36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 104
CONTENTS
Tuesday, May 12, 1998
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Public Accounts
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ivan Grose |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CENTENNIAL FLAME RESEARCH AWARD
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reg Alcock |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cummins |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA LABOUR CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-19—Time Allocation Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1010
1055
(Division 137)
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Report Stage
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-19. Report stage
|
1100
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1105
1110
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1115
1120
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1125
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1130
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
1135
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 9 deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 28 deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 10
|
1140
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
1145
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dale Johnston |
1150
1155
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
1200
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 10 deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 11 to 17
|
1205
1210
1215
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
1220
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dale Johnston |
1225
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 11 deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 13 deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dale Johnston |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 18 and 20
|
1230
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dale Johnston |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 22 and 23
|
1235
1240
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
1245
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1250
1255
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Larry McCormick |
1300
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
1305
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1310
1315
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1320
1325
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1330
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA LABOUR CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-19. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cummins |
1335
1340
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
1345
1350
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1355
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA WORLD YOUTH
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Janko Peric |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PARKDALE CLEAN-UP DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
1400
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRTC
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MEMBER FOR LONGUEUIL
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POLICE WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Maloney |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STUDENT SUMMER EMPLOYMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Redman |
1405
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SURREY YOUTH RECOGNITION AWARDS
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | UKRAINIAN HERITAGE
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lou Sekora |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DAVID LEVINE
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Louis Plamondon |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SPORTS
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN NURSES
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
1410
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LUCIEN BOUCHARD
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Pillitteri |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LIVERPOOL REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL NURSES DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC CITY CONFERENCES OF 1942 AND 1943
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
1415
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
1420
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POVERTY
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1425
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NUCLEAR TESTING
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUGAR QUOTAS
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
1430
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POVERTY
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1435
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1440
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INDIA
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POVERTY
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
1445
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CALGARY DECLARATION
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RCMP
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
1450
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
1455
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VARENNES TOKAMAK
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Power |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1500
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NUCLEAR TESTING
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Alex Shepherd |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Media Leaks
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1505
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA LABOUR CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-19. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1510
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ROYAL ASSENT
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland) |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA LABOUR CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-19. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Penson |
1515
1520
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
1525
1530
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1535
1540
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
1545
1550
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 18 deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 22 deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 19
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dale Johnston |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 25
|
1555
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 26
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 27
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dale Johnston |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 29
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA LABOUR CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-19. Report stage
|
1600
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ROYAL ASSENT
|
1605
1610
1615
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA LABOUR CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-19. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1620
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
1625
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dale Johnston |
1630
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
1635
1640
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
1645
1650
1655
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1700
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Gouk |
1705
1710
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
1715
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 19 deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 25 deferred.
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 26 deferred
|
1720
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dale Johnston |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 21 and 24
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 21 deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 24 deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 31
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 31 deferred
|
1745
1750
(Division 138)
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 1 negatived
|
1755
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 5, 7 and 31 negatived
|
(Division 139)
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 2 negatived
|
1800
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 negatived.
|
(Division 142)
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 6 and 8 negatived
|
(Division 140)
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 3 negatived
|
1805
(Division 141)
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 4 negatived
|
(Division 143)
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 30 negatived
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 9, 18, 20, 22, 23, 25, 27 and 28 negatived
|
1810
(Division 144)
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 19 negatived
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 26 negatived
|
(Division 145 )
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 21 negatived
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 24 negatived
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
1815
(Division 146)
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA GRAIN ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-26. Report Stage
|
(Division 147)
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 1 negatived
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 2 negatived.
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1820
(Division 148 )
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to.
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DNA IDENTIFICATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-3. Report stage
|
(Division 149)
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 1 negatived
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 4 and 6 negatived
|
1825
(Division 150)
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 2 negatived
|
(Division 151)
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 3 negatived
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 7 and 8 negatived
|
1830
(Division 152)
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 5 negatived
|
(Division 153)
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 13 agreed to
|
(Division 154)
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 9 agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 14 agreed to
|
1835
1840
(Division 155)
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 10 negatived
|
1845
(Division 156)
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 11 negatived
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 12 negatived
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
(Division 157)
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
1850
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MACKENZIE-PAPINEAU BATTALION
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
1855
1900
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
1905
1910
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1915
1920
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
1925
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
1930
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
1935
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | (Divisions deemed demanded and deferred)
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Employment Insurance
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
1940
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
1945
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Disaster Relief
|
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1950
![V](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 104
![](/web/20061116195344im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, May 12, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to two petitions.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present the 9th and 10th reports of the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts respecting chapters 25 and 29 of the
December 1997 report of the auditor general.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons the
committee requests the government to table comprehensive
responses to these reports.
* * *
CENTENNIAL FLAME RESEARCH AWARD
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to subsection 7(1) of the Centennial Flame Research
Award Act I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the report of the 1996 recipient of the Centennial
Flame Research Award.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Question
No. 56 will be answered today.
.[Text]
Mr. John Cummins:
With regard to the arrangement between the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans and the sport fishing lodges in 1995 to
provide daily catch data to the department through the offices
of the Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia (SFI): (a)
catch by anglers from sport fishing lodges accounted for
approximately what part or portion of the total chinook sport
catch; (b) what was the nature of this arrangement; (c) when was
this arrangement negotiated; (d) When did the arrangement become
operational; (e) why was it necessary (the Fisheries Act
requires the lodges to provide the data to the DFO directly);
(f) were there problems in the fishery in 1995 that made it
important to have accurate catch data on a daily or weekly
basis; (g) what were the nature of these problems; (h) what
management actions were undertaken to deal with these problems;
(i) in addressing any of the problems identified above did DFO
fisheries scientists find the catch data provided through SFI to
be accurate, timely and useful; (j) in addressing any of the
problems identified above did DFO fisheries managers find the
catch data provided through SFI accurate, timely and useful; (k)
when was the catch data received through SFI from the Oak Bay
Marine Group lodge M.V. Marabell; (l) was the catch data in (k)
received in a form and at a time as required by the Fisheries
Act; (m) was the catch data in (k) received in a form and at a
time so as to allow the department to use it to effectively
manage the fishery;
(n) how did the data in (k) compare to what
would have been received if it had been given on-the-grounds to
the department as originally requested and as required by the
Fisheries Act; (o) when was the catch data received through SFI
from the Oak Bay Marine Group lodge King Salmon Resort; (p) was
the catch data in (o) received in a form and at a time as
required by the Fisheries Act; (q) was the catch data in (l)
received in a form and at a time so as to allow the department
to use it to effectively manage the fishery; (r) how did the
data in (o) compare to what would have been received if it had
been given on-the-grounds to the department as originally
requested and as required by the Fisheries Act; (s) when catch
data requests were made by Fishery Officers or agents of the
department to the King Salmon Resort on July 29, August 2 and
August 7, 1995, what was requested, for what time period, what
information was eventually supplied, and when was the data
required so as to meet the operational or management needs of
the department; (t) when catch data requests were made by
Fishery Officers or agents of the department to the M.V.
Marabell on August 1 and August 6, 1995, what was requested, for
what time period, what information was eventually supplied, and
when was the data required so as to meet the operational or
management needs of the department; (u) were any charges laid
for the failure of the lodges to provide the catch data to the
department on a timely basis by way of SFI and if not why not;
(v) what were the names of the lodges who refused to provide the
catch data directly to the department, and what were the names
of the lodges who provided the catch data to the department via
SFI in an accurate and timely basis and in a proper form; and
(w) what effect did the lack of catch information from the sport
fishing lodges have on local fishery managers and did it
compromise their ability to ensure that target levels or caps
were not exceeded?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
(a) Approximately 60% of the north coast sport catch is taken by
lodge clients.
(b) The arrangement made between the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans, DFO, Queen Charlotte Island, QCI, lodge operators and the
Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia, SFI, was that the SFI
would collect and collate catch information from the lodges on
QCI and provide the information to DFO.
(c) August 1, 1995.
(d) On August 1, 1995 and the first report to DFO was August 8,
1995.
(e) Lodge operators were concerned about the confidentiality of
weekly catch information from individual lodges and wanted only a
summary to be released.
(f) Yes, a recreational catch ceiling had been imposed in
statistical areas 1 and 2. Weekly information was required to
track the catch.
(g) The catch ceiling was established to keep the north coast
recreational harvest of west coast of Vancouver Island chinook at
a level to achieve conservation goals.
(h) The recreational catch limit for chinook in statistical areas
1 and 2 was reduced from 2 per day and 4 possession to 1 per day
and 2 possession on July 19, 1995.
(i/j) The catch data were provided as requested, and sufficient
for both scientists and managers. The SFI was prompted on
occasion to provide the data. Independent checks were done on the
data provided and there was nothing to suggest the data were
inaccurate.
(k) November 1995; the M.V. Marabell left QCI the second week of
July, before the agreement with SFI.
(l) The information was not received during the summer of 1995 and
was provided through SFI in November 1995 in a useable form.
(m) The catch data were not useful for in-season management.
(n) The catch data provided are considered accurate. The catch by
guests of the M.V. Marabell form a very small portion of the
total catch.
(o) The catch data for King Salmon Resort in Rivers Inlet were
received directly from Oak Bay Marine Group in November 1995. The
agreement with the SFI was to supply catch data from only QCI
lodges.
(p) The information was not received during the summer of 1995 and
was provided through SFI in November 1995 in a useable form.
(q) Catch data from Rivers Inlet lodges are not used for in-season
management.
(r) The catch data would be the same.
(s) (i) Information resquested: Number, sex, size, weight, species,
product form, and other particulars of fish caught, processed, or
transported by King Salmon Resort-Rivers Inlet, its clients and
employees; and the time, and place all fish were caught and
retained and the person and vessel which caught and retained the
fish. The August 7 request was for the lodge to comply with the
August 2 request.
(ii) Time period: No specific time indicated as it was believed
the information would be for the entire 1995 season.
(iii) Information provided: In the form as required of the
charterboat sport fish log book program.
(iv) The information was to be provided during the season.
(t) (i) Information resquested: Number, sex, size, weight, species,
product form, and other particulars of fish caught, processed, or
transported by M.V. Marabell, its clients and employees; and the
time, and place all fish were caught and retained and the person
and vessel which caught and retained the fish. The August 9
request was for the lodge to comply with the August 1 request.
(ii) Time period: No specific time indicated as it was believed
the information would be for the 1995 season.
(iii) Information provided: In the form as required of the
charterboat sport fish log book program.
(iv) The information was to be provided during the season.
(u) No charges were laid for failure of the lodges to provide
catch data to DFO on a timely basis by way of the SFI because
catch data were received on August 8, 1995
(v) All QCI lodges refused to give data directly to DFO and gave
catch data to SFI.
(w) The lack of catch data on a timely basis from sport fish
lodges had a samll impact on the department's ability to manage
the QCI sport fishery in season to within the established chinook
catchcap. In the absence of this information fish managers
anticipated catch levels based on previous data and other catch
data. It did not compromise their ability to ensure the total
catch was below the established ceiling.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
[English]
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. Question No. 21 has been on the Order Paper
since October 3, 1997 and the parliamentary secretary has
repeatedly promised the House that he will make inquiries. I am
wondering if those inquiries have been made and, if so, when we
could expect an answer to Question No. 21.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I have noted the member's
request. As he will have noted in the last two days we have
begun to clear a considerable backlog and a number of the
questions that have been asked have in fact been responded to.
I will undertake to look into Question No. 21 once again.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate the answer to
Question No. 56 this morning.
However, Question No. 33 was asked on October 28. I am still
waiting for a response. It involves a special relationship
between the minister of fisheries and the Oak Bay Marine Group
and I can understand the reluctance of the minister to reply to
that given the fact that the charges were dropped against the Oak
Bay Marine Group.
I was wondering when I could expect an answer to that
question.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, as the member has noted, he
has received a reply to some of the questions and I was glad to
be able to table those replies. I will look into any other
questions he has as soon as possible.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA LABOUR CODE
BILL C-19—TIME ALLOCATION MOTION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) moved:
That in relation to 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, not more than
one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of
the report stage of the bill and one sitting day shall be
allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill and, fifteen
minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government
business on the day allotted to the consideration of the report
stage and on the day allotted to the third reading stage of the
said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted,
if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every
question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then
under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively
without further debate or amendment.
1010
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order.
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid it is too late for a
point of order. The hon. member can raise his point of order
when the members have come in, before the vote is taken.
1055
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bevilacqua
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Lastewka
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood
– 128
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bigras
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Cummins
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
|
Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
|
Konrad
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lefebvre
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Manning
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McNally
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Nunziata
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Power
| Price
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Riis
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
– 105
|
PAIRED
Members
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Canuel
|
Drouin
| Fournier
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Marchi
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
| Peterson
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Saada
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
[English]
REPORT STAGE
The House resumed from May 8 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. 9 and 28.
1100
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in
the debate on Bill C-19.
This debate has not been shut down. The proof that it has not
been shut down is that a moment ago the opposition concluded that
there was nothing further to say about the issue because it was
not putting up more speakers.
The point I am getting to, as the House will easily recognize,
is that we are not shutting the debate down. While I am speaking
I am actually extending the debate and giving further opportunity
for hon. members to participate.
I am sure the Chair has recognized this fully. We will be able
to participate constructively, explaining all the good reasons
why the amendments proposed by some hon. members in the
opposition are unnecessary and superfluous in some cases. The
bill as presented by my hon. colleague, the Minister of Labour,
is the appropriate one.
Just so the House fully understands this bill and the amendments
that are proposed, this bill actually made its way through the
House of Commons in the last parliament. It then went on to the
other place. Unfortunately the consideration of the bill was not
completed at the time of the last election and because of that
the bill must start back anew.
The bill was started again, was fully considered, went through
second reading and then went to committee. In committee the
bill was unfortunately stalled by the opposition. As a matter of
fact, opposition members filibustered the bill and we had to
obtain the good services of many members of the government who
stayed in the committee hours and hours listening to speeches
from members.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If
I am not mistaken, I believe right now we are supposed to be
debating Group No. 3 amendments at report stage of this very
important bill, not talking about what happened in the last
parliament.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member is absolutely correct
but I assumed the government House leader was trying to draw a
parallel between what happened in the last parliament and this
bill, which I assume he will do very promptly in order to avoid a
repeat of this point of order.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think I have just
demonstrated how the opposition again is not listening. In fact,
I was describing the events in committee two weeks ago on this
bill. It was not in the last parliament but two weeks ago that
his own colleagues were filibustering on this bill.
The strange thing about it is that the amendments which are
deemed to be necessary by the opposition at this point were not
even introduced in committee after all the debate.
Mr. Jean Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
think if the hon. member wants to make a speech he should not
have cut off debate. We should be debating this in the proper
manner.
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that is not a point of
order.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I notice that the hon.
member is not too familiar with the bill, and that is okay. He
is also not very familiar with the standing orders because he
rose on a point of order which was not one. But that is okay.
The point I am making is that the government is fully interested
in constructive debate. We are going to have two more full days
of debate on this bill. We are going to be considering it at
report stage today.
We can remain on the same grouping, move on to the next grouping
and so on all day, which we will gladly do. At the end of the
day today we will be voting on all the amendments, then we will
have a full day again at third reading stage. Finally, the bill
will go to the other place where it will receive full
consideration by the hon. members of the other place who are
going to give it all the usual good work—
1105
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I have been sitting here trying to understand what the government
House leader is really talking about in Group No. 3 of the bill,
which deals with successor rights and not what the Liberal
government wanted to do or did do.
We on this side would like to debate the bill. If the government
House leader has nothing further to say that is useful, maybe he
should sit down.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure the government House leader
is making efforts to come to the point of the amendments before
the House in Group No. 3, as all hon. members strive to do in
their remarks on any bill.
The Chair is trying to be lenient to ensure that members are
relevant in their remarks. I know we are looking forward to the
government House leader's specific comments on these clauses.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I know there are only a
couple of minutes left so I will attempt to summarize very
briefly my comments on the bill and on the amendments. I
recognize the amendments have to do with successor rights.
The point I was making to the House is that the opposition has
consumed all this time and—
An hon. member: Get back to the amendments.
Hon. Don Boudria: That is what I am going to say right
now if the hon. member will pay attention.
The opposition is pretending that we did not give this enough
time for debate. There are two things wrong with that
argument. One, the amendment in question that he is now
describing was never put before the committee. It should have
been put before the committee and there was lots of time for—
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
This member is far away from debating Group No. 3. He is talking
about the vote that was held 15 minutes ago. He is talking about
time allocation. He should be talking about Group No. 3,
specifically successor rights, which is what is of interest. We
resent the fact that he, having invoked closure, prevents us from
speaking to the—
The Deputy Speaker: Hon. members are raising points of
order in respect of relevance. Sitting here for a large part of
this debate I have heard a good deal of it.
We are on report stage amendments. Particularly after a time
allocation motion has been put it is not uncommon to have a fair
bit of discussion on time allocation. I am reluctant to rule
that out of order. I did hear the House leader refer to
successor rights earlier in his remarks and I know he has a great
interest in the subject and in the bill. Obviously his interest
is so profound he has chosen to speak on the bill, which he is
now doing.
I hope hon. members would want to hear his remarks because I am
sure that at some point they are going to be pithy in relation to
Group No. 3 amendments.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks by
congratulating the Minister of Labour for the excellent work he
has done in piloting the legislation.
I am sure I speak on behalf of all hon. members in also
congratulating the parliamentary secretary who has done such a
fantastic job of piloting the bill through the House and in
committee in the face of the filibuster put up almost exclusively
by the Reform Party, which does not want to see labour
legislation advance in parliament.
We in the government and all Liberal MPs are very much
interested in good labour legislation and it is unfortunate that
the hon. members across do not share the enthusiasm that we in
the government have demonstrated.
With that, I support everything that has been done by the
Minister of Labour.
I do not support the Reform amendments. After all, we are
generally reasonable people around here and we cannot support the
Reform amendments which have not even been subjected to the
scrutiny of the committee. Reform MPs were only interested in
filibustering. They did not even make the case in committee for
what they are proposing now.
1110
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The government has cut off time on this debate. I can
understand why the government House leader would want to make an
apology for the government, but can we not spend time on this
bill? This is what—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but with great respect to
hon. members there seem to be a lot of points of order that are
really points for debate. The government House leader was
addressing the amendments and indicating his opposition to the
amendments. I think he was on topic.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will talk about successor rights as that is what we are debating
today. It is unfortunate that we are now facing time allocation
which means there will only be a few more speeches on this topic.
Ten minutes of it just went down the drain due to some kind of
diatribe from the House leader which I will not describe in
further detail.
It is the 40th occasion the Liberal government has introduced
time allocation to restrict people's ability to debate things. It
is ironic that in our own rules of the House, Beauchesne's
describes that is the job of opposition and it is within the
realm of the tactics of opposition to talk at length on a bill it
opposes. It is part of what an opposition party does in order to
draw attention to the weakness of government legislation.
This is a weak bill although it depends on which you want to
look at it. It is a very strong bill in that it is unbalanced.
There is too much emphasis on cabinet rights and union rights and
not enough emphasis on general worker rights, which may not
necessarily be union, and the rights of parliament.
The successor rights clause is part of another one of these
bills that give cabinet an awful lot of power to determine
successor rights. This is almost exclusively in the area of
airport prescreening security measures. There is a selection for
us. The government of the day picks a particular occupation, not
just transport but in this case airlines. Then it narrows it
down further to just one part of the airline industry, the
security industry. Then it narrows it down further to one part
of security, airport prescreening. There is a special category
in the bill that applies to those in airport prescreening and
allows successor rights even when contracted out.
Although there may be a contract with an airport facility that
involves prescreening security measures, this activity is the
only one covered under this labour code that has the special
provisions allocated to it. It does not talk about maintenance
of airports, it does not talk about air traffic controllers, it
does not talk about a lot of things. It talks about one thing.
Who knows why that industry has been singled out as something
that deserves successor rights. We do not think that part should
be singled out. We think good labour practices apply equally to
all people on both sides of the equation, workers and employers.
A good part of our airport facilities are contracted out.
1115
That was a decision of the Liberal government. I fully
supported it. Why they have decided that this thing should have
successor rights nobody knows. I cannot understand why.
When people put in a bid for a job they should come in as bona
fide employers in a jurisdiction and say they have experience,
personnel and training. They may be unionized; they may not be
unionized. That is a decision for the workers in the company to
decide. They make a bid in all good faith for a particular
service. They should be allowed to bid on an equal basis.
What happened in British Columbia? Perhaps I can use an example
not just of successor rights but of when there is not balanced
labour legislation. B.C. has an NDP government which is a lot
like the Liberal government. It decides that only unions can
apply for particular road building contracts on Vancouver Island.
A paid up, law abiding tax paying corporation of some sort with
a long track record can be building roads to beat the band in
British Columbia. It could bid on a highway project and say that
it will fulfil not just this labour code because it is provincial
but all labour code requirements and that its workers will decide
what union they belong to or whether they belong to a union at
all. They will decide what wages they work for because they have
the power to withdraw their services as does every worker, and
the corporation will be bid on the project accordingly.
The NDP Government of British Columbia said that they do not
have that right. If it does not like the union, if they are part
of the Christian labour union movement, for example, it is too
bad. It cannot bid on the project because they are not part of
the unions the government likes.
The highway goes ahead. It is ironic that the biggest
construction companies do not mind the law. It gives them a
chance to bid against a smaller number of bidders. They are all
in the same unions together, the biggest outfits, the ones with
thousands of employees and hundreds of millions of dollars of
work.
However, if a smaller outfit is just starting out or does not
have a union that is affiliated, it is too bad. Tough toe nails;
it does not get to bid. It does not even get to bid on the job.
Successor rights do a similar sort of thing. They say to
employers or maybe to a co-operative that wants to bid on a
project, whatever it might be, that cabinet will have the power
to determine these successor rights and that is just the way it
is.
In other words, they come in and say they want to bid on a
project, that their workers want to work for it, want to belong
to a particular union or do not want to belong to a union, or
whatever it might be. Workers should have that right one way or
the other. They should have the right to bid on the job.
It singles out a very small part of the industry. Unfortunately
it says that part of the industry must have successor rights.
Cabinet decides and that is the way it goes. If the job is worth
$15 an hour or $12 an hour, it does not matter because once it is
bid on it will pay the same as the last guy regardless. The
workers will put up with it one way or the other, and that is
just the way it goes. In other words, there is no choice. There
is no balance.
We will hear a lot during the very limited amount of debate left
about the necessity to have balance in labour legislation. This
group of motions shows that there is no balance.
I would like to conclude by saying how unfortunate it is that
again for the 40th time the government has brought in time
allocation. There is no crisis looming. There is no work
stoppage that has shut down the country. It is not like the
economy has been brought to its knees. It is not like there is
no current labour law in place.
They have decided for their own political reasons to bring in
time allocation to stifle debate in a democratic institution.
That is the only reason. There is no other crisis out there in
the country. There is no other crisis in parliament. It is for
one reason only. They have decided that they do not want to
debate it any more.
That is too bad. Things like successor rights, final offer
binding arbitration and the rights of workers to vote by secret
ballot on their union certification deserve full debate in the
House.
1120
The government says too bad but it is tired of the debate. There
is no crisis or no other issue. It is just tired of it and does
not want to listen to the opposition. It just shuts it down.
This is the 40th time. Unfortunately members on the Liberal
side seem to think it is all right to shut down democratic
debate. Just so the folks at home know, they will push through
the bill this week. There is nothing we can do to stop it. It
does not matter whether or not we want to talk on it. Many
members on this side of the House will be denied an opportunity
to ever speak a word on the bill. That is undemocratic and very
unfortunate. It shows a trend on the government side, the
government that previously criticized Brian Mulroney's
government.
Brian Mulroney's government on closure was a pillar of virtue
compared to what the Liberal government has done since it came to
power. It continuously uses this hammer. It is not a matter of
negotiation. It is just too bad: “It is my way or the
highway”.
It is unfortunate the government has decided to go this way. It
is a trend. It does not bode well for this institution that the
government has decided this is the way to force through
legislation, controversial or not. The government is just doing
it.
I will be pleased to speak to further motions if I get a chance,
which is unlikely given the time allocation.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest and I would indicate as a member of the
Standing Committee on Human Resources that the debate we are
talking about today should have taken place in committee.
Unfortunately my friends on the other side were more interested
in a filibuster and now have all the speakers. They did not have
the speakers when we were in committee. To suggest for a moment
that somehow the government is stifling debate is ludicrous.
In committee we started at 11 o'clock and went through to 8:30
because we had to go to question period. Again they were going
through a filibuster. If the members on the other side wanted to
talk about serious amendments, and I would suggest that these are
serious amendments, they should have been discussed in committee.
I would like to put on the public record some issues I did not
have a chance to do last week. The official opposition suggested
that the certification procedures under Bill C-19 were
undemocratic and that the bill deprived employees of their right
to vote on union certification applications.
I do not agree with these statements particularly because there
is nothing undemocratic about certification procedures under the
Canada Labour Code. Bill C-19 does not amend these procedures.
The basis of certification would remain majority support. The
board would retain its current authority to verify union support
by holding a certification vote in any case. Certification
procedures under the code are similar to those in a number of
provincial jurisdictions. I am sure those jurisdictions do not
consider their procedures undemocratic.
We also heard a lot about the remedial certification procedure
under Bill C-19. Members of the official opposition keep
referring to the Ontario Labour Relations Board decision in the
Wal-Mart case, a decision which members should be aware has been
upheld by the courts, despite the fact that remedial
certification procedures existed in five provincial jurisdictions
for many years. The Ontario Wal-Mart case is the only case
members of the official opposition can cite to support their
position that the provision has been misused.
Contrary to statements made in the House last week, remedial
certification in the Ontario statute was not brought in by the
Rae government. It was there before the NDP formed the
Government of Ontario. Interestingly the provision was modified
but not removed when the current government reformed the
province's labour laws.
Last week a member referred to the British Columbia Labour
Relations Board decision in another Wal-Mart case. It is
interesting that contrary to the member's assertion the B.C.
board did not use its remedial certification powers to overturn a
vote in that case. In fact the B.C. board ordered that a
representation vote be held.
The absence of examples of use of remedial certification
authority by provincial boards proves what the government has
been saying about the provision.
It is an effective deterrent to serious employer actions designed
to prevent employees from exercising their fundamental right to
organize.
1125
It is rarely used and only to remedy the worst cases of employee
conduct which make it impossible to measure employee support
through the holding of a vote. The certification procedures and
remedial certification provisions of Bill C-19 are part of the
overall package of task force recommendations which
representatives of both labour and management in the federally
regulated sector accepted as fair and balanced. They should not
be modified or removed from the package in my view.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to speak to the
Group No. 3 motions, the recommended amendments to Bill C-19.
We do not find anything in these particular amendments that we
feel will move the bill forward or make it better in any way,
shape or form. In fact it certainly strikes us in the NDP
caucus—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am just informed
that the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre has already spoken to
Group No. 3.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, my understanding was that I
spoke to Group No. 2. I frankly did not realize that I had
spoken to Group No. 3. I could be wrong but—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I will double check.
As hon. members know, each time a group comes forward each member
has the opportunity to speak once to each group. It will just
take us a second.
According to our records the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre
spoke last Friday to this specific group. We could go back to
Hansard and triple check, and we will do so.
Mr. Pat Martin: That will not be necessary.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Thank you. The hon.
member for Waterloo—Wellington.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to speak regarding Bill C-19. I know that this is a
complex bill, but having listened to the comments made by members
of the opposition on the motions in Group No. 3 I can only
conclude that the members do not understand the successive
contractor provisions in Bill C-19. Either they do not
understand or they are intentionally spreading misinformation.
They say they agree with part of proposed section 47.3 which
would protect the pay levels of employees providing pre-board
security screening services in the event of a change of
contractor. Then they put forward Motion No. 28 which would
remove the right of these employees to seek a remedy before the
board if a successive contractor were in fact to reduce their
wages.
In other words, the official opposition wants compliance with
section 47.3 to be completely voluntary. If a successive
contractor does not respect the provision, too bad for the
employees. They would have no recourse and that is unacceptable.
Members of the official opposition have also talked at length
about how the provision, if extended, could impact on railway
short lines and the transfer of government services to the
private sector.
This provision has nothing to do with either sales of business
or the privatization of government services. It would not even
apply to such situations and to suggest otherwise is completely
false.
Proposed section 47.3 would not grant successor rights where the
federal government or an employer subject to the Canada Labour
Code contracts out services. Proposed section 47.3 would not
even grant successor rights when there is a change of contractor.
The successive contractor would not be bound by that collective
agreement. The bargaining agent would not retain bargaining
rights.
All the provision does is require a successive contractor to
maintain wage levels, that is to compete on the basis of
sufficiencies other than wage reductions.
This provision will protect low wage employees who might
otherwise lose their employment or be forced to accept pay
reductions when there is a change of contractor.
1130
Pre-board security screening services are important to the
safety of the Canadian public. Employees providing such services
deserve this minimal protection as would other groups of
vulnerable employees providing such key services. These are the
kinds of employees who would benefit from protection under
proposed section 47.3.
I thought it was important to set the record straight on these
issues. I think it is important that we do so as a government.
I would also like to comment that I was at the committee when
the Reform Party was filibustering. Talk about wasting time and
resources. Talk about the abuse of parliament. Talk about being
childish. All of this is from the party that claims there is a
fresh start to be had in parliament and a new way of doing
business. That is rubbish. I saw it firsthand and I was
disgusted by it.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I could
not help but respond to some of the criticisms that were levelled
from across the way.
The reason the Reform Party was filibustering in committee—
An hon. member: You admit it.
Mr. Rob Anders: Oh, indeed I do because filibustering is
something that has been used by opposition parties since the
beginning of parliament. It is one of the few tools that we
actually have to be able to change government legislation.
As a result of the Reform filibuster, Bill C-19 was changed so
that people who were offsite workers, contract workers would not
be forced to have their names given over to union organizers.
That way their home addresses would not be violated by union
organizers along the lines of ding-dong, knock knock, the unions
calling at their home addresses.
The opposition was able to get some amendments to Bill C-19 as a
result of our filibuster in committee. However there are things
that have not changed. Successor rights is indeed one of the
things the government has not changed.
There are reasons we were enacting a filibuster and I am going
to speak to this today. I would not have done so otherwise but I
think it is important that people know why the opposition was
doing that type of thing.
This is the way it works in this setting for the information of
the folks at home. The opposition puts forward amendments, much
like we are doing today, substantive, real amendments like
successor rights, but the government most often turns them down
and does not give them fair and due consideration. If the
amendments are put forward in cabinet or if they are put forward
by members of the government, whether they be in committee or
privately to cabinet members or however that process may work,
they are more likely to be considered and implemented.
We were given good information that there were people on the
government side who had problems with successor rights as they
stand in Bill C-19 and there were people who had problems with
privacy concerns and there were people who had problems with the
violation of the secret ballot as proposed in Bill C-19, along
with a few other things. We were giving those members time to
bring those concerns forward in committee and they failed to do
so. Those members who said they had a backbone in the
government caucus and said they had a backbone in the cabinet
failed to have one and failed to bring forward those changes to
Bill C-19.
To the Minister of Labour who said that he did not have the
resources in his own office to fight his own departmental
officials on those aspects of Bill C-19 that he thought were over
the top, shame on him. To the Minister of National Revenue who
had concerns yet did not bring forward these things in committee
and did not actually get a change when push came to shove, shame
on him. Shame on them. To the Liberal caucus members who sat in
HRD committee and argued along with the Reform Party on some of
these substantive changes that we wanted early on when we were
questioning witnesses in testimony, shame on them for not having
put forward those amendments.
We wanted to see those things brought forward. We will be
speaking about them today at report stage and we will be speaking
about them at third reading. Shame on the government for not
having brought those things forward. We know that is the only
way those things would have been given proper and due
consideration. The fact that the government put the 40th time
allocation since it has been in office shows that government
members have had little will or little backbone to stand up to
the department.
Bill C-19 basically amounts to a departmental official being
shuffled off for many years into a sideline of the labour
department.
Mike McDermott finally had his glowing chance and I talked with
him many times in committee. To him I say, I guess you finally
have your chance to leave your glowing mark on Canadian labour
legislation by going ahead and embedding successor rights, going
ahead and violating the secret ballots in workplace democracy,
going ahead and not allowing final offer selection arbitration,
but shoving through instead more cabinet power.
1135
Rather than trying to achieve peace in the workplace, they are
going ahead and giving the power more thumbs down control over
the worksites which does not promote labour peace.
Mr. Reed Elley: Undemocratic.
Mr. Rob Anders: Very undemocratic.
With that, I subside. Those are the reasons why the opposition
enacted filibuster. I am proud to say I was probably one of the
biggest pains in the government's side in filibuster and am proud
to have been so.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
Motion No. 9 in Group No. 3. 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
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The recorded
division on Motion No. 9 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 28. 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
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The recorded
division on Motion No. 28 stands deferred.
We will now proceed to debate on Group No. 4, Motion No. 10.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-19, in Clause 31, be amended by replacing lines 19
to 21 on page 23 with the following:
(3) The Minister may take only one action referred to in this
section with respect to any particular dispute involving a
bargaining unit and, in the case of one of the actions referred
to in paragraphs (1)(a), (b) or (c), the Minister may take the
action only with the consent of the parties.”
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased once again to take part in
the debate on Bill C-19 through this logical amendment, which is
consistent with the objectives of the new Canada Labour Code.
It is an amendment that might be described as ancillary, but
which takes on its full meaning in the context of a labour
dispute when the minister is called upon to use his authority to
step in and appoint someone to resolve the dispute.
As members probably know, there are three courses open to the
minister: he may appoint a conciliation officer, a conciliation
commissioner, or a conciliation board. I will read an extract
from this clause on page 23 of the bill:
(3) The Minister may only take one action referred to in this
section with respect to any particular dispute involving a
bargaining unit.
That would be to appoint a conciliation officer, a conciliation
commissioner, or a conciliation board.
1140
What we are adding, and to a certain extent this strengthens the
intent of the legislation, is that such a decision may be taken
by the minister only with the consent of the parties. If a
labour dispute were dragging on and tensions were mounting, it
would be a bit ridiculous for the minister to decide to step in
arbitrarily, on his own initiative, and impose action that is
supposed to resolve the dispute.
What we are saying is that the minister should have the consent
of the parties to appoint a conciliation officer, a conciliation
commissioner or a conciliation board, and that this should be
done in a spirit of co-operation, without which such a decision
on the part of the minister might well have the effect of
worsening the situation, rather than resolving it.
It is only common sense that the government intervention
provided for in the legislation should be desired by the
parties. If it is not, it could have an effect opposite to that
intended. If the parties are not forced to consent to one of
the three mechanisms available to them and thus perhaps reflect
on how the situation is developing, things may get worse.
The Bloc Quebecois is introducing this sensible amendment in the
hope that the government and the other opposition parties will
approve it, in order to improve the Canada Labour Code for the
greater good of the public.
[English]
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this motion would entirely
remove the Minister of Labour's discretion to appoint
conciliation assistance unless the parties were to consent to
such an appointment. Presumably it would require the joint
consent of both labour and management before the minister could
make an appointment under the code.
Government prescribed conciliation services have had a long and
distinguished history reaching back to the very beginning of this
century when in 1900 the Conciliation Act established the
Department of Labour and provided for conciliation of labour
disputes. Over the years the system has been modified. Currently
the minister has full authority to appoint not just one but two
consecutive levels of conciliation and that without the agreement
of the party.
The presenter of the motion does understand that conciliation
works best when the parties are committed to the process. What
he perhaps does not understand is that sometimes in labour
disputes a party will want to have conciliation assistance but
will not want to ask for it for fear that such a request will be
taken as a sign of weakness. That is where leaving discretion to
the minister to appoint can be of great value.
During the extensive consultation process leading up to the
introduction of Bill C-19, representatives of labour and
management organizations subject to part I of the code, while
critical of lengthy delays in the current conciliation process
found conciliation valuable and praised the services offered by
the federal mediation and conciliation service.
The labour-management working group did not recommend that
compulsory conciliation be abolished, only that the two stage
process be replaced by a single stage which could take various
forms. This consensus is reflected in a single stage, time
limited conciliation process included in Bill C-19.
The Sims task force found that conciliation remains an important
function and that the federal mediation and conciliation service
is a resource that helps reduce industrial conflict in Canada.
Over 90% of disputes referred to conciliation are resolved with
the assistance of conciliation officers without resort to work
stoppages. The task force—
1145
Mr. Reed Elley: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that
there is not a quorum in the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have quorum.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised.
Reform Party members say they want to debate this bill and talk
about the amendments and then the hon. member calls quorum and
leaves the Chamber. He does not even stay to listen to the
debate. It is really quite hypocritical.
Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I am sure that the hon. parliamentary secretary knows it
is not proper to comment on the presence or absence of members in
this House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Wetaskiwin is quite correct.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Mr. Speaker, my apologies for
pointing out that the member had left the Chamber when he called
quorum.
The task force recommended that because of the nature of the
federal jurisdiction and the prevalence of industries providing
services to the public it is important that every effort be made
and be seen to be made to find an avenue for settlement before
the parties decide to resort to economic sanctions to further
their bargaining objectives.
For this reason, the Minister of Labour requires the parties to
take part in conciliation proceedings. Conciliation has proven
successful in assisting the parties to arrive at settlements in
the vast majority of cases and should remain an option for the
Minister of Labour.
Elsewhere in the bill, of course, the conciliation process is
being streamlined and modernized. I have already mentioned the
two stages being compressed into one stage. The process is also
being limited in duration unless the parties jointly agree to
extend it. This should please the presenter of this motion.
Perhaps just as important is the new profile being given to the
federal mediation and conciliation service. The service is well
respected and the important role of the head of the FMCS in
advising the Minister of Labour on dispute resolution will be
formally recognized in the code.
Similarly, the service will gain statutory recognition for its
work in fostering harmonious relations between labour and
management. This will provide the platform from which to launch
relationship building programs.
In all, Bill C-19 recognizes the value of conciliation and lays
the foundation for its continuing development.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
again find ourselves, for I think the 40th time, looking at time
allocation in the House. We believe this is a very important
piece of legislation that should be debated. We have noted that
in the past when the Liberals were in opposition they thought it
was absolutely deplorable that the Tories would move time
allocation as many times as they did. The Liberals wrote the
book on time allocation.
I would like to refer members back to the beginning of the 36th
Parliament. The first item on the Order Paper was Bill C-19. It
languished on the Order Paper until sometime in November when it
was given first reading. It remained on the Order Paper and just
recently there was a big panic to put through the labour
legislation which, I might add, was also an item of business in
the 35th Parliament.
Suddenly there is a big panic to get this legislation passed, to
the point where the government is only going to allow one further
day of debate at report stage and one further day at third
reading. I think this is an unprecedented abuse of the power of
the government to lord it over the opposition.
Our duty is to point out how we think we can improve this
legislation and the government, I submit, is really hampering us
in doing that.
1150
To speak specifically to Group No. 4, the amendment put forth by
my colleague from the Bloc indicates that the parties should
agree on who the conciliator or the conciliation board should be
at a point when the two parties cannot seem to agree on much of
anything. This comes at a point when both labour and management
have agreed to disagree basically on everything or negotiations
would not have broken off.
I think that if the member's motion had read that both parties
would submit names of conciliation officers that they would
approve of and if each side happened to recommend a person whom
each one agreed on then that would be fine. But to come up with
a conciliator, an officer or a board, to make any sort of
judgment on this is going to be extremely difficult.
If we are looking at people who are going to come in to assess
the situation and render a decision, I think that input from the
two groups would be a good idea. If they happen to agree on a
person to arbitrate the case, that is fine.
I do not believe, though, that my colleague's amendment has a
chance in the world of passing since at committee, on at least
one occasion, members of the government made remarks that they
certainly were not foolish enough to entertain or to pass any
amendments put forth by the opposition. So I would caution my
colleague that although his intentions are no doubt honourable
and will, in his opinion, improve the legislation, he has about
as much chance of having this amendment passed as the proverbial
snowball in Hades.
I should not prejudge the hon. member, but I think he may have
overlooked one of the decisions the minister can make here. He
may appoint a conciliation officer, a conciliation board or
advise the parties of his intention to do neither. He may just
say “No, I do not think it is appropriate for me to get involved
at this time”, and the parties would therefore be forced into a
situation where they would have to go back and negotiate and get
down to brass tacks rather than just throw their hands up and
turn it over to someone else.
There has been a lot said in the House about whether this party
or that party supports the collective bargaining process.
Certainly the Reform Party does support the right to organize
peacefully, to strike and to negotiate through a union.
However, I think the legislation, as I have said before in the
House, is patterned after a report by Mr. Andrew Sims, and he
named the report “Seeking a Balance”. Certainly that is a
noble goal for any labour legislation and indeed for most
legislation, that it be balanced. Page after page of the report
concerns the empowerment of the union organizers, the union
bosses, and not necessarily the rank and file people who pay
membership dues to the union, and certainly not the people who
provide jobs for those union members.
1155
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, when
we first saw the amendment with the idea of reviewing the role of
the conciliation officer et cetera, we viewed it in a favourable
light. Our caucus wrestled for quite some time as to whether we
would support the amendment. At this time we are satisfied that
the changes made to the original Bill C-19 will address some of
the things we recognized as being problematic. Moving from a two
stage process to a single stage process was a very positive step.
Given the spirit and the history of how the amendments that form
part of Bill C-19 were arrived at, we were very reluctant to
upset that fine balance or compromise that went into the changes
we see in Bill C-19.
I regret that our caucus will not be able to support Motion No.
10. We will be voting against it, but not for the same reasons
we have been hearing from the official opposition. We are
finding more and more that the tone of the official opposition's
comments regarding this whole piece of legislation, no matter
which group of motions we are talking to, has an underlying
sinister quality to it. There is an anger and a bitterness
surging forward in all Reformers' comments that reveals their
true attitude toward the industrial relations climate in Canada.
I do not think it has its basis in the same spirit of
co-operation that was in the original Bill C-19. I am
disappointed to that degree.
We saw some of the delay tactics that went on during committee
stage and the filibustering that occurred during report stage. I
wonder what prairie farmers think as they view these deliberate
stalling tactics which hold back a very worthy piece of
legislation. The agriculture industry in my province is looking
forward to this legislation. We are coming up to another season
when grain will be shipped through the west coast ports. The
producers want the security that their products will be handled
at those terminals no matter what kind of labour relations
climate might exist at those terminals.
With its stalling tactics, at least until the closure motion of
today, the Reform Party has jeopardized the possibility of moving
this bill forward in a timely fashion, at least in time for the
harvest season when grain shipping at west coast ports will be an
issue again.
The tone of the rest of Reform's comments reminds me of another
message I have heard for years. It is a poison that has been
sliding across the Canada-U.S. border in recent years. That
poison is called right to work legislation. This seems to be the
songbook that Reformers are singing their hymns from. It is not
original, but it seems they have glommed onto it as if it were a
new idea. It is sort of like the way they have glommed onto
final offer selection as if it is some brand new idea they have
just come up with.
Everybody knows what right to work is about. The Fraser
Institute has just written a book and sent a copy to all MPs in
an effort to promote this idea as the way we should conduct
ourselves in the 21st century within the labour relations
climate. We have another book that shows the empirical evidence,
the actual statistics, of what it is like to live in a right to
work state. One of those states had lower than average incomes
and the poverty level was higher. The right to work is really
the right to work for less.
The Reform Party is using the debate on Bill C-19 as a platform
from which to launch its ideas on right to work legislation.
They were frustrated in Alberta. The Klein government looked at
right to work legislation and found it was too radical and too
conservative.
1200
In fact, it was bordering on fascist in a lot of its attitudes
and it actually dropped it. It did not want to use it, and to
its credit. Now we are having people shopping it around Ottawa
trying to get people interested from a federal point of view.
I think Canadians should be cautious about the spirit and the
tone being used in these arguments. Read between the lines a
little. What will really be seen is a warmed over version of
right to work legislation trying to be foisted on the Canadian
people through the back door, through debate on a very worthy
piece of labour legislation, Bill C-19.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on Motion
No. 10. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Yes.
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): A recorded division on
Motion No. 10 stands deferred.
We now turn to the motions in Group No. 5.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-19, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing lines 1 to
19 on page 27 with the following:
“87.2 Unless the parties agree otherwise in writing,
(2) a notice shall not be required to be given by the trade
union to the employer indicating the date on which a strike will
occur; and
That Bill C-19, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing lines 17
to 19 on page 27 with the following:
That Bill C-19, in Clause 37, be amended by deleting lines 20 to
38 on page 27 and lines 1 to 31 on page 28.
That Bill C-19, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing lines 20
to 38 on page 27 with the following:
“87.3 (1) Unless a lockout not prohibited by this Part has
occurred, a trade union may not declare or authorize a strike
unless it has held a secret ballot vote among the employees in
the unit and received the approval of the majority of the
employees who voted.
(2) Unless a strike not prohibited by this Part has occurred, an
employers' organization may not declare or cause a lockout unless
it has held a secret ballot vote among the employers who are
members of the organization and received the approval of the
majority of the employers who voted.”
That Bill C-19, in Clause 37, be amended by deleting lines 1 to
6 on page 28.
That Bill C-19, in Clause 37, be amended by deleting lines 7 to
31 on page 28.
That Bill C-19, in Clause 37, be amended by deleting lines 23 to
27 on page 28.
1205
He said: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues listened carefully and,
fortunately, there is a consensus on the amendments that must be
made to the Canada Labour Code.
We are interested in how, based on the labour code's provisions,
a vote allowing workers to go on strike or employers to initiate
a lockout would be held. We object to the procedure, and we
wonder where the government got this strange idea.
We feel the government is unduly trying to control, to say the
least, the union in terms of how it operates and in terms of its
relations with its own members. Indeed, the government is
proposing a slew of means and mechanisms that have the effect of
controlling the union a little too much, and this is why we are
proposing these amendments.
Motion No. 11 reflects our opposition to the 72 hour notice that
is required under the bill, and that is supposed to be given by
the union in case of a strike or by the employer in case of a
lockout.
Through this amendment, we are causing it to be withdrawn
because we think there is no need for notice to be given to
either party. The party that decides to hold a strike or lockout
should decide on the most appropriate time to do so without
necessarily being required à because this would become a
requirement à to give notice to the other side that it plans to
act on its decision.
Also, regarding Motion No. 12, where the 72 hour strike or
lockout notice is not acted on, section 87.2(3) provides that a
new notice must be given.
If only for reasons of mere logic and consistency, we object to
either party having to give a new notice where the strike or
lockout initially planned did not occur.
That is what Motion No. 12, which we feel will be passed by this
House, is all about.
Motions Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 all concern the whole
voting mechanism and the notices to be given. Once a vote has
been held authorizing the union to initiate a strike, under the
new Canada Labour Code as amended by Bill C-19, a strike must be
initiated within 60 days of the vote.
We consider this to be an arbitrary, unnecessary deadline,
which, as Canadians—which we will probably remain for a short
time—would say, could cause serious organizational problems
given how huge this country is.
1210
From coast to coast, from Newfoundland to British Columbia,
unions could run into serious logistical problems if they had to
hold a strike within 60 days of the strike vote. Let us say,
for example, that an agreement has almost been reached, and the
union has decided not to strike within the 60 days provided
under the law. If an agreement is not reached, another strike
vote has to be held. Given the breadth of this country, we are
not sure that the government is making a wise choice in imposing
such a time frame.
We consider that no time period should be provided, that, once
the parties have the right to strike or to lockout they may do
so when they consider it appropriate, without being overly
restricted, as is the case here, by a time frame of 60 days
following a strike or lockout vote.
The last motions, namely Motions Nos. 15, 16 and 17 set out the
terms of voting, the conduct of a vote and the procedure for
having a vote declared invalid. We have little sympathy for
this sort of government intervention in voting activities and in
technicalities.
It amounts to inappropriate intrusion in the operations of the
union. I think they are going after the unions.
There is also provision for an individual to invalidate a vote
if they are not happy with it. Labour relations are complex
enough as it is, and I see no need for the government to
intervene in such matters. If there is one body in this country
that is not in a moral position to interfere in the business of
others and tell them how to behave it is the Government of
Canada.
In terms of elections—of direct concern to it—the government
is in no position to give anybody lessons on how to hold a vote.
We all know that returning officers in this fine country are
appointed on a purely partisan basis.
In Quebec we can count on our fingers the number of federal
ridings where the returning officers have qualifications other
than that of having worked for the Liberal Party of Canada.
They come up with such inventions as postal votes, proxy votes,
which are an open invitation to all unscrupulous organizers
tempted to manipulate vote outcomes. This has been done
shamelessly in some Quebec ridings.
Considering how lax the federal government is with respect to
the Canada Elections Act, it is in a very poor position to
lecture Canada's unions on how to carry out a vote, how to
declare a vote invalid and all the procedures related to that.
It might be a good thing for the Canadian Liberal government to
use its own bill as a model for inserting a bit more discipline
into the Canada Elections Act, in order to clean up the mess we
have got into in Quebec.
Such practices as going after the senior vote by pursuing them
to hospital rooms, waking patients up—it has gone as far as that
à going door to door not to influence the vote, as our democracy
is meant to work, but to get people out to vote. So they are
far indeed from being in a position to lecture others, as they
are in Bill C-19.
It is most unimpressive to see this government indicating
non-confidence in the way unions have always operated. The
federal government is most certainly not the one who should be
giving lessons to anyone in this area.
I trust that these words have cast some light on this matter.
1215
[English]
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this group of motions deals
with the new requirement for exercising the right to strike or
the right to lock out.
Under Bill C-19 the right to strike or lock out will be acquired
21 days after conciliation is completed, subject to the parties
meeting new requirements regarding the holding of a secret ballot
vote within the previous 60 days and the giving of a 72 hour
advance notice of a strike or a lockout.
Motions. Nos. 11 an 12 would delete the reference to the 72 hour
notice requirement and the obligation to send a new notice if no
strike or lockout occurs at the end of the notice period. The
new 72 hour notice provision implements the recommendation of the
Sims task force. Its purpose is twofold. It will allow for an
orderly shutdown or reduction of operations and resolve the
problem of perishable items. It will further focus the parties
on serious negotiations and should encourage settlement of
disputes.
To those unions which feel that this new requirement will
frustrate the right to strike, it is important to point out that
Bill C-19 will not require that a new notice be given once a
strike or lockout action has commenced, even if it is temporarily
suspended. Furthermore, where the other side begins a strike or
a lockout action, the 72 hour notice requirement will not apply
to the other party.
Some unions, mostly longshore unions, have said that the 72 hour
notice requirement will allow an unfair advantage to the shipping
companies and agents in the negotiating process as it will remove
the prospect of ships being held captive during a port work
stoppage. This position is echoed by the Bloc Quebecois.
The major economic impact of a port work stoppage is that the
port is closed and the fixed capital remains idle. Surely such a
major impact on important investments is a significant pressure
point and a reasonable offset for the loss of income employees
must incur during a work stoppage.
While the code recognizes a union's right to exercise economic
pressure on the employer engaged in a labour dispute, and the
strike is one of the economic sanctions that can be used, it is
only reasonable that both parties have time to prepare for its
use.
We believe that in the small number of cases under the code
where the parties do resort to work stoppage action that the 72
hour notice requirement will ensure an orderly shutdown or
reduction of operations. Who knows? There may even be a last
successful effort at settlement.
The Bloc Quebecois has put forward five motions relating to the
strike and lockout vote requirement. These include the removal
of the requirement that the strike or lockout vote be held within
the previous 60 days, the removal of the entire section 87.3
dealing with strike and lockout votes, the removal of the rules
governing the conduct of the vote requirement, the removal of the
procedure to contest irregularities, and the removal of the
board's authority to summarily dismiss an unjustified challenge
of votes and to order that a new vote be held.
It is important to stress that with the exception of the current
Canada Labour Code secret ballot strike votes are mandatory in
all Canadian jurisdictions including Quebec as a prerequisite for
legal strike action.
Although the vast majority of unions subject to the code already
hold secret ballot votes before declaring a strike, employees in
the bargaining unit who are not union members may be excluded
from participating in a major decision which directly affects
them.
Strike votes are not always held in a timely fashion. In some
cases a strike mandate is acquired early in the bargaining
process as a means of demonstrating solid employee support for
union demands but may not be a true reflection of support for a
work stoppage.
The conditions for a valid vote specified in Bill C-19 reflect
the recommendations of the Sims task force. They are similar to
provisions found in a number of provincial statutes. They are
not onerous.
1220
It is hard to imagine that any democratically held vote would
fail to meet these basic requirements. These conditions will
simply ensure that such votes are timely, fairly conducted and
based on the entire workplace involved in the dispute.
I have difficulty understanding why the Bloc Quebecois objects
to a requirement for votes to be held in such a manner as to
allow eligible workers a reasonable opportunity to participate in
a vote and to be made aware of the results. Surely this is
fundamental to the democratic principles which trade unions
recognize and practise.
The Bloc Quebecois is also proposing that there be no
opportunity for an employee in the bargaining unit to allege
irregularities in the conduct of a strike vote. Surely there
should be some recourse for employees who allege they have been
unfairly denied the opportunity to participate in a strike vote.
Without such a provision the requirements of this section could
not be enforced. Concerns have been raised that the 60 day
period for holding a strike vote may cause difficulty in some
cases, particularly where employees in the bargaining unit are
employed across the country or do not work at a specific
location. By allowing the 60 day validity period for a strike
vote to be extended Bill C-19 addresses these concerns.
The 72 hour notice requirement and the strike and lockout vote
provisions in Bill C-19 are fair and democratic. I urge members
to support them and to reject the amendments proposed by these
motions.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
Group No. 5 we see several motions put forth by the Bloc and
unfortunately we can support none of them.
The requirement for a 72 hour notice before a work stoppage
takes place is a reasonable one. The Bloc wants to delete this
provision. We do not agree with that at all.
The 72 hour notice period is one of the few positive features of
Bill C-19, at least one of the changes we could support. It
would allow innocent third parties that have goods in transit,
for instance, an opportunity to seek alternate arrangements. Or,
if their goods were actually in transit, they would have an
opportunity to carry on their journey prior to having the
services withdrawn.
Many times we find perishable goods stranded somewhere and by
the time labour and management have resolved their differences
the perishable goods have spoiled. That is unfortunate and not
fair to innocent third parties that ship these goods. Of course
it has a very detrimental affect on Canada's economy overall.
The amendments put forth by my colleagues in the Bloc are not in
concert with the idea of seeking a balance between labour and
management. The people who use these services must be considered
more because when services are withdrawn, whether through a
strike or a lockout, it is not just management and labour that
are affected. It is all the people who rely on the services in
the area where federal industrial relations apply. Oftentimes
these are services for which there is not an immediate
alternative.
In many cases this is the only game in town as far as the
services are concerned. The provision for the 72 hour notice
before a strike or lockout is a rather reasonable one and should
not be amended as my colleague has suggested.
1225
The 60 days as referred to in Motion No. 13 is reasonable and
sufficient to negotiate and give the employers and employees time
to prepare for possible work disruptions. As the parliamentary
secretary alluded to several times in her statement, it allows
for an orderly shutdown. It also allows time for people to make
alternate plans. We concur with that. We think it is
reasonable. We think it is an area that would not be improved by
the amendment put forth by our colleague in the Bloc.
Motion No. 14 in particular seems to be a continuation of Motion
No. 13. It would seem to deny worker and employee associations
an opportunity to participate in a ballot vote. Our party is
very much in support of a ballot vote being taken to determine
whether there should be work stoppage or a strike. Also a ballot
vote should be taken to determine whether or not a union should
be certified.
In summing up, we will not be able to support these motions.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 11. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on motion No. 11 stands
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 13. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 13 stands
deferred.
[English]
We will now proceed with putting the motions in Group No. 6 to
the House.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-19, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing line 39 on
page 28 with the following:
That Bill C-19, in Clause 37, be amended
(a) by replacing line 34 on page 29 with the following:
“danger to the safety or health of the public or cause severe
economic hardship to the national economy, the”
(b) by replacing line 42 on page 29 with the following:
“or health of the public or the causing of severe economic
hardship to the national economy;”
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, unless I have misunderstood, we
have voted on Motions No. 11 and Motion No. 12. What would be
needed now is a vote on Motions Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17,
which are part of Group No. 5, and not Motions Nos. 20 and 18.
1230
The Deputy Speaker: The question was on these two motions only,
because the decision that will apply to the other motions
depends on the result of the divisions on the two motions I put
before the House.
For example, if one of the two is rejected, there will be a
recorded division on the others. Does that give the hon. member
his explanation? Fine.
[English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-19, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing lines 24
and 25 on page 31 with the following:
That Bill C-19, in Clause 37, be amended, in the English version
only, by replacing line 26 on page 31 with the following:
He said: Mr. Speaker, Group No. 6 deals with the continuation
of services where there is a situation in which the danger to
public health or safety may exist and the minister would be able
to step in and intervene.
That seems very reasonable. There are, however, no provisions
in the bill that would allow for the continuation of service in
order to protect Canada's economy. For instance, in the 1994
west coast work stoppage the estimated cost was in the range of
$125 million. That is the direct cost. That is what was
estimated it would cost the Canadian farmers by not getting their
crops to market. I suppose one could say they would eventually
get their crops to market but if an item is not on the shelf, so
to speak, it is extremely difficult to sell it. I think this is
one occasion where a work stoppage had a devastating effect on
the Canadian economy.
We are talking about the direct costs at the moment of roughly
$125 million. Indirectly the figures vary but it has been
generally stated that the indirect costs could be as high as $250
million and a possibility of threatening $500 million in grain
sales in the future.
Why do we say threatened grain sales in the future? If
customers come to Canada for a load of grain and they find their
ships have to wait in the port for a week or two weeks or three
weeks and they have to go down to Seattle or Portland in order to
get a load of grain, in the future they are going to say why take
chances on going to Canada and not get the supply order they came
for, that perhaps they should deal with the United States in the
first place.
There should be some protection in the bill to protect the
economy and to protect the innocent third parties who rely on
these services. Services, as I have stated before, are not
readily available. It is not as though we have a multiple choice
as far as where we can ship our grain. Canada is not
particularly well endowed with ports. The ports we have are
certainly well appointed and capable of handling a tremendous
amount of traffic but we do not have very many. When we have work
stoppages at Canada's major port on the west coast it has an
absolutely devastating effect on the economy of the country.
It would be in the interests of all Canadians if we have
reliable access to services. Definitely it would help to keep
employment within our borders and establish and maintain a
reputation as a reliable worldwide supplier and exporter of
goods.
As I have said, we definitely have a world class transportation
system and we should not allow it to fall whim to work stoppages,
in particular work stoppages that occur at the highest traffic
times of the year. We will hear people say if you are going
negotiate, to take some kind of a job action, the best time to
take it is when there is lots of activity because you want to put
optimum pressure on whomever you are bargaining with to come to
terms.
1235
This bill does provide for maintenance of services whenever
there is a danger to public health or safety. But I think the
national economy is important enough that there should be some
provision in here.
Throughout the bill we have seen the Canadian Industrial
Relations Board, the replacement for the old Canada labour
relations board, given all kinds of powers. Indeed we see where
the minister and the governor in council have all kinds of powers
they can use as well. We think it is only reasonable that they
be given some latitude as to whether these work stoppages will
have a devastating effect on Canada's economy and we have to look
at the spin-off jobs damaged by the disruption in these services.
Motions Nos. 22 and 23 deal with amendments to the provision
that ensures that grain once it reaches port will be shipped out.
I would like to make it perfectly clear that the Reform Party is
wholeheartedly in favour of farmers' grain being able to be
shipped offshore unimpeded from the farm gate right to the high
seas.
But this bill does not guarantee that. This bill does not
address that. This bill simply says that if the grain reaches
the port it will be loaded on to the ships and the ships will be
piloted out of the harbour. It addresses the tie-up, loading and
let go of grain vessels. We agree that is a good small step. But
what does it do for the farmers on the prairies who cannot get
their grain to the port because there is some kind of a work
stoppage somewhere else in the system, between the farm gate and
the port? This bill addresses no portion of that.
We are suggesting there should be some kind of dispute
settlement mechanism in place that will allow services to
continue in the west coast ports while negotiation takes place.
We certainly agree that a negotiated settlement is far better and
probably more long lasting than any kind of an imposed
settlement. Regardless of what our opponents will try to
convince us of, that is our position. We believe that to
negotiate a settlement is the best way.
However, there are many other products, coal, sulphur, potash,
dehydrated alfalfa, many petrochemical products as well, that
depend on a deep water port to get their products to the markets,
often to the Asian markets, and by sea is the only logical way to
transport these products. The alfalfa dehydrators for instance
export about $100 million worth of product a year and their
product is perishable as well.
1240
What we are saying is put in a dispute settlement mechanism. If
the government decides the Reform Party has given too much
profile to final offer selection arbitration and brings it in, it
would be accused of caving into the Reform Party. Then let it
come up with a dispute settlement mechanism of its own making, of
its own naming, but something that would have the effect of the
continuation of services at the west coast ports while we
encourage those people to come to an agreement.
What has been the alternative over the years? The alternative
has been to legislate services back to work at the west coast
ports. Once that happens, there will be services reluctantly
restored but there are none of the things addressed that brought
about the work stoppage in the first place.
This government has used a dispute settlement mechanism over and
over in the past in conjunction with back to work legislation.
We are suggesting that a dispute settlement mechanism is needed
here that would be far more effective than simply picking out one
commodity and declaring it an essential service.
We certainly concur with the expedient movement of grain from
the farm gate to the high seas. We recognize the provisions in
this bill are a small step in that direction.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-19 introduces for the
first time in the Canada Labour Code provisions that would
require the maintenance of activities necessary to prevent
immediate and serious danger to public health and safety during
work stoppages.
The bill also introduces a requirement for employers and
employees in the ports to continue to provide services to grain
vessels loaded at licensed terminal and transfer elevators.
The official opposition has put forward motions to amend these
provisions. One would make economic hardship to the national
economy a criterion for requiring parties to maintain services
during a work stoppage. The others would require the parties in
the ports to continue to provide their services to all vessels
and to authorize the board to refer collective bargaining
disputes in the ports for settlement by final offer selection
arbitration.
Together these amendments would effectively remove the strike
and lockout rights from all parties in the ports as well as large
numbers of other employers and employees subject to part one of the
code.
Such an interventionist approach is contrary to the wishes of
employers and unions who engage in collective bargaining under
the code.
There is no precedent in Canada for the standing removal of
strike and lockout rights from private sector parties as the
official opposition is suggesting with respect to parties in the
ports.
In addition, no Canadian jurisdiction includes economic impact
as a criterion for maintaining services during work stoppages,
nor did parties subject to the code support such an approach.
The Sims task force examined the issue of maintenance of
activities and concluded that the right to strike or lockout
should be removed from any group of workers or any employers
subject to the code. The task force did recommend that the code
include specific provisions for the protection of public health
and safety, criteria supported by both labour and management.
The maintenance of activities provisions in Bill C-19 fairly
balances the collective bargaining rights of employees and
employers subject to the code with the public's right to
protection of health and safety.
Turning now to the grain provision, grain has been declared to
be for the general advantage of Canada. It is a multibillion
dollar industry exporting to over 70 countries worldwide. The
livelihood of over 130,000 farmers and their families depends on
Canada's maintaining its reputation as a reliable exporter.
These interests must, however, be balanced with the rights of
labour and management to determine fair terms and conditions of
employment through collective bargaining.
1245
Since 1972 there have been 12 work stoppages in west coast ports
which have disrupted grain exports. Nine of these work stoppages
have involved longshoremen and their employers and were ended by
parliament. Only three work stoppages have involved grain
handlers and in one case the major terminal elevators in
Vancouver were not affected.
Two independent studies found that longshore employers and
unions have avoided their collective bargaining responsibilities
by using disruptions to grain exports to trigger back to work
legislation.
The grain provision in Bill C-19 is designed to reduce
disruptions to grain exports caused by work stoppages in the
ports, reduce the reliance of parties in the ports on
parliamentary intervention in their disputes and maintain the
strike and lockout rights of parties in both the port and grain
handling sectors.
Claims that this provision discriminates against other resources
by singling out grain for special treatment overlook the fact
that grain has already been singled out by longshore employers
and unions using it as a trigger for back to work legislation.
Claims that longshore unions will use the revenue earned by
loading grain to finance longer work stoppages are without
foundation. No more than 200 employees in a total west coast
longshore workforce of well over 3,000 ever service grain
vessels.
In the main port of Vancouver the percentage of longshore
employees assigned to grain vessels is between 5% and 8%. After
tax earnings from this source would not sustain a lengthy work
stoppage for the union which maintains no strike fund.
This provision has the full support of the grain industry and
the grain producers who, unlike other resource producers, have no
relationship or influence on collective bargaining between the
longshore employers and unions. I also want to note that the
government has committed to reviewing the effectiveness of this
provision in 1999.
I think it is important that if one had been at the hearings and
heard farmers speak about this clause and knew how much the
western farmers need this clause it would be hard to understand
why the Reform Party is trying to hold up this bill. It is hard
for me to understand why it is holding the western farmers
hostage in this particular issue.
I do urge members to support the provisions in Bill C-19 and
reject the radical approaches being suggested by the official
opposition which would conflict with Canada's International
Labour Organization commitments.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased once again to participate in this debate, particularly
as it regards these two motions put forward by the Reform Party.
Many things can be said about that party, but it cannot be said
to keep its cards close to its chest. It cannot be said to hide
the contempt it has for the workers or at least for labour
organizations.
Since things in this House are not always spelled out, it is
worth reading these motions for the benefit of our listeners and
for your benefit, Mr. Speaker, to see what they are all about.
The first little masterpiece is found on page 28. Motion No. 18
of the Reform Party concerns section 87.4, which deals
essentially with the maintenance of certain activities, which we
in Quebec refer to in more transparent terms as essential
services, such as public safety and health, as the Canada Labour
Code refers to. However, as you will see, the Reform Party has
added a very cute line
about public safety and health with respect to economic
activities in this country.
87.4(1) During a strike or lockout not prohibited by this Part,
the employer, the trade union and the employees in the
bargaining unit must continue the supply of services, operation
of facilities or production of goods to the extent necessary to
prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health
of the public.
If ever the Reform Party came to power in Canada—poor Canada—this
would be all the more reason for Quebeckers to leave this
country. And there are plenty of reasons.
The Reform Party wants to add the following:
1250
What this actually does is undermine the very existence of the
right to strike and form a union because, ultimately, unions no
longer have the right to strike, which is one of the things that
make society fairer. Let us not kid ourselves; in the history
of humanity, unions are a plus, not a minus.
Tactics as vicious as this, where a few little words completely
undermine the real power, the equal footing at the heart of
labour management negotiations, are a move—and a completely
neo-Liberal one at that—to destroy the middle class.
The middle class benefits from the distribution of wealth and,
through social programs and collective agreements, from the fact
that wealth in this world is no longer concentrated in the hands
of a tiny few but has been redistributed among several thousands
of individuals. In the West, Europe, Scandinavia, North
America, but unfortunately not many other places, there is a
strong middle class that may also enjoy life.
That is what is at stake, make no mistake, if we approve such a
motion, which adds a few words to ensure that strikes do not
cause severe economic hardship to the national economy.
They must not put anyone out. “Go ahead and strike, but we will
make sure that no one is put out”. This is very hypocritical
and cynical and members should be aware that it is part of an
ideology that would see the gap between rich and poor grow as
wide as possible and wealth increasingly concentrated in the
hands of a tiny few, as it was before the industrial revolution
and the appearance of unions in the western world.
The same holds for the other amendment, which is undoubtedly a
recommendation of the Sims report.
It refers directly to the problem already experienced by western
Canada, where there is a special provision for grain vessels,
and the fact that grain vessels and all related port activities
must continue to operate, strike or no strike, and this
provision is imposed on employers and unions. As I understood
the witnesses, the wisdom of this provision is the envy of other
sectors of activity.
But grain shipping is an activity based on a perishable product
and that is what lawmakers, in their wisdom, wish to illustrate.
It seems that the members of the Reform Party and the right,
those with a one track mind, cannot contemplate such subtlety in
society, that is, they cannot contemplate our making legislative
provision for perishable goods known as grains, which determine
the economic activity of an entire region of this great country
Canada, where those who testified, the farmers, are economically
vulnerable.
This is what the code is attempting to remedy and what we
support, but what is opposed by the spokespeople of big
business, that is the oil and mining companies, which complained
that one sector was getting special treatment while the
necessary adjustments were not being made.
Very few people are aware of the fact, and I think the members
all learned about it from a witness, whose name I have
unfortunately forgotten, that this provision is contained in the
Canadian Constitution, which would have to be amended in order
to do away with this issue of grain crops and the special status
accorded grains and wheat production in the west.
Therefore the wording of the code is warranted. The Reform
Party, with Motion No. 22, is seeking to replace the words
“grain vessels” with “let-go and loading of vessels and the
move”. Thus they are broadening the scope of the bill by
changing its content and giving everyone the same treatment.
There would be no more special status.
1255
The very particular matter of wheat's perishable nature is
trivialized in total disregard of the spirit of the legislation
before us.
These are two motions that reflect the profound thinking of the
Reform Party, which manipulates words a bit too much, by the
way. The word “reform” is being hackneyed. That is somewhat
unfortunate of itself. We would hope the House will reject as
vigorously as possible this sort of amendment, which is too much
like a school of thought—which, we hope, will soon disappear—that
of the impoverishment of the poor and the enrichment of the
rich, concentration rather than distribution of wealth.
It is unfortunate that we have in this House the sort of lawyers
that have become the apostles of this battle, which leads
nowhere, that they are questioning the gains made by humanity at
great cost, resulting in a respectable middle class in certain
countries. This cannot be permitted, and we will fight it with
our last breath.
[English]
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity
to speak to the motions in Group No. 6 of Bill C-19. I am sure
my hardworking colleague from the official opposition, the critic
for the labour file and the member for Wetaskiwin, recognizes
this is a very important bill and a very positive step in
amending the Canada Labour Code.
I am sure most of my colleagues in this House remember sitting
in this House on a Saturday and a Sunday in 1994 in support of
our western grain producers.
The official opposition has proposed a change to section 87.7
from a limited requirement for parties in the ports to continue
services to grain vessels to a complete ban on strikes and
lockouts in the ports.
Section 87.7 addresses a specific problem identified by two
independent studies. That is, parties in the west coast ports
have been using disruptions to grain exports as a trigger for
parliamentary intervention in their disputes. Removing this
trigger without removing the strike and lockout rights of the
parties will force them to accept their responsibilities and
develop their own solutions to collective bargaining issues.
Opponents of this provision claim it discriminates against other
resources. However when questioned before the standing
committee, they admitted that it is in their interest to retain
grain as a trigger for parliamentary intervention. They know
that as long as grain exports are disrupted, parliament will be
quickly pressured into intervening in a work stoppage. They want
to be able to continue to use the 130,000 western grain farm
families as pawns in someone else's labour dispute.
Section 87.7 has the strong support of western grain producers
and the grain industry. These groups pointed out to the
committee that the grain industry is unique not only because it
is food and because the world continues to exist on an 18 to 21
day grain supply, but also because of the political nature of
production, transportation and marketing. It is this uniqueness
of grain that has been detrimental to the labour peace at the
west coast ports during contract negotiations. In their view
section 87.7 will help bring grain back to a more level playing
field.
The government is of the view, as was the Sims task force, that
without the ability to interrupt grain exports, the parties in
the ports will be forced to accept their responsibilities and to
settle their disputes without lengthy work stoppages. Those who
oppose the provision claim and some even threaten that the
provision will not work. It can work. The parties have the
ability to negotiate with each other and conclude agreements
which are good for them and for the health of the ports. They
should concentrate on solving their own problems.
If Canadian ports are to remain competitive, the parties must
work together to find workable solutions to collective bargaining
issues. Remove strike and lockout rights and you remove the
incentive for the parties to deal with issues important to the
future of the industry.
1300
That is what Motions Nos. 22 and 23 would do. I urge all
members to reject them.
Our government will continue to support our western grain
producers. Bill C-4 gives our producers continuous support and
the freedom to decide their own future. This bill will support
these very valuable producers.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I was
not going to rise to speak to this group of motions, but because
of what I am hearing from the two sides I would like to comment
on Motion No. 18 in Group 6. As I understand this motion, a
strike would not be allowed or would be ended if economic
hardship could be demonstrated.
I question how anybody could be that painfully naive about
labour relations to put forward a motion that would call for
a strike to cease if there was economic hardship demonstrated.
What is the purpose of withholding services if not to peacefully
apply some kind of economic pressure on the other party? That is
the very nature of withholding services, to try to motivate
somebody to your way of thinking. There is a level of naivety
there. I hope it is naivety and not just plain ignorance.
We are speaking against the idea that this motion should even be
entertained. Anybody who has some labour relations background in
this House would see through that immediately and would not give
it the time of day.
The people who are putting this package forward should remember
that Bill C-19 was born out of a truly co-operative consultative
process which was almost an experiment. It was almost a pilot
project on how to amend labour legislation. Labour and
management worked together for more than two years to try to find
the balance they were seeking, the balance recommended by the
Sims task force. They have done an admirable job. Many of the
motions we are dealing with today would tend to upset that
delicate balance and would jeopardize the success of the whole
process.
There are other tripartite models of labour, management and
government working together around the world. Those countries
are moving forward as nations and are doing a good job of
elevating the standards of the living conditions of the people
they represent. Those countries have realized that it has to be
a tripartite model. The hostility and the adversarial qualities
that we sense from the tone of some of the Reform Party motions
will only hold us back as a nation. There is no future in that
kind of thing, with one party determined to stamp out the other.
Instead the more civilized model is the three parties working
together and moving forward.
What we are hearing from the Reform Party, in many of the
motions it is putting forward, is a reworked version of the right
to work movement. Do we want to go in that direction? We should
be cautious. We should look at those places where right to work
is a reality before we take that particular road.
North Carolina is a right to work state. Everybody has heard of
the Triangle Shirtwaist Company fire in 1913 that founded the
whole idea that workplace safety and health is an issue. The
whole world agreed that it was too horrible to ever let it happen
again. I have news for members. In the right to work state of
North Carolina, 20 women died recently in a fire in a chicken
processing plant because they chained the doors closed from the
outside. They were convinced that these low-waged women were
stealing by-products from the chickens, like wing tips, to make
soup when they got home.
From 1913 to 1995 we have come the whole circle. With that kind
of environment, where there is no worker representation on joint
labour-management safety committees, standards quickly erode if
we are not diligent about trying to elevate the standards and
working conditions. Right to work is a step in the wrong
direction in that regard.
1305
Some of the other motions deal with the movement of grain
through the west coast ports. This is key and integral to the
whole balance I was talking about in Bill C-19. The whole
process of Bill C-19 was a trade-off, where none of the parties
really came away very satisfied that they got everything they
wanted.
We would have liked to have seen a lot tougher anti-scab
legislation. Nobody likes to give away the right to strike, the
right to peacefully withhold services, and in this case they have
not, but in actual fact the grain will keep carrying through.
The positive side of this, the upside and the side that seems to
be lost on the Reform Party, is that there are about 130,000
Canadian farmers who are anxiously awaiting the speedy passage of
this legislation so they can feel secure that their crops this
year will not be interrupted by any kind of a dispute at the west
coast ports.
Talk to pool elevator operators, the UGG or the whole
agribusiness. They want this bill to go through, and yet we have
the Reform Party, largely made up of representatives from western
agricultural districts, being an obstacle and a barrier to this
very real benefit to the whole prairie agricultural industry. It
is a real contradiction. I hope Reform members are thinking this
through. As they stand to speak they should be aware that the
industry is watching these debates very carefully. I am sure
they are scratching their heads wondering right now how they can
see fit to justify being a barrier to the speedy passage of this
particular bill.
We know that the favourite right-wing think tank of the Reform
Party is the Fraser Institute. The Fraser Institute, that tax
deductible, right-wing melting pot for all their ideas, is
pushing the idea of right to work. Donated copies of the book
promoting right to work as the answer for labour relations in the
21st century have arrived in our mailboxes. They are trying to
imply that Canada is backwards because we believe in a more
progressive labour relations climate.
The Fraser Institute and the Reform Party are going down a
dangerous road as they advocate this particular labour relations
environment. It is the role of labour and the role of
governments to provide the legislative environment in which
unions can do their job to elevate the standards of wages and
working conditions for the people they represent. It is a matter
of the redistribution of wealth. It is a matter of spreading the
wealth of this great nation among the working people. Anything
that we do to hold that back does not move us forward in any way
at all. It is a myth.
The fact is that fair wages benefit the whole community. I do
not see what it is about that concept that bothers the Reform
Party, but it seems bound and determined to reduce the ability of
unions to do their job in elevating the standards of the
community. Holding us back in that regard does not help anybody.
It is middle-class people with money in their pockets who can go
out, purchase things and get the economy moving. Screwing them
down in terms of wages does not benefit anybody. That is the
empirical evidence. The statistics of all the right to work
states in the United States, the 21 right to work states, show
that some of them have no minimum wage. All of them have a lower
than average industrial wage. They have worse health and safety
legislation. They even have a higher infant mortality rate and
all the predictable things one would see in the low-income
category.
We believe in our caucus that society does not move forward
unless we all move forward together. The motions that are being
put forward by the Reform Party are completely the opposite of
that point of view.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, before I begin my speech I have to make a comment on
some of the last things that have been said and some of the
previous speeches just before me.
I cannot believe what I am hearing. The member who has just
spoken, as others, talked in a very rational, calm tone, saying
things that are totally false and we cannot leave those things
unchallenged in this House.
He referred to us as being naive and not thinking through
things. I would challenge him to think through some of these
things himself.
1310
They talk about defending workers, that this is their mandate
and so on. Some of the amendments that we have put forward would
in fact protect workers better. They would help protect the
economy. When we are protecting the economy we are doing what is
best for workers. The NDP ought to think that through.
Who suffers most when we destroy the economy in certain areas?
Of course it is the worker. What the NDP does not realize is
that innocent third parties are being hurt and hurt severely by
what is happening at the ports.
The member who just spoke said that we do not represent farmers
and have not talked to them. I have talked to farmers and I have
spent a lot of time with them. They have talked to me about this
legislation. That is why we have proposed some of these
amendments. For example, we have an amendment here that would
include other commodities that farmers produce in this
legislation.
The members display their lack of knowledge of the farm economy.
Farmers do not just grow seeds and grains. They produce other
things that, when shipped, look almost like seeds but will not be
treated the same in this bill. For example, they produce alfalfa
pellets which are simply dry little pellets that are made from
alfalfa grass. Why should that be treated any differently than
wheat, barley or canola?
The members have not addressed this. They have read these
prepared speeches from the bureaucrats without realizing that
they do not address the problem that we have come to address.
We are speaking on behalf of farmers. Why should we divide the
agricultural community as this legislation does? It is totally
unfair.
Another thing that the government keeps saying over and over is
that Reform is holding up the bill. Look at the reason we are
pushing for these changes. It is the lack of democracy in this
House that forces us to try to get the attention of the
government as to the importance of these amendments. It just
does not listen.
This bill has a good aim. There are some very good things in
it. But if it can be strengthened, why not strengthen it? It
makes no sense to simply pass this bill through the House and not
consider some of the very reasoned and good amendments that we
have put forward.
I challenge the government not to just listen to us. I
challenge the NDP. I challenge the Bloc. Do not just listen to
what we are saying. I believe if they talk to Canadians
generally they will find that we have very strong support across
the entire spectrum for these amendments. I challenge the
government to find out the same thing that we have found out,
which is, this is what people want. We need to return to a real
balance in labour legislation.
I would like now to begin my speech. That was simply in reply
to some of the things that were said previously which are totally
unfair.
The whole debate today was led off by the House leader for the
Liberal Party. I would like to read a quotation. “I am
shocked. This is terrible. This time we are talking about a
major piece of legislation. Shame on those Tories across the
way”. Do you know who said that, Mr. Speaker? It was the very
person who introduced the motion to invoke time allocation upon
this bill. It was the government House leader.
I will read another quotation. “It displays the utter disdain
with which this government treats the Canadian people”. That
was said by the foreign affairs minister when he sat on this side
of the House in opposition.
Here is another quotation. “This is not the way to run
parliament. This is abuse of the process in this House”. I
will not tell you, Mr. Speaker, who said it, but it was a highly
esteemed member of the government. I do not want to embarrass
anybody in this House at the present time.
An hon. member: We want to hear it.
An hon. member: Please.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Maybe at a later time, but not at
this time. I respect the Chair.
Grain is given a preferential treatment.
We are asking for equality. In my riding alfalfa producers are
really protesting this inequity. I hope the government will
reconsider and allow its members at least a free vote on this. If
there is going to be any reform or any freeing up of this
parliament the government has to lead in reforming and
democratizing the House. We are only one small voice in this
regard.
1315
One of the things that has been said is that we should not be
singling out just grain. There are many other commodities that
deserve equal protection. We need to protect the national
economy. We have already made that point.
The grain producers and many other commodity shippers have been
held hostage by the labour disputes at the west coast. Third
parties that have no control are greatly harmed.
We have had a discussion in the House in the last couple of
weeks on hepatitis C and the victims who have been harmed. Third
parties were harmed and they had no control over the
circumstances. This is not in the same category but here is a
third party being harmed by a situation over which it has no
control, that being strikes at our ports. It is blatantly unfair
to allow that to continue. I hear the NDP, the Liberals and the
Bloc defending this but it is basically most unfair.
If there is a better solution such as final offer selection
arbitration why not consider that? It has worked and it has
worked very effectively. It would prevent some of the great harm
that is being done to the third parties that suffer because of
the strikes that take place. It would be protection for the
economy. There is a balance here. It is not just the strike but
also the lockouts so it helps both sides.
It is in the interest of all Canadians that we have reliable
access to essential services. If we do not what is going to
happen? We are going to lose some of the jobs to our competitors
such as the United States. We would like to keep employment
within our borders. We need to establish and maintain what we
now have and that is a reputable world class export system. We
need to continue to maintain that.
Canada has had this transportation and communications
infrastructure and many of these things will gradually have to be
scaled back if we allow these strikes and lockouts to continue.
The disruption in day to day operations of vital transportation
sectors would inhibit the national economy from functioning.
The second group of motions that we would ask the government to
support also deals with proposing an extension to include all the
other commodities. I have mentioned one which I am very familiar
with and that is alfalfa pellets and alfalfa products. There is
no reason why that cannot be included in this.
I do not know if members realize that the port of Vancouver
alone in 1960—I think that is the right date—had $30 billion in
exports. Only $4 billion of that is grain. The government is
dividing up and giving special treatment to a certain sector and
we have no problem. We appreciate the fact that grain producers
will have this protection but it should be extended to all. That
is why we cannot accept what the government has done and so have
proposed the amendments. Grain is only about 20% of the
commodities that are shipped to the west coast.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to speak on Bill C-19 which seeks to amend the Canada
Labour Code.
I listen to debate from across the floor and from members from
the other party accusing the Reform of being anti-worker, holding
farmers hostage and trying to make the middle class rich. I ask
myself what is the debate leading to.
1320
Labour harmony is very crucial to the economic prosperity of
Canada. That goes for the workers, the employers and management.
Economic prosperity is a partnership between the workers,
management and those who run the businesses. Any time we create
an imbalance going toward one right against the other then we are
creating a situation where in the long run it affects all
Canadians.
When my hon. colleague talks about the Reform Party spending
time working for the middle class, I would like to tell him that
the majority of the middle class are workers for whom he is
saying he is fighting for their rights. I do not know whose
rights he is fighting for but he seems to write off the middle
class. I would like to remind the member that it is the middle
class people who are also the workers of this nation.
As my colleague said, we are trying to create a fair balance, a
balance in the rights of the workers and the rights of the
persons who have put the time, effort and sweat into running the
business. We cannot have one held hostage at the expense of the
other. Both are partners in the economic prosperity.
The Reform Party in general supports many of the good intentions
in this bill. Like my colleague said, all we are trying to do is
strengthen the bill. We are not taking anybody's right away
despite the rhetoric that comes from the other side.
My colleague quoted what members on the other side said when
they were on this side. As a new member of parliament it makes
me agree with Canadians who say politicians do not speak the
truth. These are the members who said one thing on closures
while on this side of the House and another thing on closures on
the other side. This is not a good example for upcoming
politicians in this country.
The Reform Party has brought in Motions Nos. 18 and 20 which
deal with the national economy as a whole. The federal
government has approximately 10% of the workforce under its
jurisdiction. That 10% is working in an environment providing
service to all Canadians which is very important and crucial. In
some of the legislation it gives them a monopoly. Therefore
these industries have a very serious potential of harming all
Canadians.
When we look at this bill in terms of these motions that is what
we are talking about. It is wrong to say we are trying to hold
workers hostage. We are just trying to say that we should not
hold Canadians hostage. As such, my colleagues have brought in
amendments that are trying to address that.
We agree that the continuation of service must carry on if there
is a danger to public health and safety. That is paramount and
critically important. However, we also feel that the national
economy needs to be protected but not by taking away the rights
of the workers as was said on the other side. We want to create
a balance to ensure that services go on and we do not hold the
Canadian public hostage.
Being a member of the union as well as working in the business
sector, I feel everything needs to have a balance. I have had
experience both in strikes and running a business. I can see that
antagonistic attitudes, egos and all these things get in the way
and create a situation that harms the Canadian public.
1325
Motions Nos. 22 and 23 deal with the transportation of grain.
Once the grain reaches the port it can be shipped out. There are
flaws in this and it is absolutely ludicrous for anyone to say
that we are holding farmers hostage. We are not. This is
absolute rubbish.
What we and the farmers are saying is that their crops are very
important. Grain must be shipped but so should the other crops.
This is crucially important for our economy.
We cannot carry on. It is quite interesting, as my colleague
across the way indicated, that grain is crucially important for
the economy. Grain is crucially important for Canada's
international commitments. I agree 100% that it is crucial but
why are they speaking about only one aspect? There are all the
other aspects which make up the whole picture. Members across can
pick up on things that suit them and present their arguments.
This does not give the whole picture.
If we think it is critically important for the nation and need
to address it in a bill then let us address the whole issue, let
us address the whole picture. All farmers are equally
important. They have international commitments. They have
international obligations to meet.
We support the grain farmers and we think the intent of that
small portion is fine but we are asking that they all be included
to give a whole picture.
I feel that in supporting these amendments I am not going
against the wishes of workers. I am not being anti-worker. All
I am saying is let us look at the whole picture. Both workers
and management have an equal role to play and both are partners.
Therefore this should not be viewed as anti-worker legislation
but something to make the whole picture.
* * *
[Translation]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there have been discussions among all parties and with the
member for Kamloops concerning the taking of the division on
Motion M-75.
I believe you would find consent for the following motion:
[English]
That at the conclusion of today's debate on M-75, all questions
necessary to dispose of the said motion shall be deemed put, a
recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday,
May 26, 1998 at the expiry of the time provided for Government
Orders.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
1330
CANADA LABOUR CODE
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-19, an act to amend
the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and the Corporations and Labour
Unions Returns Act and to make consequential amendments to other
acts as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and of
Motions Nos. 18, 20, 22 and 23.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today I would like to address issues relating to Bill
C-19 and the Canada Labour Code. I want to bring to the attention
of the House my concerns both as to what the government has
failed to include in the bill as well as the problems with
proposed amendments to the labour code.
Let me first address an incident where the Canada Labour Code
failed to protect the health and safety of a federal government
employee and ought to be strengthened. While the focus of Bill
C-19 is on collective bargaining, the labour code itself deals
with the health and safety of federal government employees.
Canadians have a right to expect their government to be a model
employer that takes great care to see that its employees are not
unnecessarily put in life threatening situations. Yet the facts
suggest that the government has often been careless with the
lives of its employees. The labour code is the first line of
defence of an employee of the federal government yet it often
fails them. Let me give a specific example.
Dean Miller was a fisheries officer in Prince Rupert. He was
required to take white water survival training in the Kitimat
River on September 18, 1996. Dean died of a heart attack that
day. He was forced to take a course that he probably did not
need and definitely should not have been asked to participate in.
Dean was a supervisor who worked in an office in Prince Rupert.
There was no obvious reason for him to be ordered to take a
rigorous white water survival course; his job never required it.
Dean had a pacemaker and a serious heart condition. He never
should have been forced to take such a course.
The law requires that federal employees taking rigorous and
demanding survival courses first be approved as medically fit by
the Department of Health. Dean was never approved as medically
fit by the regional medical officer of the Department of Health.
More than likely if such a medical test had been done, Dean would
have been excluded from that course. Perhaps he would have been
alive today. He certainly would not have died in the Kitimat
River.
The minimal requirements of the labour code were never enforced.
Dean had not neglected his health or his wife and family. He had
a check-up only months before his death. The medical report from
that check-up stated: “His fatigue has continued. In fact over
the last four to five years it may be worse. He finds that when
he exercises he gets tired with some breathlessness”.
Nevertheless Dean took the course because he believed it would
protect his job and thus his family.
After Dean's death the department of human resources stepped in
and shut down the mandatory white water survival course under
authority of section 145 of part II of the code. A directive was
issued to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that stated:
On September 18, 1996 the undersigned safety officer conducted an
investigation into the fatality of Dean Miller on the Kitimat
River, a workplace operated by the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans—being an employer subject to the Canada Labour Code.
The said safety officer considers that a condition exists that
constitutes a danger to an employee while at work.
Employees are participating in a swift water rescue—course
without a risk evaluation having been conducted or physical
fitness ability (medical condition) of employees having been
conducted contrary to section 124 [of the code].
It is now clear that DFO had been failing to follow the
requirements of the Canada Labour Code for years. No real action
has been taken against those who required Dean Miller to take
this rigorous survival course even though he had a pacemaker and
a serious heart condition. Dean died while on the mandatory
course.
Thankfully a safety officer acting under the Canada Labour Code
shut down the program, but only after Dean died. No action was
ever taken against the DFO officials who ordered Dean to take the
safety course. The only person who has suffered was the DFO
safety officer. He was concerned by the lax attitude to employee
safety in his own department. He was forced out of the
department for speaking out on the death of Dean Miller.
I brought Dean's death to the attention of the minister of human
resources on April 25, 1997. I asked that a review of the
procedures be undertaken that required a fisheries officer with a
very serious pre-existing medical condition to take a white water
survival course and for a copy of such a review when it was
completed. I have never received a satisfactory reply. I ask
again today for a reply from the minister on the death of Dean
Miller.
Let me now turn to the amendments to the code contained in Bill
C-19. Section 87.7 has been of concern to employers in British
Columbia. It is said that section 87.7 has a laudable objective:
to keep prairie grain moving to the markets. I think we all
agree with that point.
1335
I suspect the real intention of the bill though is to make life
easier for the Minister of Labour and his staff. They claim it
is too much bother to deal with disputes that tie up the shipment
of grain. If the shipment of grain is too difficult for the
minister, then let him step aside.
B.C. industry believes that section 87.7 is a mistake. It
points out that Mr. Justice Estey has been asked to report to the
government on grain transportation and handling. It suggests
that it is premature to take this action prior to the Estey
commission even having completed its report.
Industry in my province believes that section 87.7 may lengthen
labour disputes. It believes that striking employees may have
less incentive to bargain.
The B.C. economy depends on trade. Forest products and coal are
no less important to the B.C. economy than grain is to the
prairies. If this provision has the effect of prolonging
industrial disputes in British Columbia, then it is a mistake. If
it makes our ports less competitive with their American
counterparts, it is a mistake.
There are two ports in Delta—South Richmond, the Delta port at
Roberts Bank and the Fraser port facility. I have yet to hear
from any user of either that section 87.7 will advance the ports
in Delta—South Richmond.
It has been said that the grain provision is counterproductive
and fundamentally at cross purposes with the government's widely
supported efforts on the international trade file.
It is unreasonable and unacceptable that prairie grain shipments
will have access to British Columbia ports during a strike, while
B.C. based exports will not.
Industry leaders have outlined a number of negative consequences
and equity considerations raised by section 87.7. They point out
that commodity producers in the forestry, mining, petrochemical,
energy and manufacturing industries will not be able to export or
import goods through a B.C. port affected by a strike, yet grain
exports would continue.
Allowing grain exports to continue during a strike will likely
prolong and not shorten work stoppages as employees providing
services to grain vessels will have less incentive to settle.
There is considerable potential for transportation handling
business usually undertaken by Canadian ports and railways to be
lost as firms re-route their products and services through the
U.S. Many commodities currently handled at west coast port
facilities can be transferred to facilities in Seattle or Tacoma,
Washington, or Portland, Oregon. Once business is lost,
experience shows it is hard to get it back.
I have yet to hear any business or spokesman for port employees
in my province requesting this provision or speaking convincingly
in support of it.
On April 27 the British Columbia Employers Association asked the
Minister of Labour for relief from section 87.7. It said:
We believe that—the discriminatory grain provisions
unnecessarily threaten Canada's economy by jeopardizing Canada's
reputation as a reliable importer and exporter of commodities to
world markets. The impact on the western economy will be
devastating.
The Business Council of British Columbia has also asked the
Minister of Labour for relief. It states:
As you know from your consultation with western stakeholders as
well as from numerous presentations made by western industries
and associations to the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development, the special grain provisions contained in section
87.7—pose a serious threat to the competitiveness of west coast
ports and the economy of western Canada as a whole—non-grain
commodities represent up to 87% of the total dollar value of the
cargo moved through the port of Vancouver alone—these
commodities may remain stagnant in the event of an extended
strike indirectly subsidized by the mandatory movement of grain.
Given the tenuous position of the current western economy as a
result of the drop in world oil prices and the Asia crisis, such
a threat to future economic stability could not come at a worse
time.
Weyerhaeuser Canada, a Vancouver based company, believes section
87.7 needlessly threatens the forestry sector and potentially the
communities of western Canada that depend on exports and imports
through the ports.
In conclusion, as a member of this House from British Columbia
and having two major ports in my riding, I feel it is important
that these matters and concerns be brought to the attention of
this House and that the government take note.
1340
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the Group No. 6 amendments to
Bill C-19. From the debate we have heard it appears that
whenever one challenges the established order, one runs the risk
of being called names. Symbolically what has transpired is that
other parties in the House have been calling Reform names on this
issue which is most unfortunate.
Forty per cent of British Columbia's gross domestic product
comes from exports. The real question here is how to optimize
society's benefits and at the same time create an enlightened
framework for labour-management negotiations in those areas of
federal jurisdiction. Just so people do not get confused on this
issue, we are talking about a small portion of Canada's workforce
which is associated with federal areas of jurisdiction.
I have a special place in my export file for forest products. I
do that because the products from our forests are Canada's
largest net export. This is something which is overlooked by
virtually every walk of life in this country, particularly by
politicians and our own bureaucracy. They are not our highest
value export but we import almost no forest products. Having
spent 20 years working in this business prior to my coming to the
House of Commons, I know this has always been a bone of
contention. It is overlooked. In any national strategy it is
important to look at the net impacts of many of our exports.
The automotive trade represents 26% of our exports which is
wonderful and marvellous and does a lot of great things, but we
have a lot of automotive imports as well. It is a very different
issue and a different strategy should apply.
With this set of amendments Reform is saying that we need to
extend protection to all commodities. We cannot selectively
experiment with protecting one group or commodity. To do so puts
us in a perilous position. It also distorts the collective
bargaining process. It tends to distort everything. Other
members of my caucus have talked about the employer groups, the
producer groups, the manufacturer groups, the exporters, all west
coast based and all very concerned that anything other than equal
treatment for commodities will lead to all kinds of difficulties.
In my view any treatment other than equal treatment for all
commodities will lead to a need for constant government
supervision, constant government intrusion and discriminatory
treatment which will lead us who knows where. We will be
monkeying with this legislation forever. We will be monkeying
with the whole collective bargaining process. This is not good
news at all.
One of our backgrounders describes this as an uncontrolled
experiment being conducted by the federal government. There is an
ongoing commission to review grain handling and the
transportation system. It is reviewing that whole business in
terms of labour relations. It is the Estey commission. That
commission will not report until the end of this year.
1345
In the meantime none of the legislation is based on anything
substantive or concrete. It simply is not fact based. To
justify it on the basis that it is temporary when it is so
arbitrarily discriminatory and targeted makes no logical sense.
The only conclusion that one can come to is that there must
either be some special interest at work or some collective
feeling that somehow this will make someone's life easier in this
jurisdiction. Surely those are the wrong reasons to be doing
what we are doing.
There has also been a suggestion that by somehow selectively
targeting provisions in the act to only apply to grain will
prevent labour disputes from escalating because grain can no
longer be used as the commodity that will be at risk. That is
also illogical. The same argument could be used for all other
excluded commodities. As we know forest products represent by
far the largest dollar value commodity moved through Canadian
west coast ports.
We can identify no one who actually wants the legislation other
than the people who created it and they are rather anonymous. We
also know there is a split in cabinet over it. Once again we
have the spectre of the west coast being burdened with a piece of
legislation to its detriment by a non-west coast based group.
This certainly does nothing to pull the country together.
We also seem to have a non-recognition of the marketplace
serviced by the port of Vancouver. For example, the Asian market
is the marketplace in the world that places the highest premium
on predictability and timely delivery. That is a crucial
consideration. The bill must address that issue and it must
address it on a very even handed basis.
I will get back to softwood lumber. We have a circumstance
where the government's posture on the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber
agreement is that the agreement gives greater predictability for
Canadian exporters that are planning to ship softwood lumber to
the United States. There are thousands of British Columbians out
of work because of that softwood lumber agreement. It is one
more example of how the west coast cannot seem to permeate the
bureaucracy that creates west coast based legislation.
1350
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
official opposition is trying to do in the House what it failed
to do in the committee, that is actually to take a constructive
part in the debate other than the filibuster we witnessed the
other week.
Let us make clear what it is trying to do. It is nothing less
than to remove strike and lockout rights from employees and
employers subject to the Canada Labour Code.
Motions Nos. 18 and 20 would add hardship to the national
economy as a criterion for maintenance of service requirements
while Motions Nos. 22 and 23 would prohibit all strikes and
lockouts in the ports.
Members of the official opposition have stated that they support
collective bargaining and the right of workers to what they call
strike peacefully. What does strike peacefully mean? For most
it means a work stoppage free of violence, but for the official
opposition it would appear to mean that a work stoppage has no
economic impact.
This is a complete contradiction. The entire purpose of a strike
or lockout is to impose economic sanctions in order to convince
the other party to agree to terms and conditions of a collective
agreement.
In democratic countries such as ours the right of workers to
organize and begin collective bargaining is a fundamental right.
This right is recognized in the international bill of human
rights and in International Labour Organization conventions to
which Canada is a signatory.
In democratic countries the right to strike or lockout by
private sector parties is limited only to the extent necessary to
protect public health and safety. That is exactly what Bill C-19
proposes. There is no precedent in Canada to my knowledge for
removing the strike and lockout rights from private sector
parties for economic reasons.
Federally regulated employers and unions that negotiate under
the Canada Labour Code specifically told the Sims task force—and
I know the opposition remembers the Sims task force because we
talked about it ad infinitum during the discussions—that they
did not want their lockout and strike provisions removed. They
did not want their disputes subject to binding third party
determinations.
The federally regulated employers, transportation and
communications, FETCO, which represents most major employers
subject to the code said:
We do not want statutory authority to be given to the government
to impose arbitration, alternative dispute mechanism, or
unilaterally determine some of the provisions of the collective
agreement itself.
The parties subject to the code agree that the appropriate
criteria for maintenance of service requirements is protection of
public health and safety.
On this point the Business Council of British Columbia told the
task force:
The inclusion of a provision within the Canada Labour Code for
designating “essential services” should be confined to matters
deemed to be essential to the protection and maintenance of
“public safety and health”.
The Sims task force did not recommend the removal of strike and
lockout rights from any group of employees or any employer
subject to the code. The vast majority of parties subject to the
code do not support the removal of strike and lockout rights.
I urge members of the House not to support these amendments.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is unfortunate that every time I get up to speak to
important bills it is just before question period. We know that
once again my presentation will undoubtedly be interrupted by
that frivolous use of an hour of House time.
It is a pleasure to rise today to speak once again to Bill C-19,
the labour legislation that is before the House, and specifically
to the Group No. 6 amendments.
Motions Nos. 18 and 20 by the official opposition deal with the
fact that we are concerned the only provisions for preventing
rail or shipping disruptions at the Vancouver port deal
specifically with grain.
1355
One might wonder why as the agriculture critic of the official
opposition and a grain farmer for close to 20 years in the real
world I would be speaking to expand it and why I would not be
speaking in favour of this amendment.
While I do favour the fact that it is a small step in the right
direction to have a process in place to ensure that the grain
continues to flow through the ports, to meet our international
commitments and to ultimately reach our foreign customers, the
fact remains that it is specific to one commodity. I do not
think even farmers would feel that is fair. There are many
agricultural commodities other than grain that we ship abroad and
on which we have important commitments to our foreign customers.
It is very important that those commodities reach our customers.
One can readily see that while a lot of farmers including many
in my riding, I am sure, support the particular clause in the
legislation they are concerned with fairness and equity. They
wonder why they are singled out. There has certainly been a
history of rail and shipping disruptions at the ports that have
cost the country and specifically farmers very dearly in the
past. It has cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars in
demurrage charges as ships sit waiting to be loaded. That is
ultimately reflected in the final payment that farmers receive
from the Canadian Wheat Board.
As a young farmer trying to eke out an existence in the Peace
River country I too from time to time was very angry when I would
view the ships waiting in the harbour for days and weeks. I knew
the mounting demurrage charges. I wanted to jump in my pick-up
truck, tear off the 1,000 miles south to Vancouver and load the
ships myself. I know many other young and older farmers felt the
same way. They would have liked to have just gone down and
loaded the bloody grain themselves rather than see it sitting on
the wharf and not being shipped.
I see my time is up so I will continue after question period.
The Speaker: The member still has about six and half
minutes and will be recognized right after question period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
CANADA WORLD YOUTH
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since
1971 Canada World Youth has been organizing the international
exchange programs fostering leadership skills, cross cultural
learning and social justice both locally and globally.
Funded in part by CIDA some 22,000 young people have taken part
in the program which provides hands on work experience and
participation in community and international development.
This year Jordan Hancey, a university student from my riding of
Cambridge, has been chosen to take part in the Alberta-Poland
exchange program.
I congratulate Jordan on his selection and I wish him every
success as he prepares to represent Canada on this important
cultural exchange.
* * *
PARKDALE CLEAN-UP DAY
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on Saturday, May 9, Parkdale Collegiate Institute held
is fourth annual community clean-up day in Parkdale.
First, I thank and congratulate the 200 volunteers who
participated in that day. I also mention the strong support
given to the clean-up day by the Parkdale Liberty Economic
Development Committee, the Parkdale Village BIA, as well as the
other community based groups that contributed so much to
Saturday's success.
In particular I underline the hard work and tremendous community
spirit of two of Parkdale Collegiate's students, Rahel Beigel and
Kevin Brijlal, who were the student co-ordinators for this year's
event.
The benefits of a community clean-up day are plain to see. A
more attractive neighbourhood encourages people to spend their
time there and allows businesses to flourish but, more important,
such activity also fosters a true sense of belonging. Safe and
clean communities are prosperous communities, and prosperous
communities are safe and clean communities.
It is a pleasure to salute such community spirit and I thank
them all for their hard work.
* * *
1400
CRTC
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
when the heritage minister promotes Canadiana she really goes
Hollywood.
The minister's CRTC licenses network and specialty TV channels
mandating Canadian content. This drives a high demand for
production but the dollars and cents simply do not add up to the
commercial level.
As a result the minister directs spending of $200 million to pay
for the production of TV shows. So we have $200 million a year
dispensed through a nightmare of people with sleeping bags and
tents waiting outside bureaucrats' offices trying to be first
come first served.
The minister presides over a demeaning joke and it is getting
worse.
The bureaucracy has already taken a $20 million advance on next
year's funding. Informed speculation says Canadians may be
paying up to $600 million a year if the minister gets her way.
And who asked the taxpayer? Nobody.
Do they really want to pay for her fund? We demand a mandate
review of the CRTC and its Canadian content rulings.
* * *
[Translation]
MEMBER FOR LONGUEUIL
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on June 3, 1993,
the Bloc Quebecois refused to discuss the topic of my speech on
paying a salary for women and men who stay at home.
Today, the Bloc Quebecois member for Longueuil is showing that
she did not understand anything in my speech of April 28, 1998,
and my motion of October 7, 1997, which read “That, in the
opinion of this House, the government should legislate to pay a
salary to the mothers and fathers who stay at home to raise
their children”. The hon. member should understand my whole
speech, not just 23 words out of 1,500.
Mothers belong to one of two groups: those who work outside the
home and those who stay at home.
Today, I figured out the strategy of the Bloc Quebecois member
for Longueuil: she wants to stay in the third group.
* * *
[English]
POLICE WEEK
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is Police Week in Canada. It is an opportunity for all
Canadians to show our gratitude and appreciation for the
outstanding work performed day in and day out by our police and
peace officers across the country.
This year in my riding of Waterloo—Wellington Police Week will
be celebrated as follows:
there will be police displays in malls;
there will be seminars on various crime prevention tips and on
personal safety;
there will be media announcements saluting individual officers;
there will be tours of police facilities; and
finally, there will be an awards night to recognize members of
the community who assisted police in some very significant way.
On behalf of all residents of Waterloo-Wellington and on behalf
of all Canadians, I thank all police for working so hard to make
our communities the great places they are. Canadians respect
them and Canadians salute them.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today I would like to commend the many beef cattle
farmers and ranchers in every province of Canada.
I commend them for supplying a safe, healthy, nutritious,
convenient product at a very affordable price.
I commend them for the large positive impact they have on the
Canadian economy. Over 54% of Canadian beef production is
exported to countries around the world, earning cash to be used
to create a better Canada.
I commend them for the thousands of direct and indirect jobs
they create for Canadians in rural and urban areas.
I commend them for their excellent stewardship of the land they
use. Cattle ranchers were saving endangered species through
habitat preservation and improvement long before it became the in
thing to do.
I commend the men, women and children who operate as a family
unit in one of the most healthy, wonderful lifestyles known to
mankind.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply ask you and millions of other
Canadians at your next beef barbeque to stop for a moment and
give thanks to these farmers and ranchers. They truly are real
Canadians.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
we rush toward the 21st century trade barriers are being reduced
to enhance commerce between nations.
In recent discussions with a constituent I became intrigued with
the idea of establishing a centralized resource centre for
importers and exporters, an international trade information
centre.
This is an opportunity for our government to enter the 21st
century as innovators in trade by providing one stop shopping for
importers and exporters alike to attend information seminars
tailor made to their needs, to have information material at their
fingertips and knowledgeable personnel a simple phone call away.
As we continue to march into the shrinking world of a global
economy it is apparent that such a resource centre would be a
much needed facility not only for our traders but also for those
who wish to trade with us.
The port of Fort Erie in my riding of Erie-Lincoln is adjacent
to the U.S. border at Buffalo, New York, and is one of the
busiest land crossings in the country. As new and renewed bridge
infrastructure is being undertaken there is great potential in
Fort Erie to become the highest volume port in the country.
Fort Erie would be an ideal location for an international trade
information centre.
* * *
STUDENT SUMMER EMPLOYMENT
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this Friday I will participate in the opening of a student
employment centre in Kitchener.
Each year at this time we are faced with the struggle of
students looking for summer jobs. As a mother of four I know
this yearly ritual very well.
1405
This government has made great progress not only in creating
youth employment programs but also in providing access to
information about programs available both to students and
prospective employers throughout the Internet.
Experience Canada, Young Canada Works, SchoolNet Youth
Employment, Youth Internships Canada, Summer Career Placements,
Youth Info Line and Youth Info Site are all programs and services
targeted at assisting students in finding summer jobs and
breaking the cycle of no job, no experience.
I encourage all young Canadians to look into these initiatives.
I encourage all employers to hire a student this summer,
providing them with valuable experience that will last them a
lifetime.
* * *
SURREY YOUTH RECOGNITION AWARDS
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
May 2 I had the pleasure of attending the third annual City of
Surrey Youth Recognition Awards. On behalf of all of us in this
place I wish to congratulate the following: Daniel Chapman,
Armand Dhaliwal, Jesse Dosanjh, Amanda Ellestad, Marissa Hadland,
Mary Illical, Todd Lajeunesse, Rachna Singh and Elizabeth Thampy.
From Tamanawis Secondary School I congratulate students: Meghan
Anderssen, Amanda Cheung, Katie Henderson, Stephanie Kingdon,
Laura MacKay, Ranjiv Manak, Reggie Sanantonio, Sean Vandergronden
and Dawn Young.
From Queen Elizabeth Secondary School I congratulate students:
Sueanne Amisola, Erin Ashenhurst, Sarah Cathey, Dominique Chasse,
Sarah Clark, Jennie Cline, Anshin Chu, Jennifer Derton, Johnny
Faria, Brent Fraser, Gagandeep Luddu, Laura Maltman, Jennifer
Neher, Kevin Redden and Joseph Siembida.
My apologies for any mispronunciations.
These young people of Surrey represent the vast majority of
Canadian youth who truly are making a difference.
* * *
UKRAINIAN HERITAGE
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to tell all members just how proud I am of
my Ukrainian heritage. If I speak in an unique way it is
something I will wear as a badge of honour. My father, mother,
grandmother and grandfather came to Canada in 1891 and settled
near Hafford, Saskatchewan.
They were, in fact, the first Ukrainian family to settle in
Saskatchewan. My family was among the thousands of immigrants
from all over the world who built the west. We owe those
pioneers an incredible debt of gratitude.
I am proud to speak with a Ukrainian accent, but at the same
time I am shocked at the Reform Party that would be asking me to
speak English.
* * *
[Translation]
DAVID LEVINE
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
appointment of David Levine as chief executive officer of an
Ottawa hospital is generating a lot of controversy in Ontario.
The issue is not Mr. Levine's great competence, but the fact
that he was a PQ candidate 17 years ago. He is accused of being
an old stock separatist. His appointment is perceived as posing
a great danger to medical services in English in the Ottawa
region.
Week after week, the federalists accuse us of wanting to promote
ethnic nationalism.
Yet, when a non-francophone Quebecker dares to support our
political option, he is publicly condemned by all these great
Canadians.
The whole episode involving Mr. Levine clearly shows that those
who accuse sovereignists of creating ethnic divisions are in
fact the ones who try to maintain such splits.
While we fear for the future of the Montfort hospital, some are
now concerned about services in English in Ontario. This takes
the cake.
* * *
[English]
SPORTS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, sports are
an integral part of Canadian culture. In fact, during the
Stanley Cup playoffs hockey becomes the cultural glue unifying
Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
Canadian players are very competitive, yet when it comes to
competing sports teams the Americans tilt the playing field and
compete with an unfair advantage. Huge local, state and federal
subsidies provide unfair advantages to professional sport teams
based in the U.S. and it is time for us to act.
Canadian professional sporting teams have been harmed by unfair
American subsidy policies which have reduced the operating costs
of United States teams. The NAFTA establishes clear rules to
prohibit these unfair practices. The Canadian government should
initiate a dispute with the American government under chapter 20
of the NAFTA and seek compensation for the unfair U.S. policies.
On behalf of sports in Canada let us establish a backbone rather
than a wishbone. Let us take some action.
* * *
CANADIAN NURSES
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, this week
Canadians are paying tribute to our Canadian nurses. These
dedicated professionals are the backbone of our health care
system. With compassion and wisdom they care for us when we
cannot care for ourselves.
1410
The Canadian Nurses Association, 110,000 members strong,
continues to promote its profession and share its vision for the
future of Canadian health care. They are fighters for a health
care system that ensures Canadians have the highest standards of
health care.
The theme for this week's events is “Nursing is the Key” and
marks the 90th anniversary of the association. Today is also
Florence Nightingale's birthday and Canada Health Day.
Congratulations to Canadian nurses for a job well done.
A recent poll listed the most appreciated and trusted
professions. Guess who topped the list? Yes, that is right,
Canada's nurses.
* * *
LUCIEN BOUCHARD
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my first impulse in commenting on Premier Bouchard's one person
attempt to manipulate history was to shrug and say “What is
new?”
On more thought, however, I realized what a horrible insult he
had made to Quebeckers.
The rest of Canada may dismiss it as one more of the premier's
childish tantrums, but when one recalls the blood and sacrifice
of thousands of Quebeckers in World War II one sees how his
actions approach sacrilege.
How can he dismiss the record of the Vandoos, the Maisonneuve,
the Black Watch and others and their fallen comrades who left
their blood, their dreams, their youth on the soil of Europe so
that people like Premier Bouchard would have freedom of speech?
How can he forget General and Mrs. Vanier, one of Quebec's, and
indeed Canada's, most famous families and their record of service
to Canada?
Mr. Bouchard should hang down his head in shame.
* * *
LIVERPOOL REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
riding of South Shore can claim a first that no other riding in
Canada can claim. The first high school in Canada to attain the
status of Earth School, having completed 1,000 environmental
action projects, is Liverpool Regional High School in Queens
County, Nova Scotia.
There are 1,771 green schools in Canada that have completed 100
projects. This is the first goal in the SEEDS Canada program.
To qualify as an Earth School the students must complete 1,000
environmental projects.
There are only 94 Earth Schools in Canada and the only one at
the high school level is the Liverpool Regional High School.
Congratulations to the students, teachers and staff at the
Liverpool Regional High School.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL NURSES DAY
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
today, May 12, the birthday of Florence Nightingale, the famous
lady with the lamp, is International Nurses Day.
I salute Canada's nurses with pride and respect, particularly my
colleagues, the 67,000 nurses of Quebec. I recognize their
competency, their professionalism, and above all their people
skills. They are called upon to share people's suffering and
grief, often in difficult, even painful, circumstances.
Nurses are everywhere, in the hospitals, in the CLSCs, in the
schools, in the work place, in big cities and in outlying areas,
playing a key role in both prevention and cure. The slogan of
the Ordre des infirmières et infirmiers du Québec is “Consult a
nurse”.
That invitation will no doubt be accepted, because a CROP poll
conducted in Quebec at the height of the ice storm crisis ranked
nurses first among all professionals in terms of trust. You
deserve our trust more than ever, and we thank you.
* * *
QUEBEC CITY CONFERENCES OF 1942 AND 1943
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, according to reports in this morning's newspapers,
President Roosevelt was in favour of assimilating French
Canadians. We are already familiar with the separatist habit of
denouncing everything that is federalist or comes from English
Canada.
Out of ignorance, or deliberate omission, they refused to give a
statue of a Canadian Prime Minister the place it deserved on
the occasion of the celebrations marking the Quebec City
meetings of 1942 and 1943.
I trust that the leader of the Bloc Quebecois will acknowledge
his former leader has made a mistake and that justice will be
done to Prime Minister Mackenzie King.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, over
the past several months the standing committee on defence has
heard about the atrocious living conditions and the quality of
life our military personnel are experiencing. The only real
reason for this is that successive governments have overworked
and underequipped the members of our forces and have left them
grossly underpaid.
1415
At one of these committee meetings Colonel Jim Calvin reported
that a fully trained private after three years services, married
with two children, has only $49 of disposal income a month.
At the same time we heard the solicitor general brag that our
prison system is one of the best in the world, a system which
provides inmates with the use of golf courses, big screen TVs,
pool tables, et cetera. But most astonishingly, our inmates
receive in some cases a monthly salary of $157. This is more
than three times what military personnel are forced to get by on.
The bottom line is that our convicts are being given more
consideration by our government than our military personnel. How
can we ever hope to recruit young people to serve our country,
knowing that those in jail are treated better? They have to
stand and—
The Speaker: Oral questions.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the country's health ministers are meeting in two days
to negotiate a solution to help all the hepatitis C victims.
Yet this government has still not stated its position.
Canadians know what the government is against. They know that
it tried to stonewall Krever. They know that it attacked the
premiers. It has even tried to divide and conquer the hepatitis
C victims themselves.
What is the government for? What positive position is it taking
into these negotiations in two days?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as the member knows, the provinces have expressed various
positions. Some want to hold with the agreement that all
governments entered into in March. Some want to reopen that
agreement.
It is important for us to determine where the provincial
governments are in this matter. We are having this meeting
because of changes they made in their positions. It is important
for us to know what position the provincial governments are
taking.
On the basis of that, I will see on Thursday whether it is
possible to develop a new consensus. It may not be possible
based on what we are hearing. We will determine whether a new
consensus can be forged on Thursday.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister went all around the bush but he did not
answer the obvious question in the minds of the victims and in
the minds of the provinces.
He talked about possible positions on the part of the provinces,
but what is the position of the Government of Canada? What
positive position on compensating all hepatitis C victims is this
minister taking to this conference in two days?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I thought I made it very clear. We said there was an agreement
by all governments. As a result of the change in position by
Ontario and in part by Quebec and perhaps others we should look
again at the question and see whether a new consensus can be
reached.
We are going to that meeting to determine what the positions are
of the various governments. Once that is known it will be clear
whether governments can act again in a concerted fashion to deal
with this issue. It is in the best interests of all that
governments act together and not unilaterally. Let us see what
happens on Thursday and what the position of the provinces is.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, this minister is running out of excuses.
First he said that every province agreed with him. Now that
excuse is gone. Then he said there was no more money available.
But then the premiers found a couple hundred million more dollars
to put on the table. One by one the minister's excuses for
inaction and not having a position are gone.
Is it not true that the only obstacle that is now standing
between these victims and a just settlement is an obstinate
Minister of Health who is unable to admit that he was wrong?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on this, as on so many other matters, we disagree profoundly with
the Leader of the Opposition.
Last summer, last fall, last winter, even into this year the
provincial governments, especially Ontario and Quebec, took the
position that they did not want to compensate anybody. It is as
a result of the leadership of the Prime Minister and this
government that we have the agreement we produced. After
that agreement was reached, some provinces changed their
positions. It is for that reason that I say let us hear them
out. Let us find out what the position of the provincial—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Macleod.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
interesting the way the government is treating the victims. The
victims have said they do not want to be a prior audience to the
meeting on Thursday.
1420
Here is what the health minister has said to those victims: “I
have proposed that we arrange to meet prior to the
federal-provincial-territorial meeting of health ministers”.
Why does the health minister continue to treat these victims
just like a photo op?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I thought he would be the last person in this House to talk about
using victims as photo ops.
Long before this member calculated what political benefit he
could derive from exploiting victims, I was meeting with them.
Long before this member knew what that ribbon was, I received
one. Long before that man understood this issue, I was
championing their cause. He ought to keep—
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I am sure you want to hear the
answers and the questions as much as I do.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, here is
what the champion of the victims' cause said to them for the
Thursday meeting. It is interesting to note. They know it is in
Ottawa. They do not know what building it is in. They do not
know what time it is and they do not have the agenda yet.
These people have to make travel plans. They do not have a
limousine that will take them there. Why is this minister
treating these victims so poorly?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the trouble with the Reform Party and this member is that when
they pretend to speak of compassion for the victims, they lack
credibility profoundly. They just are not credible.
We supported the resolution put by the New Democratic Party last
week because we agreed that ministers should meet with victims
and hear their perspective on these issues.
I have written to all provincial and territorial ministers. I
have asked them to agree with me to receive victims early in the
day before we consider any of these issues so that we can have
their perspectives in our mind as we consult.
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
* * *
[Translation]
POVERTY
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, in response to the devastating statistics on poverty
released by the National Council of Welfare, the Minister of
Human Resources Development could find nothing better to say
than this, and I quote “Canada no longer has a deficit, so poor
families are richer”.
How could the minister make such a ridiculous and insensitive
statement with respect to the millions of individuals who are
victims of his government's policies?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois
is being very selective in his reading of the press clippings
prepared for him, because I said many other things about child
poverty.
In particular, I said that it was a priority of our government,
and that we had earmarked $1.7 billion for the new national
child benefit, a partnership with the provinces for improved
programs and services.
We are giving the provinces $25 billion under the CHST. We have
increased child care deductions and further reduced Canadians'
taxes—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
will go on with the list.
Does the minister realize that he is the one who is making
poverty worse by slashing EI, by being complacent, by allowing
the surplus in the EI fund to climb to scandalous heights,
despite the crying needs of the public? Does he realize that
the reason there are poor children is perhaps because there are
poor parents?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, putting the economy back on
track means taking decisions that are sometimes difficult. But
we were also bold enough to propose EI reforms, which have also
had a favourable impact in a great many cases.
For instance, we have amended EI to include a family income
supplement for low income claimants with children. Claimants
receiving the family income supplement are exempt from the
intensity rule.
We have made it possible for those receiving EI to earn up to
$50 without losing their benefits.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, this same Minister of Human Resources
Development, through his reform of employment insurance,
together with the Minister of Finance has created the greatest
poverty in Canada.
1425
How can he be so insensitive as not to recognize that, by
denying over 60% of the unemployed the benefits of the
employment insurance plan, he is making hundreds of people poor
in Canada every day?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with what is happening to
poverty among children and because of where the people we are
talking about come from, solutions must be found, and we in the
government are looking for them.
We have made major reforms just so that parents will be able to
go back to work more easily. We are providing active employment
measures with substantial budgets to enable parents to return to
the labour market, because the best guarantee against poverty is
not unemployment insurance, but employment.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, given his attitude in the matter of the
Atlantic groundfish strategy, does the Minister of Human
Resources Development understand that he is once again
condemning thousands of fishers in eastern Canada to poverty?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic groundfish strategy
was our government's initiative in 1993 in response to the
crisis people were facing in Atlantic Canada.
We are working very hard at the moment, this is a complex
problem. We are looking for long term solutions to make sure
people can earn a living with dignity and for a long time. This
is what interests us on this side of the House, not petty
politics.
* * *
[English]
NUCLEAR TESTING
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. I am sure many
Canadians were glad to see that the Canadian government deplored
the detonation of nuclear bombs for testing in India yesterday.
Many Canadians also deplore the way Canada contributes to the
nuclear arms race through the export of nuclear reactors.
Is the government prepared in this context to reconsider its
commitment to the export of nuclear reactors, in particular those
being considered for Turkey in the near future?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are not pursuing a nuclear program aimed at helping
any country develop nuclear arms. More important, Canada has
decided to recall its high commissioner to India for consultation
in protest against the nuclear testing.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, this kind of action would have more credibility if we
were not committed to exporting the technology to make bombs. I
ask the minister whether he would give more credibility to the
Canadian position by finally showing some leadership within the
context of Canada's membership in NATO and questioning the
nuclear doctrine of NATO which holds that some countries should
continue to have nuclear weapons forever. When will he seek the
abolition of all nuclear weapons no matter what country has them?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada has not provided any nuclear information to India
since the early 1970s, so there could not possibly be a link
between the unacceptable tests recently carried out by India and
what Canada has been doing. With respect to the hon. member's
point, I will certainly take it as a representation.
* * *
SUGAR QUOTAS
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, in 1995
the government bowed to U.S. pressure and agreed to lower our
sugar quotas into the U.S. from 35,000 tonnes to 5,000 tonnes.
After pressure from the sugar industry and the all-party sugar
caucus we got it back up to 10,000 tonnes but the U.S. can ship
100,000 tonnes into Canada.
As a result of this agreement Lantic Sugar in Saint John, New
Brunswick announced that it will be closing. This will put 240
more people out of work. What does the Prime Minister have to
say to those 240 people, and their families, who will be out of
work because this government freely sold out the interests of
Canadians for its own convenience?
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we always regret the
closing of an industry.
I also should point out that Canada has taken steps in recent
years to make sure that there is a viable industry in this
country. I am sure my hon. friend will understand the terms of
the re-export program and the fact that Canada would lose sugar
producing industries to a greater extent if we did not have it.
1430
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, we would
still have our sugar industry if we had not undermined the whole
sugar industry of Canada with the agreement.
Today those 240 people and their families are facing
unemployment in a city where the unemployment rate is in excess
of 13%. We have fishermen on both coasts wondering how they are
going to support their families. Yesterday we had another report
confirming that the poor are getting poorer because of this
government's policy.
What is the Prime Minister going to do for these Canadians? When
is the Prime Minister going to take responsibility for the
consequences of his see nothing, do nothing government?
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would welcome a
suggestion from my hon. friend to improve the situation we
presently have. We have worked very hard to make this agreement
on the re-export program beneficial to Canada.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, 17
Liberal MPs are flying with the Prime Minister on his latest
junket, this time to Italy. No opposition MPs are going because
this is not about government business. It is about Liberal party
business. It is called taking care of favours. It is too bad the
taxpayers are on the hook for the charges.
The Liberal MP for Niagara Falls said the trip is a great
opportunity for him to make sales for his wine business. Why do
taxpayers have to foot the bill so that this MP can make a
personal profit?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, not surprisingly the hon.
member's numbers are wrong again. Let me give him the following
information.
First of all Italy is the fifth largest economy in the world. It
is Canada's 11th largest—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across
does not seem to know anything else about Italy other than the
fact that it is shaped like a boot, by what he just said. I
would like to think there are things more important.
We are talking about the relationship between two of the largest
economies on the face of the earth. Italy is the 11th largest
trading partner of Canada. We have asked MPs of Italian origin
from all parties in the House to represent our country to enhance
our trading and otherwise—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Fraser Valley.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if
the government wants to build strong relationships with Italy,
which it should, this is the wrong way to go about it. I will
tell him that.
What the Liberals have done is they have waited until parliament
takes a break. They have hired an airplane and will load it up
with good loyal Liberal backbenchers. They are toddling off for a
vacation. There is nothing else, pure and simple.
Is it not true that this trip is not about building strong
Italian-Canadian relationships? This trip is a reward for good
loyal Liberal backbenchers.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what is the hon. member suggesting? Does he want the
members to go away while the House is sitting? Is this not the
proper use of the break? Furthermore if the hon. whip was
interested in promoting Canada's trade with Italy, then he and
the other opposition parties would not refuse to send their
members as part of the delegation. Let them show their sincerity
by taking part in this mission.
* * *
[Translation]
POVERTY
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Poverty is on the rise in Canada and the government is still
refusing to admit its responsibility in this phenomenon, which
affects close to 18% of the Canadian population and more than
61% of single mothers.
1435
Does the Deputy Prime Minister admit that the government bears a
considerable portion of the responsibility for the rise in
poverty because of the cuts it has made to the employment
insurance program and to transfer payments to the provinces for
health and social assistance?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, poverty is a difficult,
challenging and complex phenomenon, and a priority for this
government.
We are working as much as possible with the provinces and the
provincial governments to contribute to a healthy economy which
will enable people to earn a good living.
We have social programs in Canada that are working well. We have
social programs that serve Canadians well and will be made even
better in the coming years, now that we have reacquired some
financial leeway.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government may well deny accusations that it is the one
responsible for creating poverty, but can it deny that the
number of poor people has been constantly on the rise since it
came into power, despite the fact that the country is in a
period of economic prosperity?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the welfare figures are
constantly dropping. Fewer families are on the welfare rolls, in
Quebec, among others.
There is a lot of good news, which the opposition is determined
not to note, even though their good buddies are the ones in
government in Quebec at present. I find it amusing that they are
suddenly attacking our government, when their own friends in the
Government of Quebec also bear responsibility. There is a
contradiction here.
What I can tell the House is that we are going to continue to
work with our partners to ensure that the well-being of our
fellow citizens is being properly looked after.
* * *
[English]
TRADE
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
when the Liberals were in opposition they went up one side and
down the other of Brian Mulroney for spending $9.5 million on
international travel in those five years. But since 1993 this
Prime Minister has racked up over $12 million in international
travel.
I just have one question for the government. Why was it so bad
when it was in opposition but it is so good when it is in
government?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government will not
apologize for Team Canada which is creating thousands and
thousands of jobs for Canadians. We do not apologize for going to
Italy to sell Canadian goods abroad. We will not apologize for
going to South America to sell Canadian expertise, the best in
the world. That is what this country is all about. We want to
continue creating jobs notwithstanding the adverse wishes of the
Reform Party.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: My colleagues, even with my microphone I am
having a tough time up here. The hon. member for Edmonton North.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that sounds exactly like Brian Mulroney when he sat in that chair
just ahead of the member.
Twelve million dollars and counting this Prime Minister spent.
Nine and a half million dollars it was for Mr. Mulroney and he
said “We don't apologize at all”.
This Deputy Prime Minister in 1993 said it is egomania. If the
shoe fits, they have to wear it.
Let me ask again. If it was so wrong for Mulroney, why is it so
right for this Prime Minister?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the hon. member is right in what she is saying, is
she saying that hundreds of Canadian business men and women are
wrong when they accompany the Prime Minister on these trips? Is
she saying they are wrong, the Canadian business men and women,
when they come back from these trips and say that they have
signed hundreds of millions of dollars of trade deals?
These people say that the Prime Minister is right. These people
by their actions say that the Reform Party on this, as in
everything else, is wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.
* * *
1440
[Translation]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, two
days before the health ministers conference, we still do not
know where the government is headed on the hepatitis C issue. So
far, the minister has merely acted as an adjudicator between the
provinces; he has not even had the courage of admitting
responsibility.
Instead of playing adjudicator, should the minister not
concentrate all his energy on actively seeking a solution, so
that all hepatitis C victims can be compensated?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we must
first find out what the provinces' positions are. I hope that
Dr. Rochon from Quebec will attend Thursday's meeting, as I am
anxious to find out Quebec's position. It is not quite clear
right now, and I have a few questions for Dr. Rochon.
So, let us first ascertain the provinces' positions and then see
if a consensus can be achieved among the provinces and the
federal government.
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister is trying to tell us that he is showing leadership. He
should instead admit that Quebec and Ontario are the leaders on
this issue.
Will he admit that a true leader would first and foremost tell
us where he is headed and how he intends to address the problem?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
[English]
INDIA
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, experts and
foreign governments are saying that without Canadian technology
the Indian nuclear program would not be where it is today.
It is time that the Liberals took some responsibility for the
proliferation of this nuclear technology. What is this government
going to do besides what many other countries have done in terms
of our ambassador? What is this government going to do in the
G-8, in the Commonwealth to stop this proliferation of nuclear
material?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that he intends to raise
this with the other G-7 countries to see what appropriate action
would be.
I want to repeat that Canada is not providing material to India
or Pakistan to support their nuclear programs. Canada has not
been involved in this way since the early 1970s. Canada deplores
the actions of India in these tests. It has withdrawn its high
commissioner. It intends to discuss the matter with its G-8
partners. This shows that we are very concerned about this and
we are prepared and are taking concrete action.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do not
think that is good enough. That just sounds like more Liberal
rhetoric, protecting ministers of the past, Liberal governments
that decided to export this technology. It is just not good
enough for the minister to answer this way.
What kind of responsibility is this government going to take and
what kind of leadership is it going to show to the world?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Candu technology sold to India in the 1960s and
1970s was in fact not used by India for the production of its
first nuclear weapon back in 1974. After that Indian weapon test
in 1974, Canada suspended all nuclear trade with India.
Thereafter the non-proliferation standards were also
strengthened and total trade was terminated. This demonstrates
that more than 20 years ago Canada was acting decisively to
express our dissatisfaction with the kind of conduct that the
hon. gentleman mentioned.
* * *
[Translation]
POVERTY
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, 5.2
million Canadians live below the poverty line. There is a direct
link between poverty and access to credit, along with bank
investment in underprivileged communities. In the United States,
the Community Reinvestment Act regulates bank operations in
these underprivileged communities.
Tomorrow, a private member's bill will be tabled in the House,
asking that the banks reinvest in the community. Does the
government intend to support this legislation, which is meant as
a concrete measure against poverty?
1445
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
have said repeatedly that we do support the principle of
community banks. In fact, this is one of the reasons why we
referred the issue to the MacKay task force. We are anxiously
awaiting its recommendations, in September.
* * *
CALGARY DECLARATION
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, Ontario released the results of its public
consultation exercise on the Calgary declaration.
A poll conducted as part of this consultation shows that 87% of
Ontarians support the declaration. This is consistent with the
results of similar polls conducted elsewhere in the country,
including Quebec, even though the Bloc would have us believe
just the opposite.
Can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs tell us more about
the level of support for the Calgary declaration in Ontario?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Bloc obviously does not like the Calgary
declaration.
But Canadians, including Quebeckers, find it a rather good
initial gesture of openness that reflects the values which unite
us, as was clearly shown by the recent consultation in Ontario.
Let me say to those who may have doubts about this consultation
that a rigorous, scientific poll shows that 73% of Ontarians
recognize the unique character of Quebec society.
* * *
[English]
RCMP
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today we
learned that the RCMP has been called in by the government to
investigate leaks to the Globe and Mail about the new TAGS
program.
Why are the Liberal spin doctors so upset by this? Is it
because the new TAGS program was leaked before they had a chance
to do it?
Why is the RCMP investigating leaks to the media, something the
government does every other day?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the RCMP has been given information with regard to this
situation and will take appropriate action as is befitting a law
enforcement agency of its stature.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
justice minister's suggested changes to the YOA were all over the
newspapers this morning hours before the official release.
Will the solicitor general ask the RCMP to investigate that leak
as well?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I have said many times before, the government does
not ask the RCMP to conduct an official investigation. It gives
it information and the RCMP makes the appropriate decision based
on 125 years of law enforcement in Canada.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
successive supreme court decisions reinforce the obligation of
the federal government to uphold a fiduciary or trust
responsibility toward aboriginal peoples.
The honour of the crown is the standard to which the courts hold
all governments. Does the Liberal government still believe it
has a fiduciary responsibility toward aboriginal peoples and does
it still honour the crown when it intercedes in court cases?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, very clearly the government
honours the fiduciary relationship that we see between the crown
and first nations.
In Gathering Strength we also identify that it is appropriate
for us to add other partners to our relationships so that we can
altogether improve the lives of aboriginal people. That includes
the provincial governments, municipal governments, third parties
and the voluntary sector.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, when
in opposition the present finance minister called on the federal
government to honour the tax immunity of aboriginal Canadians.
1450
Now this justice minister has intervened on the side of the
Government of New Brunswick to appeal a lower court ruling
exempting aboriginal people from sales tax.
Could the justice minister explain how this action is consistent
with the finance minister's previous statement, let alone the
government's goal of working in partnership with aboriginal
peoples?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the action taken by the
government is in no way inconsistent with our fiduciary
obligation.
* * *
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice knows that the Young
Offenders Act is administered by the provinces and is supposedly
funded 50:50 by the federal and provincial governments.
Yet the minister should also know that the real federal
contributions only amount to about 30% of total administrative
cost, downloading the majority of these expenses to the
provinces.
Is her government prepared to put its money where its mouth is
and make sure the provinces do not get stuck with the bill on her
recent musings about changes to the Young Offenders Act?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me reassure the hon.
member that we continue our cost sharing discussions with the
provinces. I will not pretend those discussions are not without
difficulty, but in most cases they are going forward quite well.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, according to the leak to the media yesterday the
minister has no intention of lowering the age limit of the Young
Offenders Act to cover those under the age of 12.
She should also know that children between the ages of 10 and 12
are being recruited by youth gangs to do their dirty work because
they know they are exempt from prosecution.
Will the minister extend to parliamentarians the same courtesy
she did to the media and confirm she has no intention of lowering
the age of responsibility to under 12?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me reassure the honourable
House that I have no intention before release of that document
later this afternoon of commenting on its content. Let me
reassure members of the honourable House that neither I nor my
department had anything to do with that leak. In fact, let me
reassure—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice, if she wants
to continue.
Hon. Anne McLellan: The hon. member asked this question
of my colleague, the solicitor general. I want to inform the
honourable House that the RCMP has been asked to investigate the
leak, the alleged leak, regarding our response—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I cannot wait for tomorrow. The hon. member
for Vancouver Kingsway.
* * *
TRADE
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister for International Trade. It is
about a recent move by U.S. customs to reclassify predrilled
boards as ordinary lumber.
This seems to contravene the free trade agreement and will
threaten jobs in western Canada. How will the government protect
the Canadian lumber industry from this threat?
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I commend my hon.
colleague for keeping the government fully aware of the
importance of this issue.
On May 7 the government met with the stakeholders in the
softwood lumber issue.
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the recent reversal of
the U.S. customs service proposal to reclassify drilled studs.
1455
We will be commenting on the proposal by May 15 and we intend to
pursue the matter vigorously.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration.
A Vancouver immigration consultant, Iraj Rezaei, is facing 18
charges ranging from passport forgery to counselling false
refugee claims, to threatening and assault. While he awaits
trial he continues to counsel unsuspecting immigrants via his new
website on the Internet.
Has the minister asked the Minister of Justice to seek an
injunction to stop this evil man from practising his fraudulent
trades?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as you are well aware, I cannot
comment in any detail on the case of a person currently residing
in Canada, but I can assure the hon. members of this House that
our Immigration Act contains all of the mechanisms necessary to
deal with these actions by individuals.
* * *
VARENNES TOKAMAK
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today the
verdict was brought down. The Varennes tokamak is shutting
down, after winning an award of excellence for its work. How
ironic!
Is the government not ashamed of having been so shortsighted as
to bring about the death of this highly promising research
project, in order to save $7.2 million, after 20 years of
successful efforts and more than $150 million in investments?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the course of the government's program review process
some very difficult decisions had to be made about priorities.
It was determined in that process that fusion research which has
a payback that is at least 30 to 40 years in the future could not
at this time be a priority.
Over the course of the last number of years we have invested
something in the order of $90 million in the facility at
Varennes. We provided an additional $19 million to assist with an
orderly shutdown.
Unfortunately, in terms of establishing priorities and living
within the confines of fiscal responsibility, tough decisions
have to be made.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Health about
unlicensed blood products being used in hospitals without the
knowledge or consent of patients.
Today we have learned the situation is even worse than we
thought. The chair of the transfusion practices committee of the
Health Sciences Centre in Winnipeg says unlicensed human serum
albumin is being used 100% of the time.
What steps is the minister taking to deal with the apparent
shortage of fractionated blood products? Could he explain how it
is that we have unlicensed product on the market five months
after the government established the licensing requirements?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as a result of the facts referred to by the hon. member yesterday
in question period, officials have been requested to look into
the matter to find out what the facts are. I will respond to the
hon. member's questions of yesterday and today as soon as they
have completed that inquiry.
I share her concern that either unlicensed or unsafe products
may be used. I also worry about the blood supply in general and
the shortage. We continue to encourage donors to be as generous
as they have in the past.
I will respond to the member when I have the information.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
The number of American work visas issued to Canadians has
increased over 50% in just four years. There is one major reason
for this. Our government continues to follow high tax policies
which drive our best and brightest south of the border.
My question is for the minister. When will the government offer
real tax relief so that those Canadians who choose to stay at
home and work will not at the same time be taking a vow of
poverty?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the high tax policy in this country was established by
the previous government.
Since we have taken office we have brought in a series of
targeted tax reductions. In the last budget I am delighted to
announce that we were able to take off the 3% surtax imposed by
the Conservative government for 83% of Canadians.
* * *
1500
NUCLEAR TESTING
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
Following India's alarming nuclear test yesterday many in the
international community are pointing to Canada as a source of
technology transfer. India entered into agreements with Canada
regarding the peaceful use of these technologies.
What safeguards exist in these sales of nuclear technologies?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to make this very clear. After the first
deplorable test by India back in 1974, Canada suspended all
nuclear trade with India. We then developed a much more
stringent non-proliferation policy in the mid-1970s.
In 1976 Canada terminated all nuclear trade with India after it
became clear India would not comply with our non-proliferation
policy.
Any reactor, researcher or otherwise sold or provided to any
country today would have to adhere to those much higher standards that
apply in this day and age.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
MEDIA LEAKS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my point of order arises out of something that was raised in
question period but which I think should more properly be raised
under a point of order. The government has asked the RCMP to
launch an investigation into the supposed leaks of the
government's policy on the TAGS program, thus intimidating the
media and public servants while at the same time and on the same
day as this announcement is made we see the details of the
government's response to the Standing Committee on Justice with
respect to the YOA all over the newspapers this morning.
These are sort of two points of order, Mr. Speaker, but I hope
you will hear them both at once. There is the point of order
having to do with the fact that the government is very concerned
and sanctimonious when other people leak information and yet
there is good reason to believe, although the minister denies it,
that the government does from time to time deliberately leak
details of responses or proposals that it is going to make the
following day.
My other point of order which deals with the same thing is that
if the minister is making a response to a committee report it
should be done either in the House or in committee and not in the
context of a media announcement.
Both these things have to do with respect for the House of
Commons and the fact that the business of the House of Commons
should be conducted in the House of Commons. We want to see—
The Speaker: The point of order the member brings up is
surely an opinion which rightly takes place in debate.
With regard to the leaks, from what I heard today there are two
investigations going on. I rule at this time that this is not a
point of order.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1505
[English]
CANADA LABOUR CODE
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-19, an act to amend
the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and the Corporations and Labour
Unions Returns Act and to make consequential amendments to other
acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and of
Motions Nos. 18, 20, 22 and 23.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, before question period I was speaking from a farmer's
perspective to Motions Nos. 18, 20, 22 and 23.
I was trying to speak from a farmer's perspective, having farmed
for close to 20 years in the British Columbia Peace River region,
growing grain, grass seed and oilseed. I was remarking on how
angry farmers become when they see the shipments of grain which
are supposed to be freely flowing through the ports on to ships
for shipment to our foreign markets, our overseas customers,
delayed and held up in some cases for extended periods of time
and the resultant cost that ultimately the farmers and the
country pay.
I have heard from quite a number of farmers who grow these
crops, the six standard grains, wheat, barley, oats, rye, flax
and canola which I am assuming are included under this definition
of exclusion from any possible strike action at the ports. They
are quite concerned because they want to see this bill proceed so
that they do receive that protection.
The end result is that we are going to be enshrining inequity
and unfairness with the passage of Bill C-19 as it is presently
written. That is why the official opposition has put forward
Motions Nos. 22 and 23. It is to drop the inclusion pertaining
simply to the standard grain crops. We feel that it
discriminates.
I have not heard the answer from the government benches on
whether specialty crops would be included under this protection.
A lot of farmers are growing so-called specialty crops. Lentils,
peas, fava beans, sunflower, safflower, these types of crops are
being grown on increasing acreage across the land. In particular
I am speaking about western Canada. I wonder if they are
protected under this same clause. I do not think so. I think
this clause simply pertains to the standard grains.
As we expand these markets for these specialty crops the bill is
going to discriminate against some producers and thereby pit
farmer against farmer when there are strikes or lockouts at the
ports.
Motions Nos. 18 and 20 put forward by Reform have been open to
attack, in particular from members of the fourth party, the NDP,
saying they are unfair because they pertain to expansion of this
restriction of strikes to protect the national economy.
1510
In other words, if it can be shown that a strike or lockout has
a profound impact on the national economy, it would not be
allowed. Because of that, members of the NDP have suggested that
we are being unfair to the unions and that no strikes would be
allowed.
In fairness to their arguments, we cannot consider Motions Nos.
18, 20, 22 and 23 in isolation. We must consider them in tandem
with the Group No. 8 motions, which have not yet been debated.
These deal with Reform's proposal for final offer selection
arbitration.
To make my point I refer to Hansard and quote the hon.
member for Winnipeg Centre on February 10, 1998:
In the province of Manitoba where I am from we actually had
final offer selection legislation for a number of years.
The actual fact is in Manitoba FOS was used very sparingly. In
fact, the Manitoba labour relations board received only 97
applications in all the time that it was legislation in that
province. Of those 97 applications only 7 were ever ruled on by
an FOS selector or arbitrator. Four went to the union package
and three were in favour of the company in those rulings. In the
vast majority of cases, 72 in all, the application was withdrawn
because the parties returned to the bargaining table and found a
satisfactory resolution by more convention means.
The point I am making is that by his very admission, the hon.
member from the New Democratic Party is saying that final offer
selection works. In 72 of those cases the parties returned to
the bargaining table and ultimately reached a satisfactory
resolution to their dispute. The process worked. I add that as
further confirmation that the Reform amendments to this
legislation deserve serious consideration by all parties. When
it comes time to vote on these motions, I urge all members to
consider that and vote accordingly.
THE ROYAL ASSENT
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order, please. I
have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been
received as follows:
Government House
Ottawa
May 12, 1998
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Antonio
Lamer, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his
capacity of Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate
chamber today, the 12th day of May, 1998 at 4 p.m., for the
purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
Yours sincerely,
Judith A. LaRocque
Secretary to the Governor General
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA LABOUR CODE
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-19, an act to amend
the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and the Corporations and Labour
Unions Returns Act and to make consequential amendments to other
acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and of
Motions Nos. 18, 20, 22 and 23.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
happy to take part in this debate today on report stage of Bill
C-19, specifically Group No. 6 amendments.
1515
Unfortunately I am not happy about the way this is proceeding.
In the last five years since I have been involved we have seen
all too much of this in the House of Commons, that is, the use of
closure to shut down debate on very important issues. It is very
ironic. The Liberal government across the way was very critical
of the Mulroney government for the use of closure and time
allocation when the Liberals sat in opposition, but this is the
40th occasion where it has been used in the last five years.
It is a misuse of power by the government to use it in this
manner. There is a very important principle involved, which is
that all members should have the right to debate these important
issues. This is the first opportunity I have had for a 10 minute
debate on Bill C-19, the changes to Canada's labour code.
The area I would like to discuss stems from my role as critic
for international trade. It deals with the Vancouver terminals,
specifically section 87.7 under Motions Nos. 22 and 23 being
proposed by my Reform colleague, the member for Wetaskiwin.
I am concerned that if the principle of allowing movement of
grain for 72 hours after a strike or lockout notice has been
given is such a good principle, why it is not applied to all
commodities.
As recently as Wednesday last week, I had a meeting with the
hon. Pat Nelson, the minister of economic development for the
province of Alberta. She wanted me to bring the point to the
floor of the House of Commons that it is very important to ensure
we have good movement of our commodities through the terminals,
through the port facilities, so we can continue to have good
service and enjoy a good reputation worldwide. I am concerned
that our reputation for delivery is not as good as it should be.
It is important also to note that Canada had the most time lost
to labour-management strikes and lockouts of any industrial
country except for Italy in the last 10 years. It is a deplorable
state for a big country like Canada which relies on exports, on
international trade to supply the world.
I am aware that the member from Regina, the former minister of
agriculture, accompanied a group to Japan a year ago. They were
trying to reassure the Japanese of Canada's ability to deliver in
a timely manner products through our ports both in Vancouver and
in Prince Rupert.
My concern has to do with grain itself. The Minister of Labour
and others in the government are trying to win support from grain
farmers across Canada by saying that if something happens and
there is a strike or lockout at the Vancouver port, they will
continue to load grain into an ocean-going vessel for 72 hours.
This is true. However, it does not deal with any of the problems
originating from the farm gate to the terminal. It does not deal
with any problems in the railway system. There are something
like 20 different labour-management units along the way that can
disrupt the flow of grain during that time. It does not deal with
things that my colleague from Prince George—Peace River, the
critic for agriculture talked about.
When it says grains, the grains identified do not include
alfalfa pellets. In my riding of Peace River, we have the world's
biggest alfalfa pelletizing plant, Falher Alfalfa. It is very
concerned that this section does not deal with Neptune terminals.
It does not deal with Vancouver wharf. There is a $25 million
operation that can be shut down.
If this principle is the sound principle the government is
putting forward, why would it not extend it to things like
specialty crops, like alfalfa, peas, lentils and all the other
grains?
There is a real problem here and we have an opportunity to
correct that problem. My colleague from Wetaskiwin has said that
this is the first time the Canada Labour Act has been opened up
in 25 years and it probably will not be opened up again for some
time.
We are looking for this opportunity to make substantial changes
now when the debate is happening. We encourage members in the
Liberal government to listen to some of the reasoned amendments
we are putting forward with a view to trying to improve Canada's
delivery out of our port system.
1520
A lot of other products are being handled in Vancouver. In
Prince Rupert there is coal. We have sulphur. One of my
colleagues has already mentioned that lumber is one of our
biggest ones. Chemical potash and various other products are
being exported worldwide. This legislation does not deal with
that.
Our party thinks a more reasoned approach to this would be to go
to final offer arbitration. What it does is it allows for the
parties to negotiate for some time before the labour-management
contract is finished. I would think negotiations should start if
it is a three year contract a year ahead to see if they can come
to some kind of an agreement. If they cannot, having a strike or
lockout and withdrawing services has the effect of shutting down
the terminal and in some cases shutting down the port.
As a grain farmer myself in the Peace River country I know the
devastating effects of having some 20 ships sitting in English
Bay harbour at Vancouver and paying demurrage of about $60,000 a
day for each ship. It is a very big bill, millions of dollars.
Last year it was approximately $60 million that grain farmers had
to pay because of the ships that were waiting for product because
there was a strike lockout situation at the Vancouver terminals.
We have to correct that. Canada has a reputation that has to be
enhanced otherwise we are going to be bypassed. Products will be
bought from the United States. I suggest we look at final offer
arbitration as one way of resolving this.
Final offer arbitration needs to be explained a little. In a
labour-management contract quite often when the contract is being
negotiated the two parties will start a long way apart. If a
labour union wants a 5% increase quite often it will ask for 7%
or 8% knowing it will probably be negotiated down and it will be
settled somewhere in the range of 5%. On the other hand the
company quite often starts at a position recognizing that it is
going to be a 5% settlement and starts negotiating at 3%. This
goes on for months and months before they finally come to some
kind of a settlement. Often there is time lost in that
bargaining unit where labour is withdrawn or there is a lockout.
This has a very devastating effect on the Canadian economy.
Final offer arbitration is a reasonable way to approach this.
Approximately one month prior to the contract expiring if a
settlement had not been reached by negotiations, each party would
have to submit a reasonable final offer. I suggest reasonable.
They would not have to submit a reasonable one but an independent
third party looking at it would choose the more reasonable of the
two. It would be in their best interests to submit a reasonable
final offer. The arbitrator would decide which one looks more
reasonable than the other and would choose that one and the
parties would have to live with it.
In the event that did not happen, if one party put in a very
unreasonable final offer and the other party did not, we know
what would happen. The effect of that would be to have the two
parties put in a reasonable offer at the start. It would prevent
a lot of the problems we have in the labour-management area.
Canada could enhance its reputation as being a reliable supplier.
If we miss this opportunity I think we are missing an
opportunity that is going to cost future jobs. Canada relies on
our exports for about one-third of our gross domestic product.
That means 40% of the jobs of every Canadian family, every
community rely on our ability to export. We know that some of
our exports go through the United States but some go through our
port cities as well.
This is an opportunity we want to seize. The government should
look at these as reasonable amendments and adopt them.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to rise today in the House and speak on Bill C-19
and the amendments that have been put forward at this time.
A number of us will remember the eminent Canadian poet Robert
Service who talked about strange things being done in the
midnight sun in the Yukon. There have been some strange things
done here in the midday sun in this House today. I have heard
some. I have seen some.
1525
First of all the government is putting time allocation on
another bill that is before the House. The government when it
was in opposition so quickly condemned the Conservatives for
doing the very same thing and it continues to do this time after
time. That concerns me very much, the limit on our free speech
and on the democratic process in the House.
All Canadians should be concerned about the way the government
is using time allocation to shut down democracy in the House.
This is the parliament of all Canadians. We come here to
represent them. If we do not have an opportunity to voice the
concerns of Canadians here in this place, I ask all hon. members,
where will Canadians have that opportunity if it is not here in
the House through their duly elected members? I am very
concerned about that.
I am also very concerned when I hear NDP members taking shots at
the Reform Party inaccurately telling the Canadian people
untruths about us, saying that we are against fair wages. What
balderdash that we would be against fair wages. That is absolute
nonsense. I want to suggest that the NDP cannot teach the Reform
Party anything about economic policy or fair labour practices.
Perhaps the member should go to my province of British Columbia
to see what an NDP government has done to the economy of that
province. The member should see what kind of legislation it has
tried to impose upon businesses in that province with unfair
labour codes and see the kind of public revolt against that which
occasioned that government to take the legislation out of the
legislative docket.
We have just gone through a devastating strike in my riding of
Nanaimo—Cowichan at the Fletcher Challenge mill. When we as
Reformers say that we stand up for people who do not seem to be
able to be heard in this country, that strike was another example
of this very thing. That mill produces pulp and paper which
contributes 53% of the tax base of the municipality which it is
in. When its workers go on strike and labour and management
cannot come to some kind of consensus, there are lots of third
parties in that riding that are hurt far beyond the union members
and far beyond the management and those who own the mill.
All the businesses suffer because of a strike that goes on and
on. The small businesses lay off employees because people are no
longer buying their goods. Car dealers have seen their sales
plummet in January, February and March because of the strike.
The NDP members miss a big point in this whole debate when they
only stand up for big unions. Someone has to stand up for the
little ordinary guy in this country who feels that he has no
voice in these kinds of occurrences in our society when prolonged
and protracted labour-management disputes paralyze other
industries and other businesses. Something has to be done about
that.
In terms of Motions Nos. 18 and 20, we are concerned that there
is no provision in the bill to protect the national economy.
We are concerned about Motions Nos. 25 and 29 that prohibit the
use of replacement workers if the CIRB determines their presence
undermines the union. This was a slight modification from
previous Bill C-66, but this provision still leaves too much
control in the hands of the CIRB which may view the use of
replacement workers as undermining the union.
1530
This provision could very well stop the use of managerial staff
from operating the company. It restricts and infringes on the
employer's rights. Somewhere along the way in this national
debate on restructuring this kind of thing employers have to be
able to have their say in this House of Commons and the employers
that we hear from are saying that this is unfair and it needs to
be changed.
It very well could shift the balance of power in labour
management relations in favour of the unions. The Globe and
Mail on November 5, 1996 quoted Nancy Riche, the executive
vice-president of the Canadian Labour Congress, as saying: “I
would go so far as to suggest that anybody who does work of a
member of a union undermines the representative capacity of the
union”. She went on to say: “None of the bureaucrats are
going to agree with me—but we'll have to wait and see. The new
board will rule”.
We in the Reform Party have some real concerns about this and
that is why we have proposed this amendment.
I hope that all hon. colleagues in this House will not close
their minds so easily to the amendments that the Reform Party has
put forth in this regard, that they will see all sides of the
debate and realize that there is more to this country than big
business, big government and big union.
There are little people, hard working little people, who need to
be heard in this country and it seems that the only party that is
willing to stand up for them today, as it did in the hepatitis C
debate, is the Reform Party.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we are speaking today on motions to amend Bill C-19.
This bill provides for changes to the Canada Labour Code and the
opposition parties have put forward a number of amendments, in
fact eight groups of motions to amend the bill, and there are a
few motions in each of these groups.
Now we are speaking to Group No. 6. There are four motions in
this group. The first two motions essentially add to the grounds
for prohibiting the cutting off of services in the event of a
strike. The bill provides for continuation of service in a
strike situation if public health or safety is endangered. The
amendments that we have brought forward would also provide for
continuation of service to protect the national economy.
I listened with great interest to the comments of the member for
the New Democratic Party on this series of amendments. What was
so interesting to me was that the member really did not address
at all the substance of these amendments or argue that the
national economy, in the short term, could not be affected, so
therefore we do not need the amendments. There was none of that.
The total tone of his speech was attributing motives. He talked
about the deep bitterness of Reformers against workers, many of
whom support the Reform Party, so I am not quite sure why we
would be anything but approving of that.
1535
There is a labelling, an attributing of motives and a real
agenda here. I assure Canadians watching this debate that the
agenda of the official opposition in putting forward amendments
and in speaking to this bill is simply to protect Canadian
workers and the well-being of Canadians in our labour legislation
and in the way labour and business operate in our country. We are
dependent on good economic results from the activities that take
place. That is our motive and that is what we want to do in a
very balanced, sensible and thoughtful way.
I urge members of the NDP and other parties to stick to the
practical issues being raised and not to continue with their
agenda of suspicion, conspiracy and some of the other things they
seem to think are happening in this debate, because that is not
the case.
There has been no disagreement that services should be continued
in federally regulated sectors if public health and safety could
be endangered by services being cut off. No one is disagreeing
with that. We would argue that danger to the national economy
should also be a consideration. Health and safety are immediate
dangers and immediate harm could be caused by services being cut
off. The danger and harm to a national economy can cause every
bit as much pain and hardship. It can contribute every bit as
much to the poverty of Canadian families as cutting off services
in areas where health or safety is immediately impacted.
We need to think a little more broadly and long term when we
give carte blanche to strikes and lockouts that impact people's
livelihoods, their businesses, their incomes, their ability to
pay their rent and mortgage, and their ability to put milk on the
table for their children. We have to think of those things. We
cannot just look at some immediate danger. We have to look at
the impact over a little longer period of time that can be
equally devastating. That is the intention of this amendment.
There is a cost to Canadian families and to Canadian workers in
particular. Many of these workers are barely making ends meet as
it is, thanks to the taxation policies of this government and the
cost of living in Canada. They depend on the viability of the
whole local economy and a strike can be critical in impacting
their short term and long term well-being.
This motion is designed to protect the national economy and
thereby to protect regular Canadians with their day to day bills,
their day to day need for income and their day to day need to
make sales in their little businesses in the towns where they
work. We need to think about these things. We need to protect
the Canadians of this country. If services are cut off in an
area due to a strike or a lockout, and if it happens federally
across the country, the industrial relations board needs some
ability to determine what is going to be the impact on the
national economy and thereby on the families and workers of
Canada and those who are dependent on economic activity for their
well-being.
This is a very sensible amendment that looks at the bigger
picture. It tries to protect people from some of the so-called
unintended consequences of labour unrest and labour shutdown. We
need to look in a very balanced and logical way at whether this
ought to be done. We should not close our minds and shoot the
messenger, we should deal with the message and its merits.
1540
I would urge all members to think about what is best for
Canadians. That is why we are here. That is why we get the big
money. That is why we get the airtime. We need to be very
focused on what is best and look at the proposals on their
merits. I think this proposal has a great deal of merit.
We also, of course, as a number of my colleagues have said, urge
that other commodities be protected from disruptions in shipping
besides just grain. There are farmers who have interests in
different commodities. We know that some of the wheat pools
support this legislation because grain is protected. But again
we have to think more broadly, not just in a narrow sense. There
are some very clear concerns about unintended consequences if
only grain is protected from disruptions in shipping.
A number of people who work in the sector say that labour unrest
and disputes will be extended and enhanced if only grain can be
shipped because, in a sense, that commodity will be used to
subsidize strike activities that hold up other commodities. Some
income would come in from that one narrow sector, but the other
sectors will still be disrupted and there will be less incentive
to settle those disputes because they are not as harmful to the
participants.
Our amendments are designed to look at the big picture, to look
at other products that need to be shipped, such as coal, lumber,
chemicals, potash and other commodities. I would ask that my
hon. colleagues in this House look at these proposals on their
merits. I believe then they will be soundly supported.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is truly
a privilege to be able to speak to the motions in Group No. 6.
We have had the opportunity to talk about Bill C-19 a number of
times in the House. I have to start off by saying that it is
despicable when the government uses closure on a bill like this.
This bill will affect every single farmer in western Canada. It
will affect anybody, basically, who has anything to do with the
movement of products across this country. The government owes the
Canadian people the opportunity for us to debate this openly and
talk about this issue as it will affect all Canadians.
The sort of thing that this government persists in doing is
despicable. It is disgraceful. It is anti-democratic. It has
used closure more than any other government in the history of
this country. Canadians are watching and are going to demand
some accountability for this sort of action.
The key thing about this amendment and the key thing about this
bill is the protection of the economy of Canada. That has to be
number one. We are talking about jobs and the standard of living
that we have grown used to as Canadians, and we are falling
behind.
I have had the opportunity to travel to many parts of the world
and I have started to realize more and more what is happening to
us as Canadians.
I cannot help thinking about last Friday when I was going to the
airport. The cab driver said to me “The Ottawa Senators are not
going to lose another game. They are way better than the
Capitals and they will beat them hands down”. That is a little
bit like we sometimes hear the Prime Minister talk about Canada.
The United Nations says we are number one; therefore, we do not
have to work harder. That is wrong. We have to continue to
work. The world around us is becoming more competitive and we
must be conscious of that.
In travelling recently to China, seeing the changes that have
occurred there and having the opportunity to talk to some of our
shippers and some of our businessmen, I asked: “What do you
think of Canada looking from here back there?” The message that
I got was “We don't deal with Canada as much as we used to”.
They do not feel that there are the same opportunities, that
there is the same aggressive tendencies to try to sell them
something, particularly when it gets to things such as wheat.
1545
I talked to a brewer who is responsible for buying malt barley
for 150 breweries. He said he does not go to Canada any more for
supplies. He does not go to the Canadian Wheat Board because he
is not sure about whether delivery will come or when it will
come. He indicated that there seemed to be many problems with
guaranteeing delivery.
I talked to a Japanese shipowner who indicated a problem. He
books his ships on a two year basis and allows so many days for
sailing, so many days for loading and so many days for getting to
the port of destination. He said he could not come to Canada
because his ship might be sitting for 30, 40 or 50 days as a
result of some transportation blockage or of some strikes that
are so frequent.
That is what is hurting us as Canadians. We can talk about
strikes and the national economy. However, we have to ask
ourselves, going into the 21st century, what happens when a
strike is called. We know for sure union bosses keep getting the
salaries they have been getting. We know union members who go on
strike do not get the salaries they have been used to getting,
and if they are out for very long we know they never make up that
money again.
We certainly know the economy of the country is hurt. We
certainly know many people, for example farmers, are hurt. Let us
just stop for a minute and look at the farmer. He has a lot of
decisions to make. He has to decide when to plant, what to
plant, what kind of fertilizer to use, what kind of seed to use,
and then depend on the weather. He should not also have to
depend on the unions to get his commodity to market and
ultimately get paid for it.
Those people are hurt. The whole country is hurt in terms of
our reputation because we do not have modern labour practices
that allow us to be competitive.
A question has to be asked. There must be a better way than
having strikes. There must be a better way than Bill C-19 which
is liberal in its makeup. It goes a little way here and a little
way there and does not stand for very much. No one really knows
what it means. It certainly does not improve either the economy
of country, the well-being of our people or our reputation
internationally.
Instead of resting on our laurels it is time that we examine
different ways of handling the situation. The motions put
forward would help us to do it.
I will speak specifically to Motion Nos. 18 and 20 which the
Reform Party has put forward. What effect would they have on our
national economy? That becomes the number one issue when we
decide what will happen. They also talk about protection not
only of our economy but of third parties.
Going on to Motion Nos. 22 and 23 the key issue, as the previous
member mentioned, is that all commodities be included. It is not
enough to only include grain. We should be including many other
things that move through our ports. On the prairies there are
all kinds of different products. Right across the country we
have products that depend upon transportation and upon the
movement of goods.
We need to look at better ways. We need to examine them. I do
not think it is fair to say that any one of us is anti-union.
That is not the message.
The message is that we have to find some other way to deal with
the problem of labour disputes other than strictly going on
strike. I hope the day will come when strikes will be a thing of
the past.
1550
It is also important to emphasize that we have to do what is
good for the country and its economy. We have an international
reputation to worry about. I am worried the government is not
listening. I suppose it would argue that because of the huge
turnout it is listening and is here to understand exactly what
the message is.
However it is a little hard sometimes to see its members through
the fog, but I am sure they are over there listening very
carefully to the message that our member from Wetaskiwin has led
us through in the debate on Bill C-19.
The bill is too little too late. The government is not
listening to the people. The bill is out of date and back in the
1970s which is where most government members are at. It does not
show any kind of vision for the 21st century. It will certainly
not help the economy or the people of Canada.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
Motion No. 18 in Group 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. 18 stands deferred. Accordingly the recorded
division will also apply to Motion No. 20.
The next question is on Motion No. 22. 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
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The recorded
division on Motion No. 22 stands deferred and will also apply to
Motion No. 23.
Just before we go to Group No. 7, for the information of hon.
members present and those in the gallery in about 10 minutes we
will be going to the Senate for royal assent.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-19, in Clause 37, be amended by adding after line 39
on page 28 the following:
“(1.1) During a strike or lockout not prohibited by this Part,
no employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall use
the services of a person who was not an employee in the
bargaining unit on the date on which notice to bargain
collectively was given and was hired or assigned after that date
to perform all or part of the duties of an employee in the
bargaining unit on strike or locked out if the employees of the
bargaining unit continue the activities referred to in subsection
(1) in the manner prescribed by that subsection.”
[English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-19, in Clause 42, be amended by deleting lines 28 to
38 on page 33.
1555
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): moved:
That Bill C-19, in Clause 42, be amended by replacing lines 28
to 38 on page 33 with the following:
“(2.1) No employer or person acting on behalf of an employer
shall use the services of a person who was not an employee in the
bargaining unit on the date on which notice to bargain
collectively was given and was hired or assigned after that date
to perform all or part of the duties of an employee in the
bargaining unit on strike or locked out.”
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC) moved:
That Bill C-19, in Clause 42, be amended by adding after line 38
on page 33 the following:
“(2.2) For greater certainty, an employer shall be deemed not
to have undermined a trade union's representational capacity by
reason only of the employer's use of the services of a person
referred to in subsection (2.1).”
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-19, in Clause 45, be amended by deleting lines 15 to
24 on page 36.
* * *
[English]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
has been consultation among the parties and I think you would
find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any standing order or special order, any
division requested on Private Members' Business, Motion No. M-75
or Bill C-247, shall be deferred to the expiry of the time for
government business on Monday, May 25.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
CANADA LABOUR CODE
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-19, an act to amend
the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and the Corporations and Labour
Unions Returns Act and to make consequential amendments to other
acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and of
Motions Nos. 19, 25, 26, 27 and 29.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order, please. I
wish to inform the House that there is an error in today's notice
paper and in the voting pattern in respect of Motion No. 27 in
Group No. 7.
A vote on Motion No. 25 applies to Motion No. 29. An
affirmative vote on Motion No. 25 obviates the necessity of the
question being put on Motion No. 27. On the other hand, a
negative vote on Motion No. 25 necessitates the question being
put on Motion No. 27. Motions Nos. 19 and 26 will be voted on
separately.
Revised voting patterns and report stage charts are available at
the table. I regret any inconvenience this may have caused hon.
members.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I thank you for
reading Motion No. 26 in its entirety. We asked you to do so on
a matter of principle and as a symbolic gesture. Given the
importance of this motion, we wanted it recorded properly in the
Debates of the House of Commons.
I am also very proud to see that the motion is seconded by the
hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, who was responsible last
year for the brilliant and valiant work done on the Canada
Labour Code, when he held the position I have this year.
Considering the situation that prevailed last year, I feel I
must thank and congratulate him.
Here we are with Group No. 7, which substantially represents our
position with respect to this bill, and which refers in
particular to the clause on replacement workers.
It is of such importance that we cannot, in all conscience,
support this bill with the present wording of clause 42.
So that our audience may understand this fully, I feel it is
worthwhile reading in its entirety the position of the
government, backed by the NDP, and I believe by the Progressisve
Conservative Party, while the Reform Party and the Bloc
Quebecois are opposed to clause 42, but for diametrically
opposed reasons.
1600
I will read clause 42 in its entirety.
No employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall use,
for the demonstrated purpose of undermining a trade union's
representational capacity rather than the pursuit of legitimate
bargaining objectives, the services of a person who was not an
employee in the bargaining unit on the date on which notice to
bargain collectively was given and was hired or assigned after
that date to perform all or part of the duties of an employee in
the bargaining unit on strike or locked out.
Members will have noted, as my colleague, the member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, did last year, the convoluted wording,
which is of no real help to anyone. It is a nightmare, not to
put too fine a point on it, to get at the meaning of using for
the demonstrated purpose of undermining a trade union's
representational capacity rather than the pursuit of legitimate
bargaining objectives. It sidesteps the issue, and this is one
of the secondary reasons, in addition to the fact that we are
opposed to the substance, that we are opposed to the way the
problem is set out.
I do not think that Canada—compared with Quebec obviously—is
equipping itself with the means to move forward. I think that
everyone is going after a careful balance. This is worth
pointing out, because the whole thrust of the Sims report is to
achieve balance.
I think the result is something that is going to balance
everyone into a corner.
This is one of the reasons—and it is both secondary and essential
at the same time—we oppose this clause and accordingly the entire
bill.
It is rather interesting to note, as I did earlier, that the
Liberal party, the government party, is in favour of the bill.
It is understandable that the New Democratic party supports it,
given its close ties with the union movement. The Progressive
Conservative party is in favour, but the Bloc Quebecois is not,
nor is the Reform party, for diametrically opposed reasons.
It puts me in mind of Meech Lake, and this is part of the
Canada-Quebec problem. The Bloc Quebecois is against the bill
because it does not give workers enough, and the Reform party is
against it because it gives workers too much.
It is so strongly opposed that it wants to eliminate every term
that prevents the hiring of scabs or replacement workers.
With the Reform Party there is no subtlety. It even goes into
the details where the board is given powers to declare the
hiring of replacement workers when done out in the open an
unfair labour practice, whereas here, with their balanced
approach, the Liberals are claiming that replacement workers can
be hired in order to undermine a union's representational
capacity.
The Reform Party goes a long way. Should it appear that
replacement workers are being hired to undermine the union's
representational capacity, it wants to deny the board the right
to declare the hiring of replacement workers unfair labour
practice. That's that.
The Conservatives are after the same thing, but more subtlely.
Their approach is worth describing.
The government has grown in wisdom and in thoughtfulness in the
past year. It has added a very important word. Last year, the
wording read “No employer or person acting on behalf of an
employer shall use, thereby undermining a trade union's
representational capacity—”, while the 1998 version reads “—for
the demonstrated purpose of undermining a trade union's
representational capacity—”.
THE ROYAL ASSENT
1605
[Translation]
A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as
follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to His Excellency the
Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this
honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate
chamber.
1610
[English]
And being returned:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I have the honour to
inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate
chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her
Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill S-4, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act (maritime
liability)—Chapter No. 6.
Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canada Evidence Act and the
Criminal Code in respect of persons with disabilities, to amend
the Canadian Human Rights Act in respect of persons with
disabilities and other matters and to make consequential
amendments to other Acts—Chapter No. 9.
Bill C-8, an act respecting an accord between the Governments of
Canada and the Yukon Territory relating to the administration and
control of and legislative jurisdiction in respect of oil and
gas—Chapter No. 5.
Bill C-18, an act to amend the Customs Act and the Criminal
Code—Chapter No. 7.
Bill C-17, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act and the
Teleglobe Canada Reorganization and Divestiture Act—Chapter No.
8.
1615
[Translation]
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the
House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of
adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Acadie—Bathurst, employment insurance; the hon. member for
Vancouver East, the multilateral agreement on trade; the hon.
member for Prince George—Peace River, disaster relief.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
CANADA LABOUR CODE
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-19, an act to amend the
Canada Labour Code (Part I) and the Corporations and Labour
Unions Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts,
as reported (with amendments) from the committee; and of the
motions in Group No. 7.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I was
denouncing the fact that the government changed its position,
rather subtly, without boasting too loudly about it, from one
year to the next.
In 1997, speaking of replacement workers, it read “for the
purpose of undermining a trade union's representational
capacity”.
In 1998, obviously under pressure from management, the word
“demonstrated” was added. It now reads “for the demonstrated
purpose of undermining a trade union's representational
capacity”. This will make it much more difficult for the union
to prove to the court that replacement workers were hired for
the purpose of undermining its representational capacity.
The union will be required to prove the “demonstrated purpose of
undermining”. The fact that replacement workers are being hired
is not enough. Now it will have to be demonstrated that it was
“for the demonstrated” specific and actual “purpose of
undermining the union's representational capacity”.
This makes the union's burden of proof even heavier, which is
likely to have a negative impact on its members' morale and
discourage them from getting involved in this kind of thing.
The PC's approach is even worse. I do not know whether it was
inspired by its former leader, Jean Charest, the former member
for Sherbrooke, but if that is the case, Quebec workers are in
for a rough ride if Charest ever becomes the premier of Quebec.
Motion No. 27 moved by the Progressive Conservative Party reads
as follows:
(2.2) For greater certainty, an employer shall be deemed not to
have undermined a trade union's representational capacity by
reason only of the employer's use of the services of a person
referred to in subsection (2.1).
The Liberals are saying that it must be “for the demonstrated
purpose”, while the Conservatives are basically saying that even
though scabs are hired, the employer is not trying to adversely
affect workers.
This is a big joke. They are laughing at workers. They do not
care about their right to strike, about their demands. Both the
Conservatives and the Reformers are trying to undermine the very
existence of unions. This is most serious and this is why I
cannot support the clause in its present form. One can see that
workers' rights are in jeopardy, given that the government—with
just one additional word—and the Conservatives—with their
proposed amendment—are making it a lot more difficult for
unions to adequately protect themselves.
As for the Reform Party, it does not beat around the bush.
For all practical purposes, the right to strike is completely
undermined. With the Reformers, the issue is not the unions'
representational capacity, but the right to strike. Under the
Reformers' logic, even though workers are unionized and can
democratically decide to go on strike, any employer could
legally, with impunity, hire replacement workers to continue
operations, and there would be nothing wrong with that. Under
the Reformers' plan, it would all be perfectly legal.
In no way are they saying that this is an unfair practice. Under
the Reformers' plan, even though the right to strike exists,
even though a strike is legal, replacement workers could be
hired with impunity.
1620
We feel this is unacceptable, particularly to those of us in
Quebec who have experienced something else, which we shall get
back to at third reading. For the last 21 years, we have lived
in a society where the right to strike is respected and where
the hiring of scab labour is banned as an unfair labour
practice. As a result, there are fewer strikes, they are not as
long, and most importantly, there is no violence.
One need only go as far as Quebec City to see the difference.
Recently there was violence at the port of Quebec, which is a
federal jurisdiction, when there was a labour conflict and scabs
were hired. The authorities intervened too late, unfortunately,
to prevent the violence.
We are, therefore, totally opposed to this clause of the bill.
[English]
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I see there are several
motions with respect to the replacement worker provision in Bill
C-19. One motion is seeking to delete the provision while
another is seeking to make the provision into a general
prohibition on their use.
Bill C-19 implements the majority recommendation of the Sims
task force with respect to replacement workers. The task force
noted that the one point concerning replacement workers on which
both labour and management agreed was that they should not be
used by an employer for the purpose of ridding the workplace of
union representation.
The task force majority did not recommend a general prohibition
on the use of replacement workers. It did recommend that their
demonstrated use for the purpose of undermining a union's
representational capacity rather than the pursuit of legitimate
bargaining objectives should be an unfair labour practice.
While maintaining their underlying opposing positions on the
replacement worker issue, representatives of both labour and
management in the federal sector accepted this approach in the
context of the overall package of task force recommendations.
In response to concerns raised during the study of former Bill
C-66, that the wording of the provision did not capture the full
intent of the task force recommendation, the provision in Bill
C-19 was redrafted to include the complete wording of the task
force recommendation. The new wording was requested by employer
representatives as well as by the Senate standing committee in
its report on Bill C-66. The added words make it clear that the
union filing the complaint bears the burden of proof and that the
use of replacement workers by an employer for the purpose of
continuing operations is not prohibited.
With respect of the new wording of the provision, the Canadian
Chamber of Commerce told the Standing Committee on Human
Resources Development and the Status of with Persons with
Disabilities that the addition of the words “rather than the
pursuit of legitimate bargaining objectives” in proposed section
94(2.1) will ensure that any tribunal interpreting this
legislation will be guided by the explicit obligation to consider
the reason why the employer may have hired strike replacements
rather than only the protection of a union's representational
rights, as was the case under Bill C-66.
The chair of the federally regulated employers transportation
and communications group told the committee: “The language we
see in Bill C-19 is reflective of the spirit, intent and content
of the Sims report in most of the critical areas”. FETCO legal
counsel stated that the drafting concern they had with former
Bill C-66, including the replacement worker provision, had been
addressed. In my view, given these comments, additional language
would be redundant.
Bill C-19 includes a number of other provisions recommended by
the task force which will protect the rights of employees who
strike or are locked out.
Bill C-19 confirms the right of striking or locked out employees
to return to work at the end of a work stoppage in preference to
replacements. It gives employees dismissed or disciplined during
a work stoppage access to grievance arbitration. It prohibits
the submission of an application for certification or revocation
during work stoppages without the consent of the board. It says
replacement workers are not entitled to participate in
representation votes. It recognizes the right of employees on
strike or who are locked out to continue to be covered by
insurance plans provided they pay the full amount of required
contributions.
1625
The Bloc Quebecois has put forward a motion to add a paragraph
to proposed section 87(4). This motion would prohibit the use
of replacement workers where employees of the bargaining unit
continue the activities necessary to prevent immediate and
serious danger to the safety or health of the public. I submit
this is likely to generate unnecessary litigation.
The proposed amendment sees a somewhat bizarre situation in
which an employer seeks not only to have services maintained by
bargaining unit employees but to recruit replacements to work
alongside of them. Add to this unusual circumstance a trade
union ready to negotiate the maintenance of services by its own
members and to accept that they will be working with replacements
doing bargaining unit work; in all, an eventuality which is, to
say the least, very unlikely.
The provisions in Bill C-19 respecting the use of replacement
workers represent a fair and reasonable compromise to a difficult
issue. I urge members of the House to support the provisions in
Bill C-19 without amendment.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we are
debating Group No. 7. I want to talk a bit about replacement
worker legislation.
While this legislation does not come out with an outright ban on
the use of replacement workers, it does leave, to say the least,
a lot of discretion up to the CIRB. It begs probably more
questions than it actually answers.
The discretion of whether to use replacement workers is going to
be left solely to the board. In any case of the use of
replacement workers there will be tremendous pressure put on the
board to agree with the union that this an undermining of the
union, which is referred to in the vernacular as union busting.
It is likely that, under tremendous pressure, the use of any
replacement workers, whether managerial or otherwise, will be
seen by the board as undermining the fundamentals of the union.
We have read quotes by several union leaders which say exactly
that. They say they are going to impress on the board in every
instance where replacement workers are used that it will be
solely to undermine the union.
I think there are instances where replacement workers will
simply be used to maintain the viability of the business. I do
not think there is a union in the world that would like to have
its employer broke. It would be basically cutting off its nose
to spite its face.
In the area of replacement workers, we are also told by union
bosses that this is absolutely necessary to prevent violence. It
seems as if we are under some kind of constant threat. If there
is not an outright ban on replacement workers there may be
violence. The unions are quick to cite examples of where there
was violence on the picket lines. Violence is one thing but good
labour legislation is another thing. There are laws which state
that violence is not acceptable and having to pass labour laws
under the veil of possible violence is doing it for the wrong
reasons.
1630
In the course of the debate today we heard how naive some
members in this House thought members of the Reform Party were
because we made allusions to protecting the national economy from
devastating work stoppages that would have an effect on the
national economy. A rather weak argument was put forth that of
course any disruption of services is going to put economic
pressure on somebody. Certainly. Of course. We understand that
the union wants to put economic pressure on the employer in order
for the employer to see the union's way of thinking.
Apparently, the people who made those comments had selective
hearing. We were talking about actions taken by employers and
employees, strikes or lockouts, that would have a devastating
effect on the national economy. A devastating effect on the
national economy filters down very quickly to the very people my
colleagues down the way are purporting to protect. If there is a
work stoppage of any type that has a tremendously adverse effect
on the economy, it is the little people who support those
businesses and who depend on those services who are ultimately
hurt.
I will deliberately shorten my comments because some of my
colleagues would like to share their thoughts on the use and
partial bans of replacement workers.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this
set of motions in Group No. 7 is a bit of a quandary for us.
There are two motions which the NDP caucus is in favour of and
others that we are not. I presume we will have the opportunity
to vote on them individually.
The two motions we are in favour of deal with strengthening the
anti-scab aspects of Bill C-19. We have spoken in favour of Bill
C-19 in total. We recognize its value and we recognize the long
and exhaustive consultative process it took to get us to this
point. However our one criticism of Bill C-19 has always been
and still is that the reference to anti-scab is too soft and does
not really follow through to the degree—
Mr. Jean Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
notice that presently we do not have quorum to continue debate.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have a quorum
call. Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have quorum.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I really hope the 130,000
prairie farmers who are waiting for this bill to be passed so
that they can be comfortable that their grain will move without
interruption this fall are taking note of the delays and the
stalling tactics that have been going on in this House. I hope
they are paying attention. I am sure they are. They will make
good note of that.
1635
What I was getting at and the reason I rose to speak is that
while we are happy with the package in total, our one criticism
of Bill C-19 is that the anti-scab aspects of the bill do not go
far enough to really fulfill what the parties had in mind when
they sat down to draft Bill C-19.
We understand that the whole package was a compromise. Nobody
at the table really got everything they wanted. There was a lot
of give and take and a lot of goodwill. Finding a balance is
never easy, but having reviewed the motions we have before us
from the hon. member for Trois-Rivières, I believe Motion Nos. 19
and 26 would serve the bill well in making it the piece of
legislation Canadian industry really needs and should be asking
for.
The virtues of anti-scab legislation are obvious. We have the
case study right in the province next to us. We can look to the
province of Quebec and monitor the experience and the benefits
from its long tenure of the anti-scab bill. We know from that
experience there are fewer days of lost time due to strikes and
lockouts. The parties are not likely to risk pushing a
bargaining session to an impasse knowing that their anti-scab
legislation would preclude the ability of using replacement
workers. Naturally the parties are forced to a position where
they have to work a little harder to find a reasonable solution.
We also know that the incidence of picket line violence is
lower. I agree with the previous speaker that we should not be
charting our course by the lighting on a passing ship. What I
mean to say is that we should not be crafting legislation to
preclude violence. Nobody is going to be drafting legislation
under threat or some veiled threat. That is not the case. The
actual fact is that both parties often allow tempers to flare and
incidents of violence do take place on picket lines when scabs
try to cross picket lines. If that is precluded or eliminated,
then there is not that problem.
I have been to the scene of strikes in the city of Montreal. I
joined my fellow brothers with the carpenters union when they
were striking in that industry in the city of Montreal. The
first thing I did was I went to a major site where I knew there
were carpenters working. I wanted to join them on the picket
line, not really thinking through that there was not going to be
a picket line. There did not need to be a picket line.
Picket lines are there to keep scabs out. Once it has been
shown that there is a strike, a couple of placards are put up and
the public knows there is a strike at the site and the product is
hot as a result. There are no scabs crossing the line. There is
no need for workers to be walking the line keeping vehicles from
going in and out, et cetera. That is where things flare up.
Just the very fact that there is solid anti-scab legislation in
the province of Quebec minimizes the number of days lost due to
strikes and lockouts. It minimizes the incidents of people
stooping to violence on either side, whether it is the
replacement workers or frustrated employees at the location
trying to defend their jobs.
Another aspect of Bill C-19 deals with anti-scab and I believe
it needs to be improved. The burden of proof is currently on the
union to demonstrate that the employer is using scabs in a way
that undermines the bargaining rights of the union, or it is the
intent to undermine the union by the use of scabs. Regarding that
burden of proof, contrary to what we heard from the previous
speaker, it is going to be very difficult to get any board to
rule as to what was in the mind of the employer when the scabs
were hired.
The advantage is clearly to the employer in the current language
of Bill C-19 if it is not amended. I would certainly argue that
it does not matter what labour leaders were quoted, obviously the
advocates for the employees are going to argue that the union is
trying to undermine the bargaining rights and that therefore the
scabs should be outlawed.
I frankly do not think that they would win. It would be a
terrible uphill battle and a very difficult argument to win. The
Reform Party should take some comfort in that. The way I read
Bill C-19 on that aspect, the advantage is clearly for the
employer.
1640
This is one of the most sensitive parts of Bill C-19 for our
caucus at least and for the labour movement. The right to
withhold services in a way that puts economic pressure on the
employer is the only peaceful means of negotiating benefits for
workers that is available to us. It is really the only tool in
our tool chest. When bargaining breaks down and we are trying to
elevate the standards or the wages and working conditions for the
people we represent, passive resistance and withholding service
are the two things we can legally use to add weight to our points
of view.
As a result, these clauses and the motions put forward by the
member for Trois-Rivières are very important to us. They would
add that small bit which is lacking in Bill C-19 to make it a
truly satisfactory package that will add lasting labour peace to
the Canadian industrial relations environment.
The whole idea of strikes and lockouts may get more attention
than it deserves in these debates. It has been stated over and
over again that over 95% of all rounds of bargaining are settled
without any lost time. While lost time due to strikes and
lockouts is a problem in the industry, it is dealt with in a way
that is out of proportion.
In Manitoba we lose approximately 50,000 person days per year
due to strikes and lockouts which is a big problem. Management
howls about lost productivity and lost profits, et cetera. It is
a problem. However we lose 550,000 person days per year due to
injuries on the job and workplace accidents. If they are serious
about lost productivity, the answer is to clean up the workplace,
to stop the carnage in the workplace. Then those 50,000 person
days lost per year will be put into perspective.
Another aspect deals with picket line incidents. One of the
positive aspects of Bill C-19 is that employees who are off work
for a strike or a lockout will be guaranteed their jobs when they
go back. Those who may have been disciplined during their
absence will have the right to the grievance procedure and
arbitration. This is a case of natural justice. They should
have access to some avenue of recourse. If in the heat of the
moment an incident happens, this provision in Bill C-19 will
recognize that everybody deserves the right to the use of that
avenue of recourse.
Our caucus will be voting in favour of Motions Nos. 19 and 26.
We believe they are necessary and that they will add substance
and weight to what is already a worthy piece of legislation. In
the interests of minimizing the lost time due to strikes and
lockouts, I would hope the other members in the House can support
the motions put forward by the member for Trois-Rivières.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
listened carefully to the remarks of my colleagues from the Bloc
Quebecois, the Reform Party and the New Democratic Party. If we
were to follow the policy described by my hon. colleague from
the NDP, unemployment and poverty would be much higher in
Canada, because I can assure you that many more industries would
be closing down.
I also listened to the comments made by the hon. member from the
Bloc Quebecois, who addressed the rights of workers. We in the
Conservative Party believe in the rights of workers and we have
shown it.
We want to make sure these workers do not lose their jobs.
We believe in dialogue rather than in steamrolling people.
1645
[English]
One of the big problems in what we are dealing with today is the
replacement workers part of it. This issue is one of the few on
which the authors of the Sims report could not agree.
One of its authors argued in favour of a complete ban on the use
of replacement workers as is the case in labour legislation in
Quebec and British Columbia. The majority of the Sims report
argued against a general ban on the use of replacement workers.
It states where the use of replacement workers is in dispute and
is demonstrated to be for the purpose of undermining the union's
representative capacity rather than pursuing a legitimate
bargaining objective it should be declared an unfair labour
practice. There was a lot of confusion when it came to this part
and I believe there still is.
Many motions are before us today and we will probably be here
late tonight voting on them. When there are many motions on a
piece of legislation it means there are many questions about the
proposed legislation. We have not dealt with this legislation in
approximately 25 years and all of a sudden it is being put
through the House.
Let me explain what is happening. Let me take a bit of time to
explain to our viewing audience and the people in the gallery
what has happened today and what the government has imposed on
this piece of legislation, on the House of Commons and on the
public.
Once again the government is in a rush to get it out of here. It
has invoked time allocation on the bill. That means it has cut
off debate.
It was in committee. I agree; I was there. A lot of
consultation went on and we heard from a lot of witnesses. We
now have a chance to debate the legislation in front of
Canadians. When it comes to that the government cuts us off. It
is unfortunate but is what happened today.
The government mentions consultation. Yes, it did that but it
certainly did not listen. There are probably 50 amendments today
and I do not believe very many of them will pass. These are the
concerns of Canadians but they do not seem to be what the
government thinks.
Before Bill C-19 there was Bill C-66 which contained provisions
that were deemed to tilt the balance toward the unions. The bill
did not stipulate clearly that there was no ban on the use of
replacement workers. Instead it stated that no employer or
person shall use the services of a replacement worker for the
purpose of undermining a trade unions replacement
representational capacity.
During Senate hearings no one seemed to know how the terms of
the bill would be interpreted. That is still a problem today. We
do not seem to know what the interpretation will be.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Jean Dubé: My hon. colleague on the government side
seems to have all the answers, but I am sure we will have
problems with it.
[Translation]
Motion No. 19 in Group No. 7, moved by the Bloc Quebecois,
prohibits the use of replacement workers as long as the workers
agree to perform the duties necessary to maintain the essential
services referred to in subsection (1).
For example, during a postal strike, as long as postal workers
agreed to deliver government cheques, Canada Post would not be
allowed to hire replacement workers to perform these duties.
That is what is proposed in the Bloc's motion.
We in the Conservative Party must vote against this motion. With
this amendment, what cannot be done through the front door is
done through the back door.
Quite simply, we are against banning replacement workers.
Motion No. 25 put forward by the Reform Party deletes the clause
on replacement workers altogether. We in the Conservative Party
will vote for this motion.
1650
We have an amendment that seeks to clarify this clause and to
make its interpretation less ambiguous. If our changes are
rejected, it would be better to completely eliminate the clause,
so as to avoid any ambiguity that might give the board the power
not to allow the use of replacement workers.
While Motion No. 26 proposed by the Bloc Quebecois seeks to
completely prohibit the hiring of replacement workers, our
amendment strikes a balance. Indeed, it is not reasonable to
prohibit the use of replacement workers, because it would
jeopardize the very existence of a business. What is the point
of going on strike, if the business no longer exists at the
conclusion of the negotiation process?
Replacement workers must be available to provide the essential
services that workers will not provide.
Our amendment, Motion No. 27, better reflects the spirit of the
Simms report. It clearly states that replacement workers are not
hired for the purpose of undermining a trade union's
representational capacity. The motion is clear, and if it is
passed, there will definitely not be many questions. But I am
sure that this evening, the government will vote against it. The
motion is too clear for the government, which prefers a bit of
confusion.
Motion No. 29 is proposed by the Reform Party. Motion No. 25
seeks to completely eliminate the clause on the use of
replacement workers. If Motion No. 25 is passed, that clause
will have to be deleted as well.
There are many motions before us today, and we think it is
possible to make the bill fair.
However, the government must listen to Canadians and to all the
opposition parties which have made good suggestions, whether it
is the Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois or our own party. I
wonder about the New Democratic Party, if you follow me. We
have an opportunity to do a good job.
[English]
While the new formulation comes closer to what the Sims task
force on Bill C-19 had in mind, it is our opinion that it is
still not made clear enough. This is not a general ban on the
use of replacement workers. More important, it still does not
properly address the meaning of the words used.
Mr. Jim Gouk: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I
will say right at the start so that it does not get a scurry
going that this is not a quorum call.
I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you hear me out on this issue
because I am saying it in all sincerity. Given that opposition
members would like as much time as possible to raise points on
debate on the various amendments, some of which we may not even
be able to get to, and given that the government would like to
limit the time available for debate, I ask if it would be willing
to yield the floor to opposition members. There is little time
left and there is a whole group we have not be able to debate
yet.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: I rise on the same point of
order. Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. The reality is that we had
a whole day of debate last week in which members of the Reform
Party refused to even discuss these motions. We have been in
committee. They filibustered. Absolutely not.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
West Kootenay—Okanagan has asked for unanimous consent that the
government yield to the opposition.
Does the government give unanimous consent to yield to the
opposition for the time remaining in debate?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1655
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to my colleagues across the way and I am
dismayed to hear about the fact that suddenly we have invoked
time allocation.
I ask hon. members across the way where they were during the
discussions on Bill C-19. I would like to know where they were
during the course of the filibuster when we had members of the
official opposition obviously needing to go back to labour code
101 to understand the basics. It was very disappointing to see
that of the 97 clauses there were nine amendments proposed by the
official opposition, seven on clause 2.
On the road to Damascus they suddenly discovered the light. They
discovered all sorts of new amendments. Where were they during
the course of the debate that I participated in? I understand
that members of the New Democratic Party were there.
Unfortunately the Conservatives were not there during the
filibuster. To suggest that the government is try to bring in
closure on this important bill is absolutely ludicrous.
Dealing with the substance of the amendments before us, the
approach in Bill C-19 is a very careful compromise on a very
difficult issue. We recognize an employer's right to hire
replacement workers for legitimate purposes. However, their use
for the purpose of ridding the workplace of union representation
would be unfair labour practice. This was the recommendation of
the majority.
My colleague opposite talks about the fact that it was not
unanimous, but the majority of the members of the Sims task force
supported it. It was part of the overall package of
recommendations which both labour and management considered
acceptable.
Motions have been put forward which would radically alter this
provision and therefore upset the overall balance of the proposed
amendments we are trying to achieve. One motion calls for a
general prohibition of the use of replacement workers. Another
motion seeks to eliminate any restriction on their use. Still
another motion seeks to add additional wording.
This provision was carefully examined during the parliamentary
study of former Bill C-66. Again I hear that we are trying to
rush the legislation through. Bill C-66 died when the election
was called. We have been told time after time that this is an
improvement on Bill C-66. If we are rushing the bill, I would
like to know where the opposition was.
Some employer groups raised concerns about the wording of the
provision in the former Bill C-66. They wanted the full text of
the task force recommendations to be included. This was also the
recommendation of the Senate committee which also studied the
former Bill C-66.
What did the government do? The Minister of Labour responded to
these concerns and changed the wording of the replacement worker
provision in Bill C-19 to fully reflect the task force
recommendation. To repeat that for the opposition, to make sure
that the replacement worker provision was fully implemented the
task force recommendation was put into the bill. Major federally
regulated employers who appeared before the House committee
during the study of the bill indicated that they were satisfied
with the new wording. If members of the opposition were there
they certainly would have heard that.
To those who wish to eliminate the provision I say there must be
an appropriate remedy when an employer hires a replacement worker
and then refuses to bargain in good faith. This provision
provides in my view and certainly in the view of the government
such a remedy.
When the television cameras are on we now get all the
amendments. Obviously we need to have television cameras on all
the time in committee and then maybe we would have some serious
work done.
To those who want to prohibit the use of replacement workers a
total ban on replacements would undermine the balance. The bill
is trying to achieve a balance.
Finally to those who think more wording is needed I refer them
to the position of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.
1700
Maintaining its objection to the rationale for amending the code
to include such a provision, the chamber representative told the
standing committee:
We are pleased that the federal government heeded our concerns
with respect to the earlier wording of this provision and is
proposing to amend the legislation accordingly. In particular,
the addition of the words “rather than the pursuit of legitimate
bargaining objectives” in proposed subsection 94(2.1) will
ensure that any tribunal interpreting this legislation will be
guided by the explicit obligation to consider the reason why the
employer may have hired strike replacements rather than only the
protection of a union's representation rights, as was the case
under Bill C-66.
It is my view that the provisions that have been put forward in
terms of the amendments be voted down.
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very anxious to speak after listening to all that
claptrap and bafflegab by the Liberal member who just spoke.
This is garbage about how we need television cameras in the
committee room because then serious work will get done. We need
something in the committee room so something serious gets done,
but it is not TV cameras. It is the replacement of the majority
of the people in there who act according to what the whip tells
them. I have seen the whip's department in there watching how
they vote on certain occasions to make sure they toe the party
line.
In fact, one time they made a mistake in the transport
committee. They actually had a Reform amendment that the
hierarchy of the Liberal Party did not like, but it passed
because there were a couple of Liberals who did not have their
marching orders and consequently they voted according to what
made sense instead of the directives of the Liberal hierarchy.
We came into this place at report stage and the Liberals made an
amendment that changed the one that passed in committee. So much
for the garbage spewed by the last speaker that we have to do
things in committee where things are treated seriously.
As far as this business of replacement workers, it is really
unfortunate that debate on this is going to be cut short. They
say it should all be done in committee.
In committee we have three members. In this House we have 59.
Basically they are denying 56 members the right to have a voice,
to speak according to their constituents, to people they have
consulted and according to their own beliefs. That is
unacceptable. It is shameful.
They talk about democracy. They should not utter that word. It
should not be coming out of their mouths.
Where I have a problem with the whole concept of replacement
workers is that this act talks about who can decide when
replacement workers can be used and when they cannot. The problem
is where in here does it define exactly what a replacement worker
is.
If you are working in a mill, operating a particular machine,
and you go on strike and the company simply hires a different
operator for that machine, that is a replacement worker.
Frankly, I do not agree with that. Some of my colleagues may not
happen to agree with me. That is fine. I think that is a
replacement worker and I do not think that aspect of it should be
allowed.
If on the other hand the company is owned by a particular
individual and his wife and their business partner and they are
able to keep that plant operating, then I think it is their
right. It is their plant. Who are we or the labour relations
board or anyone else to tell them they cannot run their own
business? If there is a contract involved, they have to honour
the obligations of that contract.
This allows the CIRB to actually make a decision. If the owner
of the company does something and the union says that is taking
away its powers because they are still making some money, the
board says it will just shut them down. That is the power that
this thing gives.
There is a bigger problem. The bigger problem is strikes. If
there were no strikes, in a utopian world, we would not be
arguing here today about whether there should be replacement
workers. In a better world everybody would have a job.
Everybody would be treated fairly. Negotiations would go
smoothly. That would be just great. Unfortunately this is not a
perfect world.
It might be a little more perfect if the other side would give us
more time to discuss the possibilities and some of the
things that might happen, but we get into this confrontational
role and it does not want to hear other ideas.
It is like the old adage, do not confuse me with the facts, my
mind is already made up. I see them sitting laughing over there.
I think it is great, at least somebody is in here to laugh. That
is rare.
1705
As far as whether replacement worker definition should be
amended better, one of the things that is really sad about the
death of democracy caused by the other side's vote this morning
to restrict the debate is that we are not even going to get to
Group No. 8. Group No. 8 would deal with something that would
resolve the problem of replacement workers. Group No. 8 deals
with an alternative to a strike. Would it not be wonderful if we
could find a reasonable alternative to a strike?
We had the post office situation. This is something the
Liberals should really appreciate because they just went through
this. We had last year our fourth postal strike in ten years.
Four times in the last ten years the governments of this country
have allowed the post office, which is a monopoly, to shut down
the mail service of this country. Each time the government says
this is terrible, this is devastating, so it orders postal
workers back to work.
It compounded the mistake with another mistake. The first
mistake was to say “you can strike and restrict everybody and
deprive them of their ability to have a mail service even though
we have set it up so that there is only one possible alternative
for you anyway to use the mail”. Then recognizing it made a
mistake it made a second mistake by ordering postal workers back
to work but not putting into place an alternative to going out on
strike in the first place. Why should we be surprised if year
after year, strike after strike we find ourselves right back in
the same situation?
To make a mistake the first time I can understand. But when the
same mistake is made over and over again then we have to start
questioning the relative wisdom of the group that is making the
mistake. The Liberal Party has certainly made that with the post
office.
Now we have a potential strike of the air traffic system. I hope
it does not go any further. For years that could not happen, but
now they have been cut loose.
I tried in transport to get a provision put in that would
provide an alternative to a strike-lockout dispute settlement
mechanism. The vehicle we wanted to use was final offer
arbitration. But the government in its wisdom chose not to do
that.
Now we find ourselves in Bill C-19 arguing about replacement
workers. Of course the government is going to be right back into
that. It came up with the replacement worker concept for the air
traffic controllers which basically put them in a situation where
they could go on strike but when they were on strike everything
carried on the same as always. So what does this do for the
collective bargaining system the government claims it cherishes
so much? It does not cherish it at all.
When we talk in terms of strikes, we do not talk about who wins
and loses, because the winner is the person who loses the least.
What is it going to take for the government to wake up? I am glad
to see some of the Liberals are coming to their senses, coming
over to the right side. I hope in doing that their minds change
as well as their position, because if that happens we would make
some progress in this place.
When there is a strike, and we do not even talk about
replacement workers, we have a company that is deprived of their
revenues, we have workers who are deprived of their income and we
have all the supplemental collateral damage that is done to
people all over other areas. Instead of talking about
replacement workers, maybe we should be talking about replacing
the dispute settlement mechanism in the labour code so that we
actually have something that means Canadians will be able to keep
their jobs and there will be a reasonable, viable alternative to
going out on strike.
Going on strike or locking people out, if it happens to be the
employer who initiates the labour disruption, is kind of like a
duel where both sides shoot at one another.
I see I am even getting the victory sign from the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Labour. I really like that. I think
she finally realizes the error of her ways in the past and now
she is actually ready to listen.
1710
If nothing else happens out of all this debate, if we can get
through to one poor soul on that side, then perhaps this will
have been worth it.
The whole concept of replacement workers is wrong. We are
approaching it from who decides when they can have them. The
approach that should have been taken is what are replacement
workers. The CIRB decides what hurts, what is okay, what is not,
maybe it will flip a coin in the event of a strike. We cannot go
tipping the scales by saying it is okay to change the formula for
one side and not the other. I hate even to admit there is the
possibility of a strike. We have to recognize we have a bigger
problem and begin dealing with it with things like final offer
arbitration.
However, as long as we are stuck in this system we need some
kind of mechanism which states what constitutes a replacement
worker. As long as the company is not using that type of person
it is free to take those types of actions. Where we have someone
who is clearly defined as a replacement worker there is no
decision to make. It is black and white. They are not allowed to
be used.
It is really unfortunate that we are dealing with an opposition
of minds instead of dealing with solutions. We are in this
confrontational position and unfortunately, because of the
actions of the Liberal government today, the last and perhaps
most important group, finding an alternative dispute settlement
mechanism, will not even get debated. That is a shame.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I understand that in a few minutes we are going to be
voting. We have something like 47 votes to go through so this is
sort of the end of debate before closure. Closure happened 14
times in the 12 years when we had a Liberal government under
Pierre Elliott Trudeau and we thought he was arrogant. This
government has more than doubled that already.
I have talked on this bill at second reading and on Groups Nos.
1, 2, 6 and now 7. Group No. 7 deals with replacement workers.
If there is one item where we can listen to rhetorical comment,
polarized comment, entrenched comment, confrontational comment,
unenlightened comment, blind comment or comment coloured by
experiences, this is the one area of the bill where we are going
to hear all that. We do not need that.
What we need is a vision that does not look at the past and does
not lead us into poor management and poor union leadership where
workers very often tend to come last. That is not what we need.
We all know how bad it can get. We can count the ways very
readily. We had the example that is often referred to with the
Royal Oak mine in the north where we had replacement workers
brought in. People lost their lives in an underground bombing
over an issue.
At the other end of the scale we have small businesses with
certification whereby the total business would be at risk just
from a short targeted strike on that business. We need to
balance all that. It is an important issue. It should be
addressed in the collective agreement and if the agreement is
suspended, which often occurs, both parties will agree to live up
to their end of this bargain on replacement workers.
What we do not need is the CIRB to be put in the untenable
position which this bill does of being able to prohibit the use
of replacement workers if the CIRB determines their presence
undermines the union.
The CIRB should never be placed in that position.
1715
Mr. Speaker, I notice you are signalling that my time is up.
That is unfortunate because I had so much worthy material to
present. I did not even get to the bottom line of my speech.
However, I do appreciate the fact that you have given me this
opportunity to exit. I look forward to the upcoming votes.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.15 p.m.,
pursuant to the order made earlier this day, it is my duty to
interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith all questions
necessary to dispose of report stage of the bill now before the
House.
The question is on Motion No. 19. 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
Motion No. 19 stands deferred.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 25. 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 be 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 Motion No. 25 stands deferred. The recorded division
will also apply to Motion No. 29.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 26. 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 nays have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The recorded division on
Motion No. 26 stands deferred.
[English]
The next question is on Group No. 8, Motion No. 21.
Mr. Jim Gouk: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to
ask your advice. Is there any procedure available to us to deal
with the fact that we are about to vote on a number of things in
this House on which there has not been one single word of debate?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
West Kootenay—Okanagan is aware that a motion for time
allocation was given with proper notice earlier in the week.
A vote was taken. According to the standing orders of the House
of Commons, it is quite appropriate to proceed in this way. That
is all I will say on that point of order.
1720
We are now introducing Group No. 8, Motions Nos. 21 and 24.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-19, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing line 18 on
page 30 with the following:
That Bill C-19, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing line 41 on
page 31 with the following:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We will now put the
question on Motion No. 21. 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
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): A recorded division
on Motion No. 21 stands deferred.
We will now put the question on Motion No. 24. 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): A recorded division
on Motion No. 24 stands deferred.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-19, in Clause 68, be amended by adding after line 26
on page 42 the following:
“(1.1) The report laid before Parliament pursuant to subsection
(1) stands permanently referred to the standing committee of the
House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to
human resources development.”
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): 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
Motion No. 31 stands deferred.
[English]
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded divisions at the report stage of the bill. Call in the
members.
1745
After the ringing of the bells:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
Motion No.1 at the report stage of Bill C-19.
1750
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bigras
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hart
| Harvey
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
|
Kerpan
| Konrad
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Matthews
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Nunziata
| Obhrai
|
Pankiw
| Penson
| Plamondon
| Power
|
Price
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vellacott
|
Venne
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
– 100
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
|
Dromisky
| Duhamel
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Mancini
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Massé
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Nystrom
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
|
Robinson
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 152
|
PAIRED
Members
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Canuel
|
Drouin
| Fournier
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Marchi
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
| Peterson
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Saada
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 lost. The next
question is on Motion No. 2.
1755
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Before we proceed to Motion No. 2, I believe you would
find unanimous consent to apply the result of the vote just taken
to Motion Nos. 5, 7 and 31.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in this
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 138]
The Speaker: Therefore I declare Motions Nos. 5, 7 and 31
lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 2.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. If the House would agree I would propose that you seek
unanimous consent that the members who voted on the previous
motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the
House, with Liberal members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I am checking closely but
I am sure the Reform Party is voting nay to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, we support this, one of our
own motions.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats vote no to
this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party will
vote against this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: I will be voting yes to this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bigras
| Brien
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lefebvre
|
Loubier
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Nunziata
| Plamondon
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Venne
– 37
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blaikie
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Casson
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
Cummins
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Elley
| Epp
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Gilmour
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Hart
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
|
Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manning
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Morrison
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
| Peric
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Power
| Pratt
| Price
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
|
Reynolds
| Richardson
| Riis
| Ritz
|
Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
| Saada
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Solberg
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Wood – 215
|
PAIRED
Members
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Canuel
|
Drouin
| Fournier
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Marchi
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
| Peterson
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Saada
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 2 lost. The next
question is on Motion No. 3.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would
find consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the
following items: Motions Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I will support Motions
Nos. 10 and 11. With respect to the remaining motions I will
vote as I voted on the original motion.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 139]
1800
The Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
15, 16 and 17 defeated.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I believe you will find consent to apply the results of
the vote just taken to the following items: Motion No. 6 and
Motion No. 8.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on Motion No. 6 I would
like to be recorded in the affirmative as voting for the motion.
With respect to Motion No. 8, I would oppose that motion.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 139.]
(The House divided on Motion No. 8, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bigras
| Brien
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lefebvre
|
Loubier
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Plamondon
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp – 35
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blaikie
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Casson
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
Cummins
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Elley
| Epp
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Gilmour
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Hart
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
|
Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manning
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Morrison
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peric
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Power
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
| Redman
|
Reed
| Reynolds
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
|
Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Solberg
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Vellacott
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Wood – 216
|
PAIRED
Members
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Canuel
|
Drouin
| Fournier
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Marchi
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
| Peterson
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Saada
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 6 and 8 defeated. The
next question is on Motion No. 3.
[Translation]
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
unanimous consent that the members who are recorded as having
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members will
vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois, with the exception of the member for
Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, who had to leave, are in favour of the
motion.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, New Democratic Party
members vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party vote yes
to this motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bigras
| Brien
|
Brison
| Casey
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harvey
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lefebvre
|
Loubier
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Matthews
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Muise
|
Plamondon
| Power
| Price
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Wayne
– 50
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casson
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| Cummins
| Davies
| Desjarlais
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Duhamel
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
|
Epp
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Gilmour
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Hart
| Harvard
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
|
Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacAulay
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Mancini
| Manning
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McNally
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Meredith
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Pankiw
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Penson
| Peric
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
|
Reynolds
| Richardson
| Riis
| Ritz
|
Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
| Saada
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Solberg
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
|
Vellacott
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
|
Wood
– 201
|
PAIRED
Members
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Canuel
|
Drouin
| Fournier
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Marchi
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
| Peterson
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Saada
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 3 defeated. The next
question is on Motion No. 4.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
If the House would agree, I propose that you seek unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded
as having voted on the motion now before the House with Liberal
members voting nay.
The Speaker: We are voting on Motion No. 4. Is there
agreement to proceed in such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote yes to this motion.
1805
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois support this motion.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats present
vote no.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party will
vote against this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, as I understand this
amendment it allows the board to vote for a chair should the
position become vacant. I would support that motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bigras
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
|
Cadman
| Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
|
Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
|
Kerpan
| Konrad
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| Manning
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Nunziata
|
Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Plamondon
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
St - Hilaire
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Vellacott
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
– 84
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blaikie
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
Davies
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jones
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Nystrom
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Power
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 167
|
PAIRED
Members
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Canuel
|
Drouin
| Fournier
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Marchi
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
| Peterson
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Saada
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 4 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 30.
[Translation]
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, you will find there is
unanimous consent that those members who have voted on the
previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now
before the House, with the Liberal members voting no.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois will oppose this motion.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats present
vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party will
vote in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, this motion would
preclude automatic certification. I would vote in support.
(The House divided on Motion No. 30, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Cummins
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Gilmour
| Gouk
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hart
| Harvey
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
|
Kerpan
| Konrad
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Matthews
|
McNally
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Nunziata
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Power
| Price
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Vellacott
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver) – 64
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
|
Dromisky
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
|
Dumas
| Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
|
Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
|
Lefebvre
| Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Loubier
| MacAulay
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vautour
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 187
|
PAIRED
Members
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Canuel
|
Drouin
| Fournier
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Marchi
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
| Peterson
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Saada
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 30 lost.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would
find consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the
following items: Motions Nos. 9, 28, 18, 22, 25 and 27.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 143.]
The Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 9, 18, 22, 25, 27 and 28
lost. I also declare Motions Nos. 20 and 23 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 19.
1810
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I propose that you
seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous
motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the
House with Liberal members voting nay.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote nay to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr.Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois are in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats present vote
yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party vote nay
to this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, this amendment would ban
replacement workers and I oppose the amendment.
(The House divided on Motion No. 19, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Brien
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
|
Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Nystrom
|
Plamondon
| Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis – 51
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| Cummins
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
|
Duncan
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
|
Epp
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Gilmour
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Hart
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Konrad
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manning
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McNally
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Meredith
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Nunziata
| Obhrai
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Pankiw
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Penson
| Peric
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Power
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
|
Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
| Richardson
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Solberg
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vellacott
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Wayne
| Whelan
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Wood
– 200
|
PAIRED
Members
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Canuel
|
Drouin
| Fournier
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Marchi
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
| Peterson
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Saada
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 19 defeated.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would
find consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to
Motion No. 26.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 144.]
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 26 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 21.
[Translation]
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker,
you would find unanimous consent that the members who are
recorded as having voted on the previous motion be recorded as
having voted on the motion now before the House with Liberal
members voting nay on this motion.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois are against this motion.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats present vote
no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party vote nay
to this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, this amendment would
provide for final offer selection arbitration as a contract
settlement method. I support that amendment.
(The House divided on Motion No. 21, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Cummins
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Gilmour
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
|
Kerpan
| Konrad
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
Manning
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Nunziata
| Obhrai
|
Pankiw
| Penson
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vellacott
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver) – 49
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Crête
|
Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jones
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
|
Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
|
Lefebvre
| Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Loubier
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Nystrom
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Power
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 202
|
PAIRED
Members
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Canuel
|
Drouin
| Fournier
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Marchi
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
| Peterson
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Saada
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 21 defeated.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would
find consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to
Motion No. 24.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 145.]
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 24 defeated.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.) moved
that the bill be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure for the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, if the House agrees I
would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House with Liberal members voting yea.
1815
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc members, including the
hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, oppose this motion.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, NDP members vote yes.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party vote nay
to this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting no.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
|
Dromisky
| Duhamel
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Mancini
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Massé
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Nystrom
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
|
Robinson
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 152
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bigras
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hart
| Harvey
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
|
Kerpan
| Konrad
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Matthews
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Nunziata
| Obhrai
|
Pankiw
| Penson
| Plamondon
| Power
|
Price
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vellacott
|
Venne
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
– 100
|
PAIRED
Members
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Canuel
|
Drouin
| Fournier
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Marchi
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
| Peterson
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Saada
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
CANADA GRAIN ACT
The House resumed from May 11 consideration of Bill C-26, an act to
amend the Canada Grain Act and the Agriculture and Agri-food
Administrative Monetary Penalties Act and to repeal the Grain
Futures Act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
several deferred recorded divisions at the report stage of Bill
C-26, an act to amend the Canada Grain Act.
The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also
applies to Motions Nos. 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I propose that you
seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous
motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the
House, with the Liberal members voting nay.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform members present
vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Bloc members oppose this motion, Mr.
Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats present vote
yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: The members of our party vote yea to this
motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, this bill deals with the
Canada Grain Act and really does not affect the residents of York
South—Weston, so I am prepared to give the government the
benefit of the doubt and support the bill.
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
|
Cadman
| Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Cummins
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gilmour
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
|
Lill
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mancini
| Manning
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Matthews
| McDonough
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Power
|
Price
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
|
Ritz
| Robinson
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
– 79
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Crête
|
Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
|
Dumas
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Lefebvre
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
| MacAulay
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Nunziata
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
|
Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Venne
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 173
|
PAIRED
Members
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Canuel
|
Drouin
| Fournier
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Marchi
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
| Peterson
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Saada
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 defeated. I
therefore declare Motions Nos. 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11 defeated.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would
find consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to
Motion No. 2.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 147]
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 2 defeated. I also
declare Motions Nos. 3, 4 and 6 defeated.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.) moved that the bill be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1820
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I propose that you
seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous
motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the
House, with Liberal members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, we did not get our motion
so we have to vote no at this stage.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois are in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats vote yes
to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party vote yea
to this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my
constituents I will vote yes.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Crête
|
Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jones
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
|
Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
|
Lefebvre
| Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Loubier
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Power
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
|
Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
|
Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
|
Venne
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 204
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Cummins
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Gilmour
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
|
Kerpan
| Konrad
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
Manning
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vellacott
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
– 48
|
PAIRED
Members
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Canuel
|
Drouin
| Fournier
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Marchi
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
| Peterson
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Saada
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
DNA IDENTIFICATION ACT
The House resumed from May 11 consideration of Bill C-3, an act
respecting DNA identification and to make consequential
amendments to the Criminal Code and other acts, as reported (with
amendment) from the committee.
The Speaker: The next deferred recorded divisions are on
the motions at the report stage of Bill C-3. The question is on
Motion No. 1. A negative vote on Motion No. 1 requires the
question to be put on Motion No. 2.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek
unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion
be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House,
with Liberal members voting nay.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois vote yes to this motion.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats present vote
yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party vote nay
to this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my
constituents I will vote no.
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Brien
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
|
Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Nystrom
|
Plamondon
| Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Vautour
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis – 52
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| Cummins
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
|
Duncan
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
|
Epp
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Gilmour
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Hart
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Konrad
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manning
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McNally
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Meredith
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Nunziata
| Obhrai
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Pankiw
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Penson
| Peric
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Power
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
|
Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
| Richardson
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Solberg
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vellacott
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Wayne
| Whelan
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Wood
– 200
|
PAIRED
Members
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Canuel
|
Drouin
| Fournier
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Marchi
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
| Peterson
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Saada
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 defeated.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would
find the consent of the House to apply the results of the vote
just taken to Motions Nos. 4 and 6.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 149]
The Speaker: I declare Motion Nos. 4 and 6 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House
to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1825
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I propose that you
seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous
motion be recorded as having voting on the motion now before the
House, with Liberal members voting no.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois are in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats present vote
yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party vote nay
to this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting yes to
this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Cadman
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Dockrill
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lefebvre
|
Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
Mancini
| Manning
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Pankiw
| Penson
| Plamondon
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
|
Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
– 101
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Power
| Pratt
| Price
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 151
|
PAIRED
Members
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Canuel
|
Drouin
| Fournier
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Marchi
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
| Peterson
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Saada
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 2 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 3.
[Translation]
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, you would find unanimous
consent that the members who are recorded as having voted on the
previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now
before the House with Liberal members voting nay on this motion.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members are
in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats present vote
yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party vote yes
to this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting in
favour of this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Gouk
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lefebvre
|
Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Plamondon
| Power
| Price
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
| Ritz
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Vautour
| Vellacott
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver) – 116
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 136
|
PAIRED
Members
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Canuel
|
Drouin
| Fournier
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Marchi
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
| Peterson
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Saada
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 3 defeated.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would
find consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to
Motion Nos. 7 and 8.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 151]
The Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 7 and 8 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 5.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think you would
consent that the members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as voting on the motion now before the House, with the
Liberal members voting no.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members vote
no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members vote
yes to this motion.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats present vote
yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party vote yes
to this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, this
motion would provide for a three year review of the legislation.
Accordingly, I will be voting yes.
1830
(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Brien
| Brison
| Casey
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harvey
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Lill
| Loubier
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McDonough
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Muise
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
|
Plamondon
| Power
| Price
| Riis
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
|
Stoffer
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne – 68
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casson
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
Cummins
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Duhamel
| Duncan
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Gilmour
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Gouk
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Hart
| Harvard
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Konrad
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manning
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Morrison
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Obhrai
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Pankiw
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Penson
| Peric
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
|
Reynolds
| Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Solberg
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vellacott
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Wood
– 184
|
PAIRED
Members
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Canuel
|
Drouin
| Fournier
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Marchi
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
| Peterson
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Saada
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 5 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 13.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, if the House would
agree, I propose that you seek unanimous consent that the members
who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on
the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yes.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members are
in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats present vote
yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party vote no
to this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting in
favour of this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 13, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
|
Dromisky
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
|
Dumas
| Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
|
Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
|
Lefebvre
| Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Loubier
| MacAulay
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Venne
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 189
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Cummins
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Gilmour
| Gouk
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hart
| Harvey
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
|
Kerpan
| Konrad
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Matthews
|
McNally
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Power
| Price
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vellacott
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
– 63
|
PAIRED
Members
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Canuel
|
Drouin
| Fournier
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Marchi
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
| Peterson
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Saada
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 13 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 9.
[Translation]
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, you would find unanimous
consent that the members who are recorded as having voted on the
previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now
before the House with Liberal members voting yea on this motion.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members vote
yes to this motion.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats present vote
yes.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party vote yes
to this motion.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is
to clarify the French version of the bill and I support it.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 9, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alarie
|
Alcock
| Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Crête
|
Cullen
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
|
Epp
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
|
Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harb
| Hart
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
|
Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Lefebvre
| Leung
|
Lill
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Manning
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Pankiw
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Penson
| Peric
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Power
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Ritz
| Robillard
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Solberg
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Wood
– 252
|
NAYS
Members
PAIRED
Members
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Canuel
|
Drouin
| Fournier
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Marchi
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
| Peterson
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Saada
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 9 carried.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would
find consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to
Motion No. 14.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division List No. 154]
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 14 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 10.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would
again find consent in the House that members who voted on the
previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now
before the House, with Liberal members voting nay, and I would
note that the member for Scarborough East, the member for
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge and the member for Whitby—Ajax have
left the Chamber.
1835
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Speaker: There is no agreement, so we will take a
formal vote on Motion No. 10.
1840
(The House divided on Motion No. 10, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Cummins
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Gilmour
| Gouk
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hart
| Harvey
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
|
Kerpan
| Konrad
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Matthews
|
McNally
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Nunziata
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Power
| Price
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Serré
| Solberg
| Steckle
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vellacott
| Wayne
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver) – 66
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bergeron
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Crête
|
Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Dromisky
|
Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
|
Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
| Lefebvre
|
Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
| Loubier
|
MacAulay
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Robillard
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Rock
|
Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Venne
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 181
|
PAIRED
Members
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Canuel
|
Drouin
| Fournier
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Marchi
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
| Peterson
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Saada
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 10 defeated. The next
question is on Motion No. 11.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe that you
would find consent in the House to have members who voted on the
previous motion recorded as voting on the motion now before the
House, with Liberal members voting nay.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
1845
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois are against this motion.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats present vote
yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party vote yes
to this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting in
support of this motion.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, since the last recorded
vote the member for Surrey North has had to excuse himself and
should not be included in this tally.
(The House divided on Motion No. 11, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Cummins
|
Davies
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
| Lill
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
|
Manning
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Power
|
Price
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
|
Ritz
| Robinson
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver) – 79
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bergeron
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brien
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Lalonde
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
|
Lee
| Lefebvre
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Loubier
| MacAulay
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McWhinney
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
|
Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Venne
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 167
|
PAIRED
Members
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Canuel
|
Drouin
| Fournier
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Marchi
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
| Peterson
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Saada
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 11 lost.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think you would
find consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to
Motion No. 12.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 156]
The Speaker: Therefore I declare Motion No. 12 lost.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) moved
that the bill be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order for the last time this evening. If the House agrees I
propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on
the previous motion be recorded as voting on the motion now
before the House, with Liberal members voting yes.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, having failed to pass
those last three motions, we have to vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois are in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats present vote
yes.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party vote yes
to this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, this bill on DNA is a
small step in the right direction and I will support it.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
|
Dumas
| Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
|
Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
| Lefebvre
|
Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
| Loubier
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McWhinney
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Power
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
| Venne
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood
– 199
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Casson
| Chatters
| Cummins
|
Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gilmour
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hart
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
|
Konrad
| Lowther
| Lunn
| Manning
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| McNally
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Vellacott
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
– 47
|
PAIRED
Members
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Canuel
|
Drouin
| Fournier
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Marchi
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
| Peterson
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Saada
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
1850
The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
MACKENZIE-PAPINEAU BATTALION
The House resumed from March 19 consideration of the motion.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am glad to rise to speak to this motion which I do not
support. I wish to explain in some detail why I do not support
it.
Some years ago I was in Washington to do some research in the
archives. I found the archives were closed, that it was a public
holiday and quite an unexpected public holiday. It turned out
that it was Memorial Day.
I had nothing to do because I could not work so I walked down
into the mall area. I found myself next to the Vietnam memorial.
It was the first time I had ever seen the Vietnam memorial. As I
said, it was on Memorial Day so quite a few veterans were
standing around the memorial.
It has to be imagined. The monument to the Vietnam war in the
United States is probably one of the most moving monuments built
anywhere in the world. It is quite remarkable. It consists of a
huge slab of black marble. A ramp goes down one end and up the
other, and on it are engraved all the names of the people who
died during the Vietnam war.
Many of the veterans were middle aged since the Vietnam war
occurred in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Many people of my
age were standing around the Vietnam memorial to pay homage to
their fallen comrades. It was very moving. I was surprised to
see little Canadian flags everywhere from one end of the memorial
to the other. It was quite a shocking contrast to see the
Canadian flags against the black.
I did not realize that Canadians had served in the Vietnam war.
I was very surprised to find that out. I talked to some of the
veterans there at the time who explained that they knew Canadians
who fought with them in the rice paddies in Vietnam, Canadians
who served with great courage. Some were killed and some were
injured. Many of them believed in the cause the Americans were
fighting for in Vietnam.
On further inquiry I found out that approximately 10,000
Canadians fought with the Americans in Vietnam. There was such a
surge of support for the war among young people in Canada that
the Americans set up a special recruitment system whereby
Canadians could cross the border to get a letter of acceptance
and then go back across the border to join up and serve in the
forces.
Many Canadians who served in Vietnam did so because they thought
they were fighting against communism. They believed that
communism as we saw it in North Korea was a terrible force in the
world and they wanted to save the world from it. True idealism
brought those Canadians to actually risk their lives in that
foreign war.
Canada does not recognize veterans who served in foreign armies.
We can see the wisdom of that decision when we consider Vietnam.
Those young Canadians who went over there to serve in the
American forces in Vietnam believed they were doing the right
thing. We now know subsequently that the war in Vietnam was not
really a war of the United States fighting to save the free world
and sparing it from communism. It was really the United States
intervening in a civil war that involved a struggle for
independence.
The Vietnamese had been under the heel, literally speaking, of
the French, the Vichy French and even the Japanese during the
second world war and post second world war. The Vietnamese are
very proud people and were very determined to gain their
independence.
1855
The war in Vietnam, as we know, led to some very terrible
atrocities. I think of My Lai in which Canadian soldiers were
distressed by the fact that they could not see the enemy among
the civilians so they killed the civilians. The Vietnam war was
also a war in which the Americans resorted to chemical warfare in
the form of defoliants and agent orange.
I think we would agree that Canada is probably very glad that it
did not officially sanction the Canadians fighting in Vietnam
because in fact despite their very best intentions they were
fighting for a losing cause and a wrong cause. That is the most
important issue.
This is one of the dangers when Canadians fight for other
countries. They may indeed take up a cause that later is
discovered to be a cause that Canada would not want to associate
itself with.
The Vietnam war was from 1967 to 1973, the major portion of the
war. If we flip back another 30 years we come to 1937 and the
Spanish civil war. That war involved the forces of General
Franco representing the state and backed by the fascists, backed
by Germany and Mussolini but mainly by Nazi Germany, and the
republican forces which were backed by the communist power of the
day, the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was instrumental in
getting that war rolling because it had a philosophy until recent
years of spreading international communism. The Soviet Union
made a direct effort to keep the civil war going in Spain.
Part of the Soviet Union's campaign to support the republican
side involved the formation of international brigades. These
brigades comprised battalions and volunteers who were recruited
from all over the world. One of those battalions was the
Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion.
Approximately 1,300 Canadians went over and joined the
Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion and fought on the side of the
republicans during the Spanish civil war. The Spanish civil war
was a terrible war. It was a brutal war. Men, women and
children were killed. It was a war that is echoed by the civil
war that is now occurring in Algeria.
It was a different world in 1937. As the young men from Canada
went over to serve in the republican forces they could not see
inside the Soviet Union. They only knew the Soviet Union as a
country that was supporting workers and they thought it was a
grand new experiment. They thought it was going to free the
people, and so with the greatest good spirit they went over to
serve in the republican forces.
One of the most famous persons at that time was Norman Bethune
who served in the Spanish civil war, not in the
Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion but by giving medical aid to the
republican troops.
We now know in retrospect that far from fighting for democracy,
as the member from Kamloops said, they were fighting on the side
of the republicans who were supported by the worst dictatorship
in the world. The dictator was Stalin. After the war we
discovered that this was a communist rule, a dictatorship that
would kill millions of people, millions of people in Ukraine and
millions of its own people, the Russians.
We have to remember that Norman Bethune went on to China, served
in the Chinese forces and became famous there. However China
became a dictatorship under Mao and it was one of the cruelest
dictatorships in modern time. These people killed millions and
they were every bit as bad as Hitler.
We have the dilemma that these people in good spirit and good
heart went over to support a cause that Canada and all the world
in retrospect realize was actually supporting a cause that was
perfectly reprehensible and we would not want to have Canada
associated with it.
We have the dilemma that the member for Kamloops wants to
acknowledge the courage and contribution to history, the
contribution in spirit of the members of the Mackenzie-Papineau
Battalion 60 years ago. He is right in his intention but wrong
in the execution.
1900
Canada can never take the chance of supporting foreign wars in
which the outcome or result may indicate a political entity that
is completely unacceptable to Canada.
I will conclude by making a suggestion to the member for
Kamloops. In the United States the Canadian Vietnam veterans are
recognized and compensated by the United States because of their
service in the Vietnam war. I suggest very strongly to the member
that he make representations to the Embassy of Spain to see if he
can get Spain to make a similar recognition of the members of the
Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion and to get compensation from where
it really ought to come and that is Spain.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the member across the way for a very enlightening and well
researched speech. He made some very good points which I agree
with.
I do not agree with the basic premise that the Mac-Paps were
going across on some kind of a flawed premise that they were
doing something noble and honourable and then found out they were
actually pawns or were being used by a larger power.
When the group went over to fight fascism they were right. A
couple of years later the Canadian government agreed and declared
war. That group recognized the fear of fascism in Europe earlier
and chose to take up arms. If the group can be criticized for
being aligned with the communists by working with the republic of
Spain then so can any of the allies as we joined forces in the
second world war to do what we thought was right, which was to
smash fascism.
The purpose of the motion as it was worded was to investigate
ways to grant some form of recognition to these noble and heroic
Canadians. It did not limit us to any particular course of
action although first and foremost the goal was to have these
people declared and treated as veterans with the full status that
veterans enjoy. There are other options which I think we should
be talking about today as well.
In my own research on this subject I was very interested to note
that the Mac-Paps were named after Mackenzie and Papineau who led
the 1837 Rebellion in Upper and Lower Canada. In fact the year
the Mac-Paps were formed, 1937, would have been the 100th
anniversary of that uprising. I presume that is how the name was
chosen.
The member who spoke on behalf of the government was correct.
My research shows that 1,300 volunteer soldiers banded together
from all parts of Canada to go abroad. Approximately half of them
came home. Not all of them died. Some were missing in action.
Some actually settled in Europe and did not choose to return to
Canada.
The point I would like to dwell on is that ordinary Canadians
have to be diligent just as those young Canadians were diligent.
When the extreme right wing raises its ugly head, ordinary
working Canadians have to be aware of the risk and the threat to
democracy as well as the threat to the treasured institutions we
value and which make our country great.
I would like to think that is what those people did. In the
1930s those young people were watching the newsreels in their
local movie houses and saw the jackboot storming across Europe,
the rise of fascism. Canadians travelled overseas to see
firsthand what it was like. Tommy Douglas was one in the
mid-1930s to visit Europe to see whether it was true. He wanted
to find out if the rise of Hitler and the rise of fascism was as
threatening as they were hearing. People read about it in the
newspapers and came to the very logical conclusion that fascism
was the greatest threat they faced.
Rather than talk about it and rather than wait for the
government to act, because the Canadian government could have
been quicker in getting on board to smash Hitler and smash
fascism, that group of people saw fit to put their own lives
aside, leave their homes and loved ones and hike off to Europe
unsanctioned in a formal way by the Canadian government.
1905
We gave them thanks by making them outlaws. We threatened them
with two years jail time for having the temerity to get involved
in the battle. It was a battle which we knew at that time to be
just and right because within 18 months we were in the same boat
as a country leading the fight as one of the early countries in
the great struggle of World War II.
These young men and women realized the danger. Instead of being
criticized and threatened with legal action they should be
recognized and championed and given the full status and full
rights other veterans enjoy. They gave their youth for the fight
for democracy against fascism.
A parallel can be drawn today in the need for us to be vigilant
as pockets of the extreme right wing surface again across Canada.
Even within political parties in Canada the right wing is rising
up in circumstances similar to what we saw in the 1930s. Many
parallels can be drawn. Fascism in Europe really grew out of a
period of very poor economic times, tight fiscal policy, high
unemployment, and general dissatisfaction. That is when working
people and otherwise decent people seem to seek out these extreme
alternatives.
Regarding the rise of fascism in Germany, when Eichmann was
interviewed in his prison cell he was asked what did he think
Adolf Hitler would be remembered for most. His answer was the
great way that he solved the unemployment problem. He said
nothing about the killing of six million Jews. It was the great
way that he solved the unemployment problem. They were really
desperate for some kind of relief in the miserable lives they
were living.
We saw the recent rise in right wing populism coming out of a
period of tight money and economic fiscal policy. The Bank of
Canada was trying to fight inflation with high interest rates and
screwed it up. It resulted in truly desperate times for a lot of
people, especially where I live in western Canada. They sought
out extreme right wing solutions. This is what led to the rise
of the new right wing populism. As I say we have to be ever on
guard and ever vigilant because looking toward those kinds of
options brings us all down and threatens the institutions that
make Canada great.
The Spanish civil war in many ways acted as a dress rehearsal
for the second world war. When Canada saw the international
brigades mobilizing, taking action and doing what was necessary,
it probably served to inspire Canadian leaders and other world
leaders to become motivated and get active.
We are aware that it was not just Franco they were fighting.
The Spanish fascists were being backed heavily by Mussolini and
by Hitler. They were pouring money in.
This courageous rather ragtag group went over there on dimes and
nickels. They passed the hat around to pay their way over. They
were poorly armed. We can imagine how much courage it took to go
into that kind of armed conflict against some of the greatest
world powers of the time. That should be recognized.
Norman Bethune's name was mentioned. He was certainly one of
the more famous persons to go over during that period. He was an
honourable and noble man. He dedicated his life to elevating the
standards of the poor. In health care he broke new ground in
terms of transfusion techniques some of which actually was
learned on the battlefield in the heat of battle doing triage.
The only valid criticism I have heard against Motion No. 75 is
if we do it for this group, how many other groups are we going to
have to recognize in some way and apologize for? Nobody is
asking for apologies. We are just asking for some serious second
consideration in this case. We are looking at a situation where
we believe there should be some kind of recognition. If people
cannot see fit to grant the full veteran status that we are
asking for, then surely they can do two things.
1910
One was made reference to by the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
In a letter about this recently he came back reminding us that an
order in council was passed at the time making it a criminal
offence for Canadians to serve on either side of the Spanish
civil war. No charges were actually laid but technically these
people committed a crime against Canada by going to fight the
fascists on our behalf. The very first and foremost thing we
should be doing is striking that, eliminating that stigma which
these 40 or so living Canadian veterans of the Spanish civil war
still have to wear.
The other thing we can do, and I think there is interest in this
and in fact we have some interest on the government benches, is
to put up a monument to the Mac-Paps on the grounds outside the
House of Commons. That would be a popular move. It would be the
very least we could do.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the debate this evening is on Motion No. 75, that in the
opinion of this House the government should consider the
advisability of giving members of the Mackenzie-Papineau
Battalion and other Canadians who fought with the Spanish
republican forces in the Spanish civil war between 1936 and 1939
the status of veterans under the federal legislation and making
them eligible for veterans pensions and benefits.
The wording of this motion is a little strange in that it says
consider the advisability. We can consider anything. I wonder
whether a motion that is worded quite so tentatively is going to
get much of a result. In any event, that is the motion before
us.
Here is a little background on the Spanish civil war. The
Liberal member opposite who spoke earlier gave some excellent
background as well. As he said the Spanish civil war was a
savage conflict. It took more than half a million lives. That
was long before the days of modern weapons and modern technology.
It was noted as a war of terrible atrocities and also some very
dramatic acts of heroism.
Historian Hugh Thomas noted that politically the war was a
hodgepodge of monarchists, fascists, anarchists, liberals,
Trotskyites, communists and others seeking to use the war to
advance their particular programs. Thomas has done a very
definitive work on the Spanish civil war. It is very interesting
reading if anyone is interested in getting more background.
The Soviet Union supported the republic but it was careful not
to do so directly. What it did was set up an organization to
purchase arms and transport them by covert means to assist the
Spanish communist forces.
The communist leader in France, Maurice Thorez, suggested that
aid be given to the republic in the form of volunteers raised
internationally by foreign communist parties. They would be
organized by the Comintern, Communist International, and would be
led by foreign communists exiled from their own countries and
living in Russia.
The international brigades were seen to have great propaganda
value for the communists and were seen as a possible nucleus of
an international red army. Such an organization could be the
chief recipient of any Soviet aid in Spain and ensure that Soviet
arms would be secure in the hands of reliable party members.
It might be interesting to note that before Soviet weapons were
actually used on Spanish soil, the entire Spanish gold reserve
had been dispatched to Russia as security for payment. Russia
was not just altruistic in this wonderful battle against fascism.
Most of the ablest leaders in the Comintern were employed in
raising volunteers for the international brigades, for example,
Joseph Broz who became Marshal Tito of Yugoslavia, and Enrico
Togliatti from Italy who later became leader of the Italian
communist party.
Historian Thomas tells us that about 60% of the volunteers were
communists. Another 20% became communists during their
experiences in Spain. Most were young men and members of the
working class. A high percentage were unemployed. Many of the
Europeans had the experience of street fighting against the
fascists in Berlin, Paris and London.
1915
Some of these men were adventurers. Some were hard line
communists. Many were idealists, as other speakers have
mentioned.
The personal motivations for joining the cause varied widely.
It has been suggested that somehow these were visionaries who
happened to see the evils of fascism before everybody else did.
Unfortunately, they did not see the evils of the extreme left
wing which was also raising its ugly head at the same time and
they were seconded into that cause which proved equally perilous
and brutal for many people in the world.
About a third died in the action in Spain. Several suffered
political or professional ostracism because of their Spanish
experiences. Many of the eastern Europeans who participated in
the campaign were executed in the purges of eastern Europe in
1949.
With respect to the Canadian experience, approximately 1,500
Canadians served the republican cause during the Spanish civil
war. They served in several military formations and the
unofficial section became to be called the Mackenzie-Papineau
section in honour of William Lyon Mackenzie and Louis Joseph
Papineau who were leaders of the failed 1837 rebellion against
the British ruling classes in Upper and Lower Canada.
The Mac-Paps eventually became a separate battalion, but fewer
than a third were Canadians. Most were Americans, as were their
first commander and their first political commissar. Both of
these men were killed in fighting along the Ebro River.
Mark Zuehlke, in a recent book, says that the group sent a cable
to Prime Minister King, who was of course the grandson of William
Lyon Mackenzie. The cable read:
We implore you from the depths of our hearts to do everything
possible to help Spanish democracy. In so doing you are serving
your own interests. We are here for the duration until fascism
is defeated.
King never replied, but I think the cable is an indication of
how idealistic the people who sent it were. Unfortunately the
cause they served turned out to be equally as brutal and
oppressive as the fascist cause.
The reason that the Canadians who served in the Mac-Pap
battalion were not thought well of and not respected in Canada
was simply because they broke the law.
There had been the non-intervention agreement of 1936, supported
by all the major European powers as well as Canada, which was in
full accord with the agreement. What happened was that the
countries agreed on what Churchill called “an absolutely rigid
neutrality”.
The Liberal government in Canada in the mid and late 1930s did
not want to get involved in any international problems and, in
fact, would not support some of the rather tentative measures
that were put forward by the League of Nations at that time, a
pretty toothless organization such as it was, of which Canada was
not a strong member.
That being said, Prime Minister King had little sympathy for the
republican cause and considered communism a great threat at home
and abroad.
Canada revised the Foreign Enlistment Act in 1937 to give legal
force to its policy of non-intervention. Travel to Spain and its
territories was forbidden. Those who went to Spain to serve on
either side of the war from Canada did so in defiance of their
government and at their own risk.
That is the basis upon which these individuals were not only not
accorded the respect and gratitude due to those who fought on
behalf of their country but were in some cases prosecuted because
they had broken the law.
Whether the law was right or wrong is not the issue. I think
there are a lot of laws passed in this House that some people in
the House do not agree with. However, that is not a reason for
simply breaking them. We need to respect the rule of law.
That is the position of the Royal Canadian Legion.
The legion studied this issue and stated:
1920
The legion was referring, of course, to the Spanish civil war.
It continued:
The legion supports the rule of law and does not view it as
appropriate to advocate a position at this late date which would
in effect legitimize that which was illegal at the time. This
could set an untenable precedent.
There were many idealistic and heroic acts during the Spanish
civil war. We know about the skill, courage and sacrifice of Dr.
Norman Bethune, and the dedication of Jean Watts of Toronto and
Florence Pike of Falkland, the only two Canadian women to have
served in the International Brigades. We know about the wounds
suffered by playwright Ted Allan and the hundreds who served and
died. It is fitting that these individuals be remembered by
their friends, supporters and communities for their idealism and
sacrifice, and some have been thus honoured.
Regrettably, it is not appropriate to grant them the status of
Canadian veterans. Consequently, in view of all the many factors
to be considered, I cannot support this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak today to the motion introduced by my colleague,
the member for Kamloops, regarding recognition of veterans of
the MacKenzie-Papineau Battalion.
I, too, like the member for Châteauguay, would like to see the
Canadian government finally recognize members of this battalion
as full-fledged veterans.
Despite the battle they waged against fascism, a battle that now
seems avant-garde, these soldiers of freedom are still not yet
recognized as real veterans.
Canada also took part in the fight against fascism in Europe, a
few years after the Mac-Paps fought in Spain, and I therefore
think that it is necessary, imperative really, that the Mac-Paps
be recognized as real freedom fighters.
The devotion of these men and women was complete and it was
primarily governments that waged an all-out battle against
fascism in Europe. Some 1,300 Canadians joined about 10,000
French, 3,000 Americans, and Czechs, Yugoslavs and British
citizens for the sole purpose of stopping fascism in its tracks
in Madrid.
Today we know that these freedom fighters were too thin on the
ground and did not have the back-up they needed, because not long
after their return to Canada, all of Europe was battling
fascism, and did so until the bitter end.
The fascists, having triumphed in Spain and already wielding
power in Germany and Italy, set their sights on all of Europe,
bolstered by their victory over the international brigades and
the Spanish republicans.
The international brigades, including the Mackenzie-Papineau
battalion, fought bravely on the front lines and we must
recognize the nobility of their contribution.
I must remind this House that the Spanish civil war was not like
any other war past or future. All wars are unique, iniquitous
actually. However, this one marked in a most particular way the
involvement of civilians in an armed political conflict, in
spite of the inaction of their government, in fact in spite of
its orders to the contrary. They were labourers, teachers,
journalists, and intellectuals, who left their occupations
behind in order to engage in a battle for the defence of
freedom.
The Spanish civil war is far more than a mere civil conflict, a
simple internal matter within Spain, as the governments of the
day claimed it was. This conflict will remain the symbol of the
commitment of men and women from all over the world to
safeguarding freedom.
The legacy of that civil war is precisely that international
commitment to preserve freedom. There were few professional
soldiers in the ranks of the Spanish republican forces; most
were people who believed in freedom and were prepared to
sacrifice themselves to preserve it.
1925
The Spanish civil war is also and perhaps particularly so the
commitment by intellectuals to the very essence of a political
conflict. It was first the Spanish intellectuals who refused to
give in to the military coup. The Frederico Garcia Lorcas, the
Pablo Picassos and the Joan Miros fought for liberty. Ernest
Hemingway, André Malraux and George Orwell traded pen for gun.
Was the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion not also led by someone who
lived by the pen rather than the gun? What else but the simple
belief that our most precious possession needed defending at all
cost would cause Edward-Cecil Smith to leave his paper in favour
of the trenches?
It was the ardent defenders of freedom who went to fight
alongside the Spanish whose government, the government they had
just freely chosen, had been toppled by the military. It was
these people whose courage, convictions and determination tested
the mettle of the Condor legion sent especially by Hitler in
support of the new strong men of Europe and the weapons and
military tactics that would soon rout all the armies of Europe.
It was these defenders of liberty who understood long before
governments the stakes involved in this little war, the stakes
involved for the future of Europe and for the protection of
freedom. This is the commitment to freedom we are being asked
to recognize by giving the members of the Mackenzie-Papineau
Battalion the status of veterans.
Canada must act now, before it is too late to do so.
Is Canada, with the United States, not on the short list of
countries refusing to recognize the involvement of their
citizens in this war? The list may be short, but in my opinion
there are still too many names on it—Canada's in particular.
Some oppose this motion for reasons of cost or potential
administrative problems. Others because they fear it might
encourage our fellow citizens to become involved in any sort of
conflict. We must not forget our history and we must remember
that, as parliamentarians, we make decisions that soon will come
under the scrutiny of historians.
Let us therefore assume our responsibilities and recognize the
great valour in the commitment of the members of the
Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion.
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
very honoured to rise today in the House to speak in support of
my colleague's motion, M-75, regarding the Mackenzie-Papineau
Battalion.
I have had personal experience with members of the Mac-Paps who
have worked so courageously to bring forward this issue. I would
like to congratulate the member for Kamloops for bringing forward
this motion to provide understanding and education about this
issue and to bring forward to Canadians the wrong that was done
to the 1,300 volunteers who very bravely went to fight fascism
before it was understood even by the Canadian government at the
time.
When we read the history of the Mac-Paps we see the courage that
these men and women had and the dedication they displayed in
fighting fascism. The fact that they were then vilified and
castigated by not just the Canadian government but by the RCMP
and by society generally is something that is a real black mark
in the history of Canada.
I think what this motion does is bring this issue back to the
Canadian people, to say that we must give recognition to this
noble and heroic group of Canadians who were willing to stand up
to be counted, to make a personal sacrifice, to go to another
country because they believed so strongly in defending democracy
not only in Canada but also abroad.
1930
One of the real tragedies of this situation is that when many of
these brave Canadians tried to enlist in the Canadian Armed
Forces during the second world war, they were denied and told
they were politically unreliable, these Canadians who had made
this commitment.
This is a motion where members of this House can remember the
history here. It allows us to give recognition to what is
regrettably a very small group of remaining veterans. There are
about 40 members of the Mac-Paps who are still alive. It is
important that we remember what they did. It is important that
we right a wrong in history. It is important that all parties
and all members of this House stand up and give recognition to
the work and the commitment the Mac-Paps have made.
I ask other members of the House to put aside partisan politics,
to put aside what may have happened back in 1936 and to say that
these Canadians must be recognized. What better place to do
that than in the House of Commons. There are members of the
community, members of their families, their children and their
grandchildren who are watching this debate. They are watching to
see what we do in the House of Commons to give acknowledgement to
the sacrifice these people have made, many of whom have now died.
I call on members of the House to do the honourable and right
thing, to recognize the Mac-Paps and to see what we can do to
grant some form of recognition to this truly heroic and
courageous group of Canadians.
The Deputy Speaker: I advise the House that if the hon.
member for Kamloops speaks now he will close the debate.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is an
honour to say a few closing words in this debate on Motion No.
75, an effort to give appropriate recognition to the
MacKenzie-Papineau brigade.
It is fair to say that Canada has shown leadership in the past
by acknowledging past wrongs and issuing apologies. In some
cases we have provided financial compensation. I refer
particularly to the Japanese Canadians who were treated so
inappropriately during the second world war. There was an
apology and compensation was provided, similarly for first
nations peoples humiliated in residential schools. There was an
appropriate apology and an indirect form of compensation was
indicated. We have seen nations apologize and acknowledge the
past wrongs of the Holocaust, apartheid in South Africa, and one
could go on and on.
It says an awful lot about a country that can admit it has made
errors. Previous governments had debates around some of these
issues but they made inappropriate decisions. They were in
error. They made mistakes. It takes a great deal of courage for
a person to admit to making mistakes and then to move on. It
takes some courage for a government and a parliament to say we
made a mistake to those who volunteered to fight fascism even
before we as a country did.
I appeal to my colleagues from all sides of the House when they
vote on this motion to set aside minor problems which have been
identified and issues that would make the implementation of this
acknowledgement difficult. Do the right thing. For the handful
of veterans who are living today in Canada, do the right thing
and indicate that we appreciate the fact that they led the way to
combating fascism for our country and in the world.
1935
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made earlier this
day, the question on the motion is deemed to have been put and a
recorded division deemed demanded and deferred until Monday, May
25, 1998 at the expiry of the time provided for Government
Orders.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
in response to the reply given on March 26, 1998, by the
Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions to
my question on employment insurance.
I had asked why the federal government was refusing to use the
surplus in the employment insurance fund to help all the
unemployed from coast to coast.
Right now, fewer than 40% of unemployed workers are receiving EI
benefits. This is all the more serious when one realizes that
the surplus in the employment insurance fund is up around $15
billion.
Why is this government allowing the surplus in the employment
insurance fund to mount up when people throughout the country
are suffering because of the changes to EI eligibility criteria?
It is often forgotten where this surplus comes from. It comes
from the workers and employers of this country who pay EI
premiums.
As the program's name indicates, this is insurance for the
difficult times when one loses one's job. Everyone hopes not to
have to turn to this insurance, but the nature of work being
what it is today, it is sometimes unavoidable.
Does this government not acknowledge that more than 60% of
unemployed people do not qualify for insurance? They are not
entitled to their own money. Not because the government lacks
money, either, as there is a surplus of $15 billion in the fund.
It is hard to understand why the government refuses to act on
this serious matter.
Yesterday, the National Council on Welfare announced that child
poverty was at its highest in 17 years. Their report emphasized
the direct link between increased poverty and the changes in
employment insurance.
In the northeastern part of my province of New Brunswick, the
unemployment rate is 23%. One person in four is trying to find
a job, and finding nothing. There are thousands of families
living in poverty.
It was even announced yesterday that the unemployment rate in
New Brunswick was around the 13% mark.
Often, the hon. members over there do not believe me when I say
that people are suffering because of the changes to employment
insurance. This National Council on Welfare report confirms
this, in black and white.
The time to do something is now. This government must start
working for the people of this country and must address the
subjects of concern to all Canadians, such as the elimination of
poverty, job creation, and a health system that meets everyone's
needs.
Let us start on this right now by reviewing the employment
insurance eligibility criteria. Canadians have suffered enough.
With $15 billion, we can put contribution rates back to 60% and
cover 70% of workers.
I did some calculations earlier. A person working 420 hours in
a fish plant or who has a low paying seasonal job with a minimum
salary of $7.50 an hour, for example, will receive $3,150
divided by 14 and multiplied by 55, the percentage under
employment insurance. He will get $123.75 a week. Nobody can
live on that. All the same, with the considerable surplus that
is in the employment insurance fund, this is unacceptable.
What is the government waiting for? Do the Liberals want the
poverty rate to climb? Let us change the employment insurance
criteria in order to remedy—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International
Trade has the floor.
1940
[English]
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is
committed to job creation and economic growth and it is making
considerable progress on that front. Evident from a steadily
declining unemployment rate, we intend to see this downward trend
continue. The EI premium rate must ensure that there is
sufficient revenue each business cycle to pay EI costs at
relatively stable rates.
The current surplus makes prudent provision against rate hikes
in the event of unforeseen economic and global changes. It also
allows the government to address unemployment where it is most
severe. For example, similar in concept to the 1997 and 1998 new
hires program, the 1998 budget gives employers who hire more
young Canadians in 1999 and 2000 an EI premium holiday.
We must also remember that just three years ago the federal
government's deficit was $42 billion. At that time the
government looked at all aspects of the fiscal situation and
there is no denying that EI surpluses played a role in restoring
fiscal health. This was not done in isolation, however, and
complemented other difficult decisions.
EI premium rates have been declining since 1994. This year's
decrease from $2.90 to $2.70 will save Canadians $1.4 billion in
1998 and premiums will continue to decline as the fiscal
situation permits.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
opposition to the multilateral agreement on investment, the MAI,
has been massive and is still growing.
It is not just the citizens of Canada who are realizing that the
MAI is a very bad deal. Also our provincial governments are
beginning to realize what a bad deal it is in terms of provincial
jurisdiction.
In March of this year I asked a question of the Prime Minister,
expressing increasing concern that, for example, in my province
of British Columbia government initiatives like the jobs and
timber accord and legislation to protect young people from the
exploitation of tobacco companies are threatened by the MAI.
The response I received from the government was pathetic. What I
was told by the government is: “There is nothing in the
negotiations that would threaten the ability of Canada to
function and operate its own house”.
Canadians know and understand differently. More and more
Canadians are understanding that the fundamental impact of the
MAI will be to undermine our democratic institutions and to
undermine the ability of elected governments to set public policy
in the public interest.
In British Columbia the provincial government is so concerned
about the impact of the MAI that an all-party committee to
undertake public consultation has been struck. The mandate of
the special committee is to inquire into and make recommendations
regarding all aspects of the MAI through broad public
consultation.
Members of the committee will be appointed shortly and the
committee is expected to report to the provincial legislature in
British Columbia in the coming year.
In speaking to this issue in B.C. the minister responsible, Mr.
Farnworth, said make no mistake, the MAI is not dead. While he
expressed optimism that the MAI treaty was not signed in Paris
when it was anticipated, he does point out, and I and many other
Canadians would concur, it is imperative that we take advantage
of this delay to continue to press the federal government to have
full public debate and hearings and finally to stop this deal
from going through.
The minister for employment and investment, Mr. Farnworth, from
British Columbia has written to the Minister for International
Trade calling on the federal government to hold hearings in all
regions of the country and has advised the federal minister not
to assume that the MAI will automatically cover provincial
measures.
Canadians want to know why the Liberals are so afraid to debate
this issue of the MAI. I have been involved in a number of
debates in my own riding and in Vancouver where not one Liberal
would show up to the debate.
1945
We are calling on the government today to be honest about the
MAI, to tell Canadians why it is that it is pushing it through.
We want to say to the government that the opposition is
increasing. There will be such opposition that we believe the
deal will not go through.
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, economic
isolationists all over the world are opposed to agreements like
the MAI. There are those who believe that one can build a wall
around the country and operate its economic system within that
wall and in so doing bring prosperity, good health and happiness
to all its people.
That was tried at the beginning of 1917 in the Soviet Union. At
the point of the collapse of that regime, the financial state was
so severe that the country is still in the throes of going
through a serious catharsis in terms of recovery.
Canada has learned in recent years that our economy is certainly
dependent on international interaction and international trade.
Forty per cent of the jobs created in this country are created
because Canada exports. Agreements are absolutely essential.
We learned a long time ago that Canada works best if there are
rules. We are not a large country that can simply operate in the
jungle. We have investors in other countries who are small
businessmen. They cannot go over there with batteries of lawyers
to engage in litigation. It is much more satisfactory if we have
the rules set up and we understand where we are going. As a
result Canada is prospering.
Canada will continue to prosper as long as we continue to reach
out and interact with all nations of the world.
DISASTER RELIEF
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise this evening on a matter of equity for all
Canadian farmers.
On February 19 and on subsequent occasions in the House I asked
the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food why he has not extended
disaster relief to farmers in the Peace River region of British
Columbia and Alberta who do not qualify under the disaster
financial assistance arrangements.
These farmers have endured two devastating years of crop losses
due to excess moisture. These arrangements are known as the
DFAA. Farmers in the maritimes who suffered last summer under
the worst draught in a decade have also been denied disaster
relief by the federal government.
Throughout the past two years we have seen special disaster
relief programs set up outside the DFAA on four different
occasions. The precedent has been set. The federal government
has shown that compassion and compensation are available outside
the DFAA criteria.
For the Saguenay and the Red River floods special subsidiary
programs were established outside the DFAA for farmers suffering
losses. More recently the federal government shelled out an
extra $50 million again outside the DFAA for part time Quebec
farmers with losses resulting from this January's ice storm. Then
again in March the minister of agriculture proudly proclaimed an
additional $20 million in federal funds outside the DFAA for part
time Ontario farmers with losses from the ice storm. These were
farmers who do not qualify and did not qualify under the regular
DFAA rules.
Let me point out that in each of these four cases farmers were
deserving of the special arrangements that were made to get them
through the devastation caused by these disasters. What is
difficult to understand, however, is that the government will not
apply the same rules and compassion to all disaster besieged
farmers. They have done it not once, not twice or three times
but four times.
The federal government has indicated that when the DFAA is not
sufficient, when it does not adequately provide financial
disaster relief to farmers, the rules can be changed and special
programs can be established.
For Peace River and maritime farmers the DFAA is insufficient to
meet their needs. The minister of agriculture has stated in the
House that these farmers have been treated exactly the same for
coverage as farmers in other areas. This is simply not true.
Until Peace River and maritime farmers receive the same kind of
subsidiary assistance programs as their counterparts have in the
Saguenay region, Manitoba, Quebec and Ontario, this injustice
will continue.
1950
These are the simple facts. In trying to justify his
inequitable treatment of these farmers the minister has also
indicated to the House that special subsidiary programs have not
been put in place, particularly in Alberta and B.C., simply
because those provinces have not asked for it. He made this
ridiculous excuse even though the $50 million special subsidiary
Quebec program was established unilaterally by the federal
government without the co-operation of the Quebec government.
I was pleased to see recently that the Alberta minister of
agriculture, the hon. Ed Stelmach, called his bluff. He formally
asked the federal agricultural minister that a special subsidiary
program be established for Alberta farmers in the Peace River
region.
I have just learned that Minister Stelmach's request has been
denied. I am unaware of what excuse the minister of agriculture
used other than maybe his compassion does not exist west of
Manitoba.
The truth is that the government is making up the rules as it
goes along. If it is to design special subsidiary programs to
address Quebec and Ontario farmers who do not qualify under the
regular DFAA rules, it should change the criteria for western and
eastern farmers as well.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we realize that
farmers in northern Alberta and British Columbia have experienced
two wet seasons in a row and have suffered significant production
and income loss.
We are also aware of the drought condition that impacted on
parts of the maritimes and Ontario in 1997. However assistance
under the standing federal-provincial disaster financial
assistance arrangement does not apply to the situations cited by
the hon. member because it does not cover income losses. It
deals with reconstruction and does not provide assistance where
insurance is available, particularly crop insurance.
The extension of DFAA assistance to Quebec part time farmers is
based on the same rules and the same procedures that applied in
previous major disasters such as the Edmonton tornado, the
Saguenay floods and the Manitoba Red River flood. The magnitude
of these disasters in terms of the broad economic impact were
such that a comprehensive subsidiary agreement covering
agriculture and industry were implemented.
We believe the existing combination of crop insurance, net
income stabilization account, NISA, and companion programs has
the best potential to provide the needed support for all Canadian
producers in cases of drought and excessive field moisture.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is deemed to
have been adopted. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m.
tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7:52 p.m.)