36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 101
CONTENTS
Thursday, May 7, 1998
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1000
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
1005
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Foreign Affairs and International Trade
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Graham |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROYAL CANADIAN MINT ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-41. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INDIAN ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-402. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-403. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Bonwick |
1010
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Adult Entertainment
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRTC
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Justice
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hepatitis C
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Gun Control
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Darrel Stinson |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Adult Entertainment
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURN
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cummins |
1015
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA LABOUR CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-19. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Speaker's Ruling
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Deputy Speaker |
1020
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions in Amendment
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 1 to 5
|
1025
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
1030
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dale Johnston |
1035
1040
1045
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1050
1055
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
1100
1105
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
1110
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
1115
1120
1125
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
1135
1140
1145
1150
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 1 deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 2 deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 3 deferred
|
1155
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 4 deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 5 deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 6
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dale Johnston |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 7
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 8
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dale Johnston |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 30
|
1200
1205
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
1210
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
1215
1220
1225
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dale Johnston |
1230
1235
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
1240
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Gouk |
1245
1250
1255
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1300
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
1305
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
1310
1315
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1320
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1325
1330
1335
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1340
1345
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
1350
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1355
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PORT COLBORNE HIGH SCHOOL
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Maloney |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1400
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SPORT FISHING
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Drouin |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WORLD RED CROSS DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VOLUNTEERS
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
1405
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN SKILLS COMPETITION
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lou Sekora |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS SOCIETY OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Paddy Torsney |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MOTHER'S DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC CITY
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC CITY
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
1410
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMPOSTING WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Power |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RENEWABLE ENERGY
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Pillitteri |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PROSTATE CANCER
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
1415
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
1420
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1425
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROYAL CANADIAN MINT
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
1430
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1435
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LABOUR
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
1440
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TOBACCO SPONSORSHIP
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC CITY
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1445
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Darrel Stinson |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Diane Marleau |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANKS
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
1450
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROYAL CANADIAN MINT
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Bernier |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Bernier |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ALBERTA FOREST FIRES
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John O'Reilly |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA POST
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réjean Lefebvre |
1455
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HERRING FISHERY
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RAIL TRANSPORTATION
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Drouin |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATISTICS CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1500
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
1505
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVILEGE
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Comments of Prime Minister
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Comments During Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Paddy Torsney |
1510
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lou Sekora |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Transport
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA LABOUR CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-19. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1515
1520
1525
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
1530
1535
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1540
1545
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
1555
1600
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
1605
1610
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Bonwick |
1615
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1620
1625
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Chatters |
1630
1635
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1640
1645
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Allan Kerpan |
1650
1655
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1700
1705
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
1710
1715
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
1720
1725
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1730
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion.
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1735
1740
1745
1750
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
1755
1800
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1805
1810
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
1815
1820
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
1825
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
1830
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Environment
|
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
![V](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 101
![](/web/20061116183149im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, May 7, 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 two petitions.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the third report
of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
Development.
The committee has considered Bill C-39, an act to amend the
Nunavut Act and the Constitution Act, 1867, and has agreed to
report it with amendments.
1005
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and International Trade regarding Canadian military
personnel captured in Hong Kong during World War II.
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 32nd report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership
of the Standing Committee on Transport.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the
32nd report later this day.
* * *
[Translation]
ROYAL CANADIAN MINT ACT
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-41, an act to
amend the Royal Canadian Mint Act and the Currency Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[English]
INDIAN ACT
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-402, an act to amend the Indian Act
(obligations of landlords and tenants on reserve land).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of
Okanagan—Coquihalla to introduce my private member's bill
entitled an act to amend the Indian Act, obligations of landlords
and tenants on reserve land.
This past November 51 families at the Driftwood mobile home park
located on Indian reserve land were evicted from their homes as a
result of a failed septic system. Most of the residents were
forced to either relocate, sell their homes for whatever they
could get or simply walk away from their investments.
This tragedy clearly demonstrates the inequity that exists for
people who rent land or residential premises on reserve land.
Legislation is clearly lacking to define the obligations of crown
when granting a lease authorized in section 58(3) of the Indian
Act. Also lacking is legislation that clearly defines the
obligations between the landlord and tenant, in other words
between the crown, leasee under a lease from the minister and the
tenant.
The bill would amend the Indian Act to precisely define the
obligations of landlords and tenants on Indian reserve land by
making existing provincial landlord and tenancy legislation apply
to these leases.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-403, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental
Protection Act (lead sinkers and lead jigs).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased today to have the
opportunity to present my private member's bill.
Specifically this legislation is an act to amend the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act.
I would be remiss if I did not thank Mr. John Phillips and Mr.
Robert Anderson who brought this important issue to my attention.
The eventual passing of the bill will represent the end of a long
road travelled by both gentlemen after having spent three years
trying to education Canadians and Canadian governments on the
consequences of using lead sinkers and lead jigs in our pristine
waters.
The legislation will ensure that lead sinkers and jigs are
banned for both use and importation. The protection of our
environment is of primary concern to the government and I am sure
that every member in the House will support the legislation when
it is tabled for debate.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1010
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I move that the 32nd report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to
the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
ADULT ENTERTAINMENT
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two related petitions although they concern
different subjects. In the first the petitioners call the
attention of parliament to the fact that the city of Kanata
accepted an application for an adult entertainment parlour based
on a ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada. They call on
parliament to pursue changes to the legislation that would give
municipalities the right to prohibit adult entertainment
parlours, goods and services and to broaden the restrictions on
existing adult entertainment parlours.
CRTC
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): In the
second petition, Mr. Speaker, the petitioners draw the attention
of parliament to the fact that the Canadian Radio-Television and
Telecommunications Commission refused to license four religious
broadcasting services but has at the same time approved the
pornographic Playboy channel. They call on parliament to review
the mandate of the CRTC and direct the CRTC to administer a new
policy which will encourage the licensing of religious
broadcasters.
JUSTICE
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions to present today. The first petition is with
regard to the Young Offenders Act. The people in my riding from
communities such as Merritt, Penticton and people from other
locations in British Columbia are concerned about the Young
Offenders Act. They are asking that the House of Commons and the
government deal with issue as soon as possible by lowering the
age limit, transferring those accused of violent crimes to adult
court. Publication of names is also important.
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my second petition is related to the hepatitis C situation. The
petitioners ask that parliament reopen the issue of compensation
for all victims of hepatitis C. There are 90 petitioners
listed from all areas of British Columbia.
GUN CONTROL
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to table this petition from 50 of my
constituents who state that over 90% of Canadians do not believe
stricter gun laws are a solution to violent crime. They also
cite opposition from police on the streets and many provincial
and territorial governments. They therefore ask parliament to
repeal Bill C-68 and instead spend the high cost it will require
on more effective measures to cut crime and improve public
safety.
ADULT ENTERTAINMENT
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition from 419 people in the city of Kanata
and that area. They are requesting parliament to pursue changes
to the legislation that would give municipalities the right to
prohibit adult entertainment parlours and broaden the
restrictions of existing adult entertainment parlours to reduce
the incidence of crime. These residents are opposed to an adult
entertainment parlour opening in their neighbourhood. They are
disappointed that supreme court rulings override community values
and wishes.
* * *
QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURN
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
Question No. 75 could be made an order for return, this return
would be tabled immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
.[Text]
Mrs. Elsie Wayne:
With respect to assistance
provided under the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, would
the Minister responsible for ACOA provide for each federal riding
in New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward
Island the following:
(a) a list of projects approved under the ACOA program since
June 2, 1997 to the date this questioned is answered;
(b) the location, by province and riding, for each approved
project; and
(c) the financial contribution made by ACOA for each
approved project?
Return tabled.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on October 28, 1997, I asked Question No. 33.
There seems to be a reluctance to provide the answer to this
question. I cannot understand it, other than to note that the
question has to do with a special relationship between the
minister and the Oak Bay Marine Group and the actions of the
minister's west coast assistant, Velma McColl. I would like to
know when I can expect that answer.
1015
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I have looked into the
whereabouts of the response to Question No. 33. I assure the
member that it is not reluctance. The reply is being processed
and I will present it in the House as soon as possible.
Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the
unsatisfactory answer on the previous question, I asked Question
No. 56 on December 2, 1997. It has to do again with the same two
individuals.
I must say that these questions are of some importance because
they have to do with the Chinook salmon fishery of which 47 runs
in British Columbia are at high risk.
I would like to know when I can expect an answer to this
question. On December 2 the question was asked. The 45 days is
long gone.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I do recognize the
importance of these questions. I will also look into the
whereabouts of the response to Question No. 56.
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
if the hon. member thinks 45 days is bad, listen to this one.
Question No. 21 has been on the Order Paper since, believe this
or not, October 3, 1997.
The parliamentary secretary has repeatedly promised the House he
will make inquiries as to when Question No. 21 will be answered.
I recommend that the parliamentary secretary come out from behind
the curtain and tell us when Question No. 21 will be answered.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I have made a note of
Question No. 21. I would point out to the House that some of
these questions involve virtually all the departments of
government and to gather the information takes a considerable
period of time. I will certainly look into Question No. 21.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that all remaining
questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA LABOUR CODE
The House proceeded to the consideration of 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, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Deputy Speaker: There are 31 motions in amendment
standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-19.
[Translation]
The motions will be grouped for debate as follows:
Group No. 1: Motions Nos. 1 to 5.
[English]
Group No. 2: Motions Nos. 6 to 8 and Motion No. 30.
Group No. 3: Motions Nos. 9 and 28.
[Translation]
Group No. 4: Motion No. 10.
Group No. 5: Motions Nos. 11 to 17.
[English]
Group No. 6: Motions Nos. 18, 20, 22 and 23.
[Translation]
Group No. 7: Motions Nos. 19, 25 to 27 and 29.
[English]
Group No. 8: Motions Nos. 21 and 24.
[Translation]
Group No. 9: Motion No. 31.
[English]
The voting patterns for the motions within each group are
available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each
pattern at the time of voting.
[Translation]
I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 5 to the House.
1020
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-19, in Clause 2, be amended
“Minister, on the recommendation of the standing committee of
the House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to
human resources development, to hold office during good”
“(1.1) Before making a recommendation to the Minister under
subsection (1), the committee referred to in that subsection
shall hold public hearings to hear the representations of any
person seeking nomination as a candidate for the offices of
Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson or wishing to make
representations with respect to any candidate under consideration
by the committee.”
That Bill C-19, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 35
on page 2 the following:
“(1.1) The terms referred to in subsection (1) shall not be
renewed.”
That Bill C-19, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 36 to
40 on page 2 and lines 1 to 14 on page 3 with the following:
“(2) Subject to subsection (3), the members of the Board other
than the Chairperson and the Vice-Chairpersons are to be
appointed by the Minister on the recommendation of the standing
committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters
relating to human resources development, to hold office during
good behaviour for terms not exceeding three years each, subject
to removal by the Minister at any time for cause.
(2.1) Before the standing committee referred to in subsection
(2) makes recommendations to the Minister for the purposes
specified in that subsection, the committee shall hold at least
one hearing at which it shall invite the organizations
representative of employees or employers to submit names of
candidates for the positions referred to in that subsection.
(3) The members of the Board appointed pursuant to paragraph
9(2)(e) are to be appointed by the Minister, on the
recommendation of the standing committee of the House of Commons
that normally considers matters relating to human resources
development, to hold office during good behaviour for terms not
exceeding three years each, subject to removal by the Minister at
any time for cause.”
That Bill C-19, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 13 to
20 on page 5 with the following:
“12.03 (1) If the Chairperson of the Board is absent or unable
to act, a Vice-Chairperson designated by the Minister acts as
Chairperson for the time being, and a Vice-Chairperson so
designated has and may exercise all the powers and perform all
the duties and functions of the Chairperson.
(2) If the office of Chairperson is vacant, a person chosen by a
vote of a majority of the members of the Board present when the
vote is taken shall act as Chairperson.”
That Bill C-19, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 44 on
page 7 with the following:
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address, on behalf of the
Bloc Quebecois, the amendments that we are proposing to improve
Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code.
First of all, and this is unfortunate, we will not be able to
put forward all the amendments that we wanted to present, for
reasons of procedure, given the nature of this bill, compared to
that of last year's proposed legislation, which also sought to
amend the Canada Labour Code, but which was never passed,
seemingly for technical reasons in the Senate, and because a
federal election was called.
There are amendments which we really wanted to propose again
this year, but we were unable to do so for reasons of procedure,
as I mentioned earlier. These amendments sought to have flour
mills and other undertakings for the milling of grain come under
provincial legislation, including the Quebec labour code, as
opposed to being covered by the Canada Labour Code, as is
currently the case.
We cannot go any further for procedural reasons, as I said.
As for federal public servants, whether they are represented by
the Public Service Alliance of Canada or the Professional
Institute of the Public Service of Canada, and also RCMP
personnel, we have been defending these groups since we came to
Ottawa, so that they too can be covered by the Canada Labour
Code, as opposed to the Public Service Staff Relations Act, but
unfortunately, again for reasons of procedure, we cannot table
the appropriate amendments.
I now come to our amendments in Group No. 1, which address two
issues: first, there is the role of committees, in particular
the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the
Status of Persons with Disabilities, to which the Department of
Labour reports and which deals with the Canada Labour Code and,
second, vacancies, as well as the renewal of the terms of
members of the Labour Relations Board, recently renamed the
Canada Industrial Relations Board.
As for the committee, it is known that, historically, the Bloc
Quebecois has defended in the House the fact that House
committees are called upon to play a greater role in overall
operations. Right now, one criticism is that committees are
required to meet without really having many powers, because the
executive feels free to do all sorts of things without first
seeking the opinion of members, the House and committees.
We therefore suggest, for instance, that the appointment of
members to the Canada Industrial Relations Board be by
recommendation and that the committee be permitted to hold
hearings, that the board submit an annual report, not just to
the minister, but also to the committee, and that, in the case
of appointments, the committee be involved in the entire
process, that it perhaps even be allowed to call candidates to
appear before it and to seek the opinion of the public with
respect to the list of potential members.
These amendments are entirely consistent with the Bloc
Quebecois' earlier positions calling for greater involvement by
elected representatives in all aspects of operations in the
interests of democracy.
I will come back to this often. The dramatic gesture by our
colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, says a great deal not
just about how things are done, but about what things are done.
It is the whole operation of what we represent in democratic
terms that is open to discussion and highly so, in my opinion.
We in the Bloc Quebecois think that this is the sort of measure
that will greatly strengthen the role of elected officials and
democracy.
1025
More specifically, everything that concerns the committee is in
Motions Nos. 1, 3 and 5.
Motion No. 2 serves to ensure that the members of the Industrial
Relations Board—the chairperson and the vice-chairpersons—cannot
have their terms renewed after three or five years, as
the case may be, to provide for an automatic turnover to provide
the board with new blood. We consider that, by setting a time
limit, the board will be revitalized, perhaps have new
approaches, new influence networks and look differently at
things.
Finally, Motion No. 4 pertains to vacancies. The law as it
stands provides that the chairperson is to be replaced by the
vice-chairperson in the event he is absent or ill.
In the event the chairperson is absent or ill, or the position
vacant, the bill provides that the minister will choose the
person to replace the chairperson.
We think a vacancy, and not a temporary absence, in the position
of chairperson should be filled by the individual chosen by a
majority vote of the members of the board present. We think
that, when people know each other, it would perhaps be more
democratic and more fair to let those who know the field appoint
a new chairperson in the case of a vacancy.
We know how gifted this government is at finding friends when it
counts.
We think this would be a fine time to call a halt to this sort
of attitude, which we have seen all too often, and ensure that
people close to events are invited to react and take action
accordingly, designating a new chairperson to fill the vacant
position.
That is the end of my remarks on the motions in Group No. 1.
[English]
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, before addressing the
motions in Group No. 1, I would like to say a few words about the
purpose of Bill C-19 and about the consultation process preceding
its introduction.
Bill C-19 is the result of extensive consultations with
representatives of labour and management and other interested
parties in the context of a review of Part I of the Canada Labour
Code which began in 1994. The review included a study by an
independent task force of industrial relations experts chaired by
Mr. Andrew Sims.
Following the release of the task force report entitled
“Seeking a Balance” in February 1996, the Minister of Labour
held cross-country consultations. He continues to do that. He
has consulted and consulted.
The contents of Bill C-19 are essentially the same as its
predecessor, the former Bill C-66, which was awaiting third
reading in the Senate when the 35th Parliament was dissolved.
However, in response to the concerns raised during the study of
the former bill and during further ministerial consultations with
interested parties last summer and fall, a number of drafting
changes were made, again because of consultations and the fact
that the Minister of Labour has listened.
The result is a bill which, while not meeting all the
preferences of all parties, is a fair and balanced package of
amendments arrived at through extensive consultations, reflecting
considerable consensus between labour and management subject to
Part I of the code.
1030
I draw to the attention of the House that any time labour or
management are too happy with the bill, then it is lopsided.
Because of the feeling and the information that we have been able
to get through the consultations we know we have a balanced
package here which is very important.
The bill includes important measures designed to improve the
administration and conduct of collective bargaining in the
federally regulated private sector. It reflects labour and
management support for a legislative framework which allows them
to develop their own solutions to industrial relations problems
without the need for government intervention or imposed third
party solutions. I should think that we would all want to strive
for that particular component.
There is a clear relationship between a positive labour
relations environment and a productive viable economy. A stable
positive labour relations climate is essential if Canada is to
meet the competitive challenges of the new global economy.
Collective bargaining legislation should encourage and
facilitate co-operative labour-management relationships and the
adoption of innovative workplace practices. The government
believes that Bill C-19 succeeds in meeting these goals.
I would like to turn my attention now to the motions in Group
No. 1. They refer to provisions in clause 2 of the bill which
establishes a new Canada Industrial Relations Board to replace
the current Canada Labour Relations Board.
A working group of representatives of labour and management in
the federally regulated private sector reached a consensus on
this issue. The new board would have a neutral chair and
vice-chairs and equal numbers of members representing employees
and employers. Balance. In all legislation we must strive to
achieve balance.
Provisions establishing the new board are designed to ensure
that it better reflects the labour and management communities it
serves across the country and that it operates effectively and
cost efficiently. The Reform Party should like that. Cost
efficient. This is what we have been hearing and this is what we
are trying to deliver in this bill.
The bill specifically addresses issues of concern raised by the
parties and noted by the task force in its report. Here are a
few of the key provisions which will improve administration of
the code.
The chair and vice-chairs must have experience and expertise in
industrial relations. Surely no one in this House would object
to experience on this board.
The minister must consult with organizations representing
employees and employers with respect to the appointment of
representative members. Again it is a consultation process,
which is extremely important to successful board appointments.
The appointment of regionally based members will reduce travel
costs. The Reform Party should be delighted with this aspect in
the board.
The powers of the chair with respect to supervision and
management of the board's work will be clarified. There will be
a fair and impartial process for the review of the conduct of a
board member. The chair or a vice-chair sitting alone will be
able to determine certain applications instead of a three member
panel. The board can operate more efficiently by holding
pre-hearing conferences using teleconferencing and requiring the
production of pertinent documents during the investigative
process.
The board must issue decisions within a reasonable timeframe.
The use of mediation to resolve issues will be encouraged.
The bill aims to ensure the effective and efficient
administration of part I of the code by a new representational
board composed of qualified members. I am sure that all members
in this House will support a representational board that will be
positive, fair and with experience.
I am counting on my colleagues in the Chamber to help get this
through.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened very intently to the foregoing speakers both from the
Bloc and from the government. As I look over the motions that
form Group No. 1, I see that my colleague from the Bloc has moved
that the human resources committee should be the screening
process for committee members on the Canada Industrial Relations
Board.
While we believe that the minister should not have broad
autocratic sweeping powers in this area to appoint simply
whomever he or she would like as the member has alluded to, we
would give mild support to at least seeing the resumés of
potential members of the Canada Industrial Relations Board.
1035
Motion No. 2 presented by my colleagues from the Bloc suggests
that the vice-chair and the chair should only be limited to one
term. I know that the CLRB has had some bad experiences but in
the case that we have gone through with the Canada Labour
Relations Board we had a chairman that was appointed for a period
of 10 years. A period of 10 years is far too long. As a matter
of fact I made a representation to the Sims task force that the
term should be limited to five years. That is a reflection in
the bill which I very much support.
I do not think that limiting the term of the chair or the
vice-chair to one term would have much merit. It may be a little
difficult to find a person willing to take on the job. I do not
see anything wrong with reappointing a very qualified person for
a second five year term.
If my colleague from the Bloc is concerned about a patronage
appointment, let us take the scenario that perhaps during the
time of a chairman's appointment his term runs out and there is a
new government or a new minister. That would allow twice as many
opportunities for a patronage appointment than at the present
time. I believe we would not support the Bloc's Motion No. 2 in
Group No. 1.
The bill reduces the term of the members on the board from 10
years to five years and that is supportable. A 10-year
appointment is far too long. The Bloc has suggested that it
should be reduced even more to a period of three years. I do not
believe this is necessary. A five year term is appropriate.
We have had cases that last for months. There have also been
cases which are definitely not justified and which have lasted
for more than two years.
We should be able to agree that a five year term is a proper
length of appointment. I cannot understand the rationale behind
my colleague's suggestion that they only be appointed for three
years at a time.
It would help with continuity if the terms were staggered. If
everyone were to be replaced at once and all the terms expired at
the same time, there would be a completely new board at some
point in time. If the terms were staggered there would be some
experienced members and some not so experienced members. That
would certainly help with continuity on the board.
The Bloc's Motion No. 4 provides that when the office of the
chair is vacant, the members of the board shall determine who the
chairman shall be.
That is not a bad system of selecting a chairman. When I was on
municipal council the reeve of the municipality was selected in
that way. When you ran for a position on council, you did not
run for the position of reeve. You were selected from among your
peers. That is not too bad of a provision.
1040
I would like to hear more rationale from my colleagues in the
Bloc as far as defending their positions. They have only given
us cursory rationale as to why they believe we should support
their position. I would like to hear more on their position as
far as the Canada Industrial Relations Board is concerned.
It is our hope that the government is going to keep a closer eye
on the operations of the Canada Industrial Relations Board than
it did on the Canada Labour Relations Board. Aside from the very
well publicized and documented misuse of public funds which took
place within the previous board, there is also the fact that
there are cases which have been before the board for more than
two years. That is ridiculous. We all in the Chamber are
familiar with the phrase that justice delayed is justice denied.
That applies in this instance.
There is another thing which certainly has not helped in any way
to build up the name of the previous board. It seems that they
could not decide on anything among themselves as far as the
governing of themselves. The first thing a quasi-judicial board
should note is that it must learn to govern itself. What I am
talking about is that it managed to rack up something like
$250,000 worth of legal costs in internal squabbling in regard to
who had what jurisdiction and who had what authority. That is
totally unacceptable.
The department, the committee and the House of Commons should
have a better handle on what is happening in the Canada
Industrial Relations Board. We should be notified as to its
operations. We should have a regular report to which the
committee, parliament, Canadians and the press can react.
I know we can say that the auditor general has oversight of this
entire situation and he does. The auditor general raised this
problem time and time again. It was only after much to do was
raised by the Reform Party and by the press that these problems
in the Canada Labour Relations Board were addressed. We are very
sorry that it took so long for these problems to be addressed. We
hope that it does not happen like that in the future.
1045
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak
today in the debate on the reform of the Canada Labour Code.
The hon. member for Trois-Rivières has submitted some amendments,
Motions Nos. 1, 3 and 5 in particular, the essential objective
of which is greater democratization, as you can see. In this
Parliament, what does “greater democratization” mean? It means
that the House of Commons or its committees which, being made up
of parliamentarians, are an extension of the House, must be
informed of the in-depth examination of matters.
Labour relations are a very important matter. When there is a
labour conflict, there is a concern for equity, for balance
between the parties.
There is generally a union side and an employer side, although
this is not always the case, and there is an assumption of
debate, of balance.
In principle, there can be no better instrument that a
parliament for ensuring a balance. Here we represent different
parties. At present, we have a majority government and several
opposition parties. This democratic mechanism represented by
the House of Commons and the committees makes it possible for
everyone's point of view to be heard and listened to. This
ensures that the public is better informed about the debates,
all the ins and outs relating to the labour conflict, or the
improvements to be made in terms of labour relations.
That is why I want to support the hon. member for Trois-Rivières.
I would like to point out that he has done a wonderful job. He
has done an excellent follow-up on all these mechanisms. He is
far more of an expert than I am on these matters.
When he speaks on this matter, whether in caucus or in
discussions between colleagues, he always stresses the concept
of balance. One must not be prejudiced toward one side or the
other, but rather try to strike a balance between management and
labour. I think that this serves the common interest, the
interests of the public.
I therefore support the motions of my hon. colleague for
Trois-Rivières.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this morning we are in the fourth stage of Bill C-19, an
act to amend the Canada Labour Code. Report stage really
deals with what came out of committee examination of the bill.
There are numerous amendments that we are considering today at
this stage of examining the bill.
I was interested to hear the parliamentary secretary's remarks
about this bill, waxing eloquent about the amount of consultation
that had been done. A great deal of consultation did go on with
respect to these changes to the Canada Labour Code.
However, what the parliamentary secretary did not mention and
what is very unfortunate is that a lot of the results of these
consultations were simply ignored in the final construction of
the bill.
There is not a whole lot of merit in having wide consultations,
a long and detailed report and then having recommendations coming
out of those consultations if the government simply goes its own
way at the end of the day in constructing the legislation. To a
large degree this is what happened following the so-called
consultations.
Consultations should be very largely reflected in the final
result but, I would submit, that is not the case with this bill.
1050
The parliamentary secretary also made a rather strange and
bizarre assertion that if no one is happy with a piece of
legislation then it must be good. I find this a little hard to
credit, particularly when there are interest groups involved in
the formation of this legislation which to my knowledge have
never expressed themselves satisfied with any degree of
accommodation of their wishes. There always seems to be with
perhaps all groups that the blue sky and the green grass is
always a little further over the horizon.
That should not be the litmus test of legislation. The litmus
test really should be whether this bill serves the Canadian
people and our country. I did not hear any of that discussed by
the parliamentary secretary.
The parliamentary secretary did talk about the goals of the bill
being a productive and viable economy. It is certainly
debatable and we will be debating whether this bill does anything
to ensure and enhance a productive and viable economy. I would
argue it does not meet this goal at all. It will have an
adverse, negative effect on the economy in many respects.
For all the talk about balance and all the talk about doing what
gives the best balance in the competing interests involved, it is
debatable that balance is not achieved in this legislation.
The first group of amendments proposed comes from the Bloc.
Amazingly enough, some people will say Reform supports and is
approving of the thrust of these five amendments. We do not
agree with every detail of them but I think these amendments were
well considered and put forward in a very constructive way.
The first amendment is particularly constructive because it
states that appointments to this board which wields a lot of
clout in the affairs of our country, particularly in the labour
and economic affairs regulated by the federal government, should
be made by parliament through its committee which deals with
these affairs, the HRD committee.
The present legislation leaves the appointments strictly to the
government, the cabinet and the minister. Surely we have seen
the repugnant effects of government patronage appointments to
these important positions. There are hundreds if not thousands
of examples of how government cannot and should not be trusted
exclusively to have the final say over these kinds of important
designations.
We would strongly support all members of parliament's having a
strong input into who fills these important positions. I agree
with my colleague from the Bloc who indicated this would ensure
that all points of view are heard.
If the government is serious about balance in this legislation
surely it would welcome an amendment which would move a long way
to ensuring the kind of balance it pretends it wants to achieve
by making sure all points of view are heard regarding who sits on
this important industrial relations board.
The second of the five amendments talks about limiting the term
of the members of the board to one. term. I suppose we have to
ask ourselves as parliamentarians would we feel it would be
appropriate if we were allowed to sit in parliament for only one
term. Some people would say yes. If we have to put up with the
rascals for one term that is plenty.
1055
During our first term we are on a steep learning curve as
members of parliament. We gain valuable experience which allows
us to go on with an enhanced level of competence. If we are
diligent and well meaning we can achieve this in our first term
and provide a very valuable service.
There may be members of the board who do not rise to those
higher levels of competence and ability. They could be weeded
out. But if there are extremely effective, knowledgeable and
well informed people on the board who know what they are doing,
who know the players and who have a great deal of insight into
the process, they should not be turfed out after only one round.
On the three year term limit that has been suggested rather than
five, three years goes pretty fast, especially the older we get.
I had a birthday yesterday and three years does not seem like
that long ago, nor does five years seem that long ago. I am not
sure that is a very substantive debate. That has been proposed
as the third amendment and I do not have strong feelings about
it.
The fourth represents changes to the legislation. Presently if
the chair becomes vacant, the minister will fill the vacancy. The
legislation proposes that the board members fill the vacancy. If
Motion No. 1 is passed, the board members will be chosen in a
balanced way through input from all members of parliament. I
presume there would be a pretty good balance on the board and it
would have the best chance to choose a good replacement for a
vacant chair. Board members would know the players since they
would have worked with them. They would undoubtedly choose
someone who had their highest respect and whom they felt they
could work with effectively and efficiently.
The fifth amendment is that any report with respect to
disciplinary or remedial measures relating to members of the
board would not just fall silent at the minister's level but
would be passed on to parliament through the relevant committee,
the HRD committee. That committee could ensure that if remedial
or disciplinary measures were recommended, they would be properly
followed up on. This would lead to accountability on the board,
something Canadians want.
I commend my colleagues from the Bloc for some pretty well
thought out amendments. I hope these comments will help members
deciding whether they should be supported.
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I listened carefully and with interest to my colleagues from both
sides of the House, especially to the parliamentary secretary. I
agree with many of her comments. Although she commented in good
faith, she gave the government's position and at times failed to
shed sufficient light on some of the provisions of this bill.
Bill C-19 is a very important piece of legislation. For all
intents and purposes it regulates the lives and work of about
750,000 Canadians who work either directly for the federal
government or for federally regulated companies in the banking,
telecommunications and transportation sectors.
This bill is very important for the number of citizens it
affects. It is just as important as the Canada Labour Code. This
kind of legislation is not amended very often. Bill C-19 is
probably the first major review of the rules that have regulated
the workplace for the past 25 years.
1100
The object of the bill is important because it affects the
delicate relationship between management and the workers. It
affects the delicate equilibrium that ought to be maintained at
all times between the investors, the bosses, the risk takers and
the job creators on one hand and the workers, the people who
bring their lives efforts to service of the enterprise on the
other hand.
Therefore we must seek just and fair remuneration, working
conditions and social benefits which create a milieu that is
fair, just and rewarding for the workers.
[Translation]
Regarding the motions moved by our colleagues from the Bloc
Quebecois, Motion No. 1 for example provides in essence that,
instead of being appointed by the governor in council or by
cabinet, the chairperson and vice-chairperson of the board would
be appointed by the minister, on the recommendation of the House
committee dealing with matters relating to human resources
development. This committee would have to hold public hearings
before making a recommendation.
Our party will support this motion put forward by our colleague
from the Bloc Quebecois. This is something that already exists
in Ontario. It ensures a more open appointment process.
The public hearings should not, however, be allowed to turn into
a circus.
Motion No. 2 of our colleague states that the five-year term of
the chairperson and vice-chairperson shall not be renewed. I must
say that our party will vote against this motion. It makes no
sense not to renew their mandate if they are competent.
Now turning to Motion No. 3. Instead of being appointed by the
governor in council, members of the board, whether full time or
part time, would be appointed by the minister, on recommendation
of the House committee dealing with matters relating to human
resources development. The committee would have to hold public
hearings before making a recommendation. Our party will support
this motion.
Motion No. 4 states that if the chairperson of the board is
absent or unable to act, a vice-chairperson designated by the
minister shall act as chairperson. This part is similar to what
the bill currently provides.
If the office of chairperson is vacant, a replacement would be
elected from within the board instead of being designated by the
minister. We will vote against this motion. What this amendment
is supposed to achieve is not really clear. Is it intended as a
temporary measure? Otherwise, it contradicts the Bloc amendments
calling for the chairperson to be appointed on the
recommendation of the committee of the House of Commons. This
provision seems to be pointless since it is unlikely that the
position would remain vacant for several months. The other
provisions of the bill seem to properly address these concerns.
As for Motion No. 5, it provides that, when a member of the
board is subject to an inquiry, the judge would be required to
submit his findings to both the minister and the committee of
the House of Commons. We will support this motion. Should a
problem arise, the matter would be referred to the members of
this House, who could suggest an appropriate course of action.
This reinforces accountability to Parliament.
1105
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
recently came in from my riding, got off the plane and raced here
to find that we missed one of our speaking opportunities. I
thank you for recognizing me now and giving me the chance to
speak to the five first motions put forth for consideration to
amend Bill C-19 and the Canada Labour Code.
I have reviewed these five motions put forward by the member for
Trois-Rivières. While I fully understand the tone and content,
and even some of the merits of what the member for Trois-Rivières
is obviously trying to argue, I cannot support the idea of
introducing these changes at this time.
The five motions are clustered together for obvious reasons
because they deal with the same subject matter, the composition
of the newly formed board and the representational qualities of
the board, the appointment of the chair and the vice-chair, and
their terms of office.
I do not think I will break them down in detail and comment on
them one by one in that regard, except to start my remarks by
saying how critical this part of Bill C-19 is. The whole review
of the board and its structure and the fact that it will be truly
representational now is a huge leap forward for the labour
relations climate in the country.
I should say as well that the ideas stated in Bill C-19, the
amendments to the code, are the result of exhaustive
consultation, two years of consultation with labour and
management all across the country. Everybody had a kick at the
cat. Everybody had ample opportunity to try to make
recommendations that would make this a better and a more
functional labour board.
As the Sims task force points to as its mandate, we were seeking
a balance, some way to satisfy the interests of all the true
stakeholders.
After all this consultation, this give and take and
co-operation, they arrived at the changes that are called for in
the original Bill C-19. The minister makes the appointments. The
terms are set. The stakeholders recommend the other members of
the board so that it is truly a representational board. All
those things are part of a fine balance and part of a larger
package that is Bill C-19. I would be very reluctant to alter it
at this time for the risk of upsetting that delicate balance. It
would not be showing respect for the whole consultation process
that took place in the previous two years.
Most of the parties involved are very satisfied with the current
package. It was not just Bill C-19. Going back to Bill C-66
this exhaustive consultation process took place. It went through
the various levels of debate in the House of Commons and made it
all the way to the Senate before the election was called.
There have been ample opportunities to make any changes that
people felt were necessary or desirable at any one of those
stages.
What we have is a situation now where the parties that truly
rely on the labour code, the federally regulated employers, the
employees who work for them and their representatives, are eager
to see Bill C-19 moved forward.
The package is satisfactory. The package does not serve all of
our needs and certainly from labour's side there are many things
we wish were there, many things we wish we could have convinced
our partners in industry to adopt. It is not always possible. It
was a give and a take. It was very much the type of co-operation
that we should be looking for as a model in other forms of
legislation. I believe that all stakeholders put their own
special interests aside. They left their baggage at the door and
did what was right to make the labour board a more practical,
relevant and functional institution.
It certainly needed review. It needed amendment. We had a
terrible situation with the board where there was a huge backlog
of cases. I believe there were as many as 90 applications for
certification pending. These are very time sensitive.
When workers have the courage to sign a union card and to
organize themselves so that they can bargain collectively, there
is always a backlash from the employer. Often there are subtle
forms of coercion, intimidation or harassment which make the
workers rethink whether this is the right thing they are doing.
Any delays increase the odds of that happening.
1110
With this newly constituted board I believe that case work will
be dealt with more quickly, the backlog will be fixed up and
these workers will have access to the justice they deserve.
This is one of the reasons we are hoping for speedy passage of
Bill C-19 so those workers who have legitimate issues pending can
start having them dealt with and heard by this newly constituted
board.
Motions Nos. 1 through 5 seem to minimize the powers of the
minister and add authority and powers to the committee that deals
with human resources issues. In other words, the minister's role
would be minimized and the role of the standing committee would
be augmented. While there may be some merit in that kind of
argument, in actual fact it would not change the balance of power
in that the standing committee for HRDC is dominated by
government by virtue of the number of seats that it is given.
Surely, if the minister wants a certain thing to happen, whether
it is directly in his or her hands or in the hands of the
committee members, the government's wishes will come about. I do
not believe there is enough merit in this argument. Even if we
were convinced this was the right thing to do, I do not think it
has enough merit to delay the passage of Bill C-19 with further
debate and obstacles and so on.
We know the official opposition will be introducing a number of
motions designed to delay the implementation of Bill C-19. We
will have to deal with those when they come before us. However,
in this case an issue such as the composition of the board or the
appointment of the chairs and the vice-chairs or the term of
office in which they sit in itself is not enough to delay the
passage of what is definitely a very worthy piece of legislation,
a piece of legislation that will benefit working people as they
conduct themselves in a federally regulated workplace.
In my mind there is nothing concrete in this package of motions
that will make Bill C-19 any better to any degree. We are
dealing with minutiae here. We are dealing with fine tuning an
idea.
The real change, the one that we should be most interested in,
is the fact that the board will now be representational. It will
have a neutral chairperson, a representative from labour and a
representative from management. In that kind of balance I think
we will achieve some of the mandate of the Sims task force,
achieve a balance in Canadian labour relations.
Anybody who has been a practitioner in labour relations knows
that is the goal. The key objective is fairness. Natural
justice and fairness are the two yardsticks by which we measure
the success or the failure of the industrial relations process,
the quasi-judicial process of the way we conduct ourselves in the
federally regulated workplace of today.
If I saw anything that would substantially make Bill C-19 better
I think I could stand here and recommend that our caucus vote for
it. As much as I have a great deal of respect for the member for
Trois-Rivières—and I know he is a committed trade unionist and
somebody who is sincere about making the environment better for
Canadian workers—the only reason I cannot support this package
of motions is that I do not see it making Bill C-19 substantially
better. Therefore the recommendation to my NDP caucus is that we
will be voting against this package of motions.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I spoke to the bill earlier this year. One of the
reasons I like to speak to labour legislation is that in my
previous life pre-parliament I worked in the union certification
climate in the forest industry. I currently represent an area
with a very high union membership, the same area where I worked
previously.
It is one of the many industries that has undergone tremendous
change over the last several years.
1115
We are seeing that on a global scale. We are certainly seeing
it big time in the resource industries in Canada. We are going
to see those kinds of changes coming to government as well.
I know there have been a lot of changes in government
bureaucracy, but they pale in comparison to what has been going
on in the private sector.
Some of the things that I was involved in, for example, went far
beyond labour negotiations, union-management style negotiations.
They went into joint training on environmental concerns, how to
implement things like changing operating methods to meet changing
standards in the forest practices code and all those kinds of
things.
It blurs the lines between who belongs to management and who
belongs to the union. Everyone has a joint goal and it is very
refreshing.
Anything we can do to create an environment and an atmosphere
where people have the same set of objectives and tend to be
headed in the same direction would be very useful indeed. If we
can take the polarization out, take the confrontation out, then I
think we have really achieved something. There are some
proposals on the table from the Reform Party that tend to do
that.
I realize that does not address the specifics of this bill, but
I thought I would put it on the table anyway.
What we are talking about today is a bill that would amend Part
I of the Canada Labour Code to rename the Canada Labour Relations
Board to the Canada Industrial Relations Board.
This bill died in the Senate in the last parliament when it was
Bill C-66. It died for good reasons and now it has been brought
back with minor changes. The changes that have been made still
do not address very significant problems in the bill. It is
still laced with problems.
The group of amendments that we are addressing at this time have
all been put forward by the Bloc. They are Bloc Motions Nos. 1
to 5. I might add that 30 motions have been put forward to amend
this legislation. Other amendments were proposed at committee.
This gives us some idea of the significance of the desire to
effect change within this legislative package.
All of the amendments we will be discussing over the next
several days came from either the official opposition as Reform
amendments or from the Bloc.
Motion No. 1 is very similar to an amendment that Reform moved
in committee. It requires that candidates for the chair and
vice-chair of the CIRB be appointed only if the parliamentary
committee approves and it requires the parliamentary committee to
hold hearings.
If this is thought about on a larger scale, we could go beyond
the CIRB to think about this in other contexts. There is growing
pressure from the populous, from anyone concerned about
democracy, to head toward removing patronage from these positions
to make them more effective.
We have another circumstance right now where our information
commissioner is retiring. He is saying publicly that the last
person we want to run the information commissioner's office is a
career bureaucrat. He says we want somebody who has displayed
independent spirit, independent means and independence from
government, someone who will lend themselves to an atmosphere
which tends to hold government accountable as opposed to trying
to support the bureaucracy against the best interests of society.
1120
This is a growing concern and one we have brought to the table
for several years in this House. We would like to see this type
of motion expanded to include all of our boards because patronage
rewards friends rather than putting people—
Mr. Ted White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I do not see a quorum in the House.
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the count having been taken:
The Deputy Speaker: I see a quorum. The hon. member for
Vancouver Island North has the floor.
Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I finished talking about
Motion No. 1, which can basically be summarized by saying that we
need to appoint people based on merit, on their ability to do the
job without being hampered by previous baggage, and to do it in a
non-partisan fashion.
Motion No. 2 deals with term limits. It limits the chair and
vice-chair, that we previously talked about, to one term only.
This legislation already takes the term from ten years down to
five years without amendment. Five years is certainly a lot
better than ten years. How do we hold someone accountable if
their appointment lasts that long?
I believe the living example is Mr. Weatherill, who was removed
from office after great pain because of spending habits and other
things which were considered to be far beyond what was allowed in
terms of what was good value for money and accountability to the
public.
There are two sides to this issue. We have to have a term long
enough to create continuity, while at the same time we do not
want such a long term that we end up with people who can
essentially become unaccountable. We could use this argument for
any official, whether it is a member of Parliament, a member of
the Senate or any other public body or institution.
Motion No. 3 is a Bloc motion which would reduce appointments to
three years. We see some merit in reducing the appointment of
members of the board from five years to three, but we see merit
in continuing the five year term for the chair and vice-chair
simply because of the continuity question. I am not really hung
up on the issue of three years or five years, but it is certainly
better than ten years. Five years is probably a bit too long for
a regular board member.
Motion No. 4 would authorize the minister to appoint a
vice-chair as a temporary chair. This would be in the case of a
vacancy.
It would require that the appointment be determined by a majority
vote of the members of the board as opposed to selection by the
minister.
1125
I will finish on this note. It is important that the structure
of the board be done right. If it is not done right everything
else does not matter. These are important amendments.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as we
heard earlier from my colleague for Calgary—Nose Hill, there are
a lot of people who are dissatisfied with the consultations which
took place regarding this bill. It is the consultations that
really bother us. As you said earlier today, Mr. Speaker,
holding consultations does not mean that you actually have to
listen. We feel that the consultations on this particular bill
have not resulted in any meaningful changes, as is the case with
a lot of bills on the Hill.
Mr. Jean Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
would call notice that we do not have a quorum.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Madawaska—Restigouche is calling for a quorum.
Call in the members.
1135
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: I see a quorum. The hon. member for
North Vancouver has the floor.
Mr. Ted White: Mr. Speaker, the point I was making
earlier was that there has been insufficient listening to the
consultation on this bill. The exercise we have just gone
through indicates that what I said was correct. There are no
people listening to what is being said about this bill. The
consultation goes on but nobody listens. My colleague from
Calgary—Nose Hill made that point quite strongly earlier today.
The fact that 30 different motions are being put forward at
report stage, as mentioned by another member a few minutes ago,
indicates the amount of dissent there is on the bill.
Notwithstanding the argument from one of the members of the NDP
that it is a bill they would like to see pushed through fairly
quickly, the fact is this is a bill with a lot that still needs
to be done.
Instead of looking to the future we are going to be left with
some outdated labour practices that will not be taking us forward
into the future. Those clients of the services that are covered
by this bill will have no alternative in the event of a strike.
The procedures contained in this bill for handling problems such
as strikes are still outmoded and outdated.
Yesterday in my office one of the representatives of the
Government of New Zealand was visiting me. We were discussing the
never ending road work that is taking place on Wellington Street.
It seems to go on for years and years and now they are working
on the road outside the West Block. This is evidence of the type
of labour climate we have. These things can go on and on for
years and years with no resolution. We need to inject some
efficiency and modern practices into government.
The representative from the Government of New Zealand stated
that they had suffered from these types of situations as well but
it does not happen any more.
It is all done by private contract with set dates and
responsibility. There are alternatives in the event of strikes.
I stray a little from the topic.
1140
I return to the issue of appointments to the Canada Industrial
Relations Board. The people of Canada frankly are thoroughly sick
of the patronage which riddles every aspect of the various boards
like the parole board, the immigration and refugee board and even
the Senate. Mr. Speaker, you look shocked that there could be any
patronage in the Senate and I am sorry if you had not noticed
that it is filled with patronage.
Club Chrétien has been more active than club Mulroney in terms
of the rewards that the clubs to members. An enormous number of
failed Liberal candidates have been appointed to all manner of
boards. We are concerned that they are going to end up on the
Canada Industrial Relations Board as well.
I hear a couple of members laughing on the government side
because they know that is the truth. We are going to end up with
patronage appointees on this board. Then we have to start
wondering what are the credentials other than being Liberal. It
is certainly open to question. One just has to look at the list.
It includes Liberal riding presidents, failed candidates,
campaign workers, bagmen, ministerial assistants. These are the
types of people who get appointed to that type of board. I can
give some examples.
Recently André Bachand, Liberal candidate in 1988 and a long
time Liberal president in Brome—Missisquoi was appointed to the
National Parole Board. Elizabeth McKall, the wife of a Liberal
riding president in Edmonton West was appointed to the National
Parole Board.
The immigration and refugee board seems to be the most common
recipient of Liberal largesse. No less than 14 appointments of
well-known Liberals to the immigration and refugee board occurred
during 1997 and 1998. To give some examples: Anita Fuoco
Boscariol, twice defeated candidate; Lucie Blais, defeated
candidate in 1993; Milagros Eustaquoi, failed candidate; Ronald
Guerette, former riding president; Elke Homsi, former legislative
assistant; Joan Lylian Kouri, defeated candidate; Gary McCauley,
defeated MP; Anna Terrana, defeated MP; and Raza Naqvi, yet
another failed candidate. They are just some examples of the
type of people who get appointed to these boards, nothing but
patronage appointments.
An hon. member: Mary Clancy.
Mr. Ted White: One of my colleagues mentioned the name of
Mary Clancy, who was appointed to the high commission in Boston.
It is absolutely incredible. We look at those sorts of
appointments and we have to shake our heads and ask what other
qualifications did they have other than being Liberal. I can bet
that we are going to end up with the Canada Industrial Relations
Board packed with Liberal patronage appointments.
In terms of the role of the board and the Bloc motions that have
been put forward, Reform actually supports the Bloc Motion No. 4
in this regard because it injects at least a little bit of
democracy into the board. It actually allows the board to
determine by a majority vote who should become the chair if it
becomes vacant.
Mr. Speaker, that is an amusing concept to you because I know
you are very supportive of the appointment process. The
threatening idea that members of the board would actually elect
their own chair, what a terrible thought. That would be one of
the safeguards that would perhaps remove an element of the
patronage and control that goes into those boards.
In reviewing the various motions that are from the Bloc in this
group, we are quite supportive of Motion No. 1. The candidates
for the chair and vice-chairs of the Canada Industrial Relations
Board would be appointed only if the human resources development
committee approved.
There is a very good argument for much more transparency in
relation to all of this patronage that goes on. Actually I am
sure that soon Club Chrétien is going to be running out of
candidates to appoint to these various boards.
Most of them must have cashed in their mileage points already.
1145
An hon. member: Failed Liberal candidates.
Mr. Ted White: My colleague mentions there will be a lot
more failed Liberal candidates but there will not be a Liberal in
charge to appoint them to the various boards so that takes care
of that one.
We are opposed to Motion No. 2 put forward by the Bloc. It
limits the chair and vice-chairs to one term. At first glance
that may seem in conflict with our opposition to appointments. If
there is a very good chair who has been elected by the members of
the board, we would like to see it made possible to extend that
term.
We are also opposing Motion No. 3. The bill reduces the terms
of the appointees from ten years to five years while the
amendment reduces the term to three years for the chair,
vice-chairs and members. Our position is that five years should
be the minimum for stability and continuity.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I refer you to Standing Order 29 which refers to quorum in the
House. A few minutes ago you witnessed the bells ringing for
some eight or nine minutes to get quorum in the House. As we
have brought up at House leaders meetings prior to this, we
expect the government to have its fair share of members in the
House. I am not talking about numbers at the moment. I am just
asking you to hear me out.
It is quite unacceptable to us for there to be more members in
opposition speaking to bills than government members. I suggest
the Chair give advice to the government. Either the Liberals
start matching this side of the House or we will be walking out
of here. We will expect them to start filling quorum in the
House every minute of every day.
Mr. Bob Speller: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to
the hon. member's comments. I want him to know that we were
sitting in the foreign committee with the minister there. Votes
were to be held so we had to have a full contingent in that
committee. As a result of his quorum call, the opposition
parties did not have the full opportunity to question the
minister.
So I would caution him in using his quorum call in the House all
the time. The hon. member knows we have many committees, in
particular on Thursdays. We are getting near the end of the
session. Many ministers are coming forward to committees.
Surely it would not be in the member's best interest to make a
quorum call in the House when there is very important work going
on in these committees with ministers.
The Deputy Speaker: We should not get into a debate on
this point of order. As your Speaker I can only say that I do
not believe a point of order has been raised. The hon. House
leader for the Reform Party has made his point. He has delivered
his own message to the government and the government has heard it
or argued against it as the case may be.
The Speaker as the presiding officer of the House is not
concerned when there is a quorum call as to who is in the House
from which side of the House. The count is for the minimum
number of 20 members. If 20 members are present the debate
resumes. The Speaker is disinterested as to whether it is all
government members, all opposition members or a mixture of
members from both sides forming the quorum. As such the Speaker
is not in a position to tell members from either side of the
House who should be in his or her place or how many members
should be available for any debate.
In the circumstances we will leave this matter and proceed with
the debate.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, in light of that nonsensical
answer from the government benches I call quorum.
1150
And the count having been taken:
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair counted 20 members.
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, the last point of order
was frivolous and therefore non-receivable.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 1.
Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I had
been recognized as the next speaker and of course other events
happened. I was on my feet.
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid I am in the midst of
putting the question to the House. I called resuming debate and
no member rose in his or her place. I asked if the House was
ready for the question. No member rose in his or her place, the
House called for the question and I started putting the question.
I am afraid the hon. member needs to be in his place if he is to
make this point.
An hon. member: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: I do not think it is proper for the
Chair to entertain a point of order when we are in the process of
putting the question to the House and I propose to proceed with
putting the question.
[Translation]
The vote is on Motion No. 1.
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 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: The recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 2. 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 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: The recorded division on Motion No. 2 stands
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 3. 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 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: The recorded division on Motion No. 3 stands
deferred.
1155
The next question is on Motion No. 4. 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 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: The recorded division on Motion No. 4 stands
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 5. 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 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: The recorded division on Motion No. 5 stands
deferred.
[English]
The House will now proceed to the study of the motions in Group
No. 2 and I will now put those motions to the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-19, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing lines 22
to 24 on page 14 with the following:
“13. Subsections 29(1) and (2) of the Act are replaced by the following:
29.(1) The Board shall, for the purpose of satisfying itself as
to whether employees in a unit wish to have a particular trade
union represent them as their bargaining agent, order that a
representation vote be taken among the employees in the unit
where it is satisfied that at least thirty-five per cent of the
employees in the unit are members of the trade unit applying for
certification.
(2) Any person who was not an employee”
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-19, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing lines 3 to
9 on page 16 with the following:
“(4.1) On application by one or more employers of employees in
the bargaining unit, the Board may revoke the appointment of the
employer representative and appoint a new representative.”
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.) moved:
Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, before looking specifically at
Group No. 2 of motions, I would like to mention that I committed
an almost unpardonable omission just now when I was listing all
the groups of employees whom we would have liked to have seen
receive more attention in the review of the Canada Labour Code.
I mentioned members of the RCMP, the Public Service Alliance of
Canada and the Professional Institute of the Public Service, but
I neglected to mention pregnant workers, on behalf of whom the
unions made highly legitimate representations to us that we wish
to convey to the House.
Unfortunately, because of the same process I explained earlier,
because of the government's more specific approach this year to
the bill before us, we are unable to introduce an amendment that
would have made preventative withdrawal possible for pregnant or
nursing workers in cases where the health of the mother or the
unborn child is at risk. We find this regrettable and want these
people to know that we are concerned about them.
I will comment on each of the amendments in Group No. 2,
beginning with our own, which has to do with clause 6 on page 12
of the bill. Clause 6 reads as follows:
This seems excessive, to put it bluntly. We fail to see the
validity of that provision. The information notes provided by
the government do not convince us that this is appropriate. This
could lead the board to take actions that might look like
arbitration or abusive measures, and we are not at all convinced
that this clause is appropriate.
Motion No. 7, proposed by the Reform Party, deals with clause
13, on page 14 of the bill, and concerns the spirit of the
legislation. If I understand its position correctly, the Reform
Party is very true to itself. The bill provides that scabs
cannot take part in a vote on a union's representational
capacity.
1200
Under the Reformers' motion, these replacement workers, or
scabs, would be allowed to take part in such a vote, something
which we strongly oppose. We must not, in any way, legitimize
the hiring of replacement workers, whether it is before, during
or after the fact. Therefore, we will oppose this motion by the
Reform Party.
Motion No. 8 deals with clause 16 on page 16 of the bill and has
to do with employers' representatives. There is a provision with
which we have trouble, and this is the reason for our motion.
That provision reads:
(4.1) On application by one or more employers of employees in
the bargaining unit, the Board may, if it is satisfied that the
employer representative is no longer qualified to act in that
capacity, revoke the appointment of the employer representative
and appoint a new representative.
This provision deals with employers' representation on the
board. It provides that the employers represented on the board
may, for reasons of their own, deem the employer representative
no longer qualified to represent them. We respect the fact that
these employers may repudiate—to put it bluntly—their
representative on the board, without going any further.
Based on the wording of the bill, the board may, if it is
satisfied that the employer representative is no longer
qualified to act in that capacity, revoke the appointment of the
employer representative and appoint a new representative.
We do not feel it is up to the board to interfere in such
matters. It is up to the employers represented to proceed as
they see fit and to designate those they see fit to designate.
The board's control over this aspect is a source of concern.
Taken to the extreme, the board could decide to retain the
representation made by a person whom the employer had indicated
it no longer wished to be represented by. This therefore
confers an undue control to the board, which is why we are
presenting this motion.
Then we have the last motion in Group No. 2, on page 36. This
is probably a marked improvement, and is the reason why the
public is so pleased, as we must admit it is, with the work of
the Simms commission and with the Simms report, which talks
about the balance that may have been struck.
This mechanism is an important one, and could be described as
modern. It is a response to a need that is recognized in the
report.
It is stated that the board can, despite a lack of evidence of
majority support, certify a union when there has been unfair
labour practice or serious infringement on the free choice of
employees to free negotiation, to free representation. Thus,
when the employer has obviously behaved in an unfair and abusive
manner, when there has been intimidation or violence, the
legislator may, via the board, authorize certification of a
trade union, may certify it to represent a given employee group.
As you have seen, the Reform Party is opposed to such a thing.
This is a societal choice, a social as opposed to purely
economic point of view, where a deaf ear is turned regardless of
even seriously unfair labour practices, as the government's
explanatory notes indicate.
We on this side are vehemently opposed to this. I personally
find it a very up to date, very generous point of view, provided
of course that the board has set out clear guidelines.
1205
It must be hoped that the board will show some wisdom, that it
will ensure that it does not become common practice to give such
accreditation without proper consultation or a vote. There
would, I assume, have to be exceptional circumstances for this
clause to be applied.
Those are, therefore, the comments I wanted to make on the four
motions in Group No. 2.
[English]
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the contents of Bill C-19 are
largely based on the recommendations of the Sims task force in
its report entitled “Seeking a Balance”.
While management and labour representatives may have wanted to
see more in some areas and less in others depending on their
perspective, the Sims recommendations were deemed acceptable as
an overall balanced package. This truly has been a bill of give
and take and has been successful in achieving a balanced package.
The official opposition has put forward motions that would
radically alter the balance of the package. The amendment it is
proposing to section 29 of the code would change current
certification procedures and require the board to hold
representation votes in all cases.
The Sims task force did not recommend such a change and major
federally regulated employers have not asked for such a change.
Majority support is the basis for union certification under part
I of the code. This would not change under Bill C-19.
Under current code provisions where an applicant union shows
proof of membership, signed membership cards and payment of $5
fees, of between 35% and 50% of the employees in the bargaining
unit, the board must hold a certification vote. Where the
application is supported by a majority of employees, the board
may hold a representation vote or may certify the applicant based
on the membership evidence which is verified by board officers.
The task force found no evidence that the current system is not
working or that it has been abused. In fact the task force noted
two advantages to the current system. First, it requires the
applicant trade union to be supported by the majority of
employees in the bargaining unit and not only the majority of
those who vote. Second, it reduces opportunities for
inappropriate employer interference with the employees' choice.
As recommended by the Sims task force, under Bill C-19 the
board's authority to verify union support by holding a
representation vote in any case is retained.
The official opposition is also seeking to remove the remedial
certification provision. This provision would allow the board to
certify a trade union which has not presented evidence of
majority support where the board is of the opinion that the union
would have obtained such support if not for unfair labour
practices committed by the employer.
Employers are uniquely positioned to have significant influence
over employees given their ability to profoundly affect an
employee's continuing job security and his or her economic
destiny. Where employees fear reprisals from their employer, they
may not freely express their true wishes even in a secret ballot
vote.
The remedial certification provision is designed to discourage
employers who might consider engaging in unfair labour practices
in order to avoid a unionized workplace. It is neither a new nor
a radical provision. Five provincial labour boards have similar
authority. They use it infrequently in order to remedy the worst
cases of employer interference or intimidation which makes it
impossible to determine the true wishes of employees through a
representation vote.
I would also like to remind members that the provision will be
interpreted by the new Canada Industrial Relations Board which
will have equal labour and management representation.
In commenting on this provision, a University of Toronto
professor of law told the standing committee “The ultimate
purpose of the provision reflects a very fundamental legal
principle and that is that one should not profit from one's own
wrong”. That is, the employer should not get the result it seeks
as a consequence of violating the code.
I agree with the professor and urge members to support this
provision.
1210
I would also like to briefly address the motion to delete the
provision in Bill C-19 which authorizes the board to determine
applications without holding an oral hearing.
As a quasi-judicial tribunal, the board is required in all cases
to respect the rules of natural justice. While affected parties
have the right to make representations to a tribunal, there is no
absolute right to an oral hearing. In fact the board and many
other tribunals regularly determine applications without holding
an oral hearing.
Board decisions are reviewable by the federal court of appeal.
One of the reasons the court can overturn a board decision is if
it finds that the board has failed to respect the rules of
natural justice.
Under Bill C-19 the board would continue to decide whether or
not an oral hearing is necessary based on the circumstances of
each case.
As is currently its policy, the board will hold an oral hearing
when one is required in order to establish facts through witness
testimony. This provision simply clarifies the board's authority
to make determinations based on the written evidence and
representations of the parties where the facts of the case are
not in dispute.
If the board were required to hold a hearing in every case,
administration of the code would become even slower and more
costly. This would not serve the interests of the parties or
contribute to positive labour management relations. I do not
support such an approach. I strongly urge members to oppose this
motion.
Finally, with respect to the other motion in this group, which
modifies the process for the revocation of an employer
representative in the longshoring industry, I fail to see the
rationale for the proposed change. The choice of an employer
representative belongs to the employees concerned. They should
be able to apply to the board to change representatives and the
board should authorize such a change if the representative no
longer has majority support or is otherwise no longer qualified
to act.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we certainly
had some confusion before I was allowed to speak. I guess at one
point I was lamenting the fact that I would not have many people
to speak to and now we have quite a government crowd listening to
my presentation. I am really pleased that the government is
taking so much interest in this issue and that I have such a
large group to speak to.
I am talking about this group of motions, but it is something
much bigger than that. This whole Bill C-19 is something that
all government members here should be aware of. What we are
really talking about is a situation that will impact on us as
Canadians in the 21st century in an international way.
As the House knows I have great interest in the international
community and in how well Canada is doing. We often put
ourselves out as number one. The United Nations ranks us as
number one, which is all well and good, but when we travel
extensively throughout the world we begin to realize that we are
falling behind.
We are falling behind the world in a number of areas. One of
these areas relates to Bill C-19. It is in our competitiveness,
our transportation network and our ability for sales in something
as valuable as grain and other commodities.
The crowd continues to build in the government ranks. Obviously
they are very interested in what I have to say.
In the globalization of the world, three major trading blocs are
developing: the European Union; the Americas, and all the hope
we have for that; and southeast Asia. We have to look at how
globalization relates to the actual situation of our labour and
that valuable resource this country has.
1215
We have a very highly trained and skilled workforce. We have a
good education system. However, as I pointed out, we are falling
behind in the world because we are failing to compete as well. We
are failing to be conscious of productivity, of making our
industries the most productive they can possibly be. We are not
keeping up the standard of quality control that we require. Most
of all, we are not being seen any more as a reliable supplier of
products such as our agricultural products.
The effect of prolonged strikes on our ability to be reliable
marketers in the world cannot be imagined until we talk to
Japanese merchants or Chinese purchasers that want to buy malt
barley from us. We start to realize the problem when Japanese
shipowners ask how we would like to have a ship that has been
booked for months and months sitting idle in a port for 30, 40 or
50 days. The ship was to make another shipment down the road yet
it was sitting there. It is all about transportation. It is all
about our ability to deliver. It is all about reliability.
We have to start thinking about these things. This place must
get off its old line of working in a vacuum, that Canada is the
greatest, that Canada is number one, and start thinking about how
we are to compete in the 21st century. That is where Bill C-19
becomes such a important bill.
This group of amendments and the previous groups of amendments
come down to democratization and what it means to Canadians. We
need to talk about this board. We need to ask ourselves if this
is the modern way to approach the problems I have identified. Is
this the best way to deal with the situation?
Our motion in Group No. 7 talks about having unions involved
only when they can get employees to sign union certification
cards at a level of 35%. That is not very high and that is not
really democracy, but at least it is a long way from where we are
now. The amendments in Group No. 2 proposed by our party will
help to bring democracy, accountability and to build a system
that is transparent, acceptable and competitive to take care of
the problem respecting our ability to deal in the global market.
We must look at this board. We must ask who should be on it. As
a number of previous speakers have indicated, who do we expect
will show up on a board like this one? If we follow the
traditional status quo of dealing with boards we know who will be
there. We know they will have to be fundraisers or retired or
defeated candidates. They will have to be somebody with
connections to be on this board. Is that what gives us the
transparent and functional board that our businessmen and farmers
want to have in the 21st century? I do not think so.
I will tell a story to point out what I mean. I attended the
APEC conference in Vancouver as the foreign affairs critic for
our party. I was at a function where most government officials
from the various countries were present.
At my table was a defeated Liberal candidate who had been given a
two day junket to Vancouver as his reward for having run and been
defeated by the Liberal Party.
1220
At this very important meeting there were officials from various
countries. At our table was a representative from New Guinea.
Our illustrious representative of the government asked some very
important questions of this delegate from Papua, New Guinea. He
said “You are from Papua. There is no such name as that. What
a silly name that is”. That is where that delegate lives; that
is his country; that is where he is from.
He thought it was quite a funny name and quite silly. Then he
went on to say “I thought this was just for people who were from
Asia. I did not know you could belong to APEC and not be from
Asia. What are you doing here? You don't look Asian”. Was
this is a diplomatic thing to say to this man from Papua, New
Guinea? He really was not impressed at that point and looked at
our representative and said “Canada is a member of APEC as
well”.
These are the types of people the government appoints to boards.
They end up on committees representing Canadians. This does not
allow us to become productive. This does not allow us to become
competitive. This does nothing for us in the international
community.
When we look at these motions, at Bill C-19 and the huge
government turnout that came to hear this message, I just have to
be impressed. I want to close at this point and think it would
only be fitting to ask for quorum so that some of the members who
were not here might come in to catch the last word or two.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Just to be clear, is
the member for Red Deer calling quorum?
Mr. Bob Mills: Yes, I am. I would like to call quorum.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have quorum.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Mr. Speaker, I just want to put
on record, because the hon. member indicated for the record that
there were no Liberal members present, that there were 18 Liberal
members here, one Reform—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Resuming debate, the
hon. member for Wetaskiwin.
1225
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, I
thank my colleague from Red Deer for raising the points that he
did. I would like to expand on what he said.
He was talking about the importance of the bill to international
relations. I would like to take that from a more local
perspective and to pose a question. How will passage of the bill
help the average Canadian? Is the average Canadian even aware of
it?
In order to do that we have to examine who the legislation
affects directly. It affects about 10% of Canada's workforce,
those people who work in federally regulated industries like
transportation, communication and all workers in the Northwest
Territories; in other words, about 700,000 of the Canadian
workforce.
We must ask ourselves what is the impact of the bill on the
average person in Canada. Specifically, will it improve things
for the average person in Canada? Does the passage of the bill
mean that there will be an improvement in for instance the mail
service? No, it does not. It does not preclude any work
stoppages such as the one we saw in mail service last winter. It
has not improved those situations at all.
If we are to open up the industrial relations portion of the
Canada Labour Code, why not address some of these problems that
mean something to the average person in Canada? Every person in
Canada at one point or another mails a letter or receives a
letter. First class mail is a monopoly of the post office. How
has the legislation improved mail service in Canada? The short
answer is that it has not improved mail service in Canada.
Perhaps it has improved Canada's ability to be a reliable
exporter of goods. Let us look at that. Canada has ports on
both ends of the country, a huge country that has reliable salt
water ports both on the west coast and east coast of the country.
They are extremely important outlets to world markets.
Let us hope that the industrial relations portion of the bill
has made some improvement here. As we examine the bill we have
to ask ourselves what those improvements could possibly be. Would
it mean that as a result of changes to the bill that Canadians
can more easily get products to port, loaded on ships, out
through the port and off to customers? No. As my colleague has
pointed out, we still have the bottleneck problem of trying to
get our goods through ports which with great regularity have some
sort of work stoppages.
To be fair, it is not always a strike. Oftentimes it is a
lockout. What difference does it make to the average person on
the street who is affected by the overall economy of Canada, the
impact of not being able to get our goods to port and on to world
markets? I do not think we have improved that at all.
Why have we not? The only thing that I can see is that the
government is unwilling to address the fact that we need to have
some sort of dispute settlement mechanism if collective
bargaining fails, and it has been failing; otherwise we would not
have these work stoppages. It works in some cases but it seems
like when things get critical the work stoppages occur right at
the time when we need ports the most.
The work stoppages in the post office never occur during summer
holidays.
They always seem to occur around Christmas-time when the demand
for the services of the post office is the greatest.
1230
As well, work stoppages at the ports do not seem to happen in
the spring when the farmers are busy seeding. They always seem
to happen in the wintertime when the farmers are cleaning out
their granaries, trying to market their crops. It affects a lot
more people than just simply the farmers. It affects the people
on the railways. It affects the people of Canada, in general,
because lost sales have to be recovered somehow.
Canada is not the only producer of these products. Whether they
are agricultural products, dehydrated alfalfa or potash, it does
not matter. These are products that we have to get to market in
order to maintain our businesses. As we are often told, and we
concur, this is a great, prosperous country in which to live, but
we have to pay attention to business. We simply cannot be in a
position where we can lose market after market and maintain a
buoyant position in the world.
When I say that this bill does not do anything to help the
average Canadian, it could be asked: Why is the average Canadian
not saying something? Why are they not up in arms? Why are they
not telling us to make some improvements?
As I pointed out, this only affects about 10% of the Canadian
workforce. The average Canadian is so busy trying to make a
living and paying their taxes that they do not have time to worry
about problems like this. That is the reason we are raising
these problems today and trying to make some improvements to this
bill.
We would like very much to see products, regardless of whether
they originate at the farmgate, at the lumber mill, or at the
mine, to be able to reach port through a dependable
transportation system, to be loaded onto ships and to be carried
to market.
This has a huge impact on the Canadian economy. Anything that
has a large impact on the Canadian economy has a large impact on
individual people who, at first glance, would say “That is the
Canada Labour Code. That is industrial relations. I do not work
for the federal government. It has no effect on me”. But it
does. It affects every person in Canada.
There are provisions in this bill which we consider to be less
than democratic. There are provisions which would enable the
Canada Industrial Labour Board to certify a union without a
majority indicating they would like to belong to the union.
Of course we will hear from the NDP, and we have heard from the
government, that it can only do that provided there is clear
evidence before the board that the employer has used some sort of
unfair labour tactics, as if implying that it is only the
employer who can use pressure tactics on a group of people.
I submit that this is undemocratic. Certification of a union
should take place by secret ballot. When a person goes into the
polling booth to cast a ballot nobody can put pressure on that
person. They have the security and the confidentiality of the
secret ballot. That is how unions should be certified.
We have heard many times about how this legislation seeks a
balance. I would submit that if it is fair to certify a union
without a majority, it should be fine to de-certify a union
without a majority.
Furthermore, I submit that the Canada Industrial Relations Board
will have tremendous pressure put on it by union bosses to see
every case brought before it as undermining the unions. Every
case will be pled on that basis.
1235
Mr. Darrel Stinson: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important
debate and I see a very, very pale attendance from the other
side. I would like a quorum call, please.
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: There is a quorum.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to do something a bit novel. I would like to actually
speak to one of the motions that we are dealing with currently,
which will be a bit of a shift from the last couple of speakers.
We heard everything from Papua, New Guinea, to international
affairs and how the labour code is going to have a broad-sweeping
international detrimental impact on our country's abilities.
To deal with some of the specifics of why we are really here
today, I would like to talk to Motion No. 7 put forward by the
member for Wetaskiwin which would require that a representation
vote be taken among employees in a unit and so on. The member
spoke briefly about this when he made his remarks. He thought it
would be a breach of democracy if there were situations in which
a union could be granted certification if there had been unfair
labour practice.
I want to point out some of the legal arguments that the board
has to take into consideration when it makes such a rare ruling
as granting automatic certification. Really what it hinges on is
the board being satisfied that it is not possible to determine
the true wishes of the employees because there has been
interference. In that situation it will grant certification. It
will give the employees the benefit of the doubt. Again, the
board will only do that if the employees have demonstrated that
without that interference the application for certification would
actually have gone through.
In the actual case histories where this has happened, union
representatives have had to show that they were well on their way
to signing up enough cards, that they were getting close to a
majority. Then the onus was on the union or the representative
of the workers to prove that there was interference to such a
degree that holding a vote would have been irrelevant because the
whole situation had been poisoned to the point where the true
wishes of the employees would not be known by a free vote.
Another point that the member made was that the privacy of the
ballot box, the sanctity of the voting booth, is a place where no
interference can take place. The result of every organizing
drive that I have been on was that the election was held at the
place of work; in fact, in the offices of the employer. Every
worker who wanted to vote on the issue had to march down a
gauntlet, walk down a hallway where all the bosses stood in the
doors to their offices with their arms folded and glared at
them to the point where we filed complaints. It has been very
much a problem in some cases.
Interference happens even without speaking. There is
psychological interference. It is very difficult to walk past
the person who has control over your economic destiny and do
something that person does not want you to do. Most employers do
not want a union in their workplace.
I disagree that there is no interference possible when it is a
secret ballot vote.
The member made the point that he did not think if union
representatives got 35% of the cards signed they should get a
vote. I think that is wrong. I think if 35% is indicated there
is a sufficient amount of support to test it. If certification
is not granted at 35%, then there will be a vote supervised by
the labour board. That is very fair, in my estimation.
1240
If over 50% of the cards are signed, the board will say that a
vote is not necessary, majority support has been demonstrated and
it should go ahead.
My argument is that it actually takes more of a conscious effort
to sign a union card. Those cards have to be written very
specifically to say the undersigned wants this particular
bargaining agent to represent them in all matters dealing with
terms and conditions, wages, et cetera. They have to read it,
sign that they have read it, dig in their pocket and hand over
$5. They have to consciously indicate that they want the union
to represent them. It is actually more meaningful in my mind
than walking into a ballot box, seeing yea or nay and putting an
x on it.
Having 35% of the cards signed is very meaningful to me. It
indicates a level of support that deserves to be tested with a
vote. If there is 50% plus one, then the people have spoken.
Motion No. 7 asks for a vote in all cases. Even if the union
manages to show that 100% of the cards have been signed,
according to this motion a vote would still have to be conducted.
People would be asked to vote twice on the same thing. How many
times are votes to be held? Until they get the answer they want?
Will people be made to vote over and over again until the desired
effect is achieved and they can finally cap it off? That would
be patently unfair. If majority support can be indicated, that
should be satisfactory.
Automatic certification is an aspect of fairness which we are
trying to achieve, as per the Sims task force and as per the
whole substance of Bill C-19. We are trying to create a balance.
We are trying to provide people with access to representation
without fear of coercion, intimidation or the misuse of the
historic imbalance in the power relationship that has always
existed between employers and employees. We are seeking to level
that playing field, at least for matters of labour relations, to
make the two parties more equal. They will not be afraid of each
other because they will have this equalizing legislation.
Bill C-19 does not put too much power in the hands of working
people and unions. All other matters are still the exclusive
right of management. Every collective agreement has a management
rights clause which states that management has the exclusive
right to dictate the means of production, the hours of work, et
cetera. That is an aspect of every part of labour management
relations. We are only talking about fairness in terms of access
to representation if the people want it.
There is nothing threatening in Bill C-19, nor in the amendments
dealing with certification. Adopting Motion No. 7 would be a
huge step backwards in terms of allowing people to make their own
choice on whether or not they want representation.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. We are on Government Orders which has to do with
government business. This is a bill the government wants to put
through. We happen to support it, but that it beside the point.
The point is that it is the government's responsibility to get
its legislation through. The purpose of quorum calls is not to
have people poke their noses through the curtain and then leave.
The idea is to keep a quorum so that when people are speaking to
legislation they are actually speaking to somebody on the
government side, so I would call quorum one more time.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have a call for
quorum. Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There is a quorum.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for West Kootenay—Okanagan.
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, there are so few people listening to this debate that it
would be a shame not to allow me to wait until the few members
who are present are actually listening.
1245
It seems that even when the Liberals are present they do not
choose to listen. That is a lot of the problem.
The hon. member for Guelph—Wellington rose on a point of order
earlier with regard to quorum calls and suggested the numerical
values of what is on her side of the House versus this side of
the House showed how wonderful the Liberals were.
As pointed out by the NDP member who just rose on a point of
order, it is not up to the opposition to supply people for quorum
calls when it is the government's bill that it is trying to put
through—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair is
interested in this but would be much more interested in the bill
being debated.
Mr. Jim Gouk: Mr. Speaker, I will try to get on course.
It is very difficult when there are such ridiculous statements
being made by the Liberals opposite.
I intend to address the motions in Group No. 2.
Mr. Ted White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
We just went through an exercise of calling quorum and right away
we have the government side disappearing again. I would like to
call quorum again.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I will ask the clerk
to count the members present.
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have quorum.
Mr. Jim Gouk: Mr. Speaker, as soon as I can get their
attention, I will carry on.
As I was saying, I intend to address specifically the motions in
Group No. 2. What we are talking about in the motions in Group
No. 2 are the powers and activities of the board.
I think it is appropriate, even though it is not in this group,
that we talk about what kind of board we have to enforce these
powers. If the make-up of the board is one way, then it may be
more comfortable with a power. If the make-up is a different
way—
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we have
quorum again.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I will ask the clerk
to count the members present.
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have quorum.
Mr. Jim Gouk: Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the powers
the board is going to have, particularly the ones contained in
Group No. 2 of the motions now before the House.
When we talk in terms of the make-up of this board, the
government wants to ensure the ability to put patronage
appointments into this board.
The powers we are discussing in Group No. 2 are the kind of
powers we are talking about, people who are put in there by
patronage and not necessarily by merit.
I had a situation earlier during the first term of my office as
MP where we needed a chair of the unemployment insurance
commission board, the board of referees in my riding.
We felt this was very important because it meant not proper
representation for the people who have problems in their riding.
They had to go all the way to the Okanagan.
We suggested the names of three people to be chairs of boards.
This will illustrate our concern under Group No. 2 regarding the
make-up of this board. One was the campaign manager for the
Conservative candidate, one was a non-Liberal and one was a
person whose party affiliation we did not know.
We put their names in because we believed they would be good
people. As it happened, we got no answer from the government on
what it was going to do and the chair remained empty.
One day my assistant and my wife were at the local college
speaking about politics. There also was the assistant campaign
manager of the failed Liberal candidate for the riding.
He came to my assistant and said “I hear you are concerned
about getting a chair appointed for the board of referees”. It
is interesting that he would have that information because we
only conveyed that to the government. He said “don't worry
about it because I'm being appointed”. I raised that in the
House and in the newspaper and made quite a fuss.
1250
A reporter from the Vancouver Sun actually went to the
riding and interviewed this individual. He told this individual
that his member of parliament was questioning the fact that this
was a patronage appointment and asked him how he would respond to
that. He said “Of course it is patronage. What is wrong with
that? How else would we attract people to our party?”
We do have a great concern about the make-up of this board and
how it will be in a position to deal with some of the situations
in this bill, particularly in Group No. 2.
Motion No. 6 deals with the potential streamlining of the board.
We think that perhaps the Bloc's heart was in the right place
when it wrote this but it is a bit of overkill. The Bloc is
talking about having no ability whatsoever in relatively minor
cases for the board to streamline things. We think it is
appropriate. When people are waiting for the board to make a
decision on a simple matter and fairly clear cut, we would like
to think that the board can pick up the speed of things.
Motion No. 7 is a particularly interesting one because now we
are talking about representation. By the sound of what the
labour critic for the NDP said on this, I suggest that perhaps he
has personal experience which has kind of poisoned his attitude
to this process. He is talking about having to march down this
line of hostile employers who have the power to read his mind.
Why else would he feel threatened? He could have gone in with a
big smile and given them a thumbs up. “Isn't that guy a good
fellow. Obviously he is going to vote our way”. In other words,
he feels they can read his mind and that is what is intimidating
him.
Believe me, knowing the hon. member, I would be a little
intimidated too if I were him and thought somebody could read my
mind at times. I will not even go to the natural line of that
out of respect for the hon. member. Even though our opinions
differ, I do have some level of respect for him.
When we start talking in terms of votes, the member is saying
35% is good enough. I will bet the Bloc would love to pass this
one. Imagine if the Bloc said “Wait a minute, if we can get
popular support for this, in the next Quebec referendum we only
need 35%”. If we go back to what the hon. member in the NDP
said, it is really hard to sign people up. So 35% is good
enough. Can anyone imagine what the Bloc would do with that?
Lucien Bouchard may be watching this debate today saying “If
this government says 35% is enough, I think we will adopt it in
the next referendum. If 35% of the population of Quebec votes to
separate we're out of here”. Interesting.
The Liberals may want to think about that when they come to vote
on that motion. Do they really want to say that 35% represents
the majority?
During the Quebec referendum we heard some people over there
suggesting that 50% is not even enough and that maybe it should
be 60%. Do they really want to set a precedent that states that
35% is good enough? I really hope they will start thinking about
that one.
On Motion No. 8 what we are really looking at is to have
democracy, pure and simple. The hon. member from the NDP
actually suggested there is no way employees could possibly have
a fair vote and if they sign up 35% that is proof positive. He
says there is no way they will ever get a fair vote because they
are intimidated by the employer. He is perhaps forgetting the
case with Wal-Mart where considerably less than 50% signed up.
The union that wanted to sign them up said it was unfair
management practice and it was interfered with. It demanded that
there should be certification because it was interfered with.
The board looked at this and agreed and so it certified them.
The employees did not want it and now they are seeking to have
the union decertified. So much for the arguments from the hon.
member.
I could go on considerably, as the House well knows, on
individual parts of this. Comments made from the Liberal side
alone could keep me going all day I am sure.
1255
I want to reassure members that I will be back and that they
will hear from me later today.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are looking at
Group No. 2, which contains four motions.
We are in favour of Motion No. 6 because we want to prevent the
arbitrary appointment of replacements for representatives who
have been duly appointed by their group.
Excuse me, I realize I made a mistake. I was in fact referring
to Motion No. 8.
I want to focus particular attention on the two motions proposed
by the hon. member of the Reform Party. In our opinion, Motion
No. 7 allows strikebreakers to be used, in that they could vote
for a bargaining unit, which we find excessive and unacceptable.
We in the Bloc Quebecois are strenuously opposed to any use of
strikebreakers, for reasons rooted in Quebec history.
There is a consensus on this in Quebec. The use of scabs
results in an escalation of violence and stirs up emotions. All
manner of problems arise in a labour conflict when scab labour
is brought in.
Still worse, what the Reform Party is proposing is for these
scabs to have a right to vote. As well as replacing employees,
they could take part in union decisions. This we find
unacceptable. It is not clearly set out but the possibility is
there and we are opposed to this.
Motion No. 30 refers to unfair labour practices by the employer.
It weakens the importance of recognition of duly unionized
workers and allows them to be replaced by people who are not
accredited.
I am raising this point again to shed a more general light on
this bill. In this House, two parties are opposed to the bill:
the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois. The other parties
support it because, in their opinion, it is a series of
compromises acceptable to labour and management.
However, the arguments on which the Bloc Quebecois' opposition
is based relate mainly to the possible use of scabs, which is
unacceptable in Quebec. Reform members on the other hand,
probably because of the type of concerns in the region of Canada
they represent, call for the existing rules to be relaxed. They
are asking for greater freedom than that currently provided by
the legislation and are opposed to the bill because they feel it
goes too far. In our opinion, it does not go far enough.
If I may use an analogy, it is somewhat reminiscent of the
Charlottetown accord.
Quebeckers were faced with a proposal from all of Canada's first
ministers, including the Quebec premier, who, rather
surprisingly and paradoxically, had agreed to compromise. This
compromise went so far that Quebec did not go for it.
1300
At the other end of the country, people felt too much power was
being given to Quebec.
This is not unusual in this House. There are two very important
cultures and attitudes in this country. Compromise must be
sought with respect to working conditions. Discussions around
work issues are about people's livelihood and are much more down
to earth than discussions about the Constitution as far as
people are concerned, since they deal with their everyday labour
relations.
However, we are dealing with two different cultures and views of
the work world that are hard to reconcile. I shall attempt to
demonstrate this today by outlining the rationale behind the
Bloc Quebecois' opposition to the Reform Party's proposals.
We believe that allowing scabs to vote on important issues in
the place of unionized workers is unacceptable and that is why
we are opposed to this practice.
[English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise on the Group No. 2 motions before us at report
stage of Bill C-19.
I am pleased to see you back in the chair, Mr. Speaker. I knew
you would be pleased that I was speaking whilst on your watch.
I would like to follow up a little more on the points raised by
the Reform member who spoke. It would be nice if we could call
the members here by their names. I realize it is tradition that
we have to call them by their riding names.
Something interesting happened to the New Zealand parliament
when it switched to the MMP system of representation. Half of
the members do not actually having ridings. They are selected on
the basis of party lists. The house was faced with the problem
of how to identify members when they cannot be called by a riding
name. They dispensed completely with calling people by the
ridings and now they call each other by their names. It raises
the question why it was even necessary to have this tradition in
the past anyway. But I digress as I tend to do, and I will get
back to the point we were talking about.
A little earlier my colleague from the Kootenay area riding was
talking about the 35% threshold for certifying a union. It
really puzzles me how the NDP, which claims to be the New
Democratic Party, can argue against democracy in this way.
I reinforce the argument of my colleague. How could you
possibly take 35% to be representative of the majority? As my
colleague mentioned, if the Bloc Quebecois had that rule for
their Quebec referendum, especially if they could argue coercion,
that people on the way to the polling booth to vote had to walk
through an armada of no signs, they would automatically get
certified for separation. It is totally ludicrous. If you have
democracy you have democracy and that means a majority.
Perhaps the NDP support for such a concept is based on the fact
that the workers have to compulsorily contribute to the NDP
through their union dues. There are plenty of workers out there
who do not want to do that.
The Wal-Mart affair in Ontario is certainly a good example of
that. The Canada Industrial Relations Board in its wisdom
certified the union when 151 of the Wal-Mart employees at the
Windsor store voted against a union and 43 voted for it. How
could a union possibly be certified under those circumstances?
There were 151 against and 43 for a union and it was certified.
Why? Because the CIRB made a random decision that the employer
was unfair.
Now the workers are organizing to decertify. I would say that
almost certainly indicates that their will has been absolutely
defied by the Canada Industrial Relations Board.
It is absolutely appalling that those people on the CIRB would
use their political bent, their ideology to force a decision upon
unwilling workers.
1305
We will certainly be watching the ongoing happenings with that
particular decertification drive. I think it will show
conclusively that workers want control of their own destiny. They
do not want these sorts of undemocratic laws forced upon them.
Reform's Motion No. 30 would fix this problem of 35%. The bill
as it stands allows the Canada Industrial Relations Board to
certify a union even if there is no evidence of majority support
if the board believes there would have been support had it not
been for the employer's unfair labour practices. That is a really
subjective judgment.
The determination of what constitutes an unfair labour practice
is left entirely up to the Canada Industrial Relations Board. The
Wal-Mart case as I said illustrates that. What we would like to
see is that a union not be certified unless there is a secret
ballot held and a majority of the workers have to support that
idea of a union.
Motion No. 7 also proposed by the Reform Party deals with the
Canada Labour Code which states that the board may, and I
underline may, hold a representational vote on union
certification to satisfy itself that the workers want the union.
The word is “may” and we would like to see that as “must”.
Again, how can we possibly guarantee a democratic process if we
do not allow people to vote? The same members in this House who
want to certify unions with 35% with all sorts of arbitrary
procedures would never ever agree to such procedures in their own
ridings.
You can laugh, Mr. Speaker. Can you imagine the situation in
your own riding if that were to happen. You probably would not
be sitting there today. All sorts of strange things could happen
and you could be on the patronage bandwagon today, Mr. Speaker,
looking for a position on the immigration and refugee board, or
maybe on this Canada Industrial Relations Board. You would
certainly deserve it, Mr. Speaker. You have been here long
enough to prove that you are part of club Chrétien. I think you
have earned enough membership points. You might even get to the
Senate, I do not know.
In any event, in this group there are two Reform motions which
obviously we support. There are two Bloc motions which we
oppose. Members before me have indicated briefly why we would do
that.
First the Bloc wants to delete the clause in the bill which
allows the CIRB to make decisions without oral hearings in fairly
straightforward cases. We think it clogs the system if there is
too much process. Therefore we are not supporting that
particular motion.
The other one proposed by the Bloc has to do with the common
practice where a group of employers will join forces to have just
one agent represent them in negotiations. The amendment from the
Bloc removes the requirement that the board must satisfy itself
that the employer representative is no longer qualified to act in
that capacity before revoking the appointment. The Bloc amendment
provides for the automatic removal of the employer representative
upon receipt of an application from one or more of the employers
in the group and the appointment of a new representative.
We believe that there should be a vote of the majority of the
members in this employer's group before such an action is taken.
We really feel that the Bloc motion would weaken the employer's
association position if they could just have one employer come
along and the same sort of lack of process that we are talking
about on the union side would suddenly be appearing on the
employer side as well.
That deals with my comments on the Group No. 2 motions. I
realize you probably need to take a break soon, Mr. Speaker, but
I hope you are back in time for my speech on the Group No. 3
motions.
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
many months have gone by. Much work has been done. Many
speakers have been heard. A report called “Seeking a Balance”
was even presented to the minister with many comments on how to
make the Canada Labour Code fair for all parties involved, both
labour and employers.
1310
As we all know, federal labour jurisdiction encompasses some
very important sectors of our economy, for example,
interprovincial transportation, aeronautics, broadcasting, banks
and shipping. The federal government also has jurisdiction over
labour matters involving the federal public service. In all,
federal labour legislation governs about 10% of the Canadian
workforce.
This is the reason why we as legislators must make sure changes
that will be made to part I of the Canada Labour Code are changes
dated 1998 and not 1965. We must make sure that these changes
serve today's and future generations of workers and employers.
In November 1996 Bill C-66 was introduced to parliament. It was
rushed through the House of Commons like we expect the government
will want to do with Bill C-19. Then as is the custom the Senate
social affairs committee gave Bill C-66 careful consideration. PC
senators outlined major flaws with the bill especially with
respect to the privacy issue, replacement workers and
certification as a remedy. This is the issue I wish to delve into
at this time.
Here we are on May 7, 1998 speaking on many flaws that still
exist and proposing solutions to these flaws. As the member of
parliament for the riding of Madawaska—Restigouche, elected
democratically by the citizens of my great riding, I have a lot
of difficulty with a clause which states: “The board may
certify a trade union despite the lack of evidence of majority
support”.
Having a sentence like this in a bill from a democratically
elected House, the House of Commons of Canada, should certainly
raise many eyebrows. Whatever happened to democracy? Mr.
Speaker, do you think the Prime Minister is travelling too much
to Cuba?
Clause 46 states that if the employer “has failed to comply
with section 94 and the board is of the opinion that, but for the
unfair labour practice, the trade union could reasonably have
been expected to have had the support of a majority of the
employees in the unit”.
What does the government consider to be unfair labour practice?
Let me shed some light on the interpretation that was given to a
clause much like the one before us now.
As stated previously by an hon. member, consider the case last
winter in which a majority of 151 to 43 employees of Wal-Mart in
Windsor voted against unionization. The Ontario Labour Relations
Board ruled that the employer had engaged in unfair labour
practices and made them all join the steelworkers union.
What was the unfair labour practice? What big bad deed did the
employer practice in? What action was so reprehensible that
almost three-quarters of the employees voting against
unionization had to be overturned?
Managers of the store when they were asked whether the store
would close if it were unionized followed the legal advice they
had received and refused to comment. They did not say anything.
That was an unfair labour practice. What were they supposed to
say? A yes would almost certainly have been judged to be
intimidation but a no might well have led to a lawsuit had higher
labour costs would in fact put the store out of business.
In the OLRB's view, the managers' refusal to answer was such a
grievous violation of workers rights that it invalidated not only
that vote but any future votes as well. Since the managers could
not avoid unfair labour practice by saying yes, saying no, or
saying nothing, it is reasonably clear that legislation of this
sort draws its principal inspiration from Lewis Carroll.
Following the Ontario decision, a similar situation was under way
in British Columbia.
1315
[Translation]
This shows how a bad decision can snowball. We should take a
stand against this attempt to void a democratic vote on a mere
whim. It is ridiculous.
During the 1997 election campaign, the Progressive Conservative
Party promised to strengthen the protection conferred by labour
laws on workers by increasing their democratic rights. We would
have required a secret ballot with respect to matters involving
union representation.
It can therefore be argued that increasing workers' democratic
rights includes respecting the wishes expressed in a secret
ballot.
What is the point of holding a vote, if it can be overturned for
any old reason? In support of my argument, I wish to refer to
the conclusions of the Standing Senate Committee on Social
Affairs, Science and Technology, which, as I said earlier, made
an exhaustive study of Bill C-66.
In its report, the Senate committee wrote as follows:
Your committee has heard concerns that the provision in Clause
46 which would allow the Canada Industrial Relations Board to
certify a trade union as a remedy for employer unfair labour
practices, runs counter to the principle that certification
should be based solely on the majority support of the employees
in the bargaining unit. We strongly endorse the principle of
majority support as a basis for certification and note that Bill
C-66 retains the Board's authority to verify support by holding a
representation vote in any case. We strongly recommend that the
Board exercise the jurisdiction it has under section 29(1) of
the Canada Labour Code and order a representation vote as a
matter of course.
We believe that the concerns that have been
expressed to the committee on this clause are serious and urge
the utmost caution in applying this exceptional provision.
Though a number of provincial labour statutes include similar
provisions, they are used by provincial labour boards in rare
cases, where an employer commits a serious unfair labour
practice and where a representation vote is unlikely to provide
a true measure of the employees' wishes.
We recommend,
therefore, that in interpreting and applying Section 99.1, the
Canada Industrial Relations Board should respect the findings of
the Sims Task Force, namely, that this is an unusual remedy
which should be reserved for “truly intolerable conduct” by an
employer. Your committee has concerns about whether the recent
use of a similar clause by the Ontario Labour Relations Board in
the Wal-Mart case is in fact an appropriate use of such a
measure.
In its report, the Senate committee, the majority of whose
members are Liberals, would probably have proposed an amendment
deleting clause 46 if it had had the time.
I therefore hope that members of the House will support this
amendment.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I hesitate to rise because I certainly do not want it to be
thought by anyone who supports Bill C-19 that I am in any way
supportive of the filibuster the Reform Party is performing for
us today with respect to Bill C-19.
Many things have been said that I think should not go
unanswered.
The debate on Bill C-19 which has gone on at various stages—and
we are now at report stage—has shown the profound bias that
exists in the Reform Party against labour unions, wage earners
and their right to organize themselves collectively to defend
their interests in the workplace and in the economy in general.
1320
Even though I know a lot about the Reform Party, I have to say
that I am shocked at the vehemence and the unfairness with which
it advanced these arguments. For example, a Reform member talked
about his objection to the notion that 35% of a workforce signing
its cards would be sufficient to create a vote on whether or not
to certify the union in that workplace.
The member did two things. First, he tried to give the
impression that the 35% in and of itself was enough to certify
the union. No one has ever said that and that is not what the
bill says. For the member to try to give that impression, I do
not know whether he is as dumb as a bag of hammers or whether he
is trying to give a false impression to the House. The fact is
that the bill is very clear that 35% is what causes a vote to be
taken. Thirty-five per cent has never been regarded sufficient
for certification in itself. It is very interesting the member
would be so concerned about—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: They do not like what I am saying
because they are desperately trying to change the subject over
there.
It is very interesting the member would dump all over the notion
that 35% is enough. This morning his leader had a press
conference and announced the Reform new Canada act that has
provision for a constitutional constituent assembly at which
things would be decided about the constitution of the country.
What would it take to cause this vote to take place at the
constitutional constituent assembly? It would take 3% of
eligible electoral voters, but when it comes to a union 35% is
not enough. When it comes to a union, they will have to win the
vote before they have the vote.
Who are we trying to kid? Only somebody who was profoundly
anti-union could hold such a double standard that when it comes
to unions 35% is not enough to cause a vote to take place but
when it comes to the country 3% is enough.
I dare members to look back at all the proposals that have been
made by individual Reform MPs and by the Reform Party as to what
would be enough to cause a referendum to take place in various
situations. I would bet that in none of those situations did
they ask that it be 35% to cause a vote to be taken.
However, when it comes to unions, when it comes to working
people, when it comes to wage earners having the opportunity to
vote as to who will represent them in the workplace, the Reform
Party has an entirely different standard. When it is a vote that
Reformers want to take place, 3% will do, but when it comes to
unions 35% is not enough. Let this double standard speak for
itself.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise after the member who just spoke. That was a most
interesting interpretation.
I would like to read for his benefit the specific clause being
debated and the amendment actually being proposed. The following
is being proposed in government legislation:
29.(1) The Board may, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to
whether employees in a unit wish to have a particular trade union
represent them as their bargaining agent, order that a
representation vote be taken among the employees in the unit
where it is satisfied that at least thirty-five per cent of the
employees in the unit are members of the trade unit applying for
certification.
1325
The Reform Party is proposing to leave all that in place with
one change, that is that the word “may” be changed to the word
“shall”. That is the whole issue.
What in the world was this gentleman who just spoke talking
about? What were those people over there clapping about? What
were they all laughing about? They do not understand their own
bill. It is unbelievable.
We have the NDP railing about things. What the NDP member was
actually saying is in the bill. What is in the bill is what the
government wants. All we want to do is to make sure that this
democratic principle is observed. That is the issue. When will
the NDP learn what the English language actually says? When will
those hon. members recognize what they mean when legislation is
put before the House?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. While I am sure the
debate is very energetic, it is very difficult for the Chair to
hear the hon. member for Kelowna who has the floor. I am trying
to listen, but it is exceedingly difficult to hear with all the
enthusiastic debate going on in the Chamber. Perhaps we could
have a little more order so that the hon. member for Kelowna
could resume his remarks.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. I cannot hear for Reformers heckling their own member.
I appreciate—
The Deputy Speaker: The Speaker cannot hear for the noise
in the Chamber and we will leave it at that.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful that we
can have such a spirited discussion about democracy. It means
that democracy works. It has a chance.
I would like to move to another point. It has to do with
another proposal being made. It would amend subclause 16 (4.1)
in the proposed legislation and reads:
On application of one or more employers of employees in the
bargaining unit, the Board may revoke the appointment of the
employer representative and appoint a new representative.
That is a very serious amendment. It says that one person may
determine that someone should not represent them any more. It
takes away any kind of secondary or objective evaluation of
whether the individual representing a group is qualified to
continue to be that representative.
It should not simply be one person's whim or fancy that allows
someone to be taken out of a negotiation situation. All they
might say is that they do not understand or they do not agree
with him and as a consequence want him out of there.
There has to be some protection against the kind of arbitrary
and fanciful thinking which the motion suggests. I would have to
speak against it and suggest that there has to be a somewhat
fairer system of doing it, a fairer process.
I will move to the third area I want to comment on concerning
the business of changing one of the motions that has to do with
the business of who may decide what is unfair labour practice.
1330
The suggestion in the bill would read that the CIRB would be
both judge and advocate. On the one hand, this board watches
over the process and makes decisions about whether that is fair
and whether it is going forward in the manner that it ought to
proceed. Then if one of the parties is judged to be, in the
opinion of the CIRB, unfair or engaging in unfair labour
practices it is not totally impartial.
There was a commitment earlier in the process for them to work
directly with these people. If now it states that they are being
unfair in the kind of labour practices that they are engaging in
they are in fact arguing against themselves.
I suggest that this very example took place in Ontario in the
Wal-Mart case where the employees said they did not want to be
certified. However, because somebody took the interpretation
that management had engaged in unfair labour practices, we are
now going to say they can certify. It totally denies the
realization that a vast majority of these people did not want the
union.
Members might say that was in the heat of the moment, emotions
prevailed and there were unfair labour practices. However,
members should notice what has happened since then. Recently we
have the realization that the Windsor store alone voted 151 to 43
in favour of the union's being decertified. Is this not a clear
indication that the earlier ruling by the CIRB was wrong?
There are three reasons why we should oppose these motions in
Group No. 2. First, to recognize the business of having only one
person to allow another person to be taken out of the negotiation
procedure is wrong. We must oppose the proposal within the
proposed legislation that the board may deny democracy to
operator.
If we in this House want to be honest with each other and want
to be a clear debating society, then we must agree that we should
take whatever steps we can to assure that democracy takes place
not only here but in all the agencies and in all the ways in
which we negotiate disagreements or where we have differences of
opinion. We must preserve that.
We must also preserve the judicial procedure at least in
principle that allows fairness and equity to take place so that
judge and advocate cannot exist at the same time and make
arguments against that.
There is another point I want to raise which has to do with the
democracy in this place. Could it be that the government of the
day could actually take it into its consideration and agree that
maybe there are times, even after it has gone through second
reading and the committee process, that it could entertain,
accept and agree to amendments in the legislation that make sense
and that will guarantee the very fundamental issue on which this
country was built, democracy.
If this government does nothing else, perhaps it could see it in
its heart and in its mind to change that particular provision in
the bill to say the board shall guarantee that democracy operates
with those people who want a union or who do not want a union in
a particular area. This has nothing to do with being pro or
anti-union. It means people have a right to decide how they want
to govern themselves and how they want their relationships with
their employers to be obtained.
Surely it is in the heart of all of us to allow workers as well
as anyone else to exercise and demonstrate their democratic
rights.
Mr. Allan Kerpan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I listened to my colleague give such an eloquent speech.
It is a real shame that there are not more here to hear that.
When I look around the Chamber I realize there are fewer members
than the required number for quorum.
1335
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: There is a quorum.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, there is a feeling in the House that this is an
important debate and that there should be some close attention
paid. That sends a signal. We are now speaking on changes to
the labour code. There are four motions in Group No. 2. I will
make a few brief remarks to assist my colleagues in making a good
decision with respect to these proposed amendments.
The first Bloc amendment states that the provision in the bill
that allows the board to make decisions without oral hearings
should be deleted. In other words, the board must hold oral
hearings in every case before it makes a decision. On the face
of this there could be some good arguments for saying that
decisions should not be made without proper evidence being before
the board. So it would not be palm tree justice but there would
be some real evidence. There would be a balanced review of the
evidence before making a decision.
The background of this provision in the bill would allow the
board to make decisions not without evidence but with written
rather than oral evidence. If after reviewing the written
evidence the board feels that an oral hearing is necessary, it
could proceed to that stage of the process. The debate on this
amendment is whether the board should be required in all cases to
receive oral evidence before it makes decisions or whether it can
make decisions based only on written evidence in some cases. It
was envisioned that this would be on minor issues although there
would be nothing to keep the board from making major decisions
without oral evidence.
There are arguments on both sides of the issue. At this stage
it might be good to give the board the flexibility to make some
procedural and minor decisions based simply on written evidence
in order to expedite its proceedings and to make sure there is
not a backlog or an administrative overload on the board. There
could be a concern that the board might abuse that, that it might
make decisions without receiving the proper evidence or allowing
all the parties to have their say. If that is a real and
substantial concern, then the Bloc's motion makes some sense. We
need to weigh that carefully. As the parliamentary secretary is
fond of saying, we need to come out with a balance on it.
The second amendment was put forward by the official opposition.
It has caused some interesting fireworks in the House due to a
misinterpretation of this amendment by one of the NDP members, a
member who almost never makes that kind of mistake. I have the
highest respect for that member and his logic process.
However, in this case the bill provides that if 35% of workers
say that they want a representational vote, then the board may
call a vote. Our amendment states that if 35% of workers want a
representational vote, then the board shall call a vote.
In other words, democracy shall work, not may work, if the board
decides that workers get the great gift of getting to exercise
democracy.
1340
If the NDP feels that having to hold a representational vote
with only 35% of members indicating they want certification is
not democratic, that it should be 50%, I would very strongly
support an amendment to raise the bar from 35% to 50%. I invite
my friends in the NDP to make that amendment if they feel that
there needs to be even stronger democracy in this provision.
At this point we would be content to say to workers that if a
reasonable number want union certification then there will be a
vote as to whether that will be put into place. If the NDP wants
that number of workers to be raised then it can make an argument
for doing that. At this point the issue is not the number of
workers who want certification, it is the fact that even if some
workers do want certification the board may or may not choose to
allow them to make that decision. That totally flies in the face
of democracy, which is something that the New Democrats I am sure
would find absolutely repugnant. I know they will be strongly in
support of this democratization amendment put forward by the
official opposition.
In our country as far as I know, although I know some Liberal
backbenchers would argue with me, we still have a democracy. I
know that democracy is flouted and abused and repressed, sadly,
in procedures of the House as we perceived recently, but it is
still a principle that even the government pays some lip service
to. I hope we would not be denying our workers the democratic
traditions of our country, not stripping away their democratic
rights and replacing their ability to make free and
self-determining decisions and having their rights replaced by
some appointed board which decides what is best for them.
Surely this dictatorship approach, this father knows best, this
small group of elites knows best for the workers should be
absolutely repugnant to every party in the House, most especially
to the NDP. I expect that this amendment will pass very easily
because of our fervent and deep commitment to the democratic
process in this country.
The next motion is a Bloc motion which says that if there is a
representative of employers, a group of employers, in bargaining
negotiations and if even one employer from that group makes an
application then the employer representative will be turfed and
replaced by somebody else the board chooses. What the Bloc is
essentially saying is that unless there is unanimity an employer
representative is going to be toast.
We have to think through the implications of this. If there has
to be unanimity on the part of the employers before someone can
act on their behalf, then are we going to apply the same
principle to workers and say there has to be unanimity among
workers before a union can act on their behalf? If that is the
case there would have to be 100% vote to validate the
certification of a union to represent workers. Because the
unanimity principle has been put into place for employers, in
fairness the same principle should hold true for employees, for
workers.
Is the Bloc saying that its unanimity principle is the one we
want to go on in this respect? I do not think so. I think the
democratic principle is based on a majority decision. Unless the
block is saying there has to be unanimity across the board in the
expression of who is going to represent both employers and
employees, clearly it would be very inconsistent, very unfair and
be a completely tilted playing field were we to support the Bloc
motion.
I appeal to my friends in the Bloc to consider how illogical this
amendment is unless they are going to follow it up with the
requirement of unanimity among workers before a union can be
certified.
1345
The last amendment is a Reform amendment. It essentially
addresses the democracy principle as well, saying that we must
get rid of the provision that the board can certify a union even
if the workers say they do not want one, if the board says that
there was an unfair labour practice. I do not have time to get
into this. I know that many of my colleagues will speak
eloquently and fervently on this.
Suffice it to say that if we really believe in democracy in this
country we had better start putting our money where our mouth is
in this kind of legislation.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to speak to Bill C-19 and the second group of
amendments.
I would like to congratulate my colleague from Wetaskiwin for
all the work that he has put into this matter before and during
the committee debates that have been carrying on.
Today we are looking at different groups of amendments and we
are now debating Group No. 2. The one I would like to dwell on
is the democratic aspects of our amendment.
We need to make sure that democracy in this country can go
through all aspects of our society. This bill states that the
Canada Industrial Relations Board may order a representational
vote on union certification. That is just not good enough. We
would like to have our amendment brought forward which says that
35% of the employees need to sign a card indicating they want
union certification.
There was a recent case in Ontario. A similar provision in the
Ontario labour relations act imposes stricter requirements on
automatic certification. Even under a stricter provision the
Ontario Labour Relations Board in the recent Wal-Mart decision
certified the steelworkers union as the bargaining agent for a
group in a Wal-Mart store in Windsor despite the fact that 70% of
the employees voted against the union. The board based its
decision on membership evidence submitted by the steelworkers
union which showed it had support of 44% of the employees in the
bargaining unit.
It just goes to point out that if this bill is not treated
properly, it can open up all kinds of strange parameters and
undemocratic proceedings. The fact we would like to see 35% of
employees cards signed would go a long way to stopping some of
the problems that exist.
This bill and its predecessor, Bill C-66, are basically flawed
for some of the reasons we are stating today. Stable labour
relations are absolutely essential for this country to grow and
to thrive, for people to invest in Canada and to reinvest.
Companies that are looking to expand and to offer new services
across Canada want stable labour relations so that they can count
on their businesses being open and being able to supply Canadians
with the services that they want.
With this whole entrepreneurial aspect of our country where a
person can come up with a good idea, promote it, develop it and
put it in place to service Canadians, it is necessary to have in
place the labour to fulfil these aspirations. We would like to
see amendments to the bill to allow that to happen.
The democratic aspect of what we are promoting in the Group No.
2 amendments is part of what we believe in. We know that the rest
of the members of the House will develop their opinions and
support us as well.
1350
The Bloc has a motion that allows one or more employees in a
group to appoint a new representative. That does not follow with
what we would like to see done so we will be opposing that
motion.
There are other items my colleague from Wetaskiwin has brought
forward to show the weakness of this bill. One of them is access
to offsite workers. We will be handling that at a later date.
We saw a couple of years ago during the winter that we could not
for various reasons get our products to port, and once they got
to port we could not get them out. This bill is to help relieve
that situation. It guarantees that once a product or grain gets
to port, it will be shipped. We have a whole lot of things to
address in the labour act to enable those products to get from
the farm gate or from the manufacturer's gate to the port.
As we go through the scenario of looking into the problems that
existed two years ago that helped to almost bankrupt our
agricultural community on the prairies, we have to make sure that
we go back through every aspect of the labour act and put forth
changes that will make it more acceptable and make it more
friendly to the people who are shipping goods. That is why we
have brought forward our amendments. We have to make sure that
what happened in Windsor, Ontario cannot happen elsewhere.
The Canada Industrial Relations Board has also made some changes
to how it is going to structure its chairs and the length of
service. Many aspects here need to be looked at considerably. If
we can start with our amendment that will keep this bill
democratic and allow members of a union to have a
representational vote of 35%, this will help alleviate one of the
major obstacles and will fall into place with some of the other
amendments we are proposing in the other groups.
This bill is going to have far reaching effects for years to
come in Canada. It is important that it be democratic. It is
important that it address the issues that are of concern in the
labour industry. It is important to supply an atmosphere in
Canada in which people will be confident in investing. It is
important to the producers and manufacturers that when they have
made a commitment to somebody offshore to deliver a product in a
timely fashion that they are able to do it. If that cannot be
done, our reputation is harmed. It is seriously affected and we
lose that trust we have throughout the world.
I hope the rest of the House will support our amendments.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate you for getting the riding name right. I
know how difficult it is for hon. Speakers to recognize 300
members, or 298 as the case may be, with the few who serve in
your capacity. It is hard to remember all these riding names.
Some of them are quite difficult to remember. I know that you
struggle with mine from time to time so I do appreciate the fact
that you got it right today.
It is a pleasure for me to address this very important piece of
legislation. These report stage amendments to Bill C-19,
amendments to the Canada Labour Code, were brought forward by
members of the opposition parties. In speaking to this particular
group of amendments, it is important to highlight one of the
fundamental flaws found in this legislation, which a number of my
colleagues and colleagues from other parties have been addressing
today, and that is the clause which is very undemocratic.
1355
We have heard some of the other members speak to the fact that a
group of workers and employees could have union certification
despite the wishes of the majority of those same employees. As
some of my colleagues have stated over the past number of hours,
that is a very serious breach in light of the fact that we
supposedly live in a democratic country.
As some have said, we see in this particular Chamber from time
to time that democracy is repressed or it is flouted and put
down. The fact remains that we do live in a democratic country.
For a government to bring forward these particular amendments to
the Canada Labour Code which would see the wishes of a minority
superimposed over those of the majority is clearly wrong.
I support the Reform Motion No. 7 which is included in Group No.
2. The legislation as it now exists says that the board, the
CIRB, may order a representational vote on union certification to
satisfy itself that the workers want the union. Our amendment
calls for the board to hold a representational vote when 35% of
the employees sign cards indicating that they want that union
certification. That is a reasonable amendment.
I have risen so many times in the House both in the last
parliament and in this parliament to speak to amendments that
have been well thought out and put together in all sincerity by
members from both sides of the House and by all four opposition
parties. The amendments are brought forward to try to improve
legislation either at the committee level or in the Chamber at
report stage as we are doing today and as we have seen, we cannot
even get a quorum from time to time.
It is the government's responsibility to ensure that it at least
goes through a certain facade or charade of having a few members
present—
The Speaker: My colleague, I know that you are in the
middle of your talk. Of course you will be recognized first when
we come back to debate. You still have six minutes to speak on
this particular topic.
Because it is almost 2 p.m. we will now proceed to Statements by
Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
PORT COLBORNE HIGH SCHOOL
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
gives me great pleasure today to congratulate my alma mater, Port
Colborne High School, its students, staff and fellow alumni on
its 75th anniversary.
To celebrate this historic occasion Port High is hosting a gala
reunion this weekend. In many cases three generations of Port
Colborne residents have studied at Port High and several thousand
will return to this fine school to celebrate this auspicious
occasion.
It is something we often take for granted in our country, that
we have the finest system of education in the world. We educate
so many young people, send them out into the changing global
economy and global society to meet the challenges of their time.
Academically, athletically and socially, Port High ranks first
among equals.
The reunion is an opportunity to celebrate our friendships past
and present, to celebrate our dedication to learning and
especially to celebrate the teachers whose work has inspired and
guided us and our young people. All the while we will
commemorate 75 years of exemplary secondary education in Port
Colborne.
Ad astra per ardua.
* * *
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it has been 331 days since the justice minister promised
to reform the Young Offenders Act. Canadians want this minister
to deliver on that promise, not procrastinate, evade and neglect.
Public rallies are being held across the country to urge this
minister to move.
In Calgary this Saturday, May 9 at 2.15 p.m. concerned citizens
will gather at the Court of Queen's Bench and then will parade to
the McDougall Centre to express their views on changes to the
Young Offenders Act.
I urge all Calgarians and citizens across southern Alberta to
attend this rally and support measures to improve the safety and
security of all Canadians.
* * *
1400
[Translation]
SPORT FISHING
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I take this
opportunity to tell you about another excellent government
initiative.
On May 2, the secretary of state responsible for Canada Economic
Development announced a $1.4 million program, in co-operation
with the Quebec government, for the voluntary buyback of the
last commercial salmon fishing licences on the Lower North
Shore. The federal government will contribute $700,000 under
that program.
With this initiative, the Canadian and Quebec governments are
following up on their commitment to the North Atlantic Salmon
Conservation Organization to limit interception fishing as much
as possible, so as to reduce its impact on migration corridors.
This initiative will also promote the development of sport
fishing which, according to estimates, will generate annual
economic benefits of about $2 million in the Lower North Shore
region.
This shows once again that Canada is a country that works,
contrary to what some may think, to their own detriment.
* * *
WORLD RED CROSS DAY
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
tomorrow, May 8, is World Red Cross Day.
The Red Cross has been a pillar of civil society. It was
instrumental in the signing of the convention on the elimination
of antipersonnel mines by 122 countries, in Ottawa, last
December.
In Oslo, back in September 1997 when the text of the convention
was being worked out, I was privileged to have long discussions
with Red Cross officials and with victims who benefited from
that organization's help. One had to see the emotion with which
these victims expressed their true and personal appreciation for
this great community organization to understand the importance
of its role.
There are close to 100 million land mines in the world. Each
month—and I mean each month—these mines make 2,000 new
victims. Given the new world order in which civil society is
going to play a vital role, I wanted to mark the day celebrating
the Red Cross, which is one of the great humanitarian
institutions of the world.
* * *
[English]
CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in tribute to Michael Coulis who has recently begun a
cross-country bicycle tour to heighten awareness about the issue
of child sexual abuse.
Michael is working in conjunction with Victims of Violence, a
national charitable organization dedicated to the prevention of
crimes against children and the improvement of the situation of
victims of violent crime.
Mr. Coulis is himself a victim of childhood sexual abuse and has
dedicated this trip to help curtail these crimes that have been
characterized by their victims as a life sentence.
Reform shares Michael's concern about these victims and has long
called for tougher sentences and a victim's bill of rights. I
applaud Michael for his efforts.
I wish to point out that I currently have a votable private
member's bill, Bill C-284, which is designed to better protect
children from known sexual offenders. I encourage other members
of this House to support my bill and offer some hope to Michael
and others who share these legitimate concerns.
* * *
THE ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Mrs. Hilda Bagnell of Louisbourg started working at National Sea
Products in 1962 and stayed there until the industry collapsed.
But on Friday, May 9, Mrs. Bagnell along with hundreds of others
from Cape Breton and across Atlantic Canada will have their TAGS
lifeline cut.
Across Cape Breton from Louisbourg, two fishermen were told last
Wednesday night, the night before the annual lobster fishery
opened, that their quotas had been slashed by 40%. The plant in
Cheticamp will now only process 400,000 tonnes compared to over
one million last year.
Imagine how we would feel if we received a 40% pay cut with no
notice. Imagine working for nearly 40 years and then being
abandoned by the government whose policies had cost you your job.
I invite people to come to Atlantic Canada. I will show them
the devastation caused by these unthinking, unfeeling policies.
Then perhaps this government will see TAGS—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges.
* * *
[Translation]
VOLUNTEERS
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today the Government of Canada is paying particular tribute to
the volunteers who worked so hard during the ice storm. I offer
greetings to all those who are here today in the House.
Thousands of persons took action at the beginning of the year to
help Quebeckers who were in the grip of one of Quebec's worst
storms.
This tribute coincides with Emergency Preparedness Week, which
reminds us of the importance of preparing people and public
bodies for this sort of catastrophe, which can arrive at any
moment.
Today, however, these words suffice to express our thoughts on
all those people, organizations and associations that worked
together during the ice storm: thank you, thank you, thank you.
* * *
1405
[English]
CANADIAN SKILLS COMPETITION
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, next week Vancouver will host the 4th Canadian Skills
Competition. This event will showcase skills of young Canadians
from all our provinces and territories in 29 different trade and
technology occupations.
These students and apprentices will compete in traditional
fields such as brick laying and welding, as well as in areas such
as desktop publishing, television and video production.
The Government of Canada recognizes that we need to encourage
more young people to consider going into skilled trades and
technology occupations. It is essential to the economic strength
of this country.
That is why this competition is important. It salutes the
excellence of young people who are going into these fields. It
shows that Canada and its young people are ready to compete with
modern skills in our changing economy.
* * *
MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS SOCIETY OF CANADA
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 1998
marks the 50th anniversary of the Multiple Sclerosis Society of
Canada and May is MS awareness month.
Evelyn Gotlieb Opal and Harry Bell, along with Dr. Colin Russell
of the Montreal Neurological Institute, founded the society to
help thousands of Canadians and their families deal with the
devastating impacts of MS.
In its 50 years the society has grown to become the foremost
voluntary agency, and Canadian researchers are at the helm of the
research effort into finding a cure and discovering innovative
new drug therapies.
As one honorary Carnation Day chair, I urge Canadians to support
volunteers across the country to raise money and awareness of MS
and to support individuals and research.
Happy 50th anniversary, MS society. Keep up the great work.
* * *
MOTHER'S DAY
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I met my mother for the very first time on September 3, 1948. I
cannot remember anything about that meeting, but somehow I knew
she was nearby.
As I grew up I relied on her to clean my clothes, to cook my
food and when things were not going so well I knew again she
would always be nearby.
I remember the first bike she got me in Lakeside, Nova Scotia,
even when we could not afford it. I remember her supporting me
when I struggled through school. I remember her, again, always
being there when I needed the wisdom and kind understanding of a
mother.
One of my greatest Reform supporters in Chester Basin, Nova
Scotia is, yes, you guessed it, my mother.
Today she is the queen of grandmothers to my children. She is
the best friend of my wife. But to me she remains the kind
mother I have always had.
On Sunday I wish my mother a very special Mother's Day and to
all mothers who have done so much for their children and ask for
nothing in return.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC CITY
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
protest the decision of the Quebec City national capital
commission, which wants to rewrite Canadian history from a
separatist standpoint by ignoring, denying and twisting reality.
We all recall that Quebec City hosted meetings between the
leaders of the allies in 1943 and in 1945. Present at the
meetings were the President of the United States, Franklin
Roosevelt, the British Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill,
and the Prime Minister of Canada, William Lyon Mackenzie King.
Today, the commission is going to unveil statues of President
Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill in this connection, but
it is giving no recognition to the Canadian Prime Minister.
This is a distortion of history, and indirectly, a moral affront
to our soldiers in the last world war.
* * *
QUEBEC CITY
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, an important event is taking place today in Quebec
City: the commemoration of the 1943 and 1944 Quebec conferences.
Quebec City was the host of these conferences where the leaders
of the countries involved in a conflict of the magnitude of the
second world war made decisions that would mark important
turning points in history.
By unveiling two commemorative monuments of the Quebec
conferences, that is, busts of President Roosevelt and Prime
Minister Churchill, we are marking an important event in world
history. The leading role of Canadian Prime Minister William
Lyon Mackenzie King must also be acknowledged, as well as the
effort of all Canadian soldiers in support of allied forces in
the second world war.
1410
When we commemorate such important events in the history of
Canada, I believe we should do so with unquestionable
intellectual honesty and not indulge in petty—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Louis-Hébert.
* * *
COMPOSTING WEEK
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, May 4 to May
10 is national composting week and this year's theme is
“Composting, going back to our roots”.
Composting is simple to do. You just have to put all your
organic waste in a bin, outside your house, and let time and
nature do the work.
Even though it is that simple, only about 20% of households do
it. Considering that a family generates some 225 kilograms of
organic waste annually, and that one pound of such waste
produces between and 4 and 10 cubic feet of methane, it only
makes sense to start reducing greenhouse gases at home.
The efforts of amateur composters might save our planet from
environmental deterioration.
I want to pay tribute to my father, Dr. Albert Alarie, who was a
pioneer in this area, since he initiated composting in the
scientific and municipal worlds, as early as in the 1950s. His
work as an educator and an interpretive writer provided the
foundation of all that is now being done in Quebec, in this
area. We owe him the benefits that we are now reaping.
* * *
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague,
the hon. Conservative member for Charlotte, on his vigilant
pursuit of justice and proper compensation for all victims of
hepatitis C. This government has shown contempt, not compassion,
for the victims of hepatitis C.
My colleague's efforts have helped the victims believe that
someone in Ottawa cares about their plight. While the Minister
of Health spoke down to Canadians and declared that the file was
closed, it was my colleague who spoke for Canadians, the victims
and their families.
Conservatives have a history of doing the right thing for
innocent victims. This week the Conservative government in
Ontario came out in support of extending compensation to all
victims. Federally it was the previous Conservative government
that moved unilaterally in providing compensation to all victims
of HIV tainted blood.
The Conservative member for Charlotte has been working on behalf
of hepatitis C victims all across Canada, including in the riding
of St. John's West, and for that we should all be grateful.
* * *
[Translation]
RENEWABLE ENERGY
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this week, 350
experts are meeting in Montreal for an international conference
on renewable energies. Delegates are looking at the latest
technological developments in the field, as well as at policies
encouraging the transition to renewable energies.
Delegates will note that the federal government has neither a
specific policy nor an actual budget for the promotion of
renewable energies. Worse yet, it is cutting its budgets for
the few related research projects, such as the Tokamak facility
in Varennes. Delegates will also note that this government is
still trying to excuse its failure to act by claiming that
additional studies are necessary.
But time is running out. Every day, 10 Canadians die
prematurely because of the effects of air pollution, which could
be controlled. The federal government must take action now in
the areas over which it has jurisdiction in order to stop the
coal-based production of electricity, improve the energy
efficiency of vehicles and buildings, and promote public
transportation.
* * *
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is no doubt that Canada in general, Ontario in particular,
and my own constituency of Niagara Falls are experiencing good
economic times.
What I find fascinating, if not bizarre, is that the Ontario
premier is trying to claim credit for most of the good news. I
am quite sure he is fooling no one.
The Standing Committee on Finance, of which I am a proud member,
set things in motion with recommendations it gathered from across
Canada. This, combined with the determination of the finance
minister in holding inflation down, keeping interest rates low
and balancing the budget for the first time in years, is the real
reason for our recovery. All of this was accomplished in a
caring way. There was no slashing or burning.
Ontario is a great place in which to live and do business, not
because of Mike Harris but in spite of him.
* * *
PROSTATE CANCER
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
March 10, during the prostate cancer information session held
here on the Hill, almost 80 men took PSA blood tests for prostate
cancer.
I am pleased to announce that most of those men had levels below
four. Unfortunately, three of our colleagues had levels above
four, with the highest being in the range of 13, a level of
significant concern.
Because of other commitments, some MPs who should have did not
take the PSA test. However, prime ministers, party leaders,
ministers and deputy ministers do not have immunity from prostate
cancer.
1415
In light of the results I have just given, I hope those who did
not take the PSA test and who are above the age of 50 will now
call their doctors and make an appointment to take the test, if
not for themselves then for their families, their loved ones and
their colleagues.
The Speaker: I notice that many of us are wearing the
carnation for Multiple Sclerosis Day. It is a good idea that we
do this.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, why is it that whenever the Prime Minister is asked to
work with the provinces, particularly on social issues, he turns
it into a meanspirited squabble?
The Prime Minister tried to bully British Columbia on welfare
reform; he attacked Alberta on health care reform; and now he is
directing insults to the premiers who want to compensate victims
of hepatitis C. He treats the premiers more shabbily than he
treats his own backbenchers.
How is this proposed hepatitis C conference to succeed if this
is the Prime Minister's approach?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the premiers have agreed that there should be a
conference next week. Even last night on TV, Premier Harris
changed his mind again and said that he would send his minister.
I am happy with that.
All the ministers will sit down and look at the file. It will
not be a policy made on the spur of the moment. It will be a
rational approach to the problem. We know there was a commission
that made the report. In fact the commission recommended that
the compensation should be paid by the provincial governments but
we took the initiative to resolve it and now—
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister's spin doctors sent him to
a charity function at McDonald's to try to paint him as more
compassionate. At McDonald's the Prime Minister flip-flopped.
The Prime Minister said that he might give compensation to some
of the victims and then again he might not.
How can the Prime Minister go into a serious negotiation on this
issue without having a firm position in advance?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was with George Cohon yesterday who is doing a great
job using his business facilities to help young kids in Canada. I
will not apologize for that.
We had a very rational discussion before with the provinces. We
made a deal according to all the information that all the
ministers had. Last Friday afternoon all the ministers talked
and they came to an agreement. An hour after that, a premier
pulled the rug out from under his minister of health. It is not
a case—
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister is suffering from the Dr. Jekyll and
Mr. Hyde syndrome. One day he dangles out hope for the victims;
the next day he says that maybe he will not compensate them. This
is cruel treatment of the victims. If he is going to compensate
these victims, why does he not say so? If he is not going to
compensate them, why does he not come out and say so?
Is the Prime Minister going to compensate these victims or not?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is the same person who was asking me a few days ago
if we were to compensate when there was fault by the government.
Now he has changed his tune again; talk about changing his mind.
He is trying to create the impression with Canadians that he is
compassionate, but he is the one who wants to cut $800 million
from aboriginal people. He is the one who wants to cut $3
billion from equalization payments. I can read and read and read
to prove that he is just playing politics.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
interesting thing for me is that the victims watch these
proceedings. They watch these antics. They are not interested
in politics.
They are not interested in pettiness. They are not interested in
name calling.
1420
What they want to know, and I get to be their voice, is what is
the position of the Prime Minister as they go to this meeting. Is
he ready to compensate the victims of hepatitis C from tainted
blood? Yes or no. Will he or will he not?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member should be very careful before styling himself as the
voice of victims.
There are 22,000 victims who were infected during a period when
something should have been done and have the government and the
Prime Minister to thank for the fact that they are to be
compensated.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the victims
over and over again say that they are not answering this simple
question. I do not know how many times we have to ask it.
Surely when you go to a negotiation you go there with a
position. All we are asking is what is the position of the
government as it goes to this important meeting on hepatitis C.
Is it going there sulking with its heels dug in, or is it going
there in an open spirit of co-operation? For the victims' sake,
will the government compensate pre-1986 victims? Yes or no.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have already said the developments of this week are
significant. We have already said we will make ourselves
available for a meeting. In fact the date and location of that
meeting are almost finalized. We are going there to speak with
provinces whose positions have changed and may change between now
and then.
I think the hon. member should realize that the way we run the
country is by consensus. We are listening to what is being said.
We will also approach that meeting trying to find a new
consensus. As the Prime Minister says, you do not make public
policy in scrums or on the fly; you do it by sitting with the
parties.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, under pressure
from this House, the public in general and victims of the
disease, the position of the premiers has moved in the right
direction in the past week.
Ontario and Quebec have announced their intention to compensate
hepatitis C victims not covered by the first settlement. Other
premiers are considering the issue. But the Prime Minister of
Canada, the principal player, is not budging.
Why is the Prime Minister putting off assuming his
responsibilities and adopting a more humane attitude?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
few months ago, we were almost the only ones willing to
compensate the victims, since most of the provincial governments
and ministers of health were refusing to do anything.
We showed we wanted to do something because we had a
responsibility and we were facing a class action before the
courts.
Now they are expanding the debate to include compensation for
everyone. That is fine, but they have to pay. The Quebec
premier wants compensation paid in two or three years by the
federal government. Generosity means putting your money up
front.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Roberval.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I must remind
the Prime Minister that his statement that he was the first
willing to provide compensation is incorrect. Yesterday, I read
out a resolution approved by the National Assembly on December
2. I ask him not to repeat such nonsense.
Why is the Prime Minister keeping his mind closed and refusing
to try to find a solution for these victims, as his colleagues
are doing? What is making him so stubborn?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think the Minister of Health answered the question very well
yesterday, when he said he had clearly established that the
Quebec minister of health, who defended the agreement
vigorously, had initially been one those who did not want to do
anything.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the Prime
Minister's estimation, Premier Harris is a petty politician and
a turncoat, while Premier Bouchard is a man who keeps changing
his tune and is in political hot water.
How can the Prime Minister heap scorn and ridicule upon those
who are showing some compassion and looking for solutions and
label them turncoats?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we
have already said, we are always glad to meet with the
provincial health ministers. In fact, preparations for such a
meeting are under way and I will be in attendance.
1425
Last summer, premiers Harris and Bouchard refused to compensate
victims. They downright refused. Only the federal government,
under the leadership of the Prime Minister, started up the
process. The victims will be getting compensation because of
this government.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there are two
essential conditions for finding a solution for the hepatitis C
victims. First of all, the Prime Minister must accept the
principle of a humanitarian settlement. Then, he must accept
the principle of financial involvement by his government, since
it can afford to do so.
Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that he must agree to
fulfill these two conditions so that the hepatitis C matter can
be settled properly for once and for all?
Hon Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member has just made reference to a humanitarian
settlement.
I can tell the hon. member that I myself suggested the federal
government be the only one to make a financial payment, while
the provinces, Quebec included, would provide all medical
services to the people including pharmacare. All of them
refused, Quebec included. That was Quebec's position. It was
not a humanitarian one.
* * *
[English]
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Many Canadians are concerned about the possible export of
Canadian water. We are very concerned to hear that the Minister
for International Trade had said that water is tomorrow's oil.
Given that we export a lot of oil and that under NAFTA we could
not ban the export of oil, would the Minister of Foreign Affairs
kindly dissociate himself from the remarks of his colleague, the
trade minister?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we said in the House yesterday very clearly that we
consider the stewardship of our water resources a high priority.
We already took action yesterday in concert with the province of
Ontario to refer the matter to the International Joint Commission
that works under the boundary waters treaty over which we share
jurisdiction with the United States.
We are taking the appropriate action to make sure that we have a
system in place and to make sure that the security of our water
resources is well protected.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is not inappropriate to refer it to the International
Joint Commission, but it does not have the authority to ban
export of Canadian water and it does not provide a legislative
framework for Canadian policy in this regard.
Will the minister commit to bringing forward a legislative
framework to regulate the export of Canadian water and hopefully
ban it, and will he dissociate himself from the view, whoever
holds it, that water is tomorrow's oil? Oil is a commodity to be
sold and bought in the marketplace and that is not what Canadians
want done with their water.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government has already taken steps to look at
the broad question of the place of water within our society. The
Ministry of the Environment has commissioned a major study on
water resources including the question of exports.
The key to it is that we are undertaking major consultation with
the provinces which have the right to give permits on water. We
will arrive at a Canadian decision in the best interest of
Canadians.
* * *
ROYAL CANADIAN MINT
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, since 1993 the
Liberals have had a policy that government should not compete
with private industry where business is better able to provide
the service.
Yet today the government has introduced a bill that will put the
Royal Canadian Mint into direct competition with Westaim, a
successful Canadian company, and jeopardize the future of 120
workers.
My question is for the minister of public works. Is it now the
policy of your Liberal government to use federal borrowing power
to destroy successful Canadian companies?
The Speaker: The hon. member should address all questions
through the Chair. If the hon. minister heard the question, he
may answer.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the bill that I
tabled this morning in the House has nothing to do with the new
plating plant the mint is building in Winnipeg. It is to
streamline the corporation and to make sure the decision to issue
new coins, not necessarily the way it is doing it now, and to
produce them faster.
In terms of the issue between Westaim and the mint, I remind the
hon. member that it is before the courts. I do not think it is
appropriate for me to comment on the issue.
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, if Westaim
were located in a Liberal riding we would not be having this
debate right now.
1430
In some countries when governments decide to take over certain
industries it is referred to as nationalization. Others might
refer to it as expropriation. The fair minded could legitimately
call this political pork barrelling.
Will the minister agree to table a full listing of other
industries his government has in its cross hairs so that these
businesses can prepare for the onslaught?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the mint is
celebrating 90 years of existence. It has produced coins, it has
produced collector items and all Canadians are proud of it.
There is an international market. It is a crown corporation
that operates with a profitable base and is working with the
private sector. I believe it has been doing a good job but
unfortunately I cannot go into the details because this case is
before the courts. When this is all over I am sure the hon.
member and all Canadians will realize the Canadian royal—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Medicine Hat.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
surely the government is not so addled that it is going into
negotiations with the provinces without having any kind of
position at all. That does not make any sense.
We have heard government members talk about excuses, about
processes and have seen them pointing fingers at the provinces.
All that is irrelevant. This is about people's lives.
What position is the government taking into negotiations with
the provinces? Is the hep C file open or closed?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member may have heard me say the other day that in view
of the position now taken by Ontario, indeed Quebec, those are
significant developments and we are prepared to sit with
provincial ministers.
I can assure the hon. member and his leader that by the time we
sit with colleagues next week to see if a new consensus can be
developed we will indeed have a position to bring to the table.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
while the health minister is being coy I should remind him that
people's lives are hanging in the balance. I do not see how he
thinks he can get away with that.
The fact is people have been waiting for months for a decision
on this. The government says the file is open, it is closed, it
is open. When is it going to make its mind up and tell Canadians
whether people with hepatitis C are going to get full
compensation?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
one of the great differences between this side of the House and
that is that people on this side put their faith in the good
judgment of the Canadian people.
The Canadian people know when they listen to the member talk
about people's lives being on the line where that comes from.
They know that last summer when we began speaking about
compensating victims, last fall when we were working on it
persuading provinces, these members were nowhere to be seen. They
were not heard from at all.
It is this government that has acted on behalf of victims.
* * *
[Translation]
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the matter of the millennium scholarships,
the spokesperson for Quebec's education minister said that
“negotiations are stalled because federal officials do not have
a mandate to negotiate”.
How can the Prime Minister explain that federal government
negotiators are without a mandate, when he said in March that
there would be negotiations with Quebec?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our friends most certainly do
have a mandate, which they received from the office of the Prime
Minister in the presence of Mr. Bouchard, Mrs. Marois and
myself. We held a meeting for the very purpose of determining
if we would hold such negotiations and we undertook to do so.
I can say one thing. I know from my experience in negotiating,
and this was the key to our success in the manpower issue, that
negotiations cannot be held in public. That was the reason for
our success in the manpower issue. I therefore have no
intention of launching into public negotiations today.
The Government of Canada promised to negotiate in good faith.
We want to reach an agreement with the Government of Quebec in
order to assist young people wishing to pursue their education
and in order to celebrate the millennium by promoting skills and
knowledge.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister admit that the only
obstacle to a negotiated settlement with Quebec in the matter of
the millennium scholarships is his stubbornness and arrogance,
the same stubbornness and arrogance that we have seen in the
hepatitis C affair?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not think that shouting out
names in the House is going to accomplish anything. The
government has given its word in good faith. We have already
held four negotiation meetings and another meeting is scheduled
for May 15.
1435
I can assure members that we are setting out with the intention
of doing well by the young people of this country. I am
confident that the present framework gives us the room in which
to arrive at a solution that will meet the needs of all
stakeholders.
* * *
[English]
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians are guaranteed freedom of association both
through our long democratic traditions and also in the charter of
rights and freedoms.
The use of the secret ballot in selecting those we wish to
represent us is essential to this fundamental right of
association. In its new changes to the Canada Labour Code, why
is this government not giving workers the right to a secret
ballot when they choose a union to represent them in collective
bargaining?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as my hon. colleague is well aware, the issue has to be
taken before the labour board. If it can be proven that
management has acted inappropriately, then the labour board has
the authority to sanction the union.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we in this House are chosen by secret ballot. Therefore
in its new labour bill, why does this government deny Canadian
workers this fundamental right of a secret ballot?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, quite simply, we are not denying Canadian workers any
right. We are protecting their rights.
We are making sure that if a vote is held and it can be proven
to the labour board that management has acted inappropriately,
then the board has the right to certify that union.
* * *
[Translation]
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Government officials have estimated the cost of managing
millennium scholarships at 5% of the total cost, or $16 million
annually, which represents some 5,000 fewer scholarships for
students.
In the face of such damning facts and figures, how will the
Minister of Human Resources Development be able to live up to
his commitment not to duplicate existing programs with the
scholarships?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I said just a moment ago that
the best way to ensure negotiations are successful is to not
conduct them in public.
Our legislation and the budget itself are very clear in this
respect. The foundation is actually mandated to avoid any
duplication and ensure close co-operation with the provincial
authorities concerned.
That is precisely the goal we have set for the foundation and
for our negotiators. I trust that the goals we have set for
ourselves will be achieved.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, even
University of Ottawa Professor John Trent, who can hardly be
called a staunch separatist, stated that “The fund will
inevitably lead to federal-provincial duplication. —It is in
direct competition with the Quebec loans and bursaries program,
which is considered by many to be superior”.
My question is quite simple: What does the minister have to say
to that?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see how
open-minded the hon. member for Quebec is in recognizing that
federalists too can have valid points of view. We thank her for
being open-minded. This is great, and what a change, because this
is rather unusual.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: What I can say
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. Minister for Human Resources Development
has the floor for a few more seconds.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, our goal in this is to
help give more young people access to skills and knowledge. So
aware are we of how much expertise there is at the Quebec
Ministry of Education that we want to work in partnership with
the ministry to ensure this program's success.
* * *
[English]
LABOUR
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
governments of Alberta and Ontario have written to the federal
Minister of Labour pointing out serious flaws in Bill C-19, the
labour bill.
Typical of this government, the minister has ignored the
provinces. Now we have learned that all the federal ministers
from B.C. have written to the labour minister demanding that the
bill be changed.
1440
We know how the Liberals treat the provinces and we know how
they treat their backbenchers, but are they really going to
ignore their own ministers?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, even my hon. colleague I believe realizes that Bill C-19
is very important to labour and management in this country.
Members will see that this government will pass this very much
needed and important legislation very shortly.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in his
opinion it is much needed. This bill is very undemocratic. One
of the most undemocratic aspects is that it would allow the
labour board to certify a trade union even if most of the workers
voted against it. That is unfair to business and it does not
represent workers' democratic rights.
Why does the labour minister think it is okay to certify a trade
union without the support of the majority of its workers?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what my hon. colleague is referring to is when a
certification vote is taken and there is less than 50% and the
union can prove to the labour board that inappropriate action was
taken by management, the board as a quasi-judicial body has the
right to approve and certify that union.
* * *
[Translation]
TOBACCO SPONSORSHIP
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
It has been one year since the Prime Minister pledged, during
the last election campaign, to make the tobacco legislation more
flexible. While the festivals are getting ready for their last
season under the current sponsorship rules, the government seems
willing to help professional sports teams.
Would it not be reasonable and politically honest to say exactly
and truthfully what is happening with the government's election
promise?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the
hon. member knows full well, we are always reasonable and
honest. We are committed to amending the tobacco legislation and
we will do so when we are ready.
* * *
QUEBEC CITY
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Prime Minister.
Today, the conferences of 1943 and 1944 are being commemorated
in Quebec City with the unveiling of busts of Roosevelt and
Churchill. But to deliberately ignore former Prime Minister
Mackenzie King is to ignore the war effort of all Canadian
veterans.
Does the Prime Minister find this situation acceptable?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for his question. I find it absolutely
deplorable that some would play politics by trying to rewrite
history.
Canadian soldiers, at the request of Prime Minister Mackenzie
King, were the first ones to intervene during the second world
war. It was thanks to an initiative taken by Prime Minister
Mackenzie King that the meeting between Churchill and Roosevelt
took place in Quebec City.
To ignore Prime Minister Mackenzie King in commemorating the
conference held in Quebec City during the war is totally
unacceptable. It is in very bad taste and should never have been
approved by the Quebec premier.
* * *
1445
[English]
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Alberta's energy minister says that he will not sign the
Kyoto deal until he gets some solid facts and figures on how this
will directly impact on ordinary Canadians' lives.
When the federal minister was in Kyoto she betrayed the
provinces by unilaterally raising the scale. How does the
minister expect the provinces to sign on to any agreement after
the way she treated them at the Kyoto conference?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government went to Kyoto with the
collaboration of partners across this country.
We are committed to achieving our goal and that is to reduce our
emissions by minus 6% below 1990 levels. A couple of weeks ago
we met with all of our provincial and territorial counterparts.
We agreed to develop a strategy. We are working with all sectors
of our economy and with the municipalities. We will achieve our
Kyoto target.
* * *
CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in the last three years, four western provinces got 8% of CIDA's
contracts. Four eastern provinces got 2% of CIDA's contracts.
Ontario and Quebec got 90% of the contracts.
In response to my question earlier, the CIDA minister said that
she was sorry for British Columbia. Today in the foreign affairs
committee some Liberal members said that B.C. companies should
move to Ontario.
Can the Prime Minister stand up and confirm that this is his
government's position?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will have to repeat it again because obviously the
member of parliament did not understand my answer.
There is an open bidding system to which all contracts are
posted. Companies from across the country are invited to bid for
these contracts. The companies from the west are every bit as
good if not better than many others. What they have to do is bid
for the contracts in a fair and open manner. They will win as
many as anybody else.
The idea is to get the best price and the best value for
Canadians.
* * *
BANKS
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
U.S. evidence shows that big banks make fewer loans to small
business, that big bank service charges are at least 15% higher
and that the bigger the bank, the smaller their small business
loan portfolio. This is what the U.S. congressional committee is
being told about big bank mergers.
If American congressmen are receiving this evidence and
questioning their bank mergers and the needs of small business,
why will the government not allow all-party committee hearings
with all five political parties?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find it
passing strange. The NDP called for a denial of any bank mergers
outright before we had any hearings. Then it wanted the finance
committee to look at it. Then it wanted another committee to
look it. Now it wants the industry committee to look at it. At
the same time it said do not look at it, deny all the mergers.
We are not like that. We are putting in place a process
involving a report of the task force which will come in
September, extensive hearings by the House of Commons finance
committee, and the Senate committee. We are going to have
Canadians involved in this decision. We will not make a decision
until they are.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it seems the government wants to give the big banks lots
of time to do their lobbying to soften people's views on this
issue.
A Wall Street Journal analysis found that small business
lending declined in U.S. banks which merged but went up with the
non-merged competitors in the same period. In Canada small
business lending is dropping and our banks have not even merged
yet.
Will the government join with the CFIB and the four opposition
parties in support of my motion this afternoon for all-party
hearings at the industry committee into the impact of the
proposed bank mergers on small business consumers and rural
Canada?
1450
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have put in a
process. We are going to have extensive all-party hearings at
both the Senate and the House levels. Meanwhile our party has
taken the initiative of setting up the special task force under
the very able leadership of the member for Trinity—Spadina. If
you want to participate in some public hearings, either hold your
own or agree to come with us and help.
The Speaker: Once again colleagues, please address the
Chair. The hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac.
* * *
ROYAL CANADIAN MINT
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the bill that the minister of public works introduced in the
House this morning authorizes the Royal Canadian Mint to borrow
$30 million to build a plant that will get into direct
competition with Westaim Corporation from Alberta. This plant
will be built in Winnipeg in the backyard of the Minister of
Foreign Affairs.
In the 1970s the Liberal government of the day moved into the
oil industry and we all know what a disaster that was. Millions
of tax dollars were wasted on Petrofina and the national energy
program.
Will this minister immediately stop—
The Speaker: The hon. minister of public works.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again I think the
hon. member has all the facts mixed up.
First of all to build a plant in Winnipeg does not need extra
borrowing authority. They have enough and the decision was made
previous to the bill. The bill streamlines the operations of the
Royal Canadian Mint and also increases the amount of the
corporation's borrowing authority since the government decided
that the corporation has to make a profit and has to operate on a
commercial basis.
In terms of the plant in Winnipeg, a plant already exists in
Winnipeg. This is an extension so we can save—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac.
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, the minister of public works also stated a while ago
that this matter was before the courts and he could not comment.
The problem is if the matter is before the courts, why is the
minister going ahead with the construction of the plant in
Winnipeg?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is a
proceeding before the courts concerning patent protection. It has
nothing to do with the building of the plant. This is a decision
that the corporation made in accordance with the rules of the
corporation and with the approval of the government and we are
going ahead.
* * *
ALBERTA FOREST FIRES
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria—Haliburton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, can the Minister of National Defence inform this House
as to what action this government is taking to help the people of
Alberta in regard to the devastating forest fires in that western
province?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are monitoring this situation very
carefully both through Emergency Preparedness Canada and through
the land forces western area. General Ross has been in touch with
provincial officials. I have placed a call to the minister who
is responsible and if we can be of any assistance we will be. We
certainly want to be of assistance to the people of Alberta.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the days of the justice minister's
failure to act on victims rights are numbered. It has been 738
days since the victims bill of rights motion went to committee.
The clock is ticking, or should I say the calendar is flipping.
The other day the minister talked about a national forum and
writing to the committee but victims do not want a professor's
lecture about “timely” or “maybe soon”. How many more days do
Canadians have to wait before the justice minister takes real
action for victims of crime?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find the hon. member's
question very interesting. As late as last week I had the
opportunity to meet with the representatives and leaders of
national victims groups in this country. As far as I was able to
tell, they were very pleased with the strategy that this
government is taking. They are looking forward to participating
in the national forum in June.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA POST
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Labour.
Yesterday in federal court, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers
filed an application for disqualification of Justice Guy
Richard. At the same time, CUPW was calling for the Minister of
Labour to sign a negotiated agreement.
Does the Minister of Labour intent to bow to the demands of the
union and to resume negotiations?
1455
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, both labour and management, CUPW and the post office,
have the right to sit down and negotiate.
The union has filed before the court and hearings have been
suspended until the 12th. The union has the perfect right to do
this and the courts will decide.
* * *
[Translation]
HERRING FISHERY
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
there is another crisis brewing in southeastern New Brunswick.
The fishers of southeastern New Brunswick took only a few days
to fill their herring quotas. This proves the resource is
there. The processing plants tell us they are running at half
capacity, yet the fish are there and the people need to fish.
Will the Minister of Fisheries give serious consideration to the
recommendation presented to him today by the Maritime
Fishermen's Union that he do something to help the families who
depend on the herring fishery?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the issue with respect to the crab in
area 12 is that the stocks have declined some 25%.
I have to tell the hon. member and hon. members from all parties
that we will not jeopardize the stocks of our natural resources
and our fish stocks simply because of political pressure exerted
on behalf of those who want to continue fishing despite the fact
we do not have the resources to support it.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the Prime Minister in response to a question by the member for
Macleod was talking about the provincial minister's statement
last week with regard to the upcoming meeting on the hepatitis C
compensation package. I am quoting from page 6597 of
Hansard. The Prime Minister said “they all
said”—referring to the ministers—“that there should be in the
statement further compensation for the pre-1986 victims”.
Does the Prime Minister live by those words? Is that a change
in position or just more confusion on the part—
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member can immerse himself in details from this statement or
that, but it is clear that the provincial authorities changed
their position over recent days. That is the very reason we said
we want to meet with them and forge a new consensus because our
focus is on the best interests of the victims.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in this
House some 13 months ago I asked the former justice minister
about a nine time convicted pedophile who was released into my
riding. The experts said he would reoffend. I asked the minister
what would I tell the parents of the 10th victim. The minister
said that we have new legislation which will prevent an offending
pedophile from ever doing this again.
On Friday I met with the father of the 10th victim, a five year
old girl.
I would like to know from the present justice minister what sort
of an excuse she is going to have—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously the situation that
the hon. member refers to is a very serious one and a very tragic
one. My colleague the solicitor general and I have discussed
this issue and we are going to be looking at it further.
* * *
[Translation]
RAIL TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the consortium
that includes Bombardier has just made a proposal to the
governments of Canada, Ontario and Quebec in order to complete
studies for the construction of a high speed train between
Quebec City and Windsor.
Could the Minister of Transport tell us whether this proposal
will be included in his review of passenger train services in
Canada?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have just received the Bombardier report. It is a
long and complex proposal. It must be studied in the context of
our review of policy on shared rail services.
As the hon. member knows, the Standing Committee on Transport is
currently studying the situation. I eagerly await the
committee's recommendations.
* * *
STATISTICS CANADA
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Industry.
Charles Castonguay, a noted expert, testified before the
Standing Committee on Official Languages that Statistics Canada
took unacceptable liberties in incorrectly interpreting the data
from the latest census on the status of French in Canada.
Is the minister prepared to bring scientific rigour back to
Statistics Canada and restore the credibility it had before it
became a propaganda tool?
1500
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
very proud of Statistics Canada. It is recognized worldwide as
one of the finest statistics agencies. It is recognized every
year in the English magazine The Economist as the world's top
statistics agency.
* * *
[English]
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: Colleagues, it is a very special day for
all of us in the House because we will be honouring some of our
own.
I draw to your attention the presence in the gallery of some of
the military and civilian personnel who were so instrumental in
helping their fellow Canadians cope with the devastation caused
by this winter's ice storm.
[Translation]
Our distinguished guests worked day and night in Ontario, Quebec
and New Brunswick helping their fellow Canadians deal with the
effects of the storm. Many ice storm victims have said how
delighted they were at the arrival of the military and the
volunteers. They knew their burden would be lightened.
[English]
It is appropriate that we on behalf of all the citizens of
Canada honour these, our very own Canadians, this week, the week
of emergency preparedness.
When the ice storm hit you, my fellow Canadians, were prepared
to answer the call for help. You answered it with bravery and
selflessness.
On behalf of all the members of the House who represent 30
million Canadians, we thank you.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Colleagues, there will be a reception where
you can meet each of these people in Room 237 after question
period. You are all invited.
* * *
1505
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we would like to ask the government House leader about the
business of the House for the remainder of this week and next
week. Perhaps he could give our colleagues in the House an idea
of how many days are left in the business schedule of the House
of Commons.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most
reasonable questions I have heard in a long time. Today and
tomorrow we will continue with the report stage of Bill C-19, the
labour legislation, which we certainly hope to have completed by
tomorrow.
On Monday we shall call the report stage of Bill C-26, followed
by Bill C-3, the DNA bill. On Tuesday we will likely return to
Bill C-19. I would like to consult my colleagues more formally
about that bill.
If Bill C-36, the budget implementation legislation, is reported
from committee in time, we would commence report stage of that
bill on Wednesday. Otherwise, during the rest of the week we
hope to complete Bill C-19 and Bill C-26, and get a start on the
report stage of Bill C-39, the Nunavut bill, or Bill C-37, the
Judges Act amendments, if ready, and perhaps to make progress on
Bill C-3.
Next Thursday shall be an allotted day.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
COMMENTS OF PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, in
question period today I referred to a reply given by the Prime
Minister yesterday in response to a question on page 6597 of
Hansard. In that reply he said “there should be in the
statement further compensation for the pre-1986 victims”.
Apparently there was a lot of pressure by the PMO to change that
statement in Hansard. I am trying to find out from the
government whether the Prime Minister is willing to live by those
words. It would mean a great deal to all—
The Speaker: At first blush it would not be a question of
privilege. I did hear the hon. member raise that as a question
today. For whatever reason the question was not answered
directly. I make no judgment on that. But I judge this is not a
question of privilege.
We have looked at Hansard, we have listened to the tapes.
The words quoted by the hon. member are the words in
Hansard. If there has to be any clarification, perhaps it
will be forthcoming from another place. As far as we know from
our research there was no pressure brought to bear and no changes
were made from the precise words that were said.
COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on a question of privilege about an incident that brings this
House into disrepute. During members' statements my colleague
from Port Moody—Coquitlam was speaking eloquently about an
important national skills competition happening in British
Columbia. A member from the official opposition was clearly
heard by me and others in the House to have yelled at him “speak
English”.
All members of this House are privileged to be elected. This
Chamber is enriched by a wealth of individuals from a variety of
backgrounds. We represent various regions and we all have unique
accents. Each of us comes here to participate equally in
representing our constituents and all Canadians. When members
belittle the participation of certain populations of our nation,
when they use comments designed to intimidate and inhibit—
The Speaker: In my view this is not a question of
privilege. I did not hear the statements made. Perhaps they
were made. No member was mentioned. I would hope all hon.
members, if these words were used, would not do things like that.
It does not help us in the course of debate.
1510
I hope that whatever accents we have, I or anyone else, this
will in no way be reflected on. As far as I know, this is not a
question of privilege.
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I heard it directly from the member for
Langley—Abbotsford while I was speaking.
The Speaker: I do not know that this is a question of
privilege. The hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford was mentioned
by the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam. I hope we can settle
this fairly quickly.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have no idea what the new member in this House is talking
about, quite frankly.
I think the member should withdraw these comments. I do not
recall saying anything like this.
The Speaker: We have one hon. member saying one thing and
we have another hon. member saying another thing. Surely this is
a debate. It is not a question of privilege and I want the
matter settled right now.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
TRANSPORT
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
have been consultations between the parties and I think you will
find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That the members of the Standing Committee on Transport and the
necessary staff be authorized to travel to western Canada from
May 20 to May 23, 1998 to gather information in relation to their
study on the national passenger rail system.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA LABOUR CODE
The House resumed consideration of 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 as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and of
Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 30.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to resume my presentation after
the interruption for question period.
An hon. member: Get those insignificant things out of
the way and get to the real things.
Mr. Jay Hill: A member opposite is saying that we had to
get something as insignificant as question period out of the way
of my presentation. It is too bad it had to be interrupted. I
am sure I would agree with the hon. member. The key, despite all
the heckling from the opposite side, is that it is question
period.
1515
As we well know, after having been here close to five years, it
certainly is not answer period. I think the people watching on
television understand that now.
When I was interrupted by question period I was speaking about
the need for democracy and specifically the need for democracy in
Bill C-19. I was using a bit of a comparison about how even in
this Chamber sometimes we do not see democracy.
In my remarks I was trying to assist those watching the debate
at home to understand what all of these quorum calls mean. When
there is government legislation before the House, the
responsibility rests with the government to have its members
present to listen to the debate, to the amendments, to the
rationale behind them and to participate in the debate as well.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
In answer to the hon. member, I have been listening and
unfortunately there is not much talk about the actual amendments.
I am very interested in the points on the amendments. However,
the Reform Party refuses to talk about the amendments. It talks
about everything else but the amendments. Can we please get
back—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair was not
paying close attention at that specific time; however, the Chair
does pay close attention to debate and I am sure that if the
necessity to bring people back to the discussion at hand arises,
you can count on this particular chair occupant to do so.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, just to prove my point, if
you look around I do not think you will find a quorum in the
House. We should have a quorum to listen to this speech and it
should be the members of the government so they can enter into
this debate in an intelligent fashion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have a call for
quorum.
Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Resuming debate, the
hon. member for Prince George—Peace River.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, just so that everyone, not
only those in the Chamber but the viewers at home watching the
proceedings on television this afternoon clearly understand, do
the House rules stipulate that when there is a quorum call the
individuals have to be seated in the Chamber, or is it enough
just to poke your head in the curtains that surround the Chamber?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): As members will
know, this is not the first quorum call today. The rules on
quorum calls have been carefully considered by chair occupants.
If the Chair can see them, they are here. In answer to your
question, if the Chair is able to see a member, that member is
considered to be part of a quorum and the Chair occupant is
considered to be one of the quorum.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the viewing audience
at home this afternoon appreciates that explanation. It is sort
of similar to groundhog day. As long as there is a shadow
showing you are considered to be in the Chamber and participating
in the debate.
I appreciate the comments of the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister of Labour. She has been present throughout the day,
diligently taking notes, I am sure, as individual members of the
opposition have actually addressed the amendments that have been
put forward.
As I address this amendment that deals with democracy, a
fundamental premise for the entire nation, and the fact that the
will of the majority is supreme, I am reminded of the dilemma
that faced our nation during the most recent Quebec referendum
and how the official opposition and opposition members tried to
get the Prime Minister of the country and the government of the
day to state what they considered to be a strong enough no vote.
Was it 50% plus one, or was it something else? The Prime
Minister never clearly said what he would consider to be a strong
no vote or a legitimate yes vote. Was it 50% plus one or not?
1520
In the legislation we see that the government, when it suits its
needs, is quite prepared to accept 35%. That is a problem. What
we are saying is that if it is the will of a group of employees,
then a secret ballot should be held. If it is the clear will of
the majority of those employees that a union should represent
their interests, then that is the way it should be. But if it is
the will of the majority of those employees that they do not wish
to be represented by a particular union that is trying to
organize in their particular industry, then that should also be
the determining factor in whether or not that union is actually
certified.
I have some personal experience in this. One of the jobs I had
as a young man many, many years ago was working for a company in
the oil and gas industry in northeastern British Columbia, in the
region of the country that I come from. At that time the company
was called West Coast Transmission. It was in the business of
transporting natural gas through a series of pipelines through
northeastern British Columbia down to Vancouver and points south.
There was quite a debate during my time of employment with that
company about whether the needs of the employees of West Coast
Transmission could be better met through representation by a
union. It never actually came to a vote because it was very
clear that the majority of those employees, after some very
careful deliberation, ascertained that it was not in their best
interests and they did not wish to be represented by a union.
There is a company in the small village of Taylor, which is in
my riding, just south of my hometown of Fort St. John. It is a
pulp and paper company that is non-unionized. Those employees
felt they did not need the representation of a union.
Very clearly, with respect to this particular amendment, we see
a need that democracy should reign supreme when it is time for
workers to decide on who will or will not represent their best
interests.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I realize that at the time
I rose previously on a point of order there was some confusion
because a question of privilege had just been dealt with and I
want to thank you for allowing me this opportunity to, in fact,
raise the same incident as a point of order.
I would like to refer to citation 485 of Beauchesne's,
especially subsection (3), which refers to unparliamentary
language as language offending against the proprieties of the
House.
Citation 486(1) goes on to refer to unparliamentary language as
being injurious reflections uttered in debate against a
particular member. I think there is no question that the comment
to someone to speak English—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): With respect, the
issue was raised as a question of privilege. It was dealt with
as a question of privilege. The Speaker ruled that it was a
point of debate, not a question of privilege.
The hon. member is bringing in a point of order through the back
door. If it was not appropriate as a question of privilege, it
is not appropriate as a point of order.
1525
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate that the Speaker has ruled already on the question of
privilege and the subsequent point of order.
What I am distressed about is that the government, the Chair
having ruled on it, continues to raise this bogus point of
order—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order, please.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will do my utmost to change the subject. I am sure
you are in tune with that thought process as well, Mr. Speaker.
Once again I find myself speaking on Bill C-19, the labour bill,
which was also known as Bill C-66 in the last parliament. This
time I am speaking on the second set of amendments. Earlier
today I spoke on the first set of amendments and earlier this
year I spoke on second reading of this bill, which is now at
report stage.
This bill is all about industrial relations in the federal
sector. One thing I know, and I think all Canadians upon
reflection would know, is that when we are talking about people
who belong to trade unions we are talking about average Canadians
who reflect the demographics, the characteristics, the concerns
and all the aspirations of average Canadians.
One of the things that distinguishes this country from many
countries of the world is the fact that we all consider ourselves
to be living in a democracy. That is an important principle that
we must try to adhere to on each and every occasion when we can
do so.
This is a very important piece of legislation because it deals
with human endeavour. It deals with certification of unions. It
deals with the negotiation process in the federal sector. It
deals with a whole host of things. It deals with the ultimately
very serious matter of who represents who. If that somehow
becomes corrupted, if that somehow becomes usurped, or if that
somehow becomes a set-up that is not representative, then we
indeed have a major problem.
This legislation fails the basic tests of democracy.
There is something very essential here which deals with the
whole question of secret ballot voting. It is not a requirement
of this legislation.
There is another circumstance which deals with remedial
certification and we have the circumstance where a breach by the
employer would lead to automatic certification.
This is non-democratic. As an example, we are all here because
we were elected. If any one of us had committed a minor breach
of the Elections Act, would that mean that the person who we ran
against would automatically win? We all know that is incorrect,
not appropriate, not proper and does not occur. Why should it
occur as a consequence of this legislation? It is totally
inappropriate. It is non-democratic. This government should not
be doing such a thing or allowing it to happen.
1530
This bill eliminates the need for unions to report on their
financial status. That is totally inappropriate. If we are
going to have bodies representing a lot of people governed by
public legislation, there should be a reporting mechanism. It is
only right and proper not only for democratic purposes but also
for accountability purposes. The government has an obligation to
make that happen under this legislation.
The other thing I find highly dangerous in this legislation in a
general way before I talk to the amendments is that there are
provisions in the bill to allow the Minister of Labour to suspend
collective bargaining and open tenders. This takes us right back
to all of those things we want to avoid.
As I mentioned this morning, we want to do things that will
reduce confrontation, not increase it. We want to do things that
will prevent it if at all possible. We need to change that part
of the package as well, for everyone, for the union membership,
for management and for society at large. We need to bring a
balance into this package. That balance is not there if the
minister is going to have that kind of discretionary authority.
It takes us back to where we do not want to be.
We talked about the fact that the board will be hand picked. We
can make other comparisons. We know the problems inherent in our
justice system as a consequence of parole board appointments and
the inappropriateness of that. Those tend to slap us in the
face. This one is a little more inconspicuous but it is still
every bit as important in its own right.
These are leadership issues. We look to these boards for
leadership from time to time. These are issues where the public
has been sadly let down. These boards are expensive. They are
expensive to run and to maintain. When they do not perform, the
very people they are supposed to benefit are let down. The
people who are supposed to benefit in essence are penalized. We
must get this right.
In virtually every endeavour these days, it does not matter
whether we are talking about the financial world or any other
aspect of society, there are two competing pulls and tugs going
on. There is a trend to globalization on the one hand and on the
other is the necessity for action that involves local phenomena.
One of the ways we can try and balance those two things and make
it come together is to utilize federal institutions when there is
no other appropriate mechanism. This is the appropriate
mechanism and as a consequence it is so important that we get it
right.
So many of the things I have described do not portend well in
this bill on this front in order to accomplish the things we want
to accomplish.
There are four motions grouped. Once again we are talking about
Reform and Bloc amendments. The Reform motion is very
supportable of course.
The legislation as it is written now states that with the 35% of
employees signing cards indicating they want union certification,
the minister may order this. We are saying in tune with our
basic commitment to democratic principles that the board must.
1535
With that I will conclude my remarks.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to rise in the House today to address Bill C-19, an
act to amend the Canada Labour Code. This bill has been hanging
around for quite a while. I imagine the government is getting
tired of hearing about it in the House of Commons and would like
to have it moving forward.
Frankly the legislation is flawed. I think parties on all sides
of the House have huge problems with it that I doubt very much it
is going to get the speedy passage the government wants it to
have.
We are addressing Group No. 2. There are a couple of specific
motions I would like to address. They deal with the issue of
democracy, as my friends have pointed out earlier.
Obviously in the House of Commons of all places we should be
concerned about an issue like democracy. It is very ironic that
we would be dealing with an issue of democracy in the wake of the
hepatitis C vote here in the House of Commons.
Colleagues across the way had the chance to stand up for their
constituents and exercise their democratic right in the House of
Commons and actually support an opposition motion that would have
provided compensation for the victims of hepatitis C who received
hepatitis C because of negligence on the government's behalf. But
they did not do that. They did not stand up when they could have
despite the fact that many of them said they were going to do
that and many of them said that they could make a difference in
this place. They could have. They had the chance but they
dropped the ball.
Now we see that same tenuous commitment to democracy in Bill
C-19. I think that is a powerful reason to reject it.
Our party is trying to make some amendments. One of the motions
we are moving is that under the current legislation the Canada
Labour Code states that the board may order a representational
vote on union certification to satisfy itself that the workers
want the union. Our amendment calls for the board to hold a
representational vote when at least 35% of the employees sign
cards calling for union certification. That is what we are
proposing.
We do not want this left up to the board to make those types of
decisions. We want to make sure that workers have a voice in all
of this. We believe that democracy if it stands for anything
should be reflected in legislation like this in a very clear way,
where we state clearly that we do believe in democracy and in
this particular case we want a vote on an issue of union
certification.
I point out that there is no guarantee under this legislation
that people will be allowed a secret ballot which I find amazing.
I find it amazing that we are proposing legislation that does not
guarantee people the right to a secret ballot.
In this place when we elect the Speaker we do it by secret
ballot. When we are chosen as legislators we are chosen by
secret ballot. There are a thousand reasons for that, not the
least of which is that people have the right to decide in private
so that they do not have to appear before the scrutinizing eyes
of their neighbours who in some cases may try to browbeat them to
vote another way, or they do not want to fear consequences from
people who have power over them if they do not vote in a
particular way.
That applies when we are talking about labour unions as well. To
me it is a fundamental right. I cannot understand it in a
country where in the charter of rights and freedoms we go to
great lengths to lay out fundamental freedoms including the right
to democracy. Sadly somewhere in the charter I guess we were not
specific enough and did not suggest that we needed to have
democracy apply at every level including when it comes to votes
for labour unions.
1540
Now we are stuck with a piece of legislation like this which is
reprehensible. I am disgusted with the Liberals across the way
for not fighting for workers who in some cases will be coerced
into voting a particular way because if they do not vote that way
they will feel pressure from people who have sway over them.
That is wrong but it is not inconsistent with the Liberals'
actions on the hepatitis C vote. We heard them say over and over
again “we are going to stand up to the government, we are going
to vote with the victims of hepatitis C”. But when it came to
the crunch did they bail out in a hurry, did they cast their
principles over the side in a hurry—
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. I fail to understand what hepatitis C votes and Bill
C-19 and I would ask—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motions being
debated in Group No. 2 are Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 30. They have
to do with the voting and the representation on the board. They
have to do with how the 35% is determined. I grant that it is a
stretch. It is a long stretch, a very long stretch, but it is
still there.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I feel sorry for my
colleagues. Obviously their conscience has been tricked. They
have been stung by their own actions, and that is sad. I regret
that very much but it was within their power to fix the problem
instead of being cowed into voting the way they did, and I am sad
for that.
Democracy is important in this place. We saw in the hepatitis C
vote that the government set in stone a philosophy that is now
reflected in Bill C-19 which is very regrettable.
Let us move on to Motion No. 30, an instance where the
government could have stood up stronger in the name of democracy
than it did, but here all kinds of conditions are placed on
democracy. I do not think conditions should be placed on
democracy.
Motion No. 30 deals with part of the labour code that would
allow the industrial relations board to certify a union, even if
there is no evidence of majority support, if the board believes
there would have been support had it not been for the employer's
unfair labour practice. Rather obviously, if the industrial
relations board is concerned that there was some kind of unfair
pressure being put on a particular group of workers, why would it
not just ask them to hold another vote, a secret vote? Why not
do that? Why not have another secret vote instead of leaving it
to an appointed board to make that decision? Why not democracy?
What is wrong with using democracy?
I recognize that democracy in this country is relatively new. In
the modern world it is relatively new. It has only been around
for about 300 years, but surely over the last 300 years we have
come to be able to figure out how to utilize it in all kinds of
institutions. Surely we should be able to figure out how to use
it when it comes to dealing with employers and employees.
It is amazing that the government is proposing to grant to the
Canada Industrial Relations Board this extraordinary arbitrary
power to decide whether or not it will certify a union,
irrespective of the will of the workers. That is ridiculous.
That is not democracy, that is tyranny.
I point to a situation in Windsor, Ontario which occurred not
that long ago. The labour relations board decided that the
employer had used undue coercion on the workers and therefore
overturned a vote that would have seen a union not come into
being at a Wal-Mart store.
Subsequent to that the employees moved for another vote to
decertify that union. The initial vote was 151 to 43 not to have
a union. The labour relations board said that they will have a
union whether they like it or not.
1545
That is the type of power that has been given to the industrial
relations board. It is wrong. It is anti-democratic and it
tells me a lot about this government. It tells me a lot about
why backbenchers on the Liberal side voted against democracy,
against the victims of hepatitis C and stood cowering behind
their government. It think it is shameful and we will never
support that type of legislation.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as you
can tell, our blood has been boiling on this side of the House
and I am sure on the other side of the House as we listen to our
colleague, the member from the Reform Party, pretending that he
and his party support the workers of Canada.
Speaking about democracy, it was not long ago when the very same
party had ejected one of its own just because she spoke her mind
and because she said what she wanted to say. She was kicked out.
It is ironic, speaking about democracy. These are the same
members who when they came into this House told us and the public
that they will allow each member of parliament to vote according
to their conscience and as instructed by their constituents.
I have not yet, with the exception of a very few votes, seen the
members over there stand up and vote according to their
conscience or as instructed by their constituents. They all
stand up like hordes of sheep and vote collectively. We rarely
see those members stand up and vote according to their
conscience. I have not seen that. Have other members seen that?
Speaking about democracy, there are two faces to democracy.
There is the Reform face to democracy and there is the other face
to democracy. Now they are concerned about the workers of
Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to point
out to you that the House cannot continue to sit for lack of
quorum.
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
1555
[English]
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have quorum.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. I would like to mention that the member who called
quorum call left the room immediately and he is still not in the
room. There are no Tories at all in the room.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): As the hon. member
knows, we do not refer specifically to the presence or absence of
members.
Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, is it ironic. Speaking about
democracy and allowing people to express their views in a public
forum, these are the very same guys who have been polarizing
democracy. They wanted to call themselves fathers of democracy.
They are not even distant cousins of democracy. They never
heard—
Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The
hon. member is referring to members on this side of the House as
being guys and so on. My understanding—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Obviously this is
not a point of order.
Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to put things in
the context of Bill C-19, when we speak about democracy and the
rights of people to express themselves in a free and democratic
way. If we are truly concerned about the right of workers then
we should be able to allow the workers to express themselves in a
free way. If that is the case, the workers of Canada from coast
to coast have told us that what is before us is a good step. It
is a first step, it is an excellent step and it is something that
is required and long overdue.
On this side of the House we have taken the initiative in order
to respond to their needs. It is not an issue of a secret ballot
or standing up and voting. Every day in the House we stand up.
Compared to my colleagues on the other side, especially in the
Reform Party, I am not afraid to express my views and say whether
I am supporting a motion or not.
The notion of 35% is nothing short of trying to establish
whether there is an interest in establishing a movement within a
workplace. Once the employees establish their unions, once they
certify themselves and become an organization, they can
democratically, if they choose so, decertify themselves. Nothing
is stopping them from doing that. The underlying thing in this
debate for my colleagues in the Reform Party is that they are
openly opposed to the right of workers to organize themselves.
This is their true agenda.
I had an opportunity to listen to debates when public hearings
were taking place. Frankly, I was ashamed to see that the level
of debate had sunk so low.
What do we call it? Is it sugar coated poison? This is
absolutely terrible.
1600
Those fellows have no idea what it is to be a member of an
organization that defends the rights of workers. They do not
believe in it. It is not in their philosophy. If it is up to
them they will decertify every union or organization in the
country.
We have a society that works. Employers and their employees,
government, unions and corporations, work hand in hand in the
best interest of the organization, of the government and of
society as a whole. There is nothing wrong with it.
Germany is a perfect model. In Canada over the past 100 or so
years our experience has not really been that bad. Unions have
not bitten anybody's ears.
Why is there this agenda of being anti-workers? Why is it my
colleagues in the Reform Party do not want to allow workers to
organize themselves if they choose to do so? I do not know what
they think. They think we do not know that. Of course we do.
They are trying to say that they are concerned about democracy.
The bottom line of the agenda is anti-workers. Would members
agree? My colleagues from Gatineau and Laval I am sure would
agree that the agenda of the Reform is not to allow workers of
Canada to organize themselves in a democratic fashion.
Let us not beat around the bush. They should stand one by one
and say why they are anti-workers.
Mr. Jim Gouk: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In
compliance with the member's wish, I would love to respond by
pointing out the error in what he is saying. We are the exact
opposite.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): This is obviously a
point of debate and not a point of order.
Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, the proof is in the pudding.
They are afraid of hearing the whole argument.
We are trying to enlighten them by saying that we live in a
democracy. In a democracy the majority has the right to rule. If
the workers of Canada want to organize themselves why do they
want to stop them? At every single corner they try to block the
people of Canada from—
Mr. Jim Gouk: Maybe this is Liberal democracy.
Mr. Mac Harb: Liberal democracy; I am frustrated by the
illogical argument of my colleagues on the other side. I want
one of them to tell me why they are anti-workers. I will sit
now.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am at a
loss for words. I am glad to make this intervention,
particularly with you in the chair, because I know you are always
interested to hear what I have to say. You always listen very
carefully unlike our friends on the other side. That is why we
have to keep repeating ourselves. We are not breaking through
yet, but we will; give it another three or four years and we will
break through. We certainly will be making breakthroughs at the
polls in the next election as hon. members on the other side
know. That is why they are so afraid right now.
All the synapses over there are not firing. I am pretty sure
that is the case because on the one hand the member says he
believes in democracy and in the right of the majority to make a
decision. On the other hand he does not, because the legislation
does not provide for it.
While growing up I belonged to several unions. I belonged to
the pulp and paper workers union when I worked in a pulp mill in
Kitimat, British Columbia, in the mid-seventies.
I belonged to the operating engineers as a heavy equipment
operator during the 1970s and then I went on to become a part
owner of a unionized construction company. We had signed
agreements with the tunnel and rock workers, the teamsters,
operating engineers and carpenters.
1605
It is not like I am coming out of a vacuum on this matter. In my
life experience I have had membership in a couple of different
unions and have been part owner of a construction company which
had collective agreements with unions.
There are companies that deserve unions. There are companies so
badly run, badly managed and that care so little for their human
resources there is only one course of action for the employees:
to have a union to protect themselves. There are not many
companies like that but they are there. I have seen them
firsthand.
In the same vein there are also unions that are badly run and
badly managed.
An hon. member: Which ones?
Mr. Mike Scott: The member did not ask me to name the
companies that were like that. I do not know why he would be so
interested in having the unions named.
Continuing my thought, noble or villainous attributes cannot be
ascribed to humans based on their station in life. People are
not good or bad because they are in a union. They are not good
or bad because they are in management in a company. Everybody is
different. Everybody is a human being. There are good people
and bad people.
There are those in the union movement—and I have seen this
firsthand—who would put the individual rights of people at a
much lower level than the collective rights of a union. That is
the problem. When the union becomes so powerful that it has a
right to tell individual workers what they can and cannot do, I
have a great deal of difficulty.
I also have a great deal of sympathy for people who find
themselves in a position of not having the right to exercise
their individual right to decide whether or not they want to be
in a union or out, whether or not they want to have a union
representing them. I also have a great deal of sympathy for
people who are forced to accept a course of action when it is not
what they want.
We are talking here about a fundamental collision between
collective rights and individual rights. Obviously in society we
have both. We have individual rights which are very important
and we have collective rights which the union movement
represents. There are other collectivities as we know.
My colleagues in the Reform Party and I are much more interested
in individual rights than any other rights. We want to promote
the idea that the individual is the most important unit in
society, not collective rights but individual rights, to the
greatest extent possible. This is the very essence of democracy.
It is individual rights. It is the right of the individual to
choose. It is the right of the individual to vote. It is the
right of individuals to have control over their own destiny and
their own life.
It is not difficult for me to see that the Liberals do not
understand this basic concept of democracy based on their actions
of the last few days. It is easy to see that the Prime Minister
does not understand that the House of Commons is supposed to be
about democracy. It is supposed to be about the right of
individual MPs to come here and represent their constituents and
to vote according to their conscience.
The Prime Minister said to his backbenchers that if they do not
do his will they will pay the consequences. That is why people
on the other side do not understand the fundamental flaw in the
bill before us. They do not fully appreciate the fundamental
concept of democracy.
1610
I was in the finance committee this morning. I was helping my
friend from Medicine Hat who is a permanent member of that
committee. We were going through the budget implementation bill
clause by clause. During the course of debate it became apparent
that the opposition MPs on that committee were totally frustrated
and had found that the committee was basically nothing more than
a side show. From the time the Reform Party has had a presence
on that committee, which is going back five years, not one
opposition amendment to a budget implementation bill has ever
been accepted by that committee.
We hear members on the government benches talk about the
wonderful work of committees, how it is a non-partisan way of
people getting together and working in a spirit of co-operation.
That is just a load of hooey. I have never heard anything more
ridiculous in my whole life.
Members on the government side do not want opposition members on
committee to have any real influence or to have any real impact.
No way. The committees in parliament are nothing more than an
opportunity to occupy backbenchers and opposition MPs, to keep
them out of the government's hair. This is the government's view
of democracy.
It is also the government's view of democracy that the people in
the other place should not be elected but should be appointed by
the Prime Minister and that we should not even be able to raise
this matter in the House of Commons. Is it democracy if I cannot
as a member of parliament come to the House and talk about the
other place because I might be offending somebody?
It is not difficult to understand that our friends on the other
side have not grasped the meaning of democracy. They have not
grasped the meaning of individual rights and how those two are
intertwined and cannot be taken one from the other.
The legislation does not provide individuals their proper and
full individual rights when it comes to whether or not a union
should represent them and whether or not they should be required
or forced to join a union.
I recognize there are companies that are badly managed and do
not properly consider or care for the rights of their workers.
They deserve to have and actually need to have unions to protect
the interests of the employees.
Union leaders are not always the noble people they are made out
to be. It is very important that individuals in every
circumstance have the opportunity, the right, to decide whether
or not to be in a union or to have union representation. That
should be based on a secret ballot. It should be based on the
majority in a secret ballot making that determination.
The bill clearly does not provide for that and the Reform
amendment clearly would give workers that right. That is what
this set of amendments is all about. I appreciate the indulgence
of the House and I will let my colleagues carry on from here.
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
just wanted a little clarity from the member of the Reform Party.
He made some allegations about some private companies that were
either abusive or not taking care of their employees the way they
should. More important, he made some accusations about some
unions, that some, not all, unions were not representing the
membership but rather the collective bargaining units themselves.
It is very easy for the Reform member to speak in generalities,
to be very vague and to pull these things out of the air. Would
the member name one or two of these unions? If in fact it is
true, all I would like is for him to name one or two of these
unions that are not properly representing their workers. It is
that simple.
1615
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Simcoe—Grey has a great deal of latitude in posing that question
and has 10 minutes in which to pose the question because we are
in debate and there are no questions and comments.
The Chair has allowed a fair degree of latitude regarding
relevance, which is pretty evident to anyone paying attention to
this debate today. As this latitude has been allowed on one
side, it is obviously to be allowed on the other.
The hon. member for Simcoe—Grey has another nine minutes in
which to speak to the motions on the floor.
Mr. Paul Bonwick: Mr. Speaker, my point was purely for
clarification. There were some allegations made in this House
and I simply wanted clarification on them.
I apologize for not standing and asking for a point of
clarification rather than debate.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-19.
The hon. member for Ottawa Centre mentioned that Reform members
all do their act together. I do not know where he has been.
Four times since this session began in September I have voted
against my leader. We have the right and the freedom to do so.
The hon. member knows very well that he never had that choice.
One of the things that young people learn at school is how to
vote. When they have a vote, they count the ballots and then
they elect somebody. That happens even in the elementary grades.
I want to deal with thinking that is terribly flawed. I want to
say what the rest of Canadians think at times when they are
deprived of their livelihood because of unbiased or unequal
thinking toward an issue.
Motion No. 7 simply says that the Canada Labour Code “may”.
It does not say they have to. It does not say they will. It
says that they “may”.
In serving my time in various capacities and in various
positions to which I have been elected, I have never in my life
been subject to the concept that a vote of fewer than 50% will
make the decision. I have never been introduced to that.
I have chaired hundreds of meetings. When a board has an
opportunity to vote, the motion never carries unless it has 50%
approval. I have been a CEO to a board and that board
never came down with a decision unless 50% of the board was in
agreement.
All we are asking is that Motion No. 7 be changed to indicate
that the board “shall”. We do not believe for one minute,
unlike members opposite, that 35% is good enough for union
certification.
When government members talk about 35% they refer to management
interference. What is management interference? We have labour
on one side; we have management on the other. We never hear
about labour interference. It is always management interference.
We think it should be a balanced situation.
Canadians think that way. Ask the people across western Canada
what they think about a handful of people being able to take away
their livelihood. Members opposite say it is democracy and we
say it is deplorable. We do not believe that 35% constitutes a
majority.
1620
The motion states that when 35% of the people have signed cards
for certification they should cast a vote. When 35% have not
signed cards for certification they should also cast a vote. All
we are saying is that it should be equal. However, this
government does not want to do that. It does not want to deal
with the realities of percentage.
In my public life, for every single call I have had from an
employee about manager interference, I have had 50 calls from
employees talking about union interference. However, those
members never talk about that. I am pro-democracy and that is
what bothers these people. They do not want to look at a
balanced scheme for employment.
In our committee work on transportation it has been absolutely
enlightening in the last while to listen to how the railway
companies have organized and streamlined the situation in Canada.
When we talk about CN double-decking out of the port of Halifax
and how it can beat the competition in the United States through
Chicago, it does that with the co-operation of all the different
unions along the way.
However, this is what happens. What is the largest
petrochemical company in Canada? Imperial Oil. It has operated
all of these years, with its largest plant being in Sarnia,
without a union. I have talked to Imperial's people and they
tell me they are satisfied and do not want a union. Why would
anyone want to tell those people they must have a union with 35%?
Unless a 50% majority shows up, it is in violation of our
democratic principles. No one in this House would allow a 50%
vote.
The answer is very simple. Hon. members opposite are trying to
move themselves into an outdated, undemocratic process of
allowing less than 50% of the people to make a decision.
Mr. Paul Bonwick: Shame on you.
Mr. Roy Bailey: No, I am not ashamed to say that. I am
very proud to say that I believe a democratic vote should be
50%-plus. Obviously the hon. member opposite does not and I hope
everybody knows that. I hope everybody recognizes that when
those members feel like it they decide that 35% will be control.
We in the Reform Party do not believe that. We believe they
have a right to organize, to form a union and to form that union
when their mandate states that 50% of them shall claim a union.
However, the member does not believe that. That is too bad
because that is where we stand. That is all we are asking for in
this clause.
How can anyone dispute the fact that when 35% of the employees
sign union cards there should be a vote to decide whether they
will unionize? What is wrong with that? Obviously those members
do not understand the principles of the democratic process that
50% or 51% makes the majority. They do not believe that and it
is very difficult for us to understand.
However, if this government wants to pass the bill it is going
to pass it anyway because it has determined that it is going to
play into the hands of a very undemocratic situation. We do not
believe that and that is where we differ and where we are going
to continue to differ because we believe in democracy right
across the board. We also believe in individual rights right
across the board. We believe that a person has the right to vote
on a secret ballot right across the board, but you people do not
believe that. Go ahead and not believe it. That is your
privilege. We are going to stay with the 50%.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I would ask hon.
members to address each other through the Chair. From time to
time people get really wound up in their debate and it tends to
make it a little less tense if the debate is directed through the
Chair.
1625
[Translation]
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the
House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of
adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Churchill River,
the environment.
[English]
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to join in the debate at the report stage of Bill C-19.
It seems that the debate, I guess because of the latitude allowed
in this place, is deteriorating into some kind of debate over the
different conceptions of democracy rather than perhaps the
motions before us on this bill. I guess I will have to make my
comments as well before I get into the technicalities of the
bill.
Some of my career was spent in labour-union negotiations and
collective bargaining. Quite clearly, in that process there is a
very delicate balance between the rights of the union and the
rights of management. It can be easily skewed one way or the
other. In my view this bill certainly skews the advantage to the
union side. I think that is a dangerous direction in which to
go.
When members opposite stand and tell me, having been here five
years, that I am not voting with my conscience or for my
constituents—
An hon. member: No one said that.
Mr. David Chatters: Someone did say that. The member at
the other end of the House said exactly that. I would ask him
how he can judge what my conscience is or whether I am voting for
my constituents.
On the other hand, a couple of days ago the member who sits
opposite, the member who is running off at the mouth over there,
during a very emotional vote in this House was crying her eyes
out simply because her party and her leader had threatened her
and coerced her into voting the party line. The evidence was
pretty clear that she was not voting for her constituents, or
with her conscience for that matter.
This bill has a lot of flaws and a lot of problems. The robbing
of the democratic process is only one of them. There are many
other issues about replacement workers and about taking one
particular commodity out of the process, such as protecting the
right to load grain in the port of Vancouver while not providing
that same protection for other commodities and causing all kinds
of problems in a strike situation.
This is a bad bill in many ways.
The proposed motions in Group No. 2 include two motions moved by
my hon. colleague from Wetaskiwin which would greatly improve the
quality of the bill and go a long way in bringing back some
democracy, some fairness and effectiveness to the bill.
Before I discuss the motions of my colleague from Wetaskiwin, I
want to mention two motions that were moved by the hon. member
for Trois-Rivières. Motion No. 6 proposes the removal of clause
6 from the legislation. My colleagues and I are opposed to the
removal of that clause. Clause 6 allows the board to decide a
matter without having to hold an oral hearing. I think this
clause is important to the process of streamlining the CIRB's
procedures.
The whole process of scheduling an oral hearing and adhering to
the strict oral hearing procedures unnecessarily prolongs many
board decisions. Many decisions can simply be made by the board
without the need for oral hearings. Such oral hearings are
lengthy and expensive and should be reserved only for the most
important matters.
This clause increases the speed and efficiency with which minor
cases are dealt by bypassing the oral hearing process.
1630
Therefore I am opposed to Motion No. 6 which calls for the
removal of clause 6. I am also opposed to Motion No. 8, also
moved by the hon. member for Trois-Rivières. This motion removes
a phrase in clause 16, amending it to allow the board to revoke
the appointment of an employer representative without having to
satisfy itself that the employer representative is no longer
qualified to act in that capacity.
By removing this part of the clause the government would be
removing the employer's right to fair representation. Typically,
a group of employers would select one representative and if this
representative is arbitrarily removed because as few as one
person in the employer's group calls for it, the wishes of the
other employers in the group are disregarded. Again, it is a
sleight to the democratic process.
It is my position that there should be a vote by which the
majority of members of the employer's group have the opportunity
to decide what action is taken.
The selection of the clause requiring the board to be satisfied
the employer representative is no longer qualified to act in that
capacity protects the wishes of the majority. The removal of
this part of the clause as proposed in this motion would only
serve to weaken the employer's association. Therefore I think in
good conscience I could not support this motion.
I certainly can and do support the two motions in this group
proposed by my hon. colleague for Wetaskiwin.
Motion No. 7 calls for the inclusion of a clause requiring that
the board hold a representational vote on union certification
when 35% of the employees sign cards requesting union
certification. Of course this is getting into the particular
motion that has caused all the controversy this afternoon.
In its current form the Canada Labour Code states that the board
may hold such a representational vote but does not bind the board
to the vote. This means the board could choose to ignore the
wishes of workers in one respect or another.
Mr. Ted White: Mr. Speaker, I am calling quorum because
there is not a single government member present.
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have quorum.
Mr. David Chatters: Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that
my speech is not so exciting that everyone in the House would
want to stay and listen.
Motion No. 7 calls for the inclusion of a clause requiring that
the board hold a certified representational vote on union
certification when 35% of the employees sign cards requesting
union certification. In its current form the Canada Labour Code
states the board may hold such a representational vote but
does not bind it to it.
This means the board could choose to ignore the wishes of
workers in one respect or another. Union certification may be
forced on workers or denied to workers if such a democratic
process is not in place. The proposed clause ensures that the
wishes of the majority are heard and upheld.
The second motion in this group moved by the hon. member
Wetaskiwin is Motion No. 30. This motion has my unwavering
support and should have the support of every other member in this
House.
Motion No. 30 calls for the removal of clause 46. Clause 46
allows the board to certify a trade union despite lack of
evidence of majority support. This is the issue that has caused
all the controversy this afternoon, the trampling of democracy
and the lack of respect for the democratic rights of union
workers.
This is unacceptable and it allows for the board to make
assumptions about the wishes of the workers. This clause
suggests that it is acceptable for the board to force union
certification on workers if it believes that it was only unfair
labour practices that prevented workers from voting in favour of
union certification.
This might be acceptable if there were a concrete way to determine
unfair labour practices. The reality, however, as exemplified in
the Wal-Mart case is that the board does not always know the minds
of workers.
1635
In the Wal-Mart case the board assumed that Wal-Mart was using
intimidation tactics to bully workers into voting against trade
certification. This was not the case and now the workers have
launched a decertification drive.
This clause leaves it up to the CIRB to determine what
constitutes unfair labour practices and in essence to presume to
know the minds of the workers better than the workers themselves.
To go against the wishes of the workers and to override their
democratic right to determine the majority opinion through a
representative vote is absolutely unacceptable. Members from the
other side of the House are saying this clause protects workers
who are being intimidated by their employers. However, if this
is the case, that employees are afraid to vote honestly by secret
ballot, then there is something wrong with the voting process and
not with the way this legislation operates to protect them.
I certainly cannot support this bill in its current form without
other amendments being proposed.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
before I entered politics I was a trade unionist working for the
Nova Scotia government, unlike some of my colleagues on this side
of the House, with respect to trade unionism and workers.
Those years taught me everything I know about why employees need
protection and why allowing workers to organize is an important
part of our society. That is why I am happy to stand here today
and speak in favour of Bill C-19 in its present form, a bill
modernizing the Canadian Labour Code for the first time in more
than 20 years. It says something for the timeliness of the House
that it has been two decades to update this act.
Think of the changes to the workplace since 1978. Changes in
technology have affected everyone. Changes in the global economy
have made it easier for people and money to move from one corner
of the world to another. The stability our parents' generation
grew up with has evaporated. The days when you started a job
when you finished school and kept that job until you retired are
over. The heavy industries and natural resources that generated
so much of the nation's wealth have been downsized or wiped out
like the east coast fishery.
Today workers have to face the prospect of changing jobs several
times, acquiring new skills as they go. People often move from
coast to coast within the country and often from country to
country. Coming from the maritimes, we are very well accustomed
to the citizens of the maritime provinces constantly moving to
other provinces to seek work.
For many people such as my colleagues in the official opposition
these changes to the workplace are a universally good thing and
offer an opportunity to escape from what they see as a
restrictive web that developed to protect workers during the
first seven decades of the century. They are free to erode the
protections given to workers by saying they were specific
regulations tied to specific industries and job sites.
We hear groups like the National Citizens Coalition, the Fraser
Institute, the Business Council on National Issues all singing
from the same song book of deregulation and decertification. To
hear them talk we would think the right of an employer to fire
their workers at will is a right protected by the charter.
This has been the problem of the last two decades, that
businesses and workers have grown apart, that management
increasingly sees workers and unions as obstacles to be overcome,
speed bumps on the highway of economic progress. Unions and
workers often with good reason look at their bosses and wonder
why when profits are soaring and their friends and neighbours who
work side by side with them for years are collecting welfare.
They see corporate salaries going up at rates thousands of times
the increases being given to people on the shop floor and in the
offices. They see governments responding to their bosses and the
special interest groups that represent them, lowering taxes for
the wealthy so they can make more and more money that will, in
theory at least, trickle down the line.
If anything has been trickling down from the bosses standing over
the workers it certainly is not money. Real wages have been
going down in Canada while the business sector thrives and job
security is a thing of the past for most citizens.
1640
There is an important distinction that many employers and
members of the Reform Party are failing to grasp and that is at
the core of why this bill needs the support of the House. It is
a great life for someone with a specialized skill and lots of
education to go from short term contract to short term contract,
playing off employer against employer and getting the best deal
for him or herself. It is a different story for someone who has
a grade four education and has worked for 30 years in a fish
plant or in the woods.
The brave new world of global capitalism is great for the first
group, but for the second group it means hunger for their
children and their families and death to their communities.
To me there are few things more obscene than government funded
consultants turning up in towns and villages that were passed by
by globalization and lecturing people on the need to pull
themselves up by their bootstraps.
There are millions of people in this country who are never given
the skills needed to compete in the world of high finance and
high technology. That is a fact that no one can deny. Those
people need even stronger protection today than they did in past
years.
The moral issue for me at the heart of this debate is the need
to protect the more vulnerable members of society from
exploitation. It goes deeper than that, to the right of all
people to work together in a way that will maximize the benefits
for all involved.
The left in general and my party in particular have often been
accused of being opposed to profits, opposed to the market,
opposed to business. This is nonsense. While I know Reform
members will take pleasure in attributing my party's support for
the bill to our supposed dependence on trade unions, I am proud
to stand in the House and say that the New Democratic Party is
pro-business, pro-profit, totally in favour of more and more
people earning more and more money. Contrary to what the members
of the opposition might think, there is no conflict between that
position and our support for organized labour.
This is what Bill C-19 is about, a reassertion of the moral
obligation to include and empower workers in the business of
making business work.
When Bill C-66 died on the order paper when parliament was
dissolved just over a year ago, I thought the progressive changes
we see resurrected before us today had been shuffled aside
permanently.
The minister deserves credit for bringing these issues and the
bill back to the House and I hope it will receive the support of
all right thinking members. Specific aspects of the bill are
worthy of special mention.
Carrying on from my previous comments concerning changes in the
workplace, it is good to see that the issue of disseminating
union information will no longer be restricted to onsite workers.
With more people commuting with computers it is critical that
solidarity among workers be maintained and that no one be
discriminated against because of where they work.
The clarification surrounding strikes affecting grain shipments
is a critical matter and all parties that contributed to the
drafting of the legislation deserve credit for reaching a
compromise that preserves the right to strike for all those
involved yet preserves the tens of thousands of jobs connected to
the industry and the vital flow of grain that feeds millions of
people around the world.
The creation of the new and improved Canada Labour Relations
Board is perhaps the biggest single change that will have a
positive impact on the life of Canadians.
The board's ability to arbitrate in disputes over certification
and strike votes means a faster and fairer process that will
hopefully reduce the already low strike rate in Canada.
My colleague from Winnipeg Centre made mention in his remarks on
this bill that between 95% and 97% of all labour disputes are
resolved without strikes, lockouts or work stoppages of any kind.
That should put paid to the fearmongering that members of the
official opposition have engaged in. They should be reminded
that groups from all sectors of society have contributed to the
legislation.
I would just like to ask the members of the Reform Party as an
active trade unionist to please stop insulting the intelligence
of workers across Canada by wanting to appear as though they are
in true support of workers across this country.
My experience over the last 10 months in this House has been that
Reformers have clearly demonstrated that as trade unionists they
are anti labour.
1645
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Blackstrap, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the hon. member from down the way as she gave her
speech a few minutes ago. At the end of it she talked about how
Reformers should take note, that we put ourselves forward as
protectors of labour. She said that with a great deal of sarcasm
so I am assuming she did not really mean it that way.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would like to say to the member that I am not the
member from down the way. I am the member for Bras d'Or.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Bras d'Or has made her point. The hon. member from the other
end, Blackstrap.
Mr. Allan Kerpan: Mr. Speaker, it is a point well taken,
rest assured. I meant that it was to my far left.
One thing struck me as being odd about the member's remarks.
About a year ago we were campaigning in the 1997 election. One
of the big reasons the federal New Democrats and of course the
provincial New Democrats are so much in love with labour is that
they get most of their election funding from that area.
My wife is a school teacher. She belongs to the Saskatchewan
Teachers Federation. Her union dues to a large degree go to the
person who ran against me in the federal campaign as a New
Democratic. I do not know whether or not she likes that but there
is something wrong with this whole picture. That is a bit off
topic and I would like to get back to the topic at hand which is
of course Bill C-19.
In this parliament and in the last parliament, there was a great
deal of talk about labour, about unions, about how they are
constructed, about how they should negotiate, how agreements
should be made, how strikes should or could or may not happen. I
remember in greater detail as it related to the business of
agriculture, something which I am personally involved in, along
with a large number of others in my province of Saskatchewan.
We went through a series of strikes in those years. Railways
were on strike at one point in time or another with different
unions. I think there are something like 27 or 29 unions that a
bushel of grain must go through from a farmer's gate until it
gets loaded on to a ship on the west coast, at Thunder Bay or at
Churchill.
From firsthand experience as a farmer, that is one of the most
frustrating areas. A person works all year to grow grain and
spends huge amounts of dollars and if he is lucky he may make a
profit but it is seen at the end of the tunnel. Then there will
be a union that will put the kibosh on that, or in some cases
management will put the kibosh on that, because there will be a
slowdown or stoppage in grain transportation.
What it really is doing is affecting innocent third parties far
more than anything else. It is the innocent producer of the
grain who suffers most. We have to come to a system in this
country where we do not allow those types of things to happen.
I am all in favour of negotiation and consultation between
unions and management. I know that without management, unions
cannot exist.
As my colleague from Skeena mentioned a few minutes earlier,
there certainly is a need for unions at least in some companies.
We all have seen companies that have taken advantage of their
employees. There definitely needs to be some control and unions
are a very important part of that.
1650
We are getting to the point where we are allowing groups—and I
am not going to say special interest groups because they are not,
they are unions—but we are getting to the point where we are
allowing small segments of our workforce to tie up entire
industries. A few minutes ago I mentioned the grain
transportation system.
I know that a couple of years ago the Grain Services Union,
which is the union for Sask wheat pool employees, voted to go on
strike in September. September in Saskatchewan is a very
important time of year. It is harvest time and we definitely need
our elevator agents. It was very interesting that in this
particular strike many of the employees refused to walk out. Many
of the employees at the local elevator agents and in fact our
local elevator agent Mr. Brent Hartman refused to go on strike.
He crossed the picket lines and opened his elevator.
In a small town of 350 people such as I live in, to have a
fellow stand up for the producers' rights even though he is a
union member and a good union member, is admirable. I take my
hat off to these people. It was very important and a very
critical move by those people.
The other half of this bill that I see as a huge negative is the
way the democratic process is being handled. It has been
mentioned today how undemocratic things are not only in some
areas of the labour process and the labour force but also in this
House of Commons.
We profess in this country to have one of the greatest
democracies in the world. Certainly I do not think anyone would
argue that we have the best country in the world. There is no
question about that. However I look across at some of the
Liberal members who were heckling our members when democracy was
discussed. The fact is I have been here now for almost five
years, some might say too long, and we have all seen in the last
five years a good number of occasions when members on the
opposite side were whipped into line by their whip.
Obviously the latest occasion was the vote on hepatitis C which
was held last Tuesday night. I walked out of the Chamber after
that vote was held and I ran into a couple of the Liberal
members. They had rather sheepish looks on their faces. We got
to chatting. When I asked them what they thought, they said that
they really had two options. They said that they could have
voted in favour of their constituents and in favour of our motion
but they felt that no one would talk to them the next morning at
caucus. They said that they had to make that decision as to whom
they were going to support first, their party or the people who
elected them.
If it comes to that serious of an issue and members of
parliament do not have the intestinal fortitude to stand up for
the people who elected them in the first place, they have no
business being in this place.
The member for York South—Weston had the courage to stand up
for the people who elected him. What happened to that member?
Everyone knows he now sits right beside the curtain on the
opposition side. He is history. Those members over there knew
that. They knew that if they voted for the Reform motion on
hepatitis C there would most likely be serious retribution and
they could end up sitting on the opposite side of the House, out
of government.
What is more important? Why are we here as members of
parliament? If we are not here to represent the people that
elected us first, then that is a dishonest way to become and
remain a member of parliament. It is fraudulent to forget who
elected us.
We talked a lot about that in the campaign. In fact I was
thinking about that yesterday. A year ago we were involved in a
federal election campaign. One of the issues in that campaign
was democracy and the way MPs should represent their
constituents. Every member of parliament I will admit has a
different way of representing his or her constituents and well
that should be.
1655
The bottom line is that the people who elect us pay us. We owe
that first debt of duty to them, not to the whip or the party
leader. Until that changes, the things we see in this bill are
going to continue to happen. We are not allowing for the regular
Joe Public to have his or her input into this country's business.
That very critical point of argument has to be dealt with.
I will not support the bill the way it stands. That is a given.
If members from all parties, including the New Democrat members
who seem to think it is a pretty good piece of legislation, could
take a step from their own political parties, they could have a
good look at the bill and see what it really means to democracy
and the average worker. They may find that the bill has some
serious shortcomings.
I call on all members of parliament to take that step back from
party lines just for a second if they could. They could think
not about what their whip or party leader wants them to do, but
about what their constituents may want them to do. Ultimately,
when we are done with this business, our constituents are the
people we have to live with when we go home.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I remind the House
that we are debating Group No. 2 motions. It would not hurt if
every once in a while members who are speaking would alight
somewhere near the motions being discussed.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on the Group No. 2 motions in
Bill C-19. We have all been speaking quite eloquently on Group
No. 2 today.
It is instructive to look at history to see what this bill will
do for the Canadian economy. Everybody in this House wants to
improve the health and welfare of Canadians. Heaven knows that
we have the worst structural unemployment problem of any OECD
nation in the world. The number is over 9%. It is not a
cyclical problem. It is a structural problem. Bill C-19 will
only make that structural problem worse.
It is instructive to look at two countries that had to labour
under labour laws which would be supported by Bill C-19, Britain
and New Zealand. As my friends from the Liberal Party well know,
back in the 1970s and the 1980s, New Zealand and Great Britain
were labouring under rules and regulations that supported the
unions and which caused a dramatic negative impact on
unemployment. Their labour laws sought to crush their economies
through various methods which I will get into later.
Bill C-19 will ban replacement workers. As the Sims report very
clearly said, banning replacement workers will have a significant
negative impact on our economy. It will increase the number of
part time workers which will cause a decrease in investment, an
increase in union premiums and a decrease in employment, that is,
an increase in unemployment.
It causes a decrease in the reliance of permanent workers. Who
would like to be in the situation of working part time job to
part time job having to continually seek for a job? It causes an
enormous amount of personal and economic uncertainty for
Canadians. That is happening more. Instead of alleviating the
problem, Bill C-19 will make that problem worse.
The proposed legislation would also provide for union reps to
have the names and addresses of all offsite workers.
1700
That is an infringement on and a violation of people's
individual rights and freedoms. It will also cause an increase
in union premiums and a decrease in investment. What has been
clearly found, when we look at the impact of unionization on
economic performance, is that there is no change or a decrease in
productivity within an economy with an increasing in the strength
of union rules and regulations.
Unions have done a tremendous job
historically in providing job security, fair wages and clean and
fair environments. But in the last few decades they have taken on an
entirely different tone and tenure. Some unions are engaging in
behaviours that produce and increase their political leadership
rather than behaving in a way that is beneficial to their
members. It is the members who pay the price.
If union wages are increased, if members are forced against
their will to join a union, labour costs are increased. If
labour costs are increased what happens? The employer is forced
to increase the price it charges for goods and services. This
causes a decrease in the competitiveness of that business. That
causes a decrease in employment in that business. Unless wage
increases are matched with increased productivity a firm becomes
less competitive domestically and internationally.
This kind of bill will to decrease the competitiveness of our
industry and will strengthen the structural unemployment problems
we have. This is very serious.
There are a number of things we can do. It is constructive to
look at what the United States has recently done. In many states
right to work legislation has been introduced. For those states
that have adopted right to work legislation, 75% of the new
investment in the United States has gone to those states.
Is the individual worker better off with or without right to
work legislation? The last thing we would want to do is in any
way, shape or form harm the individual worker's ability to gain
safe and secure employment. Facts prove that right to work
legislation increases the amount of money that workers have in
their pockets by almost $2,300 per person.
If we look at the historical evidence from Great Britain and New
Zealand we see very clearly that the increasing strength of
labour laws and regulations which strengthens unions within a
country actually crushes the economy, increases unemployment and
impedes the ability of workers to seek what people see as a
necessary part of living, gainful, successful, enjoyable and safe
employment. That is what Bill C-19 and Group 2 motions will do,
except for the ones the Reform Party has introduced. They will
improve Bill C-19.
There are other things we can do that are constructive. I will
quote some from some labour laws and regulations that have
actually strengthened and improved workers' positions. How can we
protect individual workers rights? One, make it unfair to dismiss
an employee for non-membership in all circumstances.
Two, give union members the right not to be disciplined by their
union for not supporting industrial action. Three, make it
unlawful to organize or threaten industrial action to establish
or maintain a closed shop.
Four, make it unlawful to refuse employment on grounds related
to trade union membership. Job advertisements cannot specify
union membership.
Five, make unions responsible for unofficial strikes. Unofficial
strikers can be dismissed. There is no immunity for industrial
action to support a dismissed striker.
We could also do the following that was in the trade union
employment act in Great Britain. We could establish a
commissioner for the protection against unlawful industrial
action.
We could also require unions to provide all members with annual
statements of financial affairs, including pay and benefits of
union leaders. Hundreds of millions of dollars go into union
coffers every year. Does anybody know where that money goes? Do
the workers know where that money goes? No.
1705
They pay out a lot of money and many union workers tell me they
wish we could find out where that money goes. They pay a lot of
money out of their pockets but do not know where it goes. They
are concerned that money goes into the pockets of the leadership
of the unions or for the leadership of the union's benefit and
not for the people.
An audit of these moneys making the ultimate outcome of the
union dues transparent to all members is a useful thing for the
membership and would strengthen and safeguard those union leaders
who are honourable and trying to do the best for their workers.
We could also give individuals the right to join the union of
their choice. Right now they do not have that choice at all. We
could also require employers to seek an individual written
consent to the checkoff of trade union subscriptions from pay
every three years.
All these things could strengthen labour laws, strengthen the
individual's position rather than strengthening the position of
the union leadership.
No one in this House, in particular members of the Reform Party,
wants to see in any way, shape or form individual rights
compromised. That is why our members are working very hard to
quash this bill or at the very least change it so that individual
worker rights are put ahead of the rights of union leaderships.
How can anybody argue with that? I ask members to join us in
producing a bill that will strengthen the position of the workers
and not the leaders.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have not
had the opportunity to speak on the amendments to this bill and
so I think it is a choice opportunity.
Labour laws in Canada are trying to strike a balance between the
rights of management and the rights of workers. That balance is
a balance that I think we all look for and all strive for. I am
not sure that the correct balance has been struck in this bill
and I would like to bring forth a few examples as to how I think
it could be improved.
We are speaking on the second group of amendments. The whole
idea of balance is so that the workers will have a safe, secure
environment, which is very important. I had lots to do in my
previous life with employment problems and non-safe working
conditions. I think the unions had a good part to play in making
workplaces safer. I endorse the work unions have done in that
area.
Looking back through history I have found evidence where workers
were not paid properly. I am convinced that the unions have had
an excellent record in terms of getting fair wages for their
individual workers.
As long as the balance is there and not tipped in favour of the
unions, I think we have the best of both worlds in Canada. I look
to other countries and their experiences and share some of the
comments of the member from Juan de Fuca who talked about Britain
and New Zealand as classical examples where the balance was
tipped.
It is interesting to me that when the balance became so tipped
Britain had the lead in national health care. It had a system
that was completely and totally socialized. In Britain, as these
things often work, the health care system deteriorated. Most
people know now that Britain has both a private and a public
system. Which groups were the first ones to speak out loudly for
the private system when the public system failed them? It was
the unions. They sought private health care for their workers
instead of the public system where the waiting time was long.
1710
The unions got together and thought the national health system
was the answer for all the problems and then ended up pushing for
a private system, an experience that is quite interesting and
quite unique. I digress a little, however, from the actual topic
here.
This grouping of amendments deals with the democratic process
when it relates to union activity, a democratic process where it
does not look fair to me for 35% of the workers to vote for a
union and for the labour board to decide that the union should
well be certified. It reminds me of a dictatorial process. We
saw such a process not so long ago in this House.
I wonder if members opposite would reflect on the forced vote on
hepatitis C a few days ago. It generated media interest that was
intense. If the Prime Minister had not done that maybe the story
would not have been so vigorous.
I saw what I consider to be the harshest cartoon I have ever
seen in a political arena relating to this. It showed on one
side a victim of hepatitis and asked how do you recognize a
victim of hepatitis C. It also detailed the sad things these
victims have, yellow skin, jaundice, swollen liver and fatigue.
On the other side of the panel it asked how do you recognize a
Liberal backbencher. It drew a person in a business suit and
labelled them. The labels were devastating, two faced, no heart,
spineless, gutless.
They were placed in the position of being called all those
things. Individual members I had talked to and knew did not want
to vote that way sincerely and humbly were forced to vote against
their conscience. I consider that action to have—
The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. member knows it is
improper to reflect on a vote in the House. I invite him to move
on in his comments and deal with the matter before the House
today. I know the hon. member would want to comply with that
rule.
Mr. Grant Hill: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that timely
reminder.
The issue is democracy, voting for constituent wishes and, in
terms of the union here, looking at how union members could be so
far off base as to be certified when there are only 35% voting
for a union.
It is a sad commentary that this legislation is coming from a
government that has not acted in a democratic way.
I was asked a piercing question by a journalist today as to how
this issue of democracy in the House could have got so far away
from where the government should be, a government of compassion,
a government of kindness and a government of sincerity. I could
not answer.
There were four or five opportunities for the government to
change its mind on the non-democratic position it took. I could
list the opportunities. The latest one is where the provinces,
which had a stand that was supposedly unified, broke ranks. What
a perfect opportunity for the Prime Minister to simply say they
had made a mistake, that they would listen now reflecting on that
error and go back to the drawing board.
Instead the government dug in its heels and became aggressive
and belligerent on behalf of a position it took, a position I am
convinced most Canadians know is wrong.
How does the government get out of a position when it has been
non-democratic? It is really quite tough. How does an
individual go back to their constituents and say “when we talked
before the vote I promised you that I would not vote for this
package and I changed my mind”?
I guess the cartoon that says spineless really says a lot.
1715
There are members opposite who, I am absolutely convinced when
they go to public events over the next few months and answer the
questions of their constituents, will have trouble explaining to
them why they went that route. I feel sorry for them. I feel in
my heart that they did not want to do that. I guess they can
find some excuse to say to an individual with hepatitis C, but
frankly it is difficult for me to explain. I could not explain
it to the journalist. Maybe they could.
Mr. Speaker, I see you getting ready with Beauchesne's. I
presume that means I should be moving into another area.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. I am pleased that the hon. member for Macleod brought
it to my attention, but most definitely this does not have
anything to do with the amendments.
If members of the Reform Party are serious about trying to make
some amendments, would they please talk about them? We have been
here all day and there has been very little talk on the
amendments. Obviously this is not a serious—
The Deputy Speaker: I have corrected the hon. member for
Macleod once. In case he wanted to know the reference. I refer
the hon. member to citation 479 of Beauchesne's, 6th edition.
A Member may not speak against or reflect upon any determination
of the House, unless intending to conclude with a motion for
rescinding it.
The hon. member is not in a position to move such a motion today
since we are on debate on another bill. There are motions
already before the House concerning another bill and a motion to
rescind the motion he was referring to earlier would be out of
order.
In his remarks today I know he was working to draw them into
Bill C-19, which is after all the subject of our discussion. I
had not noticed that he had strayed further than some other
members had strayed from the topic in the course of the day.
Mr. Grant Hill: Mr. Speaker, once again I defer to your
wisdom and judgment on these matters, as I recognize your
profound experience in the rules and practices and regulations of
the House. It would be very unwise of me to try to argue such
points.
I will go back to the point that I was trying to make before,
the undemocratic nature of Bill C-19. Members opposite have some
difficulty understanding this principle. I was trying to point
out when one has not been democratic in one's own affairs it is
difficult to be democratic in the affairs of others.
It is very important to have balance in labour laws. This sort
of balance is what Reformers seek. We would like management and
workers to have the proper balance. We think it can be improved.
We have made amendments to do so. I would ask my colleagues to
consider the amendments we have put forward with care and with
sincerity.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on some of the
comments made by my colleague from Maclead.
I recognize that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Labour has sat here all day. It is a shame that she has not been
accompanied by too many of her government colleagues in this
debate while listening to the concerns of the opposition parties
to government legislation.
Unless I am mistaken, the whole purpose of report stage is for
the government to look at amendments placed on the floor by
opposition members to try to make a better piece of legislation
than what the government has provided.
1720
Our job in this place is to hold the government accountable and
to make sure the legislation that the government passes on behalf
of the Canadian public is the best it can possibly be. It is
sometimes very disarming for us when debating to an empty House
to try to convince an empty House that the legislation is
inadequate, needs to be corrected and needs changes. Today is
just another example of what we put up with day after day in
trying to hold the government accountable for bad legislation and
to offer some innovative changes.
We have a genuine concern with Bill C-19 under Group No. 2. Let
there be no mistake that I will be speaking about the lack of
vision the government has shown in Bill C-19.
I represent a province which has had labour legislation that has
been very damaging to the economic well-being of our province and
of employment. We have a problem in our province with labour
legislation. We do not want to see as representatives of that
province those problems compounded by labour legislation brought
in by the Liberal government.
We have a concern with the democracy that is not being supported
in the legislation. We are talking about legislation that would
allow a union to come in and organize in a place of work and to
convince some people, sometimes the ones with a lot of influence,
to consider unionizing. These people of influence, although they
may be a minority, could end up placing that place of work in a
situation where somebody declares that it will be a unionized
shop even though the majority of workers, for very good reasons
perhaps, feel that they are not ready to be unionized and do not
want to be unionized.
That just rubs the wrong way any Canadian who believes in
democracy, who believes that people have a right to make
decisions for the best of the majority in the situation. That
means workers and that a majority of the workforce in a
particular work environment should feel that a union is required
to speak on their behalf.
In many instances people find themselves in a union when they do
not really want to be. They are paying union dues when they do
not see any benefit from it. We even have young people who are
union members. They get accreditation, their journeyman
certificates, but because of union salaries they find themselves
too expensive and the union shops do not hire them.
I have talked with several young people who have found
themselves unemployed for years on end because they cannot work
outside a union shop. The employers are being asked to pay them
journeyman wages which they cannot afford to pay. The young
people find themselves in a conundrum: they cannot work because
the union will not allow them to work and have no options open to
them.
Many people are looking at unions in a different light. A
majority of workers should be required before a workplace decides
to belong to a union. I do not think we should be taking that
right away from the average employer.
Another concern I have with Group No. 2 is the motion the Bloc
has put forth. I have difficulty with it. I like some of the
concepts but not all of them. This is an opportunity in the
House of Commons for people to debate the motions in amendment
raised by other parties.
I do not like the idea that we have a government which feels
that this is a waste of time and that we should not have the
right to be raising points on other people's motions that we feel
may be going in the right direction but do not quite make it.
1725
Bloc Motion No. 8 talks about the automatic removal of an
employee representative upon the receipt of an application. This
is when employers are being blended. I have a problem with the
way it is being dealt with. I like the concept that there needs
to be some negotiation, but who should decide which side is to
have the employer or employee representatives when there are
amalgamations or mergers. There may have to be a concession that
all of them are represented or a means of figuring that one out.
This is the vehicle. This is the process. In parliamentary
debate we debate these issues. I resent that we have a
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour who is trying
to say that we do not have the right or that we are wasting time
debating these issues.
In Motion No. 7 we indicate that the wording is not quite right.
One word can make all the difference in the world. “May”
rather than “shall” can make all the difference in the world to
workers who are looking for somebody to represent them.
I do not think it is wrong for us to move a motion to say to
government that a word is not quite right, that it can be
interpreted in such a way that it is not representing the best
interest of the employee, and that we feel it should use another
word in the legislation instead of the word it has chosen to use.
In the motion we are saying that the government is offering the
labour board a choice that it may or may not call for a
representative vote of the workers. That should be automatic;
that vote should be required. It should not be conditional and
not something the board can choose to use or not to use.
It may be naive of me after five years in this place but I would
like to think the government is open to suggestions, that the
government is open to having motions brought forward and debated
pointing out the usage of words that may make a difference in the
interpretation by the board being created by a court if it comes
to a court situation.
We would like to think that the government is open to those
kinds of suggestions. However my experience tells me otherwise.
My experience tells me, no matter what the issue, that once the
government has made up its mind it is not willing to accept that
maybe it has made a mistake.
It does not matter whether it is in the drafting of a bill or in
the hepatitis C debate. We very seldom see a government that
says that maybe it made a mistake, maybe it could do better,
maybe it should listen to the opposition side, maybe it will make
a change because of something suggested that offers improvement.
Rather than listening to the cat-calling, the hissing and the
screaming from the other side, maybe they should be listening to
the logical and well presented arguments from the opposition side
to improve government legislation so that Canadians can receive
the best possible legislation from the House.
Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I wonder if we could have unanimous consent of the House
to see the clock at 5.30 p.m. rather than starting another
speaker at one minute to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the suggestion. Do we have unanimous consent to see the clock as
5.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There is agreement
and by serendipitous circumstance it is also 5.30 p.m.
It being 5.30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1730
[English]
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
dissolve the regional development agencies, including ACOA,
Ford-Q, WED, and FedNor, and redirect funds targeted for the
agencies toward tax relief, debt retirement, and the reduction of
the size of the federal government.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I encourage all members to support this
motion. It is one of those motions that create responsibility in
the minds of all members of parliament. Regional development
agencies are big business.
According to the auditor general, $4 billion was spent in the
eight years leading up to 1995. Compare that to the public
accounts revelation that in the year 1996-97, the bill for ACOA,
WED and Ford-Q was $1.1 billion in terms of authorization, of
which $999 million was spent. One billion dollars in one year is
a major acceleration.
Regional development agencies were set up to do one thing and
they are doing another. They were set up to fill gaps in the
financial markets that were not being filled by the financial
institutions in the private sector. They are now in direct
competition with the services provided by the private sector
financial institutions. I will show exactly how they are doing
that.
In April 1996 the report of the Senate banking committee
concluded that while the agencies are meant to fill gaps in the
capital markets, there is no consensus on the method determining
where those gaps exist and there is no way of analysing whether
the gaps are being filled.
The regional development agencies are but one part of crown
corporations in dealing with finances. Among those other
institutions the following are included: the Business
Development Bank of Canada, the Farm Credit Corporation, the
Canadian Export Development Corporation, Canada Lands, Canada
Post, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and many others
totalling up to 50 such agencies that deal in the financial
sector. They were all set up to support ventures that do not
have access to financing in the private sector. Today those
ventures have the same difficulty getting access to the crown
corporations and regional development agencies as they have
accessing agencies in the private sector.
Let us recap. Regional development agencies spend over a
billion dollars a year of taxpayer money. Their purpose is to
fill gaps in capital markets yet there is no way of determining
where those gaps are and no way of analysing whether the agencies
are filling those gaps. The agencies are part of the crown
corporate structure, of which there are 50 bodies. Crown
corporations were established to increase access to capital but
business today has difficulty getting it.
Why has this happened? What has caused agencies to become
ineffective? The Liberal wisdom of balanced budgets is to
maintain institutions without determining their effectiveness, to
insist they become self-sufficient even though to do so the
agencies will be forced to compete with the private sector, and
they move away from their original mandate to fill gaps in the
capital market and financing needs of the people. This wisdom is
costly. It promotes inefficiency and fails to contribute to the
growth of the economy.
The Reform wisdom would be to eliminate these costly agencies
which have outlived their purpose and which compete with the
private sector. In doing so, a Reform government would eliminate
a significant amount of unnecessary spending and would empower
the private sector by getting out of its way. This would allow
the private sector to function more effectively without
competition from the public sector and it would stimulate growth.
These agencies have become ineffective because of their
inability to do the things they were set up to do. Do we need
further evidence? No, we do not. But there are additional
issues. For instance, a newer selling point for the regional
agencies is that they become one stop doors to government
programs.
There are two issues here. First, if there are so many
government programs and agencies to help small businesses that we
need a guide to steer us through them, then there are too many
programs.
1735
A business wants access to capital. It does not distinguish
whether it is TPC, SBLA, FCC, WED, CANARIE, NRC, MRC, ACOA,
FORD-Q, FedNor, BDC or CMHC. That is just the beginning. Each
of these is an acronyms for a government program. The labyrinth
carries on. Each dispenses billions of dollars for one purpose,
the help small and not so small business.
We are concerned here only with three agencies. The second
issue here is that if the government is to be involved in western
economic diversification, Atlantic Canada opportunities, the
regional development of Quebec, and the economic initiatives in
northern Ontario, there are other federal crown agencies that do
exactly the same thing. Two of these are the Business Development
Bank of Canada and the Farm Credit Corporation.
One could easily enter into debate about whether FCC and the
BDC, the Farm Credit Corporation and the Business Development
Bank, are doing what they were intended to do. That is a subject
for another day.
The government is failing in its responsibility to business, to
the marketplace and to the taxpayer. The government continues to
build a labyrinth of sources for capital and still is no closer
to understanding why the gaps exist in the first place.
The irony is that it is no easier with all these government
programs for business to gain access. It is becoming
increasingly difficult. The government has not improved the
marketplace. Instead it competes with the private sector. More
important, the government has failed to analyse why we have these
gaps in the marketplace in the first place.
The government is taking the easy way out, more spending, more
activity but less and less effectiveness. The people in business
who need access to capital are not getting it. The marketplace
is not improving and the promised long term jobs are not
resulting.
The original regional development agencies are a failure by
anyone's standard. It is time to eliminate them.
Much work has been done in the past two years by the standing
Senate committee on banking, trade and commerce. That committee
published a report in April 1996 which recommended “the phasing
out of regional development agencies; they should not exist
independent of crown financial institutions when institutions
such as the Farm Credit Corporation and the Business Development
Bank of Canada target the same market as the regional agencies”.
The committee goes on to say: “If there are regional economic
development programs funded at the federal level that do not
involve direct business related services, then provincial
agencies are best able to deliver such programs”. These are
sound recommendations given the committee's findings, but the
Liberal government ignored them.
Perhaps this is an indication by the Liberal government as to
how effective the Senate could be, but that is another debate
which we will not get into now.
It is not just that regional agencies do exactly the same as
some of these crown financial institutions. Other crown
financial institutions can leverage their paid in capital and as
such are in a much stronger position to help business because
their financial strength is much greater than that of regional
development agencies.
Not only do regional development agencies compete directly with
the private sector, they duplicate the work done by other crown
financial institutions.
In 1995 the auditor general had some concerns, lack of
information on which programs have worked and which have not, the
need to be cost effective, the lengthy approval times, the need
for continued co-operation and the challenge of implementing
changes.
In 1997 the auditor general reviewed those same things and asked
what has happened. Here are three of the agencies he examined
and gave a conclusion on.
In the auditor general's words it was still too early to
determine whether FedNor is adequately monitoring its projects.
Let us review the history of FedNor.
It was created in 1987 to address the economic disparities and
adjustment problems of the region. In 1992, five years later,
all the programs were all consolidated into one program the
FedNor business incentives program.
In 1996 its strategy was changed again, this time to improving
access of small business to capital, to information on markets
and promotion of community partnerships. Three changes in
mandate in nine years. The obvious question is what evaluation
was done that resulted in the changes in mandate. Is the focus
right now? Will it again be changed before it can be evaluated?
Was it wrong the first time? Was it wrong the second time? Is it
wrong now? What assurances do we have that it is right now? If
it keeps getting changed we will never know.
1740
That is why these changes are such a useful vehicle for
patronage, disposal of money. No one can ever pin the government
down because before we can find out what it is really doing the
government has changed so we never really know what its mandate
was. And yet it is costing money, taxpayer money.
The government must be held accountable. How many businesses
went bankrupt because of these grants and subsidies to these
development agencies? Who will ever know? For that reason if no
other they should be scrapped. How can the success of a program
be seriously valued in such a short time if the mandate changes
constantly? I will go on to the next thing.
FORD-Q is the biggest spender of them all. The only improvement
observed by the auditor general was: “Our review of a small
sample of files suggests that the documentation supporting
project funding recommendations has improved”.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I do not see a quorum. I see only three Reform members
and no Conservatives.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
1745
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have quorum.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kelowna.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, the auditor general in
1997 also did a comparison of what happened in the two years in
ACOA. The main purpose for setting up ACOA was, according to the
auditor general's report of 1995, to create employment. That was
its main purpose.
In 1997 the auditor general reviewed again to see what had
happened. He made this observation about ACOA: “The agency
continues to use the assumption that all of the jobs created by
the program will last for a period of 10 years. As in 1995 we
were not able to find support for this assumption”.
The very purpose for which it was set up was not being met.
The report goes beyond that and states that the objectives were
so general they could not be measured. The assessment process
used by the agency was not significantly different from that
found in the 1995 audit. This is an abysmal failure in the way
in which that particular agency is run.
We go beyond that. How effective is another group? The western
economic diversification agency was set up recently to cover a
whole lot of things. It is supposed to do new things. Canada
business development centres were set up to provide access to
various government departments through the communication network.
They were working. Now they are subsumed under WED.
The notorious infrastructure was working, but now it is subsumed
under WED.
1750
The community futures program was working. It is now under WED.
What has been the result of all of this? In Kelowna the
infrastructure program has never been less successful. The
community futures program has not brought more people into the
marketplace and into the working field. The business development
centres do not distribute any more information than they did
before.
What are the results? We have an organization. We have staff.
We have bureaucrats. And the only jobs that were created on a
permanent basis were for the bureaucrats.
The regional development agencies are not doing what they were
set up to do. They are costing taxpayers billions of dollars.
They are duplicating the work of crown corporations. They are
competing directly with the private sector. They are doing the
exact opposite of what they should be doing.
The wisdom is that we should eliminate them. If we have to fill
the gaps that are not being met in the private sector and in the
financial sector, let the agencies that exist outside of the
regional development agencies, like the BDC, do the work.
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Science, Research
and Development)(Western Economic Diversification), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is obviously a fundamental difference here in
terms of the approach to the development of the nation. There is
a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of development
agencies.
I will start by thanking the hon. member for Kelowna for all of
the good work that he has been doing with the Central Okanagan
Community Futures Development Corporation.
Community futures development corporations are funded in large
part by regional agencies. They play a very important part in
the economic development of rural and non-rural western Canada.
The Central Okanagan Community Futures Development Corporation is
part of western diversification's western Canada business
services network.
Since his election, the hon. member for Kelowna has continued
his good work by meeting with management of this community
futures development corporation to discuss the corporation's
business plan. He has continued by attending that community
futures development corporation's networking evenings for small
business. In September 1996 he was one of the opening speakers
at the Central Okanagan CFDC's annual meeting, where I am told
that my hon. colleague spoke glowingly of the achievements of the
community futures development corporation.
I say to the hon. member: Good work. Keep it up. He knows
that these community development futures corporations have a
niche, that they are filling a need, that they work and that they
do help in the creation of thousands of jobs.
At the same time I must confess that I find it strange why this
member, who knows the benefits that the regional economic
development agencies provide to small and medium size businesses,
would put forward a motion to disband these agencies.
[Translation]
Regional economic development is, without a doubt, one of the
cornerstones of our nation. The federal government has promised
to pursue economic development and to promote equal opportunity
for all Canadians. Whatever our party or background, we must
agree that strong regions contribute to a strong Canada.
[English]
The federal government, the industry portfolio in particular,
plays a critical role in pooling and marshalling the resources
that businesses in Canada need. Canada's regional development
agencies are largely responsible for the development and delivery
of these resources across the country. They exist to help
businesses in the regions develop and grow to meet the challenges
of the globally competitive world.
I am very proud to be responsible for our regional agencies.
Let me give members a few reasons for that.
1755
In my province of Manitoba, western economic diversification, as
lead federal agency for federal assistance, hit the ground
running during the Manitoba flood with its economic recovery
efforts. The mobile restart program, le program mobile de
redémarrage, took applications on the spot, returned in a week
with a cheque, provided $8.8 million to almost 2,000 small
businesses and entrepreneurs.
Over 1,000 businesses have been helped with WED providing more
than $13.4 million, cost shared with the province of Manitoba.
Helping displaced fishers, for example, affected by changes in
the west coast salmon fishery, WED brought together federal
departments and 12 community future development corporations,
made over $5 million available for small business planning and
financing. Fishers can begin their own businesses.
[Translation]
The western Canada business services network plays a key role in
creating jobs and fulfilling needs in that part of the country.
There are also community futures development corporations,
commonly known as CFDCs. Service centres for women
entrepreneurs, business service centres and WD's own offices are
other examples.
We have more than 100 points of service in western Canada, more
than 1,000 volunteers in the network and another 325 people
working at WD. They serve most urban centres and small towns
like Morris, Manitoba, Bruno, Saskatchewan, and Bonnyville,
Alberta.
This goes to show that these centres are not serving only or
mostly larger cities. Their primary focus is small towns and
rural areas.
[English]
I want to tell this House very briefly about some success
stories. Barbara Dale from Edmonton came to Alberta Women's
Enterprise Initiative Association with an idea for a business in
1996. She received business planning help and qualified for a
$100,000 start-up loan. Last year her company, Labour Now
Industrial Staffing, had sales of over $1 million and is
forecasting $4 million for this year.
Each of WED's products and services must meet the needs of a
specific client group, follow the agenda of the federal
government in terms of economic development, provide key needs of
small business, information and capital.
Canada Business Service Centres, les Centres de services aux
entreprises du Canada, are an important element in this economic
development.
WED is a managing partner in the west. Last year these
organizations took an average of 33,000 requests for information
and 50,000 website hits every month.
[Translation]
With respect to the loans and investment fund, WD makes
contributions to loan-loss reserves to raise capital for small
business from financial institutions.
For every dollar invested by WD, financial institutions invest
eight. As a result, $420 million was made available to small and
medium size businesses. WD helps businesses fill in loan
applications. Loans are administered by financial institutions
at arm's length from WD.
While still a new program, more than 240 loans totalling
$55 million have already been approved. Also, CFDCs have granted
more than 1,500 smaller loans, which helped create 2,500 jobs in
rural areas in western Canada.
[English]
Look at WED's efforts with aboriginal peoples: contribution of
$950,000 given to the Aboriginal Business Development Centre in
Winnipeg to encourage entrepreneurship among urban aboriginals; a
contribution of $5 million toward Saskatchewan Indian Federated
College.
[Translation]
To promote linguistic duality, $1.6 million was granted to the
Manitoba bilingual communities' economic development board to
help 11 bilingual municipalities further their economic
development. Other investments were made in other western
provinces to meet the needs of francophones.
[English]
For the youth employment strategy, four programs: the
international trade personnel program, first job in science and
technology, the western youth entrepreneurship program, and the
community economic development internship program. Let me give a
concrete example of what this has done.
Glas Aire Industries in Vancouver, an automotive accessories
manufacturer, hired a graduate under the ITPP to try to crack the
Japanese market.
It resulted in contracts with Nissan and Toyota. Omar Essen,
general manager of the company said “Our Japanese success is
largely due to WD”.
1800
On partnership agreements, we are currently negotiating five
year agreements with four western provinces to collaborate, work
together and co-operate on economic priorities. Alberta's is in
place. We are nearing completion with three other infrastructure
works programs.
WD is the federal delivery agent in the west with over 5,200
projects approved, more than 33,000 jobs created by that program.
It is clear that WD is helping to build a strong economy in the
west. It is equally clear that a vibrant economy in one part of
the country benefits all other parts of the country.
I could speak much longer but I will finish by saying that WD
works. I have given many examples. There are literally hundreds
of others.
Mr. Speaker, you and I and perhaps a few others know that what
is good for western Canada is good for Canada. What is good for
western Canadians is good for all Canadians. My colleagues could
make similar comments with other regional development agencies
that exist and which are tailor made to respond to the unique
needs of other regions of the country.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak
today in my capacity as the Bloc Quebecois critic for regional
development on Motion M-224, presented by my colleague on the
industry committee, the hon. member for Kelowna. I can attest
to how hard he works on that committee, and he often asks
pertinent questions.
entirely
I believe it would be useful to reread his motion:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
dissolve the regional development agencies, including ACOA,
Ford-Q, WED, and FedNor, and redirect funds targeted for the
agencies toward tax relief, debt retirement, and the reduction
of the size of the federal government.
All of the components of this motion make sense, but there is a
problem, I believe, when they are put together. Then some
clarification becomes necessary.
The Bloc Quebecois would be in favour of dissolution of the
regional development agencies, but is not opposed to investment
in regional development. Our Reform colleague is suggesting
less intervention in the economy. On this point, my thoughts are
along the same lines as the Liberal minister who has just
spoken.
It is certain that the rural and isolated areas need help. They
must be given special assistance or they and their local
businesses will not have an equal opportunity for development.
In our opinion, however, the federal government is not the one
best placed to develop the regions. The government in Ottawa
creates agencies right and left, but there are services in place
at the provincial government level for this. Such is the case
in Quebec, with its regionalized structure made up of 16
regional development councils. There are local development
councils, one in each of the MRCs, and these structures are
characterized by representativity. The public can run for
membership on the board of these bodies.
The minister may well say “Oh yes, we do the same, we have CFDCs
in our region”. But this duplication of energies and of staff
constitutes a problem.
I am speaking for Quebec, because it is what I know best. In
our opinion, the federal government is not the one in the best
position to look after this matter.
1805
The federal government will be present because of its need of
visibility. Whether the government is Liberal or Conservative,
it has to have its visibility. It must at all cost show it is
doing something even if regional development services exist in
the provinces.
According to the logic of our statement, money for regional
development should go to the provinces, which are in a better
position, in our opinion, to look after such matters, or
federal-provincial agreements should be established.
That was long the case. It could have been the case, for
example, in the infrastructures program in which municipal,
provincial and federal governments acted on a one time basis.
Such agreements are possible, therefore.
One such one was renewed in the east. Since 1994, with the
Liberals in government, renewal of the regional development
agreement with Quebec has been impossible. There has been
no agreement since 1994, and on top of that, the federal
government continues to spend money on regional development
without a thought to regional development council strategies or
to the priorities and approaches of local development councils.
It is therefore acting unilaterally, driven by its concern for
visibility.
This is so much so that they changed names. They are no longer
calling it the federal office for regional development—Quebec.
Since early March, it has been called the Canada Economic
Development for Quebec Regions Agency. They have to show their
maple leaf.
This is for visibility. When ministers cannot make
announcements, they send government members to do it, to cut
ribbons, so as to always ensure the visibility of our good
federal government, and particularly that of the Liberal
government. Money is spent. But we need to allocate that money
to development initiatives that reflect the priorities.
An example of duplication is the $33 million spent in Quebec for
administration purposes. There are 264 federal public servants
who duplicate the work of provincial public servants, or of
development officers paid by municipalities, regions or
communities. And they seldom sit down to put their heads
together. We must put an end to this situation.
However, I will admit one thing. We must recognize the work of
the CFDC's in Quebec that are funded by the federal government.
Over time, they developed an expertise in regional development.
In recent days, I talked to Quebec government people involved in
regional development, and they were saying that their government
is willing to recognize the expertise of the CFDC people who
have been involved, and that it would be pleased to continue to
work with them. These people include permanent employees, but
also many volunteers who became involved over the years.
In conclusion, the federal government's participation in
Quebec's regional development activities has considerably
evolved toward unilateralism. Indeed, while the federal
government used to provide financial support to activities
determined by the Quebec government, it is now implementing its
own programs and activities, and it funds them in a unilateral
fashion.
What is more, no reference is made to either strategic planning
or framework agreements between the Quebec government and the
regions for the choice of priorities, but rather to the study
results on which the former federal office of regional
development based its own view of the regions of Quebec. This
situation does not augur well in any way, because in future the
two governments will be taking action on parallel paths in
regional development, so there will be still more duplication
and overlap, thus creating an atmosphere of confusion for the
clientele in the regions.
If, with the abolition of these agencies, the federal government
were to convert the amounts it was already spending into
transfer payments to the provinces, we would be in favour.
Quebec does not get its fair share in regional development
funding. Looking at the per capita amounts, and comparing with
the Atlantic provinces for instance, I would like my colleague
from the Atlantic region to know that there is a five-to-one
ratio, with his region getting five times as much.
1810
Comparing the number of unemployed, the ratio is four-to-one. I
have not done an analysis for other regions, but I believe that
if the government wants to continue paying out money and if it
were to accept a federal-provincial agreement for doing so, it
should at least respect the principle of fairness. There is
already the principle of equalization, which applies to
transfers to the provinces. The Minister of Finance has
jurisdiction over this, according to certain calculation
formulas too complicated to go into here. This is a system
already in place.
When it comes to regional development, where the focus should be
on giving isolated regions of a province, or sub-regions, the
same opportunities as the rest of that province, it should be up
to the province to decide on priorities and on the mechanisms to
be used.
Conditional on such a balance, there should be transfers to the
provinces for regional development, because we feel that the
provinces are best placed to be responsible for this.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
would first like to thank my Bloc colleague for the good news
about his comparison of the Atlantic and Quebec.
[English]
I have to say I am not surprised to see this private members'
motion today. We are finally starting to see the true colours of
the Reform Party. Bit by bit through this whole parliament we are
going to see Reform Party members coming up with motions and
private members' bills and they will slowly try to dismantle all
programs in this country. They will start, as they have shown
today, by attacking the most unfortunate.
That is why we have regional development agencies. Being the
critic for ACOA I have to say there is a need for these agencies
but unfortunately the Reformers do not see a need. They do not
see a need to help the unfortunate of this country. There has
been proof today.
I have to say I am not surprised. I am alarmed because my fear
of that party is coming to realization. I hope Canadians will
finally see through that party. It is scary when you hear some of
the things its members say.
The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency creates jobs. I am not
saying that ACOA is set up perfectly because it is not. There
are changes I would like to see in ACOA. I would like to see it
closer to the community but it does help to create jobs.
We could try to forget that there are provinces and regions not
only in the Atlantic but all across the country that are less
fortunate than others. We could do like the Reform Party does
and say we are going to forget about them, let us take away the
financing they have, let us take away whatever prosperity this
may give them. Not everybody in Atlantic Canada has big bucks to
start small businesses. They need help. That is what ACOA is
there for.
Again I am not saying that it is a perfect agency but I would
rather see it there the way it is now than not see it at all.
There is a need for it. I get calls on a daily basis from people
asking how to start up a business, what is out there to help
them. If we did not have agencies like this one, we would not
have small businesses. The self-employed create jobs in the
Atlantic provinces. There is a need for them. There is the
fixed link fund. It might not have helped as much as we would
have liked but it certainly helped.
One criticism about ACOA is that there is not enough follow up.
There is money to help start businesses but it lets it go too
fast. There is a need for follow up. There is a need to make
sure that the businesses are stable and can survive. That is not
there right now.
1815
We have to look at the motion as one coming from a member of a
party that wants to dismantle this program. It is a start at
dismantling regional development agencies. If it could
succeed—and I am pretty sure it could not—it would try it on
health care, CPP and on and on. That party believes that if one
is not rich then tough. It is unfortunate how it addresses the
poor in Canada and tells them that it will relieve them of taxes.
I was in that bracket. I was paying taxes and I was not making
a whole lot of money, but when my son was sick he could go to the
hospital and it did not cost me anything. My daughter spent a
week in the hospital last year and it did not cost me anything.
That is the part Reformers forget to say. They are going to
reduces the taxes but they forget to say that taxpayers will have
to pay for their children in hospital or have to buy insurance if
they can. It is all in there.
The Reform Party has it very well laid out. Its members know
what to say and they know what to try to make believe to
Canadians. I am telling Canadians what the Reform Party would
really do. It is trying to do it today by trying to dismantle
these agencies. It is just the start of it.
That is how Reformers work. They tell Canadians that is not
true, that they care about the unfortunate, the poor and the
small and medium size businesses. However they would destroy
them. This would destroy the possibility of creating small and
medium size businesses in the Atlantic provinces. I am just
showing their true colours. I believe that very much.
I probably paid more in taxes this year than I made working the
year before. At least I have services. My mom and dad have
pensions. They can have a half decent life. It is all there.
The day we start slashing and slashing, the services will be
gone. It is very important for Canadians to remember that. The
motion is showing me exactly what the Reform Party wants to do.
When Reformers talk about tax breaks, do they often say a tax
break only for the very poor? No, they do not say what kind of
tax break they would give to the very wealthy. We do not hear
them say that. I wonder why. They will never say that large
corporations do not pay enough tax. Those are their buddies.
Members in the Liberal Party probably have quite a few buddies.
I am sure when the Minister of Finance has supper he does not go
to the soup kitchen. I am sure he goes with his bank buddies and
they tell him to keep up the great work, that he is doing just
great. He goes along and keeps doing what he is doing because of
what all his buddies are saying. That is what happens.
Members of Parliament who have never experienced too much
hardship should go to a soup kitchen for supper once in a while
or should see the line-up at social services. Maybe that would
give them a reality check.
When it comes to ACOA and when it comes to this motion it is
disgusting.
[Translation]
I would also like to say a few words in French. ACOA is needed
in the Atlantic regions. I have no doubt of that. We need help
starting up and developing small and medium size business. This
agency is there. It is not perfect, and I would certainly like
to see some changes, but I would rather have it as it is than
not at all. It is my duty to work toward progressive and
positive changes in this agency that will help develop our
regions.
As I said earlier in English, suggestions such as these calling
for the abolition of agencies helping Canada's poorer regions
are alarming. This is only the beginning and it reveals the
real Reform Party. Its purpose is to destroy our national
programs and to continue to help its friends, who are luckier
than others in this country.
1820
[English]
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I cannot blame my colleague from New Brunswick for being
concerned, but have no fear the Tories are here.
It is a pleasure for me to rise before the House in response to
Motion No. 224, calling upon the government to dissolve all
regional development agencies.
For years, successive federal governments grappled with the
problem of regional economic disparity. In 1969 the Department
of Regional Economic Expansion was created in an attempt to
address the situation.
Later in 1982 the department evolved into the Department of
Regional Industrial Expansion. Both these endeavours failed to
adequately address the specific problems facing the many diverse
regions of the country.
One of the major criticisms of these two departments derives
from its often poor focus on a centrally devised, one size fits
all answer to regional problems.
Canadians wanted a greater say in developing their own programs
to respond to their own economic problems. They were no longer
willing to accept Ottawa's often ill advised solutions being
thrust upon them.
As a result, in 1987 the Progressive Conservative government
disbanded DRIE and announced a new direction for regional
economic development policy in Canada. New agencies were created
for the western and Atlantic provinces, moving much of the
government's regional development decision making out of Ottawa
and closer to the people served. Western economic diversification
was created to help expand and develop the business face of the
economy in the western provinces.
The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency was given a legislative
mandate to increase opportunity for economic development in
Atlantic Canada and to enhance the growth of earned income and
employment opportunities in that region.
ACOA has enabled many small and medium size businesses in
Atlantic Canada to create jobs that otherwise would not exist.
Its involvement in the economy of the region has resulted in an
important net positive contribution.
Since its inception ACOA has had a total employment impact of
82,000 jobs. ACOA's investment has created $233 million annually
in new export sales. Each dollar invested in the business by
ACOA, its provincial government and private sector partners
results in $5 of benefit to the Atlantic region.
Similarly the return to the government in taxes, savings and
employment insurance payments equals $3 for every dollar invested
by the government. ACOA has a proven performance record in
achieving real results in our Atlantic economy.
Dissolving ACOA would have a devastating effect on most Atlantic
Canadians. Unlike the western region whose economy presently
leads the nation, Atlantic Canada continues to struggle
particularly with the serious downturn in the fishery.
There are presently over 25,000 fishers and fish plant workers
in Atlantic Canada who were forced from the fishery by the
downturn in the fishery and who are subsequently awaiting word
from the government on a new TAGS program.
The Progressive Conservative Party was the first to champion the
cause of tax relief for ordinary Canadians. However, the
cancellation of this regional development agency would provide
little or no tax relief for these 25,000 individuals.
Unemployment figures are still too high in Atlantic Canada. The
best way to confront the serious unemployment situation is to
encourage Canadians young and old to start their own business.
Figures show that 94% of all new jobs in the country are created
by small and medium size enterprises. We need ACOA to help
people start and to expand their own businesses. It has the
ability to provide individuals with much needed capital along
with expertise on how to begin new ventures.
1825
Most chartered banks in Atlantic Canada are quite reluctant to
support small business ventures unless they are willing to
provide about 30% to 50% of their own equity to the project.
Unfortunately most aspiring entrepreneurs are incapable of
meeting this demand. Therefore, without ACOA having taken a
chance on individual projects, many would not have got off the
ground.
Atlantic Canada need ACOA to reduce the regional economic
disparity that exists among provinces. Therefore we cannot
support the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The mover of the
motion, the hon. member for Kelowna, has five minutes to
conclude.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
express appreciation to some of the speakers who have entered
into the debate. I am somewhat disappointed in some of the views
that have been expressed because some of them left a lot of
imagination between what was said and what the actual truth of
the situation really was.
One thing ought to be made very clear. The reason behind the
motion is to eliminate inefficiencies, to eliminate duplication,
to eliminate grants and subsidies to businesses which really
divert funds from successful businesses and gives them to other
businesses. Is that to say that none of these programs have
worked? Of course they have worked but at a cost and
inefficiently.
There have been some suggestions that we should have grants and
subsidies. Let me just look at a couple of things that have
happened. Some $11 billion of assistance was authorized over the
last 16 years. Some 32,000 separate grants have been given, and
18% of them were given to 75 of the largest corporations in
Canada.
If we are talking about helping the poor, that is not where this
money is going. It is not going to the poor people. Hundreds of
millions of dollars are going to Pratt & Whitney, De Havilland,
Bombardier, Canadair, to Le Group Montreal Inc. and Air Ontario.
In fact it was almost $1 billion. What has the repayment
schedule been? It has been abysmal. Very little money has been
repaid.
We need to recognize that some serious questions have to be
asked. How can parliament continue to accept that subsidies are
cost effective when we know that the evidence clearly shows that
they are not? We have no way of evaluating them. How can
parliament continue to support regional development agencies when
study after study shows that they are not accomplishing what they
were set out to do? How can parliament continue to support
regional development agencies when they contribute significantly
to taxpayers' burdens with so little return on the investment?
These are serious questions that have to be asked.
Turning to inefficiency and overlap in particular with the BDC,
SCC and Community Futures, now a big bureaucrat is sitting over
top of them and saying “Look at how much more responsibility I
have now. I have to have a bigger budget. I have to have more
staff. I have to have bigger offices”. It is bureaucratic
entrepreneurship, and it does not build the economy.
We must make all efforts to eliminate the regional development
agencies and redirect the funds so that they will do what they
are supposed to be doing toward tax relief, debt retirement,
building the economy and reducing the size of government. That
is what this was about. In this way we will support the private
sector.
There is a rule for government agencies but the issue is
duplication. The issue is building the private sector. Taxpayers
spend money better. Left in their pockets they will manage their
money better. Business will manage money far better than any
government agency or any government department ever dreamt of
doing. That is the principle here. Government should get out of
business and let them help those people who really need the help,
not the big corporate welfare bums.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided for
the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired
and the order is dropped from the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
1830
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
on February 23, I asked the Minister of the Environment which
departments will be stopping hazardous waste dumping in Ontario
sewers.
At that time I raised my concerns shared by many Canadians on
the minister's assurances regarding the harmonization accord and
the continuing decline of environmental protection across the
country.
The minister's response as recorded in Hansard included:
“We will assure all members of this House that we are following
through with our supervision, inspections and maintenance of
standards”.
Program review one and two led to losses in financial and human
resources which have devastated a once respected department.
The growing concerns over global warming, pollution prevention
and community health issues are of prime concern to Canadians. The
majority of Canadians believe more should be done to protect our
environment.
Environment Canada's own internal report identified a need for
over 300 staff to provide adequate environmental inspections,
enforcement and protection. Yet the minister is comfortable with
60. The minister defends this policy and the lack of enforcement
and protection as sufficient.
I would like to draw attention to another issue, ASD, alternate
service delivery. Canadians have witnessed examples of this
failure policy through NavCan, food inspection branch and Ports
Canada; bad ideas, poor service and Canadians at risk.
Now the Liberals wish to continue this policy with components of
the atmospheric sciences branch. This is at a time when our
major trading partners are increasing funding to atmospheric
sciences. Canadians across this country have stated time and
time again do not close more weather stations, where are the up
to date storm alerts, and why do they have to pay for weather
information as taxpayers.
With this conscious abandonment of fiscal excuses coupled with
the continued devolution of environment duties and
responsibilities through ill advised harmonization accords with
the provinces, this Liberal government approach will lead only to
further degradation.
How can Canadians be reassured on the protection from hazardous
waste dumping when there is little proof that Liberals care about
our environment?
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the issue of
hazardous wastes, including their generation, transportation and
disposal, is one which touches all Canadians. It is one which
the federal government takes seriously.
Canada has shown its intentions relating to the responsible
management of hazardous wastes through the Canada-U.S. agreement
on the transboundary movement of those wastes between our two
countries. As a signatory to the international Basel convention,
Canada again indicated its commitment to environmentally sound
transport and handling of hazardous wastes.
In terms of municipalities and the environmental protection
measures they may take, municipal governments have the authority
and bylaw making powers granted to them under provincial laws
which create or incorporate them. It is consistent with the
overall Canadian experience that municipalities have demonstrated
over the years their environmental conscience.
In many cases they can and do act to prevent noxious and harmful
substances from being disposed into municipal sewers or through
other municipal facilities.
The hon. member also addressed a number of other concerns in his
address and one of them has to do with issues around enforcement.
The hon. member is well aware, because he is a participant on
the environment committee, that the committee is doing a report
that will be given to parliament on this issue. I believe all
members have taken good use of committee time around the table.
Everyone has made a very sound contribution to this very
important issue.
On the issue of global warming, the government has established a
national secretariat that will be dealing with the global warming
challenge. In terms of alternate service delivery for the
weather and climatic systems across the country, the government
is undertaking a national review.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed adopted. Accordingly, this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.35 p.m.)