36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 102
CONTENTS
Friday, May 8, 1998
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1005
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA LABOUR CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-19. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
1010
1015
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1020
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
1025
1030
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
1035
1040
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
1045
1050
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1055
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COLOURING CONTEST
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John O'Reilly |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1100
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL FOREST WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Harvard |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MENTAL HEALTH WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMITÉ QUÉBEC-PRINTEMPS 1918
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC GOVERNMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROYAL CANADIAN MINT
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1105
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUTH WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SPINAL HEALTH CARE WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL POLICE WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WESTRAY MINE
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1110
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOCIÉTÉ NATIONALE DE L'ACADIE
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL FORESTRY WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC CITY CONFERENCES OF 1943 AND 1945
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FORESTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Sue Barnes |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BOBBY CURTOLA
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1115
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RESTIGOUCHE RIVER RATS HOCKEY CLUB
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POLYVALENTE SAINTE-THÉRÈSE
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1120
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1125
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1130
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1135
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Monique Guay |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Diane Marleau |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Monique Guay |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Diane Marleau |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1140
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EXTRADITION
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John McKay |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RAILWAYS
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
1145
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EDUCATION
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUTH
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
1150
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DRINKING WATER MANAGEMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA LABOUR CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
1155
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INFORMATION CANADA OFFICE
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANKING
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1200
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CIDA
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Diane Marleau |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Oral Questions
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SAHTU DENE AND METIS COMPREHENSIVE LAND CLAIM AGREEMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
1205
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GWICH'IN LAND CLAIM AGREEMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Finance
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Goods and Services Tax
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John O'Reilly |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA LABOUR CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-19. Report Stage
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
1210
1215
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1220
1225
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1230
1235
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1240
1245
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 6 deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 7 deferred
|
1250
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 8 deferred.
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 30 deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 9 and 28
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dale Johnston |
1255
1300
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
1305
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1310
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
1315
1320
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1325
1330
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RURAL ROAD SYSTEM
|
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1335
1340
1345
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1350
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
1355
1400
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1405
1410
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1415
1420
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1425
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 102
![](/web/20061116175844im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, May 8, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1005
[English]
CANADA LABOUR CODE
The House resumed from May 7 consideration of Bill C-19, an act
to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and the Corporations and
Labour Unions Returns Act and to make consequential amendments to
other acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and
of Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 30.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to the Group No. 2
amendments to Bill C-19. First I will address one of the most
important amendments which has come forward on this bill. It is
proposed in the interests of maintaining democracy and protecting
the rights of workers.
The Canada Labour Code states that the board may order a
representational vote on union certification to satisfy itself
that the workers want a union. Our amendment calls for the board
to, without exception, hold a representational vote when 35% of
the employees sign cards indicating they want union
certification. This amendment would ensure that the wishes of
the majority of workers in a workplace are upheld.
Closely related to that amendment is our Motion No. 30 which
would do away with the intent of Bill C-19 to allow the CIRB to
certify a union even when there is no evidence of majority
support if the board believes in its wisdom that there is
sufficient support to justify certification. This turns
democracy and labour relations upside down.
The determination of under what conditions this certification
would be allowed would be entirely in the hands of the CIRB.
Bureaucrats rule. We have seen in the sovereign province of
Ontario what happens when there is this type of labour
legislation. The Wal-Mart case in Windsor is an example of what
would happen in federally regulated industries if Bill C-19 were
to pass without amendment.
To refresh the memory of hon. members, the Ontario Labour
Relations Board ruled that Wal-Mart agreed to certify the union
even though the employees at the Windsor store voted 151 to 43
against it. That was in May 1997. The board contended that
Wal-Mart had pressured the employees to vote against the union
with threats that the store would close if it were unionized.
Now the employees are fighting to get rid of their union and a
decertification drive is under way. Why should they have to go
through that?
That brings up another problem with Bill C-19. There is no
provision in the bill for secret ballots. If there were a
provision for secret ballots, both in certification and in strike
votes, then there would be no problem with questions of pressure
being applied to workers because nobody would know how they
voted. The people of Canada who send us here have a secret
ballot when choosing their representatives.
1010
In the meat and potatoes issue of who is going to represent them
at the bargaining table, we do not and will not extend the voting
privilege by secret ballot to working people regarding whether or
not they want to certify union A, union B or none of
the above. Whatever happened to freedom of association in this
country? This is an absurdity.
The bill has another related anti-democratic measure which was
partially smoothed over in committee, but not to the extent that
it is yet acceptable to the Reform Party, and that is the
requirement that employers must provide union organizers during a
certification drive not only with the names of their employees,
which is certainly fair ball, but also with their phone numbers
and addresses.
If someone was bucking union certification in their workplace
would they want their phone number or their address to be made
public?
We went through this sort of thing in this country about 50
years ago when the Liberal government of the day, in its wisdom,
brought Hal Banks into Canada to break the seamen's union and to
set up a union more to the satisfaction of the Canadian
government.
It got the names and addresses of the members. There were
seafarers who had their legs broken. There were even captains of
vessels, who were not directly involved because they did not have
to belong to the union, but because they were suspect of having
taken the wrong side they were beaten up. The goons knew where
everybody could be found.
I know we have come a long way in the last 40 or 50 years.
There is not the extent of union goonism now that there was in
those days and it is not protected, aided and abetted by our
federal government. Nevertheless, it still happens.
Anyone who has worked in forestry, anyone who has had anything
to do particularly with the ports of this country, knows that
people still have to watch their step if they do not want to get
their nose smashed. That is the way it is.
We in this House should be realistic enough to appreciate that
the whole world does not live in the little gilded cage that we
inhabit on Parliament Hill. Things get rough out there in the
real world.
We should not be setting people up to be in a position where
they have to step up and say “Yes, we agree” in order to
protect themselves and their families. That is nuts.
It is a privacy issue. Even the privacy commissioner, our late,
lamented privacy commissioner who is no longer with us, said that
this is a very clear invasion of privacy. It is anti-democratic.
Bill C-19 now has been partially ameliorated. It says that the
employer does not absolutely have to provide this information
because the employee can take the initiative and go to the
employer and say “Please don't give them this information”.
This in itself sets him up because then, in the workplace, that
worker can be fingered. They can say “Hey, he did not want us
to know where he lives. He did not want us to know his phone
number. Why?” It is a bit of a half-step, but it does not
nearly go far enough.
Those are the big problems with certification without majority
support. I do not know who on earth came up with that stroke of
genius.
I have carried a union card. I imagine there are other members
of this House who have carried a union card.
I swear to God if I had ever been confronted with a situation
like that where a group of bureaucrats said “that union is going
to represent you and you have no choice in the matter” I would
not have been a happy camper. If we do not get rid of any other
bad features of this bill, and they are legion, surely by passing
Motion No. 30 we can get rid of that one.
1015
The final thing I would like to mention is final selection
arbitration. We have been promoting this very strongly in the
debates on this bill and I will not go into the details as I am
sure the House is now familiar with them.
We have a strike coming up in the very near future with the air
traffic controllers. They are ready to hit the bricks at NavCan.
They and NavCan management are so far apart there is absolutely
no possibility of reaching an agreement without outside
interference. As usual, both sides of the debate are sitting
there waiting and hoping the federal government will save their
bacon by passing back to work legislation when it happens; the
old routine. They can snarl and growl and start the strike but
the federal government will come to the rescue.
If we had final offer selection arbitration this sort of thing
could not happen, would not happen. The parties could freely
negotiate and at the end of the day it would be settled by
arbitrators and life would go on without a lot of difficulty.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
begin by describing some of my background because I believe it
helps.
In my life before coming to parliament I worked in the forest
industry for 25 years, largely in labour-management situations,
the IWA being the major union, but there were other strong union
areas. Port Alberni within my riding has been a strong union
town for many years. The people there have been well paid. The
union has served them extremely well. I can recall approximately
15 years ago when Port Alberni was in the top two and for about
five years in the top five per capital income in Canada largely
because of the unions.
The unions have served people particularly well. However, this
legislation in my view tears some of that down. First and
foremost, unions must represent their people. This bill would
allow the certification of a union without that representative
vote, without 50% of the people within the union saying they want
to do this. If we go back to unions 50 or 60 years ago there
were a lot of tactics involved.
I recall talking to some of the older people in Alberni when if
they were not on the right side of the union a rake could be
dragged down the side of their car or their child could come home
with a bloody nose because of what dad did. Those were the old
style tactics.
But this bill does not address the real issues. With the old
bill, the old ways, people had to certify for a vote. The union
cards had to go forward, they had to sign and say they want to
certify a union. Unfortunately this new bill will bypass that
situation where the labour board thinks that there may be a
situation, just perception, and then we end up with a union. We
end up with a union the workers may not want.
I am baffled. Whose interest is this supposed to serve? In my
view unions were to serve the employees they represented. This
portion of the bill would undo that because clearly, as in the
Wal-Mart case, the majority of the employees did not want to be
unionized.
I would also like to address essential services because there
are a number of facets in this bill.
1020
One of the issues we always get depends on how vocal the item
is. We all are familiar with our local municipal strikes. The
first thing that does not get picked up is the garbage.
That is a very good tactic because it is visible, it is right
out front. However, if there is an issue that is not visible and
not up front, it can be causing the same pain but people do not
see it. There has to be some provision for an essential service,
and I will go back to my home province of B.C. If the B.C.
ferries go on strike for an extended period of time, that is a
major disruption in people's lives, particularly on the island.
There needs to be some way to address these issues.
Reform Motion No. 7 calls for the board to hold a representative
vote when 35% of the employees sign cards indicating they want a
union. We believe that is fair and reasonable because it upholds
the majority position of the union.
On Motion No. 30, the bill would allow the CIRB to certify a
union even if there is no evidence of majority support, and this
is if the board believes there would have been support had it not
been for unfair labour practice. This is the Wal-Mart case.
The determination of what constitutes an unfair practice is
simply left up to the board. Again we have a group of people,
somewhat untouchable, deciding the fate. We feel this is wrong.
In the Wal-Mart case we have talked about many times it was 151
to 43 against certifying yet the government certified.
These are a number of areas we will be talking about today. My
colleagues and I will push this issue because we feel it is
paramount. It indicates the pushiness of this government, the
unfeeling nature where it wants to push. It is not just in
labour. It is in Senate appointments, it is in the backbench
Liberals being told to jump up. It is an attitude of the way
people should be represented. The Reform way is distinctly
different from the Liberal way.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to speak to these amendments on Bill
C-19.
My thrust today is going to be from an employer's perspective.
There are a lot of people in this House who are concerned about
the worker perspective, but what about the employer's
perspective? We have heard some comments on that, sort of
painting that a bit, but let us go a little further with that for
a few moments.
I think a good case to illustrate the danger of some of these
amendments is the Wal-Mart case we have been alluding to, but let
us take that case and put it in a broader perspective.
In that case a number of employees were working to certify a
union and have a union within the Wal-Mart operation. With these
amendments the situation that employer finds himself in is that
he is now asked by the board if he will potentially shut down the
operation if a union is certified.
That employer finds himself in a very difficult situation. He
consults with his own legal counsel and he is told if he says
yes, there is a problem because he will be perceived to have
taken a position that is intimidating the employees and therefore
that position will be used to justify certifying a union even
when less than the majority of the employees support doing so. So
it might not be a good idea to say yes because now no matter what
they vote, as long as over 35% of the people are in support of
it, there will be a union. If he says yes that will be perceived
to be intimidation tactics against the membership or against the
employees.
1025
The other option he could be advised to do would be to say he is
not in support, he will not shut down the operation. If he takes
that position he also runs the risk that should at some point in
the future his situation change so that he cannot continue to
operate without some sort of temporary closure or a long term
closure, he has now opened himself up for all kinds of legal
liability, lawsuits and persecution in the courts.
Therefore he cannot say yes, he cannot say no. What can he say?
He can say no comment. That is what was said in the Wal-Mart
scenario, “we are not going to make any comment, we are not sure
what we are going to do”. It would seem that would be safe
ground, but the amazing thing is that the labour board took that
no comment and interpreted that as a statement of intimidation.
When an employer takes the no comment position they are still
perceived to be intimidating their employees. This really
underlines our concerns about how this section can be misused.
This is a perfect example. It is the reason why so many of us are
bringing this forward to the House and to Canadians in general.
We have a clear case where the employer has no room to move, no
matter what position he takes.
Who is this employer really concerned about? Who is he trying
to meet the needs of? We paint these employers as if somehow
they have some grudge against their employees. That is certainly
not the case, in particular with this operation. These are
employers who are concerned about the livelihood of their
employees, their families. They want to make sure there is a
viable operation for years hence.
Yet we have a labour board that puts these employers in an
absolutely no win situation. It is that kind of thrust that has
concerned Reformers in a variety of arenas, not just this case.
Those who would support this kind of amendment are those people
who feel government is going to solve all our problems and if we
could just get more government we would solve all our problems.
They put their faith in government which is a big mistake.
Here is a micro example of the theme that runs through our
current state in Canada again and again of those who say “I
trust the government. I trust the labour board. I trust these
people to always look after our best interests”. That is
abdicating our responsibility.
We have been a nation founded on people taking their
responsibility and acting on it. These amendments, in particular
the ones that say less than the majority of employees can express
their will and impose that will on the majority of the employees
by not requiring a majority vote, totally usurp the history and
tradition we have of Canadians taking responsibility, being able
to express their own personal desires, let those desires be
reflected in a vote and with the majority of support move ahead
on that basis. These amendments are totally counter to that kind
of thrust.
That is the basis for a very serious concern on the part of
Reformers and will continue to be the concern of Reformers on
this bill and any other kind of legislation that comes forward
from this government. This party is representing grassroots
Canadians who remember their history and who are concerned about
having their country hijacked by an overzealous bureaucracy which
feels it knows best without listening to grassroots Canadians.
These grassroots Canadians have shaped our policies and put us
here in the House of Commons. They are fighting to get their
country back from an overzealous bureaucracy and the ones I have
met and know are not going to give up.
1030
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to engage in the debate on Bill C-19 and the
amendments before us.
I listened intently to my hon. colleague. I am in agreement
with a number of the comments he made in regard to the Group No.
2 amendments that we are discussing. We are discussing important
amendments to an important bill.
I would like to focus first on Motion No. 6. Procedures and
scheduling problems needlessly prolong board decisions. Motion
No. 6 that the Bloc has put forward relates to that. The bill
streamlines the Canada Industrial Relations Board's procedures by
allowing it to make decisions without oral hearings.
Often a number of briefs are presented which are quite
complicated and have quite a lot of information in them. At this
stage it is necessary that individuals have an opportunity to
follow up on those briefs, to ask questions and to further
explore through an oral hearing exactly what the information is
that is being put forward. Without the opportunity to have an
oral hearing and to simply rely on the written word without a
chance to follow up, we do not have an opportunity to fully
disclose the information available and make a good decision.
We see that in this place in our committee meetings. We receive
a written brief. We go through the written brief. Witnesses
come before us. We do not simply decide on the written brief. We
look at all the information that is presented. Often a witness
will read the brief to us and then we have an opportunity to ask
the witness questions.
The same kind of situation should apply to the Canada Industrial
Relations Board. It is wise to be able to follow up and ask
questions on the information presented in those briefs. Without
doing that, we are asking people to wade through a mountain of
documents and to come to a decision without any input from the
individuals who have written the information.
We need the opportunity for an oral hearing. It will help
expedite some of the minor cases and will streamline the process.
In the end it should save taxpayer dollars. We think that
particular amendment by our colleagues in the Bloc goes too far.
We need the opportunity for oral hearings.
I want to talk about Motion No. 7 which is a Reform motion, a
democracy related motion. The Canada Labour Code states that the
board may order a representational vote on union certification to
satisfy itself that the workers want the union. Our amendment
calls for the board to hold a representational vote when 35% of
the employees sign cards indicating they want union
certification.
This amendment ensures the wishes of the majority are upheld.
We are talking about democracy and a bill that is going to put
something in place that affects a great number of workers. As a
member of a number of different unions I have had the opportunity
to voice my concerns to my union representative and even further
than that in a democratic way.
1035
This amendment would certainly ensure that the wishes of the
majority are upheld. How can we even argue that upholding the
will of the majority is something that would not be a positive?
Of course it is a positive and something that definitely needs to
be added to the bill. That is why I speak in strong support of
Motion No. 7.
In regard to Motion No. 8, there should be a vote of the
majority of the members in the employers group before action is
taken. Bloc Motion No. 8 would weaken the employers association.
It is a common practice for a group of employers to join forces
and have one agent represent them in negotiations, which only
makes sense. At the same time, of course, the amendment removes
the requirement that the board must satisfy itself that the
employer representative is no longer qualified to act in that
capacity before revoking the appointment.
The amendment being proposed by our colleagues in the Bloc
provides for the automatic removal of the employer rep upon the
receipt of an application from one or more of the employers in
the group and the appointment of a new representative.
In terms of Motion No. 30, we support this amendment which we
are bringing forward. The bill allows the Canada Industrial
Relations Board to certify a union even if there is no evidence
of majority support if the board believes there would have been
support had it not been for the employer's unfair labour
practices. The determination of what constitutes an unfair labour
practice is left up to the CIRB.
I would like to go back to the issue of democracy and talk a
little bit about some of my experiences as a union member. This
is an important bill and changes have not been made for I believe
25 years to the act. If the government is intent on making
changes, it is imperative that it make changes that are positive.
In making those changes it should take the time and effort to
ensure that it is a bill that is positive for both employers and
employees, that it is fair, democratic and represents the wishes
of the majority.
Some of the information related here in these motions under
Group No. 2 are of concern. I mentioned this earlier in my
speech but I would like to go back to it because it is at the
crux of the issue. The most important and crucial part of the
bill is democracy. Rather than go on to other points, I would
like to continue to focus on the democracy aspect of Motion No.
7.
When I was a union member, on occasion situations arose where
there was unrest in terms of labour negotiations, contract
settlements and whatnot. Fortunately with every union I was a
part of, the employer group that worked with the union was able
to resolve the issues it had and was able to go on with a
harmonious working relationship. A key thing in any bill having
to do with labour relations is that the employee group and the
employer are able to work together to solve any disputes they
might have in a way that continues on that working relationship
with the employee group and the employer.
In many cases we have seen friction which has affected the
relationship between the employer group and the employees. If
there are going to be changes to the bill, time needs to be taken
in order to work out all of the amendments in all parts of the
bill so that it works in a very effective way.
I will conclude by saying that democracy is very important and
Motion No. 7 addresses that concern. It would allow for the
views and wishes of the majority to be represented.
1040
I thank hon. members for their attentiveness to my speech on
this important bill, Bill C-19.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am delighted to speak on Bill C-19 which is an act to amend part
I of the Canada Labour Code.
We see workers in industry. It is very important for us to look
carefully into the industrial relations that are governing the
businesses in this country. Many workers feel intimidated and
that their rights are not the way they should be.
Whatever we do here in this Chamber should protect the rights of
the majority, not the few in society. In the labour force I
believe that most of the workers believe that their rights should
be preserved. That can be done when they are given some
protection such as with secret ballots. If they are not voting
by secret ballot, there could be intimidation, there could be
some other dangers. Their rights will not be preserved to the
extent they should be.
I will be opposing this part of the bill because it does not
give freedom to the workers. It does not create the necessary
balance which we want in industry.
Some provisions of the bill do not give workers the right to
express what they want to express. To create a balance between
the majority and a few of the workers, we should give them the
freedom to express their views which can only be done by secret
ballot.
I do have some experience in talking to workers who belong to
unions in my constituency. I am told that some members of the
unions are not satisfied with the way they are allowed to express
their thoughts, their will.
I say in closing that with Bill C-19, industrial relations are
important and the rules to govern workers are very important.
Whatever we do in this Chamber we should do to benefit the
majority of the people in Canada. To respect the wishes of the
majority we should allow the workers to express their wishes by
secret ballot.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is an honour to speak to Bill C-19, the labour code, and the
amendments which are before the House today.
I would like to start off by saying how important the
legislation is to the people of Okanagan—Coquihalla and in
particular the forest workers in our province. It is interesting
to note that this is forestry week in Canada so it is very
important that the legislation be debated in the House today.
Other industries are also vital and important for the economy of
British Columbia. Ranchers, loggers, people in the mining
industry, all of those people have a stake in what is before us
in Bill C-19.
1045
Democracy is important to the people who work in those
industries that are vital to the economy of British Columbia and
all of Canada, the industries that make our country so vibrant.
Today I will focus on the importance of Reform Party's motion on
democracy. It is important not only to this legislation but to
the way the country operates. If we truly want democracy to
prevail in Canada, if we want it to be more than just a mere
facade or a word we use now and then, we should make sure
democracy is reflected in the legislation that goes forward from
the House. That is why this is so important.
The Canada Labour Code states that the board may order a
representation vote on union certification to satisfy itself that
the workers want the union. Our amendment calls for the board to
hold a representational vote when 35% of the employees sign cards
indicating they want union certification. This amendment ensures
the wishes of the majority are upheld. That is a very important
part of the legislation. We are putting forward a democratic
principle. That is why the bill is so important to the official
opposition in Canada. We want to ensure those workers have every
democratic tool available to receive the proper consideration
when it comes to union certification.
The motion is worthy of the support of the entire House. We
should give it our due consideration. Regardless of party,
whether the New Democratic Party or the Conservative Party, all
members should support the motion, including a few Liberals who
might have a democratic bone in their bodies somewhere, although
we do not see that demonstrated in much of the legislation that
comes before the House. The way they instituted party
discipline, for instance, when it came to the hepatitis C vote
before the House, there was no democratic bone in anyone's body
on that side of the floor.
It is a tool, a principle and a pillar of what we stand for as
Canadians. We should have these democratic principles. If we do
not, this place certainly is just a theatre for the public to
watch from the galleries on occasion just to satisfy themselves
that it appears to be a democracy. In true essence it is nothing
more than a place where we act out legislation that the
government will ram through in any event.
The motion is very important for the workers of Canada. I rose
to speak today in particular about workers in British Columbia.
They want the ability to join unions. They want to be able to
freely choose the union they wish to participate in. They want
the democratic tool to do so. It is only reasonable the House
would give them the power to ensure they have a vote and are able
to use the democratic principle we sometimes enjoy in the House
of Commons.
1050
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Bill C-19, the bill we are talking about today, is about
democracy. That is why I want to speak to Bill C-19,
specifically to the motions in Group No. 2.
I have spoken in the House before about how strongly I believe
in democracy and freedom, freedom of competition and all these
things that we in Canada quite often take for granted. The
Reform Party and many other parties in the House are trying to
propose amendments to the bill to get back to the freedom, the
democracy we so cherish.
As we know, the bill died in the Senate in the last parliament,
Bill C-66. It has now been reintroduced in this parliament with
minor changes. I do not think very serious changes have been
made. That is why we see so many of the opposition parties
proposing amendments. It is very important that we take the bill
seriously and try to accomplish something.
In this place we often forget that as political parties we have
the job of working together to create legislation that is good
for the country, and especially in this case good for labour. I
am excited to see that many members in many parties are taking
the chance to make the legislation better. I hope the Liberals
will work with us in doing so.
As I mentioned, I will speak a bit to Motion No. 7. Reform has
always been fighting for more democracy, especially in various
organizations and particularly in labour organizations.
This is democracy in motion. I think all of us in the House try
to work toward it by representing our ridings and the views of
our constituents. I know Reform finds this very important. It
is something we try to push toward, especially at report stage of
Bill C-19.
Specifically on the whole issue of the representational vote
when groups of people in labour want union certification, Reform
believes, and I think many people agree, that as long as 35% of
people in an organization want union certification they should be
allowed to have it.
It is in the interest of democracy and in the interest of having
labour work effectively. That is one of the things we are
pushing for in Motion No. 7. The whole premise behind this
motion is that we want the wishes of the majority through a
democratic process to be upheld. Quite often we forget that in
the daily events of the House.
There are innocent people out there who are trying to work for
the common good. They are trying to support their families and
their livelihoods. We should be able to put legislation through
the House and work toward putting legislation through the House
that is in the interest of those people.
The bill also talks about many other things when it comes to
labour and arbitration. The core of anything that happens when
it comes to labour has to be based around democracy and what is
good for the people.
We need to focus on protecting the views, especially in this
case, of the majority of people who want to see changes happen in
a positive way through labour. We need to allow the democratic
process to work. As I mentioned, overall that is something that
leads hand in hand to creating more competitive markets.
Unfortunately, as we know, members opposite seem to want to put
many obstacles into the process of trying to create an effective
markets, trying to create more competitive markets and trying to
give Canadian workers the competitive edge they need to compete
in a global society. I am upset to see that. I would hope they
would put the interests of workers first.
This leads into the whole view of competition, freedom and
access to global markets.
Many of the changes that have been made in Bill C-19 would affect
the way grain is transported and the way we can access foreign
markets.
1055
If we take a step back and see the way the world is evolving, we
see the way competition has continued to grow and how we have
achieved a sense of a global market. We need to give all the
advantages to Canadian labour and to Canadian business to be able
to compete in foreign markets.
We need to take a step back and see how we can help the process
of getting democracy in motion and getting labour legislation to
reflect it. We need to do all we can to support it. Overall we
will see a much more democratic, much more healthy part of our
economy evolve from that. As well labour will reflect that.
Another major point is something we cannot forget. As much as
we like to often hear members on the far left talking about
restricting globalization, restricting competition among foreign
countries, I cannot comprehend that. For me and from my
background I feel it is fundamental that we have freedom of
competition. That must be reflected in our labour laws.
When we talk about allowing groups in Bill C-19 to have formal
certification to unionize, it has to be allowed with that
democratic percentage, that vote of 35%. Also we have to move
toward a further goal of allowing Canadian labour to compete in
foreign markets. We need to give Canadians, Canadian businesses
and Canadian labour the competitive advantage. We need to allow
them to compete in global markets and we need to support them
when they want to achieve those goals.
The House is supposed to uphold these types of visions. It is
supposed to uphold the strong convictions of making Canada more
democratic, making it a better place to live and giving the
advantage to Canadians to provide for themselves. Unfortunately
we do not see that applied often in much of the legislation that
is produced in the House.
I urge all hon. members to take a step back and evaluate what we
are doing here today. I urge them to ask themselves how we can
make this place better, how we can help make legislation better
to represent Canadians and labour. Even if it means putting
party lines aside, it is a goal we must have as federal
legislators to do what is right for the country. That is what we
must work toward.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
COLOURING CONTEST
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria—Haliburton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, each year I organize a page colouring contest. The
rules are quite simple. Each page creates something of interest
from their home town on the back of my letterhead paper using
only the crayons provided.
Binney and Smith Canada, the only manufacturers of Crayola
products in Canada, is located within my riding. It donated the
crayons and the prizes for the pages. I thank Binney and Smith
for providing a wonderful assortment of prizes for all the pages
who competed.
Once all entries have been submitted Helene Monette, a security
guard in the House of Commons, judges each entry. This year's
winner is Gaelle Halliday from St. John's, Newfoundland. Her
creation was a very innovative piece of art. All entries were
very well done.
I thank the pages for their hard work and commitment to serving
all members of parliament. Once again we have a great group of
pages to assist us.
* * *
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS WEEK
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
May 4 to May 10 is Emergency Preparedness Week. The government
should use this week to learn about emergency preparedness but
the Liberal government never learns. It believes more in
Murphy's Law than in preparing for emergencies.
The Liberals did not learn from the Manitoba floods. The
Liberals did not learn from the ice storm. They are not learning
now from the Alberta fires.
How are the Liberals preparing for the earthquake that will hit
B.C. in the future? They closed CFB Chilliwack and have left
B.C. without emergency preparedness.
1100
Emergency preparedness is about responding to a crisis.
Canadians have seen the poor response by the government to the
tainted blood crisis.
On behalf of British Columbians, I give this government fair
warning that now is the time to prepare.
* * *
NATIONAL FOREST WEEK
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood—Assiniboine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this week is National Forest Week and I would like to
acknowledge the May 1 signing of the new five-year Canada forest
accord which confirms the commitment by over 29 forest
stakeholders to implement the new national forest strategy.
The strategy builds on the 1992 forest accord to enhance the
long term diversity of our forest ecosystems while providing
economic, social and cultural benefits to Canadians.
Canada will be entering the new millennium with a new approach
to natural resources management, one that includes a forestry
Internet site. The Canadian Forest Service is a major player and
will play a fundamental role in the strategy's implementation.
Congratulations to government and industry representatives,
First Nations, environmental groups, private woodlot owners and
the signatories to the new Canada forest accord.
While I am on my feet, special congratulations to our
firefighters who are battling forest fires right across the
country.
* * *
MENTAL HEALTH WEEK
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Canadian Mental Health Association in Peterborough invites the
community to join in recognizing the importance of everyone's
mental health during this year's Mental Health Week.
This year's theme, “Making Mental Health Matter for All”,
emphasizes the importance of making mental health a priority.
Various activities take place during the week, such as the
Creative Healing Exhibit, which is open to the public until
tomorrow, May 9. Other activities include the groundbreaking
ceremony at the Civic Hospital in a garden for patients, family
and friends.
CMHA reminds members to renew their memberships in order to
remain on the roster of individuals who help direct and set
policy that improves the well-being of those suffering from
mental illness. CMHA also wishes to encourage the public to help
by talking to neighbours. Raising awareness about mental health
helps to educate the community and erase stigmas associated with
mental illness. Mental health matters.
* * *
[Translation]
COMITÉ QUÉBEC-PRINTEMPS 1918
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on April 1,
1918, four people were killed by English Canadian soldiers at a
rally against conscription.
After reviewing the events, the coroner's inquest concluded that
“the individuals shot on this occasion were innocent victims in
no way involved in this riot—and it is the government's duty
to pay fair and reasonable compensation to the victims'
families”, which has yet to be done.
As a reminder, a work of art commemorating these tragic events
will soon be erected at the very location where they took place
in Quebec City's lower town by the Comité Québec-Printemps 1918,
a group of people in the Quebec City area.
The Bloc Quebecois asks that the federal government publicly
apologize to the victims' families and redress an 80-year old
injustice by compensating them.
Those who appreciate historical accuracy also remember the
events that occurred in the spring of 1918.
* * *
QUEBEC GOVERNMENT
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since it took
office on September 1994, the PQ government has spent more than
$100 million to try to convince Quebeckers to go along with the
concept of Quebec being separate from Canada.
Here are the costs involved: $1 million to hire PQ lobbying
firms, unveil the preamble at the Grand Théâtre de Québec and
set up telephone lines; $17 million for the Secrétariat à la
restructuration, for studies and for regional and national
commissions; $10 million in grants to the sovereignty council
and for mailouts; $57 million for the expenditures of the Quebec
director general of elections; $47 million for the referendum on
the Charlottetown accord; and $10 million for the
Bélanger-Campeau and other parliamentary commissions.
Today, the PQ government, through acting premier Lucien
Bouchard, is planning to spend millions of dollars on the
Calgary declaration, although it had sworn not to spend a penny.
If Lucien Bouchard and his PQ colleagues want to know what the
real problems facing Quebec society are, they should go to the
people and call an immediate election, so that a real premier
can be elected by all voters in Quebec.
* * *
[English]
ROYAL CANADIAN MINT
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): It is no wonder, Mr.
Speaker, that the Minister of Public Works and Government
Services does not want the issue of the coin plant in Winnipeg to
come before the committee.
In yesterday's question period the minister gave a spectacular
show of contradictions. First he said the issue was before the
courts so he could not comment. Then, when asked why they are
going ahead with it if it is before the courts, he said that the
court case has nothing to do with it. He says they are not
competing with a private company and yet he claims that competing
worldwide will give the new venture its viability.
1105
Why did the minister give instructions to the committee to
refuse our requests to examine this issue? It is clearly because
he is afraid of all the contradictory answers. This is costing
$38 million to build, plus $18 million in lost savings. That is a
total of $56 million and not an ounce of justification for it.
* * *
RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada
has long championed the rights of the child. We are signatories
to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. We
led the fight on land mines which kill and maim children and we
are leaders in the fight against the use of children as soldiers
and cheap labour.
I would like to congratulate one Canadian, a constituent of
Thornhill, who is known throughout the world for his commitment
to protect children and their rights.
Mr. Craig Kielburger, founder of Free the Children, has been
awarded the 1998 Franklin Delano Roosevelt freedom medal. The
Roosevelt freedom medal was created to honour individuals and
institutions whose work has given special meaning to those
freedoms which President Roosevelt outlined in 1949: freedom of
speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want and freedom from
fear.
Through public speaking and personal advocacy, Craig at his
young age is an example of someone who is really making a
positive difference. I would like to take this opportunity on
behalf of the people of Thornhill to congratulate Craig on his
most impressive achievement and encourage him to continue his
crusade to protect children.
* * *
[Translation]
YOUTH WEEK
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
honour to point out that this is Youth Week.
Young people are the future of our country and yet many are
finding themselves in a precarious situation.
[English]
Unemployment among young Canadians with less than a high school
diploma is at 15%, while for those with at least a degree it is
only 5%. That is why the federal government has taken steps in
the most recent budget through the Canadian opportunities
strategy and the millennium scholarship fund to increase the
opportunities for our young people to participate fully in the
economic and social development of Canada.
[Translation]
Initiatives like the summer career placements program will this
year again give many young people from my riding of Ahuntsic and
from throughout Canada the opportunity to gather work
experience.
These measures are proof of the Canadian government's commitment
to the future of our young people in Canada.
* * *
[English]
SPINAL HEALTH CARE WEEK
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today marks the conclusion of spinal health care week.
Chiropractors from coast to coast have conducted volunteer health
talks about the benefits of spinal health and wellness.
Each year more than three million Canadians seek chiropractic
care, making it the third largest health care profession in
Canada. Clearly chiropractic care is an important component of
the Canadian health care system.
There have been at least six formal government inquiries into
the profession of chiropractic worldwide during the last 25
years, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Sweden. All
have concluded that contemporary chiropractic care is safe,
effective, cost effective and have recommended public funding for
chiropractic services.
In addition, few health care procedures have been as extensively
researched as chiropractic spinal adjustments. A wealth of
scientific clinical studies have proven the appropriateness and
effectiveness of chiropractic care.
Congratulations to Canada's chiropractors on the successful
conclusion of this year's spinal health care week.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL POLICE WEEK
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Sunday, May 10, will mark the beginning of police week in
Canada.
This year, this special week is devoted to bringing the police
and the community closer together. It provides an opportunity
to tell the public about the vital work done by the police.
It also provides an opportunity for all Canadians to pay tribute
to the devoted men and women who spare no effort to ensure that
we may live in a peaceful and just society.
[English]
As Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada, I
have come to know and appreciate the work carried out by Canadian
police and peace officers.
I know also that Canadians have great confidence in their
police and great respect for them. National police week provides
us all with the opportunity to show our support and appreciation
for our police and I invite all Canadians to join me in saluting
those men and women who have chosen to dedicate their lives to
the protection of our homes and our communities. Thanks to them
all.
* * *
WESTRAY MINE
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
tomorrow marks the sixth anniversary of the Westray disaster. In
1991 the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy bestowed
upon Clifford Frame, owner of Westray mine, the John T. Ryan
award for mine safety.
At 5:20 a.m. on May 9, 1992 the Westray mine exploded taking the
lives of 26 miners.
1110
The Westray tragedy was not an accident and it was not a natural
disaster. It was the end result of management that had no regard
for safety and of governments that failed to ensure the
well-being of workers. It was profit before people.
The United Steelworkers of America provided support to the
miners and families from Westray. Together they were the driving
force behind the Westray inquiry. It was the United Steelworkers
of America who questioned the awarding of the John T. Ryan award
to Clifford Frame and Curragh Resources. After a lengthy
campaign by the steelworkers, on April 9 of this year the award
was rescinded.
The Westray tragedy is a reminder of why we need unions to
protect workers' rights and lives.
* * *
[Translation]
SOCIÉTÉ NATIONALE DE L'ACADIE
Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw (Moncton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Société nationale de l'Acadie today begins its official meeting
in Wolfville, Nova Scotia.
The SNA supports and defends the rights and interests of
Acadians through its interprovincial, national and international
presence.
The theme of this annual meeting will be the development of an
Acadian tourism product. Music, theatre, cultural institutions
and other elements of Acadian heritage will be on the menu as a
strategy is formulated to consolidate the wealth of Acadia.
[English]
I believe it is extremely important that we promote our Acadian
heritage. By enhancing our tourism infrastructure we have a
great opportunity to promote our culture and to help foster
economic development in our region.
[Translation]
I think the francophone summit, which will be held in Moncton in
1999 will contribute to developing tourism in Acadia, as it will
bring together more than forty—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL FORESTRY WEEK
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, this is National Forestry Week in Canada and how
appropriate and sadly ironic given the terrible fires that are
raging in Canada.
Canada boasts 235 million hectares of commercial forest land. We
have a thriving industry of private woodlot owners who provide
important environmental, economic and social benefits to their
communities.
Despite such good news, there are still a number of major
hurdles that our forestry industry must overcome, due in large
part to the policies of this government. For example, the
Liberals have eliminated the federal-provincial forestry
agreement that was established by the Conservatives in the 1980s
which provided much needed funding for silviculture management.
In addition, Canada's taxation policies do nothing to encourage
landowners to invest in sustainable management practices that
would allow for increased fibre production.
As we celebrate National Forestry Week, I call on the government
to recognize the tremendous contributions made by private woodlot
owners to our economy. Investing in our forest industry today
will ensure its viability for future generations.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC CITY CONFERENCES OF 1943 AND 1945
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): “Humiliation”, Mr.
Speaker. Not mine, but that of the Liberal members for
Pierrefonds—Dollard, for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, for Bourassa
and for Shawinagan.
How ironic, to see the hon. member for Bourassa protesting the
worthy homage being paid to two of the greatest political
figures of this century when, last November 18, he described the
statue of General de Gaulle as a “monument to a stupid remark”.
How cynical, to see a Prime Minister falsely accusing the
Government of Quebec of using history for political gain. Has
he already forgotten his phone call last year to Jacques Chirac
to put a halt to their plan to issue a stamp commemorating de
Gaulle's “Vive le Québec libre!” Is that not using history for
political gain?
According to Mackenzie King himself after the conference, his
role in it was no more important than that of the managing
director of the Château Frontenac.
It would seem that the very people who accuse the separatists of
waking up each morning expecting to be humiliated were a bit
quick to feel humiliated themselves yesterday.
* * *
FORESTRY
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, recently a new
initiative on sustainable forestry development was signed by
representatives of government and industry.
That document was the outcome of a recent congress held in the
national capital to make the Canadian public aware of the need
to manage the forests in such a way that they can be perpetuated
as a resource and continue to support the economic development
of many Canadian communities.
The strategy includes a Canada-wide forestry science and
technology action plan, which was drawn up by the scientific
community.
It was also agreed at the congress that the public and private
sectors will promote the candidacy of Quebec City as the host of
the 2003 world forestry congress
* * *
[English]
BOBBY CURTOLA
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I was not born when Bobby Curtola was at the peak of his
fame, but I am no less proud of him as a Canadian and a fellow
Edmontonian.
1115
Yesterday Bobby received the Order of Canada and I know that
Canadians from all walks of life will join me in congratulating
him not just for the award but for a lifetime of achievement.
Bobby was one of Canada's first international pop music stars, a
pioneer in demonstrating that Canada is blessed with an abundance
of talent.
Long before the Beatles drew throngs of screaming teens to their
shows Bobby was out there on the road doing the same. Most
important, Bobby Curtola proved that you can be both a superstar
and a nice guy. That is what his fans will say today. Super
stardom never went to Bobby's head. He was, is and will remain
the sort of man we are proud to call a friend and a fellow
Canadian.
Congratulations on behalf of all Canadians and Edmontonians to
Bobby Curtola.
* * *
RESTIGOUCHE RIVER RATS HOCKEY CLUB
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I take this opportunity to congratulate all members and
volunteers of the Restigouche River Rats hockey club.
Last season they finished in last place as an expansion team.
However, this year they won the maritime junior A hockey
championship.
Unfortunately this past weekend they lost the Fred Page cup in
the championship game bringing their season to an end. They
finished as the number 2 team out of 37 from Ontario, Quebec and
Atlantic Canada.
I say with great pride they are number one in the hearts of
hockey fans in Madawaska—Restigouche. My hat is off to a job
well done.
* * *
[Translation]
POLYVALENTE SAINTE-THÉRÈSE
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome a
group of students from my riding of Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse.
Welcome, my friends from École polyvalente Sainte-Thérèse.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, newspapers
across the country are publishing government documents that show
clearly that from the seventies and the eighties the Liberal
government knew and did not act on the tainted blood issue. It
had information that could have prevented this tragedy.
Is the real reason this government will not go back and
compensate before 1986 because the Prime Minister was a member of
the cabinet that could have prevented this tragedy?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the documents referred to in this morning's reports were all in
the hands of Mr. Justice Krever. He took them into account when
he prepared his report in three full volumes.
A reading of that report makes it clear from the chronology that
it was really 1986 when those responsible should have and could
have acted to put tests in place to verify the presence of these
contaminants in the blood supply.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
documents are a real potent reminder of what exactly this
government did.
The regulators ignored reports in the New England Journal of
Medicine, a prestigious medical journal. They also ignored
what other countries were doing. They grossly underestimated the
numbers of people infected.
This Liberal government shirked its responsibility in those days.
Why is it shirking that responsibility today?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Mr. Justice Krever said that compensation for hepatitis
C victims should come from the provinces. He made no reference
to support coming from the federal government.
In spite of that, this government through the Minister of Health
took the lead in bringing the provinces to the table to work out
a compensation plan and put $800 million on the table, with the
provinces coming up with only $300 million.
This shows our concern. This shows our sense of commitment.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the file is
still open and I think the noose is tightening.
The truth of the matter is the government in the seventies and
eighties had access to that information. When Judge Krever asked
for the documents to show what the cabinet said about this, what
did it do? It closed the file. It would not let anybody see it.
Is not the reason that those files were closed is that the
Liberal government cares more about its own than about victims?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, he is misstating completely. I reject this premise with
respect to the position of this or previous governments and the
position of the Krever commission.
All this material was made available quite freely and openly to
the Krever commission. Mr. Justice Krever took it fully into
account. He commented on it to the extent he considered
necessary and he said compensation should be paid to all victims
and it should come from the provinces.
In spite of this we have exercised our concern. We have
expressed our concern through bringing the provinces to the table
and offering $800 million.
1120
The hon. member should stick to the facts and not talk the way
he has been talking.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the federal government is a senior partner in this issue and the
Deputy Prime Minister knows better. The facts are clear. The
federal regulators knew the blood system was contaminated prior
to 1986.
The federal regulators knew that surrogate testing was
available. The federal Liberal government of the day chose not
to implement that testing. As a result thousands of Canadians
were infected with tainted blood and have hepatitis C.
When is the government going to do the compassionate thing, the
right thing, and compensate all victims?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member overlooks the fact that all the documents
referred to in the report this morning were in the hands of Mr.
Justice Krever when he examined the history and came to his
conclusions.
It is clear from his report, it is clear from a reading of his
chronology, that it was in 1986 when those responsible could and
should have acted and put tests in place.
Let me emphasize the point made by the Deputy Prime Minister.
Even after his lengthy years long study and his three volume
exhaustive report, Mr. Justice Krever recommended compensation be
paid by the provinces. Notwithstanding that, this government
showed leadership by arranging for compensation—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Okanagan—Coquihalla.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the federal government is responsible because it was the federal
regulators who made the error.
For a solid month now we have been hearing the government
denying its liability. In fact, it has been blaming other
governments. The Liberals have no problem fingering a government
when they were not in power. The fact is this scandal goes back
to the Trudeau Liberals. Why does this government insist on
protecting its own political butts instead of protecting
Canadians through a healthy blood system? Compensate all
victims.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a week ago in the House the hon. member's party was
urging us to accept the Krever report. If that is the case why
does it not continue with that position and accept that Mr.
Justice Krever called for compensation of all victims but he said
it should be done by the provincial governments? He did not find
the fault that the Reform Party is inaccurately and unworthily
trying to attribute to previous Liberal governments.
* * *
[Translation]
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the education coalition has now been joined by
the three largest employer organizations in Quebec, the Chambre
de commerce du Québec, the Conseil du patronat du Québec, and
the Association des manufacturiers et des exportateurs du
Québec, in its opposition to the millennium scholarships.
These groups are demanding that Ottawa show the top priority it
attaches to an agreement by postponing passage of its bill, in
order to finalize the negotiations under way and, if necessary,
amend the bill accordingly.
The consensus is clear.
So that negotiations have the best possible chance of
succeeding, is the minister prepared to suspend consideration of
the bill—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. Deputy Prime
Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
are seeking an agreement, but we are not prepared to negotiate
in public.
The hon. member must await the results of our efforts to
negotiate in good faith and not try to turn this important issue
into a battleground.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister finally realize that
he is running directly counter to the Quebec consensus against
the millennium scholarships? And when will he get out of the
education sector?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
have no intention of interfering in a provincial area of
jurisdiction. We have the right to enter into direct contact
with young Quebeckers, just as we do with young Canadians
anywhere else in the country.
We are trying to arrive at an agreement to co-operate with the
provincial government, and our negotiations are continuing.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
federal government is in such a hurry to create a place in
history with its millennium scholarships that it is shamelessly
fiddling about with its financial statements and including an
expenditure of $2.5 billion in 1997-98, when the foundation does
not yet exist and no scholarships will be given out until 2000.
How many times will the auditor general have to rap the knuckles
of the Minister of Finance before he understands he has to stop
his financial juggling, which discredits the government's
financial statements?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
are prepared to take the auditor general's opinion into account.
We do not share his viewpoint and are prepared to continue
negotiations with the Province of Quebec.
1125
I wonder why the Bloc Quebecois in the House is opposing the
interests of young Quebeckers, who need scholarships to continue
their education.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if
ordinary citizens behaved like the Minister of Finance, they
would have Revenue Canada after them and would be considered tax
evaders.
Why is the government not setting the example by complying with
the objective accounting rules of the public sector, as the
auditor general has been asking for the past three years?
[English]
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has made it clear
from the outset that when we take a policy decision that involves
taxpayer money we will book the money right away. Gone are the
days when the government would rack up billions of dollars in
promises and leave the bill to be picked up sometime later.
The auditor general clearly disagrees with us. However, we
believe our approach is one that Canadians will support because
it is the most honest, transparent and accountable one.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last
week in the House the Prime Minister told Joey Hache that if he
wants full compensation for hepatitis C victims he should go see
the Ontario premier, go knock on someone else's door.
Joey Hache did go to see the Ontario premier and the premier put
provincial money on the table. Quebec and British Columbia have
indicated they are prepared to do the same.
When will the Prime Minister tell Joey Hache that the federal
government is ready to end its silence and bring more money to
the table?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have already announced my preparedness to meet with ministers
of health from across the country. In fact, we are arranging
that meeting for next week.
We will work toward developing a new consensus among
governments. I am waiting to see what the position is of various
other provinces. Some of them have not clearly stated their
position. Those that have been stated are really very different.
So it may be difficult to reach a consensus.
However, that is the purpose of the meeting and I will be at the
table with that objective in mind.
[Translation]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, British
Columbia is prepared to do its part for all victims of hepatitis
C, if the federal government will put in more money. Other
provinces are waiting for a signal from Ottawa to do the same.
Is the federal government prepared to send this signal now? Is
it prepared to guarantee today to the forgotten victims that its
wallet will be open in Toronto?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
made it very plain that I would be very happy to meet my
counterparts.
We are now trying to set a date for next week. We intend to
find out the positions of all the provinces ahead of time, I
hope.
My objective as the representative of the Government of Canada
is to see whether a consensus can be reached among all the
governments at the negotiation table.
[English]
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
news just does not seem to get any better for the Minister of
Health, does it?
The minister has stood in this House for the last five weeks and
talked about an arbitrary cut-off date of 1986. Reports now are
that federal regulators were aware as early as 1981 that in fact
there was a problem with the system. The Krever report says
compensate all the hepatitis C victims.
Will the minister finally accept responsibility to compensate
all the victims and stop hiding behind the provinces?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, he should explain why, in spite of Mr. Krever's findings
in his report, he said the provinces should do the compensating.
I do not think the hon. member should try to pursue his
leadership campaign in this context.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, if
I had any aspirations I certainly would do a much better job than
the Minister of Health in leadership campaigns.
Before meeting with the provinces the Minister of Health had
better ask for authority from the Prime Minister and the Minister
of Finance to get the right direction when dealing with the
provincial health ministers.
Do you have a contingency plan? Are you going to meet the
provinces as a eunuch or are you going to have the opportunity to
develop certain financial contributions to the hepatitis C
victims?
1130
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before the hon.
Minister of Health responds, please address the questions through
the Chair.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have already made clear that we are going to the table next
week to determine whether there is a new consensus. In terms of
leadership, the member should bear in mind that if it were not
for this government and the leadership of the Prime Minister
there would not be compensation in place for any victims.
It was this government that started that process, it was this
government that brought the parties to the table, it was this
government that produced the agreement to compensate 20,000
victims.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Jeremy Beaty, the president of the Hepatitis C Society, received
a call from the health minister's office the other day, from the
minister's top political adviser. Unfortunately it was not to
tell him there would be more money on the table. Mr. Dossetor,
the health minister's top adviser, phoned Mr. Beaty and asked him
not to be at the upcoming meetings for the discussions on money.
He bullied him and tried to intimidate him into not going to
those meetings.
Why did the minister allow that to be done? Why will he not let
Mr. Beaty be at all of the upcoming talks?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member is quite wrong. It does a grave disservice to Mr.
Dossetor to suggest such a thing.
In fact what has happened is that as Minister of Health of
Canada and following on the resolution adopted by this House the
other day, I have written to all ministers of health in Canada. I
have urged them to accept that representatives not only of the
Hepatitis C Society but also of the hemophilia society be
received by the ministers when we meet next week. I have every
confidence that the ministers will agree with that suggestion and
will receive those representatives.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that is certainly not what Mr. Beaty says. Mr. Beaty says that
Mr. Dossetor phoned him and tried to intimidate and embarrass
him, that he tried to tell him not to come to these meetings and
please do not ask to be at the money portion of the talks.
The health minister knows these talks are about the money. Why
did the health minister instruct Mr. Dossetor to tell Mr. Beaty
to stay home, not to bother to come to those discussions because
he would not be able to talk about the money part of those
discussions?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
let us stick to the facts. The facts are that as minister I have
written to Mr. Beaty and the representatives of the hemophilia
society. I have told them that I have asked the ministers to
agree that victims will be received next week when the ministers
meet. That is the right thing to do. It follows on the
resolution the House has adopted. I have every confidence that
the ministers will agree to receive those representatives next
week.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
Friday, the Minister of Health announced, which was somewhat
presumptuous on his part, that the hepatitis C matter was
closed.
Pressure from the victims, the Canadian public and the provinces
seems to have got him thinking. We are now told that he will not
arrive empty-handed at the health ministers meeting.
What is the federal government prepared, in concrete terms, to
offer hepatitis C victims not covered by the existing agreement?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a few
weeks ago, we agreed with the provinces, including Quebec, on a
particular approach to compensation.
Now Quebec has changed its position, and Ontario as well. This
has prompted us to suggest that another ministers meeting be
called to see if the various governments can reach a new
consensus.
I will be at the table next week to determine whether all the
provinces can once again—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Argenteuil—Papineau.
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since
he can easily afford it and since he is primarily responsible
for this tragedy, will the minister admit that his government
must also play a major part in compensating all victims of
hepatitis C?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
sure that the hon. member is fully aware of the fact that we
have already contributed a large share of the compensation paid
to the victims infected between 1986 and 1990.
Next week, we will see if a consensus can be achieved among the
various governments. I will be there to make that determination.
* * *
1135
[English]
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, an access to
information commissioner is supposed to be an advocate of
openness, someone who will fight against Liberals who want to
shred documents and hide facts. The last thing we need is a
political Liberal patronage appointment. That is like putting
Mr. Fox in charge of chicken coop security.
There should be an open competition for this job. Why is the
Prime Minister ignoring Canadians who want facts and instead
looking for the Liberal with the largest paper shredder?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say that I am a little
bit more than disappointed with the remarks by the hon. member.
Any discussion that takes place in camera between House leaders
is never revealed on the floor of the House. I am sure that the
hon. member's House leader will have a few words with him later
in that regard behind the curtains.
Meanwhile I would suggest to the hon. member no nomination has
been formally offered. None has been made.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I received
no information from my House leader from a meeting. This is an
issue of accountability and openness. Instead of huddling in
secret with his patronage advisers, the Prime Minister should
publish the job description, specify that applicants have a
record of impartiality and fairness and have an open competition.
Will he do it and if not, why not?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gets even worse. Now the hon.
member is accusing career civil servants of being political hacks
of the government and presumably thereby accusing other people
with similar qualifications which is the first thing wrong.
Second, the hon. member should know, if he has even read one
sentence of the act, it is an appointment of this House offered
by the government but appointed by a vote of this House. One
would think that this House must be democratic.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister for International Co-operation.
At the World Food Summit, Canada made a commitment to actively
promote food security and fight world hunger. Yet, for the last
ten years, CIDA has continued to cut its support for
agriculture, food and nutrition.
Can the minister explain why CIDA has cut the funding of the
agriculture, food and nutrition programs for the 24 least
developed nations by close to 80% since the early 1990s, despite
Canada's commitment at the Rome Summit?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation and
Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
continue to want to help those less fortunate. It should be
pointed out that CIDA has tried to do more with much less.
The report card on CIDA's programming is very good, and we
should be proud of the work the agency has done with much less
money.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if we are to
believe the minister, everything is always perfect and never
less than wonderful.
Is the minister aware that by reorganizing CIDA by geographic
region rather than by sector of activity, she is weakening
professional services in agriculture, leading to the poor
results we are now seeing?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation and
Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will say it again. When a department goes through difficult
years like those we have just seen, with the cuts we sustained,
CIDA has done its utmost to address the problems of the most
disadvantaged. The reports from our programs are excellent.
That having been said, we are going to keep on trying to meet
all the challenges throughout the third world.
* * *
[English]
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister's office is looking for a new information
commissioner. We have just heard an answer from the government
House leader.
So far in the process there have been no advertisements, no job
description, no search committee. This is supposed to be about
openness and transparency.
Why is the government so focused on putting in a political
appointment rather than doing a search for the best person for
the job?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no name has been offered. How
does no name having been offered constitute a lack of consulting
with whomever? No name has been offered, so none has been
offered in contravention of anything. In terms of any
conversation held between House leaders, if I were to put the
conversations of members across the way on the floor of this
House right now it might not be a pretty sight. I wonder who
would lose in the process.
1140
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government House leader is obviously squirming about
something. I have no idea what he is talking about.
What we are talking about is the process. Why is there not a
search committee? Why not have the best person for the job? Why
will he not change the process when this is the time he can get
the best person for the job?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is changing his
tune. He is saying that the system of appointing officers of
this House should be changed. When did he and his colleagues
ever advocate such a change in the past? When did he ever
produce legislation, a private members' bill or any other
initiative?
I think people should watch out before they talk from both sides
of their mouth.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Labour.
The negotiations between the CBC and the 1,400-member CBC
communication workers union are stalled. They have been under
way since March 1995. Some union members have been without a
collective agreement for more than two and a half years. The
points in dispute are job security, wage increases and private
sector use of CBC premises.
Will the Minister of Labour respond favourably to the union's
proposal of a conciliation commissioner, in order to provide
these employees with a collective agreement at last?
[English]
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we continue to work with the
parties. At this time I will have to take the matter under
advisement and get back to the member.
* * *
EXTRADITION
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada regards itself as a humanitarian nation. It brings into
this country in excess of 200,000 people on an annual basis.
Regrettably among them are a small number of war criminals and
fugitives from justice. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Justice just how Bill C-40 will address this problem?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this week the Minister of Justice on behalf of the government
tabled in this House, and we announced officially, a new
extradition act.
The bill overhauls extradition laws in Canada and brings us in
line with the 21st century. Most importantly the proposed
legislation will prevent Canada from becoming a safe haven for
fugitives who want to avoid facing the judicial system in
countries where they commit crimes. Also, cross-border crimes
will be more easily covered by this bill, crimes such as
telemarketing fraud, computer crimes and transnational organized
crime.
* * *
RAILWAYS
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
A consortium of private companies wants to build an $11 billion
high speed rail system in southern Ontario and Quebec. It is not
necessary to read very far into their announcement before
discovering that this happy little group expects the people of
Canada to pay for the railway on which they want to run their
trains.
Will the minister assure the House that this government will not
commit to providing public funding for private profit?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this report was received yesterday by us and by the
Ontario and Quebec governments subsequent to discussions a number
of years ago.
It is an interesting proposal. It does entail the expenditure
of public funds. As the hon. member knows full well, I have been
on the public record as saying that VIA Rail, the passenger
service, should seek funding from the private sector for its
capital needs.
The hon. member is a member of the transport committee that is
studying this very issue. I would ask him and his colleagues to
look at the proposal and give us advice. In the meantime I am
reviewing it and I will be discussing it with my colleagues.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if the transport committee is so important, it is a pity
that these people did not bring it up when they appeared before
the transport committee a few weeks ago.
If this product is so financially attractive, the six companies
involved certainly have the clout to raise the money but they
prefer to have taxpayers take two-thirds of the risk.
Two of the consortium members, Bombardier and SNC-Lavalin, are
renowned for their taste for Liberal pork. If this is such a
good project, why do they have to come to the public trough?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises certain questions. I suggest
that he have the committee call the consortium before the
committee and ask these questions of the consortium. Some of the
questions he has raised we will be asking as a government.
1145
We are working together on finding a solution for passenger rail
that will find financing for its capital needs. I fail to see
why the hon. member seems so spooked by a proposition by private
sector companies to do something government is asking them to do
to help with the financing of passenger rail.
* * *
EDUCATION
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
skyrocketing tuition fees and deregulation are causing a two tier
educational system in Canada. The Americanization and
privatization of post-secondary education are directly the result
of gutted federal funding.
When will the government stand up and stop the bleeding of
post-secondary education? When will the government make clear
that a two tier system is unacceptable in Ontario or anywhere in
Canada?
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Children and
Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has successively
in various budgets, especially in the last budget, gone through
extraordinary efforts to deal with debt relief for students. It
has also promoted a number of granting systems such as Canada
student grants and the millennium scholarship.
Many initiatives have been undertaken in the budget to help
students with the costs that accrue for post-secondary education.
We have gone to extraordinary measures. If that is considered
bleeding, I do not know what else we can do to ameliorate the
situation.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
millennium fund does not even come close to repairing the damage.
Tuition fees are out of control and students are facing crushing
debt because the government has failed to set standards for
accessibility.
Will the government act now to stop a two tier system and to set
a national standard for accessibility for education?
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Children and
Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I suggest the hon. member speak
to her colleagues in the Government of British Columbia to deal
with the issue of skyrocketing tuition fees.
I think it can be said that the government's commitment is real.
We have gone through extraordinary efforts to deal with the costs
related to post-secondary education in the budget and in many
other measures the government has undertaken.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of fisheries. As
the minister knows, the communities of Canso and Mulgrave, Nova
Scotia, are anxiously awaiting a decision with respect to shrimp
quotas.
The Canso Trawlermen's Co-op and the ACS company of Mulgrave
submitted proposals for shrimp quota. The quotas could very well
determine the survival of these communities.
Delegations from both groups travelled to Ottawa. Although the
minister was unavailable, DFO officials were briefed on their
dire situation.
Time is running out. Could the minister tell us when he plans
to announce a decision with respect to the northern shrimp quota?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the northern shrimp issue is complicated.
I should say the good news is that there is more shrimp available
this year than last. In one area at least, area 6, it is
substantially higher.
The problem side of this is that the requests of those who wish
allocations, including the communities to which the hon. member
referred, far exceed the shrimp available.
It will be a very difficult decision. It will probably be made
within the next four to ten days. I assure the member that the
representations made by the people in his province, as well as
the other provinces of Atlantic Canada, will be taken into
consideration.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I would turn the minister's attention now to area 18
and the crab fishery in Nova Scotia.
I have been informed that due to the soft shells of the crab
this year fishermen have been forced to comply with a 48 hour
notice to close the fishery in this area.
By confining fishermen to an area that is insufficient and by
adding new licences, DFO has put the future of this fishery in
peril.
Is the minister prepared to redefine this area and address the
concerns of the fishermen in area 18?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the issue with respect to the crab
fishery that the hon. member mentioned is one of conservation.
We have concerns with conservation because the biomass of crabs
has declined quite dramatically. We expect that there will be a
turn up in some two to three years.
In the meantime we have to take conservation measures. When it
is necessary to take these measures quickly we know they may
disrupt the fleet. We know it may be difficult for adjustment,
but the member must remember that the fish come first.
* * *
YOUTH
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Secretary of State (Children and Youth).
1150
While Canada's unemployment rate continues to drop many people
remain concerned about the high unemployment rate among youth and
about providing young Canadians with the opportunity to access
quality education.
Could the secretary of state tell the House what she is doing to
assist young Canadians?
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Children and
Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Ottawa
Centre for this very important question.
The member will know that in April alone 26,000 jobs were
created for young people, 66,000 since January.
We continue through the Canadian millennium scholarship fund,
Canada student study grants, tax relief, tax measures, EI premium
holidays and increased funding for SchoolNet.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last October 9, I introduced in the House Motion No. 222
which was designed to revamp the organ donor system. It will
save lives, and it passed unanimously.
[Translation]
Last year, however, 122 people died while waiting for a
transplant. Still, the Minister of Health has done nothing to
ensure that this motion is adopted in whole or in part
The minister has the opportunity to take the necessary steps.
Will he promise this House to implement the motion before the
end of the year? People's lives are at stake.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
greatly appreciate the initiative taken by the hon. member last
year. I am very pleased to discuss it with him, as I am aware
of his interest in the subject.
[English]
There are things that can be done by the federal and provincial
governments. While I cannot point to any specific change that
has resulted from the motion, I certainly would be happy to
discuss with the hon. member specific things he would like to see
the federal government do and engage in a dialogue with him
because I agree with the objective of his motion.
* * *
[Translation]
DRINKING WATER MANAGEMENT
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the export of
drinking water has been the object of intense debate in Quebec,
but there is unanimous agreement that Quebeckers must be the
ones to decide on management of this resource.
Last Monday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated his
intention of using certain laws to reverse a provincial decision
in this matter.
Does the Minister of the Environment acknowledge that drinking
water management is a provincial area of jurisdiction, as are
all natural resources?
[English]
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
inform the hon. member that Canada has a role to play in terms of
a decision regarding the export of drinking water.
At the present time Canada opposes large scale exports of water.
The matter in question in Ontario has been referred to the
International Joint Commission and we will await the results of
its findings.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the minister of fisheries. It seems that the
Liberal patronage appointment of the former member for
Selkirk—Red River as head of the Freshwater Fish Marketing
Corporation has led to a situation that would be comical if it
were not so tragic.
Apparently the chairman of the board will not allow Mr. Fewchuk
to do his work. It is reported that they might not give him keys
to the washroom.
I wonder what the minister has to say about this. Surely we are
all concerned about the future of this corporation. I wonder
what he has in mind to deal with this very difficult situation.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there certainly are management problems
with the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. They relate, as
the hon. member has indicated, to certain differences between the
directors and the president of the association.
I would point out that it is extremely important to have an
effective organization marketing on behalf of the freshwater
fishermen of Canada. This is a particularly important one. We
have appointed a former deputy minister of fisheries, Mr. Bruce
Rawson, to look into this matter. I am awaiting his report day
by day and I am hoping it will come soon.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Supreme Court of Canada has refused to hear the Wal-Mart appeal.
Employees at the Windsor store will therefore have to form a
union, although they voted 151 to 43 against doing so.
1155
In light of these events, will the government now agree to drop
clause 46 from Bill C-19 and reassure the workers of this country
that their democratic decisions will be respected?
[English]
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the decision of the Ontario
Labour Relations Board in the Wal-Mart case was upheld by the
Ontario Court of Appeal.
The Supreme Court of Canada has refused to hear an appeal. This
is a provincial issue.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food.
It appears that some Americans are making threatening statements
regarding Canada's export of wheat to the United States, are
asking Canada to lower its dairy subsidies and are continuing to
challenge the effectiveness of our marketing boards.
Would the minister tell the House what approach he will use to
defend Canadian farmers?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we know that there were some comments
made by some people in the United States yesterday, but I think
it is important that we distinguish between political rhetoric
from some U.S. senators and the position of the U.S. government.
Both Canada and the United States recognize the value of a rules
based trading regime in both NAFTA and the World Trade
Organization. We are living and working within those rules.
There is a difference between rhetoric and reality, and the
reality is that Canada will continue to abide by the rules.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as the minister just said, there is a lot of rhetoric
about this issue and most of the rhetoric is coming from the
minister himself.
The fact is that the United States has threatened to rewrite
NAFTA to cap our sales because it believes that the compulsory
nature of the Canadian Wheat Board allows the Canadian Wheat
Board to dump unfairly priced wheat into the United States.
We need to know what exactly the government will do to protect
the future of wheat sales going to the U.S. Will the government
do something or will it just continue to spout rhetoric?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would pay attention,
examinations have been done by the Canadian Wheat Board in the
past and by a number of international and independent groups.
The actions and sales of the wheat board have been examined
before.
When we have asked the United States to give us one example of
where the Canadian Wheat Board is not trading fairly and not
trading by the rules, it has been unable to do that.
I will repeat. We will play by the rules and we will ensure
that the United States does the same.
* * *
[Translation]
INFORMATION CANADA OFFICE
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
Public rumour has it that the ICO will now come under the
Minister of Public Works, who is already responsible for
ensuring the government's visibility, or the Privy Council
Office.
Will the Acting Prime Minister admit that the only responsible
thing to do would be to end this shameful waste of public money
by abolishing this propaganda office and turning over the money
thus saved to creators, who certainly need it these days?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I take the hon. member's question merely as a
clarification of the government's management, and I will discuss
the matter with the other members of Cabinet and the Privy
Council.
* * *
[English]
BANKING
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, neither the Liberal caucus nor the Competition Bureau
looking into the proposed bank mergers has the mandate or is
taking the responsibility for studying the impact on job losses.
Potentially thousands of jobs could be lost. In Regina 33 local
branches belong to one of the merger partners. Their customers
and employees can read the writing on the wall and it is not very
good news.
Will the government be supporting my motion next Tuesday to
allow immediate industry committee hearings on the impact of the
bank mergers on consumers, small businesses and rural Canada?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know,
particularly because of his function in his party, that private
members' hour is just that.
* * *
1200
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
at a recent meeting with officials of the human resources
development offices in Madawaska—Restigouche I was disturbed to
learn that major cuts have been made to summer career placement
programs.
These offices represent one of the highest rates of unemployment
in the country, yet the minister saw fit to take away what little
students in the area can find to put themselves through school.
How can the minister look these affected students in the eye and
justify the department's action?
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Children and
Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member should know that we
have a $120 million summer student employment program, as well as
many other opportunities in other programs.
Unfortunately, because there is such a huge demand for summer
employment funding, we have had to redistribute the resources to
meet the needs across the country, not just in certain ridings,
but in every riding.
This unfortunately has happened and we are dealing with it. We
are working on it and we hope that we can reach more students and
not ignore and leave some out.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Finance.
What evidence does he have to show that this government's
approach to job creation and economic growth is working for
Canadians?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, certainly we are very pleased to
have the unemployment rate down over one percentage point from a
year ago.
There was strong job growth in April especially since it led
the decline in the number of unemployed Canadians. The
unemployment rate is now at its lowest level in almost seven
years.
Over 171,000 new jobs have been created so far in 1998. There
have been 543,000 jobs created since December 1996. All of these
jobs have been in the private sector.
We will continue to do what we said we would do and that is to
make sure that the fundamentals are right. We have eliminated
the deficit. We will keep interest rates low to ensure that
inflation stays stable and we will continue on that track.
* * *
CIDA
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday in the foreign affairs committee, in the presence of
the minister responsible for CIDA, some Liberal backbenchers said
that if B.C. businesses want to get CIDA contracts they should
move their businesses to Ontario.
Will the minister publicly denounce these irresponsible
comments?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, all I can say—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): If the hon. minister
wishes to answer it is totally up to the minister.
An hon. member: Name the member.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): This will bring an
end to the question period.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTIONS
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. During question period the Secretary
of State for Children and Youth said that tuition fees in B.C.
are skyrocketing.
I would like to correct that and point out that B.C. has had a—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is a point of
debate, not a point of order.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I am wondering if these are irresponsible comments.
Why will you not allow—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): When it is over it
is over.
We will proceed now to the daily routine of business.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[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 honour to table in this 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 six petitions.
* * *
SAHTU DENE AND METIS COMPREHENSIVE LAND CLAIM AGREEMENT
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I am pleased to table, in both
official languages, two copies of the 1996-97 annual report of
the implementation committee on the Sahtu Dene and Metis
comprehensive land claim agreement.
* * *
1205
[English]
GWICH'IN LAND CLAIM AGREEMENT
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, copies of the 1996-97 annual
report of the implementation committee of the Gwich'in
comprehensive land claim agreement.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FINANCE
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Finance
pursuant to its order of reference dated March 31, 1998. Your
committee has adopted Bill C-36, an act to implement certain
provisions of the budget tabled in parliament on February 24,
1998, and has agreed to report it without amendments.
* * *
PETITIONS
GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria—Haliburton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition from
constituents of Victoria—Haliburton who are asking the
government to remove the GST on all reading material.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will
be answering Question No. 80.
.[Text]
Mr. Keith Martin:
Could the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Public Works
and Government Services explain: (a) what public tendering processes
were used in the acquisition process for purchasing the M.V.
Madeleine; (b) how many passengers and cars this ship can
carry; (c) how many passengers and cars this ship has carried
since it came into service; and (d) what the annual subsidy is
to keep this ship in service?
Hon. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): In so far as Public
Works and Government Services Canada and Transport Canada are
concerned:
(a) The operator, CTMA Traversier Ltée, identified the
availability of a used vessel. There was no public tendering
process. As has been the case in the past when it was in the best
interest of the public to do so, Treasury Board of Canada has
provided approval for the purchase of the M.V. Madeleine, then
named M.V. Isle of Inisturk. In acquiring this vessel the Crown
benefited from exceptional circumstances as a result of an offer
from Irish Ferries Limited to sell the vessel to Canada.
(b) The M.V. Madeleine can carry over 1,000 passengers, 258
automobiles and 29 tractor trailers.
(c) The M.V. Madeleine entered into service on July 5, 1997.
During its operating season (between July 5, 1997 and December 31,
1997) the ferry carried 51,790 passengers, 18,424 passenger
vehicles and 1,393 commercial vehicles.
Note: The ferry service does not operate between late January and
the end of March, depending on ice conditions. In addtion, the
M.V. Madeleine underwent a scheduled refit between November 5 to
December 5, 1997, during which time the M.V. Lucy Maud
Montgomery carried out the M.V. Madeleine's schedule service.
(d) The subsidy for the 1997 operating year was $2.4 million,
which is equal to the amount of the previous year. Subsidy
levels are expected to remain the same for the foreseeable
future.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all other questions
stand.
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, I see
that the parliamentary secretary answered a question today, but
I would really like an answer to mine.
[English]
Question No. 21 has been on the Order Paper since October 3,
1997. I asked about the response yesterday and I intend to ask
every day until we get the answer.
The parliamentary secretary has repeatedly promised the House
that he will make inquiries as to when Question No. 21 will be
answered. What are the results of his inquiries and when will
Question No. 21 be answered?
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I note again Question No.
21. I have been looking into the matter and the question will be
responded to as soon as possible.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it agreed that the other
questions be allowed to stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
CANADA LABOUR CODE
The House The House resumed consideration of Bill C-19, an act to
amend the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and the Corporations and
Labour Unions Returns Act and to make consequential amendments
to other acts as reported (with amendment) from the committee;
and of Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 30.
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
take part in debate on Bill C-19. The most controversial aspect
of the examination of the Canada Labour Code is, without a
doubt, the matter of replacement workers.
As we know, only two provinces have passed legislation at this
time to restrict employers' use of replacement workers, or scabs
as we call them in Abitibi, during work stoppages.
Those two provinces are Quebec, where there have been
restrictions since 1977, and British Columbia since 1993.
Ontario had adopted similar mechanisms in 1993, but these were
done away with in 1995.
Where sectors under federal jurisdiction are concerned, there
have been numerous conflicts which have raised greater awareness
of this issue, but to date the code contains no clauses banning
the use of replacement workers during work stoppages.
1210
The task force found that, despite the opposing points of view
of labour and management, there was one point on which they both
agreed, which was that “no one believes the use of replacement
workers is justified if this is intended to do away with a union
or to undermine its role, rather than to obtain an acceptable
collective agreement”.
As the majority of the task force recommended, there will not be
a blanket ban on the use of replacement workers. The Canada
Labour Relations Board will, however, be empowered to order an
employer to cease to use such workers during a strike—
Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that
the hon. member for Abitibi is not addressing Group No. 2. He is
speaking to a motion which will come up later in the debate, we
hope, unless the Reform Party amends it.
He is totally out of order. Not that this is not interesting
but it is totally out of order when we are supposed to be
looking at Group No. 2.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Trois-Rivières is quite correct that we are supposed to be
debating the motions in Group No. 2. However, there has been a
good deal of latitude during the course of this debate and it
would be unfair of the Chair to be particularly restrictive to a
particular member in light of the fact that there has been quite
a bit latitude. Perhaps the member for Abitibi would be
conscious of the remarks of the member for Trois-Rivières and
every once in a while talk to the debate at hand just to keep us
on track.
The Chair will endeavour to keep the debate more closely
relative to the specific motions at hand. I thank the hon.
member for Trois-Rivières for bringing this to my attention.
[Translation]
Mr. Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your judgment and
the comment by the member for Trois-Rivières. It is true, I did
notice a certain latitude in the speeches since this morning.
It is the only time today. We have until 1.30 p.m. It is true
that we can speak about the motions in Group No. 2. If members
want me to speak about the motions in Group No. 2, I have just
done so.
The majority of task force members said they would not recommend
a general ban on replacement workers during illegal work
stoppages. Members did, however, recommend a certain number of
amendments to the code so that these workers would not be used
to reduce bargaining rights and so that the rights of workers in
a bargaining unit who were on strike or locked out would be
protected.
The adoption of these measures constitutes a balanced solution
to the issue of replacement workers.
Why did I depart from the motions in Group No. 2. I did so
because, during the last postal strike in 1997, the federal
minister, the Liberal member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel,
decided, as the minister responsible for Canada Post, not to
bring in strikebreakers, or scabs. That is the reality of a
minister of action who, by his decision, helped workers.
We know that the words strikebreaker and scab do not have the
same connotation in the other provinces. Nowadays, we speak
about replacement workers.
What I wanted to say today, leaving aside the motions in Group
No. 2, as the member for Trois-Rivières pointed out, is that, in
November 1992, I introduced a bill in the House of Commons to
amend the Canada Labour Code so as to prohibit strikebreakers.
It was also intended to amend the Canada Labour Code in order to
prevent crown corporations from resorting to strikebreakers
during a dispute to maintain essential services.
For several years now, and this is important, Quebec's major
labour organizations have been taking a civilized and
responsible approach.
For the future of our workers in Canada, in Quebec, and in
Abitibi, federal and provincial crown corporations should, in
any general strike, follow the example of the federal minister,
the Liberal member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, who, during the
last strike by Canada Post, introduced a general ban on
employers bringing in other workers to replace striking
employees.
Let us follow the example of this minister. Let us follow the
example of Quebec.
1215
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
happy to speak to the motions before us today. I am going to
concentrate on two of the motions. Primarily I am going to talk
about democracy and the democratic rights of labour union members
and workers to choose their agents in order to basically have a
say in what happens to them.
I think it might be illustrative for all the eager Liberals on
the other side, those who really want to hear examples and facts,
to tell them a bit of my own personal experience since I worked
for many years in what would be called a compulsory union shop.
That is rather remarkable since I am a professional
mathematician. I taught at the Northern Alberta Institute of
Technology. At the time when I started there was no union there.
It was run by the provincial government directly as an arm of the
department of advanced education. We had no union.
I remember that those were some of the finest years we had
because we were able on very short notice to make adjustments to
salaries and benefits as needed in order to attract qualified
staff.
It happened a few years later that the provincial government on
being pushed by certain numbers of people there allowed the
formation of a union, the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees.
Because we were run directly as an arm of the federal government,
we were then forced into membership in the union. Preceding that
all we had was a loose association. It was called the CSA, the
civil service association.
The civil service association before the union was able to bring
matters of concern to the employer. We did that at the local
level at the institute and most of our grievances were dealt with
fairly and quickly.
Along came the government giving its approval to the union and
we then had a forced union membership. Instantly a number of
things happened. Instead of having one boss, we now had two
bosses. Instead of having quick and easy ways of adjusting our
working conditions, salary and so on, it became a cumbersome
legal thing.
In saying all this, I am not in any denigrating the unions or
the union movement. As has been stated by a number of other
people, there has been a number of very positive contributions
made by the unions over the past number of years in this country
and in other countries in improving the lot of workers. But there
are some situations where a union shop just does not fit.
In our professional capacity there as instructors it did not
fit. The reason I say this is we were not permitted to exercise
our democratic rights. As a matter of fact, and this will come
perhaps as a surprise to some members, I was actually for a time
the president of the local of the union there. I got totally fed
up with the union guys at headquarters telling us what we had to
ask for and totally ignoring what our membership at our place of
work wanted. It was very frustrating.
In expressing my frustrations against the union my colleagues
said that's our man, and lo and behold they elected me and I was
the president of the local because I was ready to stand up for
democracy. I suppose I was a reformer before Reform was even
invented. I thought the wishes of the people represented took
precedence over the organization to which they belonged.
We were forced into the union and here I was a member of that
union. I tried my best to represent our wishes. I was trying as
much as possible to co-operate with our employer, with the
administration of the place.
1220
When occasion required it, on behalf of our members I made
forceful representations in order to correct things that were not
right. Most of my frustration was with the union. It would not
listen. We had very inequitable treatment. We were taxed by the
union about three times as much as the average for that union.
We were about 10% of the total membership so it really did not
have to worry about us.
We asked formally if we could get out of the union. We asked
our employer, the department of advanced education, if we could
form a professional association and represent ourselves. It was
not even considered. It would not take it forward. It was so
afraid that the union would then call a strike against the whole
province and as a result it would tie everything up. The
employer was totally intimated by the union.
When I say on one hand the unions have a positive role to play,
one of those roles is not intimidation. One of those roles is
not to hold everybody else hostage in order for them to promote
their agenda. It must be done democratically.
Over a period of time there were some very interesting
developments. In 1982 the province of Alberta decided to cut
loose the technical institutes and the colleges from direct
control and direct administration of the department. Instead
they had new boards appointed. I will not get into a discussion
of political patronage appointments at this stage. That is not
on topic and I know I would be called on it on relevance. So I
will not talk about that.
We were called on to choose our bargaining agent. There were at
each of these institutes and colleges a number of instructors and
teachers. We were called instructors where I worked. There were
750 instructors at the place where I worked and there were about
750 instructors at Southern Alberta Institute of Technology.
There were a number of different locations with a large number of
people. It is quite practical to have a collective agreement in
situations like that. No problem there.
They asked if we should have the Alberta Union of Provincial
Employees continue to represent us or should we go on our own.
Having the board of governors come in gave us that window of
opportunity to choose. Under the new legislation there was a
choice for a new institution, a new organization for the members
to choose.
We had a good debate. It was a great debate. I love a good
substantive debate. I love one where all the members opposite
are listening without heckling. I do not hear a voice of protest
from any of them as I speak.
It really was a great window of opportunity and we discussed it.
In the industrial area of our institute there was a greater
favour to maintain a union. They thought it would have greater
clout. The argument on the other side was that if we had our own
association, free from the central office of the union, we could
concentrate fully on what we were about at our institute. It was
decided that we would have a vote. The vote that decided we
would go on our own was as high as it had been on our previous
straw votes where we had asked if we wanted to get out of the
union.
All I am saying is that we were given the democratic right.
There was a vote held. As I recall, 85% of the members of our
staff said let us form our own association. I was then further
honoured to be asked to be the founding president of the new
staff association. I was there to organize it and put it all
together. We had a great time representing our people. The key
is that the people had the choice.
This bill before us denies the union members, the workers, that
actual choice.
1225
It states that if there is some external outfit such as the
employment relations board it can say those people have a union
whether they want it or not. That is not democratic and is a
violation of the very principle of democracy. Therefore I speak
very strongly against this bill as it is now stated and very
strongly in favour of the Reform motions which will amend it and
fix it up.
I see my time is up. Could I have unanimous consent
to continue for a few more minutes?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There is not
unanimous consent.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I do not know how unanimous consent can be denied without
a quorum.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the hon. member
calling quorum?
Mr. Jason Kenney: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have quorum.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I appreciate the cackling from across the aisle from our
colleagues who do not seem to take too great an interest in this
important debate about democracy in Canada.
I think the kind of procedural games the government plays is
shameful. We just saw my hon. colleague from Elk Island try to
extend his limited remarks on this very important bill and was
denied by no one except some Liberal who poked his in from behind
the curtain carrying a cup of coffee.
I do not know what has happened to the traditions of democratic
debate and deliberation in this place but I do know what the
government is intending to do with Bill C-19. It is attacking—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): As a point of fact,
that is not who denied unanimous consent. Let us try to keep the
remarks elevated somewhat.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I am doing just that and I
hope my hon. colleagues in the government will keep their conduct
in this place elevated. That is not what I see. It is not what
I see in this bill and not what I see in the way they dismiss
debate in this House. They know that what is introduced by a
minister representing the bureaucrats in his departments is going
to be passed regardless of what is said in this place, regardless
of what they say, regardless of whether they sit in this place
and debate bills on second reading or in clause by clause or in
committee.
They know that in so far as democratic deliberation is
concerned, this place has been turned into a joke by this and
previous governments. I know that many of the members opposite,
honourable members, confident people and people of integrity, sat
in this place and debated bills like Bill C-19 when the previous
Progressive Conservative government sat in a majority on the
government side. They tried to debate things while in opposition
and said the same things I am now as an opposition member, that
the bureaucrats run the departments, they run the minister when
it comes to Bill C-19, and the minister runs the backbench
majority of this House.
Democracy is not working and it is not working in Bill C-19.
Labour department bureaucrats have written a bill that overrides
the fundamental principles of liberal democracy on which this
country relies. They say that a hand picked group of patronage
hacks who sit on the Canadian Industrial Relations Board, people
of real integrity and principle like Ted Weatherill, will be able
to determine whether workers are forced into a union against the
will of as many as 70% of the members. That is what Bill C-19 at
page 14 states.
It says the board may order a representational vote on union
certification to satisfy itself that the workers want the union.
They do not have to. They can certify the union themselves.
1230
Who? Not the workers. Who? Not the members of parliament.
Not democratically elected representatives, but hand picked,
unaccountable, unelected, patronage appointees of the government.
They have more power in this bill than do ordinary working
Canadians. That is a disgrace.
I do not know how the members opposite—what members there are
opposite—can support a bill that undermines the principle of
democracy. All we are saying through Motion No. 7, through our
effort to amend this section of the act is that yes, workers have
the right to collectively bargain. Yes, they have the right to
gather together and to enforce their rights and to negotiate
their rights as a collective bargaining unit. Never should a
union be imposed on individuals at a workplace unless they invite
it upon themselves. That is called democracy.
Right here, what we are seeking to do through Motion No. 7 moved
by my hon. colleague from Wetaskiwin is:
That Bill C-19, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing lines 22 to
24 on page 14 with the following:
29.(1) The Board shall, for the purpose of satisfying itself as
to whether employees in a unit wish to have a particular trade
union represent them as their bargaining agent, order that a
representation vote be taken among the employees in the unit
where it is satisfied that at least thirty-five per cent of the
employees in the unit are members of the trade unit applying for
certification.
It is simple and it speaks for itself. I cannot understand why
the government members opposite would not support it.
I look at the testimony that was brought before the human
resources committee on this legislation. People like Mr. Clem
Paul, president of the North Slave Metis Alliance said on this
matter “The Metis do not want unionism forced on them because of
the collective wishes of other groups in the workplace”. The
Metis want to be free to join a union or not, according to the
wishes of the individual. Imagine, freedom. Mr. Paul
understands that but the labour minister, his bureaucrats and the
backbenchers do not.
Mr. Paul went on to say “The choice of whether membership in a
union benefits the worker should be the decision of each person
who is free to make it for themselves. Restrictions on our
freedom to benefit from opportunities coming available for the
first time will harm us”. He is speaking of the Metis people
becoming full partners in any groups of Canadian society. This is
somebody whose people are struggling to get a leg up economically
and they see the danger implicit in this bill.
Mr. John Keenan is vice-president of human resources at
Falconbridge Limited, a major national mining company that has
created thousands of good paying jobs in our economy. On this
section of Bill C-19 he said that “unionized labour is a reality
of working life. As long as there are equitable checks and
balances in our system, the labour relations system, we can work
in a harmonious fashion with our union colleagues”.
He went on to say “As it is now proposed, this section of the
code will polarize labour-management relations and bring us back
into the dark days of the 1950s and 1960s when labour relations
were at a very low ebb in this country. We made a lot of
progress and it is not appropriate to turn back the clock”. He
also said that his company was not consulted on this bill.
Mr. Jim Utley is vice-president of human resources at Cominco,
another major employer. He said on this section that “a secret
ballot for all certification decisions would address these issues
and ensure that employees are given an opportunity to express
their views privately and without either the union or the
employer looking over their shoulders”.
What is the problem with guaranteeing a right to a secret
ballot, he asked, and so do I. He goes on to say “The process is
the cornerstone of our democratic society, yet the proposed
legislation expounds circumstances where this fundamental right
is denied employees”.
The witnesses went on and on and on at the labour committee, at
the human resources committee saying that this is an attack on
democracy.
I ask my colleagues opposite why they do not accept the
principle we are proposing in Motion No. 7. It is the principle
of democracy, the principle that nobody should be coerced by the
power of the state to give up some of their freedoms, to give up
forced union dues unless they give their consent.
The principle that started small l liberal democracy was
the principle of no taxation without representation, that people
cannot be coerced by the power of the state to surrender the
fruits of their labours, or to surrender some of their individual
liberties unless they concur in that process.
1235
Bill C-19 by refusing to require a secret ballot vote for
certification with the support of the majority of members would
do just that. It would force up to 70% of the people at a
workplace into a union even though they expressed their clear and
heartfelt objection.
This has happened. It happened under the rabid labour
legislation introduced by the socialist parties, in Ontario under
Bob Rae and in British Columbia under that maven of economic
growth policy, that real democrat Glen Clark. Those two
provinces had the same kind of provision where the provincial
labour boards could certify a union even against the express
wishes of the majority of the workers.
What has happened? In Windsor, Ontario the Wal-Mart employees
voted 151 to 43 against union certification. But the Ontario
Labour Relations Board hacks, appointed, unaccountable, unelected
appointees, using Bob Rae's labour code said “Sorry. We do not
like the outcome of this vote. We are going to force the 151 to
accept what the 43 wanted”. That is not democracy. Neither was
it democracy in B.C. when the workers at the Wal-Mart store in
Nelson voted overwhelmingly against union certification and the
B.C. relations board overturned that.
In closing I encourage hon. members opposite to stand up for the
democracy they represent by having been elected to this place and
let workers exercise it through a secret ballot in the workplace.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
has turned into a very spirited debate. I want to thank you, Mr.
Speaker, for recognizing me so quickly so I can get to the nub of
this debate today and the things which concern me about Bill
C-19.
As in a lot of bills there is a lot of material in Bill C-19
that is easy to support. The idea of a labour code for Canada is
not a bad thing.
Obviously this bill is a revamp of what we already have and it
is not a bad idea to update it. It did come in in the last
parliament and the government had second thoughts about it and
for some good reasons, which I will get into in a minute, decided
to drop it from the Order Paper. Now a year later it has been
brought back in this parliament. We have seen significant
amendments proposed by the official opposition in committee and
in the House to try to bring the balance we think is necessary in
labour legislation.
I was in the logging industry for many years. In the logging
industry in British Columbia if the company is of any size it
likely means it is a unionized company. I have lived on both
sides of that equation. I worked for a number of years when our
company was not unionized. I was there during the unionization
vote when the members voted to join the union. Without getting
into any of the coercive nature that this bill talks about that
the employers might enter into, I could give a tale of woe from
the other side on that one.
Even so, the IWA is not a bad union to work with and we were
happy to do so for many years. Even after we were unionized,
even though I was in essence the employer with the ability to
hire and fire, the union did not mind. I was a member of the
union even then. The union did not seem to mind. It took my
union dues and was quite happy to do that while I was on the
workforce for many years. Eventually I went into full time
management. I have seen it from all perspectives. In those
perspectives it is important that the word balance in labour
legislation be a key principle that we follow.
For example one of the amendments we proposed in committee
involved the privacy of individuals as to whether or not they
wanted their name to be released to a union when an organizing
drive occurred. I would suggest there is a balance here.
The union I believe has a right to talk to individuals in the
workplace, to put forward its proposals, tell workers why it
thinks they should belong to a union and why the workforce should
be unionized. That is a right unions have. One of our basic blue
book principles is the right to organize, to strike peacefully
and so on. That is a right workers need to have.
1240
Balancing that though is also the right of workers to their
privacy. In other words, should the employer have to give the
names, addresses and phone numbers of workers to a union
organizer? That should be the choice of the workers. It is an
interesting word which the previous speaker used quite often, the
word choice. They should have the choice. By all means they may
be very interested in that information. They may say to the
employer “Send them my name and address. I would like to hear
from them”.
Many people have a different view. They say “That is my
choice. I may want that, but if I do not want that, it is my
right to say my name is not on the list. I do not want anybody
telephoning me at home. I do not want them knocking on the door
of my private dwelling. If they want to talk to me, they can see
me at work because that is what this is all about”. That is
their right.
That is balance between the rights of the organizer to organize
as they should have and the rights of the employee, the
prospective union member, to—
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I want to speak to the idea of the relevancy of what the member
is talking about. We are supposed to be talking about Group No. 2
which I believe is Motion Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 30. Really, what the
hon. member was talking about has no bearing whatsoever on
Reform's motion or—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): With respect he is
speaking directly to Motion No. 7 which amends 29.1.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up by
saying it is very relevant to Motion No. 7. I am trying to build
the case in this debate that the idea of balance is brought in by
our Motion No. 7. I use that as an example. We brought in an
amendment and the government accepted it which I think that was
good and very wise in that case. I would urge them again on this
one, Motion No. 7 to get to the nub of this debate, which is to
try to bring balance into it.
Do workers have the right to organize? A quote from our party's
principles is that Canadian workers have the right to join
unions, to organize, to strike peacefully. That is a basic
democratic right in a free society. We say that is a right and it
must be maintained. Now we get into the how to make this a
balanced and fair procedure.
When my company was unionized many years ago it was a pretty
straightforward process although I will not get into some of the
shenanigans that went on. The process in essence was that union
organizers did their best to convince employees they would be
better off in the union.
It was kind of a strange twist at the time. I remember thinking
it was so ironic. We had just sent our entire staff and their
spouses on a free trip to Hawaii. Maybe that was coercion but
what happened of course is that they used all kinds of tactics to
organize. They will do that. Organizers have their own way of
doing that. They convinced enough workers to go so they
convinced them in a vote. People voted and they were able to go
forward.
Did we go to the labour relations board and say this should not
happen, that this was an injustice? We said we would have to
adjust some of our things accordingly. They wanted to be paid on
a scale and they asked us to remove all the bonuses. I could not
understand it, never could and never will. We removed the bonus
system and other stuff and they preferred it. That was the
workers' choice. They made the choice and went ahead.
The choice is theirs and should be theirs in a secret ballot.
There should be no way they have to stand up at a public meeting
and ask if anyone dares to stand up against the motion and people
cower in the background. Of course not. They should be able to
say “I am going to go to the ballot box and make my vote. I
either want to join the union or I do not”. It is their choice
to make. By all means, that is the balance. That is the check
and the balance in itself in the secret ballot box.
What this motion tries to correct is the error in the government
legislation. The government can say “Only a third of the people
voted for that but we think we know better than they do. We
think we can read their minds, we are omniscient.
We have that special power available only to government ministers
and we can tell that they did not really mean it, so we will
override their democratic choice and we will get them to join
that union whether they like it or not”.
1245
I wonder what would happen on the decertification side. What
would the unions say if they said that only 35% voted to
decertify but they could tell the rest of them did not really
mean it? Sure they voted, it was a secret ballot, they put their
minds around the issue and they made it up on their own, but
really they are what? Are they children? They are not. These
are adults making a choice in a free and democratic society. They
should no more be decertified on a 35% vote than they should be
certified.
It is a simple case. If the board said that it felt something
coercive was going on, if it felt somebody was out of line in
some way, then it should order another vote. It should say that
it will not stand for whatever the activity might be. If the
union is out of line by pressuring somebody or the employer
threatens somebody, we can deal with that. That is illegal. You
cannot coerce people on this. So we are going to deal with that
activity and then we are going to order another vote. As a free
society we have secret ballots and choice on so many issues. We
should also have that choice to join or not to join a union.
This Reform motion tries to bring that balance into the
legislation. There is a need for workers to make that choice and
they have a right to know that choice will be respected when the
ballots are counted. This balance is not in this legislation.
The balance we propose under Motion No. 7 brings it back in.
I would love to talk about final offer binding arbitration and
another way to balance conflicting interests but I will do that
during debate on a further group of amendments.
[Translation]
Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, we do not have a quorum.
[English]
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have quorum. Is
the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
Motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The recorded
division on Motion No. 6 stands deferred. The next question is
on Motion No. 7. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The recorded
division on Motion No. 7 stands deferred.
1250
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 8. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the yeas have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The recorded division on
the motion stands deferred.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 30. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The recorded
division on Motion No. 30 stands deferred.
We will now proceed to the motions in Group No. 3.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-19, in Clause 24, be amended by replacing lines 32
to 45 on page 19 and lines 1 to 4 on page 20 with the following:
“47.3 (1) In this section, “previous contractor” means an
employer who, under the terms of a contract or other arrangement
that is no longer in force, provided preboard security screening
services to another employer, or to a person acting on behalf of
that other employer, in an industry referred to in paragraph (e)
of the definition “federal work, undertaking or business” in
section 2.”
That Bill C-19, in Clause 45, be amended
(a) by replacing line 25 on page 35 with the following:
“tion 24(4) or 34(6), section 37, 50 or 69,”
(b) by replacing line 32 on page 35 with the following:
“subsection 24(4), paragraph”
He said: Mr. Speaker, this clause of Bill C-19, an act to amend
the Canada Labour Code, is dealing with successor rights in a
contract.
What we are suggesting here is that a large section of this
successor rights legislation should be removed because it
basically gives too much discretionary power to the minister. We
really do not think it is appropriate that the minister has the
power to say which federally regulated industries or businesses
are going to have this successor rights applied to them.
The minister and departmental officials have explained to the
committee and to me that the biggest concern here was with
preboarding screening at airports. When the people providing the
services at the airports would organize then usually what would
follow would be the sale of the business providing the contract
to the airport.
The sale of the business would nullify the union that had just
been organized.
1255
The department was telling us that it had a large concern in the
area of security for airports, and that it was continually
training and retraining people to do the work of screening at the
airports. There was the possibility that security would not be
as efficient and as effective as it should be. Perhaps we should
give the minister and his department that much.
What we are saying is that we are not willing to allow the
minister carte blanche on deciding which industries would be
affected by these successor contracts, which businesses would be
handcuffed by not being able to renegotiate with their employees
should they take over in a bona fide sale condition.
There are other parts that apply to this portion that determine
and define what is meant by sale, which in any sort of leasing
program or rollover the business is deemed to have been sold.
My colleague from British Columbia is most anxious to speak to
this bill and to this amendment. He has instances where
railroads have been willing to close spur lines and private
companies have been willing to buy up the line from them and
start short line railroads. It is a disincentive to those
fledgling businesses to take a contract that is going to handcuff
them into paying the same sort of wages and benefits that CPR or
CNR have been paying.
This is a disincentive to business. Some members on the
government side have some concern with this part of the act. I
am hopeful they will have an opportunity to address this in their
remarks and I am hopeful they will concur with the Reform Party
that this should be addressed. I am anticipating their
overwhelming support for my motion.
The hon. member from Rainy River has some expertise in the
railroads. I am positive that he will be on his feet in a few
minutes to tell us about the great benefits in the railroad
unions.
There is some merit to the aspect of preboarding screening.
Everyone in Canada should feel secure that preboarding screening
is done with the utmost of care and that no foreign materials or
contraband can be smuggled on to aircraft. We all feel a lot
better about that because we use those services so often.
It does not seem to matter what bill we are addressing in this
House. Over an over again the governor in council has been given
the latitude to make all kinds of rulings that should be
addressed in legislation rather than left to the whim of the
minister and cabinet.
The present government when it was in opposition certainly must
have made similar representations at that time.
I am very concerned because of what might happen through orders
in council. I would ask them to consider very carefully this
aspect of the bill.
1300
The successor rights provided in this bill will have the effect
of really tying in anybody who is a bona fide purchaser of any
federally regulated industry to whatever contract the predecessor
had. If the company was not flourishing at the time that the
seller sold then it would be very difficult for a fledgling
person to step into an area where he would have to compete with a
global supplier as in the case of the railroads.
In Alberta there are short line railways. If they had to compete
with all the classifications found in the unions as far as job
descriptions and all the rest it would be very difficult for
them. As it is they are in a position where they can provide a
very effective service with minimal amounts tied up in labour
capital.
One particular operator in Alberta is the engineer of a very
successful short line railroad. I am sure he would most
concerned if he were to read these portions of the bill.
In other sections of the bill we have to be very cognizant that
the legislation the House of Commons passes should have some
benefit for the average person in Canada. The average person in
Canada is very dependent on the state of the economy, whether it
is buoyant, stagnant or whether it is actually going backward.
We would have to assess every piece of legislation to that effect
and assess whether the average Canadian will benefit from the
things we are talking about on the bill or whether this will make
it easier to form unions, thereby benefiting the union bosses
rather than the union rank and file.
I am certain there are other members who would like to add their
wisdom to this portion of the bill which I would be most
interested in hearing. I encourage members to vote in favour of
this most sensible amendment.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, successor rights provisions in
the Canada Labour Code have not been interpreted to apply where
there is a change of contractor.
As a result when employees of a contractor elect to unionize and
bargain collectively they often lose their jobs or are forced to
give up monetary benefits when the contract is awarded to another
contractor.
As recommended by the Sims task force, Bill C-19 does not extend
successor right provisions to loss of contract situation. The
bill does include a provision applicable only to airport
preboarding security screening contracts which serves a number of
purposes. It protects the remuneration of a group of low wage
employees who have lost their employment when a contractor has
been able to win a tender by lowering wage rates. It codifies an
existing Transport Canada policy which was negotiated with the
airlines in 1998 to address questions about the quality of
preboarding security screening services at Canadian airports.
The official opposition has put forward a motion to delete
paragraph B of the provision which would authorize the governor
in council to extend application of this provision. Extension of
the provision would be considered only should serious problems
attributable to contract retendering arise in other services or
sectors and only following thorough consultations with affected
parties.
1305
As members are no doubt aware, amending the Canada Labour Code
can be a lengthy process. This provision will ensure that
potentially serious situations can be addressed within reasonable
timeframes.
Motion No. 28 would deny an employee any remedy if his or her
employer violates section 47.3 by failing to pay equivalent
remuneration.
I urge members to not support those motions.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to Motions No. 9 and 28 introduced by the
Reform Party member, because they are related.
I think that the best way of understanding the doublespeak too
often characteristic of legislation and officialdom is to read
the explanatory notes provided by the government.
What we are to take from Motion No. 9 is that, because of the
problems caused by the airline industry's practice of awarding
successive contracts for pre-board security screening services,
Transport Canada concluded, in 1988, an agreement with Canadian
to protect the salaries and benefits of employees when pre-board
security screening services were put out to tender. This is the
policy that is codified in law.
The bill adds that it will be possible to extend the application
of this provision to other sectors of activity that might, of
course, be designated by regulations made by the governor in
council. This has to do with the whole idea of the
privatization of certain public services. Members know how
popular this is right now.
It is the matter of the continuity of existing collective
agreements, that is the improved general working conditions
employees have managed to acquire over years, very often
decades, of labour relations, particularly with respect to
wages. This is what the Reform Party wants to lay open to
question again.
This is most unfortunate, in our opinion, because these are
social gains which have enabled us to live in what can be
described as a civilized society, benefiting from the gains
acquired by the labour movement at the cost of great struggle,
and we must not forget this. Those gains have led to a more
just society, at least in certain areas.
The Reform motion lays all of this open to question again, as it
refuses to acknowledge the previous contractor, or in other
words the obligation of the new contractor to provide employees
with the same benefits they received before.
The Reform Party is also subtly challenging the board's ability
to intervene. In order to be consistent with its own rather
sneaky attack against the low wage earners, against unionized
workers, it says that the board ought not to have the power to
intervene under section 47.3, which deals with the previous
contractor.
It wants this to be removed, which would mean the board could no
longer invoke section 47.3, which applies to contractors and
allows the board to require the party against which a complaint
has been filed—since there is a right to file a complaint if one
feels one is not being properly treated by a new contractor—to
cease to contravene these requirements.
As a result of eliminating section 47.3 and the possibility of
intervention if such cases do occur when there is more
privatization as a result of increased deregulation and
government withdrawal from certain areas, this will prevent the
board from being able to order the employer to pay employees an
amount equivalent to, or in excess of, the amount they would
have been paid by the employer if there had not been a
violation.
1310
This gives a very good idea of the sort of mentality to be found
in the official opposition, within this so-called reform party,
which reforms from underneath, widens the gap between the rich
and the poor and delights in the monstrous profits made by
private industry, where there is no requirement to be
accountable, except to the shareholders. They are almost
congratulating themselves on the widening gap between the rich
and the poor. They want to bring everyone down to the same
level. They challenge such commendable things as unions. They
challenge them instead of recognizing them.
The working conditions of the honest worker are at stake.
This is what is being challenged by those who have a say, who
polish their halos as they bend parliamentary procedures, as we
have seen recently, and they are doing this on the backs of low
income Canadians.
We must decry this with our very last breath, because, in the
end, workers' dignity is at issue. The aim is to make the
biggest profits with the lowest expenditure on the backs of the
employees. This was curbed in the evolution of societies
through the intervention of unions and the arrival of social
programs. It was regulated somewhat. In today's neo-liberal
context, there are lawyers of their ilk who defend the widening
of the gap between the rich and the poor, and I think it is our
job to criticize them.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
quite interested in these clauses. I did rise to speak to some
of the other motions to try to convey our views and why we are
not in favour of Reform's motions to amend Bill C-19 at this late
stage.
The motions we are dealing with now, Nos. 9 and 28, deal with
successor rights, a fundamental principle that we should be happy
to have strengthened and enshrined in our code because it is a
matter of basic fairness again.
Like so many of the changes in Bill C-19, it finds its origins
in the fact that we are striving for a balanced situation to be
put in place that is more fair to all the parties. It deals
specifically with airport workers. However, we can take this
idea further because with the privatization and more and more
frequent sales and mergers of companies, this issue comes up more
often in the federally regulated industrial relations climate.
There are recent horrifying examples that have worked out to the
detriment of workers. For instance, in the privatization at
Goose Bay, non-military people are now being hired back by the
private contractor at about half the wages they used to make
before. The instances were piling up to the point where it was
necessary to take some steps.
I do not think any of these motions are going to really help us
to achieve social justice. I do not think one can ever achieve
social justice through parliamentary means, frankly, because that
is the job of the labour movement. It is the union's job to
achieve economic and social justice.
What we can do is try to create the legislative framework within
which unions can function, prosper, flourish and do their jobs.
Bill C-19 tries to deal with the historic imbalance that exists
between employers and employees, the imbalance in the power
relationship. We are trying to level those things out so that
people have a fighting chance and can deal with each other on a
level playing field.
A number of the motions that Reform is trying to advocate here
worry me because there is always something just below the surface
that is kind of sinister about Reform motions. It is cause for
concern. It is not even that far under the surface. It is
sometimes quite overt. A person can be presumed to have intended
the probable consequences of his or her actions. It is a well
known point in law. The probable and predictable consequences of
many of the motions the Reform Party is advocating would be that
it would be much more difficult for workers to form a union.
It would be much more difficult for workers to negotiate
benefits through their union, and all those predictable things.
1315
Really what they are trying to sell here is a worked over
version of the right-to-work policy and philosophy. Right to
work is the sad state of affairs in 21 of the United States. I do
not think it is any coincidence that the Fraser Institute has
just released “Right to Work”, the answer for the new
millennium for labour relations, which is being flogged around
the Hill. In fact, copies were delivered to my office.
Reform is using Bill C-19 as a launching pad
to try to kick off its campaign to introduce right-to-work
legislation in this country. It failed to do that in the
province of Alberta. Even a right winger like Ralph Klein threw
the idea out because it is an obsolete, out-dated and divisive
concept. It has tried to introduce it into parliament in a
back-handed, back-door way.
While we are legitimately trying to make Bill C-19 better, those
members are trying to tear down the whole idea with a rather
sinister package of motions which really undermines the whole
concept of freedom of association, the right to collective
bargaining and the legitimate role of unions to try to elevate
the standards of wages and working conditions for the people they
represent.
There is nothing wrong with fair wages. Fair wages benefit the
whole community. In the richest and most powerful civilization
in the history of the world, someone would have a hard time
arguing why we should be tightening our belts and rolling back
when banks and corporations are making record profits. Who will
advocate for working people that point of view if unions will not
make the argument for them?
I really am worried by the tone and the content of some of the
motions put forward by the Reform Party. I think there is an
underlying objective here. I used the word “sinister” and I do
not think it is overstating things.
Those members seem to have, whether it is stated right up front
or coming in the back door in some kind of sleazy way, a
secondary objective. I can point out one case certainly. They
were arguing that when 35% of the cards are signed, under Bill
C-19 a vote will be ordered. The labour board may have a
supervised vote so that workers can then choose whether they want
a union or not.
The change they made would result in having a vote every time.
Even if the workers' representative went to the labour board with
85% of the cards signed, their change states that the labour
board shall order a vote. Workers would have to vote even if
they demonstrated 100% support. They are making people vote
twice. How democratic is that?
Are those members not satisfied that people have voted once?
Will people be made to vote until the desired result is achieved?
They talk about democracy. That is nothing short of sleazy. It
is an abuse of power.
Those members are trying to slip in a secondary objective with
something which, on the face of it, might look like a reasonable
request.
If they were only asking that the board shall order a vote if
35% of the cards are signed, but if 51% of the cards are signed
or 50%-plus certification is automatic, I could then vote in
favour of the motion. But that is not what they mean. It is a
much bigger package than that.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to point out some of these
things before the end of the day. I have a feeling we are going
to be up and down a number of times saying that those members are
abusing democracy again. Although I should not say that because
filibustering is a legitimate tactic that members use in the
House of Commons.
However, it makes me wonder how it is in the best interests of
the Canadian people. It makes me wonder whether they have really
thought about the 100,000 prairie farmers who are very anxious to
see Bill C-19 go through so they can ship their crops with the
comfort of knowing that things will be handled and there will not
be any work stoppages interfering with the movement of their
commodity.
Have they talked to the UGG? Have they talked to the pool
elevator operators? Have they talked to the prairie farmers and
received their okay for dragging this bill to a halt and
preventing Canadians from having the advantage of this very
worthwhile piece of legislation? I do not think so, because the
prairie farmers who those members like to think they represent
would give them an earful. I think they would tell them loud and
clear that they want passage of Bill C-19 because it has merit
and value. It is good for Canadian working people and it will
create balance.
1320
In some of their remarks they even had the audacity to suggest
that Bill C-19 is going to somehow have an impact on our ability
to trade internationally, that it is going to hold us back. They
were talking about the guy from Papua, New Guinea. It is
completely absurd.
In actual fact the countries that are moving forward, the
countries that are making progress, are the countries that deal
in a tripartite way, where business, government and labour sit
down at the table together to chart a social and economic plan
and platform. It is not divisive. These guys are living in
the past. They want to smash unions. They want unions out of
the way. They do not recognize the legitimacy of unions.
We are not going to move forward if we have that mindset. The
hon. member for Trois-Rivières is nodding his head because
Quebec's model follows those lines. Labour is a legitimate
practitioner in the community. Labour is seen to have a valid
opinion and is consulted.
When the Reform Party finally gives up trying to bash unions and
trying to be shills for the right to work movement and the Fraser
Institute, maybe we can move forward as a country in a truly
tripartite fashion. I think that is what Bill C-19 speaks to and
that gives me some hope that there is an interest in dealing with
issues in that way.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there
are two things I could do; however, I am going to do only one.
My temptation is to get into this tirade of nonsense that we were
just subjected to, but I am not going to do that. I am going to
talk about the amendments in Group No. 3.
An hon. member: You have some support on the other side
there, Werner.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: I am so pleased that for a change the
government has seen some wisdom coming from the official
opposition. That is very good and I commend government members
for it. I hope that when it comes to Group No. 2 they will
remember that and vote in favour of the motion that the official
opposition has presented. It is very significant that they do
that because democracy is at the heart of this issue to a large
degree. There are a lot of things at the heart of this issue.
I would like to get to the actual amendment that is being
proposed by the official opposition. I would like to read that
part of the bill which is being deleted by this amendment.
If we look at the bill we see that the connecting word is
“or”. We can do this specific thing that is being codified in
the legislation that currently exists governing airports,
employees and the contracts that exist. Then it says “or”. We
want to leave that first part in because to codify that is
advisable and a good thing. But after that we find the word
“or” and it states:
That opens the door to anything. It is so wide open we could
drive half a dozen trucks through it and we would not know they
had gone through. It continues:
That is so wide open that it really takes away one of the
fundamental considerations in running a business or in
negotiating a contract.
By the way, I have to slip at least one point in here to respond
to the tirade of remarks that we heard just a moment ago.
1325
The official opposition in no way opposes the organization of
labour into groups to negotiate contracts. In fact we encourage
that in a way that allows that kind of organization to take place
in the most democratic fashion that can be devised. That is at
the heart of this issue. Having done that, we need to recognize
that if we are going to have contracts like that—and the idea of
successor rights deals with those contracts—the one thing we do
not want in those contracts is ambiguity.
Paragraph (b), which we are deleting from the proposed bill,
makes it totally ambiguous as to who will and who will not be
designated by the governor in council on the recommendation of
the minister, and who should be included or excluded in terms of
successor rights. That is precisely what contract negotiations
are all about. They take away the ambiguity of salary schedules,
they take away the ambiguity of benefits, bonuses, group
insurance plans or whatever the employee benefits might be. All
of those are written into the contract to take away that
ambiguity.
The successor rights that presently exist ensure that the
employee who has been employed by a previous contract can
continue on through to the next employer when doing the same kind
of work as the employee was doing under contract with the federal
government. The employee is employed by the minister. However,
paragraph (b), which we want to delete, opens it up so wide that
nobody knows what in the world is going on. One of the major
reasons we oppose this is because of the ambiguity.
Not only do we want definite, specific certification
requirements, we want specific recognition of what exists or does
not exist in terms of successor rights. We want that for three
reasons: it provides stability, predictability and confidence
for the contractor, the existing business, the employer and the
government. We want to know what it will cost us.
I cannot believe my ears sometimes when the government seems to
say only this far and no farther, but in the next instance it
seems to have an absolutely open door. For the life of me I
cannot understand some of the nonsense we heard yesterday about
the absolutely open, unaccountable regional development agencies.
They can come forward, make applications, present their budgets,
have no measurable objectives, change their mandates every three
or four years and the government say this is responsible.
We want to know how much an employment contract will cost. Then
we can plan our budgets properly. We also want to be able to
predict what the new employer will be involved in with this group
of employees. We want to be confident that the contract will not
be changed arbitrarily or that if another employer were to take a
related contract that somehow another union would come in and
change the employer's relationship with the employees. Then we
would have a contradiction and a major conflict.
That brings me to the beginning of this bill. This is the
number one purpose of the bill:
This enactment 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.
That is the underlying principle which is supposed to be
governing this legislation. It is a wonderful statement. Who
would not agree with that kind of statement? Then we see a
provision like this and we ask: What does that do to bring about
harmony and stability? What does that do to create planning,
consistency and the confidence that this will work?
It is amazing the way in which Liberals can twist logic.
1330
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland):
It being 1.30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland):
I received notice from the hon. member for London North Centre
that he is unable to move his motion during private members' hour
on Monday, May 11, 1998.
It has not been possible to arrange an exchange of positions in
the order of precedence. Accordingly I am directing the table
officers to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order
of precedence. Private members' hour will thus be cancelled and
government orders will begin at 11.00 a.m.
* * *
RURAL ROAD SYSTEM
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should apply
a portion of tax dollars raised on fuel sales to the maintenance
of the rural road system in Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a beautiful sunny Friday afternoon
in Ottawa. I know the majority of members in the House would
much prefer to be in their ridings or with their families.
However, I assure them that I will make sure I keep their
attention totally rapt on an issue that is extremely important
not only for constituents in my riding but for constituents
throughout our great country.
The issue I have brought forward is not a terribly romantic one.
It is not something that people can stand on soapboxes, make
wonderful speeches and get very emotional about. Even though
there is no romanticism tied in with the issue, I can assure it
is a very vital issue. The issue is one that is the economic
lifeline of rural Canada, particularly western rural communities.
The motion as put forward has not been deemed to be votable,
which is unfortunate and I mean that very sincerely. I know
members of the Liberal government would be more than happy to
support an issue of this nature. A number of members on the
government side have these issues and problems cropping up in
their communities, particularly those in rural Ontario.
This is the economic lifeline of rural Canada. This is the
economic lifeline of western Canada wherein the commodities
produced in rural western Canada are commodities that have to
travel across a transportation system to get to market.
The agricultural industry is a huge industrial sector in Canada.
We are known nationally and internationally as the providers of
agricultural products second to none. In order to take the
product from the farm gate and get it to world markets it
requires a transportation system and infrastructure that are in
proper condition.
Sir John A. Macdonald saw transportation as a link of this great
country. He saw it through the railroads. Now our
transportation systems have changed quite dramatically over those
years. We now have dramatic changes in air travel. We have
dramatic changes in rubber traffic and travel on road systems. In
fact, back in Sir John A.'s day he would not have expected the
kind of travel we have now on the electronic highway. If the
truth be known, it is still the simplistic transportation system
of roadways that is so very important to our country.
Rural infrastructure is deteriorating as we speak.
The rural infrastructure is in peril. It is in absolute disarray
at this point in time, the reason being there are no federal tax
dollars going into our national highways.
1335
Because of Liberal policy, the reduction of transfer payments
and their impacts on provincial governments, provincial
governments have cut back on their own infrastructure. They are
also responsible for ensuring our national highways are
maintained, upgraded and rehabilitated.
There is no federal money going into the national highways
program. The reconstruction and maintenance of the Trans-Canada
Highway are done on the backs of the provinces. The provinces
spend their money. I give them full credit, particularly the
western provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and
Manitoba. They have done an exemplary job with perhaps the
exception of Saskatchewan which has not put a lot of money into
the Trans-Canada Highway. The other three western provinces have
put substantial dollars to twin the highway which is the vital
transportation link across the country.
They have done it with provincial dollars and without federal
dollars. Thus they do not have any provincial dollars to put
into secondary roads. I speak today of the secondary roads which
are the vital link to our rural communities and to major market
areas. That downloading has caused severe problems.
Let us look in our mind's eye at producers in rural Manitoba,
rural Saskatchewan or rural Alberta. No longer do have the vital
rail links we have talked about, have heard about and have in
fact experienced. As a result of CN and CP rail abandonment
programs the short lines going into communities have now been
abandoned.
The only option for producers in the areas is to transport their
commodities—and we are talking huge bulk commodities in most
cases—across rural municipal roads that do not have the benefit
of tax dollars to the same degree as federal government. These
roads unfortunately cannot be maintained by small rural
municipalities which have a smaller assessment base today than
they had previously.
Producers are taking the commodity and transporting it many more
miles than they had to years ago. In their wisdom grain
companies, and rightfully so, are developing new and major grain
terminals, high throughput terminals. By example, I have four
new terminals being built in my constituency.
With four new high throughput terminals also comes the
abandonment of the smaller grain elevator which in most cases was
located close to the producer. Producers only had to travel
perhaps 5, 10 or 15 kilometres to arrive at an elevator. Now
they have to travel in some cases up to 100 kilometres on rural
roads for which there is no money available for maintenance.
Producers are now using much larger vehicles such as
semi-trailers and B-trains or a semi-trailer with a little pup
attached. Unfortunately they take a grave and great toll on
highways in the rural areas of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and
Alberta. This is a great dilemma for the RMs. Because of the
downloading from the provinces and no money coming in, obviously
the opportunity of getting product to market becomes less and
less possible and more and more expensive.
This little preamble explains why I am here, why we are here and
why this issue is so very important. The real issue is how to
get dollars to the real area of responsibility. The real
responsibility lies with the federal government. It lies with
the federal government to put in place a national highways
program.
I will not talk specifically to that right now, but let us look
at the waterfall effect. If there were a national highways
program where the federal government put in dollars and
provincial governments did not have to spend money on the
Trans-Canada Highway or major routes, they could then put their
money back into where it is necessary right now in rural
municipalities.
Canada remains the only developed country in the world that does
not have a national policy for highways. Canada has a national
policy for air, marine and rail, but none for the mode that
conveys the most people and the most goods. That is deplorable.
1340
I am asking today that dollars be identified simply from a
percentage of the excise tax raised on fuel. This does not take
a rocket scientist to understand.
The federal government collects from taxpayers billions of
dollars a year through taxes on fuel. Virtually none of that
money goes into the actual area it should, infrastructure and
road improvement. It goes into this big black hole called
general revenue and is spent on wonderful projects the Liberals
see fit to support such as the backbencher's millennium fund and
other areas of responsibility. It certainly has not gone into
the compensation package for hepatitis C victims, but I was not
to mention that in this speech.
The federal government has said it would allocate 50 cents of
every dollar of anticipated surplus for new priorities. It would
be my humble opinion to suggest to the government it should start
helping rural Canada by endorsing the principle of the motion.
The motion calls on the federal government to make a real
commitment to rural Canada. The rural road system is a vital
element to Canadians from coast to coast, but in particular my
area of responsibility, western Canada, has not been given a fair
and equitable consideration in this matter.
That being said, the committee on Private Members' Business did
not deem the motion votable. Unfortunately the majority of
committee members did not see it as an important enough issue to
deem it votable. I think there would be a wide range of support
from all members if in fact they had the opportunity to vote on
the motion.
Western Canada will receive less than 2% of all federal
investment in highways during the next five years. Cash flow
projects from Transport Canada suggest that during the next five
years the federal government will contribute about $900 million
to eastern Canada for highway construction. Western Canada will
receive $13 million, of which zero goes to Manitoba, $2 million
goes to Saskatchewan, zero to Alberta, $6 million to B.C., $4
million to Yukon and $900,000 to the territories.
It is clear that municipal governments cannot continue to carry
the financial burden of the maintenance of these roads without
more financial contribution from the federal government.
In Manitoba alone the federal government will collect
approximately $140.7 million in road excise tax this year and
zero will go back to Manitoba in that same time. The federal
government has not committed any funding toward Manitoba's
provincial highway system for the 1998-99 fiscal year.
In the years between 1992 and 1996 the federal government
allocated on average $6.4 million per year to Manitoba despite
collecting in Manitoba an average of $124 million per year.
An hon. member: What about the equalization funds?
Mr. Rick Borotsik: The equalization payments have already
been cut. The equalization payments have been reduced by some
35% in the meantime. I am trying to concentrate specifically on
the excise tax that is being collected, $140 million out and zero
back into roads.
In reality the federal government has only put 4.8% of the money
it collects from Manitoba road users back into Manitoba roads.
That is deplorable.
It should also be noted that of the $27 million the western
grain transportation adjustment fund allocated by the federal
government to Manitoba in 1997 very little went back to roads.
The Liberal government of the day decided it was best to put it
into the electronic highway as opposed to the rural
infrastructure program.
There are some alternatives. As a matter of fact the president
of UGG said that moneys generated from the sale of the hopper
cars that will take place, the $250 million to $350 million,
should go back into rural road infrastructure. Its president,
Mr. Ted Allen, said that investment in road infrastructure at
both the federal and provincial level had failed to keep up with
the pace of the burgeoning growth in the agriculture sector.
1345
When the hopper cars are sold, the money should not be put back
into general revenue for these wonderful programs that are
thought up. The money should be put back into the programs that
we should have right now such as rural roads.
The president also noted that the federal government collects
over $4 billion in fuel tax revenue annually, but last year spent
only $270 million nationally in road infrastructure. That being
said I would like to say that the federal government in fact does
have a mandate. It is a federal responsibility to make sure that
the infrastructure in the transportation system in this country
is in working order.
The economy that is developed and generated from rural Canada is
immense. We have to make sure that the infrastucture stays in
place in order for us to enable the economy to further develop.
We must further develop that infrastructure.
I do have an opportunity to wrap up in the last five minutes. I
will be more than happy to do that.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this motion recommends that the
government dedicate all the revenues from fuel taxes to just one
purpose, maintaining Canada's rural road system.
First let us make it clear that from day one this government has
recognized the importance of Canada's infrastructure to improve
our quality of life, unlike the hon. member across the way.
One of the first actions we took upon taking office in 1993 was
to launch the $6 billion Canada infrastructure program together
with the provinces and municipalities as partners. The program
was extended last year with an additional $425 million federal
commitment. This joint effort has benefited both urban and rural
communities by strengthening their competitiveness with improved
infrastructure, including rural roads.
Let us also be very clear about the consequences of supporting
the motion we are debating today. In 1996-97 excise taxes on
fuel amounted to $4.4 billion. By earmarking these funds for
rural road maintenance, the government would then have three
options: reduce spending in other areas by the same amount;
raise taxes by $4.4 billion; or let the deficit re-emerge, one
thing that the hon. member is very familiar with given the fact
that he is from the Conservative Party.
Canadians do not want their health spending, education
assistance or old age security cut by $4.4 billion. They do not
want their taxes increased by $4.4 billion. And they certainly
do not want the deficit to reappear after having made so many
sacrifices to get rid of it. Clearly none of these options is
acceptable.
Equally important, earmarking taxes is an idea that is
fundamentally flawed. It would curtail the government's ability
to respond to new and emerging priorities. It could result in
overfunding of some initiatives and underfunding of others.
To be effective, government has to be flexible so it can adapt
quickly to changing priorities. That is why the government's
current policy is to direct all revenues into the consolidated
revenue fund from which all initiatives are funded. Simply put,
earmarking taxes would tie the government's hands by limiting its
ability to address important priorities as they arise. It is
simply bad policy.
It is clear that the government is in much better fiscal shape
than it was even several years ago and that it will have more
room to manoeuvre in the years ahead and more resources to
address important issues, but we must maintain a realistic
perspective in this regard. In an era of limited resources
government must be focused. It must work in partnership and it
must only act where it can make a difference. It must take a
balanced approach to the overriding objective of building a
strong economy and a secure society.
The 1998 budget announced a historic fiscal achievement and
reconfirmed our balanced approach to building a strong economy
and a secure society. It announced that the federal books would
be balanced in 1997-98 for the first time since 1970. We will
also balance the budget this year and next year. It is the first
time in almost 50 years that Canadians will see three consecutive
balanced budgets.
Our commitment to fiscal responsibility to put an end to credit
card government does not end there. We will reduce Canada's debt
burden through a two front strategy of stronger economic growth
and a concrete debt repayment plan.
Our government has always recognized that a healthy bottom line
is a means to an end and not an end in itself, unlike the Reform
Party. The 1998 budget uses our new leverage for strategic
investments in areas where government can make a difference.
For example the budget launched the Canadian opportunities
strategy. The strategy, including the Canada millennium
scholarships, will improve Canadians' access to knowledge and
skills, something that the Reform Party is not in favour of.
The budget provides funding to increase the Canada child tax
benefit by an additional $850 million in two steps.
Improving Canadian health care is one of the government's core
priorities. That is why as our books improve one of our first
and most significant initiatives was to introduce legislation to
increase the Canada health and social transfer cash floor from
$11 billion to $12.5 billion.
1350
Finally the 1998 budget also begins the process of general
income tax relief which is a key priority for Canadians and for
the government. We all know, as it has been said often in the
House, that at the outset tax relief measures would be modest
because the financial dividend that makes them possible is modest
as well. The budget announced reductions in taxes for those who
can least afford to pay them, low and middle income Canadians.
These measures will provide close to $1.6 billion in tax relief
to 14 million low and middle income Canadians, that being 90% of
all income tax filers.
These are the government's priorities. We believe that they
reflect what Canadians want.
Our goal is to build a strong economy and a secure society, one
that can provide Canadians with the opportunity and the ability
to succeed in an ever evolving economy while still ensuring their
security and well-being. Our approach is delivering real
benefits for Canadians today and a robust outlook for Canada as
we look toward the new millennium. We saw the unemployment
numbers just the other day.
Governments have to make choices. We have to make choices about
what priorities we should pursue as a government and ensure that
those priorities reflect what Canadians tell us.
Earmarking over $4 billion in revenues for rural highway
maintenance would not be the best choice for Canada or Canadians.
That is why I urge all members to reject the motion before the
House. It is bad policy. It is a policy that does not reflect
Canadian priorities.
I respectfully submit that what the government has done since
1993 does reflect what Canadians have asked for. We see the
fruits of our labour. We see that Canadians have made
sacrifices. The government is not about to squander the
sacrifices Canadians have made by imposing a policy upon them
that would not reflect what they want.
The government will not start to earmark money and get into the
whole scenario where it is overfunding in one area, underfunding
in another area and ultimately having to make choices. To do what
the hon. member is asking we would have to raise taxes. We would
have to make cuts in other areas in order to fund $4.4 billion to
do what the hon. member is asking. That is not what Canadians
are asking for. It is certainly not what the government is
prepared to do.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, perhaps the shortage of money the parliamentary
secretary refers to could be solved if we gave all the national
highways to Bombardier. There is always money for folks like
them. Then there would be no argument here today.
I listened to the parliamentary secretary's dissertation and I
lost track of the number of times I heard the words “our
government, this government, my government”. This is Private
Members' Business. I do not think the hon. parliamentary
secretary is clear on the concept. In fact he is hardly clear on
any concept.
This is the only country in the western world that has no
national highway program or even a coherent national highway
policy. This country has 900,000 kilometres of public roads,
streets and highways. Of them, 202,000 or 22% are in my own
little province of Saskatchewan and a minuscule fraction, 15,000
kilometres are federal roads mostly in parks and on Indian
reserves. Another 24,400 kilometres are part of the designated
national highway system.
The federal government collects a whopping $5 billion annually
in fuel taxes of which $4 billion comes specifically from highway
fuels.
I would remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that the excise
tax on fuels was initiated in response to the first fuel shock.
It was used to buy up a bunch of private oil companies. It was a
portion of the discredited national energy policy. It was a
stick with which to beat the Canadian people.
1355
Guess what? We are not using the excise tax for that purpose
any longer. But has anyone ever heard of a government ceasing to
collect a tax that it does not use for the purpose that it was
designed for? Good heavens, we are still collecting the income
tax which was brought in as an emergency measure to finance the
war effort in World War I. We still have the excise tax that was
brought in to help us through the first oil shock.
To cut this down to a little finer geographic limit, on gasoline
alone, not diesel, the federal fuel excise tax in the prairie
provinces is $650 million. The annual return to those provinces
is limited to a few million, very few million as we heard from
the hon. member for Brandon—Souris. For their excise taxes they
get back a little bit of WGTA compensation for roads and a
minuscule share of the famous infrastructure program.
Concerning Saskatchewan, I have to disagree with the hon. member
for Brandon—Souris. Saskatchewan has actually given up on the
predatory federal government and has started on its own to go
ahead and twin the Trans-Canada Highway. With partners like we
have in the federal government there is just no hope.
Saskatchewan actually had all its money on the table four years
ago for the twinning program. The feds negotiated but when it
came down to the short strokes and discovered that the
Saskatchewan government was serious, it ran for the woods. Now
we are paying for it ourselves.
I would like to give some numbers. This is the place where
numbers should be discussed as it is a technical subject. The
U.S. invests 31% of its gas tax revenues in highways. Germany
invests 38%. Italy invests 45%. Australia invests 50%. France
and Spain invest 65% each. Great Britain invests 100%. Canada
invests 4% in highways.
With rail line abandonments we are having a disaster in our
transportation system in western Canada. The highways and
municipal roads are falling apart. Nevertheless, I do not have
exactly the same take on this as the member for Brandon—Souris.
I do not think the feds should take dedicated fuel tax revenues
and put them directly into municipal or rural roads. I do believe
that the government should give a reasonable portion of them to
the provinces to use, as they would naturally bring them back
into the municipal system.
I also believe the government should meet its obligations and do
something about our disgraceful national highway system. We are
a laughing stock.
There is one little stretch of the famous Trans-Canada Highway
in the western edge of my riding, 108 kilometres, that has killed
39 people in the last 20 years. People call it the death strip.
It is one of the places where the Saskatchewan government is now
starting to do some twinning. It is in the Maple Creek area.
This is only one death strip. There is another one in the
Kicking Horse Pass. There is another one not too far out of
Revelstoke. They are everywhere and this government will not
pony up to its responsibilities.
At one time we had legislation in this country to bring in a
national highway system. We actually completed a Trans-Canada
Highway of sorts way back in 1961 but since then nothing has
happened. We have a federal government that shirks its
responsibility.
The Canadian Automobile Association has come with a plan which I
and my party have supported now for a number of months. I think
it makes eminent sense.
They say “We know the federal government is addicted to this
excise tax. It cannot just put it all from whence it came into
roads where it should go. So give us back a mere 20%, two cents
to the litre”. Within six or seven years we would have a
national highway system that we would not have to be ashamed of,
that would not be killing our citizens, that would not be forcing
people driving from eastern to western Canada to divert down
through Michigan in order to avoid our national highway.
1400
This is happening right now. It is not just mom and pop on
vacation but the commercial trucking industry is picking its way
down through the United States in order to avoid the use of the
Trans-Canada Highway. That is embarrassing. That is disgraceful.
As a Reformer of course I cannot avoid talking about costs. The
hon. parliamentary secretary alluded to it. We would not have
money to do surveys on the desirability of sodomy if we were
going to spend money on public roads. But if we do not look after
our roads they disintegrate.
In the first 12 years the cost of maintaining a paved road is
only $500 to $1,000 per annum per kilometre. At that point
deterioration accelerates and we have to start resurfacing at a
cost of about $80,000 per lane kilometre. After another 12 years
pavement break-up begins and full reconstruction has to be done
at a cost of about a quarter of a million dollars per lane
kilometre.
What is the old saying, a stitch in time saves nine. If we
looked after these roads, if we gave them the maintenance they
deserve, we would not be getting into the box we are in now.
The Trans-Canada Highway is old by highway standards. The two
lane highway we have through most of the country was actually
built in 1961-62. It has to be fixed. Nobody except the feds
has any money and the feds glom every nickel they can get. It is
about time they started to live up to their responsibilities.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the motion by
the member for Brandon—Souris. I will first read the motion, so
we can put the debate in context.
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should apply
a portion of tax dollars raised on fuel sales to the maintenance
of the rural road system in Canada.
When we first read the motion, we tend to want to support it,
because when as members we realize that the rural road system in
our riding, in our region, is not necessarily adequate, we feel
that something should be done.
Unfortunately, it is like knocking at the wrong door. The
federal government should not be looking after the rural road
system. We have increasingly of late been looking at the
possibly of developing a home care system, which the government
would look after across Canada.
The situation is the same in the case of the rural road system.
It is under provincial jurisdiction, and if there is one
government not equipped to look after it, it is the federal
government. We need only look at the past mess in the whole
business of federal government transportation policy
development.
In my riding, they decided some 15 years ago to close a railway
line. That put huge pressure on the road system and resulted in
endless numbers of trucks on the road. Now, we are having to
repair the road in question.
The province has to pay for the bad choice by the federal
government because the regional road system needs to be
maintained.
1405
I think we have to put things in perspective. The jurisdiction
is provincial and the responsibility, municipal. A whole
process already exists to manage this sort of thing.
If there is a model or an approach for the future we might
contemplate, it might well be the infrastructure program. The
Bloc has already indicated its support for renewal of this
program.
It earned the congratulations of the President of the Treasury
Board, who said to us on April 3, following our request, that he
appreciated the Bloc Quebecois' support for the Canada-Quebec
infrastructure works program and wanted to assure us that our
viewpoint would be given all due consideration when the federal
government examined the options for the future of the program.
This might be an approach. If the federal government wants to
spend a third of the money in such a program and leave it up to
the local level to decide its priorities and how best to improve
its regional network, this might be the way to go.
However, this arrangement must not provide for programs that
would allow the federal government to intervene directly in the
rural network.
This would be in contradiction to its recent practice in the
transportation sector of divesting itself of ports and airports.
Over the past 30 years of administration, we have seen that
costs have skyrocketed. Costs are always higher and things are
always more complicated when the government which has the
jurisdiction is further removed from the reality and costs are
always lower when the closer government assumes responsibility
and accountability for the work done.
So, there is perhaps another approach to be considered. In the
end, it is always the same consumer who pays.
If people want a good rural road system and if they want the
appropriate level of government, be it municipal or provincial,
to have the money available, the federal government could simply
reduce its tax grab and allow the government responsible for
developing the rural road system to collect the money.
Unfortunately, the solution proposed will not correct a very
real problem. If people decide to let the federal government
invest in this project, they will never be able to ensure that
it is accountable and that the money collected has actually been
spent on the rural road system.
Like the member for Brandon—Souris, I have examples in my riding
of manufacturers that could benefit from a better rural road
system.
In Saint-Joseph-de-Kamouraska, there is a small company located on
a rural route that needs a better road system for reasons of
improved accessibility. This would help with its economic
activity, the development of its markets and the transportation
of the goods it produces. In the case of examples such as these,
I think that something should obviously be done.
Another example in my riding is highway 185 between
Rivière-du-Loup and New Brunswick. This highway has experienced
an incredible increase in car traffic because of the improvement
in communications and the fact that the Rivière-du-Loup sector,
among others, is a regional transportation pole. We would like
to see additional money invested in this area.
I think that no one in our region would criticize the federal
government for deciding all of a sudden not to go ahead with the
purchase of submarines for $750 million but rather to make this
amount available to local governments to help improve the
highway system.
In Canada, the highway system was developed after the railway
system, which had itself been developed along an east-west axis
that no longer meets current development priorities.
The road system must be developed on a north-south axis so we can
travel from Vancouver to Seattle, from the western provinces to
the U.S. Midwest, or from Ontario and Quebec to New England,
which would ensure better access to the North American market
and promote exportation.
In this respect, the federal government should ask itself
whether it is really investing in the right areas.
1410
Let us avoid asking the federal government to intervene in the
rural road system in Canada. It lacks the efficiency for this.
Besides, this is not its responsibility. It is a provincial
responsibility, a municipal responsibility. The proof of this
lies in the implementation of the first phase of the
infrastructure program.
In my riding, we have spent money on projects in a number of
municipalities, and since the municipality was in charge of the
project, the work could often be done at half the cost it would
have been for a higher level of government to do it.
The local government knows what is required. It knows what is
needed, it knows what additional resources are needed to get
results. But let us not get federal government money involved.
We will lose more in administration costs than we will gain in
actual investment in the project.
We have already seen this in the past, systems that cost so much
to administer that the funds do not get to those they are
intended to help.
In conclusion, I would like to point out that I recognize the
good intentions of the hon. member behind this motion, but I do
not see this as the right solution to a real problem.
The real solution lies more in getting the federal government to
look after its own affairs a little more, to ensure that it runs
its own affairs more efficiently, to agree to decrease the tax
burden on Canadians, so that the governments responsible for
such projects will be the ones to levy taxes as they are needed.
The road system, whether rural, provincial, or Canada-wide, is an
essential tool of economic development, and when the federal
government said that it would subject all of its actions to the
criterion of rural impact, I trust that this was not with the
intent of intervening in areas in which it cannot be efficient.
[English]
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to be part of the debate today on the matter of great
importance for rural Canadians. I congratulate the hon. member
for focusing our attention on the state of rural roads in Canada.
With over 90% of the land mass, one third of the population, one
fifth of the employed workforce, rural issues demand more
attention than they receive.
Primary industries comprise the bulk of rural Canada's economic
vitality. This trend comes from industries such as energy,
forestry, minerals, agriculture, fisheries and many others.
Without a rural road infrastructure there is no way to get at
these resources or to get them to markets around the world. In
such a large country with economic prospects flung far and wide,
we need good roads or this country will go nowhere.
It is not an exaggeration to say the economic contribution of
rural Canada is enormous. Rural Canada produces almost half our
exports. Our world trade surplus in 1995 was $73 billion, a
staggering success.
The economic output of rural Canada accounts for close to one
fifth of the GDP. It is not all fresh air and lemonade. Rural
Canadians contribute far more than their share to the economic
vitality and to the standard of living of Canadians everywhere.
It is clear to all that rural Canada remains neglected. Services
and infrastructures are poor in many areas and government and the
private sector have been unable to overcome these difficulties.
I quote from the March 1997 report of the House Standing
Committee on Natural Resources, a report entitled “Think
Rural”.
After hearing from a great many witnesses on the state of rural
Canada, the committee had this to say about rural roads:
“Existing deficiencies in transportation and infrastructure,
especially roads, were repeatedly brought to our attention. We
were informed that the rural infrastructure in place is often
poor quality and that there is a complete lack of highways in
remote regions. We were told that rail and air transportation is
often inadequate and existing rural air transport is
prohibitively expensive.
“Federal policy initiatives in transportation have historically
been detrimental to maintaining rural transportation
infrastructure”.
There we have it, a crisis in the midst of our economic engine.
1415
The Council of Ministers of Transportation has given a name to
the rural road network in this era of globalization. It is
simply called the strategic economic network. The council
recognizes that for Canada to thrive under globalization we must
have the ability to access our resources whether they be
renewable in the form of fisheries and forestry or untapped
deposits of wealth such as mines. Without it, the council says,
Canada will suffer under globalization and the living standards
of Canadians will deteriorate quickly.
This is not just about a few more bucks for asphalt. Canada
needs a strategy for rural roads. Indeed there is need for a
comprehensive strategy for all of rural Canada. We need
effective strategies to develop exports, high technology,
education and medicare. These are all important but we neglect
rural Canada at the peril of Canadians everywhere.
Rural Canadians, whether they live in the wide open spaces or in
small towns, understand that nature has a balance. When the
government tore up the railways in many parts of rural Canada,
including Atlantic Canada, the burden previously borne by the
rail network fell to the waterways and roads. Now the
infrastructure of the waterways is falling into disrepair and
naturally then into disuse with no support from government or the
private sector.
The rural transportation system is out of balance. Essentially
all we have left are roads, or very soon this will likely be the
case. The removal of rail from the transportation picture means
more trucks and larger trucks. That takes a toll on the road
network. Roads in disrepair or roads built cheaply because of
scarce public funds being diverted to other priorities mean
weight restrictions and delays. This affects economic
performance and can be a factor in whether or not investments are
made in certain rural areas.
If a business in my constituency is transporting shellfish over
roads which cause delays the product takes longer to get to
market. Smaller loads are required which are less profitable and
losses in product quality are inevitable. Not all the problems
are economic. Poor maintenance can result in conditions that
make driving dangerous.
Most rural roads are not double lane or twinned highways.
Studies have proven that the types of roads which separate
oncoming traffic are much safer, but if we do not have enough
money for even a proper rural road network then double lanes are
a luxury rural Canadians will not see. They will have to
continue to face more dangerous driving conditions. This is
clearly a problem, so what do we do about it?
The first thing to recognize is that in Canada roads are a
provincial responsibility. However the federal government has a
tradition of contributing to road building. When we compare the
share of federal funding by governments in other countries, we
see shares of between 30% and 65%. Our share is about 5%. In
countries that share Canada's challenge of overcoming great
distances and a style of federal government mixed with state or
provincial jurisdiction, the U.S. and Australia have committed
their federal governments to funding 100% of the construction,
maintenance and rehabilitation costs of national highway systems.
In Canada there have been many calls for many years for a new
national highway policy. Such a policy might co-ordinate the
road building efforts in this country if for no other reason than
to make the business sector more efficient in light of the demise
of rail and expensive air transport. Such a national policy
could address in a significant way the issues facing the rural
road network, but these issues must be embraced by a powerful
strategy with the full support of government, much like the
deficit fight.
An inadequate infrastructure hampers our ability to compete. It
is as simple as that. In February 1997 the Standing Committee on
Transport studied the issue of a national highway policy. It
stated:
The committee agrees with all those who have said that the only
way a National Highway Program can be implemented is if the
federal government makes the commitment to provide long term,
sustainable and secure funding.
Similarly the Standing Committee on Natural Resources calls on
the federal government to enact a national rural development
policy with a minister responsible for such a national project.
The committee studied the issue of rural roads and concluded that
the federal government should enter into a new cost shared
agreement with the provinces to implement a national highways
upgrade for rural areas.
The committee also suggested that federal tax assistance of
limited duration should be provided to businesses willing to
operate short haul rail lines, serve as regional air carriers or
as rural airport landlords, manage and maintain rural docks and
harbours, or construct road infrastucture.
1420
Finally, the committee recommended that the federal government
should review its application of cost recovery to services
provided in rural Canada to ensure that undue financial burdens
are not imposed on industries operating in rural and remote
communities.
It is clear that the question of rural roads cannot be
considered in isolation from the greater question of rural
development. It is my understanding that the government has
taken some steps which include that some thought is being given
to a national rural development policy.
Recently the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food announced the
rural lens policy. This policy is designed so that government
programs and policies are put through the rural lens so that
rural issues are given due consideration before the government
acts.
However, I believe the government has failed its first test by
privatizing the services delivered at the military base at Goose
Bay. This policy would seem to be a pilot project to privatize
services at military bases across the country and to take
control, profits and opportunities out of rural communities. I
do not see how this benefits rural Canada whatsoever. I do not
see how this rural lens was applied at all in this instance.
In light of this momentum I would like to suggest that applying
the fuel tax to the maintenance of rural roads is only one
option. The rural transportation network is so important to the
entire issue of rural development that one cannot be considered
without the other.
It is my understanding that the cabinet is studying a response
to the think rural report. Perhaps momentum will develop to
solve problems such as rural road maintenance. I am confident
that when the challenges of rural development are treated in this
manner only then will rural road maintenance and development
receive the resources they require.
My hon. colleague is to be congratulated for his concern. This
may very well be part of a comprehensive solution to the
difficulties in rural Canada and how to tap the enormous
potential which exists there. I join him in his concern and hope
all members will ensure that the government introduces a proper
rural development policy that will solve the problems the hon.
member has highlighted today.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this is a
perfect example of the importance of Private Members' Business.
Some of the best ideas that have come to parliament have been
through private members. This is absolutely one of the best
examples of that.
We have a government that has an insatiable appetite for tax
revenue and does not have a clue about what is important to the
people of the country. Instead it wastes its money on all sorts
of crazy things and the highways of the country are going
downhill.
I did a calculation of government taxes when it comes to
gasoline which I actually shared in the previous parliament. This
being a new parliament it is time to share it again. In the 1994
budget the Minister of Finance announced a 1.5 cent a litre
increase in tax on fuel. What he was not telling the people was
that there was GST on top of that tax. That tax is added first
and the GST is computed when all other taxes are in. Not only are
the provincial and the federal taxes taxed with a GST but it is
added on at the very end. That made that increase 1.605 cents,
not the 1.5 that was actually touted.
I did a little calculation that showed that gasoline is taxed at
177%. Here are my premises. Before the election as well as now,
if I begin with an earning of $2.78, with what I earn at the top
of my income level I get taxed on 40%. $1.11 goes to income tax.
I am now left with a $1.67. I take that $1.67 over to the
gasoline station to buy some gasoline. What happens? There are
taxes that we pay directly at the pumps in terms of excise taxes
plus the taxes oil companies or retailers pay.
1425
So that is money that comes from me, goes to the government in
the form of taxation and accounts for very close to another 40%.
Forty per cent of $1.67 is 67 cents and I am left with $1.00 to
buy gasoline.
When I pay $1.67 in taxes, having purchased $1.00 worth of
gasoline, it is a 167% rate of taxation. If the government
cannot live with that it is really shameful.
I urge all members to support this bill. It is a very wise and
important bill and a very necessary bill.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
will try to sum this up as quickly as possible.
I must, however, refute a couple of the comments by the
parliamentary secretary. As usual, there was quite a substantial
amount of fearmongering. Not once in the motion does it deal
with $4.4 billion per year going into this program.
What it deals with is a portion of the excise tax raised on
gasoline to go into an area where it was meant to go in the first
place, highways, roads and, in this case, rural road
reconstruction.
I am not suggesting for a moment $4.4 billion per year. What I
am suggesting, however, is a plan. Is that too much to ask for,
a priority that is being set and a plan that is set to deal with
the priority? It may well mean $250 million a year over a 20
year period. It may well mean $350 million a year over a 10 year
period. However, all I am suggesting is that the government get
its head out of the sand and understands that there is a serious
problem out there.
The hon. member from the Bloc unfortunately likes to make sure
there are distinctions between federal and provincial
jurisdiction. I am not getting into provincial jurisdiction. If
indeed the plan should be that the provinces ultimately make the
decision as to where that money should be spent I would applaud
that. Take the money being generated by federal taxes, give it
to the provinces and then they can apply it to the priorities on
road construction. It is not that difficult a concept.
If provinces are now spending their dollars to fix federal
responsibility roads then those dollars cannot be spent for
provincial roads. This is not difficult to understand, so please
do that.
There was some suggestion that other priorities would be
affected substantially such as health care, education and all
those wonderful priorities that we all recognize as being very
major priorities. I suggest then that perhaps the $500 million
that was spent in cancelling the EH-101s could have better been
spent on road construction.
I suggest the $800 million blown by this government on the
Pearson airport deal could have better been spent on road
construction. Let us not confuse the issue with the priorities
of health care and education. Let us just suggest there is a
problem. A plan should be put in place and the plan dealt with.
We can talk about a national highways program with the next
private member's motion I would like to table.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hour provided for
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
the item is dropped from the order paper.
It being 2.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday
next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.28 p.m.)