36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 64
CONTENTS
Friday, February 20, 1998
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1000
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA LABOUR CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-19. Second reading
|
1005
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Gouk |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
1010
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Canuel |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
1015
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Gouk |
1020
1025
1030
1035
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
1040
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1045
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1050
1055
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Gouk |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
1100
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RURAL CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Larry McCormick |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DR. CORNELIUS W. WIEBE
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BLACK HISTORY MONTH IN CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LE FINANCEMENT DE LA RECHERCHE
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MATHIEU DA COSTA
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jean Augustine |
1105
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROYAL CANADIAN MINT
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VIOLENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TÉLÉVISION FRANCO-ONTARIENNE
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1110
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FAMILY
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Aileen Carroll |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COLUMBIA MISSION
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CORPORATIONS' PROFITS
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
1115
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PAY EQUITY
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ALCAN
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MATHIEU DA COSTA AWARD
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
1120
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
1125
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHILD POVERTY
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1130
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1135
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BILL C-28
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1140
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RESEARCH FUNDING
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BILL C-28
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL AID
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Monique Guay |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Diane Marleau |
1145
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BILL C-28
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HOUSING
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
1150
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FRENCH AND THE INTERNET
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SENATE OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1155
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RAIL TRANSPORTATION
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Fred Mifflin |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANKRUPTCIES
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Steckle |
1200
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Gouk |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PATENT ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-361. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Gouk |
1205
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FIREARMS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-362. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Gouk |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Nuclear Weapons
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Gouk |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRTC
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Nuclear Weapons
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Taxation
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Cyprus
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRTC
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1210
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Seniors Benefits
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Criminal Code
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Keyes |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA LABOUR CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-19. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1215
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
1220
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
1225
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1230
1235
1240
1245
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
1250
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1255
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1300
1305
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1310
1315
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
1320
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1325
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1330
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PATENT ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-248. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
1335
1340
1345
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1350
1355
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1400
1405
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1410
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Speller |
1415
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
1420
![V](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 64
![](/web/20061116193621im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, February 20, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1000
[English]
CANADA LABOUR CODE
The House resumed from February 19 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part I)
and the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
Mr. Jim Gouk: Mr. Speaker, for clarification, as I
understand it, the member from the Liberal Party had just
finished speaking at the last period for debate on this bill and
is now subject to a period of 10 minutes of questions and
comments.
1005
Is it possible to proceed in that way, given that comments can
be made by opposition members relative to the speech she made?
The Speaker: Technically speaking it is, if the time is
available. I do not know if the member is here.
The hon. member has 10 minutes of questions and comments coming
to her. Are there any questions and comments?
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I was reviewing the speech made by the hon. member when
this bill was last debated in the House and I would like to
comment on a couple of the things she stated.
First of all, and I am quoting from Hansard, she said: “I
reject the view that collective bargaining is no longer relevant.
The freedom of workers to organize and bargain collectively is a
cornerstone of our democratic, market based society”.
She went on to suggest that Canadian employers have also
benefited from the collective bargaining system. She said: “It
helps to ensure stability, predictability and efficiency”. She
goes on to state that 95% of collective agreements in Canada are
negotiated without a work stoppage.
The problem is not with the 95% of the collective agreements
which are settled without a work stoppage. The problem is the
overwhelming impact of large national employers that represent
the 5%. That is the stoppage we are worried about.
One side says do we penalize the 95% because of the problems
created by the 5%? We say no, do not penalize anybody. Who says
that something that started 150 years ago should carry on without
change? Who says it should not be brought in at least to the
20th century as we approach the 21st?
Strikes and lockouts are not a part of collective bargaining.
They are a result of the breakdown of collective bargaining.
Strikes and lockouts are a form of coercion used by one side or
the other to try to return to real collective bargaining.
What we need is a dispute settlement mechanism which works
without causing catastrophic harm to Canadians, to Canadian
workers, to Canadian business, to the Canadian economy and to our
international reputation of having reliable suppliers.
She uses the words reliability, certainty and efficiency in her
speech, but what we need is something which absolutely ensures
Canadians that—
The Speaker: I will give the hon. member a chance to
respond.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of
my hon. colleague. His point is well taken.
There is no doubt that when 5% of the workforce is affected by a
strike or a lockout, a disruption in service, there is an impact.
However, it must be balanced with the fact that collective
bargaining has been and continues to be in some fields a very
necessary tool in maintaining safety in the workplace and work
standards, in setting hours that are to be worked to avoid
inordinate hours and in setting types of pay. Collective
bargaining is important in many different aspects.
As the hon. member pointed out, 95% to 97% of all bargaining is
settled. That is a heck of a good record. When both sides sit
down they have the opportunity to air their complaints and they
come to an agreement. That agreement fosters a good working
environment. People want to work together and they want the
company to do well.
We have to look at all sides of the issue. In this piece of
legislation there are a number of riders and conditions
concerning strike and lockout rights which will be helpful, such
as the provision for a 72 hour advance notice of a strike or
lockout which must be given to the other party and filed with the
minister of labour. That will avoid surprising the parties and
the public.
There are a number of key things such as that in the bill.
The Speaker: My colleagues, if I know how many hon.
members want to ask questions or make comments then I can divide
the time.
1010
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on a point
of clarification from my hon. colleague.
I would say that a lockout or a strike is serious enough as it is.
I cannot understand why there is no provision in this Bill C-19 to
prevent the employer from hiring replacement workers. When there are
disputes, sometimes, there is violence. In Quebec, we have antiscab
legislation prohibiting the replacement of strikers.
I wonder why a similar provision was not included in this bill, so
that workers cannot be replaced while on strike. I think this would make
the rules of the game clearer. This would prevent acts of violence. It
would prevent outbursts of anger and fights.
[English]
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
answer this question. The reason that the bill does allow for
some conditions for replacement workers is that we believe the
bill has to be balanced and fair.
We will hear Reform Party members say they want that very
strongly. We will hear the NDP and the Bloc say they do not want
any.
The reality is that the Liberal Party has always stood for
fairness and balance in trying to find a compromise that is
workable. That is what we are trying to achieve in this bill,
some sort of compromise that allows for employers to continue if
it is needed, but that there are safeguards.
There are things in the bill like the formation of the new board
which my colleague from Lambton—Kent—Middlesex is going to
address later this morning.
They all are an integral part of the bill which will make it
work well. I really hope members will support this. I went to
Vancouver with the minister and we had about 140 individuals come
to speak to us, with very few dissenting votes on this bill.
Farmers pleaded for it. We had labour pleading for it. We had
several different types of management pleading for it. I think
we really need to get on with this. It needs reform and we are
going to try to do that in a balanced way.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, one
of the aspects of Bill C-19 that we are optimistic about is the
composition of the new industrial relations board.
I would like to ask if the parliamentary secretary to the
minister could speak a little about how she might see the
composition of this new board speeding the backlog of cases
currently pending.
One aspect is that, from this point onwards, a single chair or
vice-chair might be able to hear certain matters, rather than
waiting for the composition of the full three person panel. We
would hope that might be able to expedite a backlog of cases.
I would be interested in hearing some targets or goals or ways
she might be planning on dealing with that.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Mr. Speaker, it is very kind of
my hon. colleague to allow me to elaborate a little on this
because I think it is a key part in the good working of this
bill.
The bill provides for the establishment of a new
representational industrial relations board to replace the
non-representational Canada labour relations board. I think that
is a key part.
The statute will require that the chair and vice-chairs have
experience and expertise in industrial relations. It seems to be
common sense, although it was not always there, that the minister
consult employer and employee organizations on the appointment of
representative members, again a really good thing.
It will make the board more responsive. It will provide
flexibility necessary to ensure that applications are dealt with
in a timely manner and allow for a more cost effective
administration of the code and encourage the use of alternative
dispute resolution mechanisms, which again is key because we are
looking at different ways to solve disputes. That is key when we
have problems in this area.
It will address complex labour relations issues in today's
changing workplace, a very important part of this bill.
1015
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is West Kootenay—Okanagan. A number of MPs have a
bill in to amend the names of ridings. By the time you have got
it, it is going to change again. I just thought I would put you
on warning.
I am very pleased to rise speak to Bill C-19. There is a lot to
be said about it and I believe a lot of people in the House will
be speaking about it today.
It is interesting that the Liberal member who just spoke said it
was neither fish nor fowl. They like to sit in the middle. They
have not really done a lot for this side or that side. They have
done a bit here and a bit there. Sometimes that works and other
times it does not. This is an example of when that type of
approach to things simply does not work. Instead of fixing the
problems, they make it a little bad for both sides. In other
words, they reduce the problem to the lowest common denominator
of a problem.
It is appropriate that I lead off with a reiteration of the
Reform Party's written policy on labour, the right of workers to
organize democratically, bargain collectively and strike
peacefully.
I would like to break that down into three separate parts so we
can deal with exactly how the bill relates to our written policy
on these things. The first one is the right to organize
democratically.
Democracy can refer to the right of an individual or it can
refer to the right of a group. In the case of the bill it allows
the renamed CIRB to certify a union without the support of a
majority of the employees. The bill also allows the CIRB to
order an employer to release to the union the name and addresses
of employees who work off site without requiring the employees'
permission. Both these provisions totally ignore the rights of
individual employees and ignore the rights of employee groups.
How can it possibly be said that democracy is being upheld, the
question of organizing democratically, if the majority of the
bargaining unit or the employee group has not said they want to
be part of this union but this new CIRB can go ahead and
establish it anyway? That is hardly organizing democratically.
It is basically one person or a small group of people making an
arbitrary decision for a very large group of people. That is
something that flies in the face of democracy.
Likewise, to say that an off site employee, a contracted
employee, can have his name and address applied to a union
without his permission is also undemocratic. If the Liberal
Party is looking for balance, this thing that says we do not want
to go too far this way or too far that way, how about making a
requirement that the employer pass on to these individuals
materials supplied by the unions? These individuals would have
an opportunity to see what the union is proposing, what it wants
to do and a way of contacting it if that is what they choose to
do.
However, to arbitrarily hand out names of non-union people to
the union so that they can take whatever action they choose to
take, I do not think meets the test of democracy at all.
The second part of our written policy deals with collective
bargaining, the right to bargain collectively. Here is where I
differ from the member who just spoke and the NDP member who
intervened in questions and comments. I do not see taking away
the right to strike in certain situations as ending collective
bargaining. I do not understand the concept of thinking or lack
thereof that goes through someone's head when they say that
strikes are what collective bargaining is all about.
Strikes are an indicator of the failure of the collective
bargaining system. That is all it is. Collective bargaining
involves three things. I have told hon. members this before.
Maybe if I tell them enough it will start to sink in. There are
three components to collective bargaining: negotiation,
conciliation and mediation. Those are the tools of collective
bargaining.
When collective bargaining fails we have a strike by the
employees or a lockout by the employer. It is pure and simple.
Even then that strike or that lockout does not solve the impasse.
It drives them back to the other point where either an offer
comes through negotiation or they go back to mediation and
conciliation.
Strikes and lockouts do not solve problems. They are a form of
coercion that is used to drive the other side back to one of the
three steps of collective bargaining.
1020
Consider the taking away of the right to strike of workers in
certain situations, essential services. Let us use an example
that everybody accepts. Would we expect to see the police
standing on the sidewalk watching someone being beaten, mugged,
raped or killed and doing nothing because they were on strike? Of
course we would not. We understand that in the public interest
we must have the police on duty. Even the NDP accepts that.
Have we done away with collective bargaining? Why can we not
allow them to negotiate, to have conciliation, and to have
mediation? If all those things broke down, the only difference
would be that rather than go on strike and get into the scenario
I have just described we would have a dispute settlement
mechanism that is as fair as possible.
We will talk a little later, as I am sure many members expect,
about final offer arbitration. The point is that during the kind
of collective bargaining where the right to strike is not an end
result, if something goes wrong we still have the collective
bargaining process. During that process any method of settlement
could be agreed upon. Right now we can still do that.
When someone is negotiating and things are not going well, if
they have the right to strike the decision can be to go on strike
or to lock the employees out. They can mutually agree to binding
arbitration. They can agree to flipping a coin. They can agree
to just about anything. Under what we have proposed they could
still do that.
Final offer arbitration is a dispute settlement mechanism that
is used to prevent work disruption that has a catastrophic impact
on Canadians, our economy, our business and our international
reputation. They can still settle on whatever other method they
want. All we want is to have some dispute settlement mechanism
that can be used if all else fails and they cannot agree on
anything else.
The third part is to strike peacefully. We believe in the right
of unions under normal circumstances to strike peacefully if
things have not gone well. It is a very inefficient way to
settle the problems, but in the normal run of things we agree
that under the present process they can strike if they cannot
reach a settlement and this is the route they choose to go, as
long as it is a peaceful strike.
Maybe the question of what is and what is not peaceful needs to
be examined. Peaceful does not necessarily refer only to the
lack of violence. A strike, for example in the port of
Vancouver, impacts on business and industry across British
Columbia because they need products coming in through the port
The strike could involve towns and communities being shut down
and workers being laid off.
This could happen in certain small towns in my riding. In one
town the principal employer is a smelter. In another town the
principal employer is a pulp mill. If they cannot export their
products or bring in ore or the different supplies and materials
they need to run their plants, they shut down entire towns. It
affects farmers right across the prairies.
Is that peaceful? Is it peaceful when the entire economy of a
town is thrown into turmoil and some people lose their businesses
or their livelihoods? Maybe they have mortgaged their homes to
put money into their businesses and they risk losing them. They
are not even part of the negotiation process. They are an
example of what happens when it goes wrong.
Over the past few years we have had national port strikes and
national rail strike. I had the same problem in my riding during
the national rail strike. We reached a point where it was almost
a shutdown of the economies of entire communities.
We have just had a Canada Post strike, the fourth strike in 10
years. Each time it ends up in legislation. Is this a good
process? Should we let them go on strike? Should we say “Yes,
you have the right to strike, but when you go out we will
legislate you back”, or should we come up with something that
meaningfully deals with some form of dispute settlement
mechanism? It would ensure that workers would not lose their
wages and the company would not lose its revenue and ultimately
some of its business, which means jobs for the employees. What
about all the people who are impacted by mail dependent
businesses?
1025
Maybe we need to look at this situation collectively. I realize
that each party has different political philosophies and points
of view. Instead of standing on our own little hills and saying
I am right, maybe we need to sit down together to find some way
to address all the problems.
The bill, by singling out the grain industry for special
consideration, is acknowledging the need to make special
provisions. Why do we not do it across the board? The bill
recognizes that there should be some certainty in the ability of
farmers to ship grain and in our fulfilling international grain
contracts.
In this case we are talking of the ports. What about all the
other things that go through ports? A tremendous amount of
potash from Saskatchewan used to be shipped internationally
through the port of Vancouver. The port was so unreliable that
the Saskatchewan potash industry made a deal with the port of
Portland, Oregon, to build new facilities. It is shipped by rail
down there. It is felt to be a much more certain method of
shipment. The port of Vancouver has lost that business.
Workers have lost work because of strikes which have resulted in
shippers being concerned about the reliability of that port. That
business has gone. They cannot come back and sign a 10 year
contract. Those facilities have been built and the contracts
have been made down there. That is business lost to Canada. That
is revenue lost to Canada. Those are jobs lost to Canadians.
When we start questioning the right to strike, we are not only
doing it for business, for taxes, or for things of that nature.
We are doing it for jobs, about which I am sure the other parties
feel very strongly. They want more jobs for Canadians. They
want better jobs for Canadians. We cannot have better jobs for
Canadians if Canadians lose their jobs because the people who use
the services do not feel confident about them.
Strikes and lockouts hit absolutely everyone. They hit the
businesses, employees and jobs I have just described. Everybody
is impacted. It is an old, archaic way of dealing with a
problem. We have to find a new way.
I would like to touch on one aspect of the bill on which I admit
that I differ from my own party's position. Who says at any time
that everything is right or everything is wrong? There are
always different colours. I want to address the fact that I
differ for a very specific reason on the point of replacement
workers. I happen not to like the concept of replacement
workers. From my point of view I would be quite happy if there
were no replacement workers. I know this is at odds with my
party. The strength of our party is the fact that we do not all
have to stand and sing off the same song sheet.
The whole concept of strikes is stupid. It has to be changed
and I have already addressed that at length. Replacement workers
tilt the scales to one side. If there is a strike or a lockout
employees cannot replace the company. They cannot replace
management and go back to work while management stays out because
they did not co-operate. How can there be an offset of balance
on the other side? They cannot replace the company but the
company can replace them.
The collective bargaining system needs to be amended so that we
have a better dispute settlement mechanism and there are no
strikes. Then the question of replacement workers will not even
come up. While it is there, all we are doing is trying to soften
some of the impacts of strikes to make like it is not as bad as
it is. It is bad.
Some people might find this humorous, but I recently saw a rerun
of an old episode of the original Star Trek program. A
planet had been at war for 300 years. In order to get rid of the
carnage and the destruction of its civilization, buildings and
everything else, it agreed to fight the war by computer. What
happened was another world mounted an attack by computer. The
computer decided how effective the attack would be and how many
people would have to be killed.
Then they just marched 125,000, or however many there were, into
destruction chambers. Nice and clean, no carnage, no destruction
of their buildings or anything. And because they had done it in
this clean way to soften the impact of the real horrors of war,
the war had gone on for 300 years.
1030
Good old Captain Kirk went in and destroyed all the destruction
chambers so they could not meet their quota and then the real war
started. He said that was what was necessary to solve the war
because as long as you keep putting band-aids on something, you
are never going to have the real impact of problems and
consequently you are not going to deal with the real problems.
In this case it is strikes and lockouts. We cannot keep putting
in things that tilt the balance of the real horrors of strikes
and lockouts. Let it get to its absolute worst and then maybe
finally people will realize we have to find a better way to
resolve these things.
For the Reform Party the better way is final offer arbitration.
I have spoken to union groups and business groups all over the
country on this particularly in my own riding. One of the things
I say is if there is something better that does not result in a
work disruption, I am all for it. If they would rather do
something else as long as it does not end up in a work
disruption, then I think that is great. But until such time as
someone comes forward with a better idea, and given that I am
totally opposed to work disruptions because they are bad for
absolutely everybody, then I think this is a viable alternative.
Final offer arbitration is something designed first of all to
bring the employer and the employee as close together as
possible. Hopefully that 95% becomes 96%, 97%, 98%, as close to
100% as can humanly be brought. There are always going to be
some difficulties where employees and employers simply will not
settle.
Let us talk about wages. Simplistically put if it is a wage item
and all the economic indicators in the marketplace suggest that a
rightful raise is $1.50 and the company offers $1 and the union
says it wants $5, the union is going to end up getting 50 cents
less than it would reasonably be entitled to because it was
unreasonable in its demands. Likewise if the union says it wants
$2 and the employer says “We do not think you deserve anything
and we are not offering anything”, the employees are going to
get 50 cents more than they were reasonably entitled to. Each
side knows it. And if they want to roll the dice and say `We are
going to try for $5 just in case the arbitrator is sleeping and
lets this slide through', it is not going to work.
There are suggestions that it is still a roll of the dice. It
depends on how the actual mechanism is designed. It can be
designed in such a way so that it cannot be an arbitrary decision
of either this package or that package. Rather it has to be
weighed against a whole number of economic indicators, the cost
of living, past raises, the ability of the company to pay,
comparability as to what other industries in comparable
workplaces are paying, all of these different factors.
That can be designed into it. There can be a requirement that
the arbitrator or arbitration panel, if that is the way it is
designed, has to make a decision as to which one is closest to
meeting all of the requirements. Then when the arbitrator is
finished a report has to be prepared justifying the package that
has been chosen against each of those indicators.
We can design something that will work. It will work for both
sides. It will work for the employer and it will work for the
employee, but every bit as important if not more so, it works for
everybody else in Canada who is impacted by these strikes.
A small strike that deals with a store and its employees in a
small group and there are alternatives for customers and there is
no major impact is one thing. However when there are strikes that
shut down the industry of this entire country, we have to
recognize that we have globally grown to the point where it is no
longer feasible to have work disruptions in certain industries.
1035
This bill recognizes that in the grain industry. Why stop
there? If it is recognized that the problems in the grain
industry are too overwhelming, then why can it not be seen that
this needs to be expanded to others as well, to the mining
industry, to the forestry industry, to all of the other
industries so that Canada can once again have a reputation of
being reliable.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
have a number of points I would like to raise with regard to the
speech by the hon. Reform critic.
He started with a comment on what he thought was an unfair
aspect of the bill. It had to do with the automatic
certification in an organizing drive where the union can
demonstrate that there were unfair labour practices, or where the
board finds there were unfair labour practices the board may then
intervene and grant certification even if the number of union
cards signed does not indicate a majority vote.
I challenge the Reform critic's reaction to this. It is very
much an issue of basic fairness and natural justice in that where
there is interference to the point where the true wishes of the
employees cannot be figured out because there has been
interference, then it should be the role of the board to
intervene just to give them the benefit of the doubt and grant
that certification.
The counterbalancing aspect of this is that a year later, after
the certification has been granted, if those same employees do
not like being represented by a union, they can decertify just as
easily as they certified. Many people do not realize that. A
group of employees can make application to the board at any time
and decertify just as they can certify the union. I really do not
think it is an issue and it is one of the fairer aspects of the
code.
The member spoke a number of times on how strikes, work lockouts
and interruptions are in fact violent figuratively and literally.
I would argue that withholding one's services is the most
peaceful way of dealing with any kind of an impasse in the
bargaining process. In fact it is a form of passive resistance.
It is time honoured. All through history groups that have not
had access to sources of power traditionally have used the act of
withholding their services to add emphasis to their argument.
I do have other things I would like to speak about but lastly,
the member and I have had the argument about final offer
selection a number of times and I am not going to speak to that
at length. In fact I would like to recognize the—
The Speaker: The hon. member for West Kootenay—Okanagan.
Mr. Jim Gouk: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief because
I know there is another question.
First, I point out to the hon. member that I am not the labour
critic. I just happen to be speaking on this bill on behalf of
our labour critic.
Second, the hon. member talked about interference in the process
of certification by giving them the benefit of the doubt. Why not
give them the benefit of the doubt the other way? That cuts two
ways. If there is no proof that those employees want to join,
then why not have it conducted by a separate vote individually
for those people and find out. Do not just arbitrarily assume
that they were interfered with so they would have joined.
The concept that they can just decertify after a year is an
absolute crock. The member knows full well that once a union is
in place, if those workers step forward and identify themselves
as being opposed to that union, boy, if they do not get it
decertified they have a major problem inside that bargaining
unit.
The second thing the hon. member talked about was passive
resistance, the peacefulness of a strike. He totally missed the
point which unfortunately is not really surprising.
Where the problem lies, and I used an analogy to violence, is
when families are going hungry, when businessmen in small
businesses are losing their jobs, are losing their businesses and
perhaps are losing their homes. Entire communities are shut down
because the services impacted on them. When that happens, that is
my understanding of something which is not peaceful, not violent
in the physical sense but certainly violent in terms of
disrupting good Canadians' lives.
1040
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will speak rather specifically and I do not know whether the
member will want to respond.
Over the years a number of things have happened in the
transportation industry. The statutory freight rate was dropped
and rail line abandonments are taking place. All of this was
supposed to help western diversification. People were supposed to
begin processing agricultural products inland to reduce some
shipping charges or things like that. These kinds of things now
take place, but under the current regime the things that are
protected at port are the unprocessed agricultural products like
grain.
My riding happens to have a number of dehy plants. Their
concern is that their products are not protected under
legislation like this. They ship their products out to the
coast. Grain shipments are protected but we are talking about
all farm income, not just the grain portion of it.
This legislation is deficient in this regard. It does not
really protect farmers' interests the way it is meant to. It
protects the grain industry, but it does not necessarily protect
the agricultural industry. Small shippers will be left vulnerable
because the government would be under pressure to deal with the
strike where grains are concerned but it would not be under any
pressure to seek a resolution for the smaller shippers like
agricultural dehy plants.
I would like to bring that to the attention of the House. Not
everything fits into broad definitions. Consequently we need a
mechanism that will protect everybody. I believe that the final
offer arbitration selection process is the way to go, aside from
having to have an exception or something written into every piece
of legislation, such as the grain transportation act and things
like that.
I would like to see the House seriously consider what our hon.
member is proposing.
Mr. Jim Gouk: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief in my
response. The hon. member raises a good point. I brought it up
at length during my speech in debate.
It cannot be said too often that government recognizes the need
to intercede in the grain industry, therefore why can it not
recognize that need in other agricultural areas, in mining and
forestry and in all the other commodities that are shipped? There
cannot be special treatment for one.
I want to make it absolutely clear that we are not suggesting
that grain be taken out. We think the fact that the government
recognizes it is a small baby step in the right direction. What
we are asking the government to do now is to recognize that it
actually, by accident or otherwise, did something right, and to
build on that and to do something right, to protect all
industries, all agricultural sectors not just one small part.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, on the subject of FOS, I
would like to actually move a little from the arguments that I
have had with the previous speaker a number of times on final
offer selection. As he is aware, I have used final offer
selection in the province of Manitoba and I am well aware of the
whole process.
The difference between the legislation in Manitoba and what the
hon. member has been putting forward here is that the employees
get to vote on whether or not they would use the final offer
selection process. Therefore either party, the employer or the
employees, can make application in this case to the provincial
government to use the process. The labour board would then
supervise a vote of all the employees. If the majority of the
employees chose to settle the round of bargaining by FOS, so be
it. There would be no strike, no lockout and a final selection
arbitrator would ultimately choose.
In a situation like that, I have no argument. I think it is a
useful tool. We recognize that. I have actually used it in my
personal labour relations experience. I will give that.
Mr. Jim Gouk: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his intervention on this point.
I understand how it worked in his home province. It worked well
but it worked slightly differently.
1045
I hear objections but I do not hear alternatives. If he thinks
final offer arbitration is not the best way to proceed, surely he
would not say the only viable alternative is economic mayhem in
this country, having people from one end of the country to the
other who are not part of the strike, are not part of the
bargaining group, impacted sometimes catastrophically.
If he would come up with an alternative which would solve the
problem of job disruption, which would deal fairly with the—
The Speaker: Resuming debate, the hon. member for
Mississauga West.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker.
I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for
Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.
I want to talk a bit about some of the issues the previous
speaker touched on. I also want to talk about what is the role
of government in the area of labour relations.
I suggest that, very important, the role of government is to try
to establish a balanced and level playing field which has some
fairness. We see that in provincial governments. We have seen
it traditionally in the federal government.
When the hon. member opposite talks about final offer
arbitration as being the panacea to labour unrest, I think he
misses a number of key points.
I do not believe that responsible labour leaders want to lead
their people on strike. They want to negotiate the best deal
they can for the men and women in the rank and file. They know
the hardship of going out on strike. Many have come up through
the rank and file. They know the last thing they want to do is
lead their people out on strike.
What the hon. member did not mention is that these labour
leaders are elected. Indeed they are politicians. I know a bit
about it because my father was one for 26 years, the national
director of the United Steelworkers of America, a vice-president
of the Canadian Labour Congress and the chairman of the ICFTU in
Brussels. He has had a bit of experience in the area of labour
relations, as have I.
During my previous incarnation in the Ontario legislature I was
the labour critic for the Liberal Party when Mr. Rae was in
power. Believe me, there were a number of issues which came
forward in that regime. It was a bit like shooting fish in a
barrel.
Members have talked about a number of issues. They have talked
about replacement workers.
An hon. member: What happened to you?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: The member asks what happened to me.
Fundamentally, all the labour leaders today, particularly
industrial labour leaders, are vice-presidents of the New
Democratic Party. That was not the case in the days of Bill
Mahoney. That was not the case in the days of Joe Morris. That
was not the case in the days of Charlie Mallard. That was
because they understood that it was their responsibility to
represent the men and women who elected them at every level of
government. If they walked into a meeting with John Diefenbaker,
Mike Pearson or a Conservative provincial premier they knew that
person automatically knew they were a vice-president of the party
whose main goal in life was to destroy the government—
An hon. member: So they were dishonest.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Excuse me. The member is suggesting
my dad and those people were dishonest? I find that to be a
repugnant comment from the member of the New Democratic Party.
It was quite the opposite. They were honest, dedicated and
faithful to the people they worked for, the men and women who
elected them.
I want to tell him something else. I believe it was in 1958. I
was a fairly young boy and it was Christmas time. We had a large
family. My mom and dad had 10 kids. They were both in labour
quite often. There was a strike in district 6 which involved the
cities of Hamilton and Sault Ste. Marie. It was a big strike. It
was a big issue.
1050
My dad was the national director. I remember my family having
some pretty good Christmases, but this one Christmas was
particularly lean. My mother explained to me that my father was
on strike pay and that it would be a difficult Christmas. Is that
not interesting?
The member opposite says he would like to see some solutions
that would avoid strikes. How about if the head of the union
goes on strike pay when he or she leads their membership out on
strike? That might make them change their minds. This is just
an alternative idea that I throw out to the member.
The problem with final offer selection is that it works only in
financial matters. There is a lot more involved in labour
negotiations and labour relations than simply the $1.50 raise the
member talked about. There are health and safety issues,
conditions in the workplace and the term of the contract. There
can be a lot of different issues put forward that simply will not
fit in that neat little box that the Reform Party seems to want
to wrap up labour relations into.
I heard a member asking if we would expect a police officer to
stand by and watch a crime being committed because they were on
strike. Everybody knows that the police and firefighters cannot
strike. That is a given. That is not what we are talking about.
What we are talking about in this bill is creating a level
playing field where labour and management can sit down and
negotiate. What are they negotiating? The workers, through
their leadership, are negotiating with the only tool they have,
their services. Their services are their product. They can go
to management and tell it what their services are, that they are
underpaid, conditions are bad, they are concerned about its
health and safety track record and they want management to
improve things.
Some people will say unions were important back in the 1930s and
1940s but they are not important today. I strongly disagree with
that. I did not follow in my dad's footsteps in the labour
movement. I went into business. I too have concerns when there
are irresponsible strikes, which we have all seen. However, I
also have concerns when there are companies that refuse to
bargain in good faith.
What we are putting forward are a number of amendments that will
bring some form of calm to the labour relations movement in this
country and bring clarity to the ability to certify a union. What
can possibly be wrong with saying to a new organizing union that
it must get somewhere between 35% and 50% of the people to join
its union and sign a card before a vote is ordered? If the union
gets over 50%, which is not just a matter of submitting cards but
a clear indication that men and women who have signed these cards
want to form a union, then the board can certify a majority of
the people who would be in the union or could call for a vote.
In some jurisdictions such as Ontario we have seen where some
unions have said that there was going to be a vote no matter
what. Even if 90% of the cards are signed, the union does not
care because it is an automatic vote and it is a right of
democracy. I understand the rationale behind that, but there are
also a lot of problems in the federal area when that occurs
simply because many of the jurisdictions we are talking about are
right across the country.
When we talk about people who work in the airline industry they
can come from all across the country. When they land in Montreal
are we going to run up and get them to sign a card or cast a
ballot as they leave the airplane and come down the ramp? It is
very difficult. There must be more structure just because of the
700,000 men and women who work in the private sector regulated
under the federal act. That is what this does.
I would also like to talk briefly about what I think is totally
a red herring, the issue of giving out names and addresses to
people who work off site.
1055
We live in a different economy today. We see what is happening
in the union movement. It is now trying to organize McDonald's,
taxi companies and other service industries. In the case of the
Canadian Auto Workers, only 25% of the membership of the CAW work
in the automobile industry.
It is all over the map. Why? The union is a business. It is a
thing called dues. When it gets those dues, it has more money.
It has more money, it has more members. It has more members, it
has more influence in this place and all legislatures. What is
wrong with that? That is democracy. It is growing its business.
Members would say it ties things up.
Am I out of time already?
The Speaker: I am sorry, my colleague, you are. I must
tell you it was quite enjoyable listening to you. You had five
minutes, as did the previous speakers.
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member said labour leaders do not want to go on
strike. Fine, let us give them some mechanism so they have an
alternative when they cannot settle.
He talked about strike leaders on strike pay. That makes it
okay because they suffer? What about the people who are not part
of the bargaining agent who are forced out of work? They are not
even a part of these negotiations and have no strike pay at all.
He said unions are important. We never denied that. When unions
were brought in they started to deal with deplorable working
conditions. If unions were done away with in their entirety, the
pendulum would swing back, although maybe not all the way. We are
not talking about whether there should be unions but whether
there should be work disruptions with major impacts on the
economy of this country.
In terms of off site workers, what we object to is providing
unions with home addresses so that they can actually go to the
homes of these people. If they want to send something to them,
that is one thing. It can be done through the employer. It can
be done in other ways. The provision in this bill is
unreasonable and undemocratic.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, on the issue of off site
workers it is quite clear that the board can lay down the rules
for making contacts. It even says that the most likely way would
be through the mail. If there is a situation where an organizer
is using unfair aggression or trying to intimidate, which happens
from time to time, the board has the ability to put sanctions
against the union and to charge it properly with unfair
bargaining.
It is totally an overreaction. In the case of off site workers,
the company can take the union information and pass it through
its electronic system, e-mail. It is all about communication.
Why would the company and the union not want to let them know
what is going on?
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
so much has been said in reference to this act and how it will
alleviate some of the problems within the grain handling
industry, specifically for the farmers. It is no secret that the
farmers have really had to foot a major bill in the past because
grain handlers and others in the union system, which is quite
elaborate from the prairie fields to the ports, go on strike.
The only people who pay for it are the farmer.
Section 87.7 talks about the strike and the lockout being
prohibited under certain circumstances.
Since the member supports this bill, how will it deal with every
entity when it comes to the handling of grain from the country
elevator to the port when the bill itself restricts—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Mississauga West.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I guess it is
interpretation. I suggest it is interpretation for the
convenience for the member opposite to adopt a position.
1100
The bill is quite clear that if longshoremen go on strike there
is still a requirement to load the grain. That is a recognition
by this government of the importance of that aspect.
The minister has also said that we are not sticking our heads in
the sand on this issue. We are prepared to look at it to make
sure it works. There will be committee hearings in which people
will have the opportunity to have input and make comments. If
adjustments need to be made down the road, this government will
make them. We are flexible. This is about creating a level, fair
playing field of labour relations between unions and management.
The Speaker: It being 11 o'clock we will now proceed to
Statements By Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
RURAL CANADA
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity
to congratulate the federal cabinet for endorsing the rural
impact test. The endorsement by cabinet of the rural impact test
creates an important tool. The rural lens provides a mechanism
to ensure federal departments review the impact of programs and
services on rural Canadians. This process will go a long way
toward developing federal programs and services that are
appropriate for and accessible to rural Canadians.
Nearly one third of Canadians live in rural areas. These areas
are made up of small communities which are not all alike.
Depending on a number of factors, they experience different needs
that require different solutions. For example, those living near
urban areas face challenges and opportunities that differ from
the challenges and opportunities of rural residents in more
remote locations.
The rural lens will also identify whether there is flexibility
for decision making at the local level.
Please join me in thanking the agriculture and agri-food
minister whose mandate includes rural development and in thanking
federal cabinet for endorsing this initiative.
* * *
DR. CORNELIUS W. WIEBE
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to Dr.
Cornelius W. Wiebe of Winkler, Manitoba who celebrated his 105th
birthday this week. Our world has changed more in this century
than it has over the preceding 2000 years. Some people resist
change but Dr. Wiebe welcomed it and used it to give people in
his community a better life.
Dr. Wiebe was born in a log home in the Manitoba village of
Weidenfeld in 1893. Despite an early life of hardships, he
excelled at his studies. He went on to become a teacher, a
physician and a one term member of the Manitoba legislature.
He is quiet and determined man. His insights into medicine,
politics and agriculture have been highly respected. He was
instrumental in establishing Winkler's Bethel hospital and the
Valley rehabilitation centre.
Today people in our community are still benefiting from his
knowledge and his continuing contributions. On their behalf I
wish Dr. Wiebe a happy birthday and thank him for all he has
done.
* * *
[Translation]
BLACK HISTORY MONTH IN CANADA
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
February has been declared Black History Month in Canada.
To encourage Canadian students to explore, promote and celebrate
contributions made by black persons and individuals of other cultural
backgrounds, in February 1996, the Secretary of State instituted the
Mathieu Da Costa Award.
On behalf of all my colleagues, I congratulate this year's young
winners. They have distinguished themselves by incarnating some of these
values. We welcome them to Parliament Hill today.
Allow me to mention one name in particular, that of Arianne Matte,
of Louis-Riel Public High School, in my riding of Carleton—Gloucester.
* * *
LE FINANCEMENT DE LA RECHERCHE
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the OECD
countries, the debate on employment is centred on technology and
increased productivity. In the long term, knowledge, technological
knowledge in particular, constitutes the main force that drives
economic growth and an enhanced quality of life.
Yet our top researchers are choosing to move elsewhere because
there are not enough resources here to fund leading edge research
in their fields.
This government thinks it has found the solution to this by
creating the Foundation for Innovation and announcing the creation
of the Millennium Fund.
This is not so, for post-graduate bursary programs have fallen
victim to the budget cuts to funding bodies, thus adding
considerably to post-graduate students' debt load.
I am therefore calling upon this government to increase the
budget allocated to the funding councils, the key mission of which
is to fund research, on which the new knowledge-based economy rests
essentially.
* * *
[English]
MATHIEU DA COSTA
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we cannot really celebrate black history month in Canada
without remembering Mathieu Da Costa, the first recorded black
African to set foot in Canada.
1105
Mathieu Da Costa was a navigator, an explorer and a linguist.
Through his many voyages to Canada in the late 1500s he made
contact with the Mi'kmaq people and learned their language.
In 1603 he was the navigator on the ship which carried Samuel de
Champlain on his voyage of exploration. On arrival this black man
became the interpreter for Samuel de Champlain with the Mi'kmaq
people, thus paving the way for the early settlers; Mathieu Da
Costa, navigator, linguist, interpreter.
Congratulations to the many students who today receive the
Mathieu Da Costa awards.
* * *
ROYAL CANADIAN MINT
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government owned mint is bullishly proceeding with plans to build
a new coin plant in Winnipeg. People in my riding are very upset
with this politically motivated decision.
Westaim is a solid diversified company in my riding with a 35
year history of supplying coin blanks to Canada and other
countries. Its success is now threatened by unfair competition
from the federal government. Westaim can provide all the savings
that the mint claims for its new plant and it can provide these
savings sooner at no cost to the taxpayer.
Why would the government use $30 million of taxpayer money to
put jobs at risk? Why would it so blatantly attack the
successful enterprise of a well run corporation? Why would it
build an expensive new plant to compete in an already saturated
world market?
I call on the government to cancel this ill conceived project
and avoid disrupting the lives of hundreds of people. I
challenge it to save the $30 million and to enter into a long
term agreement as offered by Westaim.
* * *
VIOLENCE
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, something must be done about the growing problem of
group violence among young Canadians. My riding of Sault Ste.
Marie, like so many across the country, has witnessed a recent
example of this brutal and frightening phenomenon. Two immediate
courses of action are necessary.
First, we must initiate an in depth study of violence by young
people. We need to find out what dark motives compel groups of
teens to commit such heinous acts and what anti-social impulses
allow others to take a passive role as spectators to these
gruesome events.
Second, we need to reform the Young Offenders Act to establish
greater deterrents to violent group crime. The Minister of
Justice is preparing a response to the government review of young
offenders legislation. I ask the minister to pay special
attention to the rise of group violence by young people. We need
to send a clear message to Canadians that we recognize the
seriousness of this problem and that we are ready to take
decisive action to address it.
* * *
[Translation]
REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to read a poem entitled “Fortier at the
bat”.
Before the court assembled
Mr. Fortier had his say
What was in the Constitution
Was the order of the day
Not discouraged for a moment
The good people of Quebec
Hastened forth to tell the lawyer
That he simply looked a wreck
For though Plan B he must help save
And Lord he wished he could
The ball was slipping from his grasp
And heading for no good
And though he argued loud and long
The effort was to fail
Before his very eyes alas
He saw Quebec prevail
The lesson learned, a hard one too
Is this, there is no doubt
Quebec knows what it has to do
And will see its own way out
* * *
TÉLÉVISION FRANCO-ONTARIENNE
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
February 10, the web site of Télévision franco-ontarienne, named
“Perdus
dans les étoiles”, received the prestigious Milia d'or.
This award is given by the international market of interactive
programs to recognize the programs that combine originality and
creativity, and that make interactive media progress.
It is to be noted that TFO's web site was competing against those
of such multinationals as Disney and Sony, for the best youth web site.
I congratulate TVOntario and TFO for winning this award. I invite
hon. members and their families to visit the site, at www.tfo.org/mega.
We can only hope that all Canadian households, including those in
Quebec, will soon benefit from a little marvel, namely TVO's French
network.
I urge all Bloc Quebecois members to support TFO's efforts in this
regard.
* * *
[English]
THE SENATE
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister is denying his commitment to an elected
Senate.
He is not making it happen.
1110
In 1990 the Prime Minister said: “The Liberal government in two
years will make the Senate elected. As Prime Minister I will
make that happen”. But it did not happen.
Twenty-three times he has used Senate seats as political
patronage prizes to pay off Liberal political hacks. He allows
senators to live in Mexico. Will he refuse to recognize an
elected senator?
British Columbia is the most under-represented province in the
Senate. It needs to be addressed. The Prime Minister is not
making it happen.
In 1991 the Prime Minister said: “To those who live in the
west and the Atlantic, a reformed Senate is essential”. So we
know that he knows Senate reform has to happen. The Prime
Minister promised Canadians it would happen. When will it
happen?
* * *
FAMILY
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am encouraged to see the Globe and Mail
newspaper taking a lead role in recognizing that the time parents
spend with their new born babies is critical in child
development.
The Globe and Mail reports that the International Labour
Organization found that while Canada is generous with time off
for maternity, the financial compensation is insufficient to
permit many working mothers to take enough time to be with their
newborns. Canada pays far less than any other industrialized
country save the United States.
The growing evidence concerning the importance of a child's
first three years is cause for all levels of government and
businesses in the private sector to pay closer attention to how
much time and choice are built into Canada's programs for parents
and their children.
There are a number of ways to expand the options, including
turning the child care deduction into a universal child credit
which does not discriminate against stay at home parents, and have
the private and public sectors increase—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg North—St.
Paul.
* * *
COLUMBIA MISSION
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with deep pride to know that Canadian astronaut
Dr. Dafydd Williams will be on board the space shuttle
Columbia as crew medical officer when the STS-90 Neurolab
mission is soon launched from the NASA Kennedy Space Centre.
In addition, two Canadian scientists Drs. Barry Fowler and Ian
Howard are responsible for 2 of the 26 experiments to be
conducted on board.
The results are anticipated to have direct applications to our
understanding of neurological diseases and injuries and their
treatment and prevention.
We can all take pride that the Canadian Space Agency is very
much involved in this historic endeavour.
Exploring the vastness of outer space is a shining example of
mankind's tremendous accomplishments.
Exploring the vast inner workings of the human nervous system in
outer space extends the limits of mankind's infinite potential in
advancing medical science.
* * *
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today
outside the House of Commons Canadians are demonstrating their
opposition to the MAI, the multilateral agreement on investment.
Canadians are concerned about the MAI and are showing up in
droves at town hall meetings and forums around the country. They
want to know why the government is negotiating this deal in
secret, behind closed doors and with no consultation with
Canadian people.
They are worried when key spokesmen promoting the deal say that
the MAI is necessary because there is a surplus of democracy in
the world today which is interfering with the movement of
investment and capital.
A surplus of democracy. Some of us were raised to believe there
is no such thing as a surplus of democracy. My father went to
war to fight for absolute democracy.
The more Canadians learn about the MAI, the more they oppose it.
It is a bad deal for Canadians and it is a bad deal for
democracy. This government should do more than delay the signing
of the deal, it should say no thanks to the MAI.
* * *
[Translation]
CORPORATIONS' PROFITS
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Statistics Canada announced yesterday that Canadian businesses
continued to benefit from the 1997 economic expansion. The corporations'
seasonally adjusted operating profits increased by 3.1% in the fourth
quarter of that year.
According to Statistics Canada, it is the first year since 1994
that profits increased in each of the four quarters. As we can see,
Canada's economic life is not as bad as sovereignists would have us
believe.
In fact, economic growth would be even greater if separatists stopped
spreading myths about Quebec's separation from the rest of Canada.
Twice, in 1980 and in 1995, Quebeckers chose to remain part of
Canada. If sovereignists stopped trying to make us believe that Quebec
is always the big loser, it would only benefit our country, both from an
economic and political point of view.
* * *
1115
[English]
PAY EQUITY
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, thousands of public servants across Canada did not
enjoy a happy Valentine's Day last weekend thanks to the
government's so-called refusal to honour pay equity.
While the Treasury Board president ponders salary increases for
his former colleagues among the senior management class of the
federal public service, he continues to provide steerage class
treatment for lower paid public servants.
This is yet another example of the government's misplaced sense
of priorities. The Liberal government spends billions of
taxpayer dollars to suit its own political agenda such as Doug
Young's highway robbery, Nova Scotia toll highway capers,
helicopter fiascos and the Pearson airport debacle, not to
mention the ill founded Airbus investigation. The recent
reckless supreme court reference is another.
I urge the Liberal government to instead make the right choice
for public spending and negotiate a pay equity settlement that is
fair for long suffering public service employees.
* * *
[Translation]
ALCAN
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a
historic agreement has been reached between the management and
employees of Alcan that will ensure operational stability in some
10 plants and research centres for the next 18 years.
As the member for Jonquière, I am proud to join with the
Quebec premier, Lucien Bouchard, in congratulating both parties and
recognizing this rather extraordinary example of solidarity and
partnership, which will both protect and maintain jobs, improve
working conditions and enable employees to take a greater role in
the affairs of the company.
My congratulations, once again, to the unionized workers and
the management of Alcan.
* * *
MATHIEU DA COSTA AWARD
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in 1995, thanks to the efforts of the member for
Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Parliament passed a motion to designate
February as Black History Month.
The Mathieu Da Costa Award was created to mark this
designation and to honour black communities in Canada.
[English]
This year's award winners for best essay, short story, poem or
art work come to us from across Canada and we proudly welcome to
Ottawa, Julia Forester, Sointula, British Columbia; Kyla Burns,
Duncan, British Columbia; Dorian Irwin-Kristmanson, Regina,
Saskatchewan; Max Bennett, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Sylvia Mihaljevic,
Burlington, Ontario; Caroline Vincent, Kanata, Ontario; Arianne
Matter, Gloucester, Ontario; Micaela Sheppard, Halifax, Nova
Scotia; Rita Dobosi, St. John's, Newfoundland.
We salute the accomplishments of these young people who inspire
us all.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
was reported last night that this year Canadians could have had
debt reduction and tax relief. There would have been a surplus,
but it has all been blown on new government spending. The big
surplus that the government has been crowing about for months has
already been spent before the budget. Canadian taxpayers have
been robbed.
Let me ask the junior minister for finance, what about tax
relief and debt reduction? Where is it? Gone with the wind?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to give my response to the junior deputy leader.
We have taken a very balanced approach as we have come through
these very difficult fiscal circumstances. One thing I will
guarantee to this House is that when this government commits to
making an expenditure, we will take responsibility for it.
Every household in Canada knows this has to be done. Our
government does as well. We will pay as you go. We will not
saddle future governments with announcements of investments we
are making today.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
every household in this country pays its Mastercard bill when it
is due. It is as simple as that.
We have over half a trillion dollars of debt. Canadians are
paying the highest income taxes in the industrialized world. They
might expect a bit of debt and tax relief, which is what they
have been promised for a long time. It is crazy.
Canadians did take the Prime Minister at his word that 50% of
the surplus would go to debt and tax relief. That simply has not
happened, not with what the finance department has been leaking
anyway to the press lately.
1120
Why does the cabinet always get first dibs on any spending?
Whose money is this anyhow, Mr. Minister?
The Speaker: Please address your questions to the Chair.
It makes it easier that way. The hon. secretary of state.
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, public money
belongs to Canadians and this is why we have been stewards of
that money. This is why we have adopted a balanced approach of
reinvesting in Canada's social and economic infrastructure, a
balanced approach of paying down the debt and a balanced approach
of reducing taxes.
We are going to meet the Reform Party's targets for deficit
reduction, but we will do so without ripping apart the social
fabric of this country. We have done this at the same time as we
have reduced taxes.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Well, Mr.
Speaker, talk about responsible stewards. These are the
so-called “stewards” over there that ran us into debt in the
first place back in the 1970s.
The budget surplus is being blown on new spending, $2.2 billion
worth. That money should have gone back to taxpayers. It should
have gone to pay down the debt. Oops, not the deficit but the
debt. That is what this government promised and that is what we
are trying to hold it accountable for.
Why is it so easy to say yes to new spending and so easy to say
no to debt and tax relief? Why is that?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder why the Reform Party finds it so easy to say no
to more spending on health, no to more spending on children and
no to more spending on a better quality of life for Canadians.
Why does it say no to what Canadians want and need?
I say let Reformers wait for the budget. Canadians I submit
will be very satisfied with the budget as they are satisfied with
the government's performance now as demonstrated by a poll on the
CBC last night.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the senior Deputy Prime Minister.
The surplus does not belong to the Liberals no matter how much
they would like to think it does. It belongs to Canadian
families. Budget after budget this finance minister sucked
billions of dollars more out of Canadian households than Brian
Mulroney ever did. This was supposed to be the taxpayers'
surplus.
Why is the Prime Minister treating the budget surplus like the
property of the Liberal Party when it belongs to weary Canadian
taxpayers?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when the budget is presented next week it will be seen
that we are responding to the needs and concerns of Canadians and
responding to what they want us to do with the funds that they
have provided.
It is pointless to speculate at this point on the details of
what we are going to be doing. However, I can assure members
that it will not be a smash and grab attack on the well-being of
Canadians as is set out in every pronouncement by the Reform
Party since it came into existence.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, let us talk about what Canadians really want. Canadians
know how they want to spend the surplus. They are responsible
even if this government is not. They want to cut taxes and they
want to pay down the national credit card. A majority of
Canadians say to pay down the debt. Millions of Canadians want
immediate tax relief. They have all been robbed this year by
this government.
Why will the Prime Minister not give Canadians what they really
want: tax relief and debt reduction?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am told that in an Environics poll this morning 87% of
Canadians support the government's 50:50 formula, a division
between tax reduction and debt and deficit reduction and spending
on key investments, on education, on young people, on innovation
and the like.
We have already begun cutting taxes. We have cut employment
insurance premiums. We have been cutting taxes for young people
taking post-secondary education and their parents. We have been
cutting taxes for people who are disabled.
Why is the Reform Party unwilling to recognize what we are
already doing? I am willing to recognize that this shows our
commitment to what—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Témiscamingue.
* * *
[Translation]
REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
constitutional farce begun by the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs came to an end yesterday.
As it played out, we saw the government pile up contradiction
on contradiction, as the support for this strategy of attempting to
manipulate the court melted away like an icicle in the sun.
1125
After a week of hearings, does the minister bow to the
evidence that his strategy, which he borrowed from Guy Bertrand, is
heading straight for a dead end, and that he is even losing the
support of his traditional allies?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, would the PQ government, which would like to unilaterally
proclaim itself the government of an independent state, have the
legal justification to be so considered by citizens and
governments?
The Bloc says yes. We say no, there is no such right. The
court will provide an opinion, which we shall respect, and which
will provide information that will be useful to everyone.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
federal government claimed it was going to the supreme court to
seek clarification.
Yet, in less than one week, the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs and the Minister of Justice have contradicted each other.
The government's counsel and the Minister of Justice have also
contradicted each other. In short, we have moved from
contradiction to further contradiction.
Does the minister realize that his strategy has led to total
confusion, even right within his own government?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the attorney general has made a statement to that effect.
Now, let us speak of contradictions. This week, former Parti
Quebecois leader Jacques Parizeau came up with a legal theory. He
stated, in legal terms, that secession had a basis in law and that
the explanation of why Quebec is indivisible yet Canada is
divisible was a question of narrow legalism. That is a legal
theory. In our opinion, this is a wrong theory. What we need to
find out is whether it is right or wrong.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the main thing to remember about this week is the great confusion
in the federalist camp.
The Minister of Justice says one thing, only to have it
contradicted by her lawyer the next day. The lawyer, Yves Fortier,
argues one thing in the morning, does a kind of legal flip-flop
over the lunch hour, and argues the opposite in the afternoon, this
time contradicting his boss, the Minister of Justice.
This is my multiple-choice question for the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs: What does he call this performance: a)
legal contradiction; b) constitutional confusion; c) political
panic; or d) the sinking of his constitutional Titanic?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the attorney general has issued a statement. Now,
speaking of clear answers, the Bloc has some answering to do.
Does the PQ government have a legal right to be considered an
independent government just because it declares itself to be one?
Will citizens be legally obliged to obey this self-proclaimed
government of an independent state? Are governments obliged to
recognize it as a legally independent government?
We are waiting to hear what the Bloc has to say, when it has
finished with all its sound and fury and proclamations to cover up
the fact that it does not have an argument to stand on.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the minister has not answered my question, but I can understand,
because all the answers were right.
Does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs not realize
that he is the prime architect of this fiasco and that his strategy
has completely and utterly isolated the Liberal government
opposite?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, notice how carefully the Bloc Quebecois always avoids
getting too deeply into an issue it finds extremely embarrassing.
As a Quebecker, I do not want to see my society plunged into
a situation where a government would act outside the law and ask us
as citizens to obey its laws anyway. No democratic society has
ever been subjected to such a situation and that is why we need to
go through this exercise of clarification regarding the plan to
unilaterally secede hatched by a government, by a party that does
not believe in the rule of law and democracy for everyone.
* * *
[English]
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
While we heard news today about the balanced budget, there are
countries like Denmark where virtually no children are forced to
live in poverty. As of this morning 1.5 million children in
Canada are living in poverty. Has the Liberal government finally
decided to stop forcing Canadian children to live in poverty? Is
the government not embarrassed by this fact?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member forgets the more than $800 million we
have already committed ourselves to for the improvement of the
child tax credit system. We have also made a commitment to add
the equivalent amount over the next few years to deal with the
needs of children in poverty.
1130
My hon. friend's question is without foundation or substance. We
are concerned about the poverty of Canadian children and we are
working to deal with this serious problem.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is not
only my concern. Canada's catholic bishops had this to say
“Canada's failure to eliminate child poverty is akin to child
abuse”. They go on to say “If a parent denies a child food,
clothing and social security, it is considered child abuse but
when our government does the same, it is simply balancing the
budget”. When will this government stop child abuse as declared
by Canada's catholic bishops?
The Speaker: My colleague, as you know, we cannot use
words from another source or another person to say what we cannot
use in the House. I would ask all members to be very judicious
because we are coming very close to using unparliamentary
language.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I reject totally the unwarranted premise and allegation
in the hon. member's question.
We have been working actively to deal with the issue of child
poverty. We intend to continue doing so and we invite the
provincial and local governments to join with us in this
worthwhile objective. And I invite the hon. member from the NDP
to drop his unwarranted rhetoric and join with us as well in this
worthy cause.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, there are
more than 30,000 hepatitis C victims looking to the health
minister for compensation. I have asked the minister in the past
to act unilaterally and we know the minister is reluctant to act
unilaterally.
These are innocent victims. How much longer do they and their
families have to suffer this torturous wait? Will the minister
exercise his constitutional and more importantly his moral
responsibility to assist these innocent victims?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
no one would be happier than I with a compensation package for
hepatitis C victims who are after all bearing notwithstanding
their innocence, the consequences of this tragedy.
I also believe strongly that the interests of those victims are
best served with a package of compensation that involves both
levels of government. So I am prepared to wait a little longer
to see if we can get an agreement with the provincial ministers.
I do tell the House in response to the member's question that
this government will not walk away from its responsibilities and
at the end of the day will discharge those responsibilities.
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, this is
incredible. We have heard this story before. We have heard this
line before.
I want to remind the House and the Canadian people that the
minister did not seek provincial agreement when he chopped $6
billion out of health care, but now he is just simply waiting it
out, ignoring the plight of these innocent victims. Again, will
the minister show some leadership and act unilaterally and act
now to help these people?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
unlike the hon. member, my interest is not in scoring cheap
political points. My interest is in serving the victims'
interests.
If this member would speak to his Tory cousins in Ontario, speak
to his Tory cousins in Manitoba, if he would communicate with the
Tories across this country, maybe we could get together and do
something for the victims.
This is not a debate about fiscal federalism. This is about
serving the interests of innocent victims. The member ought to be
part of the solution and not part of the problem.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if there is one thing we have learned over the past year
it is that economic conditions can change. Interest rates, the
dollar's value, foreign crises, many things can make an expected
surplus disappear.
We need to attack our huge debt now. Canadians need that tax
relief now. Job creators need some running room now. Instead the
Prime Minister grabs our surplus to build a personal memorial and
says debt pay down and tax relief will come later. Why is he
setting us up for another broken Liberal promise?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if I can revert to the matter of the poll that was on
the CBC last night, more than 70% of Canadians strongly support
the concept of the millennium scholarship fund.
The hon. lady is right when she says that economic conditions
can change. For example it was announced this morning that a
strong performance in December pushed retail sales to their
largest annual increase since 1988.
This in my view is due to the restoration of the country's
finances since this government took office. It has almost
eliminated the $42 billion deficit.
1135
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister should look at not just the
facts he wants to look at but the real facts. Our debt is way
too high, taxes are way too high, our unemployment is double that
of the U.S. The responsible thing to do with the surplus would
be to pay down our debt and give Canadian families tax relief now
while the economy is still strong. Why does the Prime Minister
not do that now?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if we can return to the facts, there is more to be done
in unemployment, but it is down considerably from what it was
when we took office. The interest rates are down. There is almost
no inflation. We have just about eliminated the $42 billion
deficit left us by the Conservative government. I do not know why
the hon. member in her questions does not recognize those facts.
If she did, she would have a lot more credibility.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-28
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister did not respond to the four
opposition parties' request for a special committee to investigate the
apparent conflict of interest in the case of Bill C-28. He referred us
to the Standing Committee on Finance, claiming that is where our
questions will be answered.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Does the Deputy Prime
Minister recognize that the Liberal majority on the Standing Committee
on Finance systematically refused to hear expert witnesses who could
have shed light on this issue?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, will the
hon. member admit that no specific objection was raised concerning these
amendments and that the bill was simply carried on division in
committee?
If there was something wrong with these amendments, why did the
hon. member and his colleagues not oppose them? This goes to show that
his allegations are unfounded and that the Minister of Finance is not in
a real or apparent conflict of interest.
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, if indeed the Minister of Finance has nothing to hide, why is
this government afraid to shed light on this matter with the help of a
special committee?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
facts have already been disclosed in the evidence given by the ethics
counsellor before the Standing Committee on Finance. Questions have been
asked and answers given on this matter in the House. So, there is
nothing to hide. The facts are clear: there is no conflict of interest,
either real or apparent.
* * *
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is pretty
obvious that we would have a surplus in the budget this year if
it were not for the free spending ways of some of the Liberals
across the way.
Zachary, one of my constituents, paid attention to the promise
in the red book that 50% of the surplus would go to debt and tax
reduction. I am asking the question for Zachary. Why are the
Liberals breaking another one of their red book promises?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I direct my hon. friend to page 28 of the red book where
it says in bold type “We will allocate our budget surpluses so
that over the course of our mandate one-half will be spent to
improve our programs and one-half will go to tax cuts and
reduction of the debt”. Over the course of our mandate. That is
our promise and I say we are going to keep it.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government tried to weasel out of the GST promise by finding fine
print. The real reason the government is going in this direction
is that the Prime Minister wants to build a monument to himself.
He actually physically wants to spend the surplus before he
leaves office.
This is not a question from me, this is a question from Zachary,
that little tiny guy in my riding. Why is it that the Liberals
are trying to break their promise by finding fine print again?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to take back a message to
Zachary. That is not to put his trust in the member who just
spoke because he does not know what he is talking about.
* * *
1140
[Translation]
RESEARCH FUNDING
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, granting
councils are facing major cuts. They are having a hard time
funding new researchers and maintaining current projects. To each
of our questions on this issue, the Minister of Industry responds
simply that $800 million is available for the innovation
foundation.
Does the minister realize that these funds subsidize only the
research infrastructure and not the researchers themselves, thus
allowing the brain drain to continue unchecked?
[English]
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member opposite
realizes the investment in the CFI innovation fund. That is only
the beginning.
I am sure the member realizes the budget is due next week. If
she has some patience, hopefully in the budget there will be more
items on research and the research council, which the government
has supported in the past and will do so in the future for the
good of Canadians.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can
the minister say that research in Canada is in good shape, when he
can see that the MRC, the Medical Research Council, could approve
only 216 projects out of the 1,103 applications made and could
renew only 41% of the current ones?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
have already shown we are fully aware of the importance of research
here in Canada.
As my colleague has just said, please wait until next week
when we bring down the budget. We will then have an opportunity to
show what the government does. We are obviously very aware of the
importance of research in Canada.
* * *
[English]
BILL C-28
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the ethics
commissioner has admitted that he was unaware of all the facts
when he made his decision on the issue of the conflict of
interest swirling around the finance minister and his Bill C-28.
Will the Prime Minister ensure that the ethics commissioner does
a review now of his decision based upon all the facts?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the ethics commissioner told me in a conversation I had
with him on the telephone a few days ago that he found no
conflict of interest and therefore no appearance of conflict of
interest.
I would like to ask my hon. friend why his party has joined the
NDP and the Conservatives in getting into bed with the Bloc on
yet another issue.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
admission by the ethics commissioner that he was unaware of all
the facts at the time he made his decision invalidates that
decision. That is a well known principle of law.
I ask the minister one more time whether he will ensure that the
ethics commissioner conducts a review of his decision, this time
based upon all the facts.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first I want to check to see whether the premise of the
hon. member's question is factually correct.
Second, I repeat my question. Is what he has just asked a sign
that the Reform Party is now going to get into some type of
ménage à quatre in bed with the NDP and the Conservatives when it
comes to the Bloc raising issues? If so, they ought to be
ashamed of themselves.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL AID
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible
for Francophonie.
According to the UN, developed countries such as Canada should
earmark at least 0.7% of their gross national product for development
assistance. Yet, with additional cuts of $150 million, the Canadian
government's budget for international assistance is a dismal 0.3% of
GDP. This is a disgrace.
Since we will soon have a deficit-free federal budget, will the
minister pledge to cancel the planned $150 million cut to international
assistance?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation and
Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we said and
we will continue to say that we want to increase the moneys earmarked
for programs in developing countries.
We also said that we will do so when our fiscal house is in order.
I am convinced that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance will
see to it that this financing is restored over the years.
* * *
1145
[English]
TRADE
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Industry.
While Canada's international exports have grown by nearly 11%
this decade, internal trade among the provinces has grown by only
2.8%. Governments have talked about this issue for years with
little action.
Could the parliamentary secretary tell the House what the
government will do to tear down Canada's internal trade barriers
and stimulate interprovincial trade?
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe the member knows that
ministers and officials of the provinces and territories have
been meeting for two days concerning the issue of internal trade.
We know how crucial internal trade is to Canada and Canada's
competitiveness.
There has been consultation. The working groups have been
working very hard to come up with an agreement. There has been a
lot of discussion. I hope as they conclude their meetings there
will be some positive results. I wish them well in their
deliberations. Hopefully together, in co-operation, we can tear
down the barriers.
* * *
BILL C-28
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the deputy finance minister.
Even the government's own so-called ethics counsellor, the same
ethics counsellor that has whitewashed every other scandal for
the government over past years, has said that this matter was
conducted improperly. He told a parliamentary committee that he
should have been informed but he was not.
Why was the finance minister's name on a bill which could
benefit him?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is good to remind the House of the facts.
The amendments in question were prepared and handled exclusively
by the previous secretary of state for financial institutions.
The Minister of Finance had no involvement whatsoever, no
knowledge of, no participation in and no handling of these
amendments.
It could well be that for technical parliamentary reasons the
minister's name was on the bill so it could be tabled in the
House, but this does not mean that he did anything improper. He
did nothing improper. He had no involvement in this matter.
There is no conflict of interest and no appearance of conflict of
interest.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this party along with all other members of the House
have a right to know on behalf of their constituents the answer
to this question. Why was the finance minister's name on a bill
that could benefit him?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the finance minister's assets are in a blind trust. He
has no way to have any knowledge of the management of the assets
in the trust. He has already confirmed that he has had nothing
to do with the matter.
I want to ask my hon. friend a question. If these amendments
are wrong, why are members of his party not opposing them? Or,
do they really recognize that these amendments came from an
agency of the British Columbia government? What do they say to
the British Columbia government if they think these amendments
are wrong?
Obviously these amendments have nothing to do with the Minister
of Finance and in view of where they originated obviously there
is no conflict of interest.
* * *
HOUSING
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the minister responsible for the housing deficit in the
country.
In December the minister took an off reserve housing society,
the Meen-Sga-Nist, to court. Under his direction the employees
have not been paid for three months. They want to know if they
will be paid.
Will the minister stop using these underhanded tactics on other
off reserve housing societies? The one that comes to mind is the
Tintina housing society in Watson Lake, Yukon.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately this
case is before the courts and I cannot comment.
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Tintina
group in Watson Lake, Yukon, is not before the courts. The
housing situation in the country has become unbelievably severe.
People are homeless.
What are you going to do about that? Are you going to—
1150
The Speaker: My colleagues, please address your questions
through the Chair.
Ms. Louise Hardy: Mr. Speaker, thank you for your
direction.
What is the minister going to do to improve the situation in
housing when it comes to off reserve people? He sits very close
to the aboriginal affairs minister who gave clear direction to
negotiate, not litigate.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the members would
have read their correspondence they would have realized that on
January 30 I announced the extension of RRAP for the next five
years at a cost of $250 million.
There is an aboriginal housing component in that program. She
should read the press release to learn more about it.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The minister is aware of the dire straits the east coast fishery
faces. As the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans he has to know
that an active licence buy back is one tool in his command.
Once again I ask the minister to commit his department to an
active licence buy back.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have once again in two
days the support of the Conservative Party for this measure.
I believe licence buy backs are an important tool that we should
use. I remind him that on the Atlantic coast we have had a
licence buy back programs to the tune of approximately $100
million and on the west coast to the tune of approximately $80
million.
I will note his support for this program. When discussions
arise as to what might be done in the future with respect to the
east coast fishery, I will bear his views in mind.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I thank
the minister for that answer.
The minister has to know that most of the $100 million spent on
the east coast of Canada in licence buy backs did not buy back
active licences. That is the problem with the original program.
We need an active licence buy back program and we need input in
that program from grassroots fishermen who are actually out there
fishing the resource and wanting to have some input.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again I could agree with the hon.
member on both counts.
He is correct that the buy back of licences which are not being
used does not immediately affect fishing capacity. On the other
hand, a licence which is not currently being used could be used
in the future. The buy back of even those licences is important.
With respect to the second aspect of his question, the need to
have the involvement of fishermen and of the industry, I assure
him that is being done and will continue to be done.
I would add that the positive approach he is adopting would mean
he also could play a useful role in this activity.
* * *
[Translation]
FRENCH AND THE INTERNET
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Secretary of State responsible for Science, Research
and Development, and it could be put by any francophone or francophile
member of this House.
As we all know, access to the Internet is overwhelmingly in
English. Could the secretary of state tell us what he is doing to
facilitate access to the Internet in French for Canada's francophone
communities and for all Canadians who wish to avail themselves of this
service?
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Science, Research and
Development) (Western Economic Diversification), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
number of initiatives are supported by organizations such as SchoolNet,
including Calliopée, La Course Destination Monde and la Boîte à outils
francophone.
A contest organized through the community access program will give
us 171 French-language projects prepared with the help of 200
communities across the country. SchoolNet's digitized collections will
provide 82 projects, both in French and in English. Through the DHRD,
Schoolnet and PAC, we are hiring young francophones all over the country
to provide services in French.
* * *
[English]
SENATE OF CANADA
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday in the House the Prime Minister said:
1155
Premier Klein of Alberta wrote the Prime Minister seeking a
commitment to hold off on filling the vacant Alberta Senate seat
until Alberta had an opportunity to have a Senate election.
The Prime Minister says he is keen on bringing the provinces on
side to reform the Senate. Why then did he ignore Premier
Klein's request to appoint an Alberta senator who had been duly
elected?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the problem with the hon. member's suggestion is that
once somebody is elected, assuming that the government through
the prime minister appoints that person, the person is there
until the age of 75 and nobody can do anything if that person
does not do a proper job.
That is why when the Prime Minister said he wanted to have the
consent of the provinces he was talking about a constitutional
amendment which would deal with the issue of Senate reform in a
meaningful way.
We have every respect for the views of Premier Klein, but the
Prime Minister has constitutional responsibilities under the
constitution as it exists today.
* * *
[Translation]
RAIL TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Transport.
On February 22, 1996, the National Transportation Agency
accepted CN's application to abandon the rail line along the St.
Lawrence to Lévis. Since then, there have been numerous
postponements, while petitions with more than 11,000 signatures
have been presented in the House of Commons expressing opposition
to this and calling for the station at Lévis to be maintained.
It being no longer possible under the Transport Act to delay
the decision past February 21, what does the minister intend to do
concerning the station and rail line at Lévis?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary
of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. On behalf of
my colleague, the Minister of Transport, I know his concern and
the concerns of his constituents in this area.
The concern of Transport Canada is essentially for safety and
for the best service possible that can be offered.
I assure the hon. member that an announcement has not been made
but one will be made in the very near future.
* * *
BANKRUPTCIES
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Statistics Canada today announced nearly 91,000 business and
personal bankruptcies, a record level of human tragedy. These
bankruptcies demonstrate the failure of the Liberals' policies to
help these people who are struggling to make ends meet.
How can the minister justify this tragedy and what hope can the
minister give to these people who in record numbers have lost
their savings, their homes and their dreams?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, bankruptcies are
high but they are coming down. This is the sign of the economic
recovery that we are undergoing.
Over the course of the last four years we have put in place the
basis for a very solid economic recovery. This is why
unemployment has fallen from over 11% to under 9%. This is also
why the OECD predicts that Canada will have the highest economic
growth rate and the highest growth rate in jobs this year.
* * *
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
with the passage of Bill C-4 in the House this week, the Minister
responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board must think that the
political heat is off. Think again. The United States
government is poised to demand an audit of the Canadian Wheat
Board, the first one since 1993.
My question is for the minister of agriculture. In light of the
MAI and in light of the WTO, does he honestly believe that Bill
C-4 as it now stands will stand the test of time, or will he
honestly admit that we will be back in the House in the near
future revamping the Canadian Wheat Board?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I congratulate the member for being
chosen by his party to be the agriculture critic.
Bill C-4, which is now before the other place on the Hill, will
certainly make some great evolution in the activities of the
Canadian Wheat Board. It will be directed by farmers and the
majority of the directors will be chosen by farmers. Those
people will be best placed to deal with the future of the
Canadian Wheat Board in the marketing of grains in western
Canada.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Given the recent statement of the minister of fisheries for
Newfoundland and Labrador, the hon. John Efford, that seal
populations are at an all time high and may be affecting the
recovery of groundfish stocks, could the minister tell us today
what measures he is prepared to take to deal with these all time
high seal populations.
1200
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question
and the quote from Mr. Efford who has certainly brought this
matter to the attention of Canadians.
Yes, the population of harp seals is high and has increased and
the grey seals have increased even faster.
I would like to quote the statement from the scientific council
of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization: “It is
possible that the marine mammal consumption of juvenile cod is
impacting their recovery”. In other words, seal predation is
impacting recovery.
Essentially the same point was made by the Fisheries Resource
Conservation Council of Canada in its November report: “The
council believes that their consumption of juvenile cod and other
species is a threat to the rebuilding of groundfish stocks”—
The Speaker: That brings to a conclusion our
question period for today.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I bring to
your attention that question period started three minutes late
today and we still have some important questions.
The Speaker: I thank the member for bringing that
to my attention and I will see if I can make it up the next time.
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, earlier this week while attending a meeting of the
Standing Committee on Public Works and Government Services, I
made reference to a report referred to as the Dobson report.
A Liberal member of that committee raised a point of order
requesting that since I had referred to the report I should
be required to table it either with the committee or in the House
of Commons.
In order to do this, I need clarification on this tabling
request. Do the Liberal members really need the Reform Party to
supply them with copies of a report that was commissioned by the
Liberal Party?
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of
order in council appointments which were made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of
which is attached.
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to three petitions.
* * *
[English]
PATENT ACT
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-361, an act to amend the Patent Act
(life of patents pertaining to medicine).
He said: Madam Speaker, this bill is in response to a growing
number of constituents both in my riding and across this country
who say that drugs in this country should be affordable. Bill
C-91 in a previous government increased the patent protection,
doubled it in fact, from 10 years to 20 under the understanding
that this would result in an increase in drug research in
this country.
1205
Evidence since that time has not shown that it has increased
any. My bill seeks to provide a balance by reducing the patent
protection from 20 years to 15 years over a 5 year period, 1 year
at a time, so that Canadians can afford drugs in this country.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
FIREARMS ACT
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-362, an act to amend the Firearms Act
and the Criminal Code (no registration of firearms that are not
restricted or prohibited firearms).
He said: Madam Speaker, this bill seeks to remove the most
objectionable part of Bill C-68. At the time it was introduced,
the Reform Party specifically asked the government to split the
bill so that it could deal with registration and crack down on
criminal misuse of firearms separately. It did not do this.
My bill seeks to revoke the most offensive part of Bill C-68,
the one requiring law-abiding citizens of this country to
register rifles and shotguns at a tremendous cost which is
growing daily according to the government's own figures.
That way Canadians can have a little peace and quiet and some
responsibility in this law so that the Criminal Code can be used
to crack down on those who break law, not the law-abiding
citizens of this country.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have a petition signed by members of my constituency
pointing out their great concerns about nuclear weapons and the
threat to the health and survival of civilization.
They call on Parliament to support the immediate initiation and
conclusion by the year 2000 of an international convention which
sets out a binding timetable for the abolition of all nuclear
weapons.
CRTC
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I rise in this Chamber as a courtesy to my colleague from
Edmonton Southwest and 50 of his constituents.
I am pleased to discharge this favour by presenting to this
House a petition. This petition asks for a very prudent review
of the mandate of the CRTC to discourage the propagation of
pornography and rather to encourage the broadcasting of
ecclesiastical programming to support morality and wholesome
family lifestyles.
The petitioners ask this House to heed their words and I concur.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have the pleasure to present three petitions. The
first has 167 signatures from all over British Columbia. It is
from the physicians for global survival and it calls for a
binding international convention to abolish nuclear weapons by
the year 2000.
TAXATION
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the second petition has 210 signatures from Vancouver
and Victoria. It calls for the elimination of sales taxes on
reading material.
CYPRUS
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the third petition with 240 signatures from B.C. calls
for the Canadian government to use its influence to ensure that
Turkey abides by UN security council resolutions on Cyprus.
CRTC
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Madam Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present two petitions to
the House today.
Four hundred and seventy-five petitioners ask that Parliament
review the mandate of the CRTC and direct the CRTC to administer
a new policy encouraging the licensing of religious broadcasters.
The petitioners hold that the CRTC presently licenses programs
of a sexually explicit or violent nature and yet it has refused
to license one Roman Catholic and three multi-denominational
programmers.
1210
Given that Canadians have a constitutional right to freedom of
religion, conscience and expression, these petitioners ask that
the CRTC be required to exhibit an openness toward religious
programming and to support its existence on Canadian stations.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Madam Speaker, it is my
honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 from
residents of Kamloops, Celista, Chase, Anglemont, Clearwater,
Logan Lake, Savona, Vanenby, Avola, Adams Lake, Blue River,
Little Fort, Magna Bay, Falkland, Barriere, Tappen, Sorrento,
Salmon Arm and Deadman's Creek. They draw to the attention of the
House that the multilateral on investment is a direct attack on
Canadian sovereignty.
They point out that it will expand and entrench the
unprecedented rights of transnational corporations. It will
severely limit national, provincial and regional governments'
ability to promote social, economic and job creation strategies.
It will give foreign corporations the right to sue Canadians
governments, and it will lock us into the closet for 20 years.
They are calling on Parliament to direct the government not to
sign the multilateral agreement on investment. There are hundreds
of names attached to this petition.
SENIORS BENEFITS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Madam Speaker, I present
another petition with hundreds of names from the communities of
Vancouver, Victoria, New Westminister, Port Coquitlam, Port
Alberni, Hartsville, Nanaimo, Burnaby, Surrey, Richmond, Vavenby,
Avola, Red Lake, Paul Lake, Westwold, Pritchard, Chilliwack,
Prince George, Terrace, Port Hardy and Grand Forks.
It is a long, complicated petition but fundamentally it says not
to proceed at this point with the proposed seniors benefit
package to be introduced sometime in March or April, and that
adequate time be given for all Canadians to comment with the
government on the kind of retirement system Canada ought to have
in the distant future.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise to present a
petition to the House signed by 47 residents of Sault Ste. Marie.
The petitioners believe that explicit nudity in public is
becoming more common and that such displays are harmful to
children. They call on Parliament to amend the Criminal Code to
make public female toplessness an indecent act.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the
following questions will be answered today: Nos. 39 and 47.
.[Text]
Mr. John Duncan:
What percentage of current “The Atlantic Groudfish Stategy”
recipients were sent letters of commitment regarding the benefits
they would receive for the original five year program to May
1999, and how much money does the twelve month commitment between
May 1998 and May 1999 represent for those receiving letters?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development), Lib.): The Atlantic Groudfish Stategy, TAGS, was
announced on April 19, 1994 as a transitional measure to assist
east coast and Quebec fishers and fishplant workers, who lost
their jobs due to the closure of the Atlantic groudfish fishery.
Some 40,000 individuals qualified for TAGS. Originally, each
TAGS recipient received a letter which confirmed their
eligibility and duration on TAGS. The letter also indicated that
in order to maintain one's continuing entitlement to TAGS,
clients were required to actively participate in adjustment
interventions such as counselling and career planning and to have
in place an agreed upon action plan. A minimum duration of two
years was given to all TAGS recipients.
Since this initial letter, there have been a number of changes
to the TAGS program including changes to duration and active
measures. At each change clients have been kept informed by
letter.
All TAGS recipients were offered the opportunity to participate
in a variety of adjustment measures to assist them to adjust out
of the groundfish fishery. TAGS clients participated in
approximately 16,500 interventions.
The administration of TAGS is dependent on funds being
appropriated by Parliament. In order to maintain income support
benefits at current levels, and to remain withing the original
$1.9 billion budget, it was announced in July 1996 that TAGS
would end earlier than expected. This was anticipated to be in
May 1998.
On December 16, 1997, the Minister of Human Resources Development
Canada announced that the Government of Canada will continue
paying income support until the end of August 1998, when it is
now expected that funds will be exhausted.
In May 1998 approximately 27,000 clients would remain eligible
for TAGS. Of these, some 18,000 or 67% would have remained
eligible until May 1999. Based on current projections, to
continue TAGS from May 1998 to its original end date of May 1999
would require another $170 million to $200 million in additional
funding over and above the $1.9 billion budgeted for the program.
Mr. John Williams:
What safety concerns about NAV Canada have been brought to the
attention of NAV Canada's Office of Safety and Quality by
Transport Canada?
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Prior to the transfer on November 1, 1996,
the Transport Canada/NAV Canada Safety Oversight Committee, SOC,
was set up. The purpose of this committee is to provide a focal
point between both organizations for the exchange of information
and resolution of matters relating to the safety performance of
NAV Canada.
Members of the Committee include: the assistant to the president,
Safety and Quality, NAV Canada; the manager, Safety Policy, NAV
Canada; the director, Air Navigation Services and Airspace,
Transport Canada; and the chief, Air Navigation Services and
Airspace Safety Oversight, Transport Canada.
As of November 25, 1997 the SOC has met nine times to discuss
issues raised by Transport Canada as follows:
November 29, 1996
Issues
Development of NAV Canada's safety management program.
Decrease in CADORS reports.
Development of risk indicators.
December 20, 1996
Issues
Information on high profile events.
Reports on Sioux Lookout.
February 7, 1997
Issues
Power outage at Toronto's Lester B. Pearson International
Airport.
Lack of details in CADORS report.
February 19, 1997
Issues
Follow-up to power outage at Toronto's Lester B. Pearson
International Airport.
Information on power outage at Ottawa.
Power outage at Kelowna
March 12, 1997
Issues
Reinforcement of pilot/controller “read-back” procedures.
Glide path anomalies at Calgary.
FMS database/chart congruence.
Controller proficiency checks.
May 14, 1997
Issues
Review of “ATC Radar Display Systems Safety/Reliability
Review”.
Status of recommendations of Uncontrolled Aerodrome Advisory
Working Group.
Final report on Lester B. Pearson International Airport power
failure—NAV Canada to act on identified deficiencies.
July 9, 1997
Issues
Safety Report on Calgary Terminal Relocation.
Handling of ad hoc reductions in service.
Follow-up FMS—charting harmonization.
ASTRA Report 1/97 follow-up.
Controller/Flight Service Specialists language testing.
Report on Gander Moncton Airspace consolidation, implementation
and contingency plans.
September 30, 1997
Issues
Transport Canada's involvement in future NAV Canada Safety
Reviews.
NAV Canada to comment of Transport Canada's FFB/OII observer
protocol.
NAV Canada's security plans.
NAV Canada's plans on Aeronautical Information Services.
October 31, 1997
Issues
Monitoring of language/phraseology anomalies.
NAV Canada to develop policy on other ad hoc situations that do
not fall under regular NOTAM/CADOR notification.
Year 2000—Millennium Bug.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would
ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA LABOUR CODE
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-19, an
act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and the Corporations
and Labour Unions Returns Act and to make consequential
amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to
a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member for
Mississauga West has one minute left in the questions and
comments period.
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member how Bill C-19 might
impact on private sector unions in my riding of Sault Ste.
Marie.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I thank the member from my home town for that question.
Bill C-19 is designed to deal with federal private sector
unions. We are talking about the 700,000 men and women across
Canada who come under that jurisdiction.
The steelworkers at Algoma, for example, would come under the
provincial labour laws, but they meld together. Generally we
will find that the provincial labour laws tend to work together
in a positive way with this federal law. The amendment is
levelling the playing field to make collective bargaining and
organizing within the labour movement fair, and to give the
proper information to all the men and women who would become
organized within a new union.
It is a very positive bill that will help the labour movement
and management work co-operatively.
1215
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in
support of Bill C-19 which would amend part I of the Canada
Labour Code regarding industrial relations and makes the Canada
industrial relations board more effective. I have met with
constituents on this bill. They have encouraged me to support
C-19 and hope the House passes it forthwith.
This bill contains a number of important and timely amendments
to part I of the Canada Labour Code. This part of the code
applies to over 700,000 workers and their employers in the
federally regulated private sector. This includes industries such
as banking, interprovincial and international transportation,
airports and airlines, broadcasting, telecommunications, port
operations and grain handling.
Members in this House know that at a time when the global
economy is becoming increasingly competitive, it is crucial that
governments lead the way with forward looking legislation such as
C-19 put forward by the Minister of Labour.
It is also essential that the strategically vital infrastructure
industries that I have mentioned are able to operate as
efficiently as possible. This means that we must invest capital
in these industries. But just as important, it means that we
must invest in our labour relations institutions.
Our dispute resolution process must be as modern, as effective
and efficient as possible. This is precisely the objective of
this legislation, to modernize part I of the Canada Labour Code
and improve labour relations in the federal workplace.
As members from the previous Parliament will know, this bill is
almost identical to Bill C-66 which was approved by the House
last April.
It is my belief that the new C-19, as was the former bill, is a
legislative initiative which achieves the exceedingly difficult
task of balancing the interests of workers with the interests of
employers. It accords certain rights to each party but also
demands that both sides act in the interests of their own
membership and in the interests of the general public.
I firmly believe that this bill is a model of how labour
legislation should be developed. During each stage of the
legislative process, labour and management have been at the heart
of it all expressing their opinions and offering their
considerable expertise.
It is useful to point out that consultations began almost three
years ago when the Minister of Labour asked the task force to
review part I of the Canada Labour Code and then to offer
recommendations or needed changes. The task force was led by Mr.
Andrew Sims, a respected and non-partisan labour relations
expert. He and his colleagues criss-crossed the country meeting
with labour and business representatives, labour law
practitioners, academic experts and ordinary citizens concerned
about what was going on in our workplaces.
In terms of identifying issues in areas in which agreement
between management and labour was possible, the task force
certainly benefited from the excellent contributions of a
labour-management consensus group. Membership in this group
included representatives of the Canadian Labour Congress, the
Confederation of National Trade Unions, the Canadian Federation
of Labour, the Federally Regulated Employers, Transportation and
Communications, the Western Grain Elevator Association and the
Canadian Bankers Association.
The Sims task force compiled the results of the consultations
and resulting recommendations in its final report entitled
“Seeking a Balance”. There is a significant and recurring theme
in this report. It is that the Canada Labour Code is generally
regarded by labour and management groups as an effective labour
relations framework which has facilitated collective bargaining
in the federally regulated private sector. Of course I must add
that there is still room for improvement.
In the remainder of my time I would like to focus on one such
area where changes are required. It is in the structure and role
of the Canada Labour Relations Board.
The task force examined many aspects of the board, including its
non-representational structure. Since 1973 the board has been
made up entirely of public appointees. None of these members is
designated as either representing labour or management. In this
regard the structure of the board differs from labour boards in
almost every other Canadian jurisdiction. This must change.
Fortunately the Sims task force achieved a consensus between
management and labour on this very item. All sides agreed that a
representative board would have at least four related benefits.
First, for those appearing before the board, they would have
more confidence in the process knowing that their cases are fully
understood and properly reviewed. Second, decisions made by the
board would generally be more acceptable to both labour and
management.
Third, it would provide some assurance that when the board
exercises discretion, as it often must, that it would be on the
basis of practical real world industrial relations experience.
Fourth, the presence of a friendly viewpoint of the board would
help the parties involved in the dispute to feel more comfortable
about offering and accepting compromised solutions.
1220
This bill adopts an approach recommended by the Sims task force.
The non-representational Canada Labour Relations Board will be
replaced by one that does represent each side. The new more
credible board will consist of a neutral chair and vice-chair and
equal numbers of board members representing labour and management
groups.
A second aspect examined by the task force was regional
representation. It is not credible to have all members from the
national capital region. Regionally based members will help to
improve the visibility, accessibility and credibility of the
board.
The task force examined whether the board members should be
committed on a full time or part time basis. The report noted
that many provincial boards have part time members which is cost
effective while it enables the boards to benefit from the
expertise and experience of people still active in labour
relations and not stuck in Ottawa as full time bureaucrats.
However concerns were expressed about part time regional
members. Some suggested that regional decisions would be made by
part timers with other large demands on their schedules and would
not be available for long drawn out cases.
In the Canadian way, the task force recommended a balanced
blend. A core of full time adjudicators located in the national
capital region will be joined by part timers located in the
regions. This seems to gain the best of both worlds.
On these questions the government has listened to the respected
members of the Sims task force. The bill provides for the
appointment of part time and regional members. This will
significantly improve the cost effectiveness of the board. It
will give the board access to labour relations experts and it
will improve the links between the board and the labour relations
community.
The consultation that led to this bill identified the
inflexibility of the Canada Labour Relations Board in responding
to routine and urgent cases. One approach recommended was to
move from the system of a three person panel to a one person
panel. Many routine cases can be adequately conducted by a one
person panel.
I stress that as a result of this legislation the major criteria
for appointment as chair or vice-chair will be competence, as it
should be. A clause will be inserted into the code to reiterate
that these people must have experience and expertise in
industrial relations.
In addition, the flexibility of the board will be enhanced by
the repeal of the provision that requires the parties to obtain
ministerial permission before they file an allegation of bad
faith bargaining. This will be particularly significant in cases
where an immediate board hearing is needed to break a deadlock.
The board's remedial powers will be expanded to ensure good
faith bargaining. An amendment will confirm the ability of the
board to direct one side to include or withdraw specific terms in
a bargaining position in order to rectify a failure to bargain in
good faith.
Time does not allow me to outline the many more improvements to
the Canada Labour Relations Board contained in Bill C-19. It is
fitting that the government, which has consulted broadly, is
proposing a board that can take full advantage of the skills of
the labour relations community. Labour relations boards are
extremely important agencies. Their work affects thousands of
employees and thousands of businesses.
I congratulate the minister on the work thus far and for looking
forward in establishing a labour relations system that will
instil confidence in Canadians.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I would like to comment on a labour relations problem which
occurred recently in my riding of Edmonton East. It was the
result of the intransigence between labour and management. For
months and months I worked with other political and elected
people from the community. We talked to the company and union
representatives but it was all to no avail.
The real concern at these meetings was the very realization of
the threat by the company that the plant would close if the union
went on strike. That was understood and crystal clear to the
union management to the point where they even admitted they knew
the owner would close the plant if there was a strike.
Prior to this the union had asked for a mediator's report. The
company accepted the mediator's report but the union would not.
1225
My concern is that yes, controls must be in place for this but I
believe that the union by calling the strike closed this plant.
Now 1,000 people are out of work in Edmonton East, 1,000 people
who worked at the plant, possibly affecting up to 10,000 people
in the community. This is all caused by the intransigence of the
union management.
I have to agree with my colleague that there should be final
offer selection in order to prevent this tragedy from ever being
repeated and happening again. Had that been in place, as sure as
I am standing here that plant would be open today and those
workers would be at work.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Madam Speaker, I can see where the
hon. member's concerns are coming from. Being from the government
side we may differ a bit on his perception and what his concerns
are. Perhaps the issues he has brought forth could be discussed
further at committee. Some of these issues could be discussed
and perhaps changes could be made.
The new composition of the board will probably address some of
the concerns my hon. colleague has brought forth. The task of
achieving this new board will protect the interests of the
workers as well as those of the employers. That is an added
benefit. Also, with this new composition of the Canada Labour
Relations Board it will have a co-operative working relationship.
Collective bargaining legislation must have fair and balanced
rights and obligations for employers, employees and unions, as my
hon. colleague has brought forth. I take his question with due
respect.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to
participate in the debate at second reading of this important bill.
I am especially pleased to do so since I also participated in the
debate when the bill was called Bill C-66 and since I was involved with
a major central labour body in Quebec for many years. This is indeed a
matter of great importance to me and it is from these various
perspectives that I look at this bill.
I would like to start by saying—and I hope that government members
will listen—that when this bill was first introduced in the House and
referred to committee, the parliamentary process was short-circuited.
Second reading was cut short to refer the bill to committee, where it
was bulldozed through.
However, in dealing with this bill, it is extremely important that
parliamentarians have the time to consider every clause. This act is not
like any other act that usually goes through this House. Most acts we
pass are not likely to be challenged in court. In fact, they are often
akin to a government decree on some issue. A labour code, on the other
hand, must be scrutinized line by line, word by word, and even between
the lines. Jurisprudential decisions will be rendered. In the end, this
code will regulate all labour relations.
It is essential that parliamentarians be given the time to examine
the bill on their own, consult experts and form an opinion.
Otherwise, regardless of whether they are on the government or the
opposition side, parliamentarians may think of this process as nothing
but red tape.
1230
That having been said, and I hope it will be repeated, people
were initially pleased with the intention of the bill. But when we
saw this bill—I think I can speak of “we” meaning not just the
unions, but labour relations people from both the management and
union sides—a great many of us were worried.
We were worried for a number of reasons that I will give,
bearing in mind that we are at second reading. I hope that the
committee will hold substantial hearings during which
these questions and objections can become amendments supported by
the government, because we know that, if they are not, it will be
difficult for the opposition, regardless of party.
First of all, I want to say that the minister, whether this
one or the one before, kept telling us that the Industrial
Relations Board would be representative. The idea is an
interesting one. The problem is that the bill does not give us a
representative board.
A reading of the bill reveals that the minister appoints
“after consultation”. This means that the final decision is his.
He does not make appointments from a joint list supplied by the
unions and management. These persons, if selected in this fashion,
might be representative. They could then play a role that was more
active, with a greater impact on the respective parties.
A supposedly representative board is being deprived of some of the
powers it could otherwise have. I am convinced that the parties will
make representations on this important issue.
The bill, which comes after years under the existing act, should
modernize labour relations, or at least adjust the legislation to the
changes in that sector. It is a fact that globalization and the new
economy, which has some advantages but also many drawbacks in terms of
distribution and levels of income, including salaries, have changed
labour relations.
I know that the unions have also taken a long look at the whole
issue. I am a member of the Bloc Quebecois.
I can attest to the fact that, since the eighties, the Quebec union
movement has changed considerably and is now much more active in
identifying the interests of businesses, not by ignoring those of
workers, because a democratic union protects the interests of its
members, but by getting involved, by knowing that jobs are created by
the businesses, and by realizing that the more productive businesses
are, the more competitive they will be and the greater the chances of
preserving jobs and getting decent salaries. At least this is how it
should be.
After some tough battles when conditions were difficult, the unions
have changed some of their attitudes.
1235
There have been some major changes in the world of labour
relations, in labour organization. The exceptional agreement that
was reached between Alcan and its employees testifies to that. In
similar situations, the labour code has to help the parties, not
hinder them.
Even more striking in this supposed reform of the Canada
Labour Code is the fact that it provides less flexibility for the
law and the minister to intervene. Instead of promoting dialogue
and negotiation, even in the context of a balance of power, the
supposed new code does the opposite.
I have to say I have never understood why the departmental experts
produce some of these provisions, including those pertaining to
determination of the right to strike and ministerial intervention.
I would remind those watching us that the Canada Labour Code
applies to only about 10% of unionized workers across Canada, and
the situation is essentially the same in Quebec. I take this
opportunity to point out something that is important in this House.
The Privy Council in London finally decided in 1927 that labour
relations were a provincial matter. In London, they often sided
with the provinces, unlike the Supreme Court, which always upheld
the federal government.
Some 10% of unionized workers are covered by the Canadian
code, but these unions are rather special. Most of them are
national or involved in areas under federal jurisdiction, such as
shipping. The unions are often big ones that need time to conduct
a vote.
I know our colleagues in the West are very concerned about
what is happening with grain. As the critic during the rail
strike, I realized the importance not only of labour relations and
the union movement, but of the use of the powers of the minister
and the House in connection with wheat.
It is essential that the committee look at the provision in
the code requiring a union that has obtained the right to strike to
exercise that right within 60 days of obtaining it. This is an
extremely limiting provision, which is almost guaranteed to prevent
a settlement. Why?
I said that many of these unions are big ones. Many of them
are national and need time to obtain the right to strike.
Sometimes the period between obtaining the right to strike and
reaching a settlement can go well beyond 60 days.
1240
Sight must not be lost of the fact that, often, a settlement
is reached when management or the union is close to resorting to a
strike or lock-out. However, when there is a cut-off point and the
union does not want to find itself without a mandate, what will it
do? It will break off negotiations before they are too far advanced
and go after another strike mandate. This strikes me as sensible.
The only exception to the 60 days would be when both parties
agreed to a postponement. If a dispute is intense, it is dangerous
to think either party would agree.
This provision worries me, as does the one requiring 72 hours'
notice of a lock-out or strike. This time, I will look at it from
management's point of view.
An employer that intends to lock out its employees in 72 hours
and so informs the union may find itself in the rather difficult
situation of having to pay employees to do precious little because
they know they are going to be locked out in 72 hours anyway.
If I look at it from the union's point of view, that of
longshoremen, for instance—there are many of them—if they have to
warn management that they are going to strike in 72 hours, what
will happen? Ships that were scheduled to dock for unloading will
have taken another route.
So, instead of making settlement easier, instead of using the
imminent arrival of a ship for instance, they are taking away
flexibility, taking away from the relationships of power for
reaching a settlement.
When a strike or lockout occurs, it is because no agreement
has been able to be reached. Of course this is always a sort of
admission of failure, but at the same time it must be seen as the
start of something new. Very often we have seen businesses, where
labour relations had been difficult for years, go through a real
conflict and then, afterward, the workers, the union
representatives, the employer and its representatives start talking
and a new and far different era in labour relations begins, because
both sides have understood that to do otherwise was not in their
best interests. They agree to listen to each other, and perhaps to
take the concerns of both sides more into account. This was a
common occurrence in the 1980s.
If this is to happen, the labour code must help make it
happen. The code must not give one party an advantage, one which
I would call an undue advantage, over the other. But what do we
see here? The Canada Labour Code, while claiming to be modern,
does not accept that employers should be forbidden to use scabs
during a labour conflict.
There is one thing I can guarantee. When a company has used
replacement workers, to use the euphemism, settlement may be
difficult, but the subsequent return to work is far more difficult.
I am arguing in favour of not losing sight of what will happen
after the return to work, of ensuring an atmosphere that will lead
to a proper organization of the work afterward.
There is no business anywhere that can thumb its nose at what
the workers think—at any time, but particularly during and after
a conflict—because those workers are the ones responsible for
production, whether they use sophisticated machines or a hammer,
they are the ones that make the company viable, the ones that make
it profitable.
This also applies to services.
1245
The Canada Labour Code cannot not be seen as a piece of
machinery with metal gears. It must respond to the current labour,
business and economic situation. It must equip the parties to
resolve their differences readily and then to start on a new
footing, leaving the dispute behind as quickly as possible in order
to move on to a new phase where work is assured and the business is
competitive.
The committee has an important job to do. I will close by
repeating that I hope it has the time to do it and pointing out
that this legislation is not ordinary.
It is legislation that becomes the law of the parties in its
codicils and commas and therefore both its content and form must
give both employees and businesses the means to resolve disputes
and to play a role in this changeable economy, which is a challenge
to everyone.
[English]
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I appreciate the comments of the Bloc member for whom I have
considerable respect. We sit on some committees together and I
am always interested to hear her comments.
I have a couple of questions which I would like to pose to her,
but I would like to give some background before I pose them. I
come from a business environment in which I was involved in
labour situations.
One particular part of the bill serves to illustrate the
importance of what our party has been putting forward. That has
to do with the fact that the bill allows the government to
require grain vessels to be serviced at port. That is probably a
good thing, in recognition of our international standing and
serving the vessels which come to port. However I think it is
tragic that it does not deal with getting the grain to the port.
We are in the information age. We move information around but
few people actually produce a product. When we boil down all the
moving of information around, where are the people who are
actually producing something? It is our Canadian farmers who are
doing that. Much of the information age rests on the foundation
of people who are actually producing a product. That is why it
is so critical those people not be subject to hindrances due to
labour stoppages.
My concern is that we have a government which recognizes the
need to maintain our international standing at ports for vessels
but ignores or seems to put secondary the needs of Canadian
farmers and Canadian producers.
The rail system knit the country together in the beginning. The
rail system was a very important factor in building this nation
and carrying product to port so we could participate in the
international market. When Canadian farmers suffer, I suggest to
the House and to those watching that all Canadians suffer. That
goes to my point that the information age has been built on top
of those who actually produce.
If we can do this for the international community, why can we
not also specifically entertain new ideas such as final offer
arbitration that our party has put forward? If it cannot be
embraced by all venues, why not for venues like Canadian farmers
who are so desperately in need of getting this product to market
to ensure a strong Canadian economy?
1250
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Madam Speaker, my colleague has
reminded me of the rail strike, when the Bloc Quebecois was the
official opposition and I was the critic in this area. I can tell
the House I have more pleasant memories than those from that period
of time when the rest of Canada was accusing us of holding up quick
passage of the bill, while we simply insisted on the usual three
days between the bill's introduction and its passing. We had
proposed a perfectly acceptable amendment, which the government
rejected. The next time around it agreed. We were told we were
threatening Canada's economy.
I said two things at the time “If the Canadian economy cannot
afford the Canadian Labour Code, then change it. Until then, we
will defend those who abide by the code”.
I also learned at the time that workers were prepared to load and
unload the grain anywhere. It is the employers that locked them out to
force the government to pass special back-to-work legislation.
Labour relations are a complex issue. I understand your point of
view, but potential disputes cannot be solved overnight. When workers
feel they are not getting their fair share of the profits, when
companies do not listen at all, some confrontation is bound to take
place. When the economy is doing better, of course.
Does the final offer solve the problems? I have often heard members
from this side express satisfaction that a final offer was made. I
reviewed the issue, and I am prepared to do so again, but I am not
convinced it would solve the problem at all. Indeed, if the final offer
that is accepted is such that, afterwards, workers are so upset that
they keep the company from operating at full capacity, nothing will have
been solved.
I do not think this is the right solution. In any case, my
colleague should realize that when unions are dynamic, strong and
democratic, as most of them are, nothing can replace discussions between
the workers' representatives and those of the employer.
The code must keep such talks alive.
Again, I believe Quebec was the first to undergo this change in
labour relations. Since the province was hard hit by the 1981-82
recession, unions had to adjust to the new reality.
A similar adjustment was also made in the rest of Canada. It is
good for the union if a company does well, but the union must be
recognized. A company should be willing to make compromises when the
union is taking its needs into account. We must facilitate this kind of
approach in Quebec and in Canada.
There is nothing better than a business whose employees feel truly
involved.
But for unions to be recognized, they must have a role to play; they
must know that their proposals will be taken into account.
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member might have a comment on the
issue surrounding replacement workers.
1255
In the bill replacement workers cannot be used, but the concern
is whether or not it is for union busting. Businesses have the
right to continue operating. They can bring in replacement
workers to continue keeping the business open but they cannot use
them for the purpose of union busting.
In the province of Quebec I believe replacement workers are not
allowed under any circumstances. Would the member have a comment
on the difference between the two situations?
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Madam Speaker, we can certainly come back to
that. I would just like to tell my hon. colleague that, at first, when
the antiscab legislation was passed in 1977, businesses were very angry
and could not wait for the Liberals to be back in government to revoke
the antiscab legislation.
When his government was voted in again in 1985, Robert Bourassa
told the companies whose concerns were voiced in the business magazines
of the time “You are enjoying labour peace. Why do you want to change
that?” While this legislation is intended to prevent the hiring of scabs
by a company looking to undermine a bargaining unit, it leaves the door
wide open.
How can one think that, even if the company claims to recognize and
not to dispute their position, striking employees will not get furious
when scabs are hired and will not try, by every means available, to
resolve the dispute in their favour? This will lead to problems down the
road. The use of scabs is a source of problems after a strike. The
company can never resolve its labour relations problems.
[English]
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the
chance to speak to the bill to amend part I of the Canada Labour
Code.
I am proud to support the legislation because I believe strongly
in collective bargaining. The bill does not create any unfair
advantage for anyone. In fact it balances the needs and
interests of workers, employers and the Canadian public.
Therefore it is good for the Canadian economy of today and
tomorrow.
Canada has been well served by its system of collective
bargaining. We know that labour and management groups in the
federally regulated private sector view part I of the Canada
Labour Code as a viable framework which has facilitated the
process.
We are also beginning to see a new level of co-operation between
management and labour and new styles of negotiation. These new
developments challenge us to find the proper balance between a
number of goals and objectives. A balance must be found between
social and economic goals. Work is a form of personal social
expression and a source of economic security.
A balance must also be found between instruments of labour
policy. Property rights, for example, must be balanced against
protection of freedom of association. A balance must also be
found between rights and responsibilities.
While our system of collective bargaining conveys certain rights
to management and labour, it is also based on the expectation
that labour and management will meet the responsibilities to
bargain fairly and in good faith.
We are also facing global economic challenges and increasingly
competitive markets. Our collective bargaining system must be
flexible enough to ensure that labour disputes can be resolved
speedily and positively. Enhanced co-operation will lead to
greater productivity, increased employment security and more
participation by workers in workplace decisions.
The legislation contains a number of important reforms and
innovations which together accomplish the difficult task of
finding the proper balance between the interests of workers,
employers and the Canadian public.
The following reforms and innovations will prepare us for the
economy of the 21st century.
First, a new Canada industrial relations board will replace the
Canada Labour Relations Board.
1300
The new board will include a neutral chairperson and
vice-chairperson and equal numbers of members representing
employers and employees. The new board will be more flexible and
able to act more quickly and its powers will be more clearly
defined. This will ensure that complex labour-management
disputes can be fully addressed and it will be possible for
appropriate actions to be taken in the event of unfair labour
practices.
Second, the federal mediation and conciliation service will be
strengthened and its neutrality will be enhanced by defining its
role by statute. These amendments will help to emphasize the
fact that dispute resolution and prevention are important aspects
of our collective bargaining policies.
Third, the right to strike or lockout will be subject to the
holding of a secret ballot within the previous 60 days and the
provision of 72 hours notice.
Fourth, replacement workers will not be banned outright.
Rather, the board will be given the power to stop their use if it
finds that they are being used as an unfair labour practice to
undermine a union. At the same time, the legitimate rights of
employers to continue their operations during a stoppage of work
is recognized without undermining the strength of the union.
Fifth, employees will be entitled to insurance and benefit
programs during work stoppages.
Each of these measures will ensure that part I of the code
contributes to an effective and efficient collective bargaining
system which is responsive to the needs of both employers and
employees.
I will discuss the consultations that led to this legislation
and the consensus that exists on the bill presently. This is
important to better appreciate and understand why the bill is as
it is today. Consultations began with preliminary discussions
led by senior government officials with the labour movement,
business groups and representatives of other groups with an
interest in the federally regulated private sector. These
discussions identified major areas of agreement and disagreement
concerning required amendments to part I of the Canada Labour
Code.
Following these preliminary discussions, a task force of
exceptionally able and credible labour relations experts was
established to examine part I of the code and to make
recommendations to the Minister of Labour. The three person task
force was led by Andrew Sims, an Edmonton labour lawyer
recognized for his accomplishments as former chair of the Alberta
Labour Relations Board. Mr. Sims was joined by Paula Knopf, an
accomplished arbitrator and mediator based in Toronto, and by
Rodrigue Blouin, a professor at Laval University and a
distinguished labour arbitrator.
The task force held public consultations in many cities,
Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Vancouver.
More than 90 written submissions were received from close to 50
groups and individuals including major labour and business
organizations. In most of the cities it visited, the task force
also met informally with labour lawyers and labour law
administrators. Full day meetings were held at the universities
of Laval, Toronto and Calgary. These meetings provided academic
experts in labour law and administration an opportunity to
express their opinions.
The task force also benefited from the work of a
labour-management consensus group made up of representatives of
the Canadian Labour Congress, the Confederation of National Trade
Unions, the Canadian Federation of Labour, the federally
regulated employers, transportation and communication, the
Western Grain Elevator Association and the Canadian Bankers
Association. The work of this group was important in identifying
issues in areas in which consensus was possible.
The Sims task force produced its report which included extensive
recommendations early in 1996. The recommendations of the task
force received strong support from both business and labour
groups. An additional round of consultation involved meetings
held by the Minister of Labour in April 1996 with representatives
of labour, management and other groups in Vancouver, Regina, St.
John's, Montreal, Toronto and Ottawa. These meetings gave the
minister a chance to hear in person reactions to the
recommendations of the task force.
1305
Finally, the public had a chance, through the work of the
Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, to express its
views on Bill C-66, which was passed by the House of Commons in
April 1997 and which was awaiting third reading in the Senate
when the 35th Parliament was dissolved for the general election
of June 2, 1997.
The concerns raised during the study of Bill C-66 have been
taken into account in Bill C-19 now before the House. The
amendments to part I of the Canada Labour Code are important and
necessary.
They will not radically alter the current system but rather will
encourage co-operative and productive labour-management relations
and provide a framework for collective bargaining.
The legislation will establish a fair and balanced set of rules
which will allow management and labour to define their own
problems and to find their own solutions to the challenge of
global economic change.
The legislation is the combination of extensive consultations
with all parties with an interest in mounting a collective
bargaining system for the 21st century.
I hope all members of this House will agree that the bill
deserves their support because this bill is a fair and a balanced
package of amendments based on recommendations of an independent
task force of labour relations experts.
It has the general support of labour and management
organizations subject to the code which have devoted considerable
time and resources to a lengthy review and consultation process.
In conclusion, modernization of part I of the code is needed to
improve the administration and functioning of the industrial
relations in the federal private sector and to address changing
workplace issues.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Madam Speaker,
I would like to speak on Bill C-19, the Canada Labour Code bill,
as amendments have been presented.
Our party reviewed the consultation that has taken place in this
country with many stakeholders. This has certainly given us an
opportunity to speak in favour of the amendments.
I would like to speak on some of the initiatives that the
amendments are focusing on, an enlightening departure from some
of the practices of the past in this country. One is successor
rights improvements. In the province of Saskatchewan successor
rights have been legislated provincially.
I would like to speak on the issue of grain transportation as
well, a major industry and a major concern to the many producers
in my province.
In recent years in grain transportation rail companies have been
reviewing and downsizing their short line operations. They have
abandoned rail lines and also have sold off to other interests.
My concern is that a lot of the reasoning CN and CP have been
using is the labour relations, the collective agreements they are
bound by.
When they transfer rail lines to other operations, to American
interests or to other small operators, the first to be
compromised are of course the collective agreements.
One of the many issues raised is the concern that grain exports
have been compromised by labour disruption in some of the ports,
labour disruption by the grain handlers and grain transportation.
1310
A couple of winters ago there were major disruptions in grain
transportation that had nothing to do with labour. This country
has to revisit its transportation strategy. Labour has a major
responsibility to make sure the job is done on a daily basis,
that the quality of work is done, that the safety and the health
of the workers are not compromised, that democratically they
represent themselves at negotiation tables with employers.
The overall strategy of grain and rail transportation in this
country has been compromised year by year. It is going to take
leadership from this country. This kind of leadership might come
with an industrial relations board where grievances can be
brought to the table and addressed.
There are issues such as anti-scab and replacement workers.
This is recognized in an amendment to the labour code now before
us. It recognizes that employers cannot use scab workers to
compromise union positions, or union busting as the hon. member
mentioned. This is a major concern to the union leaders in this
country.
The other issue labour leaders have raised is the whistleblower
legislation. This is the ability of a worker to raise an issue
with federal, provincial or local powers or the public at large
concerning worker health and safety within the workplace.
We also have seen the file increase on environmental issues such
as hazardous wastes which are being used by the manufacturing
industry and the transportation industry which compromise our
environment. This past week we heard evidence that hazardous
wastes from offshore enter this country through our ports.
This has been a major contributor to hazardous wastes in
this country.
Environment Canada, through its cutbacks, reorganization and
harmonization of its responsibilities with the provinces and
other departments in recent years has confessed its inability to
check all ports of entry for hazardous wastes.
The other issue is its ability to depend on intelligence by
working with with customs officers, the RCMP and the provincial
police in Quebec and Ontario. There is also the opportunity to
work with the workers and the labour organizations in this
country. They work the ports, the railroads, the manufacturing
plants, the incineration plants where a lot of these hazardous
wastes are located. There is a lot of underground illegal
activities with hazardous wastes.
If we mobilized and protected our workers through whistleblower
legislation we would have a much safer environment, a much safer
community and more transparency from an industry which is
expected to police itself. Sometimes in policing, when it comes
down to an economic or financial decision, industries will put
labour, safety and environment at the bottom of the list.
In grain transportation we are loosing miles and miles of rail
transportation in light of our commitments to the environment in
Kyoto, and to labour. The Crow rate was taken away from western
grain producers. This issue is still a concern. The rate cap
that was created for grain transportation will be up for review.
The price of grain transportation will go right through the roof.
1315
The issue is can the employers talk with labour? Can they talk
with those in grain transportation? Is there any kind of
leadership this country can create, aside from our running to
southern railways, to address port access to international
markets? Why can we not as Canadians keep our Canadian ports,
keep our Canadian railroads, keep our Canadian labour standards
and keep our Canadian labour industry in this country? Why can we
not keep it truly Canadian Pacific or Canadian National?
That issue is very dear to the hearts of many grain producers.
This is especially so in the northern part of our provinces. The
industry and the producers are far away from their markets and
have to transport their grain many miles. There are small family
farm operations that cannot afford a semi-tractor trailer
operation to take their grain to the nearest inland terminal.
In light of all of this and hindsight being 20:20, it is the
relationship we have with labour and employers and the leadership
of this country. This country has to provide leadership from
coast to coast to coast.
The proposed amendments now in the Canada Labour Code, the
industrial relations board that is being restructured, are a
positive move. It represents interests on both sides. It
provides opportunities for issues to be rectified regionally or
locally and more expediently. The limited prohibition of
replacement workers and scabs is being recognized. It is not
wholehearted but at least it is in the right direction. Successor
rights have been taken a step further. The preference for grain
exports is also being recognized. I think western grain
producers are being heard.
Overall when future amendments are being brought forward, I
would like to see the issue of whistle blower legislation brought
forward so that workers can have the protection to bring out the
health and safety and environmental issues.
The Canadian Labour Congress has publicly made it known through
the consultation process that these amendments are being
supported by the labour community. However, in light of the
concerns that hon. members from the Bloc Quebecois have raised,
some of these issues are not taken far enough.
What our party is saying is that at least it is one step. It
may not be a whole jump through the door but future amendments
might be an evolution to seeing that which the hon. members from
the Bloc are envisioning.
I thank the House for allowing me to speak on this most
important issue. I welcome any questions.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Labour, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the hon. member spoke so
eloquently on this bill. He is right. It is a step and I think
it is a good step.
I was just in the back of the lobby a couple of minutes ago
talking to some staff. There were a couple of letters from
farmers who desperately want this approved.
It is so important today that we move this bill along. It is
going to be sent to committee. Why does the member think the
Reform and Bloc members, which I really do not understand, and
the Conservative members are holding it up in a log jam? If we
quickly move this bill on to committee, then we would have an
opportunity for more input. Does my colleague have any thoughts
on that?
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Madam Speaker, I guess the question
rightfully should be placed with the parties from which she wants
the answers. I cannot speak for the other parties of this House.
1320
The grain transportation issues were raised especially with the
grain producers in the west. The ports cater to the offshore
markets. Farmers must have the ability to move their grain
through the mountain passes. The operation of the railroads must
be transparent to the producers which is something that has not
been addressed. We quickly lay the blame of grain not being moved
on labour disruptions, but the operation of the railroads is not
transparent to the grain handlers and the producers.
The transparency of the operation of the railroads is
compromised when amendments are made to the Canadian
Transportation Act, such as those which have been brought forward
in recent years. It is as if rail transportation is on one side
and the producers and the people who use the railroads are on the
other side.
We have lost our head. Somebody took time off and we have lost
our head on this issue. There is no vision. There is no
foresight. There is no thought. The railroads are selling off
our Canadian interests when the rail beds are on Canadian
property and title belongs to the Canadian nation.
Many capital investments have been made by CN and CP over the
years for improvements and line extensions. Now they are selling
it off to Omnitrax out of Denver and rail transportation out of
Texas. What are we left with?
We realize now the detrimental effect which greenhouse gas
emissions will have on our environment in the future. Rail
transportation is the way to go because it is cheaper.
We were told in northern Saskatchewan to build a highway. It
costs $180,000 to build a kilometre of highway. Why not build a
kilometre of rail bed at $18,000? The rail bed is mechanized and
is very efficient.
The people of northern Saskatchewan, northern Manitoba, the
Northwest Territories and the Yukon eventually will have to
negotiate with firms in Denver and Texas to get rail
transportation into the far north.
We are losing our vision of the entire country for the benefit
of industrial labour relations. The farmers feel alienated. They
sit at their kitchen tables and talk about the issues of this
nation. We have to bring those issues to the House of Commons
because the vision of this country should be debated here.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I certainly want to zero in on what the hon. member had
to say about grain transportation. I want to assure him that not
only in northern Saskatchewan, northern Alberta and northern
Manitoba is this a concern. It is a concern right across Canada.
I come from a constituency which grows a lot of wheat. The
farmers there will openly tell you that they have been betrayed
on three counts. First, they were betrayed when they got one
year's free freight out of the Crow rate. Second, the practice
of the grain companies and the railway companies getting together
to plan the mass rail line abandonment is a betrayal of the
farmers. The third betrayal is our inability to go to the
railways and say “Your cost of operating is 50% what it used to
be, or it certainly will be. We are not going to be talking
about freight increases, we are going to be talking about freight
reduction”.
Would the member agree with that?
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Madam Speaker, I hope there is
foresight in the hon. member's comment and that his prophecy will
some day come true.
The hon. member is talking about decision making. The decisions
are made at the board tables of the rail transportation
companies. They are made for profit margins and shareholder
interests. However, the shareholders have lost sight. The
shareholders are Canadians. We are the shareholders of the
railroads.
Someone got their way. They lobbied the right person at some
point in time and now the railways are private organizations.
1325
Speaking of privatization, there was a recent decision made in
Great Britain. The chief executive officer of Virgin Records,
Mr. Branson, challenged an American interest that has operations
of all the lotteries in Great Britain. But lotteries as we know
them in Canada are state run and non-profit intensive. However
one person took it to court and has stopped privatization of
railroads and privatization of the subway departments in all the
major cities.
That is what we have to look at in this country. Stop the
privatization move. Let us look at the national vision and bring
in the shareholders, Canadians, those people at their kitchen
tables from southern and northern Saskatchewan, from Quebec, from
Ontario, from B.C., from the Yukon. Make these people a part of
the decision making process and the vision of this country.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today. I see by the hour on the
clock that my debate time is unfortunately going to be cut short.
I will have to continue on Tuesday or whenever the government
screws up the courage to bring the legislation back again.
This is the government's second kick at the can for this
legislation. That has become clear thus far. Certainly we in the
opposition ranks have become well accustomed to seeing reruns in
this 36th Parliament, leftover, retread legislation from the last
Parliament that did not meet the bill, so to speak. The
government has insisted on dredging it up, repackaging it, giving
it a different number and bringing it back in the hopes that the
Canadian public is going to be somehow fooled by this and give it
a fresh look.
It is unfortunate on the government's part that it did not
invoke closure on the old C-66 from the last Parliament to ram it
through the House like it did with so much other legislation. But
I suppose it must have had a little bit of a twinge of conscience
at one point about doing that with every piece of legislation in
the closing days of the last Parliament.
Even after this government is told by Canadians that its bills
are flawed, it just keeps reintroducing and recycling them.
Often, as in the case of C-19, some minor cosmetic changes are
made but we are really right back where we began.
The problems that existed in Bill C-66 are still found in the
present Bill C-19 that we are debating today. When I look at this
bill I have to look at it through the eyes of my constituents,
through the eyes of farmers and through the eyes of those
Canadians who will be most affected when the government
undoubtedly uses its majority in the House, as it did recently
with Bill C-4, and just rams it through despite the pleas of
Canadians from coast to coast that it simply does not do the job.
Some groups have told me that they are content with C-19 and
they have encouraged me to support it. Even when those same
people have expressed supreme disappointment at the considerable
flaws in the legislation, they have basically said that it is
better than nothing.
It is our job as official opposition and as MPs to strive to
ensure that Canadians do not have to be content with something
that is better than nothing. We believe that it should be a whole
lot better than nothing. So we have to look at each piece of
legislation on balance and we have to weigh the pros and cons.
While some clauses may have some merit, we have to consider that
the flawed clauses of the legislation, or the legislation that is
missing altogether, may cause significant problems or
consequences later on.
The fact is that when it comes to C-19 those problems and
consequences far outweigh any benefits that may arise from the
passage of C-19. From my point of view as the chief official
opposition agricultural critic, farmers who already contend with
unstable weather patterns and many other challenges beyond their
control, increasing input costs for one, will not find solace in
this legislation. They will continue to have one or more unstable
factors threatening their livelihoods.
Grain farmers need guarantees that their grain will get to its
destination. Despite government claims to the contrary, Bill C-19
will not guarantee that grain will be transported to its
destination.
1330
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must interrupt the
hon. member. It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to
the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on
today's Order Paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
PATENT ACT
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP):
moved that Bill C-248, an act to amend the Patent Act, be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House
today to speak to Bill C-248, a bill that will attempt to
basically make prescription drugs affordable to those who need it
most.
I commence my remarks today by thanking my colleague, the member
for Yukon, for seconding my bill.
Bill C-248 basically reduces the patent life of a new drug from
20 years to 17 years. It also reduces the period of market
exclusivity on a new drug from 20 years to 4 years. Market
exclusivity is the patent holder's monopoly on sales.
The largest increases in sales volume of a new drug typically
occur during the first four years. After that the largely
Canadian generic firms would have the right to manufacture copies
on payment of a royalty to the brand name patent holding firms, a
system called compulsory licensing.
In essence Bill C-248 provides for competition among
prescription drug manufacturers that now have monopoly pricing
authority under government Bill C-91.
This bill is supported by literally tens of thousands of seniors
and thousands of other people in Canada who are ill and require
prescription drugs. It is supported and endorsed by the Canadian
Health Coalition, by the Government of Saskatchewan, by the
Canadian Labour Congress and by many other organizations.
Debate on the patent drugs issue has often confused the two
ideas of patents and market exclusivity. The two points were
only made synonymous when the pharmaceutical bill, Bill C-91, was
introduced in 1991. Bill C-22 in 1987 did not eliminate
compulsory licensing. It simply extended the period of market
exclusivity from four years to seven years.
Bill C-248 includes the best of the pre-Mulroney regime on
prescription drug royalties and pricing. It respects so-called
intellectual property rights by establishing a royalty payment to
the patent holder, but it does not intervene in the market to
create a monopoly for an undue length of time.
It is different from the 1987 system in that instead of a flat
royalty rate Bill C-248 would allow for a sliding royalty scheme
that rewards brand name pharmaceutical firms that actually did
the majority of the research on a particular drug in Canada as
opposed to now when they do it outside the country.
This proposal was adopted by the federal NDP as part of its
platform in the last election. The NDP is the only party to
consistently support competition in the prescription drug
industry. This bill fulfils part of our campaign commitment to
continue the fight for fair prescription drug prices.
I want to talk for a few minutes about costs and benefits. I
believe it is time that we as parliamentarians admit that the
current government policy of granting generous patent rights to
foreigners as an enticement to establish a Canadian
pharmaceutical industry just has not worked.
The policy sees public funds used to pay for these generous
patent rights through billions of dollars in drug costs from our
provincial medicare and drug plans. The drug companies get a
five year average return on capital of over 14%. In return for
this generous ROI, layoffs, a trade deficit in pharmaceuticals,
less R and D per sales in the U.S. and expensive drugs for those
who need them most are the rewards for Canadians.
We have not even begun to pay the worst of the costs yet.
Health economists like Stephen Schondelmeyer and Queen's health
policy group have examined the costs of Bill C-91. If we take
their most conservative estimate and compare the situation under
Bill C-91 to the case under Bill C-22, which was by no means
perfect, the cost to consumers is between $4 billion and $7
billion over a 10 year period.
1335
Most of that $7 billion will be paid after the year 2000, which
as everyone knows is the new millennium. If you catch the
millennium bug, the millennium drug prices are going to kill you.
That is because the last of the drugs approved with a seven year
market exclusivity under Bill C-22 will be able to go generic in
1999. We have not even begun to feel the pain, in other words.
In return for $4 billion to $7 billion in additional drug costs,
we have received maybe $500 million in additional R and D which
was already required to meet Canada's drug approval regulations.
We lost over 2,000 jobs as well. We sustained huge cutbacks in
transfer payments and social programs to pay down the debt and
deficit, along with all the hardship and unemployment they
entailed.
People say that the Patent Medicine Prices Review Board is there
to protect against price gouging or skyrocketing prescription
drug costs.
What exactly has been done by the PMPRB, the great defender of
the people of Canada? The Patent Medicine Prices Review Board
lacks accountability, which is a bit of a problem. It lacks
transparency, which is a bit of a problem. It has no mandate to
serve the public interest. It serves the interest of large
multinationals across the world. Its methodology is skewed to
give the appearance of price control while it permits drug
cartels to charge the highest drug prices in the industrialized
world.
Why do I say that? For example, they use in their formula for
checking price controls seven OECD countries such as Britain,
France, U.S., Switzerland and Sweden that have the highest costs
of living anywhere in the world. They are more expensive than
Canada. Yet the PMPRB uses as a reference retail prices which
are never charged to the citizens of those countries or their
drug plans because they always buy at discounts of up to 40%. It
is very clear that we pay the highest prices anywhere in the
world.
Our view is that the PMPRB has to make some changes. It needs a
legislated mandate to protect the public interest, not large
corporations. It should make drug comparisons of all twenty-nine
OECD countries, not the seven most expensive countries in which
to live in the OECD.
Drug price comparisons should be made against the real price,
the 40% discount price, and not the retail prices charged in
these countries. Finally, some due diligence should be exercised
and the price data from large drug cartels in European countries
should be independently verified to determine for sure whether or
not the prices are accurate.
My bill will basically restore competition and perhaps encourage
the PMPRB to do the job it was supposed to do at the outset.
The Liberals opposite have said that they will work within the
system, will go to the industry committee meeting and will fire
tough questions at large multinationals written by the Minister
of Industry, the Minister of Health and their colleagues to make
drug companies look good.
Working within that system has not really paid off. There have
been no tangible results. I say this with some sympathy for
colleagues in the Liberal government who faithfully toiled away
in the industry committee last year on Bill C-91. They lobbied
their caucus and they lobbied their Minister of Industry. They
had every expectation that some minimal response would be
provided. As we know, nothing actually happened. The Liberal
government was able to slide into another election because the
review was being done until the election call last spring.
What reward did they get for this? The biggest defender of the
large multinationals, the chair of the industry committee, David
Walker, got his reward. He was defeated by my colleague, the NDP
member for Winnipeg Centre, for all the great work he did
misleading the people of his constituency and not doing his job
to stand up for the public interest when it came to price gouging
by large multinational drug companies.
What about those who did not get defeated? Not very many of
those who supported the drug companies were not defeated by an
NDPer. They simply got humiliated by the cabinet's complete
capitulation to the multinational drug companies just last month.
I argue that the only way to fix Bill C-91 is to scrap it and to
support Bill C-248. That is why I am asking for support of the
bill. It will make some definite changes, bring competition to
drug pricing and help those who need it most.
1340
Large foreign drug companies wanted 20 years of market
exclusivity on new drugs for four reasons. First, they said it
would create jobs. In fact there are 2,000 fewer people working
in our pharmaceutical industry as a result.
Second, they said that it would keep drugs affordable. In fact
costs for brand name drugs have skyrocketed since 1987, forcing
provincial government drug plans to pass on more of the cost to
the sick and elderly.
Saskatchewan is the best example. It has been unable to defend
its citizens who require prescription drugs to maintain their
health because of skyrocketing costs of brand name drugs and the
exclusion of generic companies from manufacturing competitively
priced drugs for those who require them.
It has also driven the cost of medicare extremely high. Prior
to 1987 prescription drugs accounted for less than 8% of Canada's
medicare costs and now it is over 12%, a 50% increase in medicare
costs for prescription drug purchases alone.
The third idea they put forward to allow Bill C-91 to pass was
to generate funds for research. Although most research money is
spent on company directed clinical trials that are required by
law anyway, only one new breakthrough drug has been developed in
Canada since 1987, the AIDS drug 3TC. Even now it is being
manufactured in Ireland. How many jobs did that create in
Canada? Probably none but maybe one or two to sell it.
A commitment by large foreign drug companies to help fund pure
research through the Medical Research Council was scaled back and
still remains unmet. The shortfall in the MRC's budget is having
drastic consequences for Canadian medical scientists.
To use the R and D pitch by the drug pharmaceuticals in
Saskatchewan as an example, there were approximately 123 requests
for clinical drug trials in Saskatchewan. The international
pharmaceuticals approved none of the 123 requests, not one. Yet
they are travelling from province to province claiming to be
spending billions and trillions of dollars on more and more R and
D. It is all a big lie by the pharmaceuticals.
Fourth, they said they needed Bill C-91 and could not change its
provisions because of international trade obligations under the
WTO. Members of the House who sat on the industry committee will
recall that witness after witness, including international
economic advisers and lawyers, appeared and said that the WTO
permitted member countries to pass laws to seek to protect the
public interest.
If the public interest is being gouged by large pharmaceuticals
or any other company unfairly, any government can take the
decision under this clause to protect its public from unfair
pricing practices. The government does not want to do that
because it would jeopardize its contributions from companies like
Glaxo Wellcome which gave the Liberals $90,000 in contributions.
Another pharmaceutical, Merck Frosst, gave the Liberals about
$16,000 to help buy this protection under Bill C-91 and not to
support a bill like Bill C-248 which I am putting forward in the
House today.
It is clear the policy has not worked for the Liberals. The
Liberals in opposition agreed with abolishing Bill C-91. Their
critic, Ron MacDonald, the former member for Dartmouth, would not
even run in the last election because he was so embarrassed by
the flip-flop of the Liberal Party. The Prime Minister stood in
the House as leader of the opposition under the Mulroney
government and said “The Prime Minister of Canada always sides
with the multinationals and not the sick and poor. When are you
going to repeal Bill C-91?”
Now that the former leader of the opposition is Prime Minister
of Canada, he should look in the mirror and ask the same
question. Perhaps he should answer it by taking some initiative
to help people who are suffering under unfair prescription drug
pricing practices by multinational companies.
Today bankruptcy statistics were announced: 91,000 personal and
business tragedies, a record number in the country.
1345
This is something, in my view, that is going to hurt those
families even more when they require prescription drugs to
maintain their health.
The Liberals were persuaded very unanimously by their lobbyist,
Judy Erola, the chief lobbyist for the Pharmaceutical
Manufacturers' Association of Canada. Judy Erola is very
persuasive because she is a former Liberal cabinet minister under
Prime Minister Trudeau. They bought this line of sustaining Bill
C-91 hook, line and sinker.
The cost and benefits of the current government policy on patent
drugs does not add up. I challenge parliamentarians in this
House to say that the emperor has no clothes and that the process
that we have under Bill C-91 does not work. If we do not fix it
soon the future of medicare is on the line and certainly the
lives and future of all Canadians.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to
the private member's bill sponsored by the hon. member for
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre.
The Canadian drug patent policy has three main objectives, to
ensure that consumers have access to patent drugs at reasonable
prices, to support the development of the pharmaceutical industry
and to ensure that Canada conforms with its international
obligations which, for example, require a minimum of 20 years of
patent protection.
These objectives are fulfilled by striking a balance between
ensuring that generic drugs can hit the market immediately after
patent expiry and effective enforcement of patent rights.
However, the bill put forward by the hon. member would negate
this balance.
In contrast, the package of regulatory reform proposals, which
the minister announced on January 24, 1998, would maintain this
balance and improve the regulatory framework for drug patents.
Let me explain why the bill is inappropriate. The hon. member
wishes to turn back the clock. He wants to restore compulsory
licensing of patented drugs. This would allow generic drug
companies to manufacture and sell a generic equivalent four years
into a patent term. The hon. member also proposes to shorten
patent terms.
The hon. member proposes these measures to combat the spectre of
increased health care costs. He lays the blame for these costs
at the feet of Canada's drug patent policy. However, the facts
do not bear him out.
We are making sure drugs are available at reasonable prices
through price controls on patented drugs. This regime has been
very effective. Canadians paid over 24% less for patented drugs
in 1995 than they would have in the absence of the federal price
regulation. Total estimated savings to Canadians from limiting
price increases over the years 1988 to 1995 were over $3 billion.
When we look at the latest report of the Patented Medicine
Prices Review Board, which administers price controls on patented
drugs, we find that prices of patented medicines declined by 2.1%
in 1996. I remind the House that the consumer price index
increased by 1.6% over the same period.
Overall, Canadian prices for patented drugs have declined
significantly relative to foreign prices on average by 30%.
Canadian prices were 23% above the median of foreign prices in
1987 but dropped to 10% below in 1996.
Of course, even though patented drug prices have fallen, we are
concerned about health care costs. Pharmaceutical companies,
through their extensive investments in research and development,
have come up with new drugs to help improve the health of
Canadians. Not only are Canadians reassured because there is an
increasing number of ailments that can now be treated with drugs,
these new medicines can reduce hospital stays. This helps reduce
overall health care costs.
We are also firmly committed to making sure Canadians continue
to have the best available drugs at the best possible prices.
1350
We want to strengthen the PMPRB's mandate. The PMPRB released a
discussion paper and is concurrently consulting with the public
about its mandate. I hope the member opposite has made his
presentation.
Also, as announced on January 21, 1998, federal, provincial and
territorial ministers of health are working collaboratively on a
number of pharmaceutical issues, including drug prices.
The government also acknowledges the importance of the generic
industry in keeping drug costs down. We want Canadians to be
able to access generic drugs as soon as the patent expires. In
fact, we provide early working exceptions to patent infringement
which enable generic manufacturers to enter the market as soon as
possible upon patent expiry. This has been an integral feature of
our patent framework along with the link between the patent
status of a brand name drug and the regulatory approval of its
generic equivalent.
Recently the EU has challenged Canada's compliance with our
international obligations in light of the exceptions I have just
referred to. It is Canada's intention to vigorously defend these
exceptions. We believe we are in full compliance with our
international obligations.
I would also like to point out that the government's proposed
changes would further reduce any delays in getting less expensive
generic drugs to market while maintaining effective patent
protection.
I would like to turn to my second reason for opposing Bill
C-248. Patent protection if a prerequisite for innovation, R and
D and investment, and Bill C-248 would severely limit this
protection, jeopardizing investment and jobs in Canada.
Since 1993 the brand name industry has spent over $2 billion in
research and development across the country and that has meant
jobs for Canadians. We are speaking here of high paying,
knowledge intensive jobs. We are speaking about economic growth
in one of the most dynamic sectors in the global economy, where
investment in research and development roams the world looking
for the best place to make a home.
In Canada the pharmaceutical industry is a major R and D
performer. While the pharmaceutical industry accounts for only
1% of manufacturing sector shipments it performs 10% of all
industrial R and D. Of the top 100 R and D spenders in Canada 26
are pharmaceutical companies.
I remind the House that when the Patent Act was amended in 1987
the Pharmaceutical Manufacturer's Association of Canada made a
public commitment that the brand name pharmaceutical industry
would increase its annual R an D expenditure as a percentage of
sales to 10%. That is the period on which the PMPRB has now
reported.
Have these companies lived up to their commitments? Indeed they
have. In 1996 their R and D to sales ratio was not just 10%. It
was 12.3%. For patentees as a whole the ratio was 11.4%.
Spending on basic research was $136.6 million or 21.7% of the
total in 1996. Applied research accounted for 62.9% of the
total. This includes clinical and preclinical trials and
manufacturing process R and D.
It is clear that the Canadian pharmaceutical industry has been
making a significant contribution to the Canadian economy under
modern effective patent protection. The hon. member seems to
acknowledge somewhat the importance of research and development
performed by the drug industry in Canada.
Under the compulsory licensing system in Bill C-248 the royalty
rate would take into account the amount of medical research
carried out in Canada by the applicant and the patentee. Perhaps
the hon. member believes these provisions would be sufficient to
encourage companies to continue research in Canada. Perhaps he
thinks Canada would continue to attract the same level of R and D
investment under these terms. Perhaps he thinks that these
measures would be suitable in today's knowledge based economy.
1355
This brings me to my third reason for opposing Bill C-248. The
measures proposed by the hon. member would contravene Canada's
international obligations.
Let me conclude by saying the proposed improvements underline
the government's commitment to encourage investment through
modern competitive framework laws that are consistent with the
international obligations and support innovative growth and
development of new improved drugs.
These frameworks provide a stable investment climate for the
pharmaceutical industry, which would further encourage R and D
which, as I mentioned earlier, plays a vital role in the Canadian
economy. The regulations have been gazetted. There is a 30 day
time spell which will be completed next week.
In short, our proposed package of changes improves the system
and gets the job done.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, what a delight it is on the last half hour on a Friday
with everybody just brimming for his speech to come. I am sure
that you will find it very exciting, probably one that you would
rather forget.
I want to commend the hon. member who introduced this bill. I
appreciate this bill's coming forward. I do not entirely agree
with everything in the bill but it has merit.
It also gives me the opportunity to inform the hon. member for
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre that I was not part of a government
in Saskatchewan in 1982, as he said the other day. I was part of
a local government which was perhaps as important.
It is with ease that I talk about this because the
pharmaceutical industry has been very much a part of our family.
I had an older brother who made his career in this area. He was
a Canadian. He took his Canadian experience and travelled around
this world. That was a Canadian influence. I suppose we might
say he was multinational, but he was Canadian born, Canadian
trained and for the most part represented Canadian pharmaceutical
people.
I have a doctor who is still practising, so drugs are very much
part of the repertoire when I visit with him.
I wonder if anyone here has ever visited one of our large
pharmaceutical research stations. The one I was at has hundreds
of acres, thousands of employees. I would not want to guess—
An hon. member: It was probably a generic firm.
Mr. Roy Bailey: No, it was not. It was in Michigan, so
the member can guess from that.
We have a tendency to take these important issues and make them
too simplistic. Most of us will have to go to the history books
for this, although a few might remember. Around the turn of the
century, in 1918, a terrible flu hit this country.
I remember visiting a small village in northern B.C.. The flu
of 1918 wiped out the whole village. This winter a new strain of
flu, the Sydney A, has already claimed 10 Canadian lives. I
mention this because to this end Canadians have learned to depend
on medicine to protect us. Even more so Canadians rely on an
industry that produces and makes available the prescription drugs
that maintain their health. With that neither member who has
spoken would interfere.
In this respect the pharmaceutical industry is one of the most
important and most lucrative industries worldwide. In any
country with a major pharmaceutical interest, the health of the
industry as well as the health of its citizens must be considered
a factor.
Because the industry is so lucrative and a significant portion
of the economy relies on the industry's success, namely
employment and investment in research and development,
governments around the world are presented with a difficult task
of balancing economic interests with very important social
interests.
1400
We are here today debating my colleague's bill because many
Canadians feel that the balance has shifted. The hon. member who
introduced the bill will say that it has shifted too far in one
direction. He will say that it has shifted toward the interests
of the industry and no longer considers the interests of
Canadians. That is basically what he is saying in his bill.
I repeat that there is some truth to this. But whether it is
good for the economy or meets our social objectives, we must
remember that first and foremost the pharmaceutical industry
exists to provide prescription drugs to Canadians. Huge profits,
jobs, research and development are important spinoffs, as the
Liberal member mentioned.
In Canada people say that they take pride in our health care
system. We believe it is the best in the world and we want to
keep it that way. Canadians find great solace in the fact that
barring everything else which concerns them, an affordable
medical system must be kept in place.
We know it matters not whether we are rich or poor, illness is
illness and the requirement for medication should know no bounds.
We also know that the chronically ill, seniors or children are
vulnerable and therefore must have access to affordable medical
assistance. This is particularly true for seniors and the
chronically ill. They cannot afford to live in a country where
the cost of medicine is too high. I commend my colleague for
recognizing this and for putting forth his efforts to improve the
situation.
However in debating this bill I would like to make certain
recommendations which I feel would accomplish our goal more
efficiently and more effectively. In saying this I am indicating
that I have certain problems with my colleague's bill and I will
lay these out for the consideration of the House.
My colleague says that the 20% patent protection for brand name
pharmaceuticals is the cause of the cost of drugs being too high.
I would suggest that is being a bit too simplistic. There are
clear benefits to patent protection, not the least of which is
the contribution made to research and development both in the
performance of it and in the generation of it that goes into this
country. It is precisely this kind of research which brings
Canadians the breakthrough they need to counter the effects of
the flus we are seeing right now, such as the Sydney A.
Important commitments have been made by the brand name
pharmaceutical companies. A program between the PMAC and the
Medical Research Council was initiated for research and
development with a budget of around $250 million. That is a huge
sum of money. Such agreements among sectors make an important
contribution by fostering basic research in the pharmaceutical
and biotechnical fields in Canada's universities and research
industry.
PMAC member companies have also made commitments toward an R and
D to sales ratio. As a result they have made a contribution to
applied research, an important tool in achieving Canada's
economic well-being.
However these commitments have not produced a perfect system. My
colleagues are seriously concerned that the commitments made by
the brand name pharmaceutical companies to invest in research and
development are in no way assured. The Liberal government has
not ensured that these agreements are binding. That is a problem
for the people of Canada. It is certainly a problem for the
Reform Party.
We believe that the generous patent protection given to the
brand name companies must be incumbent upon the willingness of
the PMAC to make binding commitments to the research and
development of new drugs in Canada. Not only do pharmaceuticals
gain from a competitive patent protection, they also gain from
the most generous R and D tax write-offs in the world.
Based on this we believe the government should be seeking a
binding commitment from this sector. We do not have that. That
to me is the real guts of this bill. I agree with the hon.
member on that point.
The participation of the pharmaceutical industry in Canada is so
important in building a strong knowledge based economy, but we
must have some proof that this is happening. I would like to see
the member's bill emphasize this.
1405
Maintaining the 20 year patent protection is in keeping with the
patent protection of our global competitors. By ensuring this
applies in Canada we can compete in the investment made by the
pharmaceutical industry which enhances our economy. But in
entering into this relationship we must ensure the integrity
within this agreement by seeking binding commitments. Today we do
not have that.
I would suggest to the originator of this bill that rather than
tinker with the number of years on the patent protection that
exists now, accept the 20 year patent protection to ensure
Canada's competitiveness, but also ensure that the promises are
binding. The government has the responsibility to see that they
produce real benefits as a result of the initiatives of this
industry.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member's
time has expired.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Madam Speaker, in a
speech on October 2, I said “Research and development is a key
component for any society wishing to be fully prepared for
the 21st century. Economic prosperity is increasingly the result of
research and technological development, rather than the development
of natural resources”. That quote fits in well with the very basis
of today's debate on drug patents.
Private Member's Bill C-248, an act to amend the Patent Act,
introduced by the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, is
not votable, but it is very timely. The hon. member certainly had
good intentions in introducing this bill to reduce the cost of
health insurance and drugs for consumers, but the arguments, and
the amendments my hon. colleague wants to make to the Patent Act,
are weak and open to dispute.
I am, of course, opposed to the way this bill greatly weakens
the present regulations as far as a 20-year drug patent protection
is concerned. The Bloc Quebecois has always stressed the
importance of maintaining that twenty years of protection, and I
will defend that position in my speech. I will take this
opportunity to counter the arguments advanced by the sponsor of the
bill.
First of all, a study published on February 27, 1997 by the
Patented Medicine Prices Review Board shows that federal
regulation of the price of patented medicines saved Canadians and
Quebecers between $2.9 billion and $4.2 billion between 1988 and
1995. In 1995 alone, the savings were between $846 million and
$1.1 billion. I would point out that the board was created in
1987 under Bill C-91, which enacted amendments to the Patent Act,
increasing the protection for drug patents.
As well, the price of patented medicines has risen an average
of 1.6% since 1988, compared to a 3.1% increase in the consumer
price index. In 1995, the average price of patented medicines in
Canada dropped to a level 7% lower than the mean in other
countries.
In 1994, the cost of patented drugs represented 2.5% of the total
expenditure of the Canadian health system, while generic ones and
other non patented medicines accounted for 3.7%.
It is therefore totally wrong to say that the regulations
passed under Bill C-91 caused a catastrophic increase in the cost
of drugs when the bill became law, as the NDP member would have us
believe.
1410
Following the introduction of Bill C-91, drug manufacturers,
especially those with their head offices abroad, invested
substantially in research programs in both Canada and Quebec. This
support helped Canada and primarily Quebec to narrow the ever
widening gap between us and our competitors, such as those in the
G-7 countries, in the levels of investment in basic research.
In 1988, investments in the health sector by pharmaceutical
companies producing patented drugs represented 18% of the total.
In 1995, the figure reached 37%.
There is no doubt that, if Canada does an abrupt about face and
once again offers less patent protection than other developed
countries, the growth in the pharmaceutical industry in recent
years will be reduced to nil.
Bill C-91 was intended to protect intellectual property, and
any amendment that would limit its application could well harm the
industry in Canada, and thus the pharmaceutical industry in Quebec.
Because this is my responsibility, my concern is and must be to
consolidate one of the largest industrial clusters.
Our economy is becoming a knowledge-based economy,
particularly technological knowledge, which is the main force
behind growth in the economy and improvement in quality of life.
Technology and increasing productivity are therefore now at the
very heart of the job debate.
Unlike the generic drug industry, the patent drug industry
funds basic research, which, by the way, has been underfunded since
the Liberals came to power. Cutting funding further would dry up
the source for the development of new drugs, which help us improve
our quality of life.
The question that arises is this: Would the generic drug
industry be thriving if this basic research were not being done?
Would there be anything for it to copy?
It is therefore wrong to say that the regulations that came
into effect as a result of passage of Bill C-91 have resulted in a
catastrophic increase in the cost of drugs.
Once again, this bill is an attempt to use the cost of drugs
as an excuse for weakening the 20-year protection.
This bill is becoming less important because, just under a month
ago, the Minister of Industry introduced proposals to amend the
regulations. Consultations are presently under way and anyone
wishing to intervene on this subject may do so.
Therefore, because we have not forgotten the poor and the ill,
because we want a better quality of life for our fellow citizens,
and for all the other reasons given, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois will be voting against Bill C-248.
[English]
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I wanted to take a few minutes before the hon. member
finished his five minutes to talk about Bill C-248. I have been
in the House 10 years now and as a result have been through this
debate on a number of occasions.
I chair the subcommittee on foreign affairs and trade
disputes. One of the issues we look is issues like this bill. It
worries me that the intent of the bill would contravene some of
the international agreements under the World Trade Organization.
Agreements such as those under the WTO, I think all members
would agree, contribute to Canada's economic growth and help
Canada in terms of its exports around the world. Certainly in
terms of our policy we would not want to support legislation that
contravened very important trade agreements that have been very
beneficial to Canada.
1415
Being part of the global marketplace brings significant benefits
to Canadians. There is investment in Canada in new plants and in
research and development which is critical for creating direct
new jobs. We also have good access around the world.
The WTO requires a 20 year patent protection. A pre-1993
compulsory licensing regime and a 17 year patent term would not
be in line with the WTO—
An hon. member: You missed my point.
Mr. Bob Speller: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will be
given an opportunity to speak to this later.
For these reasons I know that most members on this side of the
House would be in disagreement with this bill. Bill C-248 as a
whole would upset the balance in our system between the benefits
of having generic drugs reach the market as soon as possible
after patent expiry and the need for effective enforcement of
patent rights.
As other hon. members from this side of the House have stated,
we are committed to this principle. When we responded to the
industry committee's report on Bill C-91 we reaffirmed our
commitment to the principle of the proposed changes to the drug
patent regulations announced January 21, 1998 and which were
published on January 24 in the Canada Gazette.
The government's proposed changes will continue to provide
effective enforcement of patent rights while reducing delays in
getting generic drugs to market. The length of the regulatory
stay on insurance of a health and safety approval for a generic
drug would be reduced from 30 months to 24 months. Members on
this side of the House believe that the improvements we proposed
will also discourage litigation and make the system fair.
We have concerns. We have worked on them for the last number of
years since this bill was brought in by the Tories under the
Mulroney government years ago. We believe we have made
significant changes. We believe the system now in place is fair
to all sides.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I wish to respond to my colleagues who made some
comments with respect to Bill C-248. The parliamentary secretary
read that speech exactly like Judy Erola and the Ministry of
Industry wrote it. So congratulations. There is nothing new in
that speech. The people of Canada know that and they will make
their judgments come the next election.
With respect to my Bloc colleague, I am absolutely shocked at
what the Bloc member said with regard to the pharmaceutical
industry. This member said: “They don't care about the poor and
the sick. It is a matter of the welfare of the wealthy and the
other corporations that produce those pharmaceuticals in
Quebec”. This is going to be a real surprise and wake-up call
for all those poor and sick Quebeckers come the next referendum.
If the Bloc and the PQ do not want to support them on an issue
like this, why should they support Quebec on a referendum issue?
We will see what happens when that comes along. I thank them for
that comment.
With respect to the member for Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, I am
glad he stood in this House and indicated there are some concerns
about it, but he did not catch the words I said earlier with
respect to the World Trade Organization.
During the review in the industry committee, witness after
witness, including international economists and lawyers, came
before us and said there is a public interest clause in the WTO
that if the government deems it in the public interest to
contravene one of the WTO regulations because it is abusing that
country, it can make amendments with respect to Bill C-91 or drug
patents.
1420
I ask the member to please consider those representations by the
lawyers and economists, who are internationally renowned and who
all share the same view that the WTO in the public interest can
be changed in respect to issues pertinent to their country.
I thank my colleague from Souris—Moose Mountain for his
constructive comments. He did say he would like to have some
binding commitments with respect to Bill C-91.
I like my colleague's recommendation and I do support it, but I
remind him that we did have commitments from the industry
under Bill C-22 in 1997 and under Bill C-91. They were going to increase
the number of jobs. Wrong. There are fewer jobs. They were
going lower prices on prescription drugs. Wrong. Drug prices
are higher. They made a commitment to increase R and D. Guess
what? They are increasing a lot of their expenses in terms of
marketing, going to doctors and hospitals, giving them
computers and trips to Barbados and all these places for using
their prescription drugs and they call that R and D,
research and development.
I guess they research the doctor and develop him or her into
selling their prescription drugs and in return they spend R and D
money by giving them new computers, trips to the Bahamas or trips
to Australia or wherever they want to go. That is not R and D,
that is marketing. That should not be in any kind of
regulations, whether it is under the Bill C-91 regulations or any
other commitments.
I admire and thank the member for his constructive criticism. I
will pursue that.
I want to make one other comment with respect to what happened
in Argentina and Chile. I had a visit from an Argentinian
politician who came here because of the work I was doing on Bill
C-91. His name was Ernesto Algaba.
He told me that the people in Argentina were very concerned.
They are all fanning out around the various countries of the
world that are WTO co-signatories on Bill C-91. They are being
forced by the American ambassador who is being told by the
American Pharmaceutical Association to get the 20 year patent
monopoly pricing in Argentina or else they would do something
economic like maybe even pull out their ambassador from
Argentina.
Ernesto Algaba told me he went to Chile, which had the same
commitments that we had in Canada. After Chile passed the 20
year patent protection it lost jobs, closed plants, drug prices
skyrocketed and health care costs skyrocketed.
We have international examples. There may have been a
misunderstanding when the member for St. Catharines said we need
this because of competitive pricing requirements. Bill C-91 is
not competitive. It is a monopoly to charge whatever they want
for prescription drugs for 20 years. That is not competition.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
this item is dropped from the Order Paper.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Madam Speaker, I request unanimous
consent to refer this bill to committee for further study.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the member have
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. John Solomon: Madam Speaker, I would request
unanimous consent, even though the Liberals declined the previous
request, for this bill to be votable today.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the member have
unanimous consent.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 2.25 p.m.,
this House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant
to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.24 p.m.)