Pat Martin

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, March 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to speak in favour of this amendment to the resolution put forward by my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre. It is a very good idea and one of a series of very good ideas that have come from the member for Winnipeg North Centre.

As has been pointed out already, it is interesting to note that the language of this amendment finds its origins in a priority resolution passed at the Liberal policy convention this past weekend. It seems a lot of us were glued to the TV set watching this convention. It obviously has an impact on all of our lives. We had to keep a very close watch on the things that happened at that convention because they have a severe impact on a lot of us.

It warrants reading the resolution that was adopted at the policy convention. I can find no fault in the language, the tone or the content of the resolution. It states:

Be it resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada encourage the federal government to develop a process to continuously measure the quality of health care in Canada and at the same time to ensure a national standard of health care for all Canadians.

It has a lot of merit. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance said that this amendment was not necessary because there was already a provision. The Minister of Finance already does an annual analysis of the CHST's spending. He may in fact do an analysis of how the money is being spent, but nowhere in that analysis will it record or review whether it is an adequate amount of money to uphold the standards of the CHA. That is where the amendment stands separate. It is necessary, still has merit as a resolution and should be adopted.

The resolution adopted on the weekend merely indicates that the Liberals cannot help but listen to what the Canadian people from all walks of life have been saying: young, old, across all party lines, interprovincial. When asked their top priority in the spending patterns of the Canadian government, what they wanted to see money spent on, to a person quality health care ranked in the top three priorities.

I can back this up with two recent surveys. The first one is a scientific survey conducted by the Angus Reid pollsters on behalf of the Canadian Medical Association. The second one was my own informal and unscientific survey of voters in my riding of Winnipeg Centre.

When I sent out a survey to the people of my riding and asked them to list in order of priority the issues they found most pressing and the issues they wanted the government to act on in the near future, every one of the people who chose to answer listed quality health care as their number one priority in the list of eight or nine things we asked about. The other items included job creation, education, health care, crime and urban violence, and a number of other issues. The top three were health care, education and job creation, followed shortly after by crime and urban violence which is another issue.

It is difficult to ignore that kind of response. When people in a riding are asked what they care about and all of them come back with the same answer, we cannot help but listen. I have a feeling that similar surveys are being done by other MPs and they are getting the same answers. Therefore it comes as no surprise and does not indicate any great enlightenment on behalf of the Liberal Party that the resolution should show up at its policy convention. It is simply due to the fact that the Liberals are finally listening to what the Canadian people really want.

The other survey is more scientific and perhaps has more merit. It was done by the Angus Reid research group for the Canadian Medical Association. Specific questions were asked in that survey.

Results indicated that in 1997, 65% of people reported that waiting times in emergency departments had worsened. That figure is up from 54% in 1996. Sixty-four per cent reported that the availability of nurses in hospitals had worsened. That figure is up from 58% in 1996. Sixty-three per cent reported that waiting times for surgery had worsened. That figure is up from 53% in 1996. It is no secret that this issue weighs heavily on the minds of Canadians.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance stood up and argued that the floor of the Canada health and social transfer is actually being increased to $12.5 billion. This is an illusion. It is creative financing to the worst degree. As has been pointed out by others, when you go from $19 billion down to $11 billion and then crank it back up to $12.5 billion, you are not giving anybody anything. You are simply lessening the amount of cutbacks. Many figures have been bandied about to describe the cumulative effect that has. All we really need to know is that it is the biggest single cutback in the history of Canada's medical system.

I cite these things to point out that the well-being of our health care system is of prime importance. The amendment put forward by the member for Winnipeg North Centre is on behalf of Canadians to try to accurately reflect what their real concerns are.

I will speak about the Canada health and social transfer as an aspect of this whole picture. We must remember what the National Council of Welfare said about the Canada health and social transfer when it was first introduced. It called it the most disastrous social policy initiative in the post-war era. It felt very strongly to use language of that nature.

Many of us view the redistribution of wealth through federal transfer payments as the single greatest achievement of Canadian federalism. We all know that we have a very tenuous grasp on the concept of Canadian federalism. One of the things which has kept this country united is that the have not provinces could expect the support of a strong central government as it redistributed the wealth of the nation. We have seen that eroded slowly but surely in recent years.

In my own political life we have seen the established programs financing, EPF, change to CAP, then a cap on CAP, then ultimately the Canada health and social transfer. Every step of the way has resulted in less and less operating capital for the provinces to deliver the services wanted by Canadians. Slowly and surely we have seen that erosion. The figures have been pointed out that 50:50 funding has been lowered to somewhere between 10% and 20% funding.

The argument put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance is that this amendment is not necessary because this type of review is already under way annually. The review that is under way will not answer the fundamental question of whether the level of funding is adequate to ensure the health and viability of the Canada Health Act. It may study the way the money is being spent but it does not study the fundamental question of whether it is enough.

We suggest that this amendment should be adopted as broad interests, certainly those who voted for us, are very concerned. It would serve them well if we adopted this amendment.

[Atomic Energy Of Canada Limited, March 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, for over two years more than 600 workers at AECL Pinawa have been living with the uncertainty of the sale of the company to the private sector company CNPL.

The sale is delayed yet again and hundreds of layoffs are scheduled for March 31. As it stands, hundreds of these workers could lose their access to early retirement initiatives and resettlement packages.

Will the minister responsible for the Treasury Board guarantee the workers at AECL that they will not lose their right to ERI because of stalled negotiations that are clearly beyond their control?

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am interested in the previous speaker's comments about lifelong learning and shortages in skilled trades. He spoke about a number of issues I have been very concerned about and on which I was looking optimistically to the budget for some satisfaction.

During his budget speech the Minister of Finance spoke at length about the need for lifelong learning. I believe he used those terms. He spoke about the need for a strong human resources strategy, for more workers in the field of science, industry, trades and various non-university post-secondary training. He capped it off by saying that this was a matter for the provinces. The lead up and a number of the issues raised by the minister and the previous speaker gave us no satisfaction in the skilled trades.

As a journeyman carpenter who has spent his life in the building trades, I have seen a real problem with training opportunities for people who choose blue collar trades as a career choice. All the funding for students while they are in the classroom component of their apprenticeship program has been taken away. There is no longer any income maintenance for those students.

What satisfaction is there for the people in the building trades, the plumbers, carpenters and electricians, who earn while they learn and who have to go to community colleges? Could the member tell me where in the budget there is any satisfaction given to those individuals?

[Multilateral Agreement On Investment, February 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today outside the House of Commons Canadians are demonstrating their opposition to the MAI, the multilateral agreement on investment.

Canadians are concerned about the MAI and are showing up in droves at town hall meetings and forums around the country. They want to know why the government is negotiating this deal in secret, behind closed doors and with no consultation with Canadian people.

They are worried when key spokesmen promoting the deal say that the MAI is necessary because there is a surplus of democracy in the world today which is interfering with the movement of investment and capital.

A surplus of democracy. Some of us were raised to believe there is no such thing as a surplus of democracy. My father went to war to fight for absolute democracy.

The more Canadians learn about the MAI, the more they oppose it. It is a bad deal for Canadians and it is a bad deal for democracy. This government should do more than delay the signing of the deal, it should say no thanks to the MAI.

[Canada Labour Code, February 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on the subject of FOS, I would like to actually move a little from the arguments that I have had with the previous speaker a number of times on final offer selection. As he is aware, I have used final offer selection in the province of Manitoba and I am well aware of the whole process.

The difference between the legislation in Manitoba and what the hon. member has been putting forward here is that the employees get to vote on whether or not they would use the final offer selection process. Therefore either party, the employer or the employees, can make application in this case to the provincial government to use the process. The labour board would then supervise a vote of all the employees. If the majority of the employees chose to settle the round of bargaining by FOS, so be it. There would be no strike, no lockout and a final selection arbitrator would ultimately choose.

In a situation like that, I have no argument. I think it is a useful tool. We recognize that. I have actually used it in my personal labour relations experience. I will give that.

[Canada Labour Code, February 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of points I would like to raise with regard to the speech by the hon. Reform critic.

He started with a comment on what he thought was an unfair aspect of the bill. It had to do with the automatic certification in an organizing drive where the union can demonstrate that there were unfair labour practices, or where the board finds there were unfair labour practices the board may then intervene and grant certification even if the number of union cards signed does not indicate a majority vote.

I challenge the Reform critic's reaction to this. It is very much an issue of basic fairness and natural justice in that where there is interference to the point where the true wishes of the employees cannot be figured out because there has been interference, then it should be the role of the board to intervene just to give them the benefit of the doubt and grant that certification.

The counterbalancing aspect of this is that a year later, after the certification has been granted, if those same employees do not like being represented by a union, they can decertify just as easily as they certified. Many people do not realize that. A group of employees can make application to the board at any time and decertify just as they can certify the union. I really do not think it is an issue and it is one of the fairer aspects of the code.

The member spoke a number of times on how strikes, work lockouts and interruptions are in fact violent figuratively and literally. I would argue that withholding one's services is the most peaceful way of dealing with any kind of an impasse in the bargaining process. In fact it is a form of passive resistance. It is time honoured. All through history groups that have not had access to sources of power traditionally have used the act of withholding their services to add emphasis to their argument.

I do have other things I would like to speak about but lastly, the member and I have had the argument about final offer selection a number of times and I am not going to speak to that at length. In fact I would like to recognize the—

[Canada Labour Code, February 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, one of the aspects of Bill C-19 that we are optimistic about is the composition of the new industrial relations board.

I would like to ask if the parliamentary secretary to the minister could speak a little about how she might see the composition of this new board speeding the backlog of cases currently pending.

One aspect is that, from this point onwards, a single chair or vice-chair might be able to hear certain matters, rather than waiting for the composition of the full three person panel. We would hope that might be able to expedite a backlog of cases.

I would be interested in hearing some targets or goals or ways she might be planning on dealing with that.

[Canada Labour Code, February 19th, 1998]

You are wrong. You are fundamentally wrong. You are absolutely wrong.

[Canada Labour Code, February 19th, 1998]

Yes, it is true. The grain will be loaded onto the ships and it will be shipped out.

The member is saying that other unions will cross the picket line to go with their brothers. I do not think he really understands how labour relations work.

The province of Manitoba does have a great agricultural industry. I have grown up with it so I probably know as much about it as the member does. I do not think he really did his homework or he would not be so flummoxed about this whole situation.

[Canada Labour Code, February 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to answer as best I can, but I found it to be a very convoluted question. The member does not fully understand what is going on here in terms of Bill C-19.

Bill C-19 states that even if there is a strike or a lockout from any of those unions that are under federal jurisdiction, grain will continue to be shipped with no interruption not only to the port but loaded onto ships and beyond. The member does not fully understand. The changes to this are making his argument for him. Bill C-19 means that grain will move even if any one of those unions or all of those unions go on strike.