36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 63
CONTENTS
Thursday, February 19, 1998
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1000
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1005
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| The Deputy Speaker |
| PETITIONS
|
| Public Safety Officers Compensation Fund
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Pedophiles
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Nuclear Weapons
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| CRTC
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
1010
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SMALL BUSINESS LOANS ACT
|
| Bill C-21. Second reading
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1015
1020
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1025
1030
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1035
1040
1045
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1050
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
1055
| Mr. John Williams |
1100
1105
1110
1115
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1120
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1125
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1130
1135
| Division deferred
|
| CANADA SHIPPING ACT
|
| Bill S-4. Second reading
|
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| Mr. Stan Keyes |
1140
| The Deputy Speaker |
1145
1150
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1155
1200
1205
1210
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
1215
1220
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1225
| Motion
|
1315
(Division 89)
| Motion negatived
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1320
1325
| Mr. Rob Anders |
| Mr. Stan Keyes |
1330
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mr. John Nunziata |
1335
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1340
| Amendment
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| The Deputy Speaker |
1345
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1350
1355
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| MATHIEU DA COSTA
|
| Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
1400
| THE SENATE
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| WHITE CANE WEEK
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS
|
| Mr. Bob Speller |
| WINTER OLYMPICS
|
| Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
| THE SENATE
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1405
| NANCY DROLET
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| ANNIE PERREAULT
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| ZOIE GARDNER
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| NATIONAL LITERACY DAY
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| SCOUTING
|
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
| NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1410
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| ANNIE PERREAULT
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| THE SENATE
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| PRO-DÉMOCRATIE COALITION
|
| Mr. Denis Coderre |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1420
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| BILL C-28
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| SALMON FISHERY
|
| Mr. Bill Matthews |
1430
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Bill Matthews |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| BILL C-28
|
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Jim Hart |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1435
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Randy White |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Rob Anders |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1440
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| IRAQ
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| ASSISTANCE TO ICE STORM VICTIMS
|
| Mr. Claude Drouin |
1445
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| BILL C-28
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| FIREARMS REGULATIONS
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| BILL C-28
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1450
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. David Iftody |
| Mr. Julian Reed |
1455
| DISASTER RELIEF
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| THE SENATE
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| Hon. David Anderson |
1500
| LITERACY
|
| Mr. Gary Pillitteri |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Comments During Question Period
|
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1505
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Question Period
|
| Mr. Joe Comuzzi |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADA SHIPPING ACT
|
| Bill S-4. Second reading
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1510
| Division on amendment deferred
|
| CANADA LABOUR CODE
|
| Bill C-19. Second reading
|
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
1515
1520
1525
1530
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
1535
1540
1545
1550
1555
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1600
1605
1610
1615
1620
1625
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1630
1635
1640
1645
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1650
| Mr. Art Hanger |
1655
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
1700
1705
1710
| Mr. Art Hanger |
1715
1720
| Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
1725
1730
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| NATIONAL HEAD START PROGRAM
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1735
1740
1745
1750
| Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew |
1755
1800
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
1805
1810
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1815
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
1820
| Hon. Sheila Finestone |
1825
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1830
1835
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Finance
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1840
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
| Youth employment
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1845
| Mr. Robert D. Nault |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 63
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, February 19, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1000
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, the government's response to three petitions.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there would be unanimous consent for me
to possibly table another document.
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the parliamentary secretary
could indicate what document it is he seeks to table.
Mr. Peter Adams: It has to do with the point of privilege
that was raised yesterday to do with ACOA.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary
have the unanimous consent of the House to table this additional
document? Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could illumine the
House, before we seek consent, what document it is he seeks to
table.
* * *
ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday there was some discussion about whether the minister
responsible for ACOA had read from an official document with
respect to the views of the hon. member for Medicine Hat and that
the document should therefore, in keeping with the traditions of
the House, be tabled.
The government House leader has examined the document in
question and finds that it is not an official or state paper but
is a newsclip from a commercial clipping service that, in keeping
with the usual courtesies, was sent to the critics of all the
official parties on the day it became available last November.
1005
The government has no objection to tabling this newsclip for the
benefit of all members of the House. It is however not an
official government paper available in both official languages
and the House leader is not therefore, nor am I, permitted to
table this document pursuant to Standing Order 34.
I wish therefore to request the unanimous consent of the House
to permit me to table this paper as is in order to assist those
members opposite who have made this request.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the parliamentary secretary have
unanimous consent to table the document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is a point related to
that particular document being tabled as to whether the actual
quote was mentioned in the “blues” and has he examined that for
the benefit of this House as to the actual statement made by the
minister. Could he tell us that please.
The Deputy Speaker: On this point, I do not think it
is for the parliamentary secretary to tell us what or what is not
in the “blues”. The “blues” are now published and are
available for all hon. members to read and the Speaker has taken
this matter under some advisement as I understand it.
I would rather not get into a discussion on that point of order
now. I think if members have representations to make, the
Speaker would be more than happy to hear those representations.
But I also suggest that some of this could be done through the
usual channels rather than having a debate here on the floor of
the House.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's
interest but I agree with you. I think that this is a matter for
the Speaker, not for the government House leader or myself.
* * *
PETITIONS
PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS COMPENSATION FUND
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present a petition signed by a number of Canadians
including Canadians from my own riding of Mississauga South.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that police officers and firefighters are required to place their
lives at risk on a daily basis and that employment benefits of
police officers and firefighters often do not provide sufficient
compensation to families of those who are killed in the line of
duty.
Also, the petitioners would like to point out that they also
mourn the loss of police officers and firefighters killed in the
line of duty and wish to support in a tangible way the surviving
families in their time of need.
The petitioners therefore ask Parliament to consider
establishing a public safety officers compensation fund for the
benefit of families of public safety officers who are killed in
the line of duty.
PEDOPHILES
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to present two petitions
this morning.
The first one is a petition by a number of individuals across
British Columbia and soon to be across Canada who are terribly
concerned about the justice system and the way pedophiles are
treated in the justice system. These petitioners feel that more
stringent guidelines must be given to the courts.
They are therefore petitioning and calling upon Parliament to
enact stringent legislation with mandatory minimum penalties of
incarceration for all convicted pedophiles and legislation
requiring mandatory publication of the offender's crime,
conviction and sentence and upon their release, their location in
the community in which they will reside.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): The second petition, Mr. Speaker, is brought about by
the concern of a number of Canadians about nuclear warfare.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament support the
immediate initiation and conclusion by the year 2000 of an
international convention which will set out a binding timetable
for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.
CRTC
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in this Chamber as the humble servant of the constituents of
Edmonton East. I am pleased to discharge my duties today by
presenting two petitions to this House. Both petitions ask for
the very prudent review of the mandate of the CRTC to discourage
the propagation of pornography, and to encourage the broadcasting
of ecclesiastical programming that supports morality and
wholesome family lifestyles.
The petitioners ask this House to heed their words and I concur.
* * *
1010
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I suggest
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SMALL BUSINESS LOANS ACT
The House resumed from February 16 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-21, an act to amend the Small Business Loans Act, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this morning I am very proud, honoured and privileged to rise in
the House to represent my constituents and the people of our
great country, just as my hon. colleagues who rise in this House
from time to time are honoured and privileged to participate in
the debates and to represent Canadians.
However, sometimes it is important to note that the members who
debate in the House are looking through the lens of their
political stripes rather through the lens of issues. In this
Chamber it is our moral responsibility to debate the issues
conscientiously. I look forward to hearing all members debate
the facts in this House, looking through the lens of issues.
Bill C-21 affects the lending practices for small business. With
the little experience I have, and after having done some research
on this issue, it is very hard for me to support this bill.
I am pro small business as are my other Reform colleagues who
have previously addressed this issue. However in its present
form the Small Business Loans Act does not meet its objectives.
It is an inefficient and ineffective program. After thoroughly
examining the program and reading the auditor general's report, I
would like to make the following observations.
The small business loans program was established in 1961 to
increase the availability of loans on reasonable terms and
conditions for the establishment, expansion, modernization and
improvement of small businesses in this country. In the last
four years 177,000 new loans have been granted totalling
approximately $11.2 billion.
The objective is to increase the availability of loans. It is a
very broad objective. The act should supplement the services
provided by the private sector incrementally and not merely
replace them. The loans under this program should be made in
addition to the loans made by other financial institutions.
In a study it was found that half of the borrowers involved in
the SBLA, 46% to be precise, would have received the loans
anyway. They had met the criteria and were qualified to get the
loans. Therefore in real terms the system has been working at
50% capacity.
Through this program the government is not successfully helping
entrepreneurs or small businesses. The government guarantees the
financial institutions for the bad decisions which they might
make, up to 85% of the amount, in the event the borrower
defaults.
Under this program loans are made up to a maximum of $250,000
for fixed assets like land, buildings and equipment. The program
does not provide loans for capital leasing or working capital.
1015
Many times it does not meet the requirements of the small
business person and this condition has not changed since 1961 but
we know the business environment has been changing ever since.
Although there is more growth in the economy and employment in
the service and knowledge-based industry, the purpose of business
is not fully served to cater to the needs of small business in
this country.
There have been instances where related parties have obtained
many loans totalling much more than the maximum limit of each
loan by creating artificially more than one corporation for the
purpose of loans. Therefore those businesses have abused the
system by millions of dollars.
Financial institutions have been charging interest up to prime
plus 3%. There cannot be any other charges according to the act
but the application fees or opening fees, or opening file fees,
et cetera are being charged by some financial institutions and
that goes undetected.
There have been many instances when some financial institutions
have been charging an extra amount illegally. The department has
not been checking it. There is no system in place to check it,
unless the case files have been opened.
There are many other observations. Income tax implications are
very complicated under this act. They have not been addressed.
They are not simplified to help the small businessman.
The job creation record is not good either. There is potential
for an active displacement effect. The job creation figures
under SBLA have been inflated by as much as five times.
The quality and quantity of information provided to
parliamentarians on the result of this program is very
inadequate. Surprisingly, the department is not reviewing risk
analysis and there is no provision for the losses that may be
incurred.
Industry Canada has emphasized that the program should recover
full costs but it looks quite unlikely that this objective can
ever be achieved.
The small business loan program management and delivery
mechanisms are very weak. Industry Canada has no yardstick.
There are no indicators in place. There are no procedures in
place to measure the performance results of this program.
We know the performance evaluation framework is very important
for the success of a program like this one. The department
operates the accounting system on a cash basis and not on an
accrual basis. It creates further implications in the program.
The department lacks adequate forecasting techniques. Basically
the department needs better tools to operate effectively and
efficiently which will cost billions of dollars.
Having said all that, the purpose of Bill C-21 is to extend the
SBLA to March 31, 1999 and raise the government's total liability
to $15 billion, an increase of $1 billion.
In 1994 the industry committee of the House of Commons called
for a review to be done on SBLA. Up to now, a complete cost
based analysis has never been done.
This program is not only inefficient and ineffective but it also
discourages the development of alternative and innovative
financial solutions for small businesses.
If Industry Canada of this government has been asleep at the
switch with respect to the operations of SBLA, how can I and my
colleagues from the Reform Party betray the trust of Canadians
and support this bill?
In fact, any member from any political party who is looking
through the lens of issues and facts and not through the lens of
political stripes will never support this bill until a full
review is done.
1020
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to
the member speaking on Bill C-21.
The bill is to extend for one year and to increase the amount
from $14 billion to $15 billion. The member also knows that a
total comprehensive study is in the works. Some changes were
made in the 1995-96 timeframe after reviewing the bill and
previous government experience.
Without getting into a whole pile of other things, does the
member support the fact that we want to continue the SBLA and
extend it for one year with an increase of $1 billion? Does he
also support the second phase, which is to have the study
completed in total by members on all sides of the House in
committee? Does he agree that should be continued or not,
without getting into a whole pile of other rhetoric?
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, this is not political
rhetoric that I put in front of the House. These are solid facts
and figures. According to the auditor general's report, this is
the crux of the matter which was discussed and recommended by the
auditor general.
In 1994 the industry committee of the House asked for cost
benefit analysis and a complete review of the system because the
system was not achieving its objectives. It was not doing what
it was supposed to do. Going through the details of this act, as
well as going through the auditor general's report, I am
convinced that this act does more harm than good under present
circumstances.
This act was introduced in 1961 to help small businesses, not
big financial institutions or banks. This act was introduced so
that small businesses, which are creating the jobs and are the
backbone of this country, could be promoted. Unfortunately this
act has failed small businesses because it was not properly
designed. There are many things that need to be improved in this
act.
Based on the facts, there is room for improvement and
modifications to the act. The act should be changed so that it
meets the requirements of small businesses and not create
hindrances and obstacles to small businesses.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to both speakers today and cannot help but feel I have
been somewhat deceived.
It seems as though Bill C-21 is all part of a public relations
ploy on behalf of the government. The government has raised
payroll taxes with the Canada pension plan. It has taken $7
billion a year out of the economy with its over contributions and
the taxes it has in terms of the EI premiums, therefore hurting
the economy and job prospects in this country. Yet it gives $1
billion back through this C-21 with all the strings and problems
attached. Most of those businesses actually have access to
capital outside of this loans program.
I want somebody to comment on the public relations scam that I
feel this really is, where the government takes a dollar and
gives back a dime.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern
from my colleague and other members who look at issues not
through political stripes.
I strongly believe that when the government sits on the
operation switch, the system operates with inefficiencies and
ineffectiveness. We need to make the system efficient and
effective so that it can work. It is up to the government to
operate this switch.
1025
Mr. Walt Lastewka: Mr. Speaker, I did not get my answer
earlier. I thought I had asked a very clear question.
An hon. member: Unlike question period when we ask
questions.
Mr. Walt Lastewka: How do you like it?
The Deputy Speaker: The member perhaps should address the
Chair.
Mr. Walt Lastewka: Mr. Speaker, the answer is that the
member opposite and the Reform Party are not in favour of this
bill, nor are they in favour of extending the SBLA. I take it
that is the answer.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to
want me and my colleagues to support a program that is not
working. That is appalling. We need to improve the system
instead of asking for support for a program that is not working.
It has proven ineffective for more than 36 years.
Let the government review the program carefully. Let us make
the system effective and efficient for small business. We want
to encourage small business and create jobs in Canada in an
effective and efficient manner.
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, in the context of the
exchange that has been going on in the House, I cannot help but
feel that one other issue needs to be addressed to broaden the
nature of this debate. We have had 38 tax increases since this
government took office in 1993. There has been bracket creep,
business taxes, going after people with social security benefits,
CPP, EI, et cetera. I look at all these things.
It strikes me that tens of billions of dollars have come out of
the pockets of Canadians, Canadian businesses, those people who
create and sustains jobs in Canada. The money has come out and
is now being siphoned off to create a bigger administration and
bureaucracy. Once again I am struck by how tens of billions of
dollars can be taken out of people's pockets every year,
increased taxes, 38 new tax increases since 1993. There have
been two so far and more increases proposed since the June 2
election.
At the same time we have these pittances. There is cutting in
education and giving back a small amount in scholarships. There
is raising taxes on businesses, people who create jobs and
families and giving back a little in some sort of business loans
program which most businesses do not need when they apply for it.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, we know there are so
many ineffective government programs that are not productive.
This is one of them. How can we waste another $1 billion of hard
earned taxpayer money on this program? Are the members opposite
saying that we should waste another $1 billion? I cannot do
that. I cannot betray the trust of the Canadians who have sent
me here.
This program does not only waste money, but government
interference in the marketplace discourages the development of
alternative and innovative financing solutions for small
business. This program has proven to be detrimental to small
business.
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, every time this exchange
goes on I think of something else to add to this debate. One
thing that glares at me from the text of Bill C-21 is the idea of
subsidizing businesses. It all speaks to the lack of priorities.
I look across the way and I think about the cuts to seniors, the
medicare cuts and education cutbacks. I think about the lack of
priorities where prisoners get exotic foods in jail, where there
are many working poor in Canada who cannot afford the meals that
prisoners receive after the heinous crimes they have committed. I
think of all these things, of the lack of priorities. Then I
wonder how corporations can justify these subsidies when all
these other programs are being cut. It does not make any sense.
1030
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, we are very reasonable
people. We looked at the issues. We will support the bill under
one condition, that whatever we invested in the past does not go
to waste and if there is an amendment to the act $1 billion will
not be added to the liability.
We will let the system operate for one more year, if we are
promised that there will be a comprehensive review and that the
observations and recommendations of the auditor general will be
seriously considered so that we help small businessmen. We will
support the bill if another $1 billion is not added to the
liability.
We are very co-operative. We are effective. We want to make
the system very productive. The other side of the House should
also consider the interest of small businesses.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill
C-21, an act to amend the Small Business Loans Act.
First of all, the Bloc is in favour of the bill, not because
it is one that is fundamental in character, but because it at least
makes it possible to extend the date of application of this act
from March 31, 1998 to March 31, 1999, and to raise the total
maximum credits allocated for loans from $14 billion to $15
billion.
The government could have taken advantage of the opportunity
to do more than just make a technical adjustment to the Small
Business Loans Act. This is the point at which time ought to have
been spent on a thorough study of the amendments which should have
been made to this program.
Instead, the government decided to make only technical
modifications, ones that merely prolong the life of a program which
has been in place for a long time and which was designed at a time
when economic realities were different than they are today.
The people behind small businesses in our area, the people we
see in our riding offices, the ones I see in my riding, often have
great difficulty in obtaining the necessary funding to start up
their businesses, not because their idea is not a good one, not
because they are not in an acceptable financial situation, but
often because they are operating in new sectors in which the banks
are not used to lending, and have no incentive to do so.
Moreover, this Small Business Loans Act has contributed
substantially to the financial situation of Canadian banks.
Part of the profits made by banks today come from the government's
financial guarantees for loans to SMBs.
I have a few ideas the government should explore for the
future.
First, this act never covered working capital. More and more
small businesses are going into exports. This is very prevalent
throughout Quebec, and Canada as well, right now because people are
realizing that the domestic market is no longer growing. If
businesses want to grow, if they want to increase their share of
the market, they have to look to the American market. For Quebec,
for my region, this means mainly New England.
Businesses need quick access to sufficient capital to enable
them to explore these new markets. Right now, such access is not
readily available.
The recommendation could be extended to a business's entire
working capital. Now that we are in a positive economic phase and
the economy is growing, is it not high time we looked at the
economic tools we should make available to our entrepreneurs in
order to ensure that, when things take a downturn, we do not find
ourselves in the same situation this government inherited in 1993?
In 1993, when the Liberals were elected to office, there was
major criticism about the way capital was made available to small
and medium-size businesses, especially in Ontario.
Four years later, we could have expected the government to have
done something to overhaul this sector. We could have expected the
Minister of Industry to assume a leadership role and ensure that
our small and medium-size businesses have access to loan vehicles
consistent with the new economy, with the way markets are
developing, with the way they have to keep up with international
competition.
1035
Regarding technology, does the bill as it now stands afford small
business the necessary leeway to secure the funding required to put this
technology in place? We have gone from a time when technology meant that
machines produced higher quality parts in less time, to the new
technology-oriented economy which emphasizes knowledge and advances in
telecommunications. There is not enough of this in the government's
approach.
A bill to help fund the small businesses of the early 1990s was
finally put forward, but advantage was not taken of the fact that the
act was being overhauled to give it more teeth so it could meet the
demands and challenges faced by our entrepreneurs.
It is quite frustrating when we see young entrepreneurs in their
late twenties walk into our riding office with a business proposal after
knocking at various doors; their ideas are often very good and workable
but they do not meet the criteria of any existing program. The Canadian
banking system has developed this timid attitude of saying it will only
lend them money after the loan has actually been guaranteed under the
Small Business Loans Act. In amending the act, the government did not
encourage banking institutions to promote initiative and give a chance
to new entrepreneurs.
In its current form, the act will not allow these young
entrepreneurs and those who come up with new ideas to implement them and
get the help they need in the next few years.
It is also clear that, in the past, the availability of capital
varied from one part of Canada to another. In Quebec for instance,
capital money was made available through the Fonds de solidarité, the
caisses populaires and various local means of assistance, bringing banks
under more competitive pressure than in any other province of Canada.
When the Liberals, particularly those from Ontario, looked at
this situation in committee, we were expecting a dynamic approach
that would enable small and medium size businesses to position
themselves better in the North American market.
Now, with the free trade agreement, Quebec and Canadian
productivity will have to be competitive with that of the
Americans, if we are to capture markets. This was confirmed by a
study undertaken by the Privy Council, which looked at the
situation in Canada. There is still a significant difference in
the levels of productivity of Canadian and American businesses.
We are told the economy is doing well today, it is getting
stronger, progress is being made. However, we are not looking at
what will be required in future years. What tools do our
businesses need?
How can we manage to reduce the number of small businesses that
fail to survive the first five years?
When a business is established and money is invested in it,
there should be some form of assistance or support that would
significantly improve the survival rate of small businesses.
This may be less impressive in political and electoral terms.
However, a longer lifespan for businesses would mean the creation
and maintenance of jobs. A small business with a solid core that
starts up with four or five employees and survives the crucial
first years to expand its personnel to eight or ten employees a few
years later will reach a critical mass that will enable it to
compete and create linkages with other industries.
These are the sectors where the government should have shown
more originality in the Small Business Loans Act.
1040
As regards the issue of networking, would it not have been possible
to include in the legislation provisions to facilitate partnerships
between businesses and major industries for specific projects, so they
have access to more financing options that they would on an individual
basis? Some thought could have been given to this, but the bill is
silent on this whole issue.
In the end, the government decided to merely make technical
adjustments. These adjustments were necessary. It was important to make
the program more accessible.
The bill lacks originality, as does all the legislation introduced since
the last election. The government does not table new bills.
It would also have been important for the government to ensure, as
recommended by the auditor general, better control over program costs.
We have to make sure that this type of small business loans program is
well managed and that the loans are made to the right people, so that
the program will not be questioned on the grounds that too many loans go
to businesses that do not deserve them.
Another important recommendation made by the auditor general is
that there should be a better assessment of the program's impact on job
creation. In the past, programs designed to help small and medium size
businesses did not necessarily take job creation into account.
With the advent of new technologies, the current reality is
different from that of 10, 15 or 20 years ago. Now, investing in
technology often results in job losses.
The idea is not to stop progress, or to refuse to accept the new global
market. However, when defining the criteria for such a program, in which
loans are guaranteed by the governments, we must act more responsibly to
ensure that when banks lend money, they take into account the situation
of those concerned and the actual number of jobs that will be created,
not just the economic performance of the business.
It goes without saying that this requirement will not be readily
proposed by financial institutions or by the businesses themselves.
But the government's responsibility toward income distribution also
includes mechanisms such as this act, provided it were adapted to
guarantee that the small business loans will have a positive effect
on employment, but there ought not to be a fall back to the
arrangements of the past, such as the tax credits for regions with
a particular unemployment problem.
Today, when we look at a draft bill such as this one, when we
look at the employment and unemployment picture in Quebec and in
Canada, it is obvious that we would like to see this tool, the
Small Business Loans Act, made far more efficient and effective so
as to diversify regional economies in areas with the highest
unemployment levels.
The decision was made 30 or 40 years ago that there would be
a division in Canada more or less along the following lines:
Ontario would get the economic development, while the non-central
regions such the maritimes and eastern Quebec and others would get
transfer payments to ensure their survival. That model has been
rejected by everyone because of its very poor results. It is bad
for self-esteem.
I would much prefer it if the government would use concrete
tools such as this act to carefully evaluate the way the regions
could be helped to assume more responsibility for themselves,
reduce their dependency on transfer payments, and have more
opportunity to forge autonomy and self-sufficiency. In my opinion,
each region of Canada has an underlying potential, and that
potential must be taken into account.
First, however, the government has to admit that people have a
right to live in any region, and to have a hand in the development
of that region.
1045
There is no particular direction behind what the government is
doing now. It is letting the market decide. People are sent where
the jobs are and terrible vacuums are created.
I have just come back from a quick trip to the Atlantic
provinces. I saw difficult situations in Newfoundland that
illustrate this point. I am also seeing the same type of situation
in my region in eastern Quebec. I urge the federal government not
just to re-examine the Small Business Loans Act, but to come up
with a series of measures to ensure that this kind of tool meets
the development needs of our communities.
I would like to give one last example. The federal government
has just issued a wonderful statement of principle declaring that
all government programs will now be judged according to their
impact on rural development in the various regions of Canada.
I urge the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, who is
responsible for implementing this new program, this new way of
doing things, to examine the bill amending the Small Business Loans
Act under this light in order to see whether in fact it does
promote the growth of businesses in all regions of Quebec and of
Canada. This will also allow us to see whether the bill is in
keeping with the times and is really consistent with what our new
businesses will need in 1999, in 2000, at the beginning of the
third millennium, so that people are not working with a tool from
the past but a tool for the future.
Let us pass this bill as written, so that there is no
interruption, but it is essential that the government act quickly
and announce a complete overhaul of the act in order to make it a
genuine tool for economic development. This is what our young
people are entitled to and this is what they have a right to
expect.
[English]
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to hear some
of the comments of the speaker opposite. I want to deal with a
few points.
He mentioned the lack of things being done in the small business
area. The member opposite is not a new member. I am sure he
knows the work the standing committee has done with the banks for
the last four years as far as making them more accountable and
having more SBLA loans.
I am sure the member opposite is aware of the technology
partners Canada program of which there have been a number of
projects in his province. IRAP has been extended across Canada
and has been very valuable, especially for small businesses that
are getting into some of the research and development that we
need.
I am sure he realizes the refocusing of the business development
bank. I am sure he has read that 39% of the loans that go
through the SBLA are for start-up companies, for companies under
three years. Approximately 57% or 58% of the loans go to those
businesses in the under three-year period where it is difficult
to get going as a business and to make things happen.
He mentioned caisses populaires. I was not quite sure of the
point he was making. Is he saying that caisses populaires have
not been doing their work in the SBLAs? It is the official
lender under this act in Quebec and across Canada. I was not
sure what point he was making with the caisses populaires.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
remarks.
In a way, he shares my objective. He said that the Standing
Committee on Industry has made a lot of representations to the
banks over the past few years to make them more aware of the need
for loans. We can see, however, that this voluntary action is not
enough.
1050
I do not know how the Standing Committee on Industry failed to
come up with amendments. I believe the Bloc Quebecois presented a
dissenting report with amendments. The industry committee was
aware of the situation of bank loans to small and medium size
businesses, but the bill does not provide the necessary tools.
The member said legislation on the Business Development Bank
of Canada was rewritten. It is true, changes were made. However,
why was the same approach not taken with all the banking
institutions?
Caisses populaires and banking institutions work with the existing
program, but the government must lead the way and define in the
legislation the conditions that would provide the right tools for
businesses at the start of the 21st century. There is nothing like
this in the legislation.
There is also the issue of the new export market, the arrival
of new technologies, the changes to all the transportation networks
in North America. These conditions totally change the way business
is conducted in Quebec, Canada, the U.S., North America and the
world.
Do we have up-to-date tools? Will they serve our businesses,
the people who come to our riding offices, business people in
contact with banking institutions. Will they enable these caisses
populaires and other financial institutions to provide loans to
these individuals and help them get started?
I gave the example of working capital, of lending money to
permit exports. Work needs to be done in this area. There is
nothing original in the legislation. Business people in the
regions want something new.
More use should be made of the expertise of those already in
business, those who have had a business running for 10, 12 or 15
years and who know what it takes to make it work. What is needed
is some incentive.
Financial institutions are not displaying a lack of goodwill. We simply
cannot require them to do things that are not included in the act.
Financial institutions must comply with the existing legislation,
but Quebeckers and Canadians are concerned about job creation.
If we took a real close look at this legislation, we would see
whether or not it meets the job creation requirement that is in effect
in Canada. Does the bill promote job creation? I am not just talking
about jobs that are automatically created in a thriving economy, but
also about hiring people who may not have been so lucky and about
finding ways of using everyone's potential.
Fewer and fewer people are prepared to say that the economy is
doing well just because the gross domestic product is good. What
Canadians really want is a society that allows the largest number of
people to realize their full potential. The bill is not the perfect tool
to this end, but it is a useful one, even though it is not as innovative
as we had hoped.
It simply extends the application of the act for one year, and it
adds $1 billion to the fund, so that, technically, the money will be
there to guarantee the loans. The government should have a vision that
goes beyond 1999. It should ask itself what instrument should be put in
place to support our businesses all the way to the year 2005 or 2010.
Should there not be some gentle pressure on our financial institutions
to ensure that their loans have a positive impact on job creation?
The government still has a lot of work to do in this respect.
[English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to my colleague for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques talk about
the need for investment capital and start-up capital. He must
recognize that it is also necessary to have leasing capital and
working capital.
1055
Whether you apply for this money through the regular lending
channels or whether we go through the Small Business Loans Act,
one of the first requirements is to present a business plan in
which you project where your market will be, what your expenses
will be and what you expect your bottom line to be.
I would ask my colleague to comment on how he sees taxation,
both income tax and payroll taxes, affecting the business plans
which have to be put forth by the people who require capital and
in which areas he would support tax reduction.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, this does go slightly beyond the scope
of the bill per se, but connections can still be made. The Bloc
Quebecois has put forward a five point proposal regarding the upcoming
budget, which reflect part of what the hon. member just said.
For instance, we suggested that employment insurance premiums be
significantly reduced. There is a very large gap between the current
rate of $2.70 per $100 of insurable earnings and the $2 rate that would
ensure the plan's self-sufficiency while turning acceptable surpluses.
There is this 70 cents gap.
We think that one half of this amount could be used to improve the
quality of life of those who find themselves without work, and the other
half to reduce EI premiums substantially, which would have an effect on
job creation. I think that would be a significant and appropriate
measure.
A similar philosophy applies to the budget. At any rate, I do hope
that what we are hearing about it is not what we will find in it.
The federal government's approach is somewhat short on originality. For
the time being, all we are hearing, regarding the upcoming budget, is
about the government's plans to invest money in the area of education by
sending cheques with the Canadians flag on them to ensure visibility,
when it has been known for quite some time that, in Quebec in
particular, we look after the whole financial assistance program
ourselves and what is needed is for money to be given back to the
provinces so that they can fund their programs.
Regarding employment, the private sector had made a significant
contribution these past few years. But in the public sector, at least in
Quebec, for every $1 in cuts to health and education made since 1994, 75
cents had to be cut because of cuts made by the federal government.
That is why the Bloc Quebecois believes that, among other major job
creation measures, giving their money back to the provinces that
contributed to the deficit reduction effort would enable them to
maintain quality services and ensure a sufficient level of employment in
the public sector to meet demands.
I will conclude on this. I think that there are indeed innovative
approaches that could be put forward. We cannot find any such approach
in the bill on small business loans but hope that the government will
wake up in the weeks to come.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to speak on this very short bill which basically
increases the limit of loans under the Small Business Loans Act
by $1 billion.
While we may think that another $1 billion to help business
might be a good idea, I would have thought the government would
have given us some real information on how well the program is
doing.
We now have improved reporting to parliament documents. Industry
Canada has put one forward under the pilot project. I looked at
the improved reporting to parliament to find out exactly what is
happening with the Small Business Loans Act which is being
administered by the Department of Industry.
On page 5 under the title “Industry Sector Development” it
states that in this overall context the department also has
several specific activities directed toward small businesses such
as the small business loans administration. It continues, but
that is the sum total of the reference to the $15 billion program
offered to small business.
When we take a look at the numbers, page 43 of the same document
tells us the amount of the fees collected. In 1995-96,
$18,742,000 were collected. The following year, 1996-97,
$23,448,000 were collected. Page 42 tells us that there is a $44
million liability.
1100
That improved reporting to parliament is the sum total of the
information the Department of Industry is prepared to provide to
us. It names the act, tells us how much revenue it has
collected, tells us the liability is twice the revenue and that
is it. We are supposed to make our decisions based on that.
I doubt that parliamentarians are getting very much improved
reporting here and the department has a long way to go in its
reporting to Parliament if it wants to call it an improvement.
This to me is a shocking disgrace.
However, I do have some other information regarding the program.
Coincidentally the auditor general did report on the program in
his December 1997 report. It is a whole chapter. He managed to
get 25 pages on the program, whereas it just gets a mention by
the Department of Industry.
One of the things I notice quite alarmingly when I look at
exhibit 29.5 on page 29-12 of the auditor general's report is
that the value of claims paid to lenders is going up
astronomically. In 1994-95 it was about $30 million. In 1996-97
it is up to $150 million and I understand it has continued to
grow from that point on because the claims are far in excess of
what the government expected.
We have a program that is now going to on the face of it cost us
$150 million to $200 million a year based on the fact that the
government has to pick up the cost of the bad debts under the
Small Business Loans Act. That is the philosophy. Financial
institutions lend the money, the debt goes bad and 85% to 90% of
it is picked up by the taxpayers.
Why did this happen? Why did the write-offs rise
astronomically? It is all in the auditor general's report. If
we take a look at exhibit 29.1, it tells us that in 1993 we
changed the maximum percentage of financing for equipment from an
80% maximum to 100% maximum which means that if individuals wants
to buy a $100,000 piece of equipment they do not even have to put
$1 down. They can go to the bank and say, “Under the Small
Business Loans Act I would like $100,000 to buy a $100,000 piece
of equipment. Thank you very much. I am going to go out and use
it and make some money”. But if it does not turn out too well
the borrower can walk away from his investment which was the
maximum of $1 and the taxpayer is left on the hook.
Therefore it seems to me that Industry Canada was not thinking
it out very well when it approved this change to go from 80% to
100% financing and the borrowers get off the hook because they
have no money. They have no risk involved. They have nothing to
say they have to make this project work.
If that is helping small business, I think it is helping small
business people who perhaps are less ethical than they otherwise
should be to obtain financing under very high risk procedures.
That is the type of thing that should not be happening.
I have to give the government its due. By 1995 it realized that
perhaps it had made a mistake and changed it. It reduced the
amount of the maximum level down to 90%, which is still 10%
higher than before. However, the losses continue to grow and the
write-offs continue to grow.
The report by the auditor general would suggest that rather than
asking for another $1 billion, as the government is doing, the
government should go back and review the auditor general's report
and perhaps fix the program first before asking us for another $1
billion.
What does the auditor general have to say? On page 29-16 he
states: “Industry Canada does not assess whether the lender has
exercised due care when making the loan”. On the next page it
states: “Some loan files did not contain information necessary
to perform a thorough credit risk analysis”.
1105
On the same page we found a number of cases where, contrary to
the Small Business Loans Act, the lender had charged
administration fees. Carrying on, on page 20, there are no
provisions in the Small Business Loans Act to prevent a group of
related entities from gaining access to loans beyond the maximum
amount allowed.
Finally, on page 22, parliamentarians do not have the
information necessary to assess whether the small business loans
program is managed efficiently and it is achieving its
objectives. Here we are, as parliamentarians, being asked to
give them another billion dollars when the auditor general says
we do not have the information in this House to make a proper
assessment.
That is why the Reform Party says not at this time. The
government should do its homework. It should clean up its act
and make sure the act is working the way it was intended to work
before it comes here asking for another billion dollars.
I am critical of the way the department managed this act. As I
say, the lenders, the banks and the financial institutions give
out the money and have the government's guarantee to fall back
on. However, I understand that the Department of Industry does
not audit one file until such time as the loan goes bad, is a
write-off and it all lands on the department's desk. Do we think
these financial institutions are so good that they are not going
to make any mistakes and are going to follow the law to the
letter?
In a small statistical sample, the auditor general finds that
not to be the case. Therefore why does the government not audit
the financial institutions to ensure that the law is being
followed? It makes simple sense to me yet it is not being done.
That is the type of thing we would like to see rather than being
asked to put up another billion dollars.
I talked about the taxpayer being on the hook for these things.
Actually the government's intention is to alleviate the
responsibility of the taxpayer and make this a full cost recovery
program. I scratch my head when I say full cost recovery because
here we have the government saying it wants to help small
business so it has a program to help small businesses borrow
money so they can get the business up and going and be more
prosperous. Then it says it wants to recover all its costs.
Where is it going to get the money back from?
First, when a businessman goes to the bank and tries to borrow
money under this program he has to pay a 2% fee right up front.
If he wants to borrow $100,000 he has to pay a $2,000 application
fee. Then every year the bank has to pay to the government a
1.25% administration fee which it can recoup from the borrower
through interest rates. Now we have a 2% application fee and a
1.25% annual administration that the borrower pays. This money
goes into the government coffers and then, when the government
has a bad debt, it hopes to be able to have enough money in this
pot so it can pay back the financial institutions.
Who is left holding the bag? It is obviously not the government
because it is on a cost recovery program. It is obviously not
the financial institutions because they turn around and claim
back from the government. Therefore the only person who can pay
is the successful businessman who borrowed the money, paid his
application fee, paid his annual administration fee, paid the
interest to the bank, tried to make a go of his business and
maybe did so with reduced profitability of course because of all
these front end charges, and he ended up having to subsidize and
reimburse the government for the bad debts it ended up paying
for.
Here we have the idea of helping small business which turns out
to be a tax on small business. It is a tax on the successful
small business people who end up having to reimburse the
government to pay for the bad debts and they did not even have a
say on who received the money. That is why I scratch my head. It
gets a little convoluted when the government stands up in the
House and says it wants another billion to help small business.
When we analyse the program we know that small businesses are
helping themselves despite the government being on their back.
That is what is amounts to.
The auditor general confirms that by telling us that it is a
poorly run and poorly administered program.
1110
It gave the financial institutions the right to lend 100% to
buy equipment and the losses went sky high. Therefore the
taxpayers are on the hook to some degree and the successful
businesses are on the hook for the rest.
We call this help for small businesses. My God, they would be
far better off if the government said “we will stay out of your
hair and you go ahead and make money”.
The other thing we found out was this concept of what is called
incrementality. It is a little complex to deal with, but the
concept is that the banks only accept a bit of risk and if there
is a bit more risk they say they do not even want to lend to
these people because they have all these profits to make. The
government says with the government guarantee they will accept a
little more risk.
What the auditor general found was that 40% to 50% of all the
loans granted under the Small Business Loans Act would have been
given by the banks anyway. But they just wanted this extra piece
of protection so they can get reimbursed either by the government
and taxpayers or by the successful borrowers.
Shareholders are not at risk. Bank profits are not at risk. They
just want to get the extra piece of protection, and surely that
was not what the program was designed to do, to protect the banks
so they can increase that $6 billion or $7 billion profit up by a
hint more. I did not think that was the idea.
I did not think that banks fell under the qualification of small
business, and I do not think that Canadians think that banks are
small businesses and that we have to help them make profits. That
is not the idea.
I come back to my original point. Why is the government asking
us to increase the guarantee by another $1 billion when we know
the program is poorly managed? We know that it is a tax on small
business. It is not helping small business. We know the Liberals
need to clean up their house and get it in order and they are
supposed to make these improved reportings to Parliament a real
improvement rather than more paperwork that does not mean
anything to us. They are supposed to give us the real information
for us to make an intelligent decision rather than just endorse
the request by the government.
We have a long way to go in building accountability into the
Small Business Loans Act, into the Department of Industry, into
the way this government spends taxpayer money.
Next Tuesday the Minister of Finance is going to bring down a
budget. And he is going to stand up in this House and tell us
what a wonderful job the Liberal government is doing. He will
have platitudes and one will think this country has to be the
best run country in the world.
But scrape away that very thin veneer and what do we find? We
find reports such as the auditor general's which say this program
and every program he reports on need dramatic improvement. We
find that the improved reporting to Parliament is no improvement
at all.
We find that money is being spent frivolously. There is no
control on the management of programs. That is the story and it
is the taxpayer who gets to pay the bill, and it is the small
businessman who gets to pay the bill. As government members stand
up in the House and tell us what a wonderful job they are doing,
when we look underneath, when we look at the actual programs
being delivered, we find they are woefully inadequate.
Here is an opportunity for the government to listen to the
opposition, listen to the auditor general and say “we hear what
is being said, let us go back to the drawing board, let us keep
this $1 billion request on the table at the moment and wait until
we have this program running efficiently”.
If that is the case and if we have the proper information, I am
sure we would have a much better debate in this House. We would
not be so critical of the government in its poor and inadequate
attempts to help small business.
1115
When we look at this program, helping small business is the name
of the game according to the government, but small business is
succeeding in spite of the government. Small business is
creating jobs in spite of high taxes and overregulation. It is
creating jobs in spite of the fact that CPP premiums are going up
73%, in spite of the fact that we are carrying a $45 billion a
year interest on our backs that is paid for by the business and
economic activity of this country. Yet we are still able to
compete and succeed to some degree.
We must take our hats off to the business people in this
country. In spite of all the pressure this government has
imposed on them, they are still able to compete in the world
marketplace. They are still able to create jobs and maintain
some level of prosperity for the citizens of Canada. Again, let
us take our hats off to small business people. They are doing a
great job in spite of this government.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I may have heard the member say that he does not want us
to increase the loan money available to small businesses by a
billion dollars. Could he confirm that he does not want that
additional help available to small business.
He told us we should improve the program but he did not specify
how. One of his Reform colleagues who spoke earlier suggested
government should stay out of the business of providing loans to
small business, that we should not have a small business loans
program. Could the member tell me the position of the Reform
Party on loans to small business and a government program for
loans to small business? Do Reformers want it or not?
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, it is very simple. We
have this improved reporting to Parliament that tells us
absolutely nothing. We have the comment by the auditor general
that parliamentarians do not have the necessary information to
assess whether the small business loans program is managed
efficiently and is achieving its objectives.
The intention of my speech was to tell the government to give us
that information in order that we might have an opportunity to
assess the benefits or otherwise of this program. Then we can
make an intelligent decision. In the meantime we have no
information. We are being asked to approve a billion dollars in
extra lending for businesses under the act and we have nothing to
base an opinion upon.
The deputy whip has posed a rhetorical question. I would ask
the deputy whip on the government side to bring that information
to us and let us have an intelligent debate in this House with
the information before us. The auditor general is specifically
telling the House that we need more information. His assessment
is that this program must be fixed before it is expanded.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member mentioned in his comments that we should take our
hats off to small business. I agree 100% with him on that
statement. It is very important for us to recognize the
contributions being made by small business to our social fabric.
In my riding of Halifax West there are numerous small
businesses. Many are experiencing difficulties. All we can do
to try to offset those difficulties should be welcomed. We must
do more than just take our hats off to small business. We must
be sure to support measures designed to assist small business
because that is very important.
I support this bill. Although much more needs to be done, this
is certainly a step in the right direction. Like my hon.
colleague, I too take my hat off to small business people who are
working very hard to create the kind of society we need. They
are employing people and struggling against many bureaucratic
obstacles while still maintaining a very important function.
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, I tried to make the point
that we should take our hats off to small business and we should
give them the assistance that we can.
We should not tax small business even more, which of course is
always the NDP philosophy, to bury them under a mountain of
taxation.
1120
I pointed out in my speech that because the government has a
full cost recovery policy on this program, it is the intent of
the government that it be totally financed by the successful
small business people who pay the 2% application fees and the
1.25% annual administration fee. From those moneys, the
government is going to pay the banks back for the bad debts the
banks make.
Remember, it was not the successful small business man who made
the decision to give it to the unsuccessful small business man.
It was the bank's decision and the small business man has been
asked to underwrite that, hence a tax on the successful small
business.
The member said he wanted to support this bill. If he wants to
support this kind of additional taxation on successful job
creating businesses, and I take my hat off to businesses, but I
have to really wonder about the policy of the NDP if its members
cannot see that.
Surely, if we want business to be successful then we get
taxation off their backs, we get rules and regulations off their
backs. We give them every encouragement to go out there and do
what they know, do what they can do best. That is to create
profits, which pays taxes, to create jobs, which is what this
country needs, and that improves our prosperity for everybody.
Surely the NDP could understand that.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, if the
government takes the steps to correct what the auditor general
has stated with regard to the fact that they have not brought
forth the proper recommendations, review and so on and so forth
of the program, would the member and the Reform Party be in
favour of the increase in the small business loans program as
recommended by the government?
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, again I refer the hon.
member to the auditor general's report saying that we do not have
enough information.
We find that there has not been appropriate analysis of this
program. We do know that the intent is a full cost recovery for
the government. Therefore they are in it and it will not cost
them anything. I explained how the successful small business
person will end up having to carry the can.
At this time, I am not in any position to say I can support the
program until I have that information. We need to do a complete
and full analysis of the program as it is currently devised, full
cost recovery by the government and so on. They have set the
lending limits far too high, in some cases 100%, and I have
explained how ridiculous that was. That caused the losses to
rise astronomically which are now going to have to be paid by
successful small businesses.
Until we have the proper analysis of the program as it is
currently run, we cannot support this bill. There is a real
chance we may find that this program is actually a deterrent and
puts a greater onus on the successful small businesses than if
they had borrowed the money without the government guarantee.
That is the information I thought this government would have
brought to this House along with the request. The government did
not and therefore I oppose it.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
want to remind the member of the Reform Party that successive NDP
governments in Saskatchewan going back to Tommy Douglas, Allan
Blakeney and Roy Romanow have always been very friendly and very
positive toward small business.
I think the success of those governments over the years
electorally from that community is proof that has actually been
done. I just wanted to unplug that left ear of his so that he
could hear a little from that side of his ideological head.
I want to ask him a very specific question, because I know he is
a very thoughtful member of the Reform Party.
An hon. member: That is a contradiction.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: A contradiction in terms of being a
thoughtful member of the Reform Party.
1125
Back in October one of his esteemed leaders from Calgary, the
Revenue Canada critic, said in this House that he thought
millionaires are overtaxed and specifically agreed that Conrad
Black was overtaxed. Does the member agree that millionaires are
overtaxed, that Conrad Black is overtaxed? I certainly do not
think they are. I think they are undertaxed.
Does the member support his esteemed leader, the revenue critic
of his party, or does he not?
The Deputy Speaker: I do not mind saying that I have
grave doubts as to the admissibility of this question in terms of
its relevance to the bill before us. Perhaps the hon. member for
St. Albert will find some way of tying it in.
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, his earlier comment
regarding the success of the NDP governments in Saskatchewan and
so on perhaps may have some merit. I am not going to debate that
under the SBLA.
The point I want to make is that the Liberal government has
changed the policy of the SBLA to a full cost recovery program.
It just wants to take the money in and pass it out and there is
no cost to government. How can that be a benefit to small
business when there is no cost to the government? The successful
small business carries the full cost of this program. It is a
tax on small business.
Regarding his other point, Mr. Speaker, your point of relevance
is very true. We are dealing with small business, with maximum
sales of $5 million and a maximum loan of $250,000. I am not
sure Conrad Black would waste his time making applications for
that small of an amount. So it is totally irrelevant.
The Deputy Speaker: I advise the House that we will now
begin 10 minute speeches without questions or comments.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on Bill C-21, an act to
amend the Small Business Loans Act.
There are several parts to this act. The reason Reform is
opposing it is primarily because the act is not living up to
sound fiscal principles. The auditor general has repeatedly said
that the SBLA needs revamping. It has numerous loopholes in it
that waste the taxpayers' money.
One of the things which greatly surprises us is that the auditor
general's reports, the independent audits of government
functions, ministries and programs, are never listened to. Sound
constructive principles are continually put in these very good
documents of the auditor general. Does the government listen to
them? No. Not only no, but virtually never.
Looking back in history the number of times the auditor
general's reports have been listened to and acted upon by the
government can be counted on one hand. And if it is not in the
amount of thousands of dollars, it is millions and billions of
dollars that these programs have cost. I find it unfathomable.
This is not neurosurgery. The solutions are there yet
governments, be they Liberal or Conservative, have repeatedly and
consistently ignored these constructive solutions that would
enable the government to spend the taxpayers' money in a wiser
fashion. Many of these ideas are not difficult to implement.
They would be very cost effective and very useful not only for
the public but also for the people working within these
ministries.
We have a number of observations from the auditor general's
report that I would like to bring up which are critical of the
SBLA. He found that under the SBLA the taxpayer was on the hook
for $210 million. These are moneys that were lent by lenders to
people and which the government, that is the taxpayer, picked up
the tab for. Why should the taxpayer be subsidizing the lenders
which are the banks? The banks have made record profits
recently, in the billions of dollars, and they have been
subsidized in the order of $210 million by the taxpayers of
Canada. Does this make sense? This is idiocy. It does not have
to happen.
We approve the extension of the SBLA because providing loans in
a responsible fashion to small businesses so that they can get on
their feet is exceedingly important. Small businesses provide
employment, not only for the people who starting them but also
for the people they employ. It is a good idea.
1130
The bad idea is that the lender is not forced to adhere to
strong principles. What is worse is that there is nothing in the
program to force the government to do an audit or an analysis of
whether the money that is being lent is being lent properly by
the lender or whether the borrowers are being assessed in a
judicious fashion. The auditor general showed that under the
SBLA lenders were not being audited properly. There is nothing
in the program to force lenders to analyse borrowers properly.
As a result 40% of the loans made under the SBLA would have been
made anyway. Taxpayers are on the hook for $210 million. It is
unnecessary. That money could be used for many other useful
programs or it could be applied to debt reduction. It is a waste
of taxpayer money.
There is no doubt that job creation figures have been inflated
as much as five times to add justification to the program. That
is not useful. We are advocating that the government take the
initiative to ensure that the SBLA is audited, that borrowers are
audited, that lenders are audited and that there is
accountability. At the end of the day this program like any
program is paid for by the public. It is paid for by the hard
working, overtaxed public.
We owe one thing to members of the public and that is to spend
their money wisely and responsibly. The SBLA is an example, as
demonstrated by the auditor general, of a program where this is
simply not happening.
I would like to add some constructive suggestions to those that
have already been made. First, the SBLA eligibility requirements
and conditions should produce the expected results. There is no
effective analysis, as I mentioned, and no cost benefit analysis.
Second, it is important to define the expected level of
incrementality. Are we seeing an increase in the number of
businesses that would not normally get loans other than through
the SBLA program? In other words, is the SBLA doing what it is
supposed to do? Again there is no analysis.
Third, there should be full cost recovery. If we manage to get
full cost recovery what will happen is that the money which is
lent will be returned to the program to be used to provide money
to other small businesses. Obviously when $210 million are lost
there will be less money to lend to other small businesses. Those
who are treating the program irresponsibly are not only
compromising the public. They are also compromising other small
businesses that wish to avail themselves of the program.
Fourth, Industry Canada should assess whether the lender is
exercising due care. The lender is the bank. Banks sometimes do
not engage in good fiscal practices when lending money. The
claim from the lender must be assessed. It must be shown that
the lender is exercising due care.
Fifth, the interest paid to lenders is too high. Interestingly
enough, while this is a loan provided by the government, the
lending rate can be prime plus 3%. The banks are not exercising
due care. They are saddling the taxpayer with an interest rate
that is prime plus 3%. That is not fair. It is taking advantage
of the taxpayer.
Therefore it is important that we decrease the interest rates
being charged by lenders. I am sure that is something the
government will be very interested in. Some banks look to the
program as a cash cow.
Sixth, better information on the performance of the SBLA is
required. Parliamentarians must have the information to assess
the SBLA. That is an important criticism by the auditor general.
I would like to make some general comments about the economy.
Providing loans and start-up money is very important for small
businesses. It overcomes one of the obstacles facing small
businesses. There are larger obstacles that all businesses face,
that is the amount of red tape they have to deal with. The
government has to take a leadership role and work with the
provinces to cut the red tape which has managed to put more
barriers between east and west Canada than north and south.
1135
We must decrease taxes. If we visit small businesses in our
community what mantra do we hear? “I can't hire. I can't train
because all the money goes to my taxes. If I had less tax I
would be able to hire more people, train more people, invest in
my business and become more competitive, not only within the
confines of our country but also internationally”.
The barriers of high taxes, the barriers of excessive rules and
regulations not only compromise competitiveness within our
country but compromise competitiveness internationally.
If the government would like to take one international issue to
heart which is exceedingly important, there are two major
fracture lines through Japan and Indonesia right now. The
solutions are out there on the table from the International
Monetary Fund, which have been given to both countries. They are
not acting upon it because of a failure in leadership. The only
way they will act on domestic changes is through international
pressure.
One can argue that domestic issues are for a country to deal
with. However, if Japan and Indonesia fail to deal with their
domestic problems an economic tsunami will come across the
Pacific Ocean and smack into Canada. It will be a significant
and major impediment to our ability as a country to thrive
economically.
I conclude by saying that we disagree with Bill C-21. I hope
the government will take the constructive suggestions members of
the Reform Party have put forward, implement them and build a
better SBLA program for all Canadians.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: At the request of the chief
government whip, the division stands deferred until Monday at the
conclusion of the time for Government Orders.
* * *
CANADA SHIPPING ACT
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (for the Minister of Transport,
Lib.) moved that Bill S-4, an act to amend the Canada Shipping
Act (maritime liability), be read the second time and referred to
a committee.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as always, I consider it a
privilege to rise in the House to bring attention to an important
piece of legislation.
Bill S-4 is an act representing shipowners liability for
maritime claims in general and for oil pollution damage in
particular. Transport Canada has made a strong commitment to
updating the legislation which governs the shipping industry.
Bill S-4 now before us deals with the modernization of the marine
liability regimes contained in the Canada Shipping Act.
The bill deals with maritime liability and proposes to increase
the compensation available to Canadian claimants, in particular
for claims related to ship source pollution damage. In contrast
to the current regime for oil spills, these amendments to the
Canada Shipping Act will establish shipowners liability for
environmental damage and allow for the cost of preventive
measures taken in anticipation of a spill.
The legislation was originally introduced as Bill C-58 in the
last parliament by the former transport minister. However the
bill died on the order paper and was reintroduced in the Senate
last October as Bill S-4.
1140
The bill amends part IX and part XVI of the Canada Shipping Act.
Part IX deals with global limitation of liability for maritime
claims, while part XVI deals with liability and compensation for
oil pollution damage.
The amendments to part IX of the Canada Shipping Act are based
on the 1976 convention on limitation of liability for maritime
claims and its protocol adopted in May 1996 under the auspices of
the International Maritime Organization, the IMO.
As I stated earlier, the proposed legislation will increase ship
owners limits of liability and improve considerably the amount of
compensation available to claimants involved in maritime
accidents. These limits are calculated on the basis of the
ship's size and apply to all claims arising from the same
accident. This enables shipowners to assess their potential
liability, which is an essential condition for commercial
insurability.
The regime of global limitation contained in part IX of the
Canada Shipping Act applies to all ships including pleasure
vessels. The current limit of liability for loss of life or
personal injury for owners of vessels below 300 tonnes, which
includes most pleasure vessels, is only $140,000.
As members can appreciate, this limit is totally inadequate and
the new limit for vessels below 300 tonnes has been set at $1.5
million, which is more in line with the liability levels long
established in the automotive sector.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on
a point of order. I believe that if you look very clearly at the
rules of the House we have a parliamentary secretary basically
standing up and defending legislation that would put millions of
dollars in the pocket of the Minister of Finance. I think there
is a collusion of interest here.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. member knows
that this is not a point of order. The parliamentary secretary
is introducing a government bill, which is quite proper for him
to do.
I think it is quite wrong for the hon. member to rise on the
guise of a point of order to engage in a debate essentially about
what is contained in the bill.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, an hon. member cannot on a point
of order in the House make accusations against a cabinet
minister. He cannot accuse someone of committing acts that are
either illegal or otherwise, stand there with impugnity, make a
statement and not be forced to withdraw and just leave it at
that.
I would ask Your Honour to review what was said by the hon.
member. I believe that language is unacceptable. If he were to
try it outside the House, he might have a rather unpleasant
surprise.
If it cannot be said outside and defended, perhaps he should be
a bit more prudent with what he says in here.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I am using the word
potentially. If you examine, Mr. Speaker, what happened in
question period yesterday, this was the focus of question period
all day yesterday.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. member has made his
point. Perhaps he said potentially. I thought he used words
like that although I cannot remember the explicit words. I did
not think the words were as serious as the government House
leader suggested in his remarks.
I believed it was not a point of order and I ruled it out of
order on that basis.
I am prepared to review the blues to see if something that was
completely wrong happened. If something improper has happened I
will come back to the House and deal with it. I have ruled the
point of order out of order in any event and I invite the hon.
parliamentary secretary to resume his remarks.
Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I thank the government House
leader for his intervention. Quite frankly, I am used to the
accusations, innuendoes and unproven circumstances from the hon.
member for Charlotte so it does not really trouble me very much.
In fact the hon. member is quite confused because this bill and
its contents have nothing at all to do with the discussions in
the House yesterday on a completely different bill and a
completely different issue. As usual, the hon. member for
Charlotte is confused and misled.
1145
The convention I speak of also provides special provisions for
the liability of shipowners to their passengers. This will be a
new feature in our legislation which will apply to passenger
vessels, ferries, tour boats and other vessels where passengers
are carried on a ship under a contract of passenger carriage.
Concerns were raised in the last Parliament that such a
provision might not cover all passengers travelling by ship in
Canada, specifically those carried without a contract of
carriage. In response to these concerns the Standing Committee
on Transport proposed an amendment to Bill C-58 to ensure
“persons other than crew carried on a ship without a contract of
carriage” will benefit from the same regime of liability. This
is of particular importance where passenger ships are hired by
individuals or organizations for special occasion use by their
clients, guests or employees, or where carriage of passengers by
water is provided as part of land tour or hotel packages.
Bill S-4 also modifies some provisions of the convention in
order to better meet Canadian requirements, in particular in
respect of the application to all ships and the application to
any person in possession of a ship. These modifications have
been made in conjunction with the definition of shipowner to
ensure that the new regime will continue to apply to all vessels,
seagoing or not, and also to people who have possession of a
ship, for example ship repairers.
The Canada Shipping Act currently establishes limitation of
liability for owners of docks, canals and ports. This regime is
strictly domestic in nature and provides a reciprocal balance to
the regime applicable to shipowners in the sense that both
shipowners and dock owners can limit their liability against each
other.
This regime has been maintained in Bill S-4 with the following
amendments. The limits of liability have been increased. The
right to limit liability has been extended to servants and agents
of the owners of docks, canals and ports in order to achieve
uniformity with a similar provision respecting the agents and
servants of shipowners. We have removed any reference to the
nationality of the largest ship for the calculation of the limit
of liability to achieve a more flexible application of this
provision which currently uses for this calculation the largest
British ship in the area of the accident.
Before I turn to the second issue presented in the bill, the
regime of liability and compensation for oil pollution damage, I
will address the economic implications of the amendments to the
Canada Shipping Act in respect of the global limitation of
liability. In respect of commercial vessel owners, those who are
insured in mutual protection and indemnity associations,
generally known as P and I clubs, will not likely see any
substantive change in their insurance rates since the coverage
already provided by these associations is unlimited.
Some commercial ship owners who are not currently insured in the
P and I clubs may experience an upfront increase in insurance
cost as a result of this revision of limits proposed in Bill S-4.
In most cases the actual impact will depend on actual claims
experienced under the new limitation regime.
The same applies to pleasure vessel owners. The vast majority
of them are already insured to the level of liability proposed in
this revision, while others will have to seek additional
insurance to be fully protected against the new limits.
The adjustment that is likely to occur in the pleasure vessel
insurance market under the new regime is not expected to raise
the cost of pleasure vessel insurance to a level that would
approach the level of other types of personal insurance,
especially auto insurance. Most pleasure vessel owners already
carry a liability insurance in the range of $1 million so they
should not expect any increase in their cost of insurance as a
result of this new legislation.
The second issue in Bill S-4 is the revision of the existing
regime of liability and compensation for oil pollution damage.
This regime was last revisited in 1989 when Canada implemented
and acceded to the 1969 international convention on civil
liability for oil pollution damage and the 1971 international
fund convention. The 1969 convention established the liability
of owners of laden tankers for oil pollution damage while the
1971 fund convention provided complementary compensation to the
extent that protection under the 1969 convention was inadequate.
In addition to participating in the international oil pollution
compensation fund, Canada has its own domestic compensation fund
called the ship source oil pollution fund.
1150
This is a fund of first resort for all claimants for oil
pollution damage in Canada and in waters under Canadian
jurisdiction. Canadian contributions to the international fund
are paid from the ship source oil pollution fund.
The 1969 and 1971 conventions were updated in 1992 when
protocols were adopted under the auspices of the International
Maritime Organization. Under the 1992 protocols, the amount of
compensation available for pollution damage caused by oil tankers
was increased from $120 million per incident to approximately
$270 million.
A number of other important changes were made in the 1992
protocols to improve the original conventions. Shipowners are
now liable for the cost of reasonable measures of reinstatement
where oil pollution from a ship results in damage to the
environment.
The geographic scope of application of the convention will now
include the exclusive economic zone of Canada which extends 200
nautical miles from shore. The protocols also extend the
convention to claims for preventive measures taken before a spill
to prevent or minimize pollution damage.
Finally, this convention now also applies to empty tankers with
specific reference to the voyage subsequent to the voyage during
which it was carrying oil.
Bill S-4 will implement the provisions of the 1992 protocols,
thus increasing the level of compensation available to victims of
pollution damage caused by oil tankers in the future.
The proposed legislation will enable Canada to follow many other
countries that have terminated their membership with the old
regime and moved quickly to the 1992 regime.
Until Canada follows suit, we will continue to be exposed to
higher contributions to the international fund due to the reduced
membership in the old regime.
I therefore strongly urge this House to consider this important
legislation expeditiously. The sooner Canada can accede to the
new regime, the better.
I would like to take a moment to discuss the amendments proposed
to Bill S-4 by the Senate. These amendments remove from the bill
a proposed modification to the definition of pollutant, which
raised concerns among the industry representatives who appeared
before the standing Senate committee on transport and
communications.
This amendment to Bill S-4 will allow more time for discussion
between the government and the industry on the definition of
pollutant and whether it should be modified in the future.
I am pleased to endorse, on behalf of the government, the
amendments made to this bill. I urge others to do so.
In conclusion, the changes I have outlined here for the Canada
Shipping Act would not have been possible without the continued
support of our stakeholders.
During our consultations, Transport Canada officials have spoken
at length with shipowners, passengers, cargo owners, the oil
industry, marine insurers and the marine legal community.
I take the opportunity to thank these industry groups for their
participation in this reform. Their strong support of this bill
has been very gratifying for all those involved.
I know the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport is
involved in the study of rail passenger transportation in this
country. Due to the importance of moving quickly on this
legislation, I would hope that my colleagues and I can move to
spend a day on Bill S-4 in committee so that we can deal with it
expeditiously partly because also we have dealt with this bill in
its old form before the dissolution of the last Parliament.
The industry has indicated to us that it has been there, it has
done that, it has talked to the committee and now it wants to
move forward with this piece of legislation.
I look forward to my colleagues on both sides of this House
coming together and moving quickly with the legislation when it
comes before committee.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I concur with what the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Transport said. He has given a good review. There
are some points I want to add.
This morning what cuts this side of the House to the core is
when the hon. member mentions that it was the Senate that brought
in amendments to this bill.
1155
I would be remiss not to mention my colleague who brought up the
point of order earlier. I am not going to discuss the ruling of
the Chair but I do want to reinforce a statement for everybody in
the hopes that never again in the history of this Parliament at
least a Bill goes to the Senate and the Senate makes the
amendments before it comes back to the elected officials.
This practice is totally archaic, totally not in touch with
today's reality. That really bothers me. I am not afraid to go
into the standing committee on transportation and discuss with
the hon. member the welfare of the industry across Canada. This
side of the House is insulted to the highest degree when my hon.
colleague raises many issues with regard to this bill.
Section 53 of the Constitution Act states the rules concerning
the breach of the privileges of this House. I want to read this
into the record because it directly concerns me. Standing Order
80(1) states:
All aids and supplies granted to the sovereign by the Parliament
of Canada are the sole gift of the House of Commons, and all
bills for granting such aids and supplies ought to begin with the
House, as it is the undoubted right of the House to direct,
limit, and appoint in all such bills, the ends, purposes,
considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of
such grants, which are not alterable by the Senate.
Whether we like to admit it our not, we are dealing with
millions of dollars. This is nothing small. We are talking about
liabilities up to $270 million. For that reason I feel very sad
that we have to come back to the committee and discuss amendments
that came from the Senate. That was totally unnecessary. To
members on this side of the House it is considered a total insult
to being elected officials.
I have a few more comments with regard to this before I get to
the bill itself. The Senate was restricted from originating
money bills in 1867. It is a fine point of law whether this is a
money bill or not. It is not a money bill in some terms but
because it deals with the potential of government expenditures
that is a question we have to address.
Introduction of bills in the Senate gives the Senate more
legitimacy as unofficial, unelected people. It gives it more
legitimacy or as much legitimacy in this bill as members on this
side of the House and members of the standing committee on
transportation. I beg the hon. member, please do not do this
again in the life of this Parliament. Please do not ignore the
people on this side of the House who are elected. It is not that
we are going to oppose this bill. We are not going to oppose the
bill.
I have every reason to believe what the hon. gentleman has said,
that it has received the support and consultation of the
stakeholders. That is the good part. I will be asking that
question when we are in committee, if all the stakeholders have
been consulted. There will probably be some more.
I beg the hon. member please, on behalf of this House, on behalf
of Canada, do not put this bill to the Senate before it comes
here.
The hon. gentleman has done a good job, as well he should
because he has been with this bill for a long time. There are
some things that I would like to add that perhaps the hon.
gentleman has not added.
Bill S-4 is designed to increase the compensation available to
public and private Canadian claimants, for maritime claims in
general, and particularly for claims related to ship source oil
pollution. As a result of these amendments in S-4, the maximum
compensation available against the international oil pollution
compensation fund would more than double. It has doubled to the
point of $270 million.
1200
I might say that Bill S-4 enables Canada to accede to several
international conventions on marine liability. Thus it
harmonizes, and I emphasize the word harmonizes, the Canadian
maritime liability legislation with that of the other major
maritime nations and previous legislation really did not do that.
In that respect there is support of the Reform Party because it
brings the bill up to date.
I want to mention some key features. This bill provides for a
substantial increase in shipowners' liability limits. In this era
there are ships that are double and triple the size of former
vessels using our harbours, international waterways and Canadian
waterways. Maybe the liability limits are not even high enough,
but at least it recognizes that.
The bill creates a procedure for rapid amendments, and that is a
good point. I do not know how rapid they can be, but when we
think back to the terrible oil disaster off the British Columbia
coast with the Exxon ship, it was a long drawn out procedure.
Hopefully this bill will speed that up because Canadians in
particular, and people around the world I am sure, are more
environmentally conscious of these things than they have ever
been before.
Another thing I would like to mention is that the bill adds a
provision for liability limits for those small ships that still
ply our harbour. The limits of the liability adjust to the size.
It is like the limits for a Honda car adjusting to a Cadillac.
Maybe my hon. colleague over there has a Cadillac, I do not know.
He does not. But if he did have, he would have to pay more in
liability limits.
It also makes special provisions for liability of shipowners to
their passengers. My hon. colleague mentioned that in this case
most of these people already carry a fair amount of liability
insurance. I am wondering though if it would not be a good idea
to jot down as a memo that we need to take a look at that.
A million dollars liability insurance. Is that $1 million per
person? I am not quite sure what is meant by that. There needs to
be assurance that these boats are carrying enough liability
insurance because passengers are more important than cargo. We
need to take a look at that.
The bill extends the application of maritime liability rules to
all ships at sea and inland. That is important. It is not just
the oceangoing voyages. And it extends, as my hon. friend has
mentioned, the exclusive economic zone. Even in the recent events
of the last few days maybe we need to take a look at that as
well. As our industry grows and as Canada becomes more of a lead
player in this particular field, we should take another look at
that particular area.
Modern day communications have made it possible that we now have
a day to day means by which we can be in communication, much more
so than ever before. With the use of modern communications
techniques, radar and so on, the global limitations of liability
therefore become a very important economic instrument in the
operation of any ship. We agree that the clauses as they relate
to that become very, very important.
Raising the maximum compensation, what I worked out is $120
million to $270 million, some may think is pretty hefty, but if
we look at the scope of the act, some may even argue it is not
high enough. It is certainly not too high.
As I mentioned earlier, when we have these huge boats now
doubling and tripling the capacity, this is not out of order and
maybe it is not high enough.
1205
I say to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Transport there is a need to further solidify Canada's place in
the international maritime community. We are very big players
now. I suggest to the hon. member that we may get to be an even
bigger player.
As Canada grows there is no question that our part of the
maritime industry is going to increase. Because of this, through
the implementation of both sets of conventions and the protocols,
and quite frankly I think there has been very limited negative
feedback concerning the contents of this bill and its predecessor
Bill C-58, the reaction that I and my party would have is that we
will support the bill.
There is one principle in particular that I would like to inform
the hon. minister about. It has a theme which this party adopts
and that is user pay. I believe that is within this bill and we
can support it on that merit.
Bill S-4 appears to be a sound bill. It strives for a balance
between the shipowners and the claimants which appears to be
fair. But we still have to allow time for the standing committee
to send out the message that if anyone else, a stakeholder, has
an interest, they will be advised that they can appear before the
committee.
The bill exposes the shipowners' insurance companies to major
financial liability. It also provides for a transfer of payments
out of Canada's ship source oil pollution fund to the
international oil pollution compensation fund. It is
questionable that a bill with such ramifications should indeed
come from the Senate.
I would like to share this with the hon. parliamentary secretary
as it relates to this bill. This bill indirectly relates to Bill
C-9 because they use the harbours, the insurance claims and so
on. I refer him to page 14 of the act. At the bottom of page 14
it talks about the right that is exercised, that there are
reasonable grounds to believe there are records in dwelling
houses related to the reporting of contributing to oil spills and
all of that. I am not disputing that but it is something that is
really difficult for me to imagine at this time.
I hope none of Canada's oceangoing vessels are involved in this
but Canada's ports are now a major entry point for the worst type
of pollutant this society has. We can clean up an oil spill. It
is very costly but eventually we can clean it up. We cannot
totally erase the damage. It is there. But on a recent national
television program it was shown in graphic detail that coming
through our ports are large amounts of hard drugs. They come
into Canada and find their way into the U.S. market.
I would hope that in committee we could take a look at this
catastrophe. It is hard to clean up a young person's life which
has been ruined by drugs.
If we in Canada are truly going to say no to drugs, if we are
going to have our schools say no to drugs and if parents are
going to say no to drugs, then it is incumbent upon all the
players involved, including the shipowners with this bill and the
port authorities with Bill C-9, to get serious about this.
1210
The hon. member may say that is not relevant, but I believe it
is. If we can search a house to obtain records to prove that
someone has used a boat to bring in oil which has polluted this
country, then the same thing should exist here, in co-operation
with other branches of the government, and we should have the
same power to say no to drugs at Canadian ports. As a Canadian
citizen I was hurt when I watched that program.
Reform will be supporting this bill. However, I would like to
reiterate that it should not have originated in the Senate.
Please introduce legislation in this House.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Madam Speaker, Bill
S-4 was first debated in the Senate, as its name indicates. I can
therefore think of no better way of opening debate than by going over
what was said at third reading in the Senate on December 16.
This bill will improve our liability regimes for maritime claims.
The proposed legislation consists of two sets of amendments, those
relating to limitation of liability for maritime claims in part IX of
the Canada Shipping Act, and those relating to liability and
compensation for oil pollution damage in part XVI of the same act.
In both cases, the amendments will provide implementation of
international conventions of which Canada is a signatory.
First, our current legislation concerning limitation for maritime claims
is contained in part IX of the Canada Shipping Act and is based on the
international convention adopted in 1957.
The limits of liability set out in that convention and, by this
very fact, in our legislation, are very low, too low. This helps neither
claimants nor shipowners. In fact, current limits are so unsatisfactory
that, most of the time, claimants have had to take legal action to try
to go above the limits to obtain adequate compensation. This has often
resulted in long and protracted litigation with uncertain results for
both the claimants and shipowners.
It is very difficult for a shipowner to assess his potential
liability.
With higher realistic limits of liability as proposed in Bill S-4, it
will be much easier for all parties involved to settle claims amicably.
The new regime of liability for maritime claims is based on an
international convention adopted in 1976 and its protocol adopted in
1996. The 1996 protocol to the convention contains a new procedure, for
future amendments of limits of liability, which responds to concerns
raised in the past that the method of revision of the limits was too
cumbersome and costly. It will now be easier to amend the limits in the
international convention.
In addition, as with the regime of limitation of liability for
maritime claims, it will now be feasible to increase the limits of
liability for oil pollution damage by order in council.
The adoption of Bill S-4 will enable Canada to follow many
other countries which moved rapidly, more rapidly than we did, to
the 1992 regime and, as a result, terminated their membership in
the old regime in May 1977, with effect from May 1998.
1215
I will now give a brief description of the articles designed
to achieve these objectives, beginning with those having to do with
general maritime claims, as implemented by the Convention on
Limitation of Liability.
Article 1 defines those persons entitled to limit liability
under the convention. They are the same as those in the current
legislation, i.e. shipowners, charterers, persons having an
interest in or possession of a ship, and managers and operators,
but the benefits of the convention are extended to salvors who are
not operating from a ship.
Very briefly, article 2 defines the types of claims subject to
limitation of liability under the convention.
Article 3 defines the types of claims excepted from limitation
under the convention. These are primarily claims for salvage, etc.
Article 6 sets increased limits of liability for all claims
other than those mentioned in article 7, covered by the convention
and arising on any distinct occasion.
This now brings me to claims for pollution by oil or other
pollutants. The definition of “Convention ship” is extended to
include ships with persistent hydrocarbon mineral oil from an
earlier cargo, and the definition of pollutant is amended to
include aquatic organisms and pathogens.
Clauses 4 and 5 also amend the definition of “ship” to
indicate clearly that it applies to vessels navigating Canadian or
inland waters.
Clause 6 extends the application of part XVI to Canada's
exclusive economic zone or that of any other party to the
Convention.
Finally, clause 10 significantly increases the responsibility
of the owners of Convention ships by setting the limits prescribed
in 1992, which were amendments to the Convention of 1969. This
means an increase of 326% over the limits of the 1969 Convention
and of 125% over the recovery permitted under the 1971 Convention.
This is a very significant increase.
In order to achieve the objectives set, the bill implements,
as I said, the conventions of 1976 and 1996. It also implements,
I should point out, the 1992 protocol amending the International
Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage and the
International Convention on the Establishment of an International
Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage.>
Finally, this bill amends various provisions pertaining to the
Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund. It is therefore a total overhaul
to ensure compliance with the Convention signed by Canada—a
slightly tardy realignment of Canadian legislation with these
conventions.
The Bloc Quebecois is happy to see that the government,
hounded by the obligation to implement the conventions it has
signed, must concern itself with making shipowners more
responsible. We are obviously in favour of increased
responsibility.
We still have the memory of the unfortunate Irving Whale episode
fresh in our minds. It cost the taxpayers of Canada and Quebec
over $30 million to raise that barge, which makes it seem that the
people of Canada and of Quebec were more responsible for the
shipwreck than the shipowners themselves. One can see how
ridiculous it all got.
Such situations must be avoided in the future. It is not up
to the government to compensate for the laxness of certain
irresponsible companies. Legislation must be therefore put in
place to avoid such incidents in future. Hydrocarbon pollution is
not the taxpayer's responsibility. We support the polluter-pay
principle, precisely in order to stop companies causing serious
environmental damage from getting away scot free.
There is, however, a need for a clear differentiation between
the government implementing a user-pay system and a polluter-pay
system.
Where user-pay is concerned, we remember all too clearly the bad
decisions made recently by the federal government concerning
charges for Canadian Coast Guard services. The government did not
agree to carry out impact studies before the new rates were set,
thus refusing to heed 75% of the people consulted.
1220
The government divided Canada into three zones: west coast,
Atlantic coast and St. Lawrence—Great Lakes, for which it set
different rates. As a result, Quebec is disadvantaged because it
is charged more in order to cover part of the costs of the services
to Newfoundland, the province of origin of the minister behind the
bill.
Moreover, charging for Coast Guard services will impact
heavily on Quebec and Canadian ports, because United States bound
vessels using the St. Lawrence and the seaway but not putting in to
any Canadian port do not pay for Coast Guard services. This
measure detracts a great deal from the competitivity of Canadian
and Quebec ports.
The current government decided to pass on the bill to shipowners
and to local port authorities, without first doing something about the
management of the coast guard.
It is not easy to apply the principle of financial and
environmental accountability to shipowners. The government will have to
maintain its principles, while keeping an open mind to make changes in
the application of the act, should it trigger some perverse effects.
The Minister of Transport must not act like his colleague, the
Minister of Fisheries, who remains so stubborn. He has to be open to
change, while preserving his goal of making shipowners and their
creditors accountable.
In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois agrees with the principle
underlying Bill S-4.
However, we look forward to the next stages, when we will hear those
most concerned by the bill and, if necessary, use their comments and
reactions to make it a better act.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Madam Speaker, I want to say
a few words on the bill before us.
[English]
We are discussing a bill to amend the Canada Shipping Act, a
maritime liability bill, which my party supports. Bill S-4 is
part of the Canada Shipping Act reform. Parts of the Canada
Shipping Act are old and out of date with today's realities. The
NDP believes it is time to modernize the Canada Shipping Act. The
revision of the existing limitation of liability for maritime
claims is a very important step toward the modernization of this
legislation.
With respect to limits for general maritime claims, the existing
regime under the Canada Shipping Act is largely based on a 1997
international convention relating to the limitation of liability
of owners of seagoing ships or vessels. The limits on liability
set out have naturally lost value as a result of inflation over
the years. Most maritime nations consider the limits of
liability set out in 1957 inadequate. That is understandable
since 1957 was more than 40 years ago. Inflation was very high
periodically during those years. In the late seventies inflation
hit more than 15%.
The 1957 convention was replaced by the 1976 convention on
limitation of liability for maritime claims and its 1996 protocol
as a global standard for the limitation of liability for maritime
claims.
As members from the Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois and the
government have pointed out, these amendments to the Canada
Shipping Act implement the provisions of the 1992 protocol to the
1969 convention on civil liability for oil pollution damage and
the 1971 convention of the international fund for the
compensation of oil pollution damage. We support many aspects of
this bill.
The hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain made a point I agree
with. I want to say a few words about the point I agree with for
members of the Reform Party. That may seem kind of odd. He is
already wondering what this point is.
1225
He made the point that it is very unfortunate that this bill
originates not in the House of Commons but in the Senate. The
government is introducing more and more legislation from the
Senate. I think that is a real affront to democracy. Why should
we be debating this piece of legislation which does not originate
here?
We are the elected members of Parliament coming from five
different parties in the House of Commons. The Senate is not
elected, not accountable and not democratic. Its members are
there from when they are appointed to the age 75. I think that
is a real affront to democracy.
I am shocked by the government across the way introducing more
and more legislation from the Senate. Why does the Prime
Minister not screw up his courage and put on the order paper a
bill to abolish the existing Senate? That is exactly what the
Canadian people are asking for.
Senator Thompson is only a catalyst, the tip of the iceberg. He
is not the only senator who hardly ever shows up in the Senate.
He is not the only Senator who is not elected. None of the
senators is elected or accountable. It is a real affront to
democracy to have a legislative body in the 20th century, almost
the 21st, that is not accountable. It is a hangover from the
feudal days of the past and it is about time we abolish that
particular Senate.
No wonder some people think this place is a farce. The people
are telling us to abolish that unelected place. The people of
Canada want their say and they want to speak out. It is about
time we, the members of Parliament, said no, enough is enough.
We, as members of Parliament, should say we are not going to take
it any more, enough is enough. We are going to originate bills
in this House through a democratic and transparent process, which
is exactly what it should be.
We should just stop right now in protest. Therefore I move:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member has
moved for the adjournment of the House. Does the hon. member have
the consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Call in the members.
1315
And the count having been taken:
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Madam Speaker, I believe you will find
that the member for London—Fanshawe entered the Chamber after
you read the motion and should not have been counted in this
vote.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Madam Speaker, I believe you will also
have to strike the votes of the following members on the basis
that they left their chairs and left the Chamber during the vote:
the member for St. John's East and the member for Wanuskewin.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: What did he say, Wanuskewin? Madam
Speaker, I do not think there is a member for Wanuskewin. I am
not sure where that is, but the other member that was mentioned
was in the Chamber the entire time. He might have got up from
his chair, but he was in the Chamber the entire time.
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Madam Speaker, I was in the Chamber well
before I was required. The bells were still ringing. The most I
may have done at some point is shifted to talk to a colleague. I
was here in plenty of time.
Mr. Norman Doyle: Madam Speaker, I think the record will
show that I was here for the vote. My vote has been recorded. I
just left to go out into the hallway afterward.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We will accept the
word of the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bigras
| Borotsik
| Brien
|
Canuel
| Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Hanger
| Hardy
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Johnston
| Kerpan
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lefebvre
|
Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mancini
| Manning
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Martin
(Winnipeg
| Centre) Matthews
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Ramsay
| Riis
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solomon
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Turp
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 95
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Boudria
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Caccia
| Calder
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Easter
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Knutson
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Maloney
|
Marleau
| Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| Pagtakhan
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Rock
|
Saada
| Serré
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Volpe
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
– 114
|
PAIRED
Members
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare the motion
lost.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-4, which amends the
Canada Shipping Act as it pertains to maritime liability. It has
taken a long time, too long in fact, for the bill to get to this
stage, but because it is here now I am very pleased to speak to
it.
1320
I come from Saint John, New Brunswick, where we have the largest
tankers in the world coming into our harbour because we have the
largest privately owned oil refinery in Canada. I have had the
pleasure of being taken out in a helicopter to fly over the
largest tankers in the world. It is something to see.
Also in Saint John, New Brunswick, we have something that is
unique in Canada and not anywhere else in Canada. It is a swivel
anchor because we have the highest tides in the world. Mr. K. C.
Irving devised this swivel anchor. When the largest tankers in
the world come in, they hook on to this anchor out in the bay. As
the tides rise we can see the tankers swing around and swing back
again. It is very unusual.
I want my colleagues to know that Saint John, New Brunswick, is
a very unique place. I invite all my colleagues to visit Saint
John. When they come we will take them to the refinery so they
can see what I am referring to.
The bill began as Bill C-58 in 1996. It went through a
committee process and died on the order paper with the election
call in April 1997.
There are important changes contained in the legislation. It is
certainly a shame that the government did not recognize the
importance of it at that time but instead chose other priorities
over this one.
However, having said that, we are here now and we are dealing
with the bill. I am pleased to be here to speak to it. The bill
will substantially increase the amount of compensation available
to Canadian claimants for maritime claims in general and for oil
pollution damage in particular.
It also harmonizes Canadian rules for maritime liability with
those of other maritime nations and will enable Canada to accede
to relevant international conventions. This point is important.
We must bring our rules into harmony with those of our major
trading partners that carry both import and export cargoes each
day to and from Canadian shores.
With respect to the part of the bill dealing with limitation of
liability for maritime claims, Bill S-4 amends part IX of the
Canada Shipping Act to implement the provisions of the 1976
convention on limitation of liability for maritime claims and its
1996 protocol.
Bill S-4 therefore will—and I am sure all my colleagues in the
NDP would want to hear this—first, substantially increase ship
owners limits of liability; second, allow cabinet on the
recommendation of the transport minister to implement new limits
of liability to reflect inflation; and, third, limit the
liability of owners of small ships of less than 300 tonnes to $1
million for loss of life or personal injury and $500,000 for
other claims.
It will also extend the application of the liability regime to
all ships operating in Canada's inland waters, not just sea going
vessels. Finally, it increases liability limits for owners of
docks, canals and ports for property damage claims to the greater
of $2 million or an amount based on the tonnage of the largest
ship that has docked in the area in the last five years.
Another important aspect of the bill relates to oil pollution
liability and compensation. Bill S-4 will amend part XVI of the
Canada Shipping Act to implement the provisions of the 1992
protocol to the 1969 civil liability convention and the 1971
convention on the establishment of an international fund for
compensation of oil pollution damage.
This will make ship owners liable for clean-up costs for oil
pollution damage, and that is long overdue. It will make
compensation available for pollution damage caused by tankers
with residues of oil remaining from their previous cargo. It
will also make it possible to recover costs incurred for
preventive measures in anticipation of a spill from a tanker.
The maximum compensation currently available to claimants in an
oil pollution incident is approximately $120 million. As a
result of the bill, the amount will be more than double that to
$270 million. That is important and is long overdue.
1325
In summary, we are pleased to support the legislation. As I
have stated, it is long overdue and very much needed in the
maritime industry in Canada. We are supporting it because it
will improve the compensation for the benefit of all Canadian
claimants involved in any maritime accidents in general and
certainly for purposes related to pollution claims.
Also the important harmonization of our laws with other nations
in the world benefits every participant. Here I am speaking
about all participants involved in maritime trade, shipowners,
cargo owners and charters, by providing consistent,
internationally recognized and accepted rules which deal with the
economic consequences of unfortunate accidents at sea.
Without these formal rules, international shipping on which
Canada relies to a tremendous degree would otherwise become
extremely expensive and unpredictable. As a result, it would
have negative consequences for the Canadian industry on the
whole.
We support the legislation and only wish that it could have been
moved a little more quickly through the legislative process. I
want to thank all of those who were involved in bringing it
before the House and the senators who worked so hard to make sure
it was here today. It is good legislation and we will support
it.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
could the member comment on the appropriateness of whether or not
the bill should be brought forward from the House of Commons or
from the Senate?
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Madam Speaker, I feel it does not
matter whether it comes from the Senate or from here. It is
whether it is a good bill or a bad bill and whether we have an
opportunity to vote on it and to speak on it. It is long overdue
and I am pleased that it is here. If it was the Senate that made
it come here today, I am pleased because, coming from a shipping
town, it is long overdue.
Being in the House today and hearing the comments that are being
made about other people who also work for the betterment of
Canadians, I found it tugging at my heart. Yes, we are also
saying there has to be Senate reform and the senators are saying
this. It is not just the Reformers who are saying it. Everybody
knows that.
However, to do what we did today was a waste of time and energy
and a cost to taxpayers. This should not have been done. We
should have continued on with the debate. This has tugged at my
heart. It was not easy because I know people who work hard in
the Senate and I know some who do not show up. You deal with it.
The majority of them work hard. If we need to make changes then
we can deal with it in a way in which we do not have to point
fingers at people.
As far as the bill goes, whether it came from the House, from
the government side, from this side or from the Senate, if it is
a good bill we deal with it. This is a good bill and I am
pleased to be here to say that.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I too wanted to lend my
comments to the hon. member and thank her for her remarks on this
piece of legislation, Bill S-4.
I remind those opposite who spoke so negatively to the fact that
the bill came forward through the Senate that in 1986 the
government initiated Bill C-58. It was introduced in the House.
The House dealt with it at second reading and put it into a
committee of the House of Commons. The House of Commons Standing
Committee on Transport dealt with the issue, heard witnesses, put
forward the amendments, came back to the House of Commons at
report stage and then, because of an election, it died on the
order paper.
I will answer the hon. member's question about why we did not
move it sooner because of its importance in the marine sector.
We dealt with the marine sector in our dealings with the Canadian
port authorities.
1330
We were seized with Bill C-9, the Canada Marine Act. That took
precedence. The member would agree with me that Bill C-9 is a
very important bill for Canada. That is why we dealt with that
bill first. At the same time we had the opportunity to move the
bill, this particular bill, the old Bill C-58 which this House
dealt with, through the Senate as Bill S-4. We are just making
effective use of valuable legislative time.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Mr. Speaker, I reiterate that it does
not matter where the bills are introduced. We supported the
NDP's motion today because of the procedural move, as all
opposition parties voted against the government in a procedural
move.
We have waited a long time. A city like mine has the largest
tankers in the world at our ports. We can see them out there
with the oil rigs. We are saying that this is long overdue. I
thank the hon. member on the government side for working to
ensure the bill's consideration in the House today. I thank all
of those who were involved in bringing this bill before the House
today.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I reiterate on behalf of the NDP to the parliamentary
secretary that if he does not like democracy, he should think of
another line of work.
The bill has very good merit but that is not what upsets us. The
fact is that amendments were made in the Senate where senators
are appointed and not elected. That is why we voted to adjourn
today. If the member does not like democracy in action, that is
just too bad.
Mr. Stan Keyes: The Senate could have made amendments
anyway you dummy.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If Hansard will show
he used unparliamentary language against me, I would like him to
apologize before this House.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair did not hear any
unparliamentary language.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: We did.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry the Chair did not hear it.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport.
Mr. Stan Keyes: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I must admit, but it
was a term of endearment.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair did not hear terms of
endearment or otherwise. I am afraid I am in the dark about this
and will remain so unless I am illumined. I will consider the
matter closed.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, it is not often that I take issue with the hon. member
but it does matter where a bill originates. It is important.
This is the elected House of Commons. We, the members of
Parliament who sit in this Chamber, were elected and given a
mandate by the people of Canada to represent them.
Those people down the hallway were not elected. They were not
given any form of legitimacy by the people in Canada. In fact I
would suggest that they do not have the moral authority to
continue to sit in that Chamber. It is quite clear that the
overwhelming majority of Canadians want to see the Senate
abolished.
The hon. member talked about the cost involved in having a vote
in the House of Commons. I would simply ask her to compare the
cost involved of running the Senate, the tens of millions of
dollars involved. I do not support Senate reform because I do
not believe the Senate should continue to exist. The Andrew
Thompson case is but an example of a very serious problem with
the Senate.
The work undertaken by the Senate is work that should be done by
committees of this House, by elected members who are accountable
to the people of Canada. It seems that at some point we have to
take seriously the question of the future of the Senate. It is
not enough to simply say that it would require a constitutional
amendment and that it is unlikely the constitutional amendment
would be allowed.
The Prime Minister and the government must show some leadership
and begin the process. I believe abolition of the Senate is the
will of Canadians. However, if reforming the Senate were the
will of the people of Canada, we should at the very least begin
the process.
If not, the Senate will continue to carry on, continue to be
discredited by the people of Canada. Not only do the actions of
the Senate discredit itself, but they also discredit the House of
Commons I would submit.
1335
I believe that this bill should have been initiated by the
government or by a member in this House. If the bill has the
merit that the hon. member says it has, then perhaps an
explanation is in order as to why we had to rely on unelected
senators to introduce this bill. Why could the bill not have
been introduced by the government?
If anything, it is a reflection on the people in this House if
we do not have the foresight or the knowledge or the ability to
recognize the merit of the bill. I think it does matter where a
bill originates. All bills should originate in this House. It
should be the elected members of this House who determine public
policy.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Mr. Speaker, to my hon. friend for whom
I have a great deal of respect, I just want him to know that it
did go throw the process. It went through the House here and it
was referred to the Senate, which is the normal process as we
already know. Perhaps hon. members feel that should be looked at
and assessed, but it did go through the House and it went through
the normal process. The Senate looked at it and it will go
through it again and it is over when it comes back from the
Senate. There will be others that will come, but it goes through
a normal process.
There was a time in the last Parliament when I personally had an
opportunity to see the role they had to play when we did not have
an official opposition that represented the whole of Canada.
There was an opposition there that worked extremely hard. I would
say they did not play party politics in the Senate all the time.
They did what they thought was best. So there is a time when
there is a need.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we have
heard talk today about heartstrings, and let me tell you my
heartstrings are pulled as well when I think about Bill S-4.
Except that they are pulled in a little bit different direction
maybe than what the hon. member referred to when I asked
questions before.
I refer to section 53 of the Constitution Act that provides that
only the House of Commons may table money bills, bills which
require the expenditure of public funds or involving a tax or
impost.
Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
With all due respect to the Chair, it may be a point of
information for the Chair on this point of order, but when debate
is occurring on this particular bill, and we are talking about
S-4 and how it applies to marine liability, some may question
whether this is part of the debate.
However, when the hon. member rises to speak on whether or not
the Senate should have initiated this particular bill, I think
the Chair has to keep in mind that the Speaker of the House of
Commons has already ruled on S-4 and its legitimacy on whether or
not it came from the Senate. I would submit to the Speaker that
any references as to whether the bill originated here or there is
out of order and we can stick to the issue at hand, which is
marine liability.
The Deputy Speaker: I certainly know that the hon. member
for Calgary West will want to ensure that he does not reflect on
a ruling of the Chair, which as he knows is contrary to the rules
of the House. Reflecting on a ruling where the bill has been held
to be properly before this Chamber and on which the Speaker has
already ruled as I understand it, would be improper. So I know he
will want to move his remarks along very smartly and avoid any
suggestion that he is reflecting on the ruling of the Chair and
discuss the merits of the bill itself.
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the comments
in terms of the smart comments on behalf of the member for
Calgary West. I would never indeed question the good judgment of
the Chair. We all value your position, Mr. Speaker, and the
contributions that you have made to the House.
I must however talk to the whole idea of this bill not having
been considered by five official parties as represented in the
House. In its place of origination since the election on June 2,
it has only had the representation of two parties, and those not
being in this Chamber.
1340
I think that really speaks to whether or not this bill is
actually an accountable one, whether or not it circumvents
government accountability because indeed, there are five parties
represented in the House. If the other three have not had a voice
in this piece of legislation and if it did not originate here
when it does involve something that has to do with money, then it
is a very difficult matter indeed. It strains the democratic
accountability of both houses and of Parliament generally.
We think this bill needs to be accountable to the constituents
of five respective parties as opposed to just two parties, one of
which only represents 7% of the population as it stands here in
the House of Commons today.
We do not want Bill S-4 to be reflective of an archaic,
unelected, unaccountable and unrepresentative body. We believe
that this is a slow erosion of the power of the House of Commons.
I would like to refer to a member who sits in the other Chamber,
somebody I talked to just this afternoon. Last year the Senate
had 67 sittings of which many of the people in that place only
sat for roughly 50% of the time. I would like to go through the
math of this for a second. I think it is pertinent. At 67
sittings a year with a salary in excess of $64,000 a year that
would work out—
Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The debate is not germane to the bill.
The Deputy Speaker: I must say that the Chair is having
trouble determining how it is that the number of sitting days in
the Senate has any relevance to Bill S-4 which is before us. I
would invite the hon. member to move more quickly than he has
been moving to get his comments on to the subject matter of the
bill.
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, I will quickly wrap up my
point with regard to the originators of this bill, the one last
point being that the originators of this bill get more than
$1,000 a day. I wrap up by saying that this bill should be
referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs. I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word “That” and substituting the following therefor:
Bill S-4, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, be not now
read a second time but that the order be discharged, the bill
withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments. Resuming
debate. On a question, the hon. member for Mississauga South.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to seek clarification with regard to the motion that has
been tabled. The intent of the motion appears to be motivated by
whether or not there is jurisdiction of the Senate to do this.
Indeed the House has already dealt with that and it is proper for
the Senate to have initiated the bill.
In view of that and in view of the fact that it has been
requested that the bill be referred to the committee on procedure
and House affairs, I would ask the Speaker to rule on the
admissibility of the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair has ruled that the
motion appears to be entirely admissible. The motion does not
state any reason for the referral. It simply says that the bill
be not now read a second time but that the subject matter be
referred to the committee on procedure and House affairs. In the
opinion of the Chair, the motion is admissible.
1345
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in my riding, we have a
huge shipyard that is as big as the one in the riding of the hon. member
for Saint John. I pay attention any time the issue of shipping is raised
because of its connection with shipbuilding.
My riding is right across from Quebec City, on the opposite shore
of the St. Lawrence River, on which there is a lot of shipping. So, we
in Lévis want to see as many ships as possible. But at the same time, we
want to make sure that, should an accident occur, these ships will not
harm the environment.
Bill S-4 deals with liability for shipping accidents and oil pollution
damage.
Personally, I was not in favour of looking for ways to delay
passage of this bill, essentially because this bill should have been
passed a long time ago. Why has it not been passed into law yet? Because
last year, Prime Minister Chrétien decided to call an early election
because he feared the impact of the Employment Insurance Act reform on
people in the maritimes. That was not a bad idea, since the government
majority fell significantly from what it was in the last Parliament, and
had he waited until the fall, he would probably have ended up with a
minority government.
It may have been a good move for the Prime Minister, but not for
this bill to amend the Canada Shipping Act, which was first passed in
1932. The changes will be implemented in stages because the government
is not quite ready to put all the new provisions into effect. The
government has decided to make the changes required in two stages, and
this part covers only what the government is almost forced to do as a
signatory to the 1976 international convention, which was to come into
force in 1990, but whose implementation was later postponed to March 31,
1996, at the latest. But the government negotiated an extension which
took us to this year.
In the end, having signed an international convention, the
government can no longer delay passage of this legislation. When someone
does something because he can no longer postpone it, it shows how little
he cares about it.
The government does so because it is obliged to, because other
countries on the international scene have already done so, and it
is among the last stragglers, so now it is acting in order to save
face. I am shocked by this. The people of Lévis whom I represent,
the workers at the Lévis shipyards, are also shocked by the low
priority this government gives to shipping. The message it is
sending to them is discouraging.
In 1993, the Liberals were so hot to gain power that the Prime
Minister's current chief of staff was a Liberal candidate in Quebec
City. All the candidates in that region signed an undertaking
stating that they found this issue so important that they were
going to hold a summit on the future of the shipyards and of
shipping as a whole. He was not elected, of course. Perhaps that
is why nothing has happened in the area of shipping since then.
The government stalls. Then, if the polls seem favourable, an
election is called and shipping is forgotten altogether.
This is the most neglected sector in the area of transport. It
seems to be the last to get any attention, so much so that the
former president of the Canadian shipowners, Mr. Bell I think,
waited until after the election to reach his decision, not wishing
to get involved in politics.
1350
He had been in that position for a dozen years or so. He
commented: “Things are going so badly. They change ministers just
about every two years, in transport and for shipbuilding. We
cannot figure out where we stand. Things are going so badly that
I have decided to step down, because the message I am getting is
that this is not an important issue for the Liberal government”.
Almost a year into the second Liberal mandate, the Senate
finally turns up with this. I am like everybody else. I will not
go on any longer on this point, or the parliamentary secretary will
be rising to bring me back on topic.
Generally things are not at their fastest in the Senate. When
the Senate is faster than the House of Commons and the Liberal
government, that means the latter are very slow indeed. It would
be almost impossible to get any slower. When the senators push the
government to pass something, things are happening. Things are
going awry. It has come to that. This is almost a distress
call.
We will of course support this bill and help it through as
quickly as possible so there are no problems and to avoid any
incidents. We know what the Irving Oil disaster cost taxpayers.
There were other incidents in the St. Lawrence. There was the
Exxon Valdez. Twice ships have run into the Quebec City bridge.
Fortunately, hulls were not damaged and there was little oil
spilled. We managed to avoid any catastrophes. Is the government
going to wait for an environmental catastrophe to happen before
introducing a bill?
The Senate is sending the Liberal government a wake-up call.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau: You have to be pretty low.
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Very low indeed, as the member for
Trois-Rivières has pointed out.
Some people are citing the Brander-Smith report, which
proposes, because of the shoals in the St. Lawrence, that ships
with double hulls be built as quickly as possible. With its usual
lack of speed, the Liberal government intended to pass this
legislation in 2007, in ten years. In the meantime, what we see
sailing past are old tubs, most of them under foreign flags. And
we should not be worried.
This is the time to be building new ships. For ten years now
they have been warning foreign ships about the 20-year limit, but
they are still letting them in. Fortunately, in this instance, we
have the senators.
For once in their lives, at least, they will have proven their
usefulness. The senators are trying to get the government to wake up.
The government also turned a deaf ear when other key players spoke.
Last August, at the federal-provincial conference held in St. Andrews,
the former premier of New Brunswick told his fellow premiers that action
was urgently required. He urged the federal government to take action in
the shipping industry. Since his resignation, we have not heard him say
anything more about the issue, but still, nothing has been done.
I personally do not approve of using delaying tactics to hold up
this bill. What I want is a real bill on a real shipping policy, a real
shipbuilding policy. This is what workers want, especially but not
exclusively in Quebec.
The hon. member for Saint John moved a similar motion last fall.
Each party had one speaker address the issue. Everyone, including the
opposition, was in agreement, whether in western Canada or in Ontario.
After all, the Great Lakes region is also interested in shipping. The
parliamentary secretary comes from that region. I know that he is
interested in this.
But what is the government waiting for to establish a true shipping
policy, a true shipbuilding policy? It should do like the United States,
where $400 million is earmarked every year to replace the U.S. merchant
fleet. It should do like most countries of the world, where shipyards
get some support because they are considered important.
1355
Shipping is actually the cheapest mode of transportation. If this
activity is conducted properly, if measures such as double hulling are
taken, we can avoid accidents or incidents, particularly those involving
oil. It is the least expensive mode of transportation, and the least
dangerous one from an environmental point of view.
However, using old ships to carry oil can have a major
environmental impact, if they sink like the Irving Whale.
This is why the world fleet must be renewed. Ships entering Canadian
waters must be safe. Otherwise, they should get stiff penalties, so that
they will think twice before entering our waters and threatening the
environmental safety of Canada and of Quebec.
These are the main points I wanted to make on this issue. I will be
pleased to answer any questions.
[English]
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
colleague mentioned the maritimes. I want to thank him for
giving me that lead-in to say that we in the maritimes are very
supportive of anything that will assist the marine works and
shipping industry.
This bill is aimed at dealing with the financial aspect of
catastrophes that may take place. There is an important point to
be made on preventive action. It has recently been mentioned
that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is going to be
cutting back or terminating a lot of the lighthouses in the
maritime region.
In my constituency concern has been expressed to me about the
safety issues that are presented with that move. We would see
that as an important aspect which has to be considered when we
talk about marine safety, the preventive aspect as well as the
response afterwards. We hope that would be taken into
consideration.
One final comment with respect to the terms of endearment used
for my hon. colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore, as I have
said in this House before, we need to use respect for each other
when we are in this House. The fewer terms of endearment used,
the better. That way we will accomplish things in the interests
of all.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the member
for Halifax West is also concerned about shipping.
In fact, he comes from a region that is greatly affected by
it. Although the bill does not address the issue of navigational
aids, he is right to be worried about what is being done in that
regard.
On this topic, we in Quebec deplore the fact that icebreaking
is now the responsibility of the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans. Since the Liberals have been in office, we have lost a lot
of icebreakers and now we can no longer ensure marine traffic in
winter. This winter, it was not too noticeable, because the
weather was warmer than usual, but I agree fully with what my
colleague said about safety.
I did not, however, understand his reference to birds. I do
not know what he meant.
The Deputy Speaker: There are seven minutes remaining in
question and answer period and we will get back to this after Oral
Question Period today. We will now proceed to Statements by
Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
MATHIEU DA COSTA
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today I rise to commemorate the contribution of Mathieu Da Costa
to the building of this country.
Mathieu Da Costa was the first recorded black person in Canada,
renowned today for his work as an interpreter and the role he
played by bridging the gap between the cultural and linguistic
languages between 17th century French explores and the Mi'kmaq
people.
Tomorrow we will meet the award winners of the Mathieu Da Costa
awards program. This initiative is a partnership between the
multiculturalism program of the Department of Canadian Heritage,
the Canadian Teachers' Federation and the Canadian Museum of
Civilization.
By encouraging students from some 15,000 schools across this
great country of ours to learn about the contributions of
Canadians of diverse backgrounds, the Mathieu Da Costa awards
program fosters a sense of Canadian identity and bridges the gaps
between Canadians of all origins.
* * *
1400
THE SENATE
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Senate seems to be having some difficulty trying to rid
itself of absent Andy, so I may suggest 10 innovative ways to
clean out the patronage trough at the other place.
10. Make all airline tickets to Mexico one way only.
9. Just do an honest job evaluation.
8. Cut off the supply of Geritol.
7. Cut off the supply of alcohol.
6. Stewed prunes.
5. Take away the senators' crayons.
4. Allow the bells to ring during nap time.
3. Make them try to justify their existence to an ordinary
taxpayer.
2. When we are talking about “attends” we are not talking about a
brand name.
And the No. 1 way to clean up the Senate: elections, elections,
elections.
* * *
WHITE CANE WEEK
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the white cane means freedom, and communities across Canada
celebrated freedom during white cane week recently.
This awareness week, organized by the Canadian Council of the
Blind and the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, aims to
raise awareness about the significance of the white cane.
A person using a white cane is no different from anyone else.
Their white cane is an essential tool for travel so that they can
get around safely.
There are thousands of Canadians who know firsthand the
significance of the white cane. All across Canada people are
learning more about blindness and vision loss. I encourage all
Canadians to find out what is happening in their community in
this regard. Canadians can do so by contacting their local
Canadian Council of the Blind office or the Canadian National
Institute for the Blind in their area.
* * *
VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on two occasions since I was elected to this House in
1988, I have brought forward to the House motions recommending
that the government raise the tax exemption levels for volunteer
firefighters.
In June 1994 my motion to raise the tax exemption level was
given overwhelming support by all parties. It should be noted
that the last time an increase was given was in 1980. Since that
time, training and equipment costs have gone up. Those who have
purchased the equipment with their own money and who give their
time serving their communities have not benefited from the
increase in inflation.
I agree with the Minister of Finance that during these times of
fiscal restraints we must be careful not to overextend ourselves.
However, I would think that all members here would agree that
tax breaks could help promote volunteerism in our communities.
I believe one of the top priorities should be to encourage
volunteerism—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Nunavut.
* * *
WINTER OLYMPICS
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to congratulate all of Canada's athletes at the
winter Olympics in Nagano. I want to congratulate the women's
hockey team for winning a silver medal for Canada.
Our men's hockey team will be playing for gold. Fifty years
ago, the RCAF Flyers won the gold medal for Canada through sheer
determination and perseverance. It has not been since 1952 that
Canada has won the gold medal in our nation's favourite sport.
Canadians from coast to coast to coast and from every territory
and province will wait to learn of our great victory.
Canada's Olympians are a source of inspiration and pride for all
Canadians, especially our youth. We can all take ownership in
Canada's success at the winter Olympics knowing that it is our
success that gives us even more reason to celebrate being
Canadian.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this year there will be at least eight seats vacant in the
Senate. Canadians want an equal, effective and elected Senate.
The Liberal government has kept up the Tory tradition of using
vacant Senate seats as a patronage appoint reward system to pay
off Liberal political hacks. The Prime Minister has set a new
pork barrel record by appointing 23 Liberal senators.
British Columbia is the most under represented province in the
Senate, at least by five seats. B.C. has over 600,000 citizens
per senator as compared to around 78,000 in New Brunswick, which
has four more senators than B.C. The lack of equality in the
Senate is outrageous.
The Calgary declaration calls for treating all citizens and
provinces equally. The Liberals are denying the need for
equality in the Senate. The Liberals are not allowing Canadians
the right to choose their Senate representatives even though in
1990 the Prime Minister said the Liberal government—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Drummond.
* * *
1405
[Translation]
NANCY DROLET
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday,
February 17, in Nagano, the Canadian women's hockey team won the
silver medal in a hotly disputed match against the American team.
A young woman from my riding was on this team: Nancy Drolet from
Drummondville.
Nancy's record is impressive. She has played in 15 Canadian
championships in nine years and twice at the Canada Games. At the
international level, the teams she has been a member of have won
five gold medals and one silver in six years.
And today, Nancy has become an Olympic medalist, an honour we all
share.
On behalf of my constituents, I congratulate you, Nancy. Your
determination is something else. We wish you all the best in your
future endeavours.
* * *
ANNIE PERREAULT
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the news has just broken that Annie Perreault is the first Quebec
woman to win a gold medal in speedskating.
We wish to draw attention to this young woman's courage, as
she has coped with a number of difficulties throughout her
training. Yet she never gave up, and now has been rewarded with
this wonderful win.
Representing Canada is in itself a source of pride to all of
the athletes at the Nagano Games. Our thoughts are with them all,
each and every minute of these competitions, and we are well aware
of how much effort our athletes have put into doing their best for
Canada.
In congratulating Annie for her well-deserved win, let us
remember all of the other athletes who are over there representing
us so worthily, and let us wish them all the best of luck.
* * *
[English]
ZOIE GARDNER
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today I want to pay tribute to a very special Canadian and
Edmontonian. Her name is Zoie Gardner. She recently received
the Order of Canada in recognition of her volunteer work and for
being a foster mother to 100 kids, as she calls them. She has
been doing this labour of love for 60 years.
She began her calling at the age of 19, tending a six-day old
infant. By the age of 21 she had 10 kids in her care. She is
still mothering four disabled adults in their thirties and
forties. Two of them were her kids since they were six days old.
At 79, Zoie keeps on mothering. She said “I like kids and I
enjoy working with them. I have to be busy. I do not mind
growing old, but I sure mind growing useless”.
The love of her kids keeps her going. It is nice to see that
kind of generosity and kindness being honoured by the Order of
Canada.
Zoie is not useless. She is terrific. Way to go.
* * *
NATIONAL LITERACY DAY
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today is national literacy day and we are calling for
continued support and highlighting the connection between
prosperity and literacy.
Almost half of Canada's adult population score at the lowest
literacy level. They are unable to reach their full potential as
workers, parents and citizens.
Canadians are taking steps to meet this challenge. The national
literacy secretariat, other levels of government, libraries and
schools are making crucial contributions. But we need to
intensify our collective effort. Opportunities to advance
Canadian literacy are being missed. In many communities we have
willing learners who cannot find programs, or lack of funding
closes excellent literacy programs.
Together we must act on the challenges and opportunities ahead
for effective literacy teaching and learning.
* * *
[Translation]
SCOUTING
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois is pleased to draw attention to International Guides and
Scouts Week.
Scouting, founded by Sir Robert Baden-Powell, offers its
members practical lessons in life, in addition to what they receive
in their school and family settings.
Thanks are due to the many volunteers, parents, leaders and
former members involved in activities to help young people grow and
develop. The thousands of people involved in Scouting and Guiding
help boys and girls to develop knowledge of self and of others,
along with respect for their fellow human beings.
Many of today's leaders came up through the ranks of Scouts
and Guides. I am sure they all have indelible memories of those
days.
I would like to send special greetings to all of the Scout and
Guide groups of Laval, and the many volunteers who are helping our
young people to develop to their full potential.
* * *
[English]
NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, while on
the topic of globalization, the leader of the NDP is quoted in
today's Toronto Star as saying there really is a revolution
going on.
Does this mean that the NDP has finally woken up?
The NDP leader delayed this conversion to what we have been
saying for generations, that we live in a global economy. I am
not surprised to see the NDP leader speaking on both sides of the
issue. On the one hand her party wants to nationalize banks and
hire every unemployed person on the government payroll. On the
other hand she wants others to do what her own party is not
willing to do, embrace the global free economy.
1410
I invite the leader of the NDP to stand up in the House today
and admit that her party policies are and have been completely
bankrupt.
I can see Karl Marx rolling in his grave over the loss of yet
another devoted socialist.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, to be
or not to be, a surplus or a deficit? That is the question to be
answered next Tuesday with the release of the federal budget.
Whether there will be a financial surplus or not, the fact
remains that there is in this country a human deficit evidenced
by high unemployment, high student debtload, high cost of health
care, environmental problems and high rates of suicide and other
problems among youth, and the crisis around national unity.
While these human deficit problems impact on all communities,
they impact most severely on aboriginal communities. Whereas
national unity and a deficit free Canada require strong
partnerships and whereas the government has recognized aboriginal
peoples' right to self-government and has expressed a willingness
to work in partnership, will the Prime Minister guarantee that
aboriginal peoples will have their rightful place at future first
ministers conferences and constitutional discussions?
Such is a must to have a truly unified and deficit free country.
* * *
[Translation]
ANNIE PERREAULT
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, this morning
in Nagano another athlete climbed up onto the top step of the
podium. Speed skater Annie Perreault won the 500 metre short
track.
I feel very proud when the medals are given out and our
national anthem is heard around the world. I am moved even more
when the flag is raised for one of our own athletes. The people of
the Eastern Townships are eager to see their champion.
This medal combines with our 13 others to make Canadians'
performance in these Olympic winter games one of our best.
I thank all our athletes for giving us such exciting moments
and for representing us so well.
And congratulations to you, Annie, on your gold medal. We are
very proud of you.
* * *
[English]
THE SENATE
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today the Senate will vote on whether to suspend Andrew Thompson
for his lamentable attendance record. Of late, Alberta Senator
Ron Ghitter has been championing Senate reform. This is most
ironic coming from a Tory patronage appointee who shows up only
50% of the time.
Could Senator Ghitter's sudden conversion be an attempt to shift
the focus away from his own sorry attendance record? And whatever
could Senator Ghitter mean when he talks of Senate reform? For
him it surely could not mean Senate elections. Why? This is the
same Ron Ghitter who was first appointed in 1993 to replace
Canada's first and only elected Senator, Reform's Stan Waters.
Note to Mr. Ghitter. Perhaps a first step to reforming the
Senate should start with your own cushy seat. How about stepping
down and giving Albertans the chance to tell you what they think
of a tardy Tory Senate appointee who refers to his home province
as a “backwater”.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I try to give as much latitude
as I can in these statements we make every day, but I think we
are getting closer and closer to the line where it is becoming a
little more unacceptable. So I would ask hon. members to look
over their statements before they make them here in the House.
* * *
[Translation]
PRO-DÉMOCRATIE COALITION
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Parti
Quebecois government has just given a $300,000 subsidy to
Pro-Démocratie, a group of individuals of various political
stripes opposing the reference to the Supreme Court.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Denis Coderre: The cat is out of the bag. Now we can
clearly link these people with a particular persuasion, that of the
separatist government.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Denis Coderre: Pro-Démocratie has nothing democratic
about it, since its source of funding advocates separating Quebec
from the rest of Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Denis Coderre: We must call a spade a spade. Let us hope
that the group's members have the courage to reveal whom they are
working for.
I am keen to see how the Conservative leader is going to handle
that.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
1415
[English]
The Speaker: Colleagues, I am always loathe to intervene
when people are applauding for another member. I would hope you
would permit me and the other members to hear hon. members'
statements in the future.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, during the last election campaign the Prime Minister
went on TV and said he would spend 50% of any budget surplus on
debt reduction and tax relief. He said relief would come “once
the budget has been balanced”. There is nothing here about down
the road, nothing here about over the mandate. Now the finance
minister says he is not constrained by that promise.
Why is the Prime Minister allowing this election promise to be
broken by the finance minister?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the red book here. To make sure it is well
understood, on page 28 it says: “We will allocate our budget
surpluses so that over the course of our mandate one half will be
spent to improve our programs and one half will go to tax cuts
and reduction of the debt”.
There is not a big difference between that and what the Minister
of Finance said. He said that the 50:50 formula will be applied
over the course of the mandate. It is exactly the same thing.
The Reformers are afraid of the next—
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I remember reading the red book on the balcony of the
Frontenac Hotel. When ordinary Canadians read this red book it
said: “We are moving towards a time when the budget will
finally be balanced—When we reach that time, we will allocate
every billion dollars”, the first billion, the second billion,
the last billion, to debt reduction and tax relief.
When the finance minister says he will not keep that
promise, is that not a broken promise like the—
The Speaker: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is going to be done over the mandate. That is clear.
The budget is coming. For the first time in 30 years it looks
like there will be a balanced budget. The Leader of the
Opposition is just jealous.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this has the same shape to it as the GST discussion. I
will read it to the Prime Minister again: “We are moving
towards a time when the budget will finally be balanced—When we
reach that time, we will allocate every billion dollars of fiscal
dividend” half to reducing taxes and half to debt reduction.
Can the Prime Minister explain why he is breaking that promise
on the very first budget after the last federal election?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will read very slowly and perhaps I should add the
French version too: “We will allocate our budget surpluses”,
with an s because there will be more than one, “so that
over the course of our mandate”, un mandat en français, “one
half will be spent to improve our programs and one half will go
to tax cuts and reduction of the debt”.
The Minister of Finance, as I said, over the mandate—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton North.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the GST went way over the course of the mandate of the last
Parliament. The Prime Minister went on TV in 1993 and said that
he would scrap the GST. He later broke that promise.
It was on videotape, though. That was the unfortunate part for
the Prime Minister. Then in 1997 he went on national TV and said
that he would spend half the surplus on tax and debt relief
“once the budget has been balanced”.
1420
Let me ask the Prime Minister why he always make these promises,
breaks these promises and gets trapped by the truth.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is amazing. The budget is coming. They are trying
perhaps to find a little contradiction between two texts. It is
written very clearly that the surpluses the government will have
will be split between programs because we believe there are
people in Canada who need help.
We are not the Reform Party. Half of it will go for programs
and the other half for tax reduction and deficit payments.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that is right. What is a little contradiction? Just like the
GST was a little contradiction.
The difference between videotape and this red book is that the
videotapes never lie. You can seen over and over again.
The Prime Minister went on TV and told Canadians that as soon as
that budget was balanced—a little contradiction—half of the
surplus would go to tax and debt relief.
Why is the government doing the GST fiasco again? Why do
Canadians have to sit through another episode of tax, lies and
videotapes?
The Speaker: My colleagues, I ask you to stay away from
the word lies. I do not like it used in the House of Commons. I
assume you do not either.
[Translation]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
perhaps they will understand better if I explain it in French. We
said we were going to spend half the surplus on social and economic
programs and the other half on reducing taxes and the debt, over
the course of our term of office.
Our term of office is four or five years. So we will do this
over four or five years. During this period, they will continue to
be in opposition and will have to admit that we are balancing our
books, that we are not making empty promises and that we do what we
said we would—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
* * *
BILL C-28
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on the
GST issue, despite the evidence, the Prime Minister denied having broken
his promise until the bitter end.
In the matter of the apparent conflict of interest involving the
Minister of Finance, we are getting a repeat performance. Despite the
evidence, the Prime Minister is denying the facts.
Does the Prime Minister not realize that the only way to maintain
the credibility of his finance minister—if that is still possible—is
to stop denying his responsibility and allow this confusing business to
be thoroughly reviewed?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
keep hearing the same things over and over. The ethics counsellor
testified before the committee. He said there was no conflict of
interest regarding the bill tabled in this House more than two years
ago. That part of the bill was under the responsibility of the Secretary
of State for Financial Institutions, as has been clearly established.
When the Minister of Finance took office, everyone knew he was a
successful businessman involved in international shipping and this has
never been a problem. He always made sure that everything was in the
hands of the Secretary of State—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister probably recalls that, in 1985, when he was in
opposition, he asked for the resignation of Finance Minister Michael
Wilson on the basis of an apparent conflict of interest.
Does the Prime Minister realize that we are not going that far, at
least not yet, and are only asking that light be shed on this confusing
matter?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member sometimes attends sittings of the Standing Committee on
Finance. I suggest he uses that venue to ask whatever questions he may
have.
The opposition knows full well that we will bring in a balanced
budget and they cannot take it. So, they try to hit the Minister of
Finance below the belt.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: Indeed. But the people of Canada trust
the Minister of Finance just as I do.
1425
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Finance put himself in an apparent conflict of interest by sponsoring
Bill C-28, which provides major tax exemptions for shipping companies.
Will the Prime Minister admit that the Minister of Finance should
have taken other means to avoid any apparent conflict of interest
regarding Bill C-28?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
difficult to take better means than not talk about it and have—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: He never talked about it with
anyone. As provided in the guidelines, the issue was
automatically referred to the Secretary of State for Financial
Institutions, who did his job and introduced the legislation,
through an omnibus bill, two years ago. The opposition did not
even notice it.
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the
ethics commissioner himself said that other means should have
been taken to avoid any apparent conflict of interest, can the
Prime Minister tell us if his ethics commissioner—who obviously
disagrees with him—informed him, as he was duty bound to do,
that he did not share the Prime Minister's opinion?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
again, the ethics commissioner clearly said there was no conflict of
interest. That is clear to me. All Canadians know that the finance
minister's family owns ships. Everyone knows that. It is no secret. It
is public knowledge.
Opposition members are trying to discredit the Minister of Finance
because he is hurting them by bringing down good budgets and by ensuring
that our fiscal house is in order.
* * *
[English]
YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Today the government announced the student summer jobs program
with not one dollar more than last year. Worse, the program
promises young people 10,000 fewer jobs than last year.
Remarkably the government had no trouble finding funds for a new
promotion program. Is this glitzy promotion package, with its
whiz-bang, high tech, all plastic ballpoint pens, in the Prime
Minister's view any substitute for real investment in desperately
needed jobs for young Canadians?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader of the
NDP for giving me the opportunity to remind the House that we
have actually doubled this year, for the second year in a row,
the program available to students.
By doubling that number we are very pleased that it will help
over 60,000 students in Canada to get a job and 350,000 more to
have the right information about the job market. This is very
good news.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
government's press release shows that it is aiming for 10,000
fewer jobs than were created by the program last year.
Roughly one in every five students in Canada cannot find a
summer job and 48,000 fewer young people are working than just
two years ago.
Is this warmed over, recycled program an indication of how the
Prime Minister intends to eliminate the human deficit that his
policies have created? How does a goal of 10,000 fewer jobs help
us to eliminate the human deficit?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have a youth employment
strategy that is working. Last year with a budget of $120
million, which we doubled for the student summer jobs program, we
were able to get to 70,000. I am confident we will get to 70,000
again this year.
The government likes to deliver on its promises. I am
guaranteeing over 60,000 and hopefully that number will reach
70,000.
The government has created more than a million jobs in Canada,
which will benefit the young as well as the whole Canadian
population.
* * *
SALMON FISHERY
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr. Speaker,
it is obvious that Canada's chief negotiator, Yves Fortier,
resigned because the government has no political will to resolve
the Pacific salmon dispute.
When President Clinton called the Prime Minister to discuss
Canada's support in Iraq, did the Prime Minister ask President
Clinton to get involved in resolving the Pacific salmon dispute?
1430
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, whenever I talk with the president I always refer to
this problem. I hope the American government will be able to
help us find a solution.
Canada is willing and was willing to make an agreement. The
problem is that there are something like 25 different groups in
the United States that have to approve the agreement. That is
why it cannot put forward a solution.
We appointed two people to negotiate among themselves. They
have made recommendations which we are working on. I hope this
will result in an agreement. The president told me that it is
his desire to have an agreement, just as it is mine.
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr.
Speaker, the Pacific salmon fishery dispute has caused great
hardship for many west coast salmon fishermen. Canada has a very
reasonable and defensible position on the Pacific salmon dispute
that recognizes the principles of equity and conservation.
In 1996 New Zealand Ambassador Beeby indicated in a report that
Canada's position was very defensible. He supported Canada's
position.
Has the Prime Minister considered going to international
arbitration to settle the Pacific salmon dispute?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct one of the
misunderstandings in the preamble to the hon. member's first
question.
Yves Fortier was our negotiator on this file for four years. We
had full confidence in him, confidence which was repeatedly
expressed. When he wrote his letters which were tabled in the
House a little more than a week ago, it was clear from his
letters that he supported our position and vice versa.
With respect to the issue of binding arbitration, we would be
very pleased to have binding arbitration. I welcome the
Conservative Party's support for that position. But it takes two
people to agree to binding arbitration and we have not had that
agreement from our American friends.
Finally, I would add that deputy minister—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Battlefords—Lloydminster.
* * *
BILL C-28
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the finance minister is the owner of Canada Steamship
Lines. The more money it makes, the more money he makes. It is
therefore completely unethical for the finance minister to have
sponsored Bill C-28, which could see him personally profit
millions of dollars.
My question to the Prime Minister—
The Speaker: My colleagues, I ask you to be very
judicious in your choice of words. I would like the hon. member
to go right to the question.
Mr. Gerry Ritz: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime
Minister is why was the finance minister allowed to sponsor this
bill.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, from the beginning the minister who acted on this file
was the Secretary of State for Finance. It is very clear. The
minister was not involved according to the rules that were
established when he became Minister of Finance. Everybody knows
that.
If the hon. member wants to say that the Minister of Finance is
making a profit from it, rather than use the immunity of the
House of the Commons, he should go in front of the camera outside
and live with the consequences.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister is twisting the facts. Here are the facts
that Canadians know.
The finance minister improperly sponsored a bill that would
benefit him personally. The ethics counsellor did not find out
about it until he read it in the newspaper. Yesterday the ethics
counsellor said “I was not informed and I should have been”.
Why did the finance minister compound his unethical behaviour by
hiding it from the ethics counsellor?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said from the beginning that according to the
agreement between the Minister of Finance and the ethics
counsellor the procedures were followed. The file was given to
the Secretary of State for Finance. At no time did the Minister
of Finance participate in any discussion on this file.
If the hon. member accuses the Minister of Finance of benefiting
from this action, again he should have the guts to make the
accusation in front of the camera outside.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister first defended the Minister
of Finance by saying that it was the secretary of state who
sponsored Bill C-28. They then said he had sponsored clause 241.
1435
Can the Prime Minister explain to us how the individual he
identifies as the sponsor of clause 241, the Secretary of State for
Financial Institutions, has never defended this clause, which he
supposedly sponsored, in the House or in committee?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Because the
hon. member did not put a single question to anybody, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am not the
one sponsoring the bill. According to the Prime Minister, the
Secretary of State for Financial Institutions is. Let him ask his
secretary of state.
Since the answer the Prime Minister has given no longer stands
up, as it is obviously not the secretary of state, who has nothing
to do with clause 241, what does the Prime Minister have to say now
in defence of his finance minister?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
since the bills at the Department of Finance are very complex—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: —everything is done to help the
House of Commons examine them fully. There was an omnibus bill that
included this clause. It is an omnibus bill. This is a practice
that has been around for a very long time.
I was once Minister of Finance as well and the procedure was
the same. In money bills, a number of elements are always
incorporated and a bill is put together so that the House of
Commons can examine all the problems at the same time.
In this particular case—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford.
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
when he finally heard about the finance minister's conflict of
interest he did not call any tax experts. No, he called the
companies themselves. Surprise, surprise, the finance minister's
own company exonerated itself.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister what is the real use of
an ethics counsellor if he really approves unethical behaviour.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said, there is nothing unethical about it and so
said the commissioner in charge of this file. He said that very
clearly in front of the committee.
Again, because the finance minister is presenting a budget and
it is going to be a good budget, they are completely desperate on
the other side and just want to hit below the belt.
That will neither affect the Minister of Finance nor the
Canadian public. The Minister of Finance is a man of honesty,
integrity and competence and will deliver his budget next
Tuesday.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
their first red book the Liberals promised that they would not
follow Brian Mulroney's ethical example. They said they would
appoint an ethics commissioner who would report directly to
parliament.
Well, they did not. Their so-called ethics counsellor reports
in secret to the Prime Minister. Scandal after scandal and the
ethics counsellor always has enough whitewash for the job.
I have a question. What is the use of an ethics counsellor if
he just rubber stamps the finance minister's unethical behaviour?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the counsellor was in front of a committee of the House
Tuesday and he replied to the question. He did not refuse to go
there. He said very clearly that there was no conflict of
interest.
Opposition members are desperate. They cannot find anything to
attack the government so they are trying to attack the integrity
of a person who cannot be attacked because he has proven that he
is a very competent and honest Minister of Finance.
* * *
[Translation]
REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Justice. No, the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs. No, the Prime Minister of Canada.
Some hon. members: Ha, ha.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Yesterday, the Fédération des
communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada criticized the
federal government's reference. Today, it is the turn of the
National Action Committee on the Status of Women.
In addition, Mike Harris, the Ontario premier, is openly
criticizing the federal government's strategy. The list of those
opposing the reference is growing longer.
1440
What is the Prime Minister's response to the remarks by Mike
Harris and I quote: “Regardless of what the lawyers say, this is
going to get us nowhere”?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Supreme Court is considering the matter. The lawyers are
arguing before it. The court will examine the matter and give its
decision. I respect the court and leave it to do its job.
If the Bloc Quebecois has so many arguments, why was it afraid
to send a lawyer to represent it before the Supreme Court?
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
it seems that Ottawa has fewer and fewer arguments.
Quebec says no. Mike Harris says no. Francophones outside
Quebec say no. Women's groups in Canada say no. Many other people
say no to the federal government's reference.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that this course of action
has everyone on board a veritable constitutional Titanic?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the no that counts is the no of democracy expressed in two
referendums when the people of Quebec said no to separation and yes
to Canada.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what
is fascinating about this ongoing saga that we are discussing
today is that it has shed some light on the finance minister's
shipping company.
Mr. Speaker, did you know that one of the finance minister's big
ships, the Atlantic Erie is actually registered in the
Bahamas? That is not illegal but it says a lot about taxes in
this country. Taxes are so high that the finance minister
registers his ships where the taxes are lower.
It may be true that it is better in the Bahamas, but will the
finance minister ever lower taxes for ordinary Canadians so that
ordinary Canadians get tax relief and not just those who can
register their ships in a foreign country?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have already done it in the last budget, reducing
taxes. We did it on January 1 when we reduced the contribution
to the employment insurance program. Hopefully there might be
more next Tuesday, but I am not to tell you if I know, and I
don't know if I can tell you.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I think the Prime Minister is missing the point here. It is no
joke that the finance minister is avoiding his own taxes by
registering his ships offshore. By flying the flag of the Bahamas
instead of the Canadian flag the finance minister's company saves
a lot of tax dollars.
I have a question for the Prime Minister on behalf of my
constituents. If they raise the Bahamian or the Liberian flag,
can they pay less taxes too?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is obvious that the members on the other side are
very jealous of the success of the Minister of Finance.
* * *
[Translation]
IRAQ
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
In a letter sent a few days ago to Canadian nationals in
Lebanon, Ambassador Daniel Marchand implies that they ought to be
prepared to withstand a siege or to evacuate the country, because
of the imminent armed conflict with Iraq.
From this initiative by the ambassador, are we to conclude
that the minister considers armed conflict with Iraq not only
inevitable, but also liable to spread throughout the entire region?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have already issued an advisory to Canadian
citizens about the actions they should take in preparation. We
want them to keep in very close contact with all the embassies.
We have alerted our warden system in the area and we are
preparing contingency plans.
We monitor the situation virtually every day with all the
departments involved. I can promise the House and all Canadians
that we will keep them up to date and give them the best
information possible to ensure their security.
* * *
[Translation]
ASSISTANCE TO ICE STORM VICTIMS
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Our government has already provided substantial financial
assistance to individuals and businesses affected by the ice storm.
There are, however, others who are not eligible for assistance but
who wish to contribute to the reconstruction.
Can our government tell us whether any special measures will
be contemplated to assist people who do not meet the criteria but
wish to help?
1445
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce today
that another $5 million will be added to the disaster relief fund
administered by my department, thus raising it to $50 million.
The additional $5 million will allow still greater flexibility
to employers, so that they may hire people who are not eligible for
employment insurance or youth employment programs, but could help
in the reconstruction.
To date, the Government of Canada has already paid ice storm
victims a total of $270 million, with more to come.
* * *
[English]
BILL C-28
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
have heard the Prime Minister defend the Minister of Finance in
this debacle regarding Bill C-28. We have heard him say that it
is the secretary of state who is handling the file. Bill C-28
says it is the Minister of Finance who sponsored the bill. Do we
believe this stuff or do we treat it with contempt? Which is it?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have explained that it is an omnibus bill and that
this clause was handled by the secretary of state.
Under the present system, the finance bill has to be tabled
under the name of the Minister of Finance. It was clearly
established that if there was to be any tax change affecting this
industry, the Minister of Finance was not to be briefed by his
officials and that the problem was to be handled by the secretary
of state for finance. It was the prudent thing to do, to agree
with the ethics counsellor.
It is clear that the Minister of Finance followed all the rules.
* * *
FIREARMS REGULATIONS
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada has chaired four UN workshops on firearms regulations.
Twice I requested that the Minister of Foreign Affairs grant me
observer status at these workshops. Both times he denied my
request, each time for a different reason. He went on to say that
information and access could be obtained if I joined a special
interest group. Why does the minister place special interest
groups ahead of elected representatives of the Canadian people?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member has already received his answer in a
letter but I am quite happy to repeat it to him again. The fact
is that these working groups are working groups of experts who
are brought together. They do not include political people. We
told him that we would keep him informed.
* * *
BILL C-28
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a few days
ago, the Deputy Prime Minister said that Bill C-28 does not apply
to Canada Steamship Lines. Later the executive director of the
tax legislation division of the Department of Finance said yes,
these provisions would be available to Canada Steamship Lines.
Whose opinion is accurate in this case?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is not quoting either Mr. Farber or
myself correctly.
The bill itself only applies to companies not incorporated in
Canada. Canada Steamship Lines I understand is not incorporated
in Canada.
What Mr. Farber was referring to was the possibility of a
company not now incorporated in Canada going through the expense
and trouble of changing its structure. Therefore there is no
contradiction.
Once again, I have proven that the NDP has nothing to complain
about regarding the economic policies of this government because
they cannot find one question to raise about—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. For the
first time in the history of medicare, deaths are occurring
directly as a result of health care cuts and the blood is on his
hands.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
An hon. member: Shame.
The Speaker: I think the hon. member has pushed the
envelope a little too far. I would like her to withdraw the last
words about the blood being on his hands. Would you withdraw
those words.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: Now I would ask the hon. member to please go
directly to her question.
1450
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, what will it take
for the Minister of Health to stop blaming everyone else, stop
giving Canadians nothing but sweet talk and start reinvesting in
health care? Will this government stand up for medicare and
ensure that no more deaths occur as a result of emergency ward
line ups and cutbacks in hospitals?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have already started to reinvest. The very first thing this
government did, the first step we took after restoring fiscal
sanity to the country was to reinvest $1.5 billion in transfers
to the provinces. We established a stable cash floor in exactly
the amount that was recommended by the National Forum on Health.
If the hon. member would pay more attention to the facts than the
characteristically empty rhetoric of the NDP, we would be a lot
further ahead.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
This government has destroyed the fishery on the east coast. A
positive step in rebuilding this resource would be a realistic
plan to buy back fishing licences at today's market value. Many
senior fishers would take this opportunity to leave the industry
with dignity thus reducing pressure on an already stressed
resource.
Will the minister commit to a licence buy back program?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member's support for
measures taken by this government for licence buy back which on
the east coast was over $100 million and on the west coast was
approximately $80 million.
I would point out to him that the moratorium on groundfish
stocks occurred in 1992 when another government happened to be in
place, curiously a Progressive Conservative government. The hon.
leader of the Progressive Conservative Party was the Minister of
the Environment, the closest minister to the minister of
fisheries when advising that government on what to do about
environmental disasters which Tory policies brought upon the
fishing industry on the east coast.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): That answer, Mr.
Speaker, does not help one single fisherman today. When will this
government come to a clear decision? When will this minister put
the interest of east coast fishermen ahead of those of the
foreign fleets?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are no foreign fishing vessels
fishing within the 200 mile limit and the hon. member knows that.
There are seven vessels outside the 200 mile limit and that is a
fraction of what it was during Tory times. The total amount in
tonnage of fish taken within the 200 mile limit by foreign
vessels today is between one-half and one per cent of what it was
when his government was in power.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
international trade is a cornerstone of the Canadian economy.
While we often hear criticisms from the other side of the House
about job creation and wealth creation in this country, we hear
of no alternatives, particularly from the Reform Party.
In the face of the Asian crisis, can the government and the
Minister for International Trade advise this House what the
numbers are and how we are doing in the face of this crisis in
Asia for creating wealth for Canadian people?
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the figures are so
good. I would just like to point out that in December, Canada
ran a trade surplus of $1.74 billion. That is $465 million larger
than it was in November. Canadian exports in 1997 reached record
levels resulting in more jobs for Canadians. This is the result
of the government's policy vision, jobs for Canadians.
* * *
1455
DISASTER RELIEF
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister of agriculture recently announced that
Quebec farmers will get an extra $50 million outside the federal
disaster relief program to cover losses they have suffered due to
the ice storm.
Farmers in the Peace River region of B.C. and Alberta have
endured two disastrous years due to excess moisture. Farmers in
the maritimes have suffered under the worst drought in a decade.
If the minister is going to change the rules for central Canadian
farmers, will he show the same flexibility and compassion toward
eastern and western farmers so they too can qualify for federal
assistance?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in the cases of the last disasters that were covered by the DFAA,
the arrangements for disaster compensation, there have been
parallel agreements in the Saguenay, in Manitoba and now in
Quebec. We have applied the same rules and the same precedents
in all these disasters.
* * *
[Translation]
MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Secretary of State responsible for the Federal Office of
Regional Development for Quebec.
A few days ago, the dean of medicine at Université de Montréal
deplored the fact that, in Quebec, a considerably smaller number of
grants from the Medical Research Council were going to French-speaking
universities than to English-speaking universities. Add to that the fact
that, in order to be understood, researchers often have to write their
papers in English.
Is the minister responsible for FORD-Q, who claims to be concerned
with the issue, prepared to remedy this unacceptable situation?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of Regional
Development—Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week, I had the honour
of making an announcement on behalf of the Medical Research Council. It
was for a grant of over $15 million to McGill University and the
Université de Montréal.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Martin Cauchon: If the opposition will let me answer, it is
important to understand that the granting process used by the Medical
Research Council is essentially a peer assessment process. What I
announced last week was the result of this peer assessment.
Now, the opposition may not like it, but we, on this side, plan to
continue to contribute by developing a critical mass in terms of
research and development, which will lead to the creation of quality
jobs that will pave the way to Quebec's future.
* * *
[English]
THE SENATE
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister if we can get him back to his
seat for half a second.
Yesterday the Prime Minister said that he was personally in
favour of changing the Senate. He said a requirement that was
needed was that the provinces approve this because of the
constitution. We all know that. Why will the Prime Minister not
take the first step, go where no other prime minister has ever
gone before him, and begin the process by tabling in this House a
motion to abolish the existing unelected, unaccountable Senate?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said that it is easy to grandstand but that is not the
way we want to operate. The best way to make these changes is to
have the agreement of the provinces. We wanted to have an
elected Senate but the Senate needs more than to be elected. It
needs to be repartitioned.
The member may not want to have a second House although it would
be very useful for the regions. I do not think it will advance
the case if we just have a resolution at this time. We would
like to reform the Senate and the best way is to try to convince
the provinces to do so.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The
minister is undoubtedly aware of the comment he made which was
carried in the Ottawa Sun on February 15. I will quote it
for him “My primary responsibility is not to fishermen to catch
fish. My primary responsibility is to fish itself”.
Has this become the attitude and the official policy of the
federal government with regard to our fishermen, that the federal
government is no longer responsible or concerned about how
fishermen earn a living?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has shown why
Conservatives so consistently were unable to manage the fishery.
They do not understand that without fish you cannot have
fishermen. This critical fact is completely ignored by the
member.
He does not realize that to have an effective fishery, to have
fishermen with decent incomes, and to enable their families to
take part in our society like others who have decent incomes, we
need to have an adequate supply of fish. He does not understand
that, but he comes to this House to try to tell us that somehow
or another we should ignore conservation and simply allow
allocation for fishermen.
* * *
1500
LITERACY
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today is literacy action day. This gives us all a chance to
discover the importance of literacy issues in our communities.
I would like to ask the minister responsible how serious the
problem of illiteracy is across Canada and what steps are being
taken to overcome this serious problem.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will continue to work
with our partners to ensure that Canadians have the highest
possible literacy skills.
My department is supporting the international adult literacy
survey.
While Canadians have some very strong literacy skills, we must
ensure that all Canadians can succeed in an advanced economy.
The 1997 budget increased funding to the national literacy
secretariat to $29 million.
I will also be meeting today with representatives of literacy
organizations and Senator Joyce Fairbairn, whom I would like to
thank very much for her leadership on this issue.
The Speaker: Before going to the ordinary Thursday
question I will hear a point of order from the Deputy Prime
Minister.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, during question period I inadvertently reversed what I
intended to say. The section of Bill C-28 in question does not
apply to companies incorporated in Canada and I am informed that
Canadian Steamship Lines is incorporated in Canada.
My basic point is correct. The bill does not apply to the
present Canada Steamship Lines and I apologize to the House for
any inadvertent misstatement on my part during question period.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to ask the government House leader if he would
inform the House of the business for the rest of this week and
for the week following.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make the
business statement to the House and to respond to the opposition
House leader.
Today, Friday and up until 4.30 p.m. next Tuesday we will
hopefully move through a substantial list of legislation. The
bills are as follows: Bill S-4, the marine liability bill; Bill
C-29, the Canada Labour Code amendments; Bill C-20, the
Competition Act; Bill C-8, the Yukon gas bill; Bill C-6, the
Mackenzie Valley bill; and Bill C-12, the RCMP superannuation
bill.
I wish to designate Monday as an allotted day. The budget will
take place on Tuesday at 4.30 p.m. The budget debate will begin
on Wednesday, will proceed on Thursday and we will have the first
vote at 5.30 p.m. next Thursday.
The House, pursuant to unanimous agreement made at an earlier
time, will not sit on Friday, February 27.
* * *
1505
POINTS OF ORDER
QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay—Nipigon, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I hate to bring this to your attention but yesterday
during question period, while our colleague was asking the Prime
Minister a question concerning the Senate of Canada, the debate
was continued by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and a member
from our side of the House.
The yelling back and forth absolutely prevented me from hearing
the question even with the aid of the interpreter. I had to go
back to the blues and to Hansard to get the substance of
the question. I do not think it is proper conduct in the House
when a member cannot hear the question being posed.
The Speaker: My colleague, your point of order is well
taken. Once again I appeal to all hon. members that when one
member is posing a question or another member is answering a
question we would like to be able to hear what both of them are
saying. I would encourage you in the future that when one is
posing a question or answering a question that we listen
attentively unless we are directly involved in it.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
CANADA SHIPPING ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-4, an Act
to amend the Canada Shipping Act (maritime liability), be read the
second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: When debate was interrupted before oral
question period, there was, I think, seven minutes left to the period
for questions and comments on the hon. member for Lévis' presentation.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to have this opportunity to ask a question to the hon. member for Lévis,
who made a brilliant speech on shipping, a few minutes before oral
question period.
My colleague very eloquently showed the laxness, carelessness,
incompetence and negligence of the federal government regarding the
management of the St. Lawrence River and all related activities,
including port traffic.
The St. Lawrence River is the world's largest inland waterway and
85% of Quebec's population lives along its north and south shores. Yet,
the federal government has always been negligent regarding the
management of the St. Lawrence River. The hon. member for Lévis made a
brilliant presentation on the environmental risks created by this
laxness in the protection of the environment, including the dangers
posed by oil tankers; as we know, the Quebec City bridge was recently
hit twice by oil tankers.
Given all this, could the hon. member tell us how the St. Lawrence
River and its neighbouring regions should be managed, in terms of
economic and regional development, in the context of a sovereign Quebec?
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.
I would say to the member for Trois-Rivières that there would
finally be a government with full jurisdiction that would handle
shipping like any normal country would. A normal country would act
like the United States, the Scandinavian countries, and the other
countries in the world with shipyards. In those countries, they
build ships with the help of the government, not in conflict with
it, and the passage of ships flying foreign flags with tax
advantages and of old vessels that do not meet the standards is not
allowed.
A normal country looks after normal things, such as its future
in shipping and its economic development, and does not wait for the
Senate to wake it up when it comes to shipping issues, the way the
Liberal Party has. It is unbelievable. They do not come any
slower.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
1510
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the amendment. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: In accordance with the request of the
chief government whip, this vote stands deferred until the
conclusion of Government Orders on Monday next.
* * *
CANADA LABOUR CODE
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.) moved
that Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part I)
and the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to rise in the
House and lead off the debate on a bill that I believe is as
important as any bill we will introduce in this session. It is
for the labour and management stakeholders who are affected by
its provisions.
Bill C-19 proposes major changes to part I of the Canada Labour
Code, the legislation that provides the framework for collective
bargaining for the federal private sector. Members who sat in
the last session of Parliament will recognize much that is in
this bill. It is very similar to former Bill C-66 which was
passed by the House last April. That similarity is not without
good reason.
For those who were not in the Chamber during the last session a
bit of background might be useful. As hon. members might know,
Canada and each of the provinces pass and administer their own
labour laws. Jurisdiction is mainly dependent on the nature of
the work being performed. The Canada Labour Code applies to
industries that are in many cases of national significance.
These industries often cross provincial and international
boundaries. Approximately 700,000 workers and their employers in
interprovincial and international transportation, airports and
airlines, broadcasting, telecommunications, banking, shipping,
longshoring and grain handling come under federal jurisdiction.
The code also applies to some crown corporations, as to private
sector operations in the territories.
Although federal jurisdiction is relatively small in terms of
numbers it is very important because of the key sectors it covers
across the nation.
Amending this legislation which provides a process and
procedures to the collective bargaining system is no small
matter. Canada has had such labour legislation on its books for
most of this century. It has changed over time of course to meet
new demands and new circumstances, but it has served us
remarkably well, so well in fact that the overwhelming majority
of collective agreements in the federal jurisdiction are settled
without the ultimate recourse of strike or lockout.
1515
However, part I of the Canada Labour Code has not been
substantially revised in over 20 years. In a world of incredibly
rapid change on the technology, trade and economic fronts it is
beginning to show its age.
In July 1995 the government established a task force of eminent
labour relations experts chaired by Edmonton labour lawyer Andrew
Sims to conduct an independent review of the legislation. The
list of those making oral and written submissions reads like a
who's who of Canada's respected union and management
organizations.
Close to 50 groups and individuals made oral presentations and
almost 90 made written submissions. In short, almost all the
major players who would be affected by changes to part I placed
before the task force their perspective of where changes were
needed.
As part of the process, the task force made use of a key working
group known as the labour-management consensus group. On the
labour side were representatives of the Canadian Labour Congress,
the Confederation of National Trade Unions and the Canadian
Federation of Labour. On the employer side were the Federally
Regulated Employers in Transportation and Communications,
otherwise known as FETCO, the Western Grain Elevator Association
and the Canadian Bankers Association. A senior official from the
labour program acted as a facilitator for the consensus group.
The group managed to reach agreement on a number of key issues.
Many of the group's recommendations became the recommendations of
the task force, which in turn have found their way into this
legislation.
The task force report was called quite appropriately “Seeking a
Balance”. It was released in February 1996. The release was
followed up with a series of cross-country meetings to hear the
views of all the interested parties on the task force
recommendations. The result was Bill C-66 introduced on November
4, 1996 and passed by this House in April. The bill was awaiting
third reading in the Senate when Parliament was dissolved.
It is important to understand the history of this bill. It is
substantially the same as its predecessor. Everything that made
that bill balanced and fair, and the end product of extensive
consultation with the very people it will affect, applies to this
bill. To make sure that we have crossed all our t's and
dotted all our i's, since becoming Minister of Labour last
June, I spent the summer and much of the fall consulting these
very same parties, including such major players as FETCO, the
Canadian Bankers Association, the Western Grain Elevator
Association, the Canadian Labour Congress and the CSN.
As a result of these discussions and listening to the parties,
we have made some drafting changes which I will get to. I want
to repeat that the principles and the merits of this bill remain
the same. The proposed amendments are in their total endorsed by
the main stakeholders. They are needed to bring our collective
bargaining process in line with the demands and the realities of
the 21st century. The details are best left for our committee
hearings. Let me just review its broad strokes and point to
where we have made some changes.
The old Canada Labour Relations Board will be replaced with one
that is more representative of its clients. The new board will
be called the Canada Industrial Relations Board. Like its
predecessor, it will be charged with the orderly management of
the collective bargaining process. It will have a neutral chair
and vice-chairs, and this is the critical part, it will have
equal employer and employee representation.
1520
The new board will also have additional powers and
responsibilities resulting in a more effective vehicle for
addressing labour disputes with greater flexibility to deal
quickly with routine matters.
We are introducing changes to representation and successor
rights. One of the more important amendments in this group for
example provides that when an undertaking moves from provincial
to federal jurisdiction either through a sale or a change of
activities, both the bargaining rights and the collective
agreement will be carried over. In these fast moving times when
ownerships and activities can change rapidly, this protection
will prevent needless disruption in labour-management relations.
On the representation side, one of the more contentious
amendments for Bill C-66 dealt with providing names and addresses
of off site workers to trade union representatives. The workers in
question are often home workers or those who, for whatever
reason, do not perform their duties at a work site. These
employees by virtue of being off site can often be excluded from
participating in decisions about collective bargaining.
The concerns of the employer about releasing names and addresses
centred around the issue of privacy. Let me assure members that
I have listened to these concerns. I consulted with the
stakeholders on both sides this past summer and modified this
section.
The board will still have the discretion to give an authorized
representative of a trade union a list of names and addresses of
off site workers. However the board will now have clear authority
to act as a transmitter of information itself if it concludes
that privacy cannot otherwise be assured.
Furthermore, a statutory prohibition against the use of
information provided under this section for other purposes has
been added.
Finally, the board may order information to be transmitted to
off site employees over the employer's electronic mail system.
The employer retains control of operating the system.
I believe we have now succeeded in protecting the privacy rights
of off site workers while offering them adequate opportunity of
access to union information and decision making.
The bill includes a number of changes to the bargaining cycle
designed to speed up the system, improve flexibility and
encourage earlier settlement of disputes. A primary objective
here is to reduce delays in the collective bargaining process.
These amendments cover such matters as extending the period of
serving notice to bargain from three months to four months,
establishing a streamlined, single stage conciliation process,
and the requirement for a secret ballot on strike and lockout
votes.
We have also sought to clarify the rights and obligations of the
parties during legal strikes and lockouts. The most
controversial area was the use of replacement workers. As was the
case in the previous bill, there will be no general prohibition
on the use of replacement workers during a legal strike or
lockout. However their use for the purpose of undermining a
trade union's representational capacity would be an unfair labour
practice.
Some claimed that the wording did not reflect the intent of the
task force recommendation, a recommendation widely accepted by
both labour and management as part of a package of
recommendations. Others found the wording confusing, alleging
that nobody knew what it meant and that the mere presence of a
replacement worker would become unlawful.
1525
While concerns about the clarity of the replacement worker
provision in Bill C-66 were debatable, I have decided to act.
Again, after consultation with the stakeholders this summer, the
provision has been reworded to more accurately reflect the
narrative used in the Sims task force majority recommendations.
The provision now explicitly points out that the use of
replacement workers for the demonstrated purpose of undermining a
union's ability to represent its workers rather than the pursuit
of legitimate bargaining objectives will be an unfair labour
practice. Where the board determines a violation has occurred, it
can order the employer to stop using replacements for the
duration of the dispute.
With these changes I believe we have adopted a reasonable middle
of the road approach that can be accepted as a workable
compromise by both labour and management.
It continues to be the policy of this government that industrial
disputes are better settled by the players themselves.
Curtailment of rights should only be a last resort and used under
certain conditions such as the threat to public safety and
health.
The proposed amendments will therefore require labour and
management to maintain services necessary to prevent serious and
immediate danger to public health or safety during a work
stoppage. If they cannot come up with a workable solution for
providing such protection, I as Minister of Labour could use my
discretion to ask the board to make necessary determinations and
directions to the parties to make sure that public health and
safety are protected.
We have added particular provisions pertaining to disputes
related to grain handling. Grain handlers and their employers
will retain the right to strike or lockout. However in the event
of a work stoppage involving other parties in port related
activities, including longshoring, services to grain vessels
being loaded at licensed terminals or transfer elevators must be
maintained.
This will address the vast majority of the disruptions to grain
exports at Canadian ports, most of which have not involved grain
handling disputes directly. In fact since 1972, of the 12 work
stoppages governed by the code at the west coast ports which have
greatly curtailed grain exports, only three directly involved
grain handlers.
The government's commitment to ensure this amendment works
remains. The effectiveness of the grain provisions will be
reviewed again in 1999 after the next round of west coast
longshore bargaining. If this step is not strong enough to
protect the vital flow of grain exports from our ports, then
stronger measures will have to be considered.
Finally I would like to make a quick mention of the repeal of
part II of the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act. The
act deals with the collection and reporting of statistical
information on labour unions.
Under part II of the act, Statistics Canada collects information
on nearly every major labour union in Canada. However the
agency has found a more effective way of collecting information.
The information gathered under the proposed system could result
in a more accurate picture of the role of unions in the Canadian
labour market.
Statistics Canada proposes to obtain its information directly
from Canadian workers. This amendment will save Canadian
taxpayers $300,000 a year and the updated information will be
more useful.
These are the principal amendments proposed for part I of the
Canada Labour Code.
1530
I hope the House will indulge me when I suggest a cautious
approach to making changes to this bill. I have outlined its
history. The amendments proposed are the end result of many
hours of consultation. It is not time to reinvent the wheel. It
is not time to cherry pick one item or another to meet the needs
of one constituency over another. It is not time to go back to
the beginning.
We have the task force report. The bill reflects its work,
which in turn reflects the expert input from the very
stakeholders it will affect.
Passage of the bill will result in an industrial relations
climate where labour and management will be able to resolve their
differences in a more efficient and more positive environment.
Better labour relations are good for everyone: for the employer,
the employee and the people of Canada.
In short, this is balanced legislation. It is fair. It is up
to date. It demonstrates that we have listened to Canadians. In
large measure it reflects consensus.
There is only one thing left to do. Put it in law. It is time
to get the job done.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a pleasure for me to speak today on Bill C-19, an act to amend
the Canada Labour Code (part I) and the Corporations and Labour
Unions Returns Act and to make consequential amendments to other
acts.
In the last parliament the Minister of Labour attempted to
revamp part I of the Canada Labour Code. He failed in that task
when his Liberal colleagues in the other place refused to give it
expeditious passage.
With the summer to address the flaws in Bill C-66, it appeared
that the new and improved legislation would be a priority. It
was the first item on the order paper for this, the 36th
Parliament, but it took the minister another six weeks to
introduce it and another seven weeks to convince his House leader
to schedule it for second reading.
Reformers hoped that the delay would mean a fair and balanced
bill would be forthcoming. The minister could have waited longer
because the minor adjustments barely make any difference.
Anyone who only had access to the minister's press release would
have been fooled into thinking that real improvements were made
to the legislation. Closer scrutiny reveals, however, that the
few technical changes will not make much difference to this
botched attempt to modernize part I of the Canada Labour Code.
The Reform Party proposed a series of amendments to Bill C-66
that would have gone a long way toward improving industrial
relations in the country. Had the government not used its
majority to squash our proposals, Bill C-66 would have sailed
through the House unimpeded and would have easily passed the
scrutiny of the other place. Today it would be law and we could
turn our attention to cutting the $600 billion national debt and
giving Canadians a much deserved tax break.
Fair and balanced labour laws play an integral part in Canada's
ability to attract and hold business. Uncertainty fuelled by the
threat of work disruptions can scare away potential investors and
cause existing industries to question whether they would be
better off elsewhere. As a nation where the unemployment rate
for the last four years has hovered around 9% we must take steps
to encourage job creation and not scare it away.
So far the government with its dependence on high payroll taxes
is doing an exemplary job of discouraging job creation. It is
widely acknowledged that high taxes kill jobs. Even the finance
minister of the Liberal government agrees with that.
We know government infrastructure programs and other make work
projects do not create permanent jobs. Labour legislation and
regulations made on a case by case basis will not create jobs
either.
Stable labour relations will promote investment, reinvestment and
those sought after jobs.
1535
It is in the interest of all Canadians to have reliable access
to essential services, to keep employment within our borders, and
to establish and maintain a reputation as a worldwide reliable
exporter of goods.
This reputation is jeopardized whenever we have a work stoppage
in one of our key sectors. Take the recent postal impasse for
instance. Weeks of uncertainty over whether or not there would
be mail delivery created havoc. Not only did it cost Canada Post
millions of dollars. It dealt a severe blow to small businesses
and charities that depend on the pre-Christmas period to ensure
their viability.
If the Canada Labour Code contained a permanent dispute
settlement mechanism, workers and management would be better off.
Customers and business would be assured of a reliable mail
service. Yet the government passed up another opportunity to
stabilize industrial relations by not including a permanent
dispute settlement mechanism in Bill C-19.
The Reform Party has a long term solution, but so far the
government has refused to implement it. Final offer selection
arbitration is a tool to effectively and permanently control
labour issues that fall under federal jurisdiction. It is fair
because it does not favour one side over the other.
Here is how it works. If and only if the union and the employer
cannot make an agreement by the conclusion of the previous
contract, the union and the employer would provide the minister
with the name of a person they jointly recommend as arbitrator.
The union and the employer would be required to submit to the
arbitrator a list of the matters agreed upon and a list of the
matters still under dispute. For disputed issues each party
would be required to submit a final offer for settlement.
The arbitrator then selects either the final offer submitted by
the trade union or the final offer submitted by the employer: all
of one position or all of the other position. The arbitrator's
decision would be binding on both parties.
We are saying that rather than go to back to work legislation
every time there is a work stoppage in one of these key areas,
this tool should be there for management and the union to use. I
submit that when this tool is used to its ultimate it is not used
at all because it encourages both parties to bargain earnestly
and come to a settlement.
As the minister said earlier, the best agreement you can have is
one that is agreed to by both parties. I believe the final offer
selection arbitration would go a long way to achieving that very
goal.
In 1994 one of the first actions of the newly elected Liberal
government was to legislate an end to work disruption at the west
coast port, back to work legislation. In those days the prime
minister did not deem it necessary to have a separate labour
minister, so the human resources minister of the day included
final offer selection arbitration as a mechanism to settle the
dispute between the longshoremen and the port of Vancouver.
Which was it? Was it back to work legislation or was it final
offer selection arbitration? It was both. Legislating the
parties back to work gets the wheels moving again, but it does
not do anything to resolve the issues that are still in question
in the contract. They have to bring in final offer selection to
resolve that. There is the precedent for the very thing we have
been asking for.
In the wake of the ongoing tensions created by the need for yet
another legislated settlement, the government set up an inquiry
commission into labour relations at west coast ports. The 200
page report recommended final offer selection arbitration as a
way to provide protection to the economy and to the interests of
the public and third parties.
It is all very nice for the minister to say that he will be very
stern in cases where public safety is at stake, but I think he
has an obligation to protect the Canadian economy too.
We are all very interested to see our employment figures improve
and to see the economy improve. As a minister of the crown he
should take very seriously these threats to our national economy.
1540
Obviously this was just another inquiry commission with the main
purpose of taking the heat off the government and letting it
appear as if it is doing something, because the west coast ports
inquiry recommended that final offer selection arbitration be
included in labour legislation.
Last week the House debated my private member's bill, Bill
C-233, which proposed the use of final offer selection
arbitration as a process to prevent costly strikes and lockouts
at west coast ports. My bill was based on the very
recommendations I just spoke of from that inquiry.
We should not be too surprised at the government's reluctance to
implement a permanent solution to crippling strikes and lockouts.
There is a recurring and notable reticence by the government to
give up control of anything. For that very reason government
members think they will be seen as heroes by the voters for
legislating an end to work stoppages. They could be real heroes
by taking action to prevent an economically crippling work
stoppage in the first place.
A costly interruption of government business is not required.
While there is need for regulation by various levels of
government, it is neither practical nor prudent to implement
emergency measures whenever labour and management are unable to
reach a satisfactory agreement.
Resolving the differences of these two groups can be achieved
without interrupting the regular flow of government proceedings.
A permanent and fair resolution process must be put in place,
removed from the whims of government. We need permanent
legislation that would provide both sides with a predictable rule
and timetable by which to negotiate.
The labour-management problems at west coast ports have been
studied over and over. Yet this legislation would not solve any
of the problems at the ports. In fact it will actually
complicate and hinder the bargaining process.
At the time of Confederation grain elevators were declared to be
for the general advantage of Canada. Since then the government
realized what western farmers have always known, that any dispute
involving grain handling threatens the Canadian economy and our
reputation as a reliable exporter.
The Liberals, I suppose not wanting to be seen as protecting the
grain industry from all too frequent work disruptions, included a
provision in the legislation guaranteeing the tie-up, the let go
and loading of grain vessels, and the movement of those vessels
in and out of port in the event of a work stoppage.
On the surface this looks like a positive measure for the grain
industry, but like so many of the measures we have seen the
government initiate, once we scratch the surface the cracks
appear. Since one of the worst fears of grain exporters is that
a labour disruption might stop a shipment from reaching the
customer, this is a small step forward. It is a baby step.
Contrary to the information circulated by some groups, it does
not “prohibit third parties from shutting down the flow of grain
in the event of a dispute”.
The government's meagre concession to grain producers falls far
short of ensuring the product reaches market and farmers are not
left in the lurch. The disruption in 1995 that brought rail
traffic to a halt is still fresh in the minds of western
Canadians.
The two year settlement imposed by the back to work legislation
expired at the end of last December and some unions have yet to
sign a new contract. Failure to reach an agreement could mean a
strike or lockout this spring and grain shipments, regardless of
the status of the legislation, could come to a standstill.
We are saying that it is fine to load the grain that gets to the
port, but if a strike takes place between here and the port there
will not be any grain at the port to load.
Grain represents 30% of the business of the port of Vancouver.
What about the other 70%?
1545
The negative impact of any port dispute is not limited to grain,
nor is its economic impact greater than the implications of the
port shutdown on the exporters and importers of other
commodities, including forest products, coal, sulphur and potash,
to name a few.
The inclusion of provisions such as found in section 87.7, that
create an uneven playing field among various sectors of the
economy, is unnecessary and not helpful in making Canada an
attractive place to visit.
When representatives of groups such as the B.C. Maritime Employers
Association, which represents 77 wharf and terminal operators and
stevedoring firms in Vancouver and Prince Rupert, appeared as
witnesses before the standing committee on human resources
development during the Bill C-66 debate, they told us that the
grain provision in this bill could actually worsen the already
rocky history of labour disputes at the ports.
The inclusion of final offer selection arbitration in the Canada
Labour Code would level the playing field and ensure grain and
all other exports are not held hostage.
Another of the technical changes found in Bill C-19 relates to
the government's feeble attempts to appease those opposed to the
ban on the use of replacement workers. The son of Bill C-66
attempts to clarify the wording, but the end result is still a de
facto ban on the use of replacement workers.
The minister says in his statement that no general prohibition
of the use of replacement workers is in this bill, but I submit
there is a de facto ban.
This provision still gives too much power to the new Canada
Industrial Relations Board, which will be hard pressed to deny any
union leader's contention that their rights have been violated.
The other issue that was to be clarified over the summer was
clause 50, which amends section 109.1 of the Code dealing with
union's access to off site workers.
The changing nature of today's work environment has seen an
increasingly large number of people working away from the
traditional workplace. The government decided to help fledgling
union membership by permitting unions to acquire the names and
addresses of potential new members. When the privacy
commissioner appeared before the committee of the other place
studying Bill C-66, he said: “What is missing, as we see it, in
clause 50 is the element of consent”. That is how we see it,
too.
The minister tinkered with clause 50, but the element of consent
is still missing. I moved an amendment to Bill C-66 requiring
employee consent before the release of any personal information,
but of course it was defeated. The inclusion of consent in this
bill is crucial.
Once again, the government passed off to the CIRB the authority
to make decisions on a case by basis instead of showing real
leadership by protecting the rights of Canadian workers. Another
major flaw remaining in this legislation is the provision giving
the CIRB the authority to certify a union even though a majority
of the employees are opposed. How can that be?
Let me refer you to the most publicized case of how this type of
provision works against employee wishes. That can be found at
the Wal-Mart in Windsor, Ontario. The Ontario Labour Relations
Board agreed to certify the union, even though the employees at
the Windsor store voted 151 to 43 against it last May.
Canadians should have the right to join a union if the majority
of their fellow employees agree. If they are opposed, membership
should not be forced on them. The workers should be empowered to
make the decision, not the Canada Industrial Relations Board.
A mandatory secret ballot is the only fair way to determine if
the employees want union representation.
This all powerful board will emerge from the ashes, or perhaps
the crumbs, of the Canada Labour Relations Board.
1550
The Canada Labour Relations Board has been in disarray for years
and a steady succession of cabinet ministers stood idly by while
it struggled. In 1995 a power struggle between the chairman and
the vice-chairs over who should assign and schedule cases was
played out in the media.
One has to question the effectiveness of such an important
quasi-judicial decision making body that was unable to resolve
its own problems. It took a mediator and about $203,000 worth of
public funds to settle this internal dispute. At least Bill C-19
reduces the term of employment for the chair and the vice-chairs
to five years from the current 10 years. As a Reform Party
labour critic I proposed this change to the Sims commission two
years ago.
In light of the difficulty the government encountered in its
attempt to fire the chairman of the CLRB, Bill C-19 should spell
out not only the terms and conditions of employment for the board
executive and members, but it should clarify exactly what it
means “to hold office during good behaviour”. Maybe some
expense account guidelines would not be going awry either.
The need for specific policy and enforceable guidelines is
essential if the board is ever to regain its credibility. It is
absolutely incomprehensible that no one stepped in when the
chairman claimed $700 Paris lunches or charged for travel and
meals for other international jaunts. These were deemed okay
because of the chairman's position as head of the international
board. Where was the benefit in this to the Canadian taxpayers?
Surely there should be some stipulation for this kind of
activity.
Let us look at how the board operated. In 1994 the chairman
apparently informed the members that the CRLB “must address
certain financial practices which do not comply with Treasury
Board directives or with the spirit of the government's
philosophy concerning the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars”.
The auditor general found this advice was not adhered to or
implemented. The chairman did not heed his own directive so why
should he expect anyone else at the CLRB to do it?
Meanwhile the Treasury Board, the PMO, the privy council office
and a series of labour ministers took no notice. They did
nothing, even when he charged $53,000 for expenses to attend 28
meetings of the National Academy of Arbitrators.
In 1996 the task force review of the CLRB's performance
concluded that decisions were not being made in a timely manner.
The auditor general stated: “The problems of the CLRB are due to
poor management practice, inadequate paper oriented
communications, poor leadership from senior members of the board
and a general lack of professionability and accountability which
have created a climate which is at times venomous, harassing,
stressful and which undoubtedly is eroding morale, the quality
and efficiency of the board's work and the board's internal and
external credibility and integrity”.
That is about as strong a directive as I have ever seen an
auditor general use. The things he said leave out nothing. Board
members cannot get along, the board cannot function, it does not
function in a timely manner, it is not conducting its business,
it is in fighting, morale is being eroded and it is stressful and
venomous. That is a pretty condemning statement. I applaud the
auditor general's courage in making it.
I attempted to have the chairman called as a witness before the
Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status
of Persons with Disabilities. I sent a formal request to the
committee clerk last summer. It would have provided MPs with the
opportunity to question the chairman. It also would have given
Mr. Weatherill the opportunity he wanted to publicly defend
himself. When a meeting was eventually scheduled for some reason
it was cancelled. That reason is still unknown to me.
The auditor general's report must be seen as confirmation that
things were definitely awry at the Canadian Labour Relations
Board.
1555
At this point we have to ask how well Canadian labour and
business has been served by this body.
The government has to answer for the longstanding mismanagement
at the CLRB. The minister must take steps to ensure that this
never happens again. The board's decisions are for all intents
and purposes final. While the Federal Court Act allows for a
review of the board's decisions, there is no provision allowing
this senior judicial body to set aside board decisions if there
were legal errors or if the case was handled in an unreasonable
way.
This is the situation facing one interprovincial transportation
company where both the employer and the employees are
dissatisfied with the board's certification ruling. The current
Canada Labour Code does not provide them any recourse and Bill
C-19 does nothing to help their plight either.
We cannot support Bill C-19 in its present form for the reasons
I have outlined. We will be proposing a series of amendments
which will go a long way toward achieving fair and balanced
labour laws.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order
38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at
the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Calgary—Nose Hill, finance; the hon. member for Mississauga West,
youth employment.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak today for the first time as the Bloc Quebecois
labour critic. I am pleased to do so in connection with Bill C-19,
which amends the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and the Corporations
and Labour Unions Returns Act and makes consequential amendments to
other acts.
In summary, this bill implements reforms to the industrial
relations provisions of part I of the Canada Labour Code, to
provide a framework for collective bargaining that enhances the
ability of labour and management to better frame their own
agreements and allows workplace disputes to be resolved in a timely
and cost effective manner.
The key components are as follows: first, the creation of a
representational board, the Canada Industrial Relations Board, with
appropriate powers to allow for the timely and cost effective
administration of the system.
Second, streamlining of the conciliation process. Third,
clarification of the rights and obligations of the parties during
a work stoppage, including requirements for strike and lockout
votes and advance strike and lockout notices. Fourth, a
requirement for parties involved in a work stoppage to continue
services necessary to protect public health and safety. Fifth, a
requirement for the maintenance of services affecting grain
shipments in the event of legal work stoppages by any third parties
in the ports. Sixth, making the undermining of a trade union's
representational capacity during a strike or lockout an unfair
legal practice. Seventh, improving access to collective bargaining
for off-site workers.
The text also repeals the provisions of the Corporations and
Labour Unions Returns Act respecting trade unions.
This is a significant bill, if only because it affects 700,000
workers across Canada, 115,000 of them in Quebec. Its areas of
application are enormous: for example, banks, interprovincial and
international transportation, airports and air lines, broadcasting
and telecommunications, port and shipping operations, grain
handling. Many crown corporations are affected by the Canada
Labour Code.
This bill addresses part I of the Canada Labour Code, which is
on labour relations, while part II deals with occupational health
and safety, and part III with labour standards, or in other words
the working conditions in businesses governed by the federal
government.
1600
The bill before us was preceded by a vast consultation of
stakeholders, which began in June 1995 and which led to the Sims
report, named for the chair, which was released in February 1996,
nearly two years ago.
Last spring, on the eve of the election, we were considering
Bill C-66, which unfortunately did not come to fruition. Today we
are looking at the newly arrived bill bearing number C-19.
We will oppose this bill, because, despite vast consultations,
no doubt carried out in good faith, the reform is incomplete.
The Liberal government lacked the political courage to do what it
had to in a number of regards. We have criticisms of various
aspects of this bill we are not happy with, starting with the
government's change in the name from the Canada Labour Relations
Board to the Canada Industrial Relations Board.
It claims to represent the parties. However the clause
relating to this, clause 10(2) reads as follows:
—the members of the Board other than the Chairperson and
the Vice-Chairpersons are to be appointed by the Governor in
Council on the recommendation of the Minister after
consultation by the Minister with the organizations
representative of employees or employers that the Minister
considers appropriate to hold office during good behaviour for
terms not exceeding three years each, subject to removal by
the Governor in Council at any time for cause.
Therefore the organizations the minister considers appropriate
will be consulted, without recourse necessarily—the approach
suggested by the parties—to the lists of people suggested by the
parties, as employers and employees, for the minister to choose
from. That was not the approach chosen by the minister, because it
will not automatically be the people considered representative of
these associations who will represent them on the Canada Industrial
Relations Board.
So there is something wrong from the start, which makes this bill
rather insensitive, given its pretensions.
There is also the case of the RCMP and its employees. For
many years the employees have asked their employer, the federal
government, for real power to negotiate their working conditions.
A common occurrence in the West. There is nothing outlandish in
requesting
negotiations that could be successful. The people involved carry out
very specific duties and represent the state in a unique capacity as
peace officers, but do not have the right to strike. Everything is
settled in advance, but they wanted the right to go to arbitration if
both sides cannot come to an agreement. The government refused, letting
RCMP managers be judge and jury, as has been the case for years, causing
a great deal of frustration for RCMP employees.
It is very disappointing that, despite the golden opportunity
provided by this broad consultation it was conducting, the government
turned a deaf ear to the RCMP employees' representations, which seem
legitimate to us.
The same can be said of public service employees, at least those
represented by the Professional Institute of the Public Service and the
Public Service Alliance, who have been asking for over ten years to be
subject to the Canada Labour Code, and not just to the Public Service
Staff Relations Act. This is a situation similar to that of the RCMP. It
is a very unfair and unpleasant situation in that the government is both
the legislating government and the employer making regulations.
1605
There is no real collective bargaining taking place, it is
prohibited, and working conditions are set by the employer. Quite
legitimately, federal public service employees want to come under the
Canada Labour Code, so that the legislator will no longer be judge and
jury but rather have to participate in the normal bargaining process as
we know it in the western world.
Compared to the current situation, whether one comes under the
Canada Labour Code or the Canada Labour Relations Act makes a world of
difference. One has to be a unionized employee, as I was in the Quebec
public service, to realize how important things like working conditions
are. Job security too is very important.
Contrary to popular belief, there is no true job security in the federal
public service. Since the employer also makes the laws, it is biased,
and it can, even for political motives, lay people off.
For those who may not know it, there is no job security in the
federal public service, while significant progress has been made in the
private sector. There is currently no protection in the federal public
service against the technological changes that may take place, at the
expense of workers who are at the mercy of the decisions made by
management. These workers have absolutely no say in the restructuring
process that may take place following such changes.
We know how significant, traumatizing and threatening these changes
can be for someone who earns a living working for the government. Public
servants should be allowed to make suggestions to make it easier to cope
with technological changes, so that these changes will cause a minimum
of hardships to individuals, and so that the new technologies will be at
the service of these human beings, and not the reverse.
We cannot understand the spirit that prevails among managers in the
public service. We cannot understand why these people are not more open
to such an approach. After all, private businesses, which are the most
effective ones, adjusted to technological changes and they made sure
their employees accepted these changes, so that the transition would be
as smooth as possible.
Public service managers would be a little more modern in their
approach if they were receptive to this type of ideas.
The fact that public servants are not governed by the Canada Labour
Code but, rather, by the Public Service Staff Relations Act, has a
direct impact on their career, which is very important when one works
for this type of employer. It is a huge structure with many levels.
Employees have no say in the job classification or description process.
If the government agreed to have its employees governed by the Canada
Labour Code, these public servants would be able to discuss with their
employer—more or less on an equal footing—the very important
issues of job classification and description.
Similarly, the appointment, promotion and transfer processes
are all very important issues during one's career. They are all
part of what the public service refers to as a career plan, an
individual's entire professional life, which is not recognized
because the government plays the role of both judge and jury.
It is a simple matter of asking the government to give its
employees the right to negotiate their working conditions, like
millions of other workers in Canada, thereby reducing bargaining
restraints by allowing new rights that could be called: the right
to strike, such as they have in Quebec's public service, the right
to arbitration and the right to grieve, which do not exist right
now, the employer being both judge and jury, as we keep saying.
Where the problem arises, where the government has turned a
deaf ear to these entirely legitimate claims by the employer, is on
the issue of replacement workers. The government does not deserve
our support on this, because it has shown a lack of political
courage, given the strength of the arguments made.
1610
I will read paragraph 42(2.1) in order to illustrate my point:
42.(2.1) No employer or person acting on behalf of an
employer shall use, for the demonstrated purpose of
undermining a trade union's representational capacity rather
than the pursuit of legitimate bargaining objectives, the
services of a person who was not an employee in the bargaining
unit on the date on which notice to bargain collectively was
given and was hired or assigned after that date to perform all
or part of the duties of an employee in the bargaining unit on
strike or locked out.
You will have noted, as did my colleague, the member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, last spring, the convoluted wording, behind
which the meaning and particularly the government's will are
difficult to find. The only obvious thing is this government's
typical failure to take a stand, except where the Constitution is
concerned.
Far from making it illegal to hire scabs, to call them what
they are, or replacement workers, this practice legalizes,
legitimizes, supports the hiring by an employer of such workers.
When the bill says that no employer shall undermine a trade union's
representational capacity, as in the passage I read earlier, what
it is really setting out to do is to undermine the union's strike
force with respect to the employer, who is authorized by law to
hire replacement workers, or scabs.
It would have been so easy to follow Quebec's example.
Here, as in many other areas, Quebec is an example of civilization
and harmony. In 1977, René Lévesque, with the then Labour Minister
Pierre-Marc Johnson, had the strong support of his cabinet,
although there was no consensus among Quebeckers, any more than
there is consensus among members of the Canadian public today.
Management is obviously not keen on the idea. It was not keen in
Quebec, it is not keen in Canada, it is certainly not keen in the
United States, and it is probably not keen in France either. In
all western countries, there is no doubt that it goes very much
against an employer's grain to be prohibited from engaging
replacement workers to maintain production when employees are on
strike.
It is a question of balance of power, however. This was what
the Government of Quebec realized in 1977, even though there was no
consensus.
But fortunately the legislation was passed in 1977. The Quebec
Liberal Party took office in 1985, and never dared to tamper with
Quebec's antiscab legislation, although Mr. Scowen, a cabinet
member, was mandated by the government to study the issue and
recommended that it be amended. In its wisdom, the Bourassa
government decided not to follow his advice.
There was even a ruling by the supreme court in favour of the
Conseil du patronat. Members have heard of the wonderful supreme
court. Once again, in 1991, it overturned the law and authorized
the Conseil du patronat to pursue its case to overturn the antiscab
legislation. The Conseil du Patronat also had the wisdom, heaven
only knows why, not to take advantage of the opening being handed
to it by the Supreme Court to take its case further. That is very
significant.
Why? Because further examination revealed that, since the
introduction of antiscab legislation, strikes were 35% shorter and
violence non-existent on picket lines. These are signs of
civilization. These are signs of social progress that Canada, our
neighbour, should be emulating. No, it preferred to turn a deaf
ear to the very legitimate claims of unions in this regard.
The solution would simply have been to declare the hiring of
replacement workers or scabs an unfair practice by the employer,
just as other practices have been declared unfair under the Canada
Labour Code. The definition of unfair practice is an important
one. It is an allegation that an employer, a union or an
individual has taken part in an activity prohibited under the
Canada Labour Code.
1615
Here are some examples of unfair practices: changing the conditions
of employment after notification of an application for certification;
negotiating in bad faith, if it can be demonstrated—this is an unfair
practice recognized in the Canada Labour Code; interfering in the
business of the union is an unfair practice on the part of the employer;
failing to fulfil its duty of fair representation is an unfair practice
on the part of the union; failing to provide members with financial
statements is also an unfair practice under the Canada Labour Code and
is subject to a penalty.
Why not simply recognize that the hiring of scabs is an unfair
practice under the Canada Labour Code?
This is the bill's major flaw.
The hiring of replacement workers should be recognized as an unfair
practice. The government cannot plead ignorance, because our research is
based on the opinions and representations made by labour unions during
the consultations.
Let me read two paragraphs in the brief submitted by the CSN at the
hearings:
The lack of antiscab provisions is a fundamental flaw that has
the effect of prolonging labour disputes and creating an imbalance
that prevents free collective bargaining.
The hiring of scabs during a labour dispute is a source of
frustration and violence.
The presence of scabs being escorted by private security agencies,
when it is not the police paid for with our taxes, is upsetting. It
is difficult for employees who have made the reputation of a
business or of an institution to see scabs crossing the picket
lines every day.
I also want to read the very moving testimony given at these
hearings by Claude Tremblay, the president of the Ogilvie workers union.
This strike in Quebec was a very long one because the employer hired
scabs. I will read long excerpts from the brief submitted at the time by
Mr. Tremblay:
The 110 workers I represent were more or less forced out
on strike on June 6, 1994 after close to two years of
unproductive negotiations with our new employer, the American
giant Archer Daniels Midland (ADM). After an attempt to force
us to accept its collective agreement, ADM took advantage of
a loophole in the Canada Labour Code to impose it on us
effective December 10, 1993. In fact, legal precedents
applying to the Canada Labour Relations Board allow an
employer to unilaterally modify working conditions, once the
right to strike or lockout is acquired, even though our
previous collective agreement called for it to be in effect
until renewed. Unfortunately, these precedents provide—and
the Canada Labour Code has nothing to say on the matter—that
such clauses are illegal and do not prevent the employer from
taking advantage of the legal vacuum.
Since this employer-imposed agreement did away with our
seniority rights and the employer was threatening lay-offs
that were not in order of seniority, we were forced to walk
out in order to prevent the employer from doing this and also
to force it to maintain what we had acquired over more than 30
years.
Powerful employers like ADM, and most of the employers subject
to the Canada Labour Code, have plenty of power already
without being given the additional power to impose their
working conditions as soon as they are entitled to lock out
workers.
As a union, we believe that collective agreements should be
maintained by law, at least until the right to strike is
exercised. As well, the act ought to permit inclusion in a
collective agreement of a clause allowing the working
conditions it contains to remain in effect until renewal.
The act not only authorizes the use of strikebreakers, it
encourages it.
1620
I will continue reading Mr. Tremblay's letter.
After nearly 16 months of striking we managed to wring an
ordinary collective agreement—ordinary within the context
of Quebec—out of ADM. However, it was extraordinary
compared to the American pattern of agreement ADM had forced
on its employees in over 138 collective agreements throughout
its empire.
The paragraph that follows is very significant. There is no
explanation for the government's insensitivity to these
representations.
Day in and day out, week in and week out, month in and
month out, we endured subtle, underhanded and persistent
violence.
The violence of watching scabs stealing our rights, trucks
entering and leaving full of wheat or flour, the CUM police
arresting colleagues for nothing, security guards hired by ADM
spying on us with cameras on public roads and up to our
doorsteps, as if we were some sort of scum.
The worst part was
discovering on our return to work that the scabs had botched our
production so badly as to threaten the quality of Five Roses
flour. This reputation for quality is surely the best guarantee
of our jobs. The law, however, encourages short-sighted
employers to threaten the survival of a business by allowing them
to use unskilled workers, only to give them a psychological
advantage against us in negotiations.
How was this useful to ADM if, in its back to work agreement, the
company not only agreed to fire these scabs but also promised not to
rehire them for the duration of the collective agreement?
Not only does the Canada Labour Code not prohibit the hiring of
scabs, but the employment office in Verdun was even called upon to
recruit them. Two months after the end of a 15 month long strike, 29 of
our members, those with the least seniority, were not called back to
work. Yet, they too had fought for the seniority rules that eventually
had those with more seniority called back to work. These guys all had
between 12 and 26 years of seniority and good and loyal uninterrupted
service. They had contributed to the UI plan during all these years.
Just the same, they did not qualify for benefits, while the scabs, who
had worked unlawfully for 16 months, were treated with kid gloves and
got full unemployment benefits.
It seems to us that this is a system that clearly works against
workers who democratically decide to fight for their rights, against
powerful and faceless companies like ADM, which pocket more than
US $500 million in net profits every year.
We are definitely in favour of prohibiting the use of scabs in the
Canada Labour Code, in order to send a very clear message to foreign
employers like ADM. Their investments are welcome in Canada and Quebec,
provided that they show a minimum of respect for our ways.
And these rules cannot be easily broken, because the
Government of Canada, supposedly the government of Canadian
workers, will have given us the tools to resist if they want
to challenge the consensus.
To those who think that prohibiting the use of scabs
changes the balance unfairly in favour of the unions, I say
“Have a look at things in Quebec and draw your own
conclusions”. Workers do not enjoy being on strike. They
exercise their right to strike only when they have no other
choice, because it always ends up costing them a lot. In
passing, if you can get yourself a worthwhile job when you are
on strike, you let me know, particularly when unemployment
seems forever high.
Instead of changing the balance in favour of the unions,
prohibiting employers to use scabs brings the forces back into
balance to a point that favours more reasonable negotiations
where both employer and union work to quickly find a common
ground, develop relations that will enable them to reconcile
their divergent interests and find solutions that reflect
their convergent interests.
That is why we want—
—the Canada Labour Code to be amended to prohibit the use of
strikebreakers within the same meaning as in the Quebec labour
code.
1625
It is regrettable that the Government of Canada was not more
receptive to this appeal, a dramatic one from a president speaking
reasonably, honestly and courageously on behalf of his membership
in a desire to advance the cause by suggesting useful amendments to
the Canada Labour Code. But this government preferred to listen to
management and cronies, as it so often does.
In conclusion, I draw members' attention to this issue of
antiscab legislation, which exists in Quebec, but not in Canada,
giving a constitutional flavour to the debate.
In Quebec right now there are three categories of workers, which
might very well get unionized employees in Quebec governed by the
Canada Labour Code thinking. On the eve of the next referendum,
people should give some thought to the fact that Quebec—not that
we are boasting—is ahead of Canada in this area.
There are three categories of workers: non-unionized workers,
unionized workers governed by the Quebec labour code and unionized
workers who are protected by antiscab legislation in Quebec, and
Quebec workers whose employment is governed by the Canada Labour
Code, and who, if they ever went on strike, could see scabs turn up
at any time and take away their jobs because they are governed by
Canadian legislation that applies in Quebec.
In a sovereign Quebec, all Quebec workers governed by the
Quebec labour code would be safe from the sudden arrival of scabs
to undermine their strike force. I think this is something that
could become important when Quebeckers are called upon in the near
future, I am sure, to decide which side they are on. I think that
here, as in other matters, Quebec shows itself to be a civilized,
and forward-looking society, whose progress on social issues is
unparalleled in the western world.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
happy to rise today to take a bit of a different approach from
the other opposition parties who have spoken already. Both the
official opposition and the Bloc Quebecois have spoken against
Bill C-19 for very different reasons. The NDP caucus is in
favour of Bill C-19 and I would like to elaborate on some of the
reasons we have taken that position.
I concur with many of the remarks made by the Minister of
Labour. He spoke at length about the spirit of co-operation and
consultation that went into arriving at the changes to the Canada
Labour Code contained in Bill C-19. That in itself is a process
we want to recognize and value for future consultations. By all
accounts it was truly comprehensive and thorough. All the people
who should have been spoken to were and had ample opportunity to
make their views known. I do not think we could have done a more
comprehensive job in consultation around the country.
It has been noted already that the Canada Labour Code provides a
framework for collective bargaining for over 700,000 Canadian
workers. It is incumbent on us to move speedy passage of Bill
C-19 for those 700,000 workers who will benefit from much of the
new amendments and changes to the code in making their workplaces
more fair, more balanced and more equitable.
1630
Bill C-19 and its predecessor bill, Bill C-66, represent the
first significant amendments to this legislation since the early
1970s. This is a review which we both welcome but think is long
overdue.
As has been said, in June 1995 the task force chaired by Andrew
Sims conducted a complete review of the code and recommended
these legislative changes. The task force held public hearings
and the working group of labour and management officials was able
to reach consensus on a number of key issues. Its report
“Seeking a Balance” was publicly released in February of 1996
and in April of that year the Minister of Labour held meetings in
a variety of locations to hear the views of all interested
parties who cared to make a contribution.
Bill C-66, unfortunately, was awaiting third reading in the
Senate when Parliament was dissolved for the federal election.
Were it not for that we would be enjoying some of the benefits of
the bill today.
To his credit, the current Minister of Labour has continued
consultations with interested parties and while there have been
changes to the wording of a few provisions, notably those dealing
with replacement workers and off site workers, we are satisfied
that these changes do not substantially alter the intent of the
clauses and we are therefore pleased to report that our caucus
can support Bill C-19. Like most Canadians, we look forward to
its speedy passage through the House of Commons.
I commend those who participated in the process from labour,
management and government for the work they have done in arriving
at these changes. I believe they have demonstrated a spirit of
co-operation which is essential when dealing in matters of
industrial relations, and their ability to do so bodes well for
the long term stability which we all seek to achieve in this
country's labour relations climate.
The NDP caucus believes that the Canada Labour Code, like any
labour relations act, can and should be an instrument which
fosters industrial relations harmony, economic stability and
labour peace. We believe that the proposed amendments bring this
legislation that much closer to those principles.
We commend the proposed amendments which call for the
establishment of a truly representational Canada industrial
labour relations board composed of a neutral chair and members
from both labour and management. We believe this is a positive
step which will more closely resemble the composition of
provincial labour relations boards and which will be very much a
vast improvement over the current Canada Labour Relations Board.
We also applaud the fact that the newly configured board will be
given greater flexibility to deal quickly with urgent or time
sensitive matters. It will be a dramatic improvement when a
single vice-chair will be able to determine some cases rather
than waiting for the current three member panel which would be
required to hear cases in the current configuration.
The current board structure has often been unable to respond
quickly to matters brought before it, even when a delay can
seriously jeopardize the case of the applicant, and we are
critical that as many as 90 applications for certification are
currently pending and waiting to be heard, especially when it is
well known and well documented that unreasonable delays often
cause the erosion of the applicant union's support in matters of
application for certification. We feel this situation is unfair
to working people who have applied to be represented by a union
of their choice and we hope that the matter can be corrected
quickly by the introduction of these amendments.
Proposals under the category of representation and successor
rights recognize the right of the employers to communicate with
employees during union organizing drives. We caution the
government that the proposed language in this clause has not been
tested and that there is a great deal of room for abuse in
provisions of this kind.
Anyone who is familiar with industrial relations knows that it
is common practice for employers to try to thwart union
organizing drives by using threats of plant closure, layoff or
other negative consequences which are allegedly stemming from the
employees' choice to form or join a union.
It is our belief that employers should be barred completely from
communicating with employees in any matter pertaining to their
right to join or to form a union. Even the most subtle
interference by an employer can intimidate an employee in these
situations.
1635
For these reasons we are glad that other amendments in Bill C-19
enable the board to remedy such unfair labour practices by
granting automatic certification to an applicant union despite
lack of evidence of majority support from the employees if the
board is of the opinion that unfair labour practices such as
threats or intimidation or coercion have made it impossible to
determine the true wishes of the employees by use of a secret
ballot because they fear some kind of negative reprisal from the
employer.
This provision is similar to what already exists in a number of
provincial jurisdictions and it is very important and key to the
fairness of the whole organizing process.
Another important provision under this category enables the
board to give an applicant union a list of names and addresses of
off site employees who might work at home or some place other
than the normal work place.
This amendment we feel reflects the changing nature of the
workplace, and more and more workers have non-traditional work
arrangements and may not be present at an employer's main
workplace when a union organizer comes to distribute information.
So it is only fair and reasonable that these workers who work at
home or elsewhere should have access to the same information, the
same literature the union might be promoting in the same way that
it is only fair that they have a right to accept or reject the
union's overtures. The union should have the right to communicate
with all the employees in the bargaining unit and we applaud this
measure.
Bill C-19 also contains positive amendments designed to clarify
the rights and obligations of the parties during legal strikes
and lockouts. It is understood there will be no general
prohibition on the use of scabs during a legal strike or lockout.
The use of scabs for the demonstrated purpose of undermining a
union's representational capacity will be considered an unfair
labour practice.
I agree fully with the previous speaker from the Bloc Quebecois
that this language does not go far enough to protect the rights
of workers and in fact many unions that made representation to
the Sims task force spoke very strongly that absolute anti-scab
legislation was necessary in any fair and civilized country that
truly is trying to balance its labour relations climate. The
province of Quebec is a good example, and I am glad the previous
speaker spoke very eloquently about the impact of anti-scab
legislation in that province.
It is true the statistics and the empirical evidence bear out
the fact that anti-scab legislation results in fewer strikes,
shorter strikes, less picket line violence, in fact no picket
lines because you do not need a picket line. Picket lines are
designed to keep scabs out. It is simply the right thing to do.
We are very disappointed and we are very critical that Bill C-19
does not give workers the satisfaction. We are certainly not
satisfied that we have done enough in this regard. This provision
falls well short of true anti-scab legislation. At best it is a
very weak compromise position. It just barely recognizes the
legitimacy of the arguments associated with the use of scabs in
strikes and lockouts. The empirical evidence is easily available
from as close as the province of Quebec.
Obviously we wish this language were much stronger. It is not
meant to be in this round of amendments to the labour code. As
such, there was a great deal of give and take and compromise in
the development of these amendments. This is one of those things
not meant to be in 1997.
We are, however, pleased that the code will guarantee that
employees who are on strike or locked out will return to work
before any scabs hired to replace them. In other words, there
will be job protection for employees who are forced out of their
jobs by either strike or lockout. They will go back to work first
of course and they will have priority in any hiring.
The jury is in on this one. There can be no doubt of the basic
fairness of this issue. I think even my colleague from the Reform
Party would have to agree that it is only right and it is only
fair.
It is clear that a great deal of time and energy was spent by
the task force looking for ways to ensure that work stoppages do
not endanger public health and safety, and also to maintain grain
exports during work stoppages involving port operations. Those
two things were key and paramount and had to be dealt with.
Under the new legislation the parties will be required to
maintain certain services necessary to prevent danger to public
health or safety during a work stoppage.
1640
While the grain handlers and their employers will retain the
right to strike and the right to lockout, services to grain
vessels will be maintained. That point should be made very
clearly and people should understand that there is nothing to
stop the grain handlers or their employers from striking. It is
not a no-strike clause. But grain will continue to go through
even if there is a strike or a lockout or a work stoppage of any
kind.
We feel this aspect of the code is of great interest to the farm
community, to the agricultural industry and to the Canadian
economy in general. These changes will address once and for all
concerns about work stoppages interfering with the marketing of
our grain exports and I am confident that all parties can see the
value in this amendment.
Again, this is one of those areas where there was a great deal
of generosity and good will and compromise from all the parties
around the table because it was brought as an issue to the task
force. The task force recognized that it is in the common good
that grain should go through and in fact it has resolved it once
and for all.
It is the nature of this type of legislation that we are never
going to please everybody and no stakeholder is going to be fully
satisfied that all of their concerns are addressed, but in this
instance I suggest it is the best we can do and I hope all the
parties can see fit to support it on this basis if for no other
reason.
Even they do not like other aspects of this bill, this clause
alone, the movement of grain, is of such critical importance that
all parties should be getting behind Bill C-19 to deal with it.
However, in the case of Bill C-19, we are doing better than
average. A diverse cross-section of associations and
organizations approve of Bill C-19. They range fully from the
Canadian Chamber of Commerce to the Canadian Labour Congress and
all the groups in between. They believe that these amendments to
Bill C-19 are the right thing to do and are a positive step
forward.
We are optimistic that all the parties in the House of Commons
can see the value of these amendments to the Canada Labour Code
and will vote in favour of Bill C-19 when called on to do so.
We should always remember that we have an enviable labour
relations climate in this country. As the Minister of Labour
pointed out, almost all negotiations under the jurisdiction of
the Canada Labour Code are resolved with no time lost and no
strike, no lockout, no labour unrest whatsoever. A figure as
high as 95% to 97% of all the bargaining and all the collective
agreements are settled peacefully and amicably with both parties
getting what they need through the collective bargaining process.
It is a myth that the country loses significant productivity due
to strikes and lockouts. We will often have negative people
saying this. In actual fact in the province of Manitoba we lose
about 50,000 person days a year to strikes and lockouts. It
sounds like a lot, except we lose 500,000 days a year to
workplace injuries, accidents and illness.
If we are really serious about productivity and about the
economic impact of lost time due to work stoppages, cleaning up
our work places would do a lot more good than being a nattering
nabob and griping about strikes and lockouts all the time when in
actual fact it is a myth. We have created a tempest in a teapot
for ideological reasons. The actual facts do not bear it out.
Those who criticize this country's labour laws and regulations
and those who think that unions cause a lot of strikes and
lockouts usually do not know the facts. They do not know the
facts and figures like the numbers I just gave.
The facts are collective bargaining does not in itself cause a
significant loss of productive time. Therefore measures are not
necessary to try to address that. It is unsafe workplaces, I
argue, that cause the significant loss of productivity.
Our caucus supports the changes to part I of the labour code but
we ask this government to go further. We ask this government to
move quickly to review part II and part III of the Canada Labour
Code, and some steps in those directions are already under way,
so that we can really update and revamp the entire code to make
it a more balanced and fair piece of legislation, especially in
the case of part II which deals with workplace safety and health.
The time has come for Canadians to take seriously the issue of
workplace safety and health, if not for ethical reasons or the
obvious downside of people getting injured, for the economic
reasons I have pointed out, the hundreds of thousands of
productive days lost to workplace injuries.
Surely if we can put a man on the moon we can design methods of
production that do not result in significant harm to workers.
1645
It has always been a sore point for me that workplace injuries
and workplace deaths rarely make the newspapers. If someone is
stabbed or murdered in the streets of Winnipeg it is going to be
front page news. However if someone is injured on the job, we
somehow resign ourselves to the fact that some industries are
dangerous, people get hurt, accidents happen. This is simply not
true. We cannot tolerate it and we should not be tolerating that
kind of an attitude.
In Manitoba there are fatal workplace accidents every year.
There are enough amputated limbs, digits and toes to fill a
pick-up truck every year. It is a graphic illustration about how
unsafe our workplaces really are. We really do not know how many
are slowly being poisoned by some kind of chemical soup they are
forced to work with or the impact of various types of chemicals
when harmless chemical A meets with harmless chemical
B and if our kidneys create chemical C which is in
fact harmful to the workers.
Maybe I am hypersensitive about this particular issue. When I
was young, age 18 to 20, I worked in the asbestos mines in the
Yukon. At that time asbestos was not recognized as an
occupational hazard. Workers compensation did not cover asbestos
because it denied it was bad for us. When we asked if it was
true that this stuff was supposed to be bad for us, the foreman
would say “No, it is harmless so do not worry about it”. As a
result we were covered with the stuff. It gets up your nose, it
gets in your ears, it gets under your armpits and it is on your
clothes when you go home.
In actual fact, within two years of quitting the mine and being
lied to by those people who did know better, an announcement was
made internationally that there was no such thing as a safe level
asbestos. One part per billion is too much asbestos. It is
carcinogenic and it is hazardous at any level.
That is the kind of example we are dealing with. We do not know
how many substances are like that in workplaces. It is that much
more critical that we have to revamp the labour code to offer
real, solid protection to Canadian workers.
We do have WHMIS. We have WHMIS legislation. We have the right
to refuse unsafe work. We do not have it updated and modernized
and clearly stated so that it can act in a way that will protect
the interest of working people.
As much as we are in favour of part I of the code, we strongly
encourage the government to move quickly on part II and part III,
finish the job and move forward with it.
In terms of workers and taking care of themselves in hazardous
conditions, any further amendments to the code must have some
recognition of whistle blowing protection. Workers do not dare
sound the alarm for unsafe conditions for fear of being slapped
with a lawsuit.
I speak again from my personal background. I shut down a job
one time because the scaffolding was so dangerous that it was a
hazard to the people working there. Within a few days that same
scaffolding fell over on to the emergency room of a hospital. It
punctured the roof, caused half a million dollars in damage and
almost killed a bunch of people waiting for medical services in
the emergency room.
The case went to court, the judge found the company not guilty
and there was no fault or blame assigned. The company sued me
for turning the company in and saying that it had unsafe working
conditions on site. It wanted $80,000 damages because I damaged
the reputation of the company by saying its scaffolding was
unsafe when it fell over on to the hospital. I was okay. I was
working for a union and the union picked up my tab. Normal
workers do not have that protective umbrella. Without some kind
of whistle blowing protection they would never be able to protect
themselves.
We urge the speedy passage of Bill C-19.
The Speaker: My colleagues, we are going to have
questions and comments for 10 minutes. I see two members
standing so we will split their time.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
agree with the member for Winnipeg Centre that Bill C-19 is good
legislation. I am not sure about the amendments, but the bill is
good. I disagree with him on the remark he made about asbestos.
There are countries in Europe that are currently proposing
banning asbestos.
That would be devastating for asbestos workers across Canada. It
is based on the same misinformation that the member for Winnipeg
Centre cited.
1650
In fact the International Labour Organization in Geneva, with
which the Canadian labour union movement operates very, very
closely, has developed a convention that has been approved by the
ILO. It talks about the safe use of asbestos and ways of
applying and installing asbestos safely. I would ask the member
to please check his facts on that.
I would like to comment briefly if I could on the comments
earlier by the Reform labour critic. We have had this debate
before in this House very briefly. It has to do with final offer
selection arbitration. Again I come back and ask the member, if
there is a system where they either accept one position or the
other, it seems to me that what there is is one happy party and
one unhappy party. I am not sure that is the way we should solve
labour disputes in Canada.
I am reminded again of some of the ironies of Reform policy
positions. On the one hand, they will say we should let the
market decide, but there are big exceptions when it comes to
labour negotiations when it affects prairie farmers. I would
have to say at the outset I have a lot of empathy with the plight
of the prairie farmers when it comes to getting their product to
market, and all Canadians do. On the one hand they say to let the
market decide and on the other hand they say when it comes to
labour-management negotiations as it affects wheat shipments to
the ports that we should put in this final offer selection
arbitration where neither party will be happy with the results.
I think we should pause and reflect on these proposals by the
members opposite.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the
issue about the safe levels of asbestos. There is no safe level
of asbestos. One part per billion is unsafe. There are handling
procedures. It is much like a class 4 virology laboratory.
Everything has to be double sealed in a pressurized environment.
Workers have to change their clothes as they go into the chambers
and when they go out.
It is so complicated that the cost of removing asbestos in a
building 20 years old is greater than the cost of building the
building.
I know a lot about asbestos. We teach the courses on how to
work safely with asbestos with our union because sometimes it is
unavoidable.
In the building I am in, the Wellington Building, they are
trying to remove the asbestos from that building because they are
concerned that one part per billion in the air will cause
hazards.
There is a famous case of a little girl who would ride her
bicycle to the mine in Asbestos, Quebec to bring her father his
lunch only during the summer holidays. Maybe a couple of times a
year she would bring her dad his lunch to the mine. She wound up
with asbestosis after the 20-year incubation period. There is no
safe limit.
It is criminal for countries to be dumping asbestos into the
third world and everyone knows it.
If I could just quickly comment on final offer selection, I have
very strong views about final offer selection. I have used final
offer selection in my own collective bargaining where it was
allowed under the legislation in the province of Manitoba. It is
not a solution. It is not a magic bullet. The Reform Party keeps
revisiting this as though it is some new idea. It is nowhere
near a new idea. It is not even a very good idea. It has very
limited value in the labour relations climate and that is why it
is rarely used.
I would have to agree with the previous speaker that final offer
selection is highly overrated. It is a tool in the tool chest of
labour relations practitioners who can use it if they both see
fit. But any time it is legislated, it will lose its value and it
will corrupt the whole labour relations process.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
find the member from Winnipeg and his comments rather alarming in
the sense that he is from an agricultural province and he sure
does not understand the system when it comes to the unions and
how they can tie up grain as it moves across the country.
1655
I have a couple of questions. One specific question I would
like to ask the member is if the brotherhood of electrical
workers decides to go on strike and the other unions, the
maintenance of way, the Canadian Auto Workers, the stevadores who
may load the ship, and the grain handlers do not, does he think
for one minute that any of those other unions are not going to
cross the picket line in support of their brothers?
I find it rather alarming that he would even suggest to this
House and to those who are listening that the unions are not that
tightly bound and that this legislation does not solve that
problem.
Being that the member is from an agricultural province, I can be
certain about one thing, he knows absolutely nothing about grain
handling.
Mr. John Solomon: He is from Manitoba.
Mr. Art Hanger: So what if he is from Manitoba, that is
an agricultural province is it not? He is not speaking on behalf
of the farmers, nor does he even understand the losses that
farmers have obtained through these kinds of foolish antics where
the unions have tied up grain movement across the western
provinces to the port of Vancouver.
How is the member, and the members across the way who formulated
this legislation, going to see that the interests of the farmers
are being paid attention to?
Mr. Pat Martin: 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.
Mr. Art Hanger: It does not.
Mr. Pat Martin: 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.
Mr. Art Hanger: You haven't done yours.
Mr. Pat Martin: You are wrong. You are fundamentally
wrong. You are absolutely wrong.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
severeal months after indicating its intent to introduce a bill to
amend part I of the Canada Labour Code, the government has finally
got around to introducing Bill C-19 in the House.
One might have thought that, after such a long wait, the
government would have made some constructive changes. One might
have thought that it would also have taken the time to amend its
bill so as to respond to the legitimate concerns voiced on all
sides during the last Parliament. But no.
[English]
In June 1995 the Minister of Labour appointed a task force of
labour relations experts chaired by Andrew Sims to conduct an
independent review and recommend changes to part I of the Canada
Labour Code. Its report “Seeking a Balance”, also referred to
as the Sims report, was released in February 1996.
After consultation with unions and business representatives, the
former Minister of Labour introduced Bill C-66 in November 1996
during the last Parliament. Bill C-66 was rushed through the
House of Commons. The Senate social affairs committee gave it
careful consideration and PC senators outlined major flaws in the
bill, especially with respect to replacement workers, off site
workers and union certification without the majority vote.
On November 6, 1997 the Minister of Labour introduced Bill C-19,
vastly similar to its predecessor Bill C-66. The minor
amendments proposed to the bill do not go far enough to allay
some of the concerns raised during the last Parliament.
[Translation]
Unfortunately, the government chose to make half-hearted
changes. Instead of concerning itself with developing the best
legislation possible, it chose the easy route.
1700
This is a great pity, for the bill we are examining is
intended to substantially modernize industrial relations. This is
the first time in 25 years that part I of the Canada Labour Code
has undergone a thorough revision.
That is one more reason to make sure the proposed changes
stand up to the closest of scrutinies. If we have to wait another
25 years for any changes to this bill, let us make sure that the
proposed amendments are properly tailored to the reality of today's
and tomorrow's work place.
Our actions throughout this entire process will be prompted by
that concern, to develop a bill that is fair and equitable for all.
The Sims report is entitled “Seeking a Balance”, and that is what
we too are seeking, a balance between interests and parties.
Like a number of the others who have spoken out, we too hope
that the government will make an effort to resist the temptation to
ram this bill through without allowing the lawmakers time to
analyze the impact of these amendments.
Let us be perfectly clear, it is not our wish to delay passage
of this bill unduly. What we do want is for all parties concerned
to have the opportunity to bring out their points of view.
We know how important the proposed changes to the Canada
Labour Code are. As I indicated earlier, we have legitimate
concerns, which we hope to address in greater detail at subsequent
stages of this bill.
For the moment, our reservations are such that we cannot vote
in favour of this bill as this stage in the legislative process.
[English]
One of the concerns we have with the bill as it stands deals
with replacement workers. Understandably this is one of the most
contentious issues for all parties concerned. For the Sims task
force this issue is one of the few on which the authors could not
agree.
One of the authors argued in favour of a complete ban on the use
of replacement workers, as is the case in labour legislation in
Quebec and British Columbia.
The majority argued against a general ban on the use of
replacement workers and said:
There should be no general prohibition on the use of replacement
workers.
Where the use of replacement workers in a dispute is
demonstrated to be for the purpose of undermining the union's
representative capacity rather than the pursuit of legitimate
bargaining objectives, this should be declared an unfair labour
practice.
In the event of a finding of such an unfair labour practice, the
Board should be given the specific remedial power to prohibit the
future use of replacement workers in a dispute.
Bill C-66 did not stipulate clearly that there was no ban on the
use of replacement workers. Instead it stated that no employer
or person shall use the services of a replacement worker for the
purpose of undermining a trade union's representational capacity.
During Senate hearings no one seemed to know how the terms of
the bill would be interpreted. For instance, this is what Nancy
Riche of the Canadian Labour Congress had to say:
[Translation]
“This is a very interesting clause but no one seems to know
how it will be interpreted. We will know that only after the first
case has been heard by the CIRB.”
[English]
What constitutes an unfair labour practice and what constitutes
undermining a trade union's representational capacity were left
in the air for the new Canada Industrial Relations Board to
interpret.
In their report senators from all parties urged the new CIRB to
respect the findings of the Sims task force in interpreting and
applying the provisions concerning replacement workers.
As a result the government made changes to the replacement
workers provisions in Bill C-19. The bill now stipulates that no
employer or person shall use a replacement worker for the
demonstrated purpose of undermining a trade union's
representational capacity rather than the pursuit of legitimate
bargaining objectives.
1705
While this formulation comes closer to what the Sims task force
had in mind, in our opinion it is still not made clear enough
that it is an exceptional measure meant to address reprehensible
behaviour on the part of an employer.
As senators argued in Bill C-66, there is a fundamental
difference between using replacement workers to ensure that the
employer may carry on its normal business during a strike and
using them for the purpose of undermining a union's
representational capacity. The mere use of replacement workers
does not in and of itself raise the presumption of unfair
bargaining practices. These arguments still ring true in Bill
C-19.
The bill as it stands does not properly address the meaning of
the wording used. As further evidence, here is what the Ottawa
Citizen has said about these provisions in its November 21,
1997 editorial. It stated:
Technically, the ban (on replacement workers) would apply only to
workers whose employment would undermine the “representational
capacity” of the union.
But since strikes are a tool unions use in representing workers,
and replacement workers make strikes less effective, it is hard
to imagine any of them that would not fit that definition—
Furthermore, an article in the Financial Post expressed
the following concerns:
—now that they've had time to read the fine print, the major
industries affected aren't so pleased—The revised code will
still allow federally regulated industries, some of which are key
to keeping the economy running, to use replacement workers during
a strike or lockout, but not if it is seen to undermine a union's
representational capacity.
What this means exactly isn't entirely clear. Also, the wording
of this provision may prevent management transferring people from
other parts of the company to keep operations going.
[Translation]
Another big concern of ours has to do with unions having access to
lists of off site workers.
The Sims work force recognized the need to balance the opportunity
for off site workers to consider the benefits of collective bargaining
or take advantage of these benefits against their right to privacy and
personal security.
With Bill C-66, the government legislated that the new Canada
industrial relations board may provide an authorized representative of
a labour union a list of the names and addresses of employees who
normally work at home for an employer and allow this representative to
contact them.
Even though the minister stated he had consulted the Department of
Justice to make sure the privacy of off site workers would not be
jeopardized, the Senate committee heard the Privacy Commissioner of
Canada, who had serious reservations about the provisions of the bill.
The minister at the time even suggested that the privacy
commissioner's concerns were not legitimate. He tried to minimize them
by intimating that they arose from management lobbying.
However, the offices of the privacy commissioner and the
information commissioner are independent offices, accountable to
Parliament and no one else, the same way that the auditor general is for
instance. By minimizing these concerns, the minister could justify
sweeping them under the carpet.
Granted, the current minister tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to
correct the situation with Bill C-19. He added a statutory prohibition
on the use of information provided under this clause.
In addition, he further defined the board's power to release
information to off site workers or to instruct the employer to do so
through its electronic communications system.
1710
Unfortunately, these amendments do not appear to be enough. This
time, the minister's officials consulted with the privacy commissioner,
who said that he still had some reservations about the provisions of the
bill, particularly the infamous clauses 50 and 54.
[English]
I am running out of time so I will only address one other issue
of concern even though there are more. It is the case of the new
board's ability to allow certification without a majority of
employees having voted for unionization. The board can do this
if it feels there has been an unfair labour practice on the part
of the employer. In Bill C-19 the legislation remains unchanged
on this point.
In the 1997 election we proposed to strengthen worker protection
under federal labour laws giving workers more democratic powers
by requiring secret ballots and votes on union representations
and decisions.
Such reforms were enacted by former Conservative Prime Minister
Margaret Thatcher in Britain. They have proven so popular with
workers that they are now endorsed by the Labour Party under Tony
Blair.
Instead of ensuring more democratic power to workers, the
government has chosen the way of ill-conceived legislation that
has proven to have bizarre interpretations in other
jurisdictions, to say the least.
I would like to bring to the attention of the House a situation
that occurred recently in Windsor where the Ontario Labour
Relations Board, armed with provisions similar to those in Bill
C-19, ruled that a minority of workers could impose their will on
the majority because of an alleged unfair labour practice on the
part of management.
What was the unfair labour practice? The managers of the store
asked whether it would close if it were unionized, followed legal
advice and refused to comment. What were they supposed to say? A
yes almost certainly would have been judged to be intimidation,
but a no would have led to lawsuits had higher labour cost in
fact put the store out of business.
It would also have helped the union's case immeasurably, which
an employer should not be obligated to do. In the OLRB's view,
the managers' refusal to answer was such a grievous violation of
workers' rights that it invalidated not only this but any future
vote.
Since the managers could not avoid unfair labour practices by
saying yes, saying no or saying nothing, it is reasonably clear
that legislation of this sort has some peculiar implications.
Knowing the implications of such provisions, we should be wary
of enacting the same ones here.
[Translation]
I will end by touching very briefly on a few other issues that
concern us regarding the bill.
We support the provisions to the effect that the grain would
continue to move in the event of a work stoppage at ports. However, we
are prepared to look at the impact of extending this protection to other
sectors.
We also feel that the repeal of part II of the Corporations and
Labour Unions Returns Act is suspicious and could deprive Canadians of
valuable information on unions.
These issues and many more will be reviewed when Bill C-19 is
examined in committee.
Again, I hope we can conduct a serious and thorough review of this bill.
It will ensure the quality of the legislation passed by this House.
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I was interested in the member's comments. I would like his
opinion on a couple of points that have not been addressed in a
thorough manner. They deal with the old board with a new name.
1715
This board has a fair amount of power and yet does not seem to
have an opportunity for any kind of recourse for a decision that
it may make, regardless of how it may impact on either of the
parties. In other words, there is no appeal, for the most part.
First of all, with the power granted to this board it can
certify a union, for one thing, without the consent of the
majority of the employees. I am curious about the member's
opinion on that point.
The CIRB can also order an employer to release to the union the
names and addresses of off site employees, which again can be
done without employee consent. Again, there is a fair amount of
power associated with that kind of decision making. I am
wondering what the member thinks of that.
Another point has always been a concern here, especially so
since the Liberal government has a tendency to really love these
quasi-judicial bodies. They can make decisions and the minister
can stand up in the House and say “I cannot do anything about
that. That is a quasi-judicial body and I cannot interfere with
any decisions it makes”. And there are lots of them over there.
It takes away the responsibility of the minister in dealing with
the issue at hand. In other words, he is no longer accountable.
I see the same kind of events taking place here with this new
labour relations board.
When the board makes a decision, its intents and purposes are
supposed to be final. Although the federal court says it will
allow for a review of the board's decision, there is no provision
allowing this senior judicial body to set aside the board's
decisions even if they were legal errors or if the case was
handled in an unreasonable way. What is the recourse that an
employer would have? What is the recourse even that an employee
or group of employees would have?
Mr. Jean Dubé: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the
member for Calgary Northeast to give me the opportunity to stand
again and speak more on this matter.
I agree with the hon. member. One of the situations that I put
in my speech is when we look at the situation of the store
manager where the vote was 151 to 43, and they installed the
union anyway, what is the recourse for the company here? What is
the recourse for the employees who did not want it?
There are other vehicles that we can put in place. When there
is a strike, where it becomes violent and tension starts to build
is when replacement workers are brought in. There is no vehicle
put in place where the employer and the unions can meet in trying
to alleviate this tension, this violence. I suggest that we
might even talk about having a vehicle put in place to bring down
violence in Canada.
In every strike, where it starts is exactly right there. When
replacement workers start to come in, we see broken windows, we
see everything happening.
Coming back to that 151 to 43, I wonder if the government today
would pass legislation if we had the same vote, 151 against and
43 for. Would it pass legislation anyway?
Mr. Art Hanger: Madam Speaker, I asked a question of
the member for Winnipeg.
Of course he, living in an urban area, working in a neat little
office, tucked away in some high-rise building, would not
understand what some of the farmers have to go through and the
losses which are incurred when a strike takes place. Being from
the legal profession, that gentleman answers from that point of
view.
1720
When it comes to the average hardworking farmer or those in the
industries related to farming, he is not really addressing their
concerns. I do not think he really wants to, given the fact that
the courtroom is where so much of this is decided. This
legislation fits into that whole scheme of things.
I would like to ask the member to look at clause 87.7(1) which
concerns services to grain vessels—
Mr. John Solomon: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The member of the Reform Party has referred to my
colleague from Winnipeg Centre as a lawyer and the record should
show that my colleague is not a lawyer, he is a carpenter.
Mr. Art Hanger: I am sorry, Madam Speaker. I did not mean
to tarnish his image.
Clause 87.7(1) states:
During a strike or lockout not prohibited by this part, an
employer in the longshoring industry, or other industry included
in paragraph (a) of the definition “federal work, undertaking or
business” in section 2, its employees and their bargaining agent
shall continue to provide the services they normally provide to
ensure the tie-up, let-go and loading of grain vessels at
licensed terminal and transfer elevators, and the movement of the
grain vessels in and out of a port.
In the member's interpretation of that clause I would ask him if
he understands that to mean just dockside and in close vicinity
to the grain handling on that end, or does it really apply to the
whole myriad of unions involved in grain handling and rail
transport from the prairies?
Mr. Jean Dubé: Madam Speaker, I am not from a grain area,
I am from New Brunswick. But the member for Brandon—Souris is
the only member of our party who is from western Canada, and
believe me, I know about grain. I did not know anything before I
came to this place, but I know now.
As far as the comment of the member is concerned, in my speech I
supported the movement of grain in Canada.
I would also want to look at other industries. Hopefully it
applies to all ports and all unions. That is my understanding.
I do not know if it is his understanding. If grain is shipped
through western Canada, through eastern Canada or wherever,
farmers should be able to ship that grain through whatever means
available, whether it be via trains or the ports. They are all
federally regulated.
The comments of the hon. member are well taken. I certainly
approve of that.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Labour, Lib.): Madam Speaker, since it is almost 5.30 p.m.
and I have about a nine minute speech, I would like to ask that
the House allow me to deliver my speech even if it goes over the
time permitted by two or three minutes. Would there be consent
for me to do that?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the House give
its consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the
niceness of my colleagues this evening.
I am pleased to stand today in support of Bill C-19, an act to
amend part I of the Canada Labour Code.
An important conclusion of the Sims task force, whose work
contributed greatly to this bill, was that the Canada Labour Code
is generally accepted by labour and management groups as a viable
framework which has facilitated collective bargaining in the
federally regulated private sector.
1725
Accordingly, the bill does not seek to drastically overhaul the
Canada Labour Code. Rather, it seeks to bring the code more into
line with present realities.
This bill has two very important objectives, to update
regulations governing the collective bargaining process so that
it can function more effectively, and to improve the efficiency
of the administration of the federal labour law. Both of these
objectives are very timely.
The last time part I of the Canada Labour Code was subjected to
comprehensive amendments was in the early 1970s. As my
colleagues will appreciate, the federally regulated private
sector workplace, to which the code applies, has been subject to
a number of significant changes since then.
Privatization of government services has meant the transfer of
some jobs from the public service to the private sector. They
are now regulated by the code. Deregulation policies such as
open skies and the elimination of the Crow rate have changed the
conditions of competition in a number of industries regulated by
the code.
This has had a direct impact on collective bargaining as unions
and management have realized that a work stoppage can have a
serious impact on market share and profitability.
Changes in trade policies, the adoption of new technologies and
changing market conditions have also had significant effect on
the federally regulated private sector.
In the face of these changes, unions have generally been on the
defensive. Employers have pressed for industrial change and the
very existence of collective bargaining has come under some
scrutiny.
I reject the view that collective bargaining is no longer
relevant. The freedom of workers to organize and bargain
collectively is a cornerstone of our democratic, market based
society. It is the means by which employees claim a proper
reward for their efforts.
Canadian employers also benefit from a collective bargaining
system. It helps to ensure stability, predictability and
efficiency. For example, more than 95% of collective agreements
in Canada are negotiated without a work stoppage. When problems
do occur, the services of experienced and effective mediators and
conciliators are available to assist in finding solutions.
Economic growth and social development depend as much on social
relations and social processes as on technology and capital. In
times of dramatic economic change, globalization and new trading
blocs, it is important that we have in place an efficient,
effective and responsive collective bargaining system.
I would like to discuss just a few of the measures contained in
this legislation which will ensure that we have such a system in
place as we face the challenges of the future.
This bill would significantly improve the administration of part
I of the code by restructuring the Canada Labour Relations Board.
The non-representational CLRB would be replaced with a
representational Canada industrial relations board. The new
board would be made up of a neutral chairperson and
vice-chairpersons and equal numbers of board members representing
labour and management groups. This would increase the confidence
of those appearing before the board that their submissions are
fully understood and properly reviewed.
Decisions made by the board, especially those involving the
exercise of the board's discretion, would be more credible in the
eyes of both labour and management.
The appointment of part time regional representatives of labour
and management would significantly improve the cost effectiveness
of the board, allow the board to benefit from the expertise of
persons who are active on each side in the labour relations and
foster links between the board and the labour relations
communities.
Measures to reorganize the board contained in the bill would
also make it more flexible, allowing it to respond much more
quickly to both routine and emergency issues. Rather than a
three member panel, for example, a single vice-chairperson would
be able to resolve some cases. In some cases such as preliminary
motions or requests for the extension of time limits this simply
makes sense.
1730
Access to the board would be enhanced by a repeal of the
provision which requires the parties to obtain ministerial
consent before filing an allegation of bad faith bargaining. This
would be particularly significant in cases where an immediate
hearing is needed to break a deadlock in negotiations.
This bill would give grievance arbitrators a number of important
new procedural powers. These would make for a more flexible and
efficient arbitration process and would be an important step in
ensuring that grievance arbitration is reserved for the
resolution of disputes that the parties cannot resolve on their
own. These new powers are necessary because the arbitration
process has become more and more complex.
I believe that the administration of the Canada Labour Code
would also be enhanced by the provisions in the bill to
strengthen the federal mediation and conciliation service. This
service is important and has repeatedly proven extremely
effective in helping management and labour to reach collective
agreements. The economic impact of work stoppages prevented by
the FMCS is incalculable.
A final provision of the bill which would improve the
administration of the code is the requirement that the Minister
of Labour meet occasionally with representatives of labour and
employer groups and with labour relations experts. This will
allow the minister to receive advice and feedback from the labour
relations community, a good thing I would think.
One of the benefits of Canada's long history of free collective
bargaining has been the development of an exceptionally talented
labour relations community. It is appropriate that the code be
amended so that the minister can take full advantage of the
talents of our mediators, facilitators, arbitrators, fact
finders, adjudicators and labour relations academics.
Time prevents me from discussing the many other provisions of
this legislation which will improve the effectiveness and
efficiency of the Canada Labour Code. Allow me to conclude by
saying simply that this bill recognizes what labour and
management groups have already said, that the code is an
effective framework for collective bargaining in the federally
regulated private sector. The bill seeks to improve the
efficiency and relevance of this framework and not to replace it.
Faith in collective bargaining and in the labour relations
community is central to this bill.
The provisions of the bill are based on extensive consultations
with union leaders, representatives of employer groups and other
interested parties across the country. Although these parties
agree that part I of the Canada Labour Code has functioned well
in the past to provide a stable environment for collective
bargaining, they also agree that the time has come to amend the
code, to make sure it continues to function well into the next
century.
I am proud to support this legislation because I believe that it
will help both employers and employees in the federal
jurisdiction by providing them with the type of modern and
relevant collective bargaining and labour-management system that
they deserve.
This bill deserves all of our support.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 5.33 p.m.
the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
NATIONAL HEAD START PROGRAM
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should: (a)
develop, along with their provincial counterparts, a
comprehensive National Head Start Program for children in their
first 8 years of life; (b) ensure that this integrated program
involves both hospitals and schools, and is modelled on the
experiences of the Moncton Head Start Program, Hawaii Head Start
Program, and PERRY Pre-School Program; and (c) ensure that the
program is implemented by the year 2000.
He said: Madam Speaker, some years ago I was working in a jail
as a physician.
A couple of young women, 13 and 14 year old prostitutes and IV
drug abusers were sitting across from me. They were incarcerated
for the nth time in this institution. After examining them I said
that I did not think they would live to see their 18th birthdays.
They smiled and said quite softly that they probably did not see
any need to live to 18 years of age anyway.
1735
They were individuals who had endured many years of suffering.
Their parents were prostitutes. They had lived on the streets
since they were 10. They started hooking at the age of 12 and
started mainlining drugs at the age of 13.
I was wrong. It was not that they did not live to see their
18th birthdays; they did not live to see their 15th birthdays.
One young woman was found murdered at the end of a lonely road. I
saw the other one while doing rounds on the pediatric ward. She
had suffered a massive stroke after a cocaine overdose.
We see the children who are affected by the problems in our
society. We look at those who are in custody in detention
centres. While their history does not exonerate them for their
actions, perhaps looking at their history will provide us with a
clue as to how they got there.
The vast majority of those children in detention centres have
suffered years and years of abuse in environments we would not
wish on anybody. Years of neglect, sexual abuse, violence,
malnourishment, complete lack of parental involvement in their
upbringing. These are the histories of so many of those children.
Our response historically has been the expensive management of
these children while they are in jail.
Through Motion No. 261 I am trying to change our focus, to look
not at the management of crime but to use some of our existing
resources in the prevention of crime and to look at the root
causes of crime. Parental neglect, child abuse, physical abuse,
the witnessing of abuse, malnourishment, even the absence of
proper parental involvement with the children, all of these
things play a role in the development and damage of an
individual's psyche.
Recent medical evidence has demonstrated quite conclusively,
from things such as the positron emission tomographer, that the
development of a normal psyche starts while the fetus is growing
in the womb of the mother. At that time events can take place
that can radically change the ability of that individual to
function properly in society, such as the exposure to alcohol.
After the child is born the exposure to abuse, neglect and
malnourishment all have a profound effect on the ability of the
child to develop the underpinnings of a normal psyche which
enables them to become a productive, integrated member of society
who can have normal interpersonal relationships. Destroy the
development of that individual at that critical time in the first
eight years of life and we have a child that at best often
develops personality disorders, conduct disorders or at worst,
becomes incarcerated in jail.
We have to move our thinking and engage in a paradigm shift. If
there is one thing I hope the government and its members, as
members on our side and in fact in all political parties will do
is to recognize the fact that prevention is more important than
management. It is a lot cheaper and more effective for us to deal
with these problems from time zero than to try to manage the
situation when the child is incarcerated in an institution.
We have to change our thinking. If the government were to adopt
this motion it would be the single greatest paradigm shift in
social policy thinking in this country in the last 20 years. It
would radically save a lot of money and dramatically change the
lives, welfare and well-being of so many children, particularly
some of the most underprivileged children in our society.
The motion is based on a few programs. I would like to give
credit today to the member for Moncton who has been a leader in
our country and in fact the world on developing the Moncton head
start program. She has done an outstanding job.
I would also like to pay credit to my colleague from
Saanich—Gulf Islands. He has done an outstanding job in our
hometown of Victoria in trying as a lawyer and now as a
parliamentarian to develop ways in which we can not only address
individuals who are incarcerated now but also to engage in
prevention.
1740
The motion is based on three programs, one of which is the
Moncton head start program which the member for Moncton was a
leader in starting. This program recognizes that there needs to
be parental involvement in the development of children. It
started in 1974. It brings together high risk families in an
environment where the parents are involved with the children in
learning things that sometimes we take for granted, nutrition,
proper parenting skills, the importance of play, the importance
of having quality time with those children.
It is interesting to note that many of those parents did not
themselves have good parenting skills because their parents did
not have good parenting skills. The cycle continues and in order
to break that cycle, sometimes active intervention is required in
a co-operative and constructive manner.
The Moncton head start program demonstrated that very
conclusively. It worked. It decreased crime rates. It
decreased the incidents of those children running afoul of the
law. They stayed in school longer. It also demonstrated a $6
saving for every dollar that was put into the program.
The Hawaii head start program has been in existence for quite
some time. It has seen the importance of using volunteers,
usually women who were very good parents and were trained to
develop a bonding relationship with families at risk. They dealt
with child abuse, violence in the home, drug problems, substance
abuse problems. These were dealt with in a co-operative
arrangement. The outcome was a 99% drop in child abuse.
The last program has actually been in existence the longest. It
is the Perry pre-school program in Ypsilante, Michigan in
existence since 1962. We have had over three decades of rigorous
scientific analysis of this program to see what works and what
does not work.
What this program demonstrated as many of the other ones did is
that active early involvement to provide children with the basic
necessities of life enabled the children to stay in school
longer. There was a 50% drop in the crime rate and a 40% drop in
teen pregnancies. There was less demand on social programs and
the welfare rolls and the children got through school and had
higher incomes at the end of the day.
This is a win-win situation. It also demonstrated a massive
saving to the taxpayer.
Motion No. 261 asks the government to work with its provincial
counterparts to implement the best from all these programs. There
are good things and bad things. One can easily take a motion
like this one and build it into some kind of Cadillac model where
money will just be poured down some sinkhole and little will get
to the people who really need it and little effect will happen.
If this motion is to become a reality, it requires a leader. It
is true that most of the sentiments expressed within this motion
are in the realm of the provinces. I will be the first to admit
that. But for heaven's sake, someone has to take a leadership
role and no one is. A hodge-podge of programs exists within our
country, a little bit here and a little bit there. Some of them
are good and some of them are not. There is overlap. The left
hand does not know what the right hand is doing.
The federal government can take a leadership role by bringing
the first ministers together, locking them in a room like was
done for the Dayton peace accord and telling them they will not
get out until they sort out the problem. They will put on the
table what they have and they will develop a comprehensive
strategy that involves medical personnel, the schools and others.
In that way there is no overlap. There is a streamlining of the
program and we can ensure that the basic needs of the children
are met not in a Cadillac program but in a program that is cost
effective.
The program has to be analysed very carefully to ensure that our
outcomes warrant the investment and that money is not spent
unwisely. There is a lot of room here for financial abuse and
inefficiency. But there is also an enormous opportunity for us
to take the bull by the horns, put our existing resources where
they can make the best effect and deal with prevention to ensure
that these children do not slip through the cracks.
1745
In the throne speech the government mentioned a few interesting
things that demonstrate in principle a support for the type of
motion I am talking about and also the fact that it has put a
series of important funding programs in existence.
The health transition fund is being organized by the government
to help the provinces make innovative and co-operative
arrangements with the federal government to deal with areas of
primary care. I would argue that this is an issue of primary care
that goes across health care, justice and social services.
Rather than having this conglomeration of programs where all
this overlap exists, swallowed up in part by bureaucracy, let us
make sure the dollars get to the kids and where they are needed
most.
There is also the national children's agenda that exists. All
these can be used against the backdrop of what this motion is
asking for, and indeed the government has already implemented
among aboriginal communities head start programs which I hope
will be effective and which are long overdue. Not only the
aboriginal community on reserves should have access to this but
also aboriginal people outside reserves and non-aboriginal
people.
One of the issues that can come into this program that I think
would be a fallacy is to associate impoverishment with money for
the people involved. What these programs have found is it is not
money that makes the child, but a loving, caring, secure
environment with caring, loving parents provides children with
the best hope they can have in life.
Responsible, caring parents are the most important gift that a
child can ever have. I and others can probably pay testimony to
the parents who have given them so much and for which they can
never repay them.
I hope the government takes the initiative, looks at this motion
and implements it. I also put down in the motion that it be
implemented before the year 2000, the reason being fear of the
House proroguing sometime before that and this motion merely
getting tossed under a carpet.
The national crime prevention council that the justice committee
sensibly asked to be organized has come forth and been an
advocate for many of the sentiments expressed within the national
head start program. It has done tremendous work, and yet its
good work lies on a table in its building, not for lack of desire
or talent or hard work on its part, but because of inertia that
pervades this place all the time. It is something that all of us
as members labour under and try to find ways to overcome.
I argue that this is a motion that transcends party lines. It is
a motion which I think members from across party lines will be in
acceptance of, at least in principle. I hope members from across
party lines will adopt it and provide the government with
constructive suggestions to implement it, not for us but for all
the children out there who come home to environments that are
rife with abuse, neglect, malnourishment and hopelessness.
These children deserve hope if only for the humanitarian reason,
but also for the cold, hard, pragmatic reason that what we do not
deal with today we pay for tomorrow.
There is the increasing epidemic of crime. Just in my riding of
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, the death of Reena Virk was a profound
tragedy. A young 14-year old girl was beaten up by a group of
teenagers. This is not an isolated incident. Tragically, it
occurs in other parts of the country, perhaps not to the same
extent but it occurs.
We are not winning with our current proposal of detection,
deterrence and incarceration. That needs to happen for certain
people and we need to do that too. But we need to also focus our
minds, focus our efforts into trying to prevent these tragedies
from occurring, and it has to start from time zero.
1750
It is estimated that half the people in jail suffer from fetal
alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol effects. FAS is the leading
cause of neurological damage in this country. People with FAS
have an average IQ of 68. They have irreversible neurological
damage that prevents them from engaging in appropriate
interpersonal relationships with other individuals.
An unfortunate number of those individuals go on to commit
crimes. This does not excuse them from their crimes but it
provides a clue that this is a preventable problem. It is a
tragedy when any of these children come to see you.
I will speak personally of my work in emergency departments. A
child comes to you to be taken away from an abusive situation.
You have a scared, emaciated child sitting in a corner. You take
that child an do the appropriate exam before the child goes to a
foster home. I have been fortunate enough to see a child like
that again four months later. Now the child is a bubbly, chubby,
smiling, gregarious, playful little one. I have to do an
examination, as so many other physicians do, before that child
goes back into the same abusive environment as before. That is
wrong.
I have gone to judges, lawyers and social workers and what have
they said? It is the system. I cannot reconcile, nor I am sure
can others in this House, putting that child back in the same
abusive environment as before. One year old children have no
business going back in that type environment where we know they
have no chance. We can only imagine the horrors those children
endure for the rest of their young lives. Who knows where they
will end up? They will end up in a place none of us would want
to be.
I am not saying we can take children away forever but for
heaven's sake let us be the advocate of the child first and
foremost and the parents second. Let us ensure those children
are put in environments with loving, caring secure parental
involvement. That is the best asset any child can ever have.
This is the first hour of debate on this motion. There are two
hours left. In advance I thank my colleagues for spending the
time to do the investigation. I hope we can work together to
make this motion a reality for the children of our country.
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Children and
Youth), Lib.): Madam Speaker, I begin by congratulating the
member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for his commitment to the
welfare of children in general, in particular Canada's children.
If his work on the land mines issue is any indication of his
commitment, he is to be congratulated and appreciated for his
sensitivity and his caring on such matters.
I agree with his point quite aside from the intention of his
private member's bill that there are some things we cannot
legislate. We cannot legislate love. We cannot legislate proper
nurturing. We cannot legislate a healthy environment but we can
aid in that process. We can provide the tools for families,
individuals and communities. We can provide that environment and
work toward that healthy relationship of nurturing between
parents and children.
Child development is a complicated issue. The hon. member's
suggestion that increased resources be channelled into early
child development is a laudable one. It reflects a growing
consensus that the well-being of Canada's children is a shared
responsibility of all citizens and all levels of government.
As the hon. member will recall, the Government of Canada
recognized the importance of early child development in the
Speech from the Throne. Early childhood experiences influence
overall health, intellectual development and well-being of
individuals for the rest of their lives.
1755
By investing early in children's healthy development, we are
investing in their long term health and in the long term health
of society. Federal, provincial and territorial governments have
identified healthy child development as a priority and have been
working closely for some time on collaborative initiatives aimed
at helping children living in conditions of risk to get a better
start in life.
These initiatives include the community action program for
children. This is a very successful program. This program is so
successful that the views are to expand on that program and to
continue that program. It speaks to many of the concerns and
many of the initiatives that should be undertaken as stated by
the hon. member opposite.
The aboriginal head start program was referred to in one of our
documents for the election. It was a commitment that we made and
it is a commitment that we saw through. The aboriginal head
start we have found so successful that we have expanded on it.
We have doubled the funding. I would like to see a further
expansion.
I think there is an area that the Canadian model does not
address and that is the fortification of the linguistic and
cultural base that individual children have. This adds much to
the self-esteem of the individual once they have that basis. They
are able to develop properly in and out of their own environment.
The Canada prenatal nutrition program is another one that talks
about early head start. We believe we have a head start when it
comes to this initiative. When we have 21,000 low birth weight
babies born and it costs approximately $60,000 per infant to deal
with the effects of low birth weight or premature births, which
are sometimes the case from not having the proper prenatal
nutrition care, we feel this is a very worthwhile investment.
We also know that we can avoid the exorbitant cost if we do
continue on with this program. It is extremely successful, not
only with the children but also with the parenting. It also
provides the appropriate foundation for young people,
particularly single parents, single mothers in this instance, to
go forward and to build a proper nurturing and caring before the
child is born as well as to continue on once they have given
birth.
All these programs have proven highly successful in meeting the
needs of the target population, not to mention the Inuit and
first nation child care program which we know that we did not
have a jurisdictional issue on. The federal government has very
clear jurisdiction. We went forward and instituted $72 million.
On the other child care issues we did not enjoy the same kind of
agreement among our partners out there, so we could not proceed,
this being one of the reasons.
If we as a society are to ensure that all Canadian children have
the best opportunity to develop to their full potential, our
investment must be much broader and much more comprehensive than
early child development alone. I can assure my fellow
parliamentarians that the Government of Canada fully supports the
idea of a national strategy focused on early child development,
but not in a narrow sense. Every program, every service offered
to children should have that litmus test that speaks to early
intervention, that speaks to child development per se from the
age of zero onwards.
A substantial body of evidence exists which shows that the
quality of early childhood experiences is at the root of many
adult health and social problems and I think my hon. colleague
spoke quite well to that. The links between poverty and chronic
illness, teen pregnancies, youth suicides, drug abuse, family
violence and long term unemployment are well documented.
To achieve this, the national children's agenda will be taking
discussions beyond the government level. All Canadians will be
invited to help shape this agenda. As part of the agenda, we
believe the overriding issue is addressing child poverty,
something we are working toward with the new national child
benefit system. This is one approach. This is one effort.
1800
The national child benefit will give Canadian children a better
start in life by improving economic benefits and social services
available to low income families with children. It will reduce
the barriers many low income families face in moving from social
assistance to the workforce. Over time it will reduce poverty,
support families, make work pay and enable governments to work
together to improve children's chances of success.
Over the course of this mandate we will double our initial
investment of $850 million in the national child benefit system.
We are also collaborating with the provinces and the territories
on the national reinvestment framework to redirect savings from
welfare spending into new and improved services and benefits for
low income families with children.
The national child benefit system is a cornerstone of the
national children's agenda. Together, governments are working to
develop the agenda as one that will continue to evolve and build
on programs to support children. It will include many partners
across Canada.
I remind my hon. colleagues that these are not the only
activities we are engaged in to promote and improve children's
well-being. The Government of Canada has announced three new
initiatives as part of the national children's agenda.
First, we are establishing—and I am sure my hon. colleague with
his background will appreciate this very much—centres of
excellence on children's well-being to broaden our understanding
of how children develop and what we can do better to support them
in the early years of life.
One of the cornerstone pieces of research that the centres of
excellence can undertake is the effects of FAE and FAS children
have had to endure, the long-lasting effects of fetal alcohol
effect and fetal alcohol syndrome. I hope we realize that FAS
and FAE are the most preventable disabilities that our country
can do something about.
Second, we are expanding on the successful aboriginal head start
program to help children on reserves to get a good start. We are
doubling the funding.
Finally, we will build on the HRDC and Statistic Canada leading
edge survey, the national longitudinal survey on children and
youth, as the foundation for reporting on the readiness of
Canadian children to learn. We have a profound interest in how
our children develop intellectually, not just in one particular
way. In a very multifaceted way we want to know that our
children develop psychologically, mentally, physically,
spiritually and intellectually in a manner that is appropriate
for their age group.
Collectively these new initiatives, along with existing federal
programs such as the community action plan for children, first
nations child care and child care vision, are equipping us with
powerful new tools that will help us to create a made in Canada
strategy for the country's children.
I congratulate the hon. member. I hope he realizes that perhaps
we do not call it a national head start program but the
collective of these is early intervention and head start.
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am really
pleased to rise in support of the motion. It is critical and
comes at a critical time in our development. As our society
changes there is more and more stress on families. We do not
have the ability to stay home and look after our children. The
environment I grew up in was a mother at home with eight family
members.
I would agree that the motion is not about money. It is about
time and about how we allocate time to the nurturing and
development of our whole society because each individual adds or
detracts from our collective.
We cannot expect to have healthy communities and a strong
country if what is coming up behind us is a lot of individuals
who have lived in poverty, who are uneducated and who have been
neglected by their parents. They do not fit in because they do
not speak the same language as us or communicate in the same way.
1805
If we are to have any positive effect on the future of our
country, I would agree with my colleague who introduced the
motion that we have to do it at an early stage. We have to be
diligent, aware, conscientious and particularly caring if we are
to have a constructive and co-operative intervention at an early
age and be serious about it.
We have the example of what is happening in a town in B.C. There
is outrage. The intent on all parts is to work together to do
something positive to protect those who are vulnerable, our
children. We have to focus on our children and put the rights of
parents second.
It is a very sensitive issue both culturally and individually. I
have worked with people who have had their children taken away
from them. Extreme trauma is suffered by both the children and
the parents.
If there is a will ,there is truly a way for us to overcome
these obstacles. We should not say that it is a provincial
responsibility or the mother's responsibility and has nothing to
do with us. We need to work together because it has everything
to do with us.
When Reena Virk was killed we all felt horror and outrage. Where
did we fail? The motion is an attempt to look at where we
failed. What on earth went wrong to create that level of
violence among Canadians?
If as a collective group, as citizens of the country, we want
individuals who are physically strong, who are emotionally strong
and who have psychological health so that their energy is
directed toward being teachers, carpenters, architects, lawyers
or doctors, we have to go to the beginning. A large part of that
is to recognize the role of motherhood and the role of fatherhood
within society. From there we should link it to every policy we
make so that we strengthen families, so that each family in turn
produces children who are strong, who are a benefit to our
country and who are people we can be extremely proud of.
It has been said that we cannot teach love and caring, but we
can. We can teach by example what love is and we can teach how
to care. Through every gesture which shows care and protection
we show love. It is up to us to do that.
If someone does not know how to do that, there have been
examples given of how one mother will work with another mother,
which is a very natural process, or one father will work with
another father. Just think of all the men and women who act as
coaches. They teach sportsmanship and how to work together in
difficult situations. For children sporting events are difficult
situations. If we teach them principles and values at that stage
they will follow through to how we treat each other in the House.
We can teach how to love and how to care. We cannot legislate
those things, but we can certainly make sure that people know how
to do them. We can set the example.
If we want to address these issues we have to recognize what
they are linked to. A lot of it is poverty. We have to address
what our government can and should do about poverty. We have to
address what we can do to make sure people are educated and fed.
We have to intervene when there is abuse, whether it is physical,
emotional or verbal. Again that relates to teaching.
If we are to address alcoholism we need a drug strategy. We
need to be serious about it. We need to address it at all
levels, from its beginnings to the violence and the criminality
which result from alcoholism.
We cannot change the fact that there are many people afflicted
with fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effect but we can
prevent it. We can be very serious about preventing it and
making access to alcohol a lot more difficult than it is, rather
than it being a ritual or some sort of right of passage of
drinking and carrying on at a certain age. That does not have to
be part of our society.
We should remove stress from families. Our role as government
is to see how we connect, how our policies link to each other,
instead of dividing everything into separate parts and saying you
are responsible for this, that department is responsible for that
or the provinces can do this. We should be open minded enough to
look at where we can really make a difference in the lives of
families so they have the time they need to look after their
children who are a part of our community and society.
1810
Once again I would like to say it is not just about money. It
is about time, the time we need to bring up our children. We
must recognize that and make sure it is possible for people to
bring up their children and not have to do it alone.
It is very difficult to be left alone with many young children.
We should recognize the hardship of that and that it is
unnatural. We need to help each other in bringing up our
children. It benefits us all, or it will be to the detriment of
us all.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Madam Speaker, let me say from
the outset that the Bloc Quebecois is against Motion M-261, the purpose
of which is to develop more national standards and guidelines in areas
of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
Through this motion, the Reform party calls on the Liberal
government to ensure greater government visibility across Canada by
developing an integrated program for children under the age of eight,
which would involve both hospitals and schools. We need not analyze the
motion before us very long to realize what the Reform Party is really
trying to do.
By putting Motion M-261 forward in this House, the Reformers are
acting as accomplices of a government desperate for visibility and more
concerned with promoting Canadian unity that with resolving the problems
experienced on a daily basis by Quebeckers and Canadians.
I want to make it clear that the Bloc Quebecois and the Quebec
National Assembly are sensitive to the rise in youth crime. All
Quebeckers agree that we must deal with the root causes of crime. What
institution is in a better position than the family to address the
problems experienced by children under the age of eight?
The Quebec government is so keenly aware of the importance of these
1.6 million children and of the key role of families in the future of
our children that, in 1997, it tabled a white paper outlining its new
family policy.
This policy statement creates links between the Quebec government's
economic and social priorities and comes out in favour of our families
and our children. The Quebec minister of education and family stated
that “In Quebec, as elsewhere around the world, family is at the heart
of society. That is where children learn the values that will shape them
and help them spread their wings. On the eve of a new millennium, we
must preserve the best we have come up with to support children and
their parents”.
There are a lot of things, but it is of prime importance for
me to highlight the principle underlying this statement of policy:
the recognition of parents' primary responsibility for the needs of
their children and of the support role of government. This
principle finds expression in three objectives: to ensure fairness
through universal support for families and additional help to
families with low incomes; to facilitate the reconciliation of
parental and professional responsibilities; and to promote the
development of children and equal opportunity.
These are not just fancy words, this is the way Quebec wants
to increase the consistency of its action to promote greater
equality in family matters. This is the way Quebec identifies the
role of the family in child development.
However, despite the fact that these measures proposed by the
National Assembly received broad approval from the people of
Quebec, it has become very difficult to implement them, because of
the obsessive policies of our federal government.
This government wants to dictate national standards at all
cost out of a concern for visibility and in order to justify its
presence. This is the third time since the start of the week that
I have risen in this House to criticize the devastating effect of
the federal government's centralizing policies, and I hope we are
being heard.
The centralizing measures of the Liberal government have,
since 1993, been devastating for Quebec. Why? Because the Liberal
government, with the support of the Reform Party today, is doing
its best to prevent the Government of Quebec from developing
measures that are so vital for young people in Quebec and for the
support of their parents.
Why?
The measures limiting Quebeckers' choices are the cuts in
transfers to the provinces, the refusal to reimburse Quebec the $2
billion for harmonizing the GST, the Liberal government's refusal
to review its tax system and the measures that are impoverishing
the less fortunate put in place by the government.
I will take a few minutes here to talk of the harmful effect
of one of these measures: the savage cuts by the Liberal government
to the employment insurance plan.
1815
The Minister of Human Resources Development is trying to sell
us on the idea that this is a generous reform for the workers, but
what planet does he come from, this minister of human
impoverishment? Giving it the name of employment insurance does
not make the reform equitable.
The Liberals need to come down from their ivory towers and go
ask the seasonal workers, those who have to live through the “black
hole of spring”, or the students who pay into employment insurance
but cannot collect it, if they think the reform is a generous one.
At the same time, they could ask them if they agree with the
Liberal government's using the surplus it has saved in this way to
eradicate the deficit and sneak still further into provincial areas
of jurisdiction.
This disdain of workers has its limits. If the employment
insurance fund records a surplus, let it be given back to the
people who have contributed that surplus, by creating jobs, by
improving this cobbled-together employment insurance program, by
lowering the contributions made by workers and employers.
The Minister of Human Resources Development is viciously
attacking the unemployed, while the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs is trying to stifle seven million Quebeckers by asking nine
judges to put words in our mouths that are not ours.
While the Prime Minister is getting ready to trample over
provincial jurisdictions as never before, the Minister of Finance
is forcing us to take a magnifying glass to a bill which would
allow Canada Steamship Lines, which he fully owns, to be completely
sheltered from any Revenue Canada attack on its profits from its
holdings in tax havens.
When we look at everything the Liberal government is doing to
increase poverty, I wonder why the Reform Party is so bent on
encouraging it to disregard provincial jurisdiction. How can the
Reform Party encourage the Liberal government in new overlapping
and interference in exclusively provincial jurisdictions instead of
urging it to return, in the form of tax points, the money the
Minister of Finance grabbed, with his cuts in provincial transfer
payments for hospitals, schools and income security?
The Bloc Quebecois is convinced that the provinces are better
placed to implement measures that will effectively address the
problems of youth. Despite this attitude, we are in no way
imposing our point of view on other provinces. We respect the
provinces that prefer to let the federal government call the shots
in these areas.
Why would we not be entitled to expect the same from the provinces,
the Liberal government and the Reform Party?
We oppose this motion because it will give the government the
power to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to the hon. members today on Motion M-241, in my
capacity as the Progressive Conservative spokesperson for children.
Although the motion in large part addresses child and youth
crime, I believe that the problem goes beyond the mandate of the
justice system. I am delighted with my colleague's initiative,
since it is high time that the matter of prevention is addressed,
and an attempt is made to find the causes and solutions for some of
the violent behaviour among children and youth.
There is a consensus among experts in social development that
certain physical and psychological needs are fundamental, and must
be met if a child is to develop into a well-balanced, responsible
adult concerned about his environment.
The experts agree that children who spend their first few years of
life in a secure environment, with decent housing and diet, coupled
with positive experiences free from any aggression or neglect, are
more likely to lead prosperous and productive lives as adults.
They will also be less likely to commit serious crimes. Is there
not, therefore, a close connection between children's behaviour and
their economic situation?
According to a long term study by the National Crime
Prevention Council, those who commit crimes and re-offend the most
frequently come from the poorest families and the poorest housing.
According to a study carried out in Michigan, there must be early
intervention, with a focus on the whole range of disadvantages
which have heavy consequences for the children of low income
families.
1820
We would be well on the way to preventing juvenile crime if we
were able to focus on child poverty. We in the Progressive
Conservative Party of Canada firmly believe that the best defence
against poverty and crime is a strong economy. Parents with good
jobs can provide their children with living conditions that are
conducive to normal psychological development.
I would certainly not wish to suggest that all children living
in poverty have, or will have, criminal behaviour, but I think the
relationship is too close to ignore. I think we must do everything
possible to prevent crime.
As they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
By keeping young people in school, by intervening earlier in
the lives of people having trouble, by making young people more
aware of the consequences of criminal behaviour, we increase our
chances in the fight against crime. In addition, by developing
head start programs, social stakeholders in hospitals and schools
will be able to identify families who are at risk and in need of
assistance and provide them with the resources they need to
redirect negative behaviour. Both children and their parents must
be educated.
Many parents will themselves have come from disadvantaged
backgrounds that will have seriously hindered their psychological
development. It is difficult to turn around problems of this
nature later in life.
For example, a teenager who has seen his alcoholic father
mistreat the family all his life will also have a tendency to adopt
the same behaviour.
If the cycle is very hard to break in adolescence, imagine what it
must be like in adulthood.
This is one more reason to begin the programs at a very early
age, before the development of behaviour that will lead some young
people to turn to delinquency and crime.
There is a whole series of social development programs that
have proven effective, including programs of intervention in early
childhood and programs providing recreation for young people. On
the whole, the children taking part seemed better adjusted socially
and to have overcome a number of risks relating to their poverty
and their environment.
Statistics show clearly that early prevention efforts are
successful and benefit the participants, their families and the
community as a whole.
I can therefore assure my colleague that our party will
support his motion, because, when it comes to the welfare and the
future of our children, we are always there to lend a hand.
[English]
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
it was my intention to speak at this moment in the House
notwithstanding that I have sat here slightly aggravated in
listening to the presentation by the Bloc Quebecois speaker.
There is a comment I must make before I give up the balance of
my time to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. He cancelled a
flight in order to be here, disappointing his constituency, and
to reflect his respect for the subject matter. I will be pleased
to give him his time, but in one moment please.
The member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca has presented a very
important motion, the concept of which I fully support. The
mechanism is a matter for discussion just so long as the ends are
found.
The Bloc Quebecois' narrowness of spirit and narrowness of view
is totally reflected in a lack of understanding in this North
American continent and in fact within the western nations that
share many of these problems, the issues of what to do for youth,
for children, particularly prebirth, prenatal and immediately
following birth, love, nurturing, affection, emotion and how to
be a parent.
All these are issues we are all looking at. It is hard to know
the reason why we have the number of young people acting out as the
member pointed out in his speech.
I just wanted to highlight that if we were to put these walls
around Quebec so that we should not be, God forbid, working
together federal, provincial and municipal and volunteer
associations and researchers, we would be losing or perhaps
duplicating and wasting money.
1825
I refer them to a study on crime prevention by Dr. Tremblay in
Montreal. He was the director for youth protection in the
province of Quebec. My colleagues who were the directors of
youth protection and I have looked at all kinds of programs
worldwide, in particular in Canada, including Quebec. We would
have looked at Dr. Tremblay's longitudinal study on the root of
criminal behaviour. It can often be traced back to childhood
experiences, the reasons for aggressive behaviour.
Researchers have begun to investigate the protective factors
that allow a child to be resilient and to succeed despite bleak
negative environments. Their research has revealed that
resilient children generally have certain characteristics. This
can all be found in the initiatives of the Canadian government
combined with the provincial governments. It was done under
safer communities, a parliamentary crime prevention guide. The
status of women's group was very much involved with this as were
parental groups and many others.
I suggest that the Bloc take heed of what this member has
brought to this House. It should look at ways of implementing
it. Never mind the name, never mind the party. Just look at the
possibility of addressing a very serious problem that we do not
want recycled generation after generation.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I thank the member from the other side. This is a very
serious issue. Since their are seven or eight minutes left, I ask
for the unanimous consent of this House that I be given the
opportunity to finish my speech which will carry us two or three
minutes over.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member
have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Madam Speaker, I thank the members present
in the House.
It is a privilege to participate in this debate on Motion No.
261 which was introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. I note the concern expressed in the
comments of members from all parties with the exception of the
Bloc. This is an issue of great interest to me as a father, as a
lawyer and as a parliamentarian.
My colleague is asking the government to develop a comprehensive
national head start program for children in their first eight
years. He is talking about a co-ordinated effort between the
federal and provincial governments and ministries. There are
programs out there and he would like them to work together. That
is what this is all about.
I agree with him that it is important to ensure our children
have the best opportunity to develop to their full potential.
While parents have the greatest responsibility in the nurturing
and development of our children, we as legislators must ensure
parents have the support they need. We must develop partnerships
with our provincial and municipal counterparts to support
initiatives aimed at reducing youth crimes. This is all about
co-ordination and working together for the good of all our
children in this country.
We must go beyond crime management. We must shift to crime
prevention. I will discuss some examples I am familiar with
through my practice in criminal law as a lawyer in youth court.
Verbal, physical and sexual abuses are all obvious threats to
normal psychological development. They have a devastating effect
on children.
I saw the consequences of child neglect firsthand in the courts.
They were easy to identify. They say it costs about $95,000 a
year to keep a youth in a detention centre. That is arguable. I
know we could debate that.
Stories of some of my personal experiences in the courtroom will
emphasize the importance of prevention. A child of 12 or 13
could be before a judge for the first time. If a good,
understanding judge had the tools and programs available,
although quite often they were not, and there was family support,
there were success stories.
1830
We could follow up on these youths and the schools that played
an integral role in the management of these youths who were not
back before the courts. Yet we could see the chronic youth, those
at the age of 14 with criminal records two and three pages long
who were going through a revolving door. Yes, we have to hold
these children accountable.
What the member is talking about is that we have to get to these
children at an early age. There will be some who will slip
through and end up in our justice system. However, from what I
have seen in the courts, I honestly believe that we could stop a
large part of this if we started at day zero. That is the key.
The Reena Virk case is an example. I probably saw some of these
youths in the courtroom when I was practising law. It is the
very courtroom I practised in. A 14 year old girl was savagely
beaten by a gang of eight or nine children. Other children
watched and did nothing. They beat her again and then broke her
arms and her back and threw her in a river to die. It brings
tears to our eyes. The worst part is that this is not an
isolated event. In my own community of Sydney in the last few
years we had another youth killed again by a group of youths.
These are within 20 miles of each other. These are not isolated
incidents.
We cannot bury our heads in the sand and pretend that these
things are not going on. We as parliamentarians have a
responsibility to co-ordinate. My comment on the remarks by the
member who spoke earlier is that I support all the programs and
things that are being done.
I do not believe the member is asking for a big wheelbarrow full
of money. He is asking that we co-ordinate this together with
the ministers from the provinces and the federal government and
the people who are involved. We should get together to try to
really and truly help these children to ensure they are getting
the love, the nurturing and assistance they need in order that
they do not end up in our justice system, like a revolving door.
These examples prove to us that the earlier years in life are so
crucial. If we address them we will drastically reduce the
social and economic costs to our society. This is a very small
investment with a huge return. It is like an RRSP, the benefits
are just enormous at the back end.
Many programs already exist in centres in Canada and the U.S.
There is the program in Hawaii pioneering early intervention
programs for children focusing on high risk families. They go
right back to when the woman is still pregnant. If assistance is
needed at that time it is provided. There is also a program in
Michigan which my colleague has spoken about. The evaluations of
these programs have shown a decrease in juvenile and adult crime
by 50%. These programs are working and that is the most
important part.
I am really encouraged to participate in a debate where all the
parties, with the exception of the Bloc, seem to have children in
their hearts. The long term savings to the taxpayers will be
absolutely enormous. It works out to roughly $6 in dividends for
every $1 invested. This is going on the statistics from these
other programs. That in itself is something we cannot ignore.
The Reform Party stands for tougher laws. In no way is this
motion suggesting that we cannot hold people accountable for
their actions. The ones who slip through, yes, we have to hold
them accountable and ensure they are dealt with toughly.
However, what this is all about is stopping half of them before
they get to that door. It is a travesty to see them coming
through.
I practised in the criminal courts myself and of my own
choosing. In our occupations we always want to feel we are
making a difference and are quite proud of our work. Some would
argue how anyone could be proud of their work while practising as
a criminal lawyer.
However if we get the youth early and get them into the
programs, we can make a difference, even for offences such as
shoplifting which are deemed by the courts as very minor
offences.
1835
Sometimes we would get the family in there. We would send them
off to counselling, probation, all kinds of programs. We could
tell that that person was not coming back, that they were not
going to be back and they were not. This is just enforcing that
we should take that one step before and give these programs.
I listened to my friend's comments about the baby in the
hospital and having to do an examination before sending the baby
back into that terrible environment. It almost brings tears to
one's eyes.
When sentencing these children in the courts they go through the
child's history before giving the sentence. Every single time
they describe the circumstances, the sexual abuse, the
prostitution in the families, the physical abuse between the
parents, just horrible conditions. Almost every time with those
who are involved in serious crimes that is what is described
without exception. That is what they went through.
Again, I commend my friend and colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de
Fuca for his dedication to these very sensitive issues, something
he believes in dearly in his heart and wants to make a
difference. I thank again the hon. member for Mount Royal for
her gracious offer to allow me to speak today.
I have a two and a four year old at home. I believe very much
that we have to look after the most valuable resource in our
country, our children.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hour provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the
order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the
order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
FINANCE
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, on October 28 I asked the finance minister a question
prefacing it by saying to him that he is rumoured to be a
successful businessman in Canada or elsewhere, we are not sure
now. But this businessman, I said to him, is now telling our
kids that he will be taking 10% of their lifetime earnings and he
will manage their money so that they will get back a 1.8% return
on all that money, that lifetime investment. I asked the
minister that as a businessman would he put his money into a
venture with that kind of a return.
The minister's answer was very instructive. He said first of
all that the return that is projected is a 3.8% return, not 1.8%.
This was very disingenuous of the finance minister who knew very
well that his own actuarial report says that our children will
indeed get only a 1.8% return on their lifetime investment. The
3.8% return he was referring to, to kind of muddy the waters, is
the return that he says will be earned by his new CPP investment
fund.
We just saw in the pages of the newspaper today some grave
warnings by financial analysts saying that as this fund's
investment is presently structured it is doubtful that it will
get even such a low rate of return as 3.8%, which I might point
out is not even as much as the new RRSP bonds that Canadians can
buy from the Canadian government. But to get back to the point,
our children for a lifetime of having to put 10% of their
earnings into this CPP fund will get a return of 1.8%.
He also said that the great advantage of the Canada pension plan
is that the Government of Canada stands behind it regardless of
market fluctuations. I might point out that the government in
fact intends to invest our money in the market, but of course we
are not smart enough to do that ourselves. Only the government
can do that. But then he said the Government of Canada stands
behind that. Is that not reassuring?
Guess who the Government of Canada gets its money from. From
us. So if the Government of Canada screws up and miscalculates
and does not do its investment properly, guess who it can look to
to make it up. Us. So we get to pay more in premiums, in taxes
or in lost benefits. That is not very reassuring.
1840
Then he said, using some scare tactics to keep people from
looking at alternatives, that Canadians should not have to be
subjected to having their retirement at the whim of market
volatility, as if the stock market were the only kind of
investment Canadians could make.
I just have a follow up question which I would be very pleased
to have the government answer. I hope people who are watching
these debates at home will answer the same question.
Your child or grandchild comes to you and says “I want your
advice on some investments. You have lived a few years and have
managed your money well. Now I need your advice. I have heard
about a good new investment. I will contribute 10% of my salary
and the fund manager will guarantee 1.8% return on my investment,
a real rate of return over the years. Should I buy in?”
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry but the
hon. member's time has expired.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, let us understand that whether
you are 16 or 60 the Canada pension plan will be there for you
when you retire. Those who say otherwise are mistaken and those
who wish otherwise are wrong.
Ultimately this is about values. You either believe in the CPP
or you do not. The government does. The Reform Party does not.
The Reform Party can talk about its plans to destroy the CPP. The
government will talk about what we have done to preserve it.
The member for Calgary—Nose Hill has said in recent radio shows
that we need to look at perhaps getting some of this unfunded
liability out of the general tax revenues.
Paying off the outstanding obligations year by year as they come
due would require a $20 billion to $75 billion payment each year
over the next 60 to 70 years. Paying off the outstanding
obligations over 30 years would require almost a doubling of GST
or a 25% increase in personal income tax. Which taxes do the
Reform Party want to increase to pay these outstanding
obligations?
Canadians have told the government that they want the burden to
be spread evenly across generations. If no changes were made,
our children and grandchildren would be asked to pay 14.2%. Some
claim, as the Reform Party does often, that young people are
getting a raw deal from the CPP changes. Young Canadians will
get 50 cents for every dollar they invest.
This type of statement is incorrect. The fact is that all CPP
contributors, present and future, will receive more from the CPP
than they pay in. Young people will receive $1.80 for every
dollar of contributions. The return could be higher if we as
Canadians were prepared to renege on existing contributions for
today's seniors and for those who have been paying into the CPP
for years.
The federal government and the provinces as joint stewards of
the CPP will honour all commitments made to Canadians in the
fairest way possible. The government will not renege on our
obligations to Canadians as the Reform Party will do.
YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I compliment the Reform member for Saanich—Gulf Islands
who, just prior to the rant we witnessed by the member opposite,
made what I thought was a very thoughtful and important speech
about young people.
He spoke about his concern about young people, about children.
He talked about having a two year old and a four year old at home
and how he was concerned about their future. That is the exact
reason why I asked the question some time ago of the Minister of
Human Resources Development. I talked about what the government
did in its first mandate and what it is continuing to do in this
mandate as it relates to youth unemployment.
I too have children. They are not really children any more.
They are 23, 25 and 27 years of age and in various stages of
education and working. I see all three boys and a lot of their
friends who come to our place. These young people today, who are
the immediate resources that will be leading us in the near
future, are very concerned about their future. They want to know
about opportunities for advancement. They want to know about
training opportunities.
In my riding of Mississauga West we are experiencing an
unemployment rate that is a bit below the national average. It
is about 12% for young people. That is way too high, even though
it is lower than the national average.
1845
My question has to do with my concern that I hope the minister
will work with local community groups and boards of education
that have put forward alternative proposals and with the private
sector to implement programs that will create opportunities for
young people.
Recently the minister approved a program known as Ice Youth. Ice
Youth is a tripartite agreement between the private sector, a
company in the business of building arenas; the board of
education in Peel; and the government. These young people will
be trained and given class b refrigeration licences. It
will teach them about all the sophisticated equipment and
everything necessary for working around an arena. In Canada that
is a huge business and a terrific career opportunity, but it is a
very small program.
I hope the minister will look at other programs like that one
where we can involve our young people in working co-operatively
with the private sector, the local municipality and the school
boards to create new opportunities.
We have seen training programs in past governments designed to
train people but no jobs tied to them at the end. Programs like
the Ice Youth program and others I hope we will see approved
following the budget of the Minister of Finance next week will be
tied directly to jobs.
The private sector will take advantage of funds from the
government to create economic growth by saying to a particular
young person “We are going to train you in this field. We are
going to give you a trade. We are going to give you skills. We
are going to give you knowledge that will then be tied to a
job”. What is the point of training someone and then having
them sit at home with nothing to do?
I hope the parliamentary secretary can reassure me an my
constituents—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry but the
hon. member's time has expired.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I thank my
colleague for his very important question.
I can inform him and the House that through the government wide
youth employment strategy we are creating nearly 280,000 work
experiences for youth over three years. This year alone the
strategy will create over 93,000 work experiences for young
Canadians.
We know that our programs are working. A November 1997 survey
of Youth Internship Canada and Youth Service Canada programs show
that 85% of Youth Service Canada participants and 88% of Youth
Internship Canada participants are either employed or in school 6
to 12 months after completing the program. This year alone these
two programs will help over 30,000 youth get valuable work
experience.
Today the Minister of Human Resources Development launched
student summer job action 1998. This program with a total budget
of $120 million will create over 60,000 summer jobs and help
350,000 students across the country in their search for summer
employment. These are but a few of the initiatives we have
undertaken to help young Canadians find work.
Much remains to be done. A 15.8% youth unemployment rate is
still much too high. That is why the Prime Minister and his
provincial colleagues confirmed during last December's first
ministers meeting that helping our youth find employment was a
national priority. They reiterated the need to work together.
Consequently the Minister of Human Resources Development will
continue to work with his provincial and territorial colleagues
to put in motion an action plan on youth employment. The plan
will recognize that governments, the private sector and
communities have roles to play to help young Canadians get and
keep a job.
Madam Speaker, stay tuned on Tuesday when the budget is released
and you will see even more priorities of the government.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House
stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing
Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.49 p.m.)