is in Quebec. Guy Chevrette was saying this week that the forest industry had enough problems as it is with the softwood lumber issue that it did not need CN to stop delivering our products. That is a great example since Mr. Chevrette is highly respected in that community.

This morning, Novalis, in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area, said that its products could not leave the plant. They have to be delivered, but CN no longer provides this service. The same problem exists at the various ports in the Maritimes.

In the Northwest Territories, diamond mines account for 50% of gross domestic product. This sector needs to receive its goods right now. During the winter months, there is a window of time when ice bridges are built to transport the goods and fuel needed for the whole year. At present, this is not happening. The goods have not been delivered to Edmonton and this service is not operating. We do not know what will happen to this company, which employs a huge number of workers and is vital to the economy of the Northwest Territories.

Remote communities are another example. At present, various remote communities are no longer receiving the food they were expecting, nor oil, an essential fuel. What are the basic needs in life? What are the basic needs of a human being? Food heating, especially in a country such as ours. That is why we are saying today that our government, that the parliamentarians in this House, must take action and pass back-to-work legislation in order for the economic activity of our country to get back to normal.

What is the chain of events that has brought us to where we are today? On February 10, the United Transportation Union decided to declare war. CN, the employer, subsequently challenged the Canadian union's decision by stating that they did not have the right to strike. Only the UTU International had that right. The Canadian union is an affiliate of the American union. CN filed a complaint with the Canada Industrial Relations Board, which is empowered to make such decisions, hear the parties and decide whether or not the strike is legal. In the ensuing days, the Canada Industrial Relations Board immediately proceeded to hear both parties.

Although we were all expecting a ruling on Wednesday, to our surprise, the American union did not recognize the lawyer representing the United Transportation Union and wanted its own lawyer to explain the union's position. As a result, the Canada Industrial Relations Board postponed the hearing to the following Monday, because the union wanted its lawyer to have enough time to become familiar with the case. Five days passed with no negotiation or discussion. Nothing. Everyone was waiting.

On Saturday, I tried to reach the parties through our mediators. For 36 hours, we were unable to contact the union's representatives. There is a major conflict between the American union and the Canadian union. The American union does not recognize the work that the people here are doing. On Monday, after the Canada Industrial Relations Board had heard the parties, when I realized that a ruling might not be handed down that evening, I immediately called both parties to say that the government could not wait any longer. I also told them that if the Canada Industrial Relations Board ruled that the strike was legal, they would have just hours, not days, to find a solution.

I told them that once the Canada Industrial Relations Board handed down its ruling—if the strike was declared legal—they would have hours, not days, to find a solution and that the economy was so disrupted that we had to shoulder our responsibilities and take action. I immediately informed both parties that we were sending in our top mediator to support them in their discussions.

To my great surprise, when I spoke to Mr. Beatty, the union representative, he told me that he and the entire negotiating team had been dismissed by the American union, which would be sending in a new team.

I then immediately got in touch with the American union representatives again to tell them the same things: that they had only a few hours to reach an agreement, that the country could not wait any longer, and that this dispute was having a severe impact across Canada on workers, businesses and the health of our nation's economy.

This is what has happened in the recent days and hours.

I am also in contact with our mediators several times a day. At this point, with the latest information I received this morning, nothing leads us to believe that there will be an agreement. Note that this can change quickly and that is what I am hoping for.

I do not want us to have back-to-work legislation; I want the parties to come to an agreement. They have two options: either they call a truce and continue their mediation over the next few weeks to reach an agreement, or they reach an agreement before this legislation is tabled and passed, thereby ensuring that Parliament does not have to intervene. Our hope is that an agreement is reached.

Two parties are involved: Canadian National and the union, the United Transportation Union. The dispute between the two unions is also complicating matters. However, it is not up to me to intervene to decide who is right or wrong. It is not the responsibility of the Minister of Labour. The parties have to work together.

There is some more news that hon. members should know about. An agreement had been reached between the parties ensuring that Toronto's Go Train commuter service and Montreal's commuter service would not be interrupted. Today, the parties cancelled that agreement—the union has just cancelled it. Nonetheless, the service is still running, but we do not know how much longer that will last. This may also have an unimaginable impact on the economies of Montreal and Toronto and, by extension, on the economy of Canada.

I want to reiterate that this has more than a single consequence. There is a domino effect. That is why, as parliamentarians and as Minister of Labour, we have to assume our responsibilities and take action. We cannot keep waiting.

It will take four or five days to pass this legislation. Just imagine what will happen to the economy. We are facing possible chaos.

That being said, I will conclude with this message. I want to be clear. This government will not allow the strike at CN to go on any longer. It has dragged on for too long already. Our country's economic activity is being derailed by this strike. Businesses no longer receive the materials they need to manufacture their products. They can no longer deliver their finished products to their destination in Canada or abroad. Businesses are shutting down one after the other. Workers are losing their jobs. Even CN employees are caught in a dispute within their own union. And what is even worse is that citizens of our country who live in remote communities are not getting essential goods such as food and fuel.

Enough is enough. As parliamentarians, it is our responsibility to act. In fact, I have just been informed that the Liberal Party will support the bill that I will introduce in the House this afternoon, immediately after question period.

I will repeat the title of the bill: an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of railway operations. I am still encouraging the parties to come to an agreement.

That is what we are hoping for. However, in case that does not happen, we are already in the process of assuming our responsibility with this bill that will be introduced shortly.