36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 107
CONTENTS
Friday, May 15, 1998
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1000
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA LABOUR CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-19. Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
1005
1010
1015
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dale Johnston |
1020
1025
1030
1035
1040
1045
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1050
1055
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STUDENTS
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. George Proud |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1100
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL POLICE WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL DAY OF FAMILIES
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Laurin |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SPEECH AND HEARING AWARENESS MONTH
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dale Johnston |
1105
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NORTH AMERICAN AEROSPACE DEFENCE COMMAND
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Richardson |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE FAMILY
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL NURSING WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bonnie Brown |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANKS
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1110
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOMMET DE LA FRANCOPHONIE
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ST. FRANCIS XAVIER UNIVERSITY
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CALGARY DECLARATION
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul DeVillers |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ASSOCIATION CANADIENNE-FRANÇAISE POUR L'AVANCEMENT DES
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1115
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1120
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1125
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA CUSTOMS
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
1130
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DAVID LEVINE
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1135
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1140
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VARENNES TOKAMAK PROJECT
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Charles Caccia |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1145
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JOB CREATION
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
1150
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MET LIFE
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INDONESIA
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Maud Debien |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Kilgour |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DAVID LEVINE
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1155
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE FAMILY
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SNOW GEESE
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
1200
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SENIORS BENEFITS
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (A), 1998-99
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1205
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | National Defence
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Justice and Human Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Public Accounts
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ivan Grose |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-406. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (A) 1998-99
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Reference to Standing Committees
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1210
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Abolition of Nuclear Weapons
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Maud Debien |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Environment
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Adult Entertainment
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRTC
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Taxation
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1215
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA LABOUR CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-19. Third Reading
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1220
1225
1230
1235
1240
1245
1250
1255
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
1300
1305
1310
1315
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on motion deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL RECORDS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-284. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1320
1325
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-36—Notice of Time Allocation Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL RECORDS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-284. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1330
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
1335
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1340
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Hec Clouthier |
1345
1350
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1355
1400
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
1405
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
1410
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
1415
![V](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 107
![](/web/20061116191910im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, May 15, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1000
[English]
CANADA LABOUR CODE
Hon. Allan Rock (for the Minister of Labour, Lib.) moved
that Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part I)
and the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, be read the third time
and passed.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise in the
House to begin our final debate on Bill C-19. We have come
nearly full circle in our efforts to modernize Part I of the
Canada Labour Code. Perhaps a more accurate description would be
that it has been a long and winding road.
By now all members of the House will know that this road has
been marked by extensive consultation. There were numerous
written and oral submissions made to the Sims task force. The
labour management consensus group wrestled with the difficult
issues we debate today. Parliamentarians debated with much
vigour and passion in the last session the provisions of Bill
C-66 and those in this session have contributed their ideas and
suggestions over the past few weeks in the House of Commons and
in committee.
At this time I wish to note that the Minister of Labour is in
the House. Generally he would be the one to give this speech.
However, he graciously asked me to do this because I have put so
much effort into the bill. I would like to pay tribute to him
because sometimes we can work a long time on legislation and
never get a thank you. I would like to say that the minister is
a real gentleman.
All of us have been part of this
important debate, so no one will ever accuse us of rushing to
judgment in determining labour relations legislation for the 21st
century.
Let us cut to the chase and look once again at some of the
contentious items in this bill, items that no matter what
decision we make about them, we may just have to agree to
disagree.
1005
The first has to do with dispute resolution mechanisms. Some
opposition members have wanted to push back the clock of history
and tradition by insisting that the code has built within it
binding arbitration provisions. They believe that this sort of
“when in doubt, let us rely on the government to bail them out”
mechanism is the best way to go.
We beg to disagree. Any built-in system of compulsory
arbitration flies in the face of a century of deliberately
developed labour legislation.
It would certainly be a
departure from the practice of all Canadian jurisdictions. As a
nation we have made commitments to the principles of freedom of
association, the right to organize, the right to bargain
collectively and the ultimate right to withdraw labour.
I hear the Reform heckling and saying garbage. Unfortunately
this bill has been tough because of the Reform. They have not
been supportive of the labour movement. Clearly we believe in a
democratic process in this country and we will continue to make
laws for that purpose.
These commitments are embodied in our membership in the
International Labour Organization. The system works very well at
least 95% of the time. To be sure, there are some disputes that
will go to impasse and unfortunately work stoppages will occur,
but this is the motor that drives the system and no one has found
a better one. If we move to a situation where lurking in the
background there is some standing system of binding arbitration
that can be imposed upon the parties, the result can only inhibit
the principle of good faith bargaining. Such a broad based
weapon that could be imposed at the will of the government of the
day has no place in our democratic tradition.
The first deputy minister of labour was a very wise man. He
held that post in 1900 and went on to become the minister and
then the prime minister. At the beginning of the last century he
knew that the government had a role in the collective bargaining
process, a minimal one. His view, and I am talking about none
other than the Right Hon. William Lyon McKenzie King, was:
government intervention if necessary, but not necessarily
government intervention.
It was a good view then and it remains so today, which leads us
to the next topic of contention, grain handling.
The issue which has perhaps given rise to most comments and
correspondence both for and against is the provision in the bill
which requires the continuation of services to grain vessels in
the event of a work stoppage at our ports. While the provision
could apply in all regions, its main application would be on the
coast. Those hon. members who have been in this House for some
years will be well aware that west coast longshore strikes and
lockouts have all too frequently required attention by way of
back to work legislation.
In the last 25 years or so nine longshore work stoppages closed
our west coast ports and seven of them had to be terminated and
settled by legislation.
Two independent studies found that longshore employers and
unions have avoided their collective bargaining responsibilities
by using disruptions to grain exports to trigger back to work
legislation. The result has been more frequent legislative
interventions than in other Canadian ports and industries.
While the parties avoided their responsibilities and passed them
over to parliament, they did not avoid damaging the west coast
ports' reputation. Frequent work stoppages at the ports severely
undermined their reliability in the eyes of international
customers. Still, those who opposed the bill's provision, like
the Reform Party, made it clear that they fear losing the
assurance of legislative intervention. Yet I say that no group
in this country has the right to hold parliament to its beck and
call. No group should be allowed to do so.
For our part, we remain committed to the basic principles of
free collective bargaining, even in sensitive areas such as this.
The Sims task force agreed.
It examined the issue of essential services. It concluded that,
except for reasons of public health and safety, the right to
strike or lockout should not be removed from any group of workers
or any employer subject to the code.
1010
The compromise that is included in the bill is specific and
narrow in its focus. It will enable the longshore industry to
retain grain vessel work, but will remove grain from the equation
in longshore collective bargaining. It will also reduce
disruptions to exports grain movements and discourage reliance on
parliament to resolve port work stoppage. At the same time
collective bargaining rights will be maintained in both the grain
handling and longshore industry.
Claims that this provision discriminates against other resources
by singling out grain for special treatment overlook the fact
that grain has already been singled out by longshore employers
and unions using it as a trigger for back to work legislation.
We have refrained from following recommendations which would have
divorced the longshore industry from grain handling and otherwise
have intruded into its bargaining structures.
This provision has the full support of our western grain farmers
and those in the grain industry who, unlike some other resource
producers, have no relationship or influence on collective
bargaining between the longshore employers and unions. It is
hard to understand how Reform cannot be responsive to their
farmers, the grassroots of this country. It is hard to
understand. We are committed to reviewing the effectiveness of
this provision in 1999, following completion of the next round of
west coast longshore bargaining.
It is not in my nature to issue dire warnings, but any
indications of deliberate sabotage of this provision by the
parties would not be looked on kindly. Parliament cannot be
consistently required to resolve labour disputes. The parties
have the ability to negotiate with each other and conclude
agreements which are good for them and for the health of the
ports. They can and must give up the narcotic of government
intervention and solve their own problems.
Committee members also expressed concern about the off-site
worker provisions. Debate centred around two fundamental rights.
The first is the right to know. In this case, the right of
workers to know about unions and the right to bargain
collectively are rights they have under the code. Even if they
are against joining a union they still have the right to know
about organizing activities so they can make informed decisions
for themselves. The competing right is the right to privacy, the
right to be free from what they might perceive to be harassment.
Any reasonable interpretation of the way the provision is
currently worded leads to the conclusion that both rights are
well protected.
We have gone the extra mile and have accepted the committee's
recommendation in its second report. It provides that the board
may offer employees the option of refusing to give their name and
address to the trade union representative if that is their wish.
The bottom line is that we live in an open society. People have
the right to communicate with each other. They have a right to
be informed. With all the safeguards now proposed, I believe we
now meet the test of providing both their right to privacy and
their right to know.
Nowhere was the scope of disagreement so wide among certain
opposition members than on the issue of replacement workers. The
problem for consensus seeking was that their views were
categorically in opposition to one another. Some wanted to allow
no replacement workers at all in the case of a strike or lockout.
Others wanted no restrictions on their use.
The time has come to deal with the question. We carefully
looked at concerns with the earlier wording in the previous
version of the bill. The provision now reflects the carefully
crafted words of the Sims report. To remind hon. members, the
bill specifically prohibits the use of replacement workers for
the demonstrative purpose of undermining a union's ability to
represent its workers.
That would constitute an unfair labour practice and will not be
tolerated by the government.
1015
Yet some members from both ends of the question remain totally
unconvinced on the answer. If the art of politics is about
compromise then the art of labour relations is about balance and,
just as important, the perception of balance. Reasonable
compromise and balance are what the current provisions represent.
We have heard much in the debate at report stage about the
certification provisions of the current code, the measures
contained in the bill concerning remedial certification and the
view expressed about them being undemocratic. I must disagree.
There is nothing undemocratic about union certification
procedures under the Canada Labour Code which are similar to
procedures in a number of provincial jurisdictions. Majority
support has always been and will remain the basis for union
certification. This is clearly stated in section 28 of the code
and Bill C-19 does not amend that provision.
As to the question of mandatory votes, the Sims task force
recommended that the board's authority to certify a union based
on evidence of majority support should remain as should the
board's current discretion to hold a representation vote in any
case, and that is what Bill C-19 does.
We have incorporated in the bill a provision similar to those in
other jurisdictions, and that is remedial certification. Its
objective is really quite simple: to change the conduct by those
employers who would put a chill on organizing efforts, efforts
which could intimidate employees from joining a union. It allows
employees the representation they would have achieved but for the
employer's misconduct.
In commenting on this issue a University of Toronto professor of
law told the standing committee:
The ultimate purpose of the provision—reflects a very
fundamental legal principle, and that is no one should profit
from their own wrongdoing.
Employers should not get the result they seek as a consequence
of violating the code. That seems only fair.
We have debated long and hard on the bill but the time for words
is fast coming to a close. Those who are subject to the Canada
Labour Code do not want us to delay further. In fact many
witnesses appearing before the committee wanted fast action.
Most responsible observers, regardless of any particular
concerns they may have about one clause or another, must conclude
that Bill C-19 on balance meets the spirit and intent of the Sims
task force, and by extension the very intentions of the
stakeholders who played such a big role in determining the form
of the legislation we are debating today.
We will never agree to every last detail of every last clause
and subclause. However I think by any definition of the word we
have in Bill C-19 struck a reasonable balance. The time has come
to put our words into action.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
the House for unanimous consent to share my time in such a way
that I could allow 10 minutes of my time for my colleague from
Prince Albert.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. member suggesting 30
minutes for him and 10 minutes for his colleague?
Mr. Dale Johnston: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the
hon. member for Wetaskiwin to split his time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is no consent.
Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the
government does not see clear to allow me to split my time with
the member, but so be it.
When I visit my riding school students, they ask me to relate my
experiences and activities as a member of parliament to the
lessons in democracy they are studying. I am glad to do that,
but on occasions like this one I have to ask myself just how
democratic the House is. Imposing time allocation on the bill at
both report stage and third reading stage is simply not
democratic.
1020
Scheduling third reading on the shortest debating day of the
week is a great example of a cheap shot. I have so many speakers
lined up for this debate that we could spend at least a day on
it. I have not been recruiting. People have been knocking on my
door and sending notes over saying that they would certainly like
to speak to the aspects of the bill. This is our last shot at
the bill.
Let us have a look at how time allocation has been used in the
House recently. Parliament is about eight months old and time
allocation has been imposed five times. This bill had time
allocation imposed on it the last time it came through the House
known as Bill C-66.
I guess time allocation is getting to be the rule of thumb for a
government that does not plan ahead. The last time the bill came
to the House there was an impending election. I assume the
government thought it had to get this off the order paper and
over to the other place before the election was called.
Right now the government has a slim majority. It has a new
mandate. It has no intention of calling an election. There is
no possibility of this piece of legislation dying on the order
paper over the summer, so what in the world is the panic?
There is an old expression that sums it up quite nicely and it
goes something like this: lack of planning on your part does not
necessarily constitute a crisis on my part.
Why is the government shutting down debate on a bill that would
radically change labour relations without giving all members in
the House an opportunity to participate in debate? This is an
important piece of legislation. The government thought it was
important enough as a matter of fact to make it the first item on
the order paper of the 36th Parliament. It was the very first
piece of business listed.
This piece of legislation languished on the order paper for
months. It was November 6, a full eight weeks, before the
minister actually introduced the bill in the House of Commons. I
guess hon members got into the Christmas spirit early because the
bill, which the minister described as important as any bill to be
introduced in this session, was not brought forth for second
reading until February 19, five months after it first appeared on
the order paper.
The minister is correct in his assessment that this is an
important piece of legislation. It is very likely the most
important one that we will be dealing with this year. That is
precisely why many of my colleagues want to speak to the bill.
They say that the bill will have a direct impact on labour
relations and in their words it will strike a balance. That is
where we disagree with the Liberals.
At this point, after having the bill come before the House in
the 35th parliament and run into all kinds of trouble in the
other place, the government suddenly decided that it must ram the
bill through before the summer break so that the Senate will have
an opportunity to deal with it. Of course we are coming up to a
log jam.
I ask again if members would consider giving a division of time
between myself and my colleague from Prince Albert.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its consent to
divide the time on the basis of 30 minutes to the hon. member and
10 minutes to the hon. member for Prince Albert with no questions
or comments? Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the
House leader of the government. I think there may be some other
forces at work as far as opposition to the bill is concerned.
1025
We asked a question in the House about whether the ministers
from British Columbia were feeling heat with regard to how their
constituents felt about Bill C-19. It was very apparent that the
entire British Columbia caucus including the ministers had
expressed concerns about the bill. It is obvious they would like
to get the bill through the House and out of sight before there
is any more dissension in the ranks.
Could it be that some of the Prime Minister's compliant
backbenchers were questioning the impact the provisions of Bill
C-19 would have on their constituents? I really think that is
the case.
Having talked about the undemocratic aspect of time allocation,
I will talk about some of the undemocratic aspects of the bill.
This bill and its predecessor which died in the last parliament
were based on recommendations of the Sims task force in “Seeking
a Balance”. Seeking a balance is a great approach to labour
relations. I do not think anybody in the House wants to see one
side totally outweighed by the other side. The scales in any
negotiation should be more or less at a balance so that both
parties have equal footing.
Let us examine the bill to see if it attains a balance. I begin
with a little history. The code has not been altered in any
significant way for the last 25 years. It was indeed an
important piece of legislation and it is time to update it.
If we are making changes that will be in effect for another
quarter of a century, we had better make sure we get it right and
that the balance is there. If we are to open up this area only
every quarter of a century we had better make sure we get things
pretty well balanced right from the start. From what I have seen
the bill is neither fair nor balanced.
Many of the witnesses appearing before the Standing Committee on
Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with
Disabilities called for changes to the bill. Government members
are fond of saying that both labour and management have problems
with the bill and therefore, if they both dislike it equally, it
must be balanced. That is rather weird logic.
What would they say if both sides said that they agreed with the
bill and think it is fair and balanced? I suppose the Liberals
would respond by saying that the bill had to go back to the
drawing board. This seems like a rather shortsighted approach to
the whole problem because it fails to take into account the
impact the bill will have on the national economy and on innocent
third parties.
Federal jurisdiction in labour matters is interprovincial and
international in scope. While less than three-quarters of a
million Canadians work in industries covered by the labour code,
federally regulated businesses are service oriented and involve
the free movement of goods, services, capital and people across
Canada. Because of the unique nature of the federal system
alternative sources are not readily available. In a lot of cases
they are simply not available at all.
The operation of these industry sectors is vital to the daily
functioning of the national economy. We have seen that time and
time again. As recently as December we had a work stoppage at
Canada Post that cost small and medium size business $240 million
a day. Over 10,000 people were laid off in mail dependent
businesses. Charities that rely on the generosity that emerges
during the Christmas period saw their fundraising activities go
flat. The government eventually legislated everyone back to
work, but after months of arbitration consensus a collective
agreement has not been reached.
Bill C-19 will not protect innocent third parties that lose
millions of dollars when government run monopolies cease to
provide essential mail service.
It has nothing to offer those workers at Canada Post who lost
salary as a result of the disruption.
1030
Bill C-19 is missing a dispute settlement mechanism that would
protect innocent third parties and the national economy from
devastation when the services of a monopoly are withdrawn.
That is why the Reform Party supports final offer selection
arbitration or some other dispute settlement mechanism that would
accomplish the same goals. Our aim is not to tie the hands of
labour and management but to give them the tools to resolve their
differences. It is definitely not, as the parliamentary secretary
suggested in her comments, to be the big brother who makes all
the decisions, the government that makes all the decisions for
management and labour. Not at all.
I do not know how many times I have tried to explain the way
this mechanism works in this House. Later on I will endeavour to
explain again. I certainly hope that at some point the
government will come to its senses and realize that this is the
sort of thing that has to be done in order to protect innocent
third parties and the economy of Canada in general, along with
the jobs of people who work in all sorts of spin-off industries
that rely on federally regulated businesses. Stable labour
relations will promote investment and reinvestment.
It is in the interests of labour, management, producers and
processors that these disputes be resolved without parliamentary
intervention. I emphasize without parliamentary intervention. It
is in the interest of all Canadians that we have a reliable
access to essential services to keep employment within our
borders and to establish and maintain our reputation worldwide as
a reliable exporter of goods.
As I have mentioned many times in this House, final offer
selection arbitration does not favour one side or the other. How
does it work? For the umpteenth time, if and only if the union
and the employer cannot make an agreement by the conclusion of
the contract, the union and employer would provide the minister
with the name of the person they jointly recommend as an
arbitrator.
The union and employer would be required to submit to the
arbitrator a list of all the matters that they agreed upon at
that point and a list of all the matters that were still in
dispute. For disputed issues each party would be required to
submit their final offer for settlement. The arbitrator then
selects either the final offer submitted by the trade union or
the final offer submitted by the employer, that is, one or the
other. There is no compromise position. The arbitrator's
decision would be binding on both parties.
Is this government intervention? No, this is not government
intervention. This is a last ditch effort that the parties must
go to if they cannot come to an agreement by themselves. We
believe that a permanent and fair resolution process must be put
in place, removed from the whims of government.
Back to work legislation has become too predictable and
management and unions have come to count on it. What does it
solve? We legislated the postal people back to work but they
still do not have the contract settled. What does it resolve? We
got the mail moving, reluctantly I suppose in lots of cases, but
we do not have the contract resolved. How is that ever going to
be resolved?
Would it not be far better if we did that sort of thing up front
rather than wait for a work stoppage that polarizes everybody?
Everybody has an opinion on whether or not there should be a work
stoppage at the post office or other essential services. Then
they are still faced with the dilemma of having to settle this
contract. Sure the people are back to work but what has really
been settled?
We believe that it is time for permanent legislation that would
provide both sides with predictable rules and a timetable by
which to negotiate.
The risk to Canadian jobs should be minimized as well. Not only
will a significant number of jobs be lost in the export sector if
these disputes cannot be resolved, but jobs at the ports will be
at severe risk when alternative means to ship goods are utilized.
The use of more reliable U.S. west coast ports would result in a
loss of cargo and a loss to British Columbia ports.
1035
The costly interruption of government business should not be
allowed to occur. While there is a need for regulation by
various levels of government, it is unnecessary to put emergency
measures in place each time labour and management are unable to
reach a satisfactory agreement. Resolving the differences of the
two groups can be achieved without interrupting the regular flow
of government proceedings.
We are not talking about ending the collective bargaining
process but making it work better through final offer selection
arbitration. Every time back to work legislation is used, it
usurps the collective bargaining process. Final offer selection
works best when it is not used at all.
I would like to cite the Manitoba case. On February 10 an hon.
member from Winnipeg told the House that this sort of mechanism
was used sparingly. In fact the Manitoba relations board
received only 97 applications in all the time that there was
legislation in that province.
Of those 97 applications, only seven were ever ruled on by a
final offer selector or arbitrator. Four went to the union
package and three were ruled in the favour of the company. In the
vast majority, 72 cases, the application was withdrawn because
the parties returned to the bargaining table and found a
satisfactory resolution by a more conventional means. This is a
perfect example of final offer selection.
If the government does not like final offer selection, if it
thinks that it has a bad connotation because it came from the
Reform Party, which I suspect it does think that, then let it
conjure up its own dispute settlement mechanism and call it
whatever it wants. The government can call it the Liberal
solution for all I care, as long as it works. A lot of people in
Canada depend on these services, not only those people who
directly depend on the service but, as I said before, also those
people in downstream jobs and spin-off economies.
Any mechanism that causes both parties to work out an agreement
through their normal negotiation process is a lot better than any
legislation that puts an end to a contentious work stoppage.
Instead of including a dispute settlement mechanism in this
bill, the drafters sought a solution to the problem at west coast
ports. They ignored the recommendation of the west coast ports
inquiry and opted for a provision that was not considered by the
Sims commission.
We definitely support the concept of farmers moving their grain
to markets unimpeded by labour disputes beyond their control. We
think it is absolutely within the farmers' rights to be able to
transport their product from the farm gate to the high seas.
Maybe that is not an inherent right, but I believe that they
should be supplied with the mechanisms to do that.
I have said before in this House when talking on agriculture
bills, the problems of production are largely overcome, except
for natural disasters which are caused by weather related
problems. The farming community has the technology, the
expertise and the grain varieties to produce great crops if
weather conditions prevail.
The production of crops is not the biggest barrier to making a
living on the farm. Nowadays you have to pay attention to the
marketing of those crops. If those crops are not marketed
properly, you simply are going to go backward in your farming
operation. It is absolutely vital that when the farmers' crops
are ready to be sold, and there is a willing seller and a willing
buyer, that they are able to be transported as far as the high
seas to get them to their customers.
1040
That sums up the fact that we believe farmers deserve a better
deal than they are getting from this government.
Right now we have the assurances that if the grain gets to the
port, I said if, it will be loaded on the ships. But there are a
lot of unions between the farm gate and the port. If there is a
work disruption anywhere along there, the grain simply does not
get to the port. So what good is a mechanism that loads grain
that is not in the port? It is absolutely worthless.
Besides, if we were to talk to people in the alfalfa dehydrating
business who are also farmers, chemicals, sulphur and potash
exporters and lumber producers all stand to lose millions of
dollars. They would say that and ask “Where are our assurances
that we can move our product? Our products are important too”.
Certainly they all admit that grain is important. Certainly they
all admit that the work stoppages always seem to occur when there
is grain to be shipped through the ports. But other products are
extremely important to the producers, to the people they employ
and to the Canadian economy.
People on the other side would say yes, yes but the work
stoppages always come when grain is moved, and grain has been
used as the ace in the hole. Now we are going to move grain.
What now is going to become the ace in the hole?
Are we going to find that petrochemical producers can put as
much political pressure on the government as the grain farmers
did? Are we going to find that work stoppage somewhere in the
transportation or at the ports is going to require parliament to
reconvene and legislate people back to work because of a work
stoppage in the transportation area? It is altogether possible.
Does this bill actually improve anything? I guess it improves
things provided that grain continues to move to the port. It is
a small baby step forward but we are not content with baby steps.
Why not make some real progress? If this act is not going to be
opened up for another 25 years, it is incumbent on us to do as
much as we can in the time that we have.
I would like to talk a little about replacement workers. The
provision on replacement workers could further impede the
movement of goods and services in Canada. The new Canada
Industrial Relations Board created by this act will be able to
deny employers the right to continue to operate, to earn a living
by utilizing replacement workers or in some cases maybe even to
reassign their own management employees.
Did it ever occur to the powers that be that if we had a dispute
settlement mechanism in place, something of the type about which
I have been talking, there would be no need for replacement
workers in federally regulated workplaces? If the disputes could
be settled without having to have these painful, polarizing,
agonizing work stoppages, then there would be no need for
replacement workers.
This is how the replacement worker issue should be addressed. I
hear my colleague from Winnipeg saying not to call them
replacement workers, to call them scabs. Some would say that a
scab is something temporary while the healing process takes place
underneath. I am not sure if that is exactly what my friend from
Winnipeg is talking about.
I do not think it is fair either that we should be allowing any
group of people, particularly in this case the industrial
relations board, to get into a position where they can certify a
union without a majority.
I heard the parliamentary secretary explain that the basis for
union formation is that it will be done where there is majority
support. That is all very well.
I have no reason to distrust my colleague, the parliamentary
secretary, but I would feel a lot better if those very thoughts
of hers were codified, for instance, if we said in this bill
something if we have indications that there may be the need, the
want or the demand of the workers to form a union, the way to
determine that is through a secret ballot vote. It would be
exactly the way we are selected for this place, through a secret
ballot vote.
1045
Representatives from the labour movement say they we do not want
that because there could be intimidation. I do not think there
would be any more intimidation there than there is during a
federal, provincial or municipal election. That is a tried and
true process. We have been using it here for over 125 years,
based on the model used in Britain.
It is very interesting to note that Britain has gone to the
secret ballot method. Even the Labour government that has taken
over from the Thatcherites has seen fit not to change that part
of the labour law. I do not know what all the protest is about a
secret ballot vote. Perhaps some day that will be addressed in
this House.
Very unfortunately we only have less than two and a half hours
to debate in the entire day today, so I am sure that this will not
get addressed. But I would like very much to be in a position
where I could question the government on that very aspect.
We talk about certifying the union without a majority. Although
the parliamentary secretary assures us this is not the intention
of the bill, we have to look at recent history. There is a case
in Ontario where the people at a Wal-Mart store in Windsor voted
151 to 43 against being certified by the union and had their
wishes overturned by the Ontario labour relations board and had
the union certified against the obvious wishes of the majority.
There was a more than three to one majority and the Ontario
labour relations board said “we think you people would have
voted otherwise in different circumstances and therefore we are
going to certify the union whether you want it or not”. That is
absolutely undemocratic at the best and totally asinine at the
worst.
This bill, as its predecessor Bill C-66, is a piece of
legislation that the Reform Party simply cannot support. We
believe firmly in the right of people to organize and to withdraw
their labour if necessary. But when we are talking about the only
game in town, as in the case of the post office, or the ports, or
the railways it is not as though a corner store goes on strike.
It is an inconvenience but it is not a catastrophe. We can go to
a different store, a store that is not in trouble with a work
stoppage. But when the ports or the railway go on strike, we have
no alternative at all.
That is the basis on which I base my remarks today. I thank the
House again for allowing me to share my time with my colleague
from Saskatchewan.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to address the undemocratic Bill C-19, an act to amend
the labour code.
Much has been said about this controversial bill and I would
like to begin with the fact that it is undemocratic in that the
board does not necessarily have to consult employees on union
matters.
1050
This is absolutely unbelievable. In this country, as we are
approaching a new millennium, that a board could force a union on
employees without consulting them is simply unacceptable.
I am also shocked and disappointed by the way the Liberals have
shut down debate on this bill. Their undemocratic action in
imposing time allocation on such sweeping legislation reflects a
complete abuse of their power and a contempt for the House.
Today, however, I would like to concentrate on something else. I
would like to emphasize that the bill guarantees only protection
for the movement of grain products in the case of a strike or a
lockout. This is such an important issue in my riding. This is
provided for in subsection 87.7 of the bill which ensures that
grain, once it reaches port, will be shipped out to its final
destination.
Although I am delighted to see that grain product movements are
protected in these events, I have news for this government. Grain
products are not the only agricultural products nor are they the
only products subject to transportation and shipping which could
be paralyzed in the event of a strike or a lockout. The
transportation of such important commodities as pulp and paper,
lumber and dairy products could also be paralyzed.
I find it ironic that the government has declared grain
transportation essential in this case so long as it is ready to
leave the country, while the government does not see fit to
declare the movement of grain from the farmer to the port as an
essential service, as we have all seen with the problems that
have come out of rail line abandonment. This double standard is
really puzzling.
In my home province of Saskatchewan the mining association is
also concerned that only grain products will be guaranteed
movement during a strike or a lockout. What about its products?
What will happen to mining products in the event of a strike or a
lockout? Has that question been addressed? No. This has been
completely ignored. The question that needs to be asked is why
one and not the other.
Such action is typical of this government. We have seen it time
and again, people divided for the sake of being divided. We have
seen this with the hepatitis C file dividing victims into before
and after a certain date. We have seen this with Bill C-68, the
gun control bill, which divides rural and urban Canadians on a
line that did not need to be drawn.
By allowing only grain to be shipped out in such events could
cause serious damage to the economy and to the country in terms
of people getting along with one another.
I illustrate this by pointing out that in 1996 the total value
of cargo that went through the port of Vancouver was $30 billion
and grain accounted for $4 billion of that total. What does that
amount to? It amounts to 15% grain and 85% for all other
products. What about the other $26 billion? Do we just ignore
it if we are faced with a strike? It sounds like economic
suicide for Canada or economic murder of unprotected sectors or
individual businesses and their employees and shareholders.
Another important industry in my riding is the alfalfa
dehydrating industry. I would like to thank the people from the
industry who came here from my riding of Prince Albert for being
effective in communicating their concerns about this bill to the
official opposition. Obviously the government did not listen.
The alfalfa dehydration industry represents about $100 million
in exports. In my riding this industry accounts for
approximately two-thirds of Saskatchewan's output. What about it?
Shall we just ignore a $100 million industry that forms an
integral part of total farming? I would think not. All products
and commodities should be offered protection from arbitrary
shipping disruption.
It is time we start protecting the economy of this country.
For this reason we proposed to extend this provision of
protection. This government, in its lack of wisdom, refuses such
action. In fact, the miserable level of protection afforded
Canada's agricultural sector in this legislation is comparable to
allowing Canadian Tire to continue selling barbeques in the face
of a company-wide strike. How much help would that be?
Section 87.4 of this bill allows for the continuation of service
in a strike or lockout if there is a danger of public health or
safety, which is a good thing, but there is no provision to
protect the national economy which affects the livelihood of all
Canadians.
We feel this is necessary since the national economy is the key
factor in providing Canadians with a good standard of living
essential to the nation's health and well-being. Therefore it is
not asking too much to want to see the national economy protected
in a bill along with innocent third parties that could be
affected by a strike or lockout.
1055
We know labour strikes rarely affect only the company that
suffers the strike. Some strikes cripple entire sectors of the
economy. For example, we can look at the 1994 west coast port
strike in which the direct costs of the strike were estimated to
be more than $125 million. The indirect costs suffered by third
parties is twice that. It is estimated to be over $250 million.
This is a significantly higher number and it is important that
third parties and the national economy be protected.
Unfortunately our government did not see things in that light.
In the case of communication and transportation infrastructures
any disruption to these sectors would have devastating
consequences for the Canadian economy. A strike would not affect
only our exports, it would have a dire impact on Canada's
reputation throughout the world, possibly affecting future
investors and clients interested in Canadian made products.
In light of this it will come as no surprise that the Reform
Party is of the firm belief that the economy needs to be
protected and that companies must always maintain the right to
operate. Furthermore, unionized employees need timely resolution
of their concerns which is not ensured under the present
legislation. The right to operate means that a company faced
with a strike has a right to hire replacement workers if they are
available and willing to work, which is not always guaranteed.
That is their right as well.
I was disappointed in the government when I found that section
94(2)2.1 of this bill prohibits the use of replacement workers if
the Canadian Industrial Relations Board determines that their
presence undermines the union. It is our opinion that this puts
too much power in the hands of the industrial relations board and
undermines the rights of the employer since it is unfairly biased
in favour of the union. We find that unacceptable as well.
We would have liked to see this bill amended so that in the
event of another Canada Post strike such as the one we saw last
year an arbitrator could be chosen by both the union and the
employer to resolve the outstanding differences between the two
parties. The arbitrator's final decision would be binding on
both parties. That only makes good sense to the official
opposition and to most right thinking Canadians.
For the reasons I have mentioned we oppose Bill C-19 and we call
on all hon. members prior to voting on the bill to seriously
consider the consequences of Bill C-19 if it becomes law. I am
sure that if they do they will join with the official opposition
in opposing this flawed and undemocratic legislation.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
STUDENTS
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
spring flowers are now in full bloom but I am not speaking about
the flowers like the thousands of tulips around this fair city. I
am referring to all the graduating students throughout our
nation.
Our students are much like flowers. First we prepare the soil
as a food rich base. As the flowers grow we take care by
watering them and then beautiful colourful blooms reward our
efforts.
For our students the soil is their educational institutions. The
water is our assistance such as Canada student loans, the various
tax credits or some 60,000 annual summer student jobs. Soon we
will offering some 100,000 millennium scholarships each and every
year starting in the year 2000. At the end we are rewarded with
highly educated participants in the workforce, the blooms of our
labour force.
I congratulate all the students in my riding of Hillsborough on
their graduation. May all their colours shine through as they
enter the labour force.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Fathers of Confederation established the Senate to give
Canadians regional representation.
However, with the current patronage system most senators
represent the political interests of the parties that appointed
them. Few are accountable to the provinces they are supposed to
represent. However, there are a few good senators who represent
their regions and serve their constituents well.
1100
One notable senator in my home province of British Columbia is
Senator Pat Carney. Senator Carney has been in the forefront of
British Columbia issues such as the salmon treaty with the U.S.
and retaining lighthouses on the west coast. Both of these are
issues that the Liberal government has either failed to act on or
has bungled miserably these past four and a half years.
Yesterday it was reported that Senator Carney checked into
hospital in Prince Rupert with cardiac related problems. I want
to take this opportunity to wish Senator Carney a speedy
recovery. We want her back in her seat. Good senators are hard
to come by.
* * *
NATIONAL POLICE WEEK
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, National Police Week ends tomorrow. Canadians from
coast to coast have been paying special tribute to those officers
on the front line in the fight against crime. But police officers
do much more than fight criminals.
This was recently displayed when two RCMP officers in Manitoba
quickly stopped a wayward vehicle and administered CPR to the
unconscious man at the wheel until the ambulance services
arrived. The quick thinking and bold actions by Constables Claude
Rochon and Marc Simard saved the life of that man who had
suffered a heart attack while driving.
Let us salute Constables Rochon and Simard and all police
officers in Canada during this special week. Their selfless
dedication to protecting and serving our citizenry is testimony
to our brave, capable and caring Canadian police officers who
work hard to make our communities safer and who often do their
job beyond their usual call of duty.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL DAY OF FAMILIES
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today the Canadian
United Nations Association is marking the International Day of
Families, which reminds us of the importance of the family as an
institution.
As this millennium comes to a close and the concept of the
traditional family has to share space with blended families and
single-parent families, the family is still vital to personal
development. Despite our greatly changing social institutions,
the family survives, and its role continues to grow. It is a
vital and influential element of society.
Something that was said back in 1928 by a former Swedish Prime
Minister, Mr. Hansson, is as valid today as ever: “In the home,
there is equality, consideration and mutual assistance. Applied
on a larger scale, this could lead to the breaking down of
social and economic barriers between the privileged and the
disadvantaged, between master and underling, between rich and
poor.”
* * *
[English]
SPEECH AND HEARING AWARENESS MONTH
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House and all Canadians that
May is Speech and Hearing Awareness Month across Canada.
This is an opportunity to educate Canadians about the challenges
faced by the deaf and hard of hearing. An estimated one in ten
Canadians is deaf or has some degree of hearing loss. Those most
likely to be affected are seniors.
In this era of advanced technology we recognize the importance
of being aware of and improving the situation of those with
hearing related communication disorders. Speech and Hearing
Awareness Month is recognized by voluntary and professional
organizations across Canada. These organizations are planning
special activities for the month of May.
Please join me in congratulating the national, provincial and
regional organizations, service agencies, consumer groups,
professionals and volunteers who through their programs continue
to improve the quality of life for the deaf and the hard of
hearing in Canada.
* * *
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday I had the pleasure of attending the official
launch of the North American Occupational Safety and Health Week.
It is being held from May 18 to 24.
The week has become an annual event which runs concurrently in
Canada, the United States and Mexico. It is sponsored by the
Commissioner for Labour Co-operation created under the North
American Agreement on Labour Co-operation.
The objective of the week is to focus attention on the
importance of preventing injury and illness in the workplace.
This year's theme is “Occupational, Safety and Health: Partners
Together in Safety”.
Increasing awareness and promoting safe and healthy work
practices can save lives. This is why this annual event is so
important.
I know hon. members join me in wishing the participants much
success in the important educational work they will undertake
next week.
* * *
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
besides verbal jabs from members opposite, parliamentarians face
few work related dangers. Many other Canadians however are
exposed to serious occupational hazards on a daily basis.
For the second consecutive year, the three NAFTA partners
designated the week of May 18 as North American Occupational
Health and Safety Week. This year's theme “Partners Together in
Safety” emphasizes the ongoing need for a balance in
labour-management relations.
Just as it is the employer's responsibility to provide employees
with safety training and a secure work environment, it is
incumbent on workers to take precautions to prevent accidents.
The onus is on each one of us to become safety conscious to
protect our co-workers and reduce workplace injuries. The
reality is that while accidents can happen to anyone, anywhere
and in any job, most accidents can be avoided.
1105
Since many of us will visit businesses, farms and factories
during the recess, it is an opportune time for us to spread the
word about the need—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Perth—Middlesex.
* * *
NORTH AMERICAN AEROSPACE DEFENCE COMMAND
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this week marks the 40th anniversary of the formal
creation of the North American Aerospace Defence Command, known
as NORAD.
I am proud to acknowledge the dedication and professionalism of
the men and women of the command, both Canadian and American,
past and present, who have stood shoulder to shoulder in the
common defence of our continent.
NORAD has been a cornerstone of Canada-United States defence
co-operation for 40 years. It has evolved significantly from its
earliest mission of defending against Soviet manned bomber
attack.
As well as monitoring any threats to North American airspace,
NORAD monitors manmade objects in space to warn of possible
accidents and assists law enforcement agencies in monitoring
aircraft that may be involved in drug trafficking.
I know my colleagues will join me in offering a heartfelt thanks
to those vigilant guardians who continue to provide all Canadians
with a sense of security by watching over our airspace.
* * *
THE FAMILY
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is
International Day of Families. The United Nations initiated this
day to encourage everyone from every community around the world
to celebrate the importance of families in our lives.
The family plays a vital role in the well-being of humankind.
Throughout much of the developing world the family is the sole
support for its members. For these people, the family is their
society and their strength.
In Canada we enjoy an excellent social support system, but
nothing could be more important than the support of our families.
The relationship between parents and children, brothers and
sisters, grandparents and grandchildren should be celebrated
today.
This holiday weekend is an excellent opportunity for all
families to get together. I encourage all Canadians to plan
activities and celebrate with their loved ones.
* * *
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
Tuesday the Minister of Justice issued a discussion paper on
reforms to the Young Offenders Act.
In June 1997 the same minister proclaimed that amending the
Young Offenders Act was a priority. Here we are almost one year
later and there is no sign of legislation, no sign even of draft
legislation. Instead Canadians are given a document which
contains few specifics, few details and no concrete proposal for
changing the act.
If the minister lacks the leadership and the political skills to
address the important issue of youth crime, then perhaps she
should get out of the way and allow the official opposition to
take up the mantle.
The Reform Party advocates a three-pronged approach in dealing
with youth crime. This would include an early detection and
prevention strategy, community based sentencing for non-violent
offenders and ensuring that the Young Offenders Act applies to
youth between the ages of 10 and 15.
The bottom line is that Canadians are concerned about their
safety. It is too bad that—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Oakville.
* * *
NATIONAL NURSING WEEK
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
proud to remind members of the House and all Canadians that this
week, May 11 to 17, is National Nursing Week. The theme is
“Nursing is the Key” which appropriately emphasizes the pivotal
role that nurses play in delivering quality health care to all
Canadians.
This year, 1998, marks the 90th anniversary of the Canadian
Nurses Association. This association has consistently worked to
advance the quality of nursing by promoting high standards of
practice, education and research.
There are now over 200,000 nurses practising in Canada. Please
join me in recognizing their committed caring service to
Canadians.
To the nurses of Canada I want to say, we salute you and we
thank you.
* * *
BANKS
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
earlier this week in London at the opening of Canada House, an
embassy that is really owned by the people and the parliament of
this country, guess who held a dinner at Canada House? The BCNI,
the Business Council on National Issues.
Guess who as at the dinner? The Prime Minister was there and Al
Flood was there. He is the president and CEO of the Canadian
Imperial Bank of Commerce. Guess what they were doing?
They were sipping champagne and eating caviar. And they were
doing this at taxpayers' expense. Ordinary people of this
country, senior citizens like George Armstrong in my riding, are
paying for the Prime Minister to sip champagne and eat caviar
with the president of a big bank.
1110
Guess who this bank wants to merge with? It wants to merge with
the Toronto-Dominion Bank. Who was on the board of the TD bank a
few years ago? The Prime Minister was on that board a few years
ago.
Earlier in the day the Prime Minister was also sipping champagne
and who was he doing that with? Matthew Barrett, the president
of the Bank of Montreal. That is improper—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle.
* * *
[Translation]
SOMMET DE LA FRANCOPHONIE
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today in Moncton the minister responsible for Francophonie is
officially opening the offices of the secretariat for the Sommet
de la Francophonie, in preparation for the next summit, to be
held in 1999.
This summit is a significant landmark in the increasing
recognition of francophones. The summit also offers a forum for
the exchange of information and cultural values between
countries which share a common language and the desire to map
out a consistent path toward extending their influence
throughout the world.
This stage in the process also marks a concrete commitment by
the Canadian government to ensuring that this summit will
contribute to the unity of all francophone peoples sharing
values as essential as language and culture.
We wish every success to those who will be working so diligently
in these Moncton offices in preparation for a summit that is
important for the future of all francophones.
* * *
[English]
ST. FRANCIS XAVIER UNIVERSITY
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, on May 3, St. Francis Xavier University, situated in
my riding in Nova Scotia in the beautiful town of Antigonish,
added hundreds of new faces to its illustrious alumni with the
graduation of 733 students during the university's spring
convocation.
I had the privilege of attending this momentous occasion for
graduating students and their families. I was pleased to meet
many of the new members of the class of 1998 who are poised to
make a significant contribution to their communities, their
country and in some instances the world.
In particular I would like to salute the graduating students
from my riding who earned university medals. The medal winners
were: Kristina Fabijancic and Janise MacIsaac, both of
Antigonish, and Belinda Ann Cameron of New Glasgow. As stated by
this year's honorary degree recipient, His Eminence Cardinal
Carter, St. Francis Xavier is a treasure for the country.
Congratulations to the St. F.X. graduates, the latest riches of
our country's treasure.
* * *
CALGARY DECLARATION
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased with Monday's report describing the results of
Ontario's consultation process on the Calgary declaration.
Ontarians clearly support this declaration. This has been
demonstrated by the responses received during the public
consultation process. The poll released at the same time shows
that 87% of Ontarians support the Calgary declaration and 73% of
Ontarians recognize the unique character of Quebec society.
[Translation]
In the light of the results of this vigorous poll and the many
other positive results of polls across the country, the figures
the Bloc keeps repeating on the Calgary declaration have lost a
lot of meaning.
Clearly Canadians support the values of compassion, equality,
tolerance and diversity expressed in the Calgary declaration.
Canadians should be proud of this demonstration of support for
one another.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, at the
defence committee in response to hearing about the mistreatment
of injured soldier Master Corporal Dohlan, the chief of defence
staff said that he would personally ensure that the family was
well looked after.
That was three weeks ago, but when I phoned Mrs. Dohlan
Wednesday night, what she reported was quite frankly sickening.
“The military has abandoned us”, she reported. Mrs. Dohlan
must look after her husband, who was seriously injured in a
parachute accident, as well as her five young children. She
feels desperate. All she asks is that the military pay her
expenses for driving her injured husband to the hospital twice a
week and cover child care. Some home care would be nice, she
said.
She is not exactly asking for $2 million for some big retirement
party. Instead she has been given a duty driver who is expensive
and unwanted.
Is this how an injured soldier and his family are treated when
they are getting the special attention of the chief of defence
staff? If that is the way they are treated, then how on earth
are all other injured soldiers being treated?
* * *
[Translation]
ASSOCIATION CANADIENNE-FRANÇAISE POUR L'AVANCEMENT DES
SCIENCES
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this week,
Laval University is hosting the most important scientific
get-together in the francophone world: the 66th congress of the
Association canadienne-française pour l'avancement des sciences,
which is taking place in Quebec City from May 10 to 15 with, as
its theme, the future of science in Quebec.
There are 5,000 delegates to the ACFAS conference, and some
10,000 visitors are expected to spend the week on the university
campus where they will have the opportunity to hear 3,000
scientific talks on subjects ranging from polymer physics to the
family to computer art.
1115
Research and development are the pillars of the knowledge
economy. They present a major challenge for the future for all
societies wishing to advance into the 21st century.
Quebec has closed the gap between it and the other regions of
Canada and is now ahead of Denmark, Italy and Norway. In this
regard, ACFAS will continue to act as a catalyst, especially by
promoting science in Quebec society and encouraging young people
to take up the challenge.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the hep C
compensation meetings yesterday were, in my view, a farce. The
victims left those meetings feeling betrayed. They felt betrayed
because the health minister went to that meeting and sat meekly
in the corner without a position. He was seeking a consensus,
while the victims wanted a position from the federal government.
How could this minister have gone to those meetings without a
well researched, well thought out federal government position?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the meeting yesterday produced progress. The member should know
that although no final conclusion was reached, the ministers
agreed that a working group would examine options which will
enable us to do something meaningful for all those who suffer
from hepatitis C as a result of the blood system. That working
group will get under way immediately. It will work over the
short term to present fully researched options to all ministers.
We continue to prefer a national approach to this issue. That
was the view of those around the table yesterday. Unilateral
action is not the answer. We will continue to work in the public
interest.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
hepatitis C issue has degenerated into face saving for the
Liberals. The Prime Minister is on record as saying that on his
watch there will be no resignations, no backsliding and no face
saving. This has ended up saving the image of the Prime Minister
rather than looking after the victims. Is this not taking the
politics of stubbornness to its newest low?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as the House knows there was a consensus among all governments in
late March. Two governments rejected that consensus and went off
in a different direction. At yesterday's meeting that sort of
unilateralism was deplored by the vast majority of Canadian
governments. Instead we renewed our commitment to finding a
national approach to this issue. A working group has been put in
place over the short term to look at the options for a national
approach. That is the way governments can act most effectively
in the interest of all those infected with hepatitis C through
the blood system.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Health may use this study group as a hiding tactic,
but the victims will not let that happen. They are willing to
follow this minister and every Liberal this summer. They are
going to go to every parade. They are going to go to every
ribbon cutting. They are going to go to every celebration. The
hepatitis C signs will be there. They will not give up. The
opposition will not give up until the the victims of hepatitis C
have fair and just compensation. When will they get it?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
if it was not evident before now what this man is, we all see it
for ourselves today. He is the ambulance chaser of Canadian
politics.
It was pathetic. While ministers yesterday were upstairs
working toward a solution, this man was in the lobby straining to
get into the camera shot with the victims. He is a disgrace. He
lowers the level of debate.
Those of us who are committed to a real solution will continue
to work toward it.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will tell you about the commitment of the member for Macleod. He
has had to help people who have been in ambulances. This
minister may have seen them in court, but he has never in his
life helped a person out of an ambulance.
This health minister has failed dismally every step of the way.
The file has been pried open despite his efforts to keep it
closed. Why does the minister not admit that he did not take a
position into that meeting yesterday because he did not want the
meeting to succeed? The hepatitis C victims have been let down
and this minister let them down by leading the way.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member has no idea what went on inside the meeting yesterday,
so I will tell him. Ministers sat around the table and examined
the options available to governments to help those who contracted
hepatitis C through the blood system.
1120
We agreed that a national approach with all governments working
together is the best approach. The governments ought not to act
unilaterally. Then we agreed over the short term to ask a
working group to examine the options available to us so we can
select the best one.
That is the responsible way to proceed in these circumstances.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
leadership of the Hepatitis C Society now openly condemns the
health minister, saying, from firsthand experience, that he
cannot be trusted. They have said that he has a duty to help
those people in need and he has failed miserably. He had a duty
to bring a position to that meeting and he failed to do that.
He has but one duty left. Will he perform it? Will he do his
duty and resign as the health minister of this country?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as a result of this government's leadership there are 22,000
victims of hepatitis C who received an offer of compensation from
all governments. Where was the Reform Party last year? Where
was the Reform Party last winter when that work was going on? It
is this government which led that effort.
Yesterday this government led the effort to pursue a national
approach to this issue and we will work with governments, as we
have in the past, until a solution is found.
I can tell the hon. member that all governments are committed to
an approach that is in the interest of all those who suffer from
hepatitis C as a result of the blood system.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is also for the Minister of Health.
If the minister had truly shown leadership, as he claims, he
would have had something to show us yesterday. He should admit
his responsibility and be prepared to put up the money to
resolve the hepatitis C problem. Instead, he has done nothing.
Will he admit what all observers are saying today, that his real
mandate was to make sure the conference failed?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member is mistaken. Yesterday, we discussed a co-ordinated
approach by all governments with all ministers, including the
minister from Quebec. We agreed to have a task force and to
look at all our options together.
We feel that a co-ordinated Canada-wide approach is in the best
interest of hepatitis C victims. That is this government's
objective.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister should understand that what victims want is not
studies, but compensation. They are fed up to the teeth with
this minister's studies, which keep going over the same ground,
but never produce a solution.
Will the minister admit that his government is quite simply
incapable of showing compassion, although it is not for lack of
funds.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was
the Government of Canada that initiated the process to
compensate hepatitis C victims 12 months ago.
Quebec declined to take part last July, last fall and in January
of this year. We have finally persuaded them to join us. It
was the Government of Canada that set this process in motion.
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
Today, we expect the federal government will announce a budget
surplus of between $4 and $8 billion for the 1997-98 fiscal year.
Does the minister realize that, with such a surplus, the
government has ample means to express its compassion and that it
should compensate all victims of hepatitis C?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
together we are looking for a way to treat all those who have
contracted hepatitis C through the public blood supply system
appropriately. This is the objective of all governments. We
are trying to come up with a collective approach.
Every year, Quebec and the other provinces receive money for
their health care systems from the Government of Canada through
transfers. We share this responsibility annually.
1125
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Health could not get cabinet to accept his
viewpoint. He has lost all credibility. Why does he not
resign?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
reflect cabinet's, the caucus' viewpoint. We are all committed
to a national approach in looking after the interests of those
people who contracted hepatitis C through the blood system.
This is the aim of every member of caucus on this side of the
House.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, you can
lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
The health minister had an opportunity yesterday to show
leadership, to make a difference. He failed and he failed
miserably. He claimed he would be going to the table with an
open mind. The truth is that he went to the table with a closed
wallet.
Will the health minister now admit that he sabotaged the
hepatitis C talks yesterday by failing to put any federal money
on the table?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is remarkable how knowledgeable all these members opposite are
about a meeting which they did not attend.
The members opposite should know that the Government of Canada
has a responsibility to co-ordinate the efforts of all the
provincial governments which will act together to find a solution
that is co-ordinated in the interest of all those who have
hepatitis C as a result of the blood system.
They can say what they want about the meeting they did not
attend. We are going to work away to find a solution that is in
the interest of those who are affected.
[Translation]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Health has lost sight of reality. The victims of hepatitis C
are appealing to the values of justice and compassion dear to
the hearts of Canadians. Compensation for all is fair and
income support for victims is compassionate.
The Minister of Health has no heart. When is the government
going to call a meeting of the premiers to respond once and for
all to the needs of the victims?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
reality is that all those who have contracted hepatitis C need a
united and co-ordinated approach by all governments in Canada.
This is the process we are committed to.>
Yesterday we began, with a working group, to look at all
available options and, in the coming weeks, we will clarify the
government's positions in order to find a consensus. This is
the responsible approach.
* * *
[English]
CANADA CUSTOMS
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
speaking to the Minister of Health is like talking to a brick
wall, so I will go in another direction.
The Cedarville wharf on Lake Mephremagog is an official
Canada-U.S. border crossing site for boaters and snowmobilers.
However, Canada Customs has decided to download the cost of
maintaining the wharf to the municipality of Ogden. Now Ogden
has requested assistance from the government to help maintain the
wharf, since it is a border crossing, and the request has been
flatly denied.
Will the Minister of National Revenue explain the government's
policy regarding offloading costs to municipalities and tell this
House why Ogden's request was denied?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows with
regard to the Cedarville wharf that the wharf was sold to the
municipality by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for one
dollar.
It is the responsibility of the municipality to maintain that
wharf, not the responsibility of Canada Customs. Under section 6
of the Customs Act there should be no charges imposed, just as it
is across the country in all of our other facilities.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
what the minister does not seem to understand is that the other
ones are federal wharves. This is not a federal wharf. It is a
municipal wharf. In the meantime, the municipality is now
charging other people to use the wharf.
Canada Customs is now using the wharf also, parking trailers on
the wharf, using all kinds of services and not paying a cent for
them. That is not fair.
Maybe the minister could try to explain how he can get away with
this.
1130
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Revenue Canada is following its normal
policies where facilities are provided. This is very normal in
other parts of Canada and in other locations where facilities are
provided for customs people.
We would be happy to provide more information for the hon.
member. Obviously he is not aware of the way we respond to the
same matter across the country. I would be happy to provide more
information for him.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the federal government has again failed the victims of tainted
blood. The meeting yesterday between the federal health minister
and his provincial counterparts was a disaster. It was a
disaster because the senior partner, the federal Minister of
Health, went to this negotiation with absolutely no position.
Is the minister prepared to accept responsibility for that
failure, or will he simply blame the victims of tainted blood for
wanting justice?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we all understand why it is in the interest of the member to
speak that way. It is part of the political process for him, I
suppose.
Those of us who were at the meeting know there is a continuing
interest on the part of provincial governments to find a
co-ordinated response to this national tragedy and to find a way
to deal with the matter that is in the interest of all those who
got hepatitis C through the blood system.
The member and his colleagues can prattle on about what they
think happened yesterday, but I am here to tell them what
happened yesterday. What happened yesterday was the first step
toward another co-ordinated approach to find a national—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Okanagan—Coquihalla.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
all Canadians heard the government's position yesterday from the
victims of hepatitis C who were at the meeting. The government's
position lacks compassion and is extreme.
The person to blame is the Prime Minister of Canada. The Prime
Minister of Canada has been teasing the victims of hepatitis C.
The Minister of Health for weeks has been holding out hope that a
new deal would be reached and nothing new was produced yesterday.
What is the government doing? What kind of twisted game is
being played?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I can tell the member what we are doing. We are working with all
governments in the country to find a way to deal with the
interest of all those who got hepatitis C through the blood
system.
Yesterday at the meeting of ministers there was strong agreement
that it is not in the interest of the people who got hepatitis C
for governments to act unilaterally. The way to deal with the
matter is to look at what care is needed, efforts to find cures
and treatments, and efforts to deal with the needs of those who
are sick or have other compelling circumstances. Doing that
together is the answer. Yesterday was an important milestone on
the road—
* * *
[Translation]
DAVID LEVINE
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The government has a responsibility to ensure the enforcement of
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Yesterday, the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs once again added fuel to
the fire by refusing to clearly condemn the demonstrations in
opposition to David Levine's hiring to head the Ottawa Hospital.
By sanctioning this witch-hunt at Mr. Levine's expense, is the
government not sending a message that the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms does not apply to Quebec sovereignists or
those under suspicion of being sovereignists?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to see that the Bloc Quebecois is now fully accepting
the Canadian Constitution, including the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on the
one side, we have the hon. member for Carleton—Gloucester also
adding fuel to the fire by calling for Mr. Levine's dismissal
because of his alleged political views. On the other, we have
the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier making far more respectful
comments.
What, exactly, is the government position?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, the federal
government is not the one to hire or fire hospital directors, as
you know. That is the role of the hospital board.
I too am very pleased to hear about the Bloc Quebecois' respect
for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly when, on
September 29, 1994, the Deputy Premier of Quebec made a
statement concerning a government employee to the effect that “A
diplomat representing Quebec abroad who is unable to present the
aspect of Quebec reality that is our path toward sovereignty is
not qualified for his job”.
* * *
1135
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
the hepatitis C issue, the health minister does not even know how
to get to the end of a parade. How would we expect him to get to
the head of the parade and show some compassion when the Prime
Minister has directed or dictated to him otherwise?
Why does this health minister not simply admit that the Prime
Minister ordered him not to offer compensation to all hepatitis C
victims?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the government is committed to finding a way, with other
governments in Canada, to assist those who contracted hepatitis C
through the blood system. Yesterday we established a working
group that will examine all options which will enable us to do
that.
I think Canadians know, and certainly those infected with
hepatitis C through the blood system know, that unilateral action
by one province or another is not the answer. A co-ordinated
approach is necessary, and it is that approach to which we are
committed.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
he very typically avoided the question again. The health
minister was simply obeying his master in all this. If his
master, the Prime Minister, had shown some leadership, hepatitis
C victims would not be worrying today about how they will care
for their families.
The Prime Minister has stubbornly refused to show compassion so
we do not have a fair deal today. Why is the Prime Minister
proving to be the single greatest obstacle to reaching an
agreement that will end the oppression of these people?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I remind the member that it is through the leadership of the
Prime Minister and his government that 22,000 people who
contracted hepatitis C through the blood system have been offered
very reasonable compensation and assistance.
That is the kind of leadership that galvanized the provincial
ministers who were initially unwilling to move and that resulted
in a very significant change in that regard.
* * *
[Translation]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
A protectionist American law restricts the hiring of foreign
players by any major baseball team by limiting to 50 the number
of work permits for non-American players coming up through their
minor league system. A perverse consequence of this legislation
is that Canadian baseball players need an American work permit
to play with the Ottawa Lynx.
Does the minister think it is right that a protectionist
American law should also apply in Canada and prevent Canadian
players from playing baseball in their own country?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member has raised an interesting question that has more to
do with American than Canadian law.
Speaking on behalf of the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, we will take the question under advisement and
provide the hon. member with a more complete answer at a later
date.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, that
is what is needed, more complete answers.
Does the minister intend to take steps to end this
discrimination, which limits opportunities for Canadian baseball
players to play professionally, as soon as possible?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once
again, I must thank the hon. member for taking a pan-Canadian
political position instead of a separatist one.
* * *
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
He tells us that the meeting went fine yesterday and that
everything is moving ahead. We were not there so we have to take
his word for it.
Let us listen to what the minister for Ontario says. The
Ontario health minister says:
The lack of proposals from Ottawa will frustrate victims and
disappoint Canadians.
We came looking for actions and asking the federal government to
provide financial assistance to those who were infected with
hepatitis C prior to 1986 and we did not get any response.
Will the minister stop attacking the member for Macleod who has
brought this issue to Canadians and to where it is today and tell
Canadians what their—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
if it were not for the government a year ago putting this item on
the agenda and if it were not for the government persuading
provincial governments to take the issue seriously, there would
be no discussion of hepatitis C compensation and no offer to the
22,000 victims between 1986 and 1990.
Coming to the member's question I can report from yesterday's
meeting another development. The governments of the country
deplored the kind of unilateral action taken by Ontario. When
the minister from Ontario goes to the microphone to condemn the
Government of Canada she is asking—
The Deputy Speaker: On a supplementary question, the
member for Edmonton—Strathcona.
1140
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this working group is a step backward, not a step
forward. It will not be working on ways and criteria for
compensating all hepatitis C victims like Krever recommended. Its
mandate is to determine whether or not there can be compensation.
What a joke.
Why is the minister putting the so-called working group ahead of
the royal commission report? Why will he not compensate all
hepatitis C victims instead of coming up with more excuses?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member should know that Jeremy Beaty of the Hepatitis C
Society has said that he and his group are prepared to work with
the working group examining the options. So have other
representatives of affected groups.
The options that the working group will examine are options that
will enable governments to act together to deal with the interest
of all those who got hepatitis C through the blood system. That
is the purpose. Those options are constructive and they will all
be examined.
* * *
[Translation]
VARENNES TOKAMAK PROJECT
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of the Environment.
Two weeks ago, in response to my question concerning the Tokamak
project in Varennes, the Minister of Natural Resources said it
was unlikely that any results in the short term, say within five
or ten years, could help further issues like climate change.
Does the minister recognize that the impact of climate change
will be extremely long lasting and that a sound vision for the
future in this respect depends on research and development of
renewable energy of the type that was being conducted at Tokamak
in Varennes?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this department and this government are
very concerned about environmental issues.
As a department we are very engaged in research. Science is the
basis of the department. We are working collaboratively with
provinces across the country to make sure that we focus on major
priority issues.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is also for the Minister of the Environment.
In view of the latest proposal in Newfoundland to export water,
and considering the important non-commercial role water plays
within its natural watershed in the maintenance of a healthy
ecosystem, could the Minister of the Environment indicate whether
she plans to introduce legislation this fall banning water
exports?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned as Minister of the
Environment for the security of our freshwater resources.
My department is reviewing our freshwater policy which has been
in place since 1987. As part of our review I am meeting with
provinces this summer to set our priorities with them.
At the moment we do not have legislation which specifically
legislates against the export of freshwater, but one of our
priorities could be to put such legislation in place.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, all victims who contracted HIV tainted blood prior to
1986 were compensated.
Could the minister explain why hepatitis C victims who
contracted their disease by the same tainted blood during the
same period of time will not be compensated?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have had this exchange before in the House. The government of
the day which offered compensation to those infected with HIV
acknowledged that there was something that could have been done
and should have done during that period but was not done. It
accepted responsibility for that.
I want the member to recall that all governments will be
participating in the working group which over the next several
weeks will look for ways we can act together to accommodate the
interest of all those who contracted HCV through the blood
system.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, for weeks now we have heard from the Liberal backbenches
that there was hope the file was open.
The member for St. Paul's, the member for Sarnia—Lambton and
the member for Gatineau all made promises of compensation. Yet
the government delivered nothing.
Is the Deputy Prime Minister proud of the fact that he killed
both the hopes of the victims and the integrity of his
backbenchers?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we would not be having this exchange in question period
at all if the federal government had not shown leadership,
brought the provinces to the table and put $800 million on the
table. That is why we are having this discussion.
Now that two of the provinces broke the original consensus, as
the Minister of Health has said, we have gone back to talk with
them to try to develop a new consensus. That is why this working
group is taking place.
If Reform is sincere and serious it should be supporting this
working group process instead of attacking it.
1145
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday B.C.'s minister of health said that the
federal government knows it will have to move in some direction,
but we just do not know what direction.
The federal government seems to be the only government which
came to the table yesterday without any position at all.
How can a consensus be developed when we do not know the views
of all the players? How could the Minister of Health in all
conscience have gone to the table yesterday with no money and
nothing to say?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday there were a number of views expressed around the
table. There was also a clear awareness first of all that
governments should try to find a way acting together to
accommodate the interests of those who got hep C through the
blood system.
Second, there was no consensus yesterday and there cannot be one
until the options are fully understood, their implications
investigated and we have the facts before ministers. That is what
Canadians would want us to do, take a responsible position, not
simply act unilaterally, to find a truly lasting solution.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the matter of hepatitis C has been before the House
and the Canadian public daily for six weeks.
The Canadian consensus is clear, fair compensation for all. What
other options are left for the minister to consider?
Yesterday the minister did a great disservice to blood injured
Canadians by not bringing a position to the table.
Today could the minister tell all Canadians what is the position
of the federal government? Is there new money on the table for
compensation, yes or no? Does the government support the
principle of fair compensation for all hepatitis C victims, yes
or no?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Government of Canada as an objective has a consensus position
among governments that will deal with the interests of those who
got hep C through the blood system.
Yesterday we identified a variety of options, put them before a
working group to come back to ministers with the facts and the
implications so that ministers can recommend to their governments
a co-ordinated approach. That is what Canadians would want
responsible governments and ministers to do.
* * *
JOB CREATION
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, a major
Liberal promise of the 1993 election campaign was job creation.
We have all heard those promises of jobs, jobs, job. However,
according to the 1996 census there are over 2,500 fewer jobs in
my constituency of West Nova than there were in 1991.
When is the government going to live up to its promise of job
creation and by what means will it going to encourage industry to
invest in our small rural communities?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, jobs have been
the preoccupation of the government.
This is why since we took office there have been over 1 million
new jobs created, 450,000 in the last year alone. Unemployment
has gone from 11.4% down to 8.4%. We have the highest job
creation growth in the G-7. We have the highest economic growth
rate in the G-7. Interest rates across the board are now lower
than American rates.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to remind the hon. member that there are provinces other
than Ontario.
With the serious downturn in the fishery and with the
agricultural sector struggling to overcome numerous obstacles
including last year's devastating drought West Nova residents are
very concerned about the kind of future they will be able to
offer their children.
The 1996 census report recorded a decline of over 2,600 people
in West Nova since 1991. Our children, our future, are leaving
our rural areas in droves.
Can the Minister of Human Resources tell us what specific
programs he is looking at to assist our young people to stay in
our rural communities?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the future of
Canada's young people is the future of all of us.
This is why we have allocated so much in tax cuts and new
funding to ensure that young Canadians are the best trained and
the best educated in the world.
We have been able to do this in spite of incredible budget
difficulties.
1150
We have been able to do this at a time when we have balanced our
budget, the first in the G-7, when we are now paying down our
debt without ripping the guts out of our social programs.
* * *
MET LIFE
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is also for the Secretary of State for
International Financial Institutions.
The proposed purchase of Met Life, an Ottawa institution, by
Mutual Life has already led to layoff notices for hundreds of
people and will lead to hundreds of more people losing their jobs
within the next year.
The severance packages offered to these unfortunate people are
far less generous than the average that have been ordered by the
courts, well at the bottom range and even less for lower income
workers.
What will the government do to make sure that these hundreds of
people—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Secretary of State for
International Financial Institutions.
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
member for Ottawa West—Nepean who is also the chair of the
national capital Liberal caucus.
From the very start, when this merger was announced, the member
has taken a leadership role in bringing these concerns to the
attention of the government and our caucus.
I assure the member we have been listening. We will continue to
consult. We will continue to work with her. The merger has not
yet been approved.
I thank her for the very diligent work and the leadership role
she has shown.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
while hepatitis C takes up permanent residence in the liver and
blood of thousands of Canadians, it is becoming obvious that
compassion has been evicted from the government they trusted.
Does anyone on that side of the House have the courage to look
Canadians straight in the eyes and tell them they belong to a
government that cares?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we can say to Canadians that we are the government that put this
issue on the agenda, that encouraged provincial governments to
join with us in taking responsibility for a period when people
were infected because something could have been done that was
not.
We are the government that is now co-ordinating efforts toward a
national approach in the interests of all hep C victims. This
government is very proud of the commitment it has shown for that
cause.
* * *
[Translation]
INDONESIA
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
At a time when there is growing public pressure to demand that
the dictator in Indonesia leave, we learn that a rebellion is
brewing within his government.
Jakarta is now the scene of bloody riots. What concrete action,
other than simply trying to book seats on commercial flights,
does the government intend to take to bring home safely and as
quickly as possible any Canadians and Quebeckers who may still
be in Indonesia?
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Laval
East, with whom I just spent 12 days touring Latin America.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. David Kilgour: It's true. Arrangements are being made as we
speak to evacuate all Canadians from that country. We are trying
to avert any danger in this situation. There is full agreement
still on the points raised by the hon. member. I think I can
assure my colleague that Canada is doing everything to evacuate
everyone who has to be evacuated.
* * *
DAVID LEVINE
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there is a witch
hunt going on in the national capital. Some are calling for the
resignation of David Levine, the new director of the Ottawa
Hospital, because of his political beliefs.
All the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs had to say about
it was that it is deplorable, but understandable. Indeed, it
violates the charter of rights and freedoms.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister realize the damage caused to
Canadian unity by the narrow-minded attitude of his colleague?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hiring of hospital directors does not concern the Canadian
government in any way.
1155
It is up to the individual to invoke the charter of rights and
freedoms if he feels that the policy of Ottawa hospitals
infringes on his rights.
I think the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has done and
continues to do a great job.
* * *
[English]
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, in the past week the government has asked the RCMP
to investigate leaks in relation to TAGS and the justice
minister's youth crime policy. Both these leaks are important
but probably do not have criminal consequences.
On the other hand, when a very serious leak of confidential
information from HRDC to the office of the Treasury Board to a
criminal Liberal Party fundraiser happens, the government does
not see any reason to investigate.
We know the RCMP has investigated illegal influence peddling.
When will the government investigate the HRDC Treasury Board
leak?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there has been an inquiry in all the facts that have been
mentioned. That inquiry has taken place at the request of the
government. The government has fully co-operated with that
inquiry, and I say it slowly because it takes time to penetrate.
That inquiry is concluded. There has been one person charged.
That person has pleaded guilty and has been convicted.
* * *
THE FAMILY
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
know that the quality of early childhood care has a significant
impact on the physical, mental and social health outcomes of
children. We also know that healthy children mean stronger
families and ultimately a stronger country.
As today, May 15, is the international day of the family, can
the Secretary of State for Children and Youth tell the House what
the Government of Canada is doing to promote and strengthen the
Canadian family?
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Children and
Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question. The government's commitment to families is solid and
abundantly evidenced by way of the national children's—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew: I know they do not care about
families over there. They do not care about anything, actually.
We will have made an investment of $1.7 billion by the year
2000. We have made provisions in EI for low income family
supplement. We are also working with our provincial partners to
develop the national children's agenda. There is much more that
can be said.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for months
now we have listened to this Liberal government on the hepatitis
C issue and this minister, excuses, blaming others, hiding behind
the working groups' coat tails. He even takes those who look
after the victims and calls them ambulance chasers.
Might I remind him that to a lawyer an ambulance chaser is the
lowest of the low, but to a doctor an ambulance chaser is trying
to do what is right. He is a lawyer. I am a doctor. I say no
more. There is only one thing left to do. Will the health
minister resign?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I think we struck a nerve. We have identified exactly what the
member has been doing these last few weeks. He showed it again
yesterday when he tried to get into the camera shots with
representatives of the hepatitis C groups.
On this side of the House we are focusing on solutions. On this
side of the House we are working with governments. On this side
of the House we are committed to a co-ordinated approach by all
governments that will be in the interests of the victims, not for
narrow political purposes but because we are concerned about the
health and the care of those who are ill.
* * *
[Translation]
SNOW GEESE
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
The snow geese management plan included an experimental project
to look at the effectiveness of various hunting techniques.
Environment Canada has just released its integrated management
plan for snow geese, but there are no provisions on reducing the
number of geese.
Will the federal government pledge to compensate farmers for the
damage done to their fields by the geese?
1200
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity this past fall to
visit with those people in Quebec who are most affected by the
issue of the large population of snow geese in their area. A
multisectoral group is working with the federal government to
find a solution to the problem. I am very pleased to report
significant progress is being made by this group.
* * *
SENIORS BENEFITS
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It is now well known
that the government is making changes to the proposed seniors
benefits package. Despite those changes, the seniors benefit
would still end universality of old age pensions in this country.
Universality is a principle strongly supported the Canadian
people.
In light of that, will the Deputy Prime Minister today make a
commitment to withdraw the seniors benefits package and maintain
universal old age pensions for all Canadians?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have taken
very responsible actions to ensure seniors pensions will be
there, that seniors will be given a secure and dignified
retirement. We have brought down a package that would increase
the pensions for 75% of seniors.
At the same time, we continue to work with seniors groups and we
continue to listen. We have this case under advisement and we
want to make sure we do the right thing for our seniors. That is
why we will continue to consult and to work on this package. I
thank the member for his question.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (A), 1998-99
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting
supplementary estimates (A) for the financial year ending March
31, 1999 was presented by the President of the Treasury Board and
read by the Deputy Speaker to the House.
* * *
[Translation]
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the great honour to table in the House today, in both official
languages, a number of order in council appointments which were
made recently 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.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to two
petitions.
* * *
1205
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the
second report of the Standing Committee on National Defence and
Veterans Affairs in relation to its consideration of Bill C-25,
an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, as amended.
I would also like to mention the excellent co-operation of
committee members from all parties, and thank the staff of the
Library of Parliament's research branch, as well as Table staff,
for their constant and vital support.
[English]
JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Justice
and Human Rights. This is on the drafting of a bill to amend
those sections of the Criminal Code that deal with impaired
driving.
On behalf of the committee we take no great delight in making
this report. This report indicates to the House that we were
unable to meet a deadline of May 15 in terms of the work on this
subject matter.
The committee has placed the subject matter on its agenda for
the fall and we will attempt to deal with it in an expeditious
manner. The level of work that we have had has been quite
incredible during this term.
In addition, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Justice
and Human Rights.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee proceeded to
review the present DNA provisions of the Criminal Code adopted
during the 35th Parliament as Bill C-104. That report is
complete.
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present the 11th, 12th and 13th reports of the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts, respecting chapters 35, 32 and 31
of the December 1997 report of the auditor general.
As acting chair of the committee and on behalf of government
members of the committee, we wish to thank the members drawn from
our colleagues across the aisle. Their spirit of co-operation
and hard work has enabled us to bring five reports to this House
this week. This is an example of how all members of this House
can best serve all our constituents.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109 the committee requests the
government to table comprehensive responses to these reports.
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-406, an act to amend the Criminal Code (search
and seizure without warrant).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this private member's bill
is twofold. It is to amend section 139 of the Firearms Act to
first of all remove the power to search and seize weapons without
a warrant when there is no evidence that an offence has been
committed or suspected to have been committed.
Second, when a search has taken place and if unnecessary damage
has been committed restitution will be paid.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (A) 1998-99
REFERENCE TO STANDING COMMITTEES
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 81(5) and 81(6), I wish to move a motion
concerning reference of supplementary estimates to standing
committees of the House.
I move:
That the Supplementary Estimates (A)
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999, laid upon the Table
earlier today, be referred to the several Standing Committees of
the House as follows:
As there is a lengthy list attached to the motion, if it is
agreeable to the House, I would ask that the list be printed in
Hansard as if it had been read.
1210
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: List referred to above is as follows:]
To the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and
the Status of Persons with Disabilities
—Industry, Votes 55a, 60a, 70a, 80a, 90a, 95a and 100a
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
ABOLITION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, it is my pleasure to present a petition
concerning nuclear disarmament.
The petitioners consider that the proliferation of nuclear
armament is a threat to the health and survival of human beings
and their environment. In addition, they state that Canada and
the signatories of the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear
weapons reaffirmed their commitment in May 1995 to pursue
negotiations with a view to halting the nuclear arms race.
More specifically, the signatories are calling on Parliament to
support the conclusion by the year 2000 of the international
convention which will set out a binding timetable for the
abolition of all nuclear weapons.
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today I will be presenting three petitions.
The first deals with a group of Alberta residents concerned
about the government's setting greenhouse gas target emissions
given the lack of consensus about how effective such targets
might be or how costly they will be to implement.
ADULT ENTERTAINMENT
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition deals with individuals concerned about adult
entertainment in the city of Kanata.
These parlours are showing up in their communities and the
petitioners are concerned with the effects such parlours have on
the innocence of young people and on crime in that area. They
are requesting that parliament make legislative changes to enable
municipalities to prohibit these establishments which degrade
women and foster pornographic mentality which is harmful to their
communities.
CRTC
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
the third petition individuals draw attention to the fact that
last summer the CRTC licensed the pornographic Playboy channel
while refusing to license numerous religious broadcasting
services. They also point out that the CRTC has a track record
of such decisions and call on parliament to review the mandate of
the CRTC and direct it to administer a new policy which will
encourage the licensing of religious broadcasters.
I currently have a motion, Motion No. 392, which deals with this
subject.
TAXATION
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today, May 15, the international Day of the family, I am pleased
to present a petition about the family. It is signed by a number
of Canadians, including Canadians from my own riding of
Mississauga South.
The petitioners bring to the attention of the House that
managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an
honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value
to our society.
The petitioners also agree with the national forum on health
which observed that the Income Tax Act discriminates against
families that choose to provide direct parental care in the home
to preschool children.
The petitioners therefore call on parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate that discrimination in the Income Tax
Act for families that choose to provide care in the home for
preschool children.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following questions will be answered today: Nos. 65, 76, 89 and
90.
.[Text]
Mr. Chuck Strahl:
What steps has the government taken to implement the
recommendations contained in the Matter of Fisheries and Oceans.
Special Review re: Sto:lo Fisheries Authority based on
Documentation Available and Procedures Performed As at February
28, 1995 and, specifically, what action is being taken with
regard to Recommendations numbered 3.01, 3.02, 4.11, 4.12, 4.23,
4.24, 4.28, 5.14, 5.16, 5.17, 5.18, 6.44, 6.45, 6.46 and 6.47?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
After the 1994 report “Special Review Re: Sto:lo Fisheries
Authority”, significant changes were made to the operation of
the Sto:lo Fisheries Authority, SFA, as it pertains to financial
accountability. In the year following the review, all funds were
provided to an independent administrator and only released in
accordance with proper accounting procedures. Since then the
financial control has been moved from the SFA to the financial
arm of Sto:lo Nation. The fiscal accountability of Sto:lo Nation
has been reviewed by DFO Finance, Pacific Region which is
satisfied with the accounting processes in place.
In the last two years, DFO has been more involved in the
financial aspects of the agreement. DFO staff have participated
in the monetary aspects of the levy, referred to as the
“Contribution Fishery” in the report, and excess salmon surplus
to requirements, ESSR, fishery arrangements. Active management
controls including the laying off of staff to avoid
overexpenditures are now routine.
Specific Recommendations:
3.01 The quarterly Progress Reports submitted to DFO by the SFA
are reportedly prepared internally by the SFA and are not
reviewed by the external auditor prior to submission. Given the
nature and extent of the issues raised through our review, there
is an opportunity to increase the reliability and accuracy of the
reports by having the auditor involved in the preparation and/or
review of the progress reports.
The quarterly reports are now prepared by the Sto:lo Nation's
director of finance and his staff, not by Sto:lo fisheries
authority staff, as was the case prior to the report. Given that
the processes used are accepted by the external auditor and DFO
Finance, Pacific Region, the participation of the auditor in the
preparation of the quarterly reviews is not required.
3.02 SFA apparently received two letters relating to accounting
matters, dated February 7, 1994, and recommendations arising from
audit, dated June 27, 1994, from Mr. Robert Nicklom of Goldfinch,
Nicklom and Northcott, SFA's auditor for the fiscal year 1993-94.
DFO reportedly did not receive copies of the auditor's management
letters. As it appears that certain recommendations made by SFA's
auditor have not been implemented, there is an opportunity for
DFO to more proactively monitor SFA's management and operations
by receiving such management letters.
Since the submission of the report, the subsequent
implementation of the independent administrator for 1995 and
procedures put in place since then, no management issues have
been identified in the audit.
4.11 SFA should carry out a complete evaluation of the financial
controls regarding the contribution fishery. Controls that were
in place should be documented and analysed in conjunction with
SFA's auditor to assess the effect on the audit opinion for
fiscal 1994-95. In particular, a reconciliation of the fish
caught per the landing slips issued to the revenue recorded
should be performed. The numerical continuity of the landing
slips should also be reviewed. In addition, the controls
regarding future contribution fisheries should be reviewed to
ensure appropriate improvements are made.
No contribution fisheries were conducted in 1995 or 1996. In
1997, DFO was highly involved in the design and implementation of
the fishery. DFO's involvement included designing the bid
package, opening the bids and selecting the highest bidder, and
ensuring the funds were properly dealt with. The design of the
fishery was such that numerical control of landing slips was not
required.
4.12 A complete analysis of a particular individual's
transaction should be performed. The analysis should address such
questions as:
a. Why was a deposit of $125,000 received when the invitation to bid
indicated that a deposit of $150,000 was required?
b. Does the bidding process, the amended bid, the outstanding
receivable and the accounting controls regarding the related
revenue raise concerns regarding the management of the
contribution fishery?
c. Did the individual sell the fish to a third party and, if so,
was he paid for them?
d. What is the likelihood that the receivable from the
individual will be collected? Should the receivable, or a portion
thereof, from the individual be provided for as a doubtful or
uncollectable account?
e. What effect would the non-collection of the receivable from
the individual have on the First Nations' and/or STC's
performance under the agreement?
There has been discussion with Sto:lo Nation and Sto:lo
fisheries on the involvement of the individual in this particular
interaction. The total amount of the receivable monies from this
transaction was deducted from the 1995 agreement amount DFO was
to pay SFA. This left the Sto:lo Nation responsible for the
outstanding amount, and this has had the effect of making the
Sto:lo Nation more accountable for their practices. Further, the
individual has not had any further involvement with projects of
this nature.
4.23 SFA should assess their requirements to pay GST and, as
recommended by their auditor, should review the accounting
treatment of GST paid. After determining the extent of refund
available, a GST return and/or refund claim should be filed in
accordance with the Excise Tax Act.
4.24 The DFO should consider the position they will take with
respect to amending past progress reports to properly account for
GST that may have been included as allowable costs.
The GST was applied for and received in the 1994 agreement.
Since then GST has been applied for on an annual basis.
4.28 SFA should review their policy with respect to accounting
for capital assets particularly with respect to the treatment of
disposals of capital assets. If necessary, progress reports
should be revised for any accounting errors.
The accounting of capital assets including disposal is done in
accordance with acceptable accounting procedures.
5.14 Insurance coverage should be reviewed to ensure that SFA is
only insuring boats to which they have title. Excess insurance
should be canceled and inquiries should be made as to the
possibility of a refund. In addition, the existence and possible
disposal of any excess boats should be reviewed.
Insurance coverage is now only on vessels operated by the SFA.
5.16 SFA should implement a system to monitor the personal use
of cellular phones and vehicules. The level of use should be
reviewed for any potential abuses. In addition, SFA should review
the requirement, if any, to issue T4 slips for taxable benefits.
Managers within Sto:lo Fisheries are now provided a budget to
work within. One of their responsibilities is to ensure that
equipment is operated in accordance with acceptable procedures,
including limiting the personal use of equipment. There have been
instances where managers have limited the use of equipment due to
abuses. The costs are deemed, by AFS staff who review the
reports, to be within an acceptable range.
5.17 DFO should review their position with respect to SFA assets
used for non-SFA business, such as travel to and from work.
DFO has reviewed the level of assets support including use for
non-SFA business and has concluded this should be left to the
discretion of the SFA managers who are accountable for their
budgets.
5.18 DFO should request the travel expense claim forms for
honoraria described in the general ledger as relating to CA-104.
A flat rate is now paid for honoraria—$75.00 per half day or
conference call or $150.00 per day plus mileage at government
approved rates. The authorization for this payment is the minutes
of meetings. Minutes are provided by the independent chairman of
the planning committee. Given the controls that are already in
place, it is not necessary for DFO to view travel expense claims.
6.44 Generally the financial controls in place at SFA warrant
improvement as various accounting errors appear to go undetected,
notwithstanding the fact that SFA was apparently informed of the
nature of many of the errors in February 1994.
6.45 We recommend taht a thorough review of financial controls
take place with a view to detecting and preventing future errors
from taking place. Controls currently in place such as
inter-company and bank reconciliations do not appear to be
performed on an accurate basis as evidence by the undetected
errors.
6.46 The involvement of the external auditor in the preparation
of the progress reports may result in the earlier detection of
accounting errors and a greater assurance level regarding the
reliability of the progress reports.
6.47 Additional training and education of in-house accounting
personnel may also alleviate some of the problems that are
currently being experienced.
Since the accounting regime and reporting relationships have
been changed significantly, these recommendations have been
addressed.
Mr. Keith Martin:
Will the Minister of National Revenue explain what taxation
guidelines apply to tobacco `sticks' in comparison to taxation
guidelines of cigarettes?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Tobacco sticks are provided for in the federal Excise Act
which was amended in 1991 to include the new rate of excise duty
and the definition for tobacco sticks. At the time it was
acknowledged that partially-made cigarettes, requiring some
preparation prior to smoking, did not fit into any existing
category. Tobacco sticks can only be made by a licensed tobacco
manufacturer under the same regulatory requirements as
cigarettes.
At the federal level, cigarettes and tobacco sticks attract both
excise duties and excise taxes. On the total sale price of a
carton of 200 cigarettes, excise duties represent $5.50, while on
a carton of 200 tobacco sticks, excises duties represent $3.67.
As a result of the increased taxes announced on February 13,
1998, excise taxes on cigarettes and tobacco sticks vary from
$2.25 to $5.35 for a carton of cigarettes and from $1.85 to $2.93
for a carton of tobacco sticks, depending in which province the
tobacco products are offered for sale. This situation is due to
the fact that the federal excise tax rate is linked to the
provincial tax rate for tobacco products. For example, in Quebec,
a carton of 200 cigarettes would attract $7.75 in federal duties
and taxes compared to $5.52 for 200 tobacco sticks. In Alberta
the duty and tax is $10.85 on a carton of cigarettes and $6.60 on
tobacco sticks.
The government has also indicated its intent to review the tax
differential existing between the two products.
Ms. Val Meredith:
Could the Minister responsible for Revenue Canada Customs list
the total revenue for the PACE/CANPASS program at each of the
British Columbia border crossings for 1996-97 and 1997-98?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): The total fees collected by Revenue Canada for the
CANPASS/PACE lanes at Pacific Highway, Huntingdon, Boundary Bay
and Douglas are $694,139.18 for the 1996-97 fiscal year and
$729,269.98 for the 1997-98 fiscal year. All of these revenues are
tabulated and summarized at the CANPASS processing center
situated in Douglas. A breakdown of the revenues collected by
individual border crossings in British Columbia is not
available.
Ms. Val Meredith:
Could the Minister responsible for Revenue Canada Customs, list
the total cost of administering the PACE/CANPASS program at each
of the British Columbia border crossings for 1996-97 and 1997-98?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): The administration cost for the CANPASS/PACE program at
each of the British Columbia border crossings has been estimated
at $219,000 per year for the CANPASS/PACE lanes at Pacific
Highway, Huntingdon, and Boundary Bay, and $279,000 per year for
the CANPASS/PACE lane at Douglas. To arrive at these figures the
total cost for the program including the centralized processing
of membership applications and the associated headquarters
administrative costs were apportioned to the four sites. The
estimated costs are the same for both the 1996-97 and 1997-98
fiscal years.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
Question No. 68 could be made an order for return, that return
would be tabled immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: It is agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
.[Text]
Mr. Guy St-Julien:
With respect to the new RCMP
detachment building in Rouyn-Noranda, designed to house one
secretary, at a cost of over $1,000,000: (a) was that project
covered under the heading “Other”, on page 55 of the 1997-98
Estimates; and (b) what are the other controlled capital
projects with costs of between $400,000 and $3,000,000?
Return tabled.
1215
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I was really straining my ears today hoping that we
might get an answer to Question No. 21.
Yesterday the parliamentary secretary indicated that the
government would be providing an answer to Question No. 21 some
day but that it was taking a long time because the government had
to canvass all the different departments.
The question is fairly simple. It is a question about ministers
who visited Drummondville and Trois-Rivières during the time that
there was Liberal illegal fundraising going on.
Clearly it would not take seven months to canvass the diaries of
30 ministers to find out where they were during that time period.
Again I would ask the hon. parliamentary secretary please, not
in a timely fashion and not in due course, but that we get an
answer to this question that has been on the Order Paper now for
over seven months.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I did explain the delay
yesterday and the member has explained very well my position. I
would also like to say that I have never used the expression “in
a timely fashion”. I have been very careful to avoid that term.
I may well have used the term “in due time”. I assure him that
I am looking into the response to that question and I will
continue to do so.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. parliamentary secretary
recommending a disposition for the remaining questions?
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the other questions
be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
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 Corporation
and Labour Unions Returns Act and to make consequential
amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
delighted once again to speak to Bill C-19. This bill is similar
to last year's Bill C-66, which unfortunately was not passed by
the Senate following the Prime Minister's decision to call an
election.
Bill C-66 accordingly became Bill C-19. I think it should be put
in context. I will try in the 40 minutes I have to illustrate
as well as I can the position of the Bloc, which is opposed to
this bill.
It implements reforms to the industrial relations provisions of
part I of the Canada Labour Code, to provide a framework for
collective bargaining that enhances the ability of labour and
management to frame their own agreements and allows workplace
disputes to be resolved in a timely and cost effective manner.
The highlights are as follows:
(a) the creation of a representational board, the Canada
Industrial Relations Board, with appropriate powers to allow for
the timely and cost effective administration of the regime;
(b) streamlining of the conciliation process;
(c) clarification of the rights and obligations of the parties
during a work stoppage, including requirements for secret strike
and lockout votes and advance strike and lockout notices;
(d) a requirement for parties involved in a work stoppage to
continue services necessary to protect public health or safety;
(e) a requirement for the maintenance of services affecting
grain shipments in the event of legal work stoppages by any
third parties in the ports;
(f) making the undermining of a trade union's representational
capacity during a strike or lockout an unfair labour practice;
and
(g)improving access to collective bargaining for off-site
workers.
I must also mention that the text repeals the provisions of the
Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act respecting trade
unions.
The summary indicates the government's position and the scope of
the issue. More specifically, the bill is a major one that will
be part of the Canada Labour Code once it is passed.
It is a code, a regulated procedure that affects many Canadians.
In fact, some 700,000 workers, or about 10% of the Canadian
labour force, are governed by the Canada Labour Code, and
115,000 workers in Quebec are included and thus covered by the
code.
1220
It applies to very important areas of human activity in Canada
and Quebec. It covers vast areas of endeavour: banking,
international and interprovincial transportation, airports and
air carriers, broadcasting and telecommunications, port
operations and longshoring, grain handling. In addition, many
crown corporations are covered by the Canada Labour Code.
The bill before us is a very important bill which affects a
great many Canadians and Quebeckers in their daily lives.
In dealing with the matter at hand today, that is, part I of the
Canada Labour Code regarding industrial relations, it is
important to know that part II deals with occupational health
and safety, and part III with labour standards in areas under
federal jurisdiction.
To get where we are today, at third reading, large numbers of
stakeholders first had to be consulted—the government deserves
credit for that—and consultations have been under way since
1995, which produced what we have before us now, regardless of
what we make of it as Quebeckers in Canada: a document which is
moving the issue forward.
That is probably why our colleagues from the New Democratic
Party supported this bill, which we, as Quebeckers, cannot
support however as we consider, among other major reasons, that
Quebec has a head start and should be leading the way instead of
taking the Canadian lead.
Consultations were held starting in 1995 and a report
entitled “Seeking a Balance”, better known as the Sims report,
after the chairperson, was released in 1996 or 1997. In fact,
there has been public recognition of this report and some
consensus was reached on it in Canadian society. It is clear
from the general satisfaction, except for some concerns, at
times quite serious, expressed by many witnesses that this
report was well received. There are however serious concerns
which we share in particular with regard to replacement workers
or scabs, as they are commonly referred to, where no consensus
was reached.
Therefore, we feel this is an unfinished reform that made good
sense at the start, but for which the necessary political
courage was never displayed. This is what brings us to the
negative assessment that we are making today. We are opposed to
this legislation for a number of reasons and in spite of a
seemingly positive attitude. Our reasons have to do with things
that are in the bill, but also with things that are not in it.
Among the things that are included in the bill is the creation
of the Canada Industrial Relations Board, which used to be
called the Canada Labour Relations Board. Here, the minister is
taking a leap he should not take, even though the board and the
government are pleased to call the new body a “representational
board”. Of course it is representative of employer and labour
organizations.
There are three union representatives and three management
representatives on the board. However, the minister reserves the
right to appoint board members, after consultation with the
employer and labour organizations of his choice.
This, in our opinion, goes against the alleged representational
nature of the board to be established under this bill. The
minister should appoint people selected by each of the two
groups, that is the employer organizations and the labour
organizations. Instead, the minister prefers to choose among the
employer and labour organizations that he will have selected
himself.
1225
This means that, ultimately, there will be members representing
the employers or the unions who will not in fact be
representative of these two groups, much to their discontent,
particularly if the Minister of Labour decides to confuse things
by appointing people who are not necessarily representative of
the aspirations and concerns of either group.
This is a flaw that is difficult to explain, given the general
atmosphere that seemingly prevailed at the end of the exercise.
What does not appear, however, are these five groups of workers
who made historic representations to no longer be included in
the Canada Labour Code. I am thinking of the flour mill workers.
Following a difficult strike at Ogilvie in Montreal, a topic to
which we will shortly return, the CSN requested that, in future,
anything to do with flour mills should come under provincial
jurisdiction, because they wanted nothing more to do with this
Canadian approach, which left people battered at the end of a
labour dispute that went on for 16 weeks, if I remember
correctly.
There are undoubtedly valid historic reasons, but they are no
longer valid today, in the opinion of these folks. What was
acceptable in 1867 is no longer valid today and we question this
desire on the part of the CSN, which wants to see its
members—this is the primary reason and we will come back to this
later—working in flour mills safe from the intervention of scabs.
This is a big step.
We condemn the government for not being more receptive to these
representations.
There are groups of workers, employees of the Government of
Canada, who are complaining about the way they are treated,
beginning with RCMP employees who, like those of the Public
Service Alliance and the Professional Institute of the Public
Service of Canada, have been making representations for a long
time, with the support of the Bloc Quebecois.
This time, unfortunately, and it was not very nice of the
government to have done this, it agreed to allow some groups to
appear before the committee for hours, with very interesting
results.
These people honestly believed in the committee process, which
is there to hear the parties, but they were told in the end that
the Bloc Quebecois amendments—flowing from these
interventions and from our sympathy for these three groups of
workers in the RCMP, the Public Service Alliance and the
Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada—were
out of order.
I quote from the letter I received from the deputy principal
clerk of the House a few months later.
I will read it, so that the RCMP employees, the Public Service
Alliance and the Professional Institute may know we are
concerned about them, but the government has proceeded in such a
way as to make it impossible to table the amendments for
procedural reasons, so the entire debate concerning these people
was declared out of order for the following reason, and here I
quote Mr. Marc Bosc, the deputy principal clerk:
The motions propose amendment of sections of the parent
legislation which are not addressed in the bill—an amendment
is not in order unless the section of the parent legislation—
This refers to the Canada Labour Code as a whole.
We tried to table the amendments. They were rejected with this
explanation provided very honourably by the deputy principal
clerk. However, we regret this tactic by the government which
let people devote time and energy to this instead of warning
them “Don't waste your time. As Bill C-19 stands, there is no
question of it involving claims by the RCMP, PSAC or PIPS”.
This is a bit disappointing, since the problem raised by these
groups is certainly not an invention.
1230
The RCMP is the only police force in Canada that cannot properly
negotiate with its employer. Employees are represented by some
kind of small shop union whose structure they themselves
condemn. They cannot negotiate anything about their work
conditions.
Years have gone by. They even submitted to the government a bill
drafted by their own legal advisors, but the government decided
to ignore it. What is most appalling is that these employees,
who are part of the only non-unionized police force in Canada and
are not entitled to any kind of collective bargaining, are
subject to the arbitrary actions of the government.
Through the management of the RCMP, the government is acting as
judge and jury. This opens the door to some rather serious
abuse, because the employees are dealt with on an individual
basis, instead of as a group of workers recognized by the RCMP.
Again, we deplore the fact that the government does not seem to
be overly concerned about the situation. They should at least
reply to these people, tell them to stop deluding themselves,
that the government—at least the current government—will never
grant them their wishes.
The situation with the Public Service Alliance and the institute
is just as serious. They dream of the day when they will no
longer be subject to the Public Service Staff Relations Act, but
will come under the Canada Labour Code.
In reality, it would give them the opportunity to talk more
decently with their employer, almost as an equal, as workers
have managed to do after a great struggle in the private sector
and in Quebec in the public sector where the unions have much
more recognition on matters that are not unimportant.
One need only have worked in big outfits, like the Government of
Canada or the Government of Quebec, to know that talk of job
security is not a trivial matter, especially when the employer
is a partisan outfit known as the federal government. The
people opposite, the Liberals, are pretty strong on this point,
and can be judgmental.
We see that clearly today with the appointment of David Levine
to head Montfort Hospital. How far can racism be pushed?
Imagine discovering that an employee of the federal public
service had sovereignist leanings. What danger lurks in this
great Canadian democracy for such a person, given how they lynch
a fine man, selected by a private company hired to find the best
candidate. This is a man highly respected for his political
opinions, his background and his professional ability. Look at
the dirty deed being done with the support of those opposite.
When the people in the Public Service Alliance demand the power
to negotiate as equals and decently with their employer, they
are perfectly right to do so, in particular on the subject of
job security.
There is the whole matter of technological change, which can
land on the back of public servants, because there is no
protection in this regard—we will come back to this—and the
Canada Labour Code could have dealt with this, for private
companies too.
However, public servants who are members of the Public Service
Alliance cannot talk honestly about job classification or
effectively about job descriptions, or of the appointment,
promotion or transfer processes.
These kind of things matter hugely when one works for a large
body like the Public Service of Canada, with all the wheelings
and dealings behind the scene one may have to contend with when
there is no proper management framework and the employer can get
away, as in this case, with being both judge and jury, employer
and lawmaker.
This even goes as far as the right to arbitration. As far as we
know, in the public service, arbitration decisions are final. No
third party can step in to try to make things right. The right
to grieve is affected as well.
This means that the employer, the Government of Canada, treats
its employees pretty much like a small non unionized business
would, because there is basically no recourse to deal with
abuse.
1235
Once again, we condemn this, and we deplore, in this instance,
the fact that everything we just said was out of order to some
extent, but the fact is that the government has chosen not to
deal with this whole matter when it had a wonderful opportunity
to do so.
The government has been completely insensitive to the central
labour bodies' representations. I see this as a sign, a betrayal
of the values the people on the other side supposedly stand for.
I notice a number of very distinguished colleagues who are no
doubt very sensitive to this kind of thing, like the situation
of pregnant women working under conditions which may endanger
their health and the health of their unborn child.
As I said, legitimate representations were made to the
government, but once again it has been insensitive and failed to
ensure that both it and private sector employers in Canada, who
are covered by the Canada Labour Code, comply with similar
requirements.
Let us see how this works in Quebec. It could be a source of
ideas. In Quebec, the law provides for the protective
re-assignment of pregnant women, to protect their health and the
health of their baby.
All this is missing from the bill, and because of such
deficiencies we cannot support it.
There is also the whole issue of technological changes which is
very important in our changing economy, where the buzzwords are
becoming scarier by the day, words like growth, productivity
and contempt, and phrases like profit at all cost.
I will come back later to the issue of contempt for the workers
and their associations if I have the time.
Technological change is one of the dangers threatening workers
because it is not curbed by the state. Yet, it should be the
state's responsibility to ensure that the Government of Canada
does not exclude its own employees and does not invite the
private sector to do so.
Experience has shown that businesses in the private sector that
have exhibited good management, open-mindedness and respect for
their employees and that have recognized the role of their
employees in managing technological change have benefited from
that approach.
It would seem that it was asking too much of the Department of
Labour's thinkers to address this issue, to include a provision
so that workers and their associations would be invited to
participate in managing technological change and to provide
adequate authority for the protection of jobs and working
conditions.
It is very disappointing. Since things are moving so fast, had
officials in the Department of Labour been more forward looking,
we could also have talked about the merger phenomenon, which may
be justifiable. Mergers are not easy to manage in terms of
opinions, especially bank mergers, but they may be justifiable
on a macro level because of foreign competition.
However, what is definitely unacceptable is that workers end up
paying the price for these mergers because productivity and
greed become such primary concerns that people get laid off.
We will have to find other ways to improve efficiency, in order
to be able to compete on the international market. To say that
costs were lower this year because 1,000, 2,000, 5,000 or 10,000
people were laid off—as was the case with some major
corporations such as IBM and General Motors—is the easy
solution.
Something is very wrong when one must have fired people over the
last two or three years to be considered a good manager. We used
to boast about job creation. Now, people are being laid off
under the pretence of streamlining and improving effectiveness,
productivity and growth.
One should wonder about growth. Anyone who ever heard Albert
Jacquard talk on the issue of growth gets really worried about
the evolution process.
I am convinced that the hon. member, who really cares about the
environment, is receptive to what I am saying. We must wonder
about a concept such as growth. It might be negative growth.
1240
Considering that natural resources are being systematically
wasted, it might be appropriate to reflect, here and elsewhere,
on where we are headed in terms of how we use our resources, and
to urge other countries to do the same.
There is a problem with technological changes and also with
protecting jobs following mergers. These issues should be
discussed in a broad debate, and we should make sure that jobs
are not affected. Otherwise, profits and money become our only
values.
There is also a major problem that we do not have in the Quebec
legislation, but that exists in the Canadian legislation. I am
referring to the fact that there is no clause on “automatic
renewal”.
This means, then, that when a collective agreement expires and
negotiations start, what has already been acquired remains in
place until there is a new collective agreement signed, so that
a legal vacuum does not ensue, which could in certain cases lead
to considerable abuse. This is a significant shortcoming in
this bill. Once again, Quebec seems to be further advanced in
this area. Why not take a page from our book when it is
something worthwhile?
One area that is very worrisome is the business about the
government and the minister giving themselves the right to
intervene in the voting process for a strike or lockout. It is
very worrisome in that it is stated that the vote should be
secret, which can be justified, and time limits are set for
notice, 60 days for a strike, 72 hours for a lockout. That
part is highly questionable and we are opposed to it.
Having this time limit of 60 days hinders the strike process,
because 60 days after the vote there must be a strike, even if
negotiations are under way. When the 60 days are up, another
mandate must be sought, and we know how complicated this can be
in a country that stretches from Newfoundland to British
Columbia. We are, therefore, not convinced this is wise.
What is still more worrisome is the entire matter of how the
vote is held and how it can be invalidated. This is not all
that impressive, particularly coming from a Liberal federal
government, when we are aware that in its own backyard, with the
Canada Elections Act, all manner of abuses are permitted by the
letter and spirit of the legislation, since we know that the
returning officers in the ridings are still partisan
appointments and that certain things have been done that are a
direct attack on Quebec.
I do not know how things are done in other provinces, but with
the special polls and the postal voting, envelopes are traded
back and forth in senior citizens homes. During the election
campaign, I got a call from one of my constituents, who told me:
“Mr. the incumbent, I just visited a friend of mine in a senior
citizens home and I saw something that has me concerned. There
was a man who took some people to the kitchen. He took out an
envelope containing a ballot. Then, he put that envelope in
another envelope.” That is how postal voting is done and it
gives free rein to every shady and unscrupulous party organizer
with no respect for the law.
This may be a good idea, but it is so poorly regulated and
controlled that it will open the door to all kinds of abuse.
Yet, these are the people who are lecturing the unions about
scrupulously polling the workers to find out their wishes, when
it is clearly stated that the vote can be invalidated. It is a
shame that these people would write such things in the bill.
We are dead set against this kind of intrusion.
Since my time is quickly running out, I want to talk about one
of the reasons why we are fundamentally opposed to this bill,
and that is the whole issue of replacement workers, the possible
hiring of scabs.
Again, we do not want to brag, but perhaps we could follow the
example set by Quebec, which shows that it is better from a
societal point of view to have antiscab legislation than to have
people yielding to their instincts. It undermines the balance of
power and badly hurts the unionized workers when their picket
line is not respected.
1245
I am going to read, as I did at second reading, from an
extraordinary letter that should give the folks at the
Department of Labour food for thought. It was written by the
president of the CSN union at Ogilvie ADM following the strike.
It takes courage to write as Claude Tremblay has done, and I am
pleased to read this letter once again.
The letter reads in part as follows:
The 110 workers I represent were more or less forced out on
strike on June 16, 1994 after close to two years of unproductive
negotiations with our new employer, the American giant—
This is a very important piece of information that should get
all Canadians thinking. I continue:
—the American giant Archer Daniels Midland (ADM). After an
attempt to force us to accept its collective agreement, ADM took
advantage of a loophole in the Canada Labour Code to impose it
on us effective December 10, 1993.
In fact, legal precedents applying to the Canada Labour
Relations Board allow an employer to unilaterally modify working
conditions, once the right to strike or lockout is acquired,
even though our previous collective agreement called for it to
be in effect until renewed.
Incidentally, this was alluded to earlier.
That is what tacit, or automatic, renewal means.
Unfortunately, these precedents provide—and the Canada Labour
Code has nothing to say on the matter—that such clauses are
illegal and do not prevent the employer from taking advantage of
the legal vacuum.
Since this employer-imposed agreement did away with our seniority
rights and the employer was threatening lay-offs that were not in
order of seniority, we were forced to walk out in order to
prevent the employer from doing this and also to force it to
maintain what we had acquired over more than 30 years.
Powerful employers like ADM, and most of the employers subject
to the Canada Labour Code, have plenty of power already without
being given the additional power to impose their working
conditions as soon as they are entitled to lock out workers.
As a union, we believe that collective agreements should be
maintained by law, at least until the right to strike is
exercised.
As well, the act ought to permit inclusion in a collective
agreement of a clause allowing the working conditions it
contains to remain in effect until renewal.
The act not only
authorizes the use of strikebreakers, it encourages it.
After
nearly 16 months of striking we managed to wring an ordinary
collective agreement, ordinary within the context of Quebec, out
of ADM. However, it was extraordinary compared to the American
pattern of agreement ADM had forced on its employees in over 138
collective agreements throughout its empire.
Day in and day out,
week in and week out, month in and month out, we endured subtle,
underhanded and persistent violence.
The violence of watching scabs stealing our rights, trucks
entering and leaving full of wheat or flour, the CUM police
arresting colleagues for nothing, security guards hired by ADM
spying on us with cameras on public roads and up to our
doorsteps, as if we were some sort of scum.
The worst part was
discovering on our return to work that the scabs had botched our
production so badly as to threaten the quality of Five Roses
flour. This reputation for quality is surely the best guarantee
of our jobs.
The law, however, encourages short-sighted employers to threaten
the survival of a business by allowing them to use unskilled
workers, only to give them a psychological advantage against us
in negotiations.
How was this useful to ADM if, in its back to
work agreement, the company not only agreed to fire these scabs
but also promised not to rehire them for the duration of the
collective agreement?
Not only does the Canada Labour Code not
prohibit the hiring of scabs, but the employment office in
Verdun—
This concerns the federal government.
We are talking here about scabs recruited by the federal
government.
Two months after the end of a 15 month long strike, 29 of our
members, those with the least seniority, were not called back to
work. Yet, they too had fought for the seniority rules that
eventually had those with more seniority called back to work.
These guys all had between 12 and 26 years of seniority and good
and loyal uninterrupted service. They had contributed to the UI
plan during all these years. Just the same—
1250
Those who were called back were not entitled to unemployment
insurance.
Just the same, they did not qualify for benefits, while the
scabs, who had worked unlawfully for 16 months, were treated
with kid gloves and got full unemployment benefits.
It seems to
us that this is a system that clearly works against workers who
democratically decide to fight for their rights, against
powerful and faceless companies like ADM, which pocket more than
US$5 million in net profits every year.
We are definitely in
favour of prohibiting the use of scabs in the Canada Labour
Code, in order to send a very clear message to foreign employers
like ADM—
This is very modern, I repeat.
We are definitely in favour of prohibiting the use of scabs in
the Canada Labour Code, in order to send a very clear message to
foreign employers like ADM. Their investments are welcome in
Canada and Quebec, provided that they show a minimum of respect
for our ways. And these rules cannot be easily broken, because
the Government of Canada, supposedly the government of Canadian
workers, will have given us the tools to resist if they want to
challenge the consensus.
To those who think that prohibiting the
use of scabs changes the balance unfairly in favour of the
unions, I say—
This is still the union president talking, and I agree with what
he says.
“Have a look at things in Quebec and draw your own
conclusions”.
Workers do not enjoy being on strike. They exercise their right
to strike only when they have no other choice, because it always
ends up costing them a lot.
In passing, if you can get yourself a worthwhile job when you
are on strike, you let me know, particularly when unemployment
seems forever high.
Instead of changing the balance in favour of
the unions, prohibiting employers to use scabs brings the forces
back into balance to a point that favours more reasonable
negotiations where both employer and union work to quickly find
a common ground, develop relations that will enable them to
reconcile their divergent interests and find solutions that
reflect their convergent interests.
Despite such a clearly expressed and courageous letter, one must
conclude that the Canadian federal government was insensitive to
such a view, although it encourages in-depth reflection on the
past, present and future labour relations of Canadian and Quebec
workers faced with globalization and a world economy.
What is more, the federal government has caved in to the
multinational lobby, and no doubt campaign bagmen as well, by
adding the word “demonstrated” to the wording concerning scabs.
It now reads “for the demonstrated purpose of undermining a
trade union's representational capacity”. This adjective adds
to the burden of proof, because it is up to the labour union to
prove that the hiring of scabs has undermined its
representational capacity.
What goes still further is the motion made by Jean Charest's
people. It is no doubt he who inspired Motion No. 27 of last
week in which my hon. colleague for Madawaska—Restigouche
moved—and I shall read it for the benefit of our viewers—a motion
which dates no doubt from the time of Mr. Charest and does not
sound promising for the workers of Quebec:
(2.2) For greater certainty, an employer shall be deemed not to
have undermined a trade union's representational capacity by
reason only of the employer's use of the service of a person
referred to in subsection (2.1).
This represents the pseudo-progressive Conservatives well, and no
doubt also reflects the profound thoughts of a man like Jean
Charest, who wants to be in control of the destinies of the
people of Quebec before long. We have news for him, both on the
constitutional front and on the labour relations front.
There are lessons to be learned from the Canada Labour Code and
its effect in Quebec. There are three types of workers in
Quebec. We have non-unionized workers, which is unfortunate for
them. Then we have unionized workers under the Quebec labour
code who—and the code is very clear on this—cannot suffer the
humiliation of being replaced by scabs if they decide to go on
strike. Finally, we have the workers regulated by the Canada
Labour Code, who can suffer the humiliation of being replaced by
scabs who undermine the effect of a democratically called
strike.
1255
Things will be better in a free, sovereign and independent
Quebec. The Quebec labour code will apply. It was originally
passed in 1977, under the minister responsible at the time,
Pierre-Marc Johnson. This was under a government led by a great
democrat, René Lévesque. At the time, there was no consensus in
Canada. That is the excuse we have been given, that there is no
consensus in Canadian society. There was no consensus either at
the time, but the Lévesque government and Minister Pierre-Marc
Johnson demonstrated the political courage that was required.
What has been the impact of the antiscab provision over the past
21 years? Conflicts are shorter and there is no longer any
violence wherever the Quebec code applies. However, there is
still violence where the Canada Labour Code applies, as we
recently saw during the strike affecting the port of Quebec
City.
It was not until the pressure built up and the conflict got out
of hand that the federal government intervened in an appropriate
manner. Why? Because the Canada Labour Code still allows the use
of scabs.
Businesses subject to the Quebec labour code can no longer use
scabs, and Quebeckers and the National Assembly must be praised
for passing such legislation. Let us hope that the House of
Commons will wake up some day and that the government in office
will have the political courage to support workers in such an
important matter.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak at third reading, the final opportunity to talk
about Bill C-19.
It has been an interesting process for me because as a rookie MP
I have been able to watch the bill from the time it was tabled,
through the various stages of debate, through some rocky times
and through some very interesting manoeuvres in terms of some
people with a will to try to stop the legislation. They have
thrown everything they could to grind it to a halt and to avoid
this day actually happening where we are finally at third
reading.
Prior to question period we heard two very lengthy, long winded
speeches that were very negative about Bill C-19. They were very
critical about the content. They even went beyond the content
and the actual amendments to the Canada Labour Code. They seemed
to challenge and attack the whole idea of a strong and healthy
labour movement in Canada. They seemed to have an underlying
tone, almost a sinister undertone, to their comments and remarks
that indicated to me they were not supportive of the idea of a
free and active trade union movement in the country.
I regret there is a group of people and organizations that do
not see the value of the trade union movement as an integral
aspect of democracy. Even as we debated Bill C-19 the larger
issue was not really the amendments to the Canada Labour Code. It
was the pursuit of social and economic justice and labour's role
in that pursuit.
I personally do not believe that any legislation will lead us
toward social justice. I do not think social justice can be
achieved through parliamentary means. I think that is the role
of the labour movement, but we do need to create the legislative
framework within which unions can flourish, prosper and do their
job and help to distribute the wealth of a great nation to larger
groups so that we can narrow that gap between rich and poor.
That is really what the last two years have been about as we
have been spiriting Bill C-66 and now Bill C-19 through the
process whether or not it has been stated overtly.
1300
We have been talking about the redistribution of wealth and the
ability of unions to function, prosper and flourish in our
community and in our society.
Some of the amendments put forward by the Reform Party were very
worrisome. There is a point in law which states that a person
can be presumed to have intended the probable consequences of his
or her actions. Thinking that through, it is kind of scary.
I wonder if Reformers really did think through the probable
consequences of some of the amendments they were putting forward.
If they had, what they would be advocating is limiting the
ability of labour organizations to elevate the standards of wages
and working conditions of the people they represent. I think
most Canadians would agree that is not a good thing, a valuable
function or a valuable role.
As I listened to some of the amendments put forward by the
Reform Party, there was a familiar theme. I almost felt that I
was having déjà vu, that I had heard all of this before.
After going through committee stage and hearing speaker after
speaker as they filibustered, and then coming to the report stage
and listening to the same diatribe, the same tired, lame, old
thoughts, it came to me where I had heard this before. It was
all contained in the right to work doctrine being pushed by the
Fraser Institute. It is yesterday's news. It is a tired and
outdated ideology that somehow the Reform Party has stumbled upon
and thinks it has come up with a new idea in labour relations.
In actual fact, the right to work means the right to work for
less. There are 21 states in the United States that are burdened
with this right to work legislation. The way we talk about the
states in the United States now is that there are free states and
there are right to work states. The 21 right to work states are
not free for workers. There is no free collective bargaining
because they have essentially outlawed it. They have passed
legislation that has stopped the ability of unions to do their
job to elevate the standards of working people.
In those right to work states all the social indicators about
social well-being, wages, mortality rates, infant mortality rates
and the amount spent on education per student are far below the
national average. In the right to work states they have managed
to grind down the standard of living by eliminating the ability
of unions to help keep the standard of living up.
If those are the consequences that the Reform Party has
contemplated by its amendments, then I really wish it would
reconsider them because what it is pushing is poison. It is bad
for working people, it is bad for the economy because consumers
have less disposable income and it grinds the economy to a halt.
The point of our caucus is that fair wages benefit the whole
community. There is nothing wrong with the concept of workers
earning fair wages and spending accordingly. That is a good
thing.
We are very frustrated and frankly tired of listening to the
right wing Reformers pushing this particular brand of poison.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Nobody listens.
Mr. Pat Martin: Nobody really listens. Some people do,
unfortunately, in the west where I come from. It is kind of
frightening.
The whole rise of the right wing is worrisome to working people.
We were here the other night speaking to a private member's bill
about the Mac-Paps, the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion. I could
not help but think there were parallels here. We heard about
that courageous bunch of people in the 1930s who went to Europe
to fight fascism, to fight right wing extremism. It took a lot
of courage to do that. The right wing extremism was born out of
a period of economic recession, much like we saw with high
interest rates and the slowing of the economy. That kind of
depression spawns right wing extremism.
Just as it took a lot of courage for those people in the 1930s
to go to Spain to fight fascism there, it also takes a lot of
courage for people to stand now to fight right wing extremism in
our own country. I really saw a parallel there because there are
people who think there is too much democracy in the world. I
keep hearing the word misused. The right wing seems to have
stumbled on the word democracy and finds that it likes it too.
However, the people who are promoting the MAI, the actual people
who are pushing the MAI, are saying that there is a surplus of
democracy in the world today that is interfering with the free
movement of capital and investment. Is that not a frightening
thing? Some people actually believe there is a surplus of
democracy. This is the same right wing that would like to keep
the labour movement down. That is typical. Right wing zealots
always go after the trade unions first when they start to repress
rights.
They lock up the trade unionists. They outlaw unions. It is a
real trend and a real theme. It is a pattern that we see
developing in the Reform Party. It is interesting to watch, but
it is also frightening to watch when we see these parallels.
1305
Time and time again we hear the Reform Party standing to defend
the interests of capital. It is a good thing that some of us are
looking at legislation that will defend the rights of working
people to move forward the advantage of working people. That is
exactly what Bill C-19 does.
The good thing about Bill C-19, without commenting on the
changes to the labour code that Bill C-19 will introduce, is the
process that took place. A spirit of co-operation resulted in
what we know as Bill C-19. It was almost an unprecedented
consultation process where government, labour and management sat
down in a tripartite fashion and decided on things that would
make the system work better. That is the kind of model we would
like to see used in a number of other areas. In countries that
are moving forward socially as well as economically, that is what
we see. It is a truly tripartite model where business, labour
and government sit down together to chart out the future.
The extreme right wing wants to deny the existence of labour. It
wants to keep labour away from the table. It wants to stamp
labour out. That kind of adversarial attitude is what is going
to hold us back as a nation. The right wing might think it is
progress. It is not progress. It holds us back. We all move
forward when we move forward together. We are not trying to wipe
out the right wing, so it should not be trying to wipe out
labour.
One of the real contradictions about this whole debate has been
the Reform Party trying to stall and block Bill C-19 when it
claims to represent the interests of the prairie agricultural
industry. There are 130,000 prairie farmers who are dying to see
Bill C-19 go through so they can be confident their grain
shipments will not be interrupted at the ports. What a
contradiction. These champions of the western agricultural
industry are doing everything they can to stall, delay and block
Bill C-19 when 130,000 farmers want it. We do not only see an
anti-worker sentiment, we see an anti-farmer sentiment. It seems
like a real contradiction to me. I do not understand it.
It was awkward to watch some of the debate at the committee
stage because, frankly, the Reform Party was handicapped by its
complete naivety about industrial relations. We heard some
things at committee stage that would make people roll their eyes.
If people knew the level of debate that went on in Ottawa about
this complicated issue they would be horrified. They would be
horrified because it was mean-spirited, it was narrow-minded, it
was parochial and it was self-interested. It did not have the
interests of labour relations in Canada at heart. It only
considered the narrow, political self-interest of the very narrow
population that it is serving.
I will use the bit of time I have left to talk about the four
items that are most positive about Bill C-19 and why our caucus
is proud to support it.
First, the restructuring of the labour relations board into a
truly representational board is one of the most important things
that came out of the Sims task force, Bill C-66 and Bill C-19.
It was something that all parties could agree on. Labour had
always complained. It was always frustrated that there was a
lack of consultation in the process of making appointments to the
board. With the new changes and the new Canada Industrial
Relations Board we will see the representation which we felt was
necessary.
There are other changes which we think are very positive. The
single neutral chair will be able to hear certain cases to try to
fix the backlog. There is a terrible backlog, especially in
applications for certification. Some 90 applications for
certification are currently pending. We are hoping with the
speedy passage of Bill C-19 that some of that backlog will be
alleviated.
We are critical in one respect. One of the recommendations that
labour was making was that there should be consultation with
labour and management when making appointments. The actual bill
says that there should be consultation with members who represent
employees, not necessarily the legitimate labour union. We are
very concerned that some of the rat unions, the non-unions, for
instance in western Canada, will claim they deserve to make
appointments.
I am referring to the Christian Labour Association of Canada and
other employer-dominated unions that are not legitimate
representatives of working people.
1310
The General Workers Union, CLAC, all those unions are not real
unions and they should not be consulted. It should be the
legitimate labour unions that are consulted because they
represent the working people.
The one place where we did part paths in terms of our support
for this bill was with respect to replacement workers. We do not
believe that the replacement workers' clause is nearly strong
enough. We supported the amendment put forward by the member for
Trois-Rivières to try to make that clause more powerful and
actually prevent strikes and lockouts by banning replacement
workers, period.
I was surprised that there was not more support from the other
side of the House because in 1995 the House of Commons voted on a
private member's bill, Bill C-317, introduced by a Bloc Quebecois
MP which had very strong anti-scab provisions in it.
Even though the bill was voted down, there were 104 MPs,
including 49 from the government, who voted in favour of that
bill. We were hoping to see those same 49 people vote in favour
of anti-scab provisions this time, but hope springs eternal.
An hon. member: Unfortunately, some of them are no longer
with us.
Mr. Pat Martin: Some of them are no longer here. I
understand.
We hold strongly to the view that true anti-scab legislation
minimizes the number of days lost due to strikes and lockouts.
I have made this point before. If industry is truly concerned
about lost time and lost productivity, it is not strikes and
lockouts they should be worried about.
In my province of Manitoba we lose 50,000 days per year to
strikes and lockouts, but we lose 550,000 days per year to
injuries and accidents. If they are serious about lost
productivity and lost profits, it is not strikes and lockouts
that are the problem, it is the carnage in the workplace that is
the problem and that is easier to rectify.
We have heard a great deal of whining and bleating from Reform
Party members that they do not like the idea of automatic
certification. They want a mandatory vote.
They think it is undemocratic to try to level the imbalance in
power that exists between employers and employees.
In actual fact, if 50% plus one have signed the cards, the
people have spoken. To make them vote twice is undemocratic.
How many times will they make them vote? Until they get the
answer they want? Over and over and over again? How democratic
is that?
An hon. member: It sounds familiar.
Mr. Pat Martin: You don't like that, so you shouldn't
like this either.
Even if there are 100% of the cards signed, the way they
envision it there would still have to be a supervised vote. It
is fundamentally wrong. It is unethical and it gives the
employer another chance to use intimidation and coercion to try
to tilt the scale in its favour.
Unfortunately, there is not enough substance and background in
labour relations in the entire Reform caucus to present that
argument with any real substance.
It is put to bed now once and for all. Bill C-19 recognizes the
legitimacy of 50% plus one constituting a majority and we are
glad of that.
Successor rights are a very important aspect. These things have
been improved in Bill C-19 and we are very pleased to see that.
In closing, the first task force chair described the following
three beliefs that the Sims task force members shared as part of
a vision statement.
First, that the existing Canada Labour Code basically continues
to serve its constituencies well. Second, emphasizing stability,
they said that pendulum like changes to the code are neither
necessary nor desirable. They are a bad thing. Third, they said
that consensus between the parties is the best basis for decision
making on legislative change.
I am glad to say that after the years of consultation since the
Sims task force we have held true to those three founding
principles. We have managed to introduce changes that are
meaningful and will serve the labour relations climate in this
country very well for many years to come.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the
House to give the speaker who just spoke an indefinite amount of
time to continue. I think he is probably doing us a lot of good.
1315
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its consent to
give an indefinite amount of time?
An hon. member: No.
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid there is not consent.
[Translation]
It being 1.15 p.m., pursuant to order made Tuesday, May 12,
1998, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put
forthwith every question necessary to complete the third reading
stage of the bill now before the House.
[English]
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45 the
recorded division stands deferred until Monday, May 25, 1998, at
the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I wonder if there is unanimous consent that we see the clock as
being 1.30 p.m.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
CRIMINAL RECORDS ACT
The House resumed from April 3 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-284, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act and the
Canadian Human Rights Act (offences against children), be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The member for Souris—Moose Mountain still has
approximately four minutes left to speak on this bill today as he
was unable to finish his comments during the last hour of debate.
The member would like to use this available time but has agreed
to allow me to give my comments before him as I have to leave the
Chamber shortly for an airplane trip and if I do not leave
shortly I will not make it.
I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to be allowed
to speak first during this hour on this private members' bill but
still allow the member for Souris—Moose Mountain to finish his
few minutes of comments later in this hour.
The Deputy Speaker: I understand that at the conclusion
of the hon. whip's speech the hon. member for Souris—Moose
Mountain will resume the floor for four minutes and then we will
continue with the normal rotation.
Does the House understand the situation and is it agreed that we
proceed in this manner?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to thank all members present for allowing me to get
this speech on the record.
It is a very important private members' bill. A tremendous
amount of work has been done by my colleague in Calgary Centre on
behalf of families, and on behalf of children. He tries to seek
legislative and other ways to protect that valued institution in
our country. I commend him for his efforts and I look forward to
more in the years to come.
What does Bill C-284 do that is so important? In general Bill
C-284 would enable those responsible for children, in other words
institutions like daycare centres, elementary schools and any
institution or group that works with children to be more fully
informed about decisions on whom they are hiring and to be able
to do a criminal records check on them that has not been covered
up by a ministerial pardon. Specifically it allows for the
limited disclosure of an individual's criminal record if the
individual had been convicted of a sexual offence against a child
and later applies for one of these positions of trust with
children.
In a nutshell, Bill C-284 would ensure that we can always do a
criminal records check on a sexual offender. We can ensure
thereby that anyone holding a position of authority or trust for
a child has had that record run against him.
Before I get into why this is so necessary I would like to
reaffirm again the importance of the family in Canadian society.
The protection of vulnerable people in our society is a job that
this parliament has an obligation to fulfill. We have not done a
glorious job of protecting families or protecting children. In
the ongoing debate on the Young Offenders Act and the future of
the tax system to help people raise children, and on all those
other issues, the government has not done a great job in
fulfilling the requirements of families.
1320
Bill C-284 tries to plug one of the loopholes that has allowed a
negative impact upon families and specifically upon children.
Let me talk about the genesis of this. It is not a nice story.
It is a very tragic one. It has to do with a story about Bobby
Oatway.
Oatway's real name is Stevens and he has a criminal sexual
record against children which spans back as far as 1965 and
includes all kinds of things, buggery, bestiality, gross
indecency and sexual assault. He beat and raped his wife for
eight years before she left him in 1973.
In 1996 he completed two-thirds of his latest 10 year sentence
for sex crimes. He was serving three 10-year sentences
concurrently in Mountain prison which was in my riding prior to
the last election. He was granted statutory release in 1996 and
his conditions last until 1999 which are monitoring conditions
for this man.
He chose to move to Prince George and then Toronto. Everywhere
he went neighbourhood protests in those cities caused him to move
back to Mountain prison where he voluntarily reincarcerated
himself because of those problems. Because he was in Mountain
prison voluntarily he could ask prison officials to release him
to a halfway house at any time. In other words, this could be
done at any time without notice within three working days.
If that happened then he would automatically be sent to the
Sumas correctional facility which is also in my riding. That
means he would be released back into the community and no one
would know. If Sumas centre did not want him or refused to take
him, then there was nowhere else to let him loose and they would
just open the doors and let him walk free.
CSC says they cannot notify the public if Oatway is released.
They just do not have that authority.
As a result of Bobby Oatway's presence in my community in this
way and the circumstances surrounding his potential release, his
former victims co-ordinated the gathering of a 26,000 name
petition from across Canada. It asks the government to focus
more on the rights of the victims in legislation rather than on
the convicted sex criminals or dangerous offenders who are at
high risk to reoffend.
On October 8, 1996 as part of National Family Week, I tabled
that 26,000 name petition in the House. It is one of the victim
focused approaches to crime prevention that the Reform Party has
suggested.
The petition specifically asked that the government amend the
Criminal Code to prohibit for life all those convicted of sex
offences against children from holding positions of trust or
responsibility regarding children. That is an easy thing to
support on all sides of the House.
During this current parliament, my colleague from Calgary Centre
tabled a very similar bill with some improvements I might add.
That is the background of where my involvement in this bill came
from.
Once criminals complete their sentence, any criminal can apply
for a pardon. A pardon allows people convicted of a criminal
offence to have their criminal record sealed and effectively
erased from public scrutiny and the public record. Therefore once
a pardon is granted to a person, that person even though
convicted of a criminal offence will not have that record
disclosed or made accessible to anyone without prior approval of
the Solicitor General of Canada which practically speaking is
nearly an impossible process.
It is possible that individuals convicted of sexual crimes can
be released from prison, granted a pardon and obtain a job or a
position of authority regarding children. No one will know about
it and there is no way to even check the records to see if that
person has had a prior offence involving sexual crimes against
children. It is this kind of possibility that this bill would
stop.
Third party childcare givers would be given greater certainty
over who they are hiring and who they are welcoming into
everything from a boy scout group to a childcare facility. They
would have the possibility of checking on that person's criminal
records.
Are our children at risk? Is this kind of protection really
needed?
CSC's own studies show that about one-third of all sex offenders
are convicted of a new criminal offence after release. About one
in ten are convicted of a new sex offence during the follow-up
period, which is the probationary period that follows.
British studies indicate that both homosexual pedophiles and
heterosexual pedophiles recommit crimes at an alarming rate. So
do our children need all the protection we can give them? The
answer of course is yes.
Bill C-284 would reduce at least the risk of sexual offenders
applying to agencies where they frequently use those facilities
and opportunities as predators against children. Those people
who are hiring people to work in positions of authority deserve
the right to do a criminal records check on anyone applying for a
job.
That is what Bill C-284 would do.
1325
What do the critics say to this proposal? They say that perhaps
it violates a criminal's rights, that he should have the right to
absolute privacy.
Bill C-284 does not propose that child sex offenders can never
be pardoned. It does not say that. It does not propose that if
one does commit a crime it should forever be on the public record
and broadcast on television. It does however propose the
following.
There should be a limited disclosure of an individual's criminal
record if the individual being already convicted of a sexual
offence against a child later applies for a position of trust of
working with children. When he applies for that position whoever
is doing the hiring should say “I will take your application. Be
aware that I am going to do a criminal records check on you”—as
they should anyway—“and if you are pardoned it will not wipe
that record clean”.
Right now you do not know. Once a pardon has taken place the
records are sealed and even though you ask for that records check
you cannot get that information.
It could be argued that Bill C-284 limits a criminal's rights
ever so slightly. However in light of the high recidivism rate
among sexual offenders, I would argue that it is a warranted and
justified limited restriction on a criminal's rights because we
must put the rights of children and the rights of law-abiding
citizens ahead of the rights of the criminal in this kind of a
situation.
The right to protect innocent, vulnerable children is a stronger
and more prominent right than the right of a criminal to have his
records forever sealed and never available to be checked in any
way whatsoever. It is a stronger argument to protect children.
It is a nobler argument to protect children and that is what this
bill intends to do.
Obviously whenever children are at risk we must do everything we
can to protect them. If we pass Bill C-284 and we do risk
stubbing the rights of the Bobby Oatways of this world and
forcing them to have their records available in a limited way to
all those who might want to hire such a person unknowingly to
work with children, then we may have to offend some of those
rights in a small way.
In conclusion I would like to emphasize the importance of
families and children to Canadian society. The House has the
responsibility to protect the children who are most vulnerable,
to build up the family and to look after the rights of those
people to make sure they are not compromised.
Presently our legal system places children at an unreasonable
physical risk because a sexual offender who has received a pardon
could be hired unknowingly by a childcare agency without having
his past criminal records scrutinized. This bill would eliminate
that risk or at least drastically reduce it. It would fulfil our
obligation to put the rights of innocent people and innocent
children ahead of the rights of the criminal.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998
BILL C-36—NOTICE OF TIME ALLOCATION MOTION
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of
Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage
and the third reading of Bill C-36, an act to implement certain
provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 24,1998.
[English]
Consequently I regret to inform the House that under the
provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I must give notice that a
minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion
to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration
and disposal of proceedings at the said stages.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
CRIMINAL RECORDS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-284,
an act to amend the Criminal Records Act and the Canadian Human
Rights Act (offences against children), be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in the remaining four minutes of my previous address, I
will raise four very serious questions.
If the House adopts my hon. colleague's bill these questions
will not have to be answered again or at least not as frequently.
The government has a fundamental role to ensure the protection
of its citizens. This is particularly true for those who are
innocent and most vulnerable, our children.
Protecting children is the ultimate responsibility. They must be
allowed to grow up free from abuse and free from molestation.
1330
First, what does one say to console parents who have had a child
molested? There is no answer that can be provided unless we take
steps at this time to pass the bill.
Thirty-one per cent of sex offenders released from federal
correctional institutions commit another violation of some sort
within three years. Pedophiles are at greater risk than rapists.
It is likely that pedophiles, especially those men who offend
young boys, are at greater risk to reoffend sexually than are
rapists. As a matter of fact statistics show it is 19% to 8%.
Second, what does one say to parents after a child has been
molested by someone who has already served time for a similar
offence? Bill C-184 introduced by my colleague would provide
measures so that employers and parents would know the past of the
people they are hiring and thus provide protection to the most
precious possessions they have, their children.
Currently when someone receives a pardon for summary or
indictable offences there is no record accessible to the public
that there was ever a criminal conviction or that pardon was ever
granted.
Third, how would a parent or an employer feel knowing that the
information was withheld from them when they hired someone who
they did not know was a convicted pedophile?
Bill C-284 is specific in its intent. In order to protect our
children from this type of element in society it is incumbent
upon all members who sit in the House to make the right move to
do that.
Fourth, why is Bill C-284 so important not just to my party, not
just to the parties opposite, but to every member of the House?
The responsibility now falls upon them. Essentially it sends a
message. If the House wants that message to go out all across
Canada to our constituencies in every province, we are saying by
passing the bill that the protection of our children is important
and is the most paramount thing we could do at the present time.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in the debate today on Bill C-284 introduced
by the member for Calgary Centre.
As we look at the bill we believe the purpose of its enactment
is to provide for a specific instance where the public interest
in a limited disclosure of the record of a conviction that has
been pardoned supersedes the right to privacy of the pardoned
person. The instance referred to is where the conviction was for
a sexual offence against a child and the person convicted applied
for a position of trust with respect to a child or children.
The disclosure would be made only to those with responsibility
for the child or children who are considering the application.
Unauthorized disclosure by them would be an offence as we
understand the motion before us.
The bill also amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to provide
that job requirement and hiring practice for child trust
positions that discriminate against a person on the ground of a
pardoned sexual offence against a child are not discriminatory
practices giving rise to an offence under the act.
The bill addresses serious safety concerns for children in our
communities. The bill strikes a sufficient balance between the
rights of the individual and the safety concerns of society. We
are in support of it.
1335
The bill provides safeguards and limitations for the release of
personal information regarding a person who has been pardoned.
The bill ensures that information can only be requested by a
prospective employer in relation to an employment application. In
other words, it cannot be indiscriminately given out or requested
from anyone. There is a clear protocol for the release of
information about the individual concerned and serious penalties
for wrongful disclosure of the information.
These measures adequately protect individuals from the misuse of
personal information of the limited group of individuals we are
talking about this afternoon. It is important, however, to
recognize that when a pardon is granted it is recognition the
offender has demonstrated real progress, restitution and
rehabilitation and the powers the bill would bring into play are
not exercised lightly.
The release of any information about an individual by the state
must be undertaken with the greatest of discretion and caution,
and all appropriate safeguards must be respected.
One improvement to the bill with regard to privacy concerns
would be a provision for the notification of the individual that
a request has been made for the disclosure of the individual's
criminal record and pardon. This would give the individual the
opportunity to withdraw an application for employment prior to
the disclosure of the individual's personal information as
opposed to being notified upon disclosure.
Overall the bill addresses a very serious concern for the safety
of our children, communities and society as a whole. The bill
could prevent future tragedies in our communities. If even one
child can be spared it is worth pursuing.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome the opportunity to speak to Bill C-284, an act to amend
the Criminal Records Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act
(offences against children).
[Translation]
This bill deals with a very important topic, the need to protect
our children against sexual abuse.
The government has already taken the necessary actions to allow
organizations and individuals occupying positions of trust and
authority with respect to children to work with community police
forces to investigate known sexual offenders.
[English]
How have we done this? During the summer of 1994 officials from
the ministries of the solicitor general, justice and health
conducted national consultations on the issue of whether Canada
should establish a registry of child sex offenders. Officials
consulted with provincial and territorial officials, police
agencies, volunteer agencies and non-governmental organizations.
While participants in these consultations did not support the
establishment of such a registry, they did support the
enhancement of the existing Canadian Police Information Centre
database to provide more and better information to police and
organizations working with their local police agencies to help
screen out sex offenders from positions of trust or authority
over children.
Participants supported other federal measures that would
directly assist child service organizations in developing
policies to screen out sex offenders. Accordingly in November
1994 the Solicitor General of Canada announced enhancements to
the CPIC. These databanks now include data on all convicted sex
offenders, prohibition orders and peace bonds relating to sex
offenders, the age and the sex of the child victims of sexual
abuse and fingerprint information on persons charged with high
grade offences. There is a system in place at the moment.
Joint funding by the ministries of the solicitor general,
justice and health was announced for a national education
campaign to screen out sexual abusers. An integral part of the
campaign was the development of the screening manual by the
Canadian Association of Volunteer Bureaux and Centres, now known
as Volunteer Canada. This manual includes a comprehensive
national and provincial-territorial analysis of the social,
legislative and policy context for the screening.
1340
[Translation]
The education campaign has resulted in the development of a
series of fact sheets and a video entitled “Duty of Care”, which
were used to inform and educate the public, and made available
in over 200 Canadian communities. I am proud of this campaign's
huge success, and we recently learned that it would be extended
for another two years.
Employers and community organizations should have a formal
screening policy covering interviews, reference checks,
individual risk evaluations, training and supervision.
The purpose of Bill C-284 is commendable. However, the bill adds
to the confusion in providing for the screening of sexual
offenders by checking criminal records even after a pardon has
been granted. There is also the issue of records being
destroyed. In fact, they are sealed and kept separate at the
Canadian Police Information Centre. If a pardoned offender is
subsequently convicted of a summary offence, pardon is
automatically revoked.
In addition, for investigation purposes, identifying information
on pardoned criminals is made available as soon as fingerprints
are submitted, and this without reopening the entire criminal
record.
[English]
The government has taken significant and important measures to
better protect children from sexual offenders. Being a mother, I
certainly want to make sure that is the case for my children and
all Canadian children.
Senior criminal justice officials are currently reviewing these
measures to determine if more can be done. It is very clear,
however, that Bill C-284 does not do more to protect children. It
sends the wrong message to parents and volunteer organizations
that a criminal record check alone, including a check of pardoned
records, will protect their children. That is not the case.
For that reason this government does not support this bill.
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak about Bill C-284
regarding amending the Criminal Records Act. Before I get into
the nuts and bolts of the act I will give a little background
information to the whole system of pardoning in not the entire
history of civilization but since ancient times, which perhaps
only the member from Surrey North might remember considering the
colour of his hair. I think he is much more antiquated than I.
In ancient times apparently it was a monarch's privilege to
distribute these pardons to anyone who had committed an atrocious
act. I am thinking of King Zeus. He was a very compassionate
person, much like Mr. Speaker sitting on the throne dispensing
justice wisely and profoundly to all of us mere peons.
Then I rush ahead to merry old England, which was not merry old
England to tell the truth, when King Henry VIII was the monarch.
He was not so compassionate in his distribution of justice to
those who disagreed with him or who had the misfortune of
marrying him; almost as unfortunate as some person having the
misfortune of marrying the member for Calgary Southeast.
However that is food for thought for another time.
1345
I go on to think about what kings we have in Canada who perhaps
could distribute this justice. The only king I can think of in
Canada is the King of Kensington. If anyone has been to
Toronto's Kensington market on a Friday afternoon, I would think
that the King of Kensington would most certainly be distributing
justice and fairness and pardoning my sins if he could somehow
prevent me from being at that market.
I would much sooner appear at the Calabogie market as you
perhaps, Mr. Speaker, might indulge in doing on Saturday, knowing
full well that you happen to be travelling up to the great riding
of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. The Calabogie flea market as
you may or may not know, Mr. Speaker, as you very infrequently
leave your humble abode on the beautiful shores of the Madawaska
River, dispenses all sorts of goodies, the most common and famous
of which would be the maple syrup. If you desire to go to that
market, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that somehow we could arrange that
for you, not by a chauffeured limousine but by a horse and buggy.
Let us rush on to the system of pardoning. When I speak about
pardoning I am talking—
Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I may be mistaken but I was under the impression that we were
debating Bill C-284. I have heard absolutely no reference to the
bill in the last three and a half minutes.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. member for
Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke was tying in pardons with the market
in Calabogie. I think we are about to hear now how that relates.
Mr. Hec Clouthier: Mr. Speaker, I am rushing on. There
was a lead up to Bill C-284.
We are talking about pardoning. I have to bring a subject up
because we have had some people—and I hate to say this being
their federal member of parliament—of disrepute who on occasion
have gone through the pardoning system, or have attempted to go
through the pardoning system, or on occasion perhaps should have
used or taken advantage of the system of pardoning as distributed
by the solicitor general.
One person was a man in Stonecliffe, Ontario by the name of Wild
Willie Buckshot. It is too bad that the hon. member from Souris
is not here because as the story goes with this pardoning, he
actually rode with the notorious outlaw Jesse James. This is a
true story. He said that Jesse James fell off his horse while
robbing a bank and he went back and picked up Jesse James and
rescued him. For this very humane act he was charged under the
Criminal Code with aiding and abetting a robbery. He believed
that he should have received a pardon.
I am not sure whether or not he did get a pardon but the gist of
the story is that Wild Willie Buckshot turned out to be a very
respectable member of that community. As a matter of fact he
became known as one of the premier lumbermen in that area. He
happened to also have a chicken farm. I do not know how they
both relate but it is just to show the system of pardoning.
We then had a former mayor of the city of Pembroke by the name
of Angus A. Campbell who believed that he was wrongly done by
because they put a bypass around the community of Petawawa. It
went through his farm.
If the hon. member listens and pays strict attention he will see
the end of where I am coming to in this pardoning system. I
understand this is a private members' bill and that I am at a
luxury here to go about this in a roundabout way. On occasion
many of the members speaking have been rather abrupt with it,
giving all the nuances of this bill. I am just taking a
different cut on it.
When I speak about the former mayor of the city of Pembroke,
what he did was very appropriate. He stood in the middle of
Highway 17 with a shotgun and stopped all traffic on both sides
of the king's highway.
As a result of that there was a possibility that he would be
charged. He wanted an outlet into his property because it was
hurting his place of business.
1350
Would that person be an offensive person to the community? I do
not think he would be. I do not believe that he would. Perhaps
the members opposite would think so. He became the
vice-president of the Canadian Association of Mayors.
Then we had a lawyer called Maloney. Members may be interested
in this. He was a criminal lawyer of note. He went into the
court system. He had a person who had been charged. In his
presentation before the judge he clearly indicated to the judge
that the person had not lied since he was rocked in a cradle. As
a result of that the judge dispensed justice in the appropriate
manner. He pardoned his sins, if we want to look at it in that
regard. How this lawyer pulled this grandiose feat off was he
rocked the person in a cradle in his chambers before he went into
the court system.
I realize that my time is running out and I want to
get to the real point. Apparently one in ten Canadians have a
criminal record. That would lead me to believe that, and perhaps
I should not extrapolate from this, but the loyal opposition has
60 members and perhaps six of them have a criminal record. If
they have done something of disrepute and want to be pardoned for
that, they can appeal to the solicitor general. I cannot see any
problem in that if there is some justification to the pardoning
process.
When we come to sexual offences concerning young children, the
basis of my talk has been that we cannot take a broad brush and
paint the entire society in a negative fashion because of things
done in a repugnant manner by a small minority. I believe Bill
C-284 is going to address the concerns of the people who can take
advantage of the pardoning system in a fair and equitable manner.
Rest assured, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members opposite, that it
will be the Liberal Party of Canada that will continue to look
after and care for the benefits of all people irrespective of
age, gender and nationality. Goodness gracious, we will even
look after members of the Conservative Party if they so desire.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today on Bill C-284 and speak
in support of my colleague.
My opening remarks were not going to concern what I have just
heard across the floor of this House. I would be remiss if I did
not comment on the speeches which were just related to us.
I look out as I have never done before in this House. I am
looking right at the camera asking Canadians who are watching
today to put down the iron for a few minutes, put down those
books, put down whatever it is they are doing for a minute and
listen to what is going on in this House.
We have had two speeches with a certain amount of humour in them
on an issue which does not have any humour in it. This bill is
about protecting our children and our future, the future of
Canada.
To the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I would say that
this great Liberal compassion, this great idea that the Liberals
are going to stand up for everyone has turned out in my
experience since coming to this House in September, to be in
essence a falsehood.
1355
There are two examples. We have been dealing with hepatitis C
for some time. Where is the compassion? Where is the
understanding? Where is the government taking care of our
people, the people in need? I look at our military people, the
junior ranks, not the senior ranks. Where oh where is the
compassion and understanding for them? I will speak to the
cameras again. It is a sad commentary.
All we are asking with this bill is for support from all members
of the House for one more tool to protect our children. We are
not asking for the abuse of the rights of Canadian citizens.
When criminals commit acts of violence, sexual abuse against
children and so on, whether anybody likes it or not, the system
is set up so that they do lose some of their rights.
The parliamentary secretary to the justice minister was going on
about the fact that some organization did not want a registry.
They felt that the screening manual that was developed would be
sufficient or a step in the right direction and I have to agree
very much.
Organizations have to use due diligence in determining who their
employees are, whether or not they are capable of the job and
whether or not they are a danger to the recipients of their
service. In this case it is children and their mothers and
fathers.
I say yes, I agree with that screening manual. I agree with all
the education. But why would anyone be opposed to having one
more tool, a vital tool? That tool would be the right to find
out if someone has had a previous conviction record of sexual
abuse against children. If in fact they had been pardoned, that
record could be opened up as it pertains to their record of
sexual abuse against children.
This bill is that simple. There should be no reason why members
on all sides, the Liberals, the NDP, the Conservatives, the Bloc,
cannot support this bill. It is a small step but it is a very
important one.
We are not saying, as the parliamentary secretary tried to
indicate, that we only believe this one item is what the whole
world will rest on, that a check of the criminal record is
sufficient to protect our children. It is not. However it
definitely is one step in the right direction.
I would like to talk for just a minute about who commits these
offences. Certainly the term pedophiles has been mentioned.
Obviously that term is used for a reason because it has to do
with sexual offences against children. I have heard different
members, including members of my own party, talk about 31% of sex
offenders released from prisons reviolate within three years and
this kind of thing.
I spent 30 years in the police force and I certainly did not
spend all my time working on child abuse cases. However for
every time a criminal is caught for doing an act he or she has
done—and let us not misunderstand the idea in that there are
also female sex abusers of children—the fact is that an offender
will normally commit many offences before he actually gets
caught. A lot of offenders go through a good part of their
lifetime never getting caught for the offences they commit.
In the case of using 31% of sex offenders released from federal
correctional institutions reviolating, that is understated. When
that person reviolates, he will only be charged for that one
reviolation. He will not be charged with all the ones for which
there is no evidence or insufficient evidence.
The problem we are looking at here is being understated by
people who use statistics to try to say there are only a few
cases and it is not so bad.
We only have to look at the milk cartons and all the police files
that show missing child after missing child. We know from the
convictions of people who were caught for this that they commit
multiple offences. It is not the kind of crime where they do it
once. That is what is so serious about this.
1400
I believe that whatever we can do as a government and as
parliamentarians we should take that step. We can all support
Bill C-284. It is right and there is no reason why we should not
give our full support to it.
I plead today for the government which has a majority in the
House and can control what goes on to at least have a free vote
on this and let backbenchers say what they would like to see
happen to this bill. I am sure a lot would support the bill.
I have come out strongly in favour of this bill. It is
definitely right for my grandchild's protection. I ask everyone
to support it.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am sorry the member turned this into partisan politics
when this is private members' hour because Bill C-284 is very
important. If he is seeking the support on this side of the
House he should have spared us the shots against the government
and the shots against the Liberals in suggesting that we have no
compassion.
Indeed this is an important bill. On this side of the House we
do have free votes in Private Members' Business. This is why we
are here. This is why we hear different points of view.
I have to say to the member for Calgary Centre that I think it
is a very good bill. He has introduced something that a chord
that is of great concern to all of us. What is interesting to me
is he actually touches on a much broader issue, privacy and
criminality.
We have a situation now where we can make the parallel between
what is proposed by Bill C-284, the release of certain criminal
record information in relation to people who have received
pardons, and the Young Offenders Act. Young offenders after
being convicted have certain protections, certainly in family
court.
This whole issue of whether when a person is convicted of a
serious criminal offence they should be entitled under any
circumstances to privacy I think is a broader issue that deserves
a lot of future debate.
Normally I am uncomfortable with some of the anti-crime stances
the Reform Party takes. Often they seem to be very extreme. In
this instance the member for Calgary Centre is proposing
something the government should pay very careful attention to.
In the last parliament the government proposed Bill C-55. That
bill was related to the one we are talking about and the
parliamentary secretary to solicitor general made reference to it
in his speech. That bill addressed the problem of what to do
about convicted and released sexual offenders to avoid them
coming back to the environment in which they are tempted to act
out another crime. That bill proposed electronic monitoring. It
was to give judges the discretion to put electronic shackles on
individuals without warrants, without charges even, so that when
they came into the area of a playground or something like that a
bell would go off via satellite and the police would come and
pick them up.
If there is ever any question in this House that the debates we
have on legislation can have an impact, the debates that Bill
C-55 sparked and the criticism that came in this House as a
result of the concept of putting electronic shackles on people
before there had been any arrest or charge resulted in that bill
being thrown out.
In other words, in the last parliament a bill came forward from
the justice department which in comparison to what has been
proposed by the member for Calgary Centre was draconian. What
the member for Calgary Centre proposes does have merit.
1405
What the member is simply saying is that when a pardon is
granted it should be a discretionary pardon in the sense that the
solicitor general through the Criminal Records Act reserves the
right to release the information of that record to certain groups
and individuals who seek to know whether a person soliciting
employment that involves responsibility with children has a
previous conviction.
This is not unreasonable. This is actually much more reasonable
than having some sort of device attached permanently to someone
to prevent them from coming anywhere near children.
My problem is simply that I am not sure we need the legislation
of Bill C-284 to accomplish the mission the member for Calgary
Centre is setting out to do. I cannot pretend to be an expert on
the Criminal Records Act but I have read all the previous
speeches, including his, and it does seem the solicitor general
already has latitude. I agree with this legislation in
principle, but rather than using legislation to accomplish what
he is trying to do we could probably do it by regulation.
Partisan politics aside, this is where private members' hour
becomes very important. The member for Calgary Centre has raised
an issue that does concern us. He suggests the direction the
government may take and if we set aside partisan politics, if
hon. members listened carefully to the speech of the
parliamentary secretary for the justice department, they would
have heard her say the government is interested in this. The
government is listening. The government does care about it.
I think the member for Calgary Centre has accomplished something
very important. He is touching on an issue that is much broader,
privacy and criminality.
I congratulate him on bringing this before the House and I think
at the very least he has brought his message forward to all
Liberals on this side and to the government. This is an area
where a fix can and should be made.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, I respect
the opinions of all members in the House but it bothers me
greatly when I see a member make a mockery almost of a serious
and important piece of legislation. I say that for the record.
I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-284. I commend
the work of the member for Calgary Centre in tabling such an
important piece of legislation.
Bill C-284 is important in that its focus is one of the highest
priority, the protection of our children from abuse.
Conservative estimates are that 1 in 3 girls is sexually abused
before the age of 18 while 1 in 6 boys is sexually abused before
the age of 16. Even more frightening is that most abused and
neglected children reportedly never come to the attention of
authorities. This is especially true in cases of sexually abused
children since there may be no outward sign of physical,
psychological or emotional harm. Furthermore, sexually abused
children are reluctant to report these crimes. They feel intense
shame, and secrecy is often the result.
For these and other reasons we must focus our attention to
combat child abuse at the preventive level. It is a serious
matter of public interest which Bill C-284, if passed, would help
address.
As outlined by previous speakers, this bill amends two existing
statutes, the Criminal Records Act and the Canadian Human Rights
Act.
The amendments to the Criminal Records Act would allow for
limited disclosure of the criminal record of a person pardoned of
a conviction for sexual offence against a child. This disclosure
would occur when the pardoned person applies for a position of
trust over children. The information would be provided to only
those individuals with responsibility for children who are
considering such an application.
Any inappropriate disclosure of information by these individuals
would be subject to criminal sanctions.
1410
Put simply, these changes would give organizations that deal
with children an additional tool to scrutinize potential
employees and volunteers before they are placed in positions of
trust. Groups such as Scouts Canada, the Girl Guides and minor
sports teams would have access to information that is extremely
relevant to the selection process.
For those who would object on the grounds of privacy rights for
pardoned offenders, I suggest they examine the reality of sexual
offenders. Among criminal offenders, those convicted of sexual
offences have one of the highest rates of recidivism.
Our children are far too important to risk having repeat
offenders enter into positions of authority and trust. We must
give child centred and youth centred organizations the tools to
prevent future tragedies of child sexual abuse.
It is a sad irony that we presently have a government that
cracks down on law-abiding gun owners and leaves tens of
thousands of hepatitis victims twisting in the wind yet
nonetheless feels the rights of convicted child sex offenders
should take precedence over child safety.
The second component of Bill C-284 amends the Canadian Human
Rights Act that permits organizations to refuse to employ
individuals in so-called child trust positions on the basis of
persons having a pardoned sexual offence against a child.
This amendment is the next logical step in Bill C-284. Once an
organizations has access to relevant information it should be
free to act on it without fear of reprisal.
I share the view of those who believe that rehabilitation is a
laudable goal. I also believe that securing employment for
offenders re-entering society is often critical to ensuring that
they do not become repeat offenders. This in turn helps protect
public safety.
We need to draw the line at allowing convicted sexual offenders,
irrespective of whether they were pardoned, to secretly enter
into positions of trust over children. Canadians need peace of
mind that organizations to which they entrust their children have
taken all the precautions necessary to protect their safety.
Bill C-284 gives these organizations another weapon to fight
child abuse. This bill is a reasonable compromise between the
rights of offenders and the rights of society, in particular our
most important members of society.
On behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus I urge all
members to vote in favour of this legislation. Let us support
our many volunteer driven organizations that deal with children.
Let us support our families. Let us support the safety of our
children.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure today to support my colleague for Calgary Centre on
Bill C-284.
This bill is based on an earlier bill, Bill C-382, produced by
my colleague from Fraser Valley. It died on the order paper at
the close of the 35th parliament.
In October 1996 the member tabled a 26,000 name petition which
called for the changes similar to those this bill proposes. I am
very pleased to see it here again.
This bill would amend the Criminal Code to prohibit for life all
those convicted of sex offences against children from holding
positions of trust and responsibility regarding children. Surely
we can all support that. Thus far I have heard some positive
comments from Liberals. I am trusting they will support the bill
to see it through to the end and actually become law.
The bill would enable those responsible for children to make
fully informed decisions about who they hire. Bill C-284 will
give parents with children in third party care the assurance that
those responsible for looking after their children have not
abused this position of authority in the past.
The bill proposes to allow for the limited disclosure of an
individual's criminal record if the individual has been convicted
of a sexual offence against a child and later applies for a
position of trust with respect to children.
Such a disclosure will include an individual's criminal record
for a previous sexual offence against a child or children even if
they had served their sentence and had later received a pardon
which had been removed on notice of conviction from the
individual's criminal record.
1415
That is a very important aspect of the bill given that pardons
have been fairly easy to obtain. Often those in the area of
pedophilia are very difficult to cure and would not be subject to
as much protection as those who have committed other kinds of
offences under the Criminal Code. I emphasize this limited
disclosure will only take effect when an individual applies for a
position of trust with respect to a child or children.
Bill C-284 does not propose that sex offences against children
can never be pardoned. The bill does not propose that if one
makes a mistake such as this that it should be forever on one's
record. Rather, it proposes that if someone does sexually abuse
children, that person could effectively be prevented from holding
a position of authority with children again, as those responsible
for children will be able to see that a job applicant has abused
such a position in the past and thus they will be more judicious
in their hiring practice.
Is this bill necessary? It sends a message that the protection
of our children is paramount. We can look at some very high
profile cases in this province in and around the London area.
Others are ongoing as we speak like in Cornwall and places like
that where tragic events have taken place. Crimes against
children have impacted the lives of hundreds of people in the
community. That is the focus of the bill. It would ensure those
involved in this kind of activity will be censured in their
activities when it comes to looking after children.
Bill C-284 is necessary to address the procedural deficiencies
in the way pardons are treated. Currently when someone receives
a pardon for a summary or indictable offence, no record is
accessible by the public that there ever was a criminal
conviction or that the pardon was ever granted. A pardon for
a summary offence is issued three years after one completes one's
sentence. One can apply to receive a pardon for an indictable
offence five years after completing one's sentence.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon.
member, but the time for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of
the order of precedence on the order paper. I am happy to advise
the hon. member that when the debate on this bill is resumed, he
will have five minutes in which to complete his remarks.
It being 2.30 p.m., for all intents and purposes, this House
stands adjourned until Monday, May 25, 1998 at 11 a.m., pursuant
to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.17 p.m.)