Maurizio Bevilacqua

[Canada Labour Code, October 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate on Bill C-35, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code.

This amendment speaks to the type of government this is. It is a government that seeks justice, opportunity and recognizes that hard working Canadians need to be rewarded for the work they engage in. The legislation would automatically align the federal minimum wage rate with the general adult minimum wage rates of the provinces and territories.

I am sure hon. colleagues were quite surprised to learn that the federal minimum wage as of July 17, 1996 had not increased in 10 years. I am sure hon. members will agree that just about everything else increased during the past decade.

This legislation is most certainly overdue. It is time the federal minimum wage was brought into line with minimum amount workers under provincial jurisdictions receive for their labour.

The federal minimum wage was $4 an hour until July 17, 1996 when it was raised to provincial and territorial minimum wage rates effective at that time. I note that five provinces have increased their minimum wage rate since July 17.

The minimum wage affects our most vulnerable workers, those who are most in need of receiving a reasonable hourly income, those hard working Canadians who are contributing to the economic growth of our nation. I really believe they deserve better.

For the most part these workers are non-unionized. Passage of Bill C-35 will help protect Canada's unorganized workers. Since non-union workers make up about two thirds of the Canadian workforce that is a substantial number of people. Of course in practical terms aligning the federal minimum wage to the provin-

cial and territorial rates affects only a small portion of workers; all the more reason to ensure passage of Bill C-35.

These men and women deserve to be guaranteed the same compensation for their labour as is received by their provincial counterparts. Furthermore, this legislation establishes a level playing field for all Canadian employers and employees with regard to minimum wages.

Businesses will be protected nationwide from unfair competition, at least as far as payment of basic wage is concerned. There is no danger of us opening a Pandora's box of economic uncertainty. In fact, as hon. colleagues have pointed out previously, most employers under federal jurisdiction are now paying their lowest paid employees the equivalent of the provincial rate. Passage of Bill C-35 will ensure that this practice is applied across the board. It will benefit those workers who enjoy little or no bargaining power.

As soon as the act comes into effect, all workers under federal jurisdiction will be paid the respective provincial or territorial minimum wage.

Another positive aspect of this piece of legislation is that it gives further impetus to the government's desire to bring greater harmony to the federal and provincial laws governing the workplace standards. By aligning the federal, provincial and territorial minimum wage rates the rates will correspond more directly, more precisely with the realities of each region's economy.

I believe it is important for hon. members to note that the provinces and territories govern 98 per cent of Canadian workers who are paid minimum wage. Those under federal jurisdiction represent less than 10 per cent of the Canadian workforce. That is one reason why the Minister of Labour did not choose to follow tradition and simply increase the former federal minimum wage rate. Had the minister taken this approach, before long provincial and territorial rates would increase and once again the Government of Canada would find itself lagging behind some of the provinces.

Passage of Bill C-35 will resolve the quandary once and for all. Bill C-35 will ensure that every time a province or territory upgrades its adult minimum wage the government of Canada's minimum wage will follow suit.

I am sure hon. members can see that this approach will be much more administratively efficient. Let us consider for a second that rules will be simpler. Eliminating duplication in minimum wage rates will mean less paper work. Federal, provincial and territorial government activities regarding minimum wage will be harmonized. Both management and employees will know exactly what to expect when there is an increase in a provincial or territorial minimum wage rate. All businesses in the same region will be required to pay the same minimum wage for the same kind of work. Records pertaining to minimum wage for all workers will in fact be the same.

Since I pointed out a moment ago most employers under federal jurisdiction already pay wages according to the prevailing provincial and territorial minimums, then it is simply good business practice to have a minimum wage that reflects local market conditions.

To consider Bill C-35 from a socioeconomic perspective, the increase in the minimum wage that will result from this legislation is in fact fair and reasonable. By giving due regard to provincial and territorial economic conditions the respective increases simply reaffirm the right of workers to be paid the same minimum wage for the same kind of work.

I think hon. members will find it self-evident that an attractive minimum wage adds to incentives for individuals to continue to work or to seek employment and thus a move toward self-sufficiency.

Helping the private sector to create jobs is a priority of this government and while admittedly only a small step, harmonized minimum wage rates with our provincial partners is definitely a solid step in the right direction.

Furthermore, hon. members can be assured that the resulting increases to bring the federal rate in line with respective provincial and territorial rates will not result in a loss of jobs or encourage inflation. That is I think self-evident given the small number of federal minimum wage earners and the fact that virtually all federal jurisdiction employers pay provincial minimum wage rates.

At the same time, the Government of Canada is not relinquishing its fiduciary responsibility under the Canada Labour Code. Should a situation arise where it became necessary, the government retains the legislative power to regulate a federal minimum wage for the entire country or in fact for a specific region.

In closing on this subject matter, I would encourage all members of Parliament on both sides to support Bill C-35. This amendment to the Canada Labour Code I believe is complementary to the Minister of Labour's plans to modernize Part III of the Canada Labour Code. It is legislation I firmly believe is well overdue. It will demonstrate internationally that Canada is a leader in labour standards among industrialized nations.

It is this spirit of governing that I think is welcomed by the people of Canada. I think Canadians have realized that this government where it sees social and economic injustices tries to address them through creating a better climate for economic growth, expanding opportunities for Canadians. There is no question we made some commitments to the Canadian people three

years ago almost to the day when we sought to become the government.

Look at some of the issues that we have had to deal with. For example, Canadians asked for no personal income tax increase. The government delivered on that promise. They told us to be unlike the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney which missed every single deficit target it proposed in every single budget. The government has in large part achieved the deficit reduction targets. We are heading toward a balanced budget.

The government has reduced its spending which was part and parcel of its agenda for change. It has created an environment conducive to job creation. Over 650,000 jobs have been created.

Let me be very clear. I wish the unemployment rate would fall even further, particularly as it relates to the high unemployment that young people in our country face today. The government has made some steps to alleviate the problem. We have increased by 57 per cent, for example, the amount of money and investment we make with Canada student loans over five years. That is a $2.5 billion commitment by the federal government.

The government has doubled its commitment in summer jobs for students, fully understanding that summer jobs represent a very important part of employment prospects for young people. As they receive a summer job and participate in a summer job these young people are acquiring valuable skills and also earning money required for them to return to school.

Above and beyond that, some of the programs I am quite excited about in relation to young people are Youth Service Canada and the youth internship program.

The youth internship program is tied to growth industries through our national sectoral council initiative where we have identified 33 growth areas in our economy. These areas are creating approximately 50,000 jobs for our youth. That speaks to the type of job creation required to make sure sustained economic growth occurs in our country.

I do not mean to belabour the point but Canada is viewed as one of the top G-7 countries. We are looking toward perhaps the fastest growth of any of the G-7 countries. Why is that? We have been able to increase our exports. We have been able to provide world class infrastructure for our companies.

The Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade have taken it upon themselves to market Canada abroad. The contracts that were generated in the trade missions to China, India, Pakistan, Malaysia and Latin America have brought home $20 billion of new business. Every $1 billion creates approximately 11,000 jobs in Canada. Mr. Speaker, you would have to admit that it is really helping the Canadian economy.

The government has been able to keep its promises. It is reducing the deficit, which is quite important to put the fiscal house in order. We are expected to rank first, No. 1, in economic growth of the G-7 countries in 1997. Jobs have been created to the tune of over 650,000.

I am sure the members of the viewing audience from my riding of York North want to know how all of this manifests itself at the local level, which is usually how government policies are gauged on whether they are having an impact. I am happy to say that in my riding the unemployment rate has dropped to 7.3 per cent. That is well below the national average. Over the years we have been able to build the type of socioeconomic infrastructure that speaks to three major priorities: youth, trade and technology.

We have been able to equip the riding with a type of infrastructure that speaks to the creation of 21st century jobs which will be highly skilled, highly paid and will produce the high value added products we will need if we want to maintain our social programs and the type of quality of life to which the people in my area and indeed across the country have grown accustomed.

The infrastructure program has helped our local economy. In my riding over 1,200 jobs were created as a result of that program. The program works because it addresses local realities. Working with provincial counterparts and the municipal governments we were able to set the local priorities and identify what we should do to make sure we modernize the infrastructure of the area with the hope of creating a better quality of life and enhancing job creation.

I have already touched on the issue of youth. Many programs initiated at the national level have found their way back to the local level. Whether it is summer jobs for young people, the youth internship program or Youth Service Canada, these programs are at the local level.

We need to understand the issue of technology. The government and its partners have understood the importance of developing and enhancing a technological revolution in our country. For example, we are leading the rest of the world with SchoolNet. We know we are leading the way when all schools and libraries will be connected. We know we are leading the way in providing good service and a good infrastructure for future generations.

I have been closely involved with the social security review. We have done what I think was the proper thing to do. We have modernized our unemployment insurance program moving toward an employment insurance program that is much more active and less passive than it was in the past. We are providing tools for our

unemployed workers which they will need to re-enter the workforce.

When we look at the new employment insurance program we see things like wage subsidies; we see skills and loan grants. Greater opportunities are being created in an active way to ensure that the-

[Petitions, October 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition draws to the attention of the House the important role that small business plays in our economy.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to continue to create a healthy environment for small businesses and ensure they have access to the financing they need, and to help them explore and capitalize on new opportunities.

[Petitions, October 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present to this House two petitions signed by the residents of York North.

The first petition is about the Helms-Burton law. The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Liberated) Act attempts to impose American domestic policy on other sovereign countries and therefore violates international law.

The petitioners further draw to the attention of the House that Canadian interests, rights and businesses must be defended with strength and vigour. The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to pursue all avenues available to ensure the rights of Canadians are protected.

[Bell Canada Act, October 29th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is picking on the wrong member of Parliament. This is the same member, through his youth initiatives, who has been able to talk to and recommend to the minister that we should have technology youth initiatives for at risk youth. I understand that polarization of classes in this society is going to occur between those individuals of technological know-how and the have nots. It is a known fact.

People have to understand that for governments it is not a question of either/or and we do understand that in this House. We always think that only one policy direction can be taken and it is exclusive.

Policy directions and choices do not have to be mutually exclusive. Both can be done. If there are people in this society, who through no fault of their own cannot access certain technological instruments, does not mean that you deny everybody else. What you do is work hard at making sure those individuals also have access to those technological improvements that our society can offer.

The point the hon. member made is well taken but he should only look at the Minister of Industry's program of computers in the schools to find out that the Liberal Party has already responded to his question.

[Bell Canada Act, October 29th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, first I would like to thank the hon. member opposite who said that he was paying attention to what I was saying. Based on the question that he asked, it is obvious to me that he must have either just entered the House or was not paying attention to the TV screen in the back lobby.

This bill actually opens up competition for cable and telephone companies. Competition usually results in better service and a wider array of services for Canadians at a lower cost.

As a member of Parliament who has travelled the country extensively from coast to coast to coast, on the issue of unemployment and the related fields of social security and youth, I can say that there is a great call in Canada, including in the province of Quebec, to create the type of information network and infrastructure to help people with the issue, for example, of distance education.

The 21st century is only a few years away. For anyone to attempt to block legislation such as that which the government has put before the House would clearly indicate to me that the hon. member is not looking to the 21st century with a great deal of enthusiasm, nor is he looking for ways to help the 1.4 million

Canadians who are unemployed or others who are on social assistance.

Let us remember that any industrial strategy that an industrialized country like Canada undertakes will include a very effective infrastructure, not simply bridges and roads, but also the type of infrastructure which is required in the field of telecommunications.

It is high time that members understand that our country's future economic capacity will largely be increased by the type of investment it makes in telecommunications, in computer networks and in those sorts of things which speak to building a global economy.

This bill will allow many things to occur. Above and beyond that, it will allow for the sort of competition that speaks to innovation and creativity in Canada's marketplace. That will generate jobs. It will give hope to those individuals who the hon. member professes he wants to help.

One of the things of which I am aware is that people, the unemployed in particular, are moving away from the concept of income support just for the sake of income support. Unemployed Canadians want income support plus the tools required to re-enter the workforce. We cannot do that using old fashioned rules and old fashioned approaches.

The hon. member is bringing in unemployment as it relates to this bill. If he was a bit of a futurist, if he understood how the world is changing, then he would know that these are the types of bills which he should be supporting.

If he looks at the issue of distance education and the interaction between teachers or professors and an individual Canadian at home, I am sure he will understand that this bill is improving the chances of those unemployed people to which he referred.

The government is on the right track. I am sure it will stay the course. At the macro level the deficit has been lowered and that has resulted in lower interest rates. We are also getting our fiscal house in order. On the other side, which is equally important, is the type of investment we are making in people and the type of investment we are making in the information network which exists and which needs to be improved. When we continue to invest in people we are speaking about prosperity, of giving the tools required for people to take on the challenges of the 21st century.

Knowing that the hon. member understands all these things that are occurring in the world, I am quite surprised he would limit himself to what I would consider a pretty empty question.

[Bell Canada Act, October 29th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, the bill we are debating today is one of the shortest allowed by the rules of debate of this House. It deals with one of Canada's oldest institutions, Bell Canada, which was incorporated as long ago as 1880.

Neither the length nor the legal wording of the bill can do justice to the sweeping changes which have marked and will continue to mark this company's evolution. We really have to read between the few lines of this particular piece of legislation to see the numerous advantages it offers consumers. This is why I personally welcome the opportunity to speak today to discuss how these few lines of text will affect the lives of Canadians living in the region served by Bell Canada, that is, Ontario and Quebec.

Bell Canada has acquired a world class reputation in the field of telephone services and technology development. This bill will enable the company to put its reputation for excellence at stake in the field of broadcasting, including cable TV operations. It will allow Bell to offer a range of services based on new technologies that are coming into the market.

It is extremely important for legislation that is presented in this House to reflect the changing nature of the world in which we live.

Broadcasting and particularly telecommunications have always been really the two solitudes of Canada's communications system. From the beginning these two fields have been divided by laws, regulation and technology. Technology in particular was a barrier to convergence of the two industries. Now those technological barriers are indeed fading. We are essentially living in an era where time and space are being redefined.

The technological revolution makes it possible for the two solitudes I was talking about earlier to unite and to complement each other. The truth is we now need to change our laws and our regulatory environment to facilitate our entry into this new era of technology.

In 1968 this House prohibited Bell Canada and its subsidiaries from holding a broadcasting licence. At that time the purpose of this restriction was very noble indeed: to prevent Bell Canada from dominating the delivery of broadcasting services and to protect the fledgling cable industry. However since that time, as Canadians are well aware, these concerns have been overtaken by a number of technological and market developments that are leading to the convergence of the telephone and cable industries.

In the future, broadcasting and telecommunications will stake their claim on the same territories. Cable distributors will be found in the area of telephone services, and telephone companies will be at work in the area of broadcasting. This new competition between the two great branches of Canada's communications system will

stimulate investment and innovation. Above all it will give consumers the benefit of an even wider variety of services.

Mention of Bell Canada often conjures up images of a great untouchable monopoly. This is no longer the case as competition has opened up several areas of the telecommunications market, including long distance services. Now Bell Canada will have to face competition from cable distributors and new entrants in the local telephone service market.

The new wireless technologies will provide alternatives to the traditional cable and wire services. For example, wireless broadband or local multi-point communication systems technologies will offer everything from TV programming to Internet access, from multi-media applications to telephone services. Satellite services are another competitive alternative to wire and cable based distribution systems in rural and remote areas. Consumers will be able to select the type of local telephone services they want on the basis of choice, quality and price.

In this new environment, it is only fair that Bell Canada should be able to meet head to head with its competitors in their respective fields. Now that cable companies are well established and about to take on the telephone services market, Bell Canada will have the opportunity to take on the cable distribution market.

Bell Canada's extensive telecommunications distribution network will be able to carry all the products and services which up until now were only offered by cable companies and all the new products that will be introduced as soon as cable companies are able to offer telephone services.

The convergence policy statement and principles released on August 6 will give consumers more choices and will help ensure that Canadian content prevails. Even smaller specialty service providers will be able to access large distribution networks like Bell Canada's and carve out profitable niches for themselves.

Regardless of whether they subscribe to Bell Canada's network, a cable network or new wireless networks, the emerging information highway will provide consumers with access to a range of new employment, health care, educational and entertainment opportunities.

Canadians, regardless of where they live, will be able to open links from their homes to training institutions, educators and distance education. They will be able to access many government services 24 hours a day. Telecommuting will enable many Canadians to work at home through a network which allows them to be in contact with their employers, colleagues and clients. This new work scheme will also cut the costs traditionally associated with working.

When this short bill becomes law it will have a far-reaching impact on the development of Canada's information highway. It sets the stage for true competition between what until now has been the two solitudes in Canada's communication industry. This competition will lead to new innovations in products and services that drive the growth of the information highway and open up an new era of opportunity for confident producers and consumers.

For these reasons I urge all members of the House to support the bill.

[Health Care, October 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, our health care system is one of Canada's proudest achievements. Based on the belief that every Canadian has the right to receive the care he or she needs, our health care system is an affirmation of Canada's commitment to human dignity, compassion and collective well-being.

Over the past few months, it has become clear that the Liberal Party is the only party willing to protect this very important component of Canadian society.

The Reform Party has no qualms about supporting user fees and creating a two-tiered health care system, putting the burden of being sick squarely on the shoulders of those most in need.

The Tories want all Canadians to pay up to $2,000 a year for private health insurance in case you suffer the misfortune of becoming ill.

Meanwhile at the 1996 Liberal Party biennial convention this past weekend resolution after resolution was passed upholding the five principles of the Canada Health Act to ensure access to quality health care for all.

When it comes to health care, Canadians know who they can trust.

[Petitions, October 24th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, in the second petition the petitioners draw to the attention of the House that the plight of endangered species in Canada is a national problem that continues to worsen and that there are compelling ecological, economic and ethical reasons to save Canada's irreplaceable wild species.

Therefore the petitioners call on Parliament to enact enforceable legislation which will protect Canada's endangered species.

[Petitions, October 24th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present to this House two petitions. In the first the petitioners draw to the attention of the House that Canadians of all ages view our health care system as a defining element of Canadian society.

The petitioners therefore call on Parliament to continue to uphold the fundamental principles of the Canada Health Act so that public health care remains accessible, comprehensive, portable, universal and publicly administered.

[Petitions, October 23rd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present to this House two petitions signed by the residents of York North. The subject matter of these petitions is closely related as they deal with deficit reduction and job creation, two priorities for this government.

The first petition draws to the attention of the House the government's red book commitment to reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of the GDP and the fact that we have surpassed that goal.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to continue to keep its commitment to Canadians and pursue its actions on the deficit so that the government will reach its deficit target of 2 per cent of the GDP by 1997-98.

The second petition draws to the attention of the House that in the past year alone short term interest rates have declined three percentage points, that for the last two and a half years inflation has averaged less than 2 per cent and by 1997-98 the federal deficit will have been reduced by $25 billion.

The petitioners further draw to the attention of the House that since this Liberal government took office, over 600,000 jobs have been created.

The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to continue to work diligently to create a healthy environment for jobs and economic growth.