36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 101
CONTENTS
Friday, May 19, 2000
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1005
| CANADA LABOUR CODE
|
| Bill C-12. Report stage
|
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault) |
| Motions in amendment
|
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| Motion No. 1
|
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
1010
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1015
1020
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1025
1030
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| Motion
|
| CANADA LABOUR CODE
|
| Bill C-12. Report stage
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1035
1040
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
1045
| Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
1050
1055
| Division on Motion No. 1 deferred
|
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| ALLERGY-ASTHMA AWARENESS MONTH
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Mr. Mark Assad |
| GARY DACOSTA
|
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
1100
| LIBERATION OF HOLLAND
|
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
| DIABETES
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| SPEECH AND HEARING AWARENESS MONTH
|
| Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
| MAY 20, 1980 REFERENDUM
|
| Mr. René Laurin |
| CFB SUFFIELD
|
| Mr. John Bryden |
1105
| POLICE FRUSTRATION
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| WATER QUALITY
|
| Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
| CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Hon. Andy Scott |
1110
| MODERN EUROPE
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| MONA MACDONALD
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
|
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
| PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| SAANICH PENINSULA HOSPITAL
|
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1115
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1120
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1125
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
|
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
| Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
| Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1130
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| PRIVACY
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| TRANSGENIC SEEDS
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
1135
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| TRANSGENIC SEEDS
|
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1140
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| TRANSGENIC SEEDS
|
| Mr. René Canuel |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| BOATING SAFETY
|
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1145
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| HOUSING
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
| NATIONAL HIGHWAYS
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
1150
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| HOUSING
|
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
| TRANSGENIC SEEDS
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1155
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| ETHIOPIA
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| WESTERN ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION AGENCY
|
| Mr. Ian Murray |
| Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| SMART COMMUNITIES
|
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
| Hon. John Manley |
1200
| CANADIAN FORCES
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
1205
| PETITIONS
|
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Labelling of Genetically Engineered Foods
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADA LABOUR CODE
|
| Bill C-12. Report Stage
|
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| Motion
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Motion No. 2
|
1210
1215
1220
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1225
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
1230
| Division deemed demanded and deferred
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1235
1240
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1245
1250
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1255
1300
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1305
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1310
| Division deemed demanded and deferred
|
| Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 101
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, May 19, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1005
[Translation]
CANADA LABOUR CODE
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-12, an act to
amend the Canada Labour Code (Part II) in respect of
occupational health and safety, to make technical amendments to
the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and to make consequential
amendments to other acts, as reported (with amendment) from a
committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Two motions in
amendment are listed in the notice paper at the report stage of
Bill C-12.
[English]
Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted on separately.
[Translation]
Motion No. 2 will be debated and voted on separately.
[English]
I shall now propose Motion No. 1 to the House.
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.) moved:
That Bill C-12, in Clause 2, be amended
(a) by replacing lines 20 and 21 on page 1 with the following:
“to cause injury or illness to a person exposed to it before the
hazard or condition can be”
(b) by replacing line 25 on page 1 with the following:
“or activity, and includes any exposure to a”
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Madam Speaker, this amendment is to clarify
the government's intentions with respect to changes being
introduced to part II of the Canada Labour Code under Bill C-12.
In making these amendments we want to emphasize that the special
situations of pregnant and nursing mothers in the workplace are
dealt with in the appropriate sections of the Canada Labour Code
either under part II or part III.
In bringing this amendment forward the government wants to
emphasize that it understands and shares the concerns for the
protection of pregnant and nursing mothers which were raised by
some members of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and
Government Operations during detailed consideration of Bill C-12.
We are in accord with the need to ensure that appropriate
legislation is in place to provide that protection. However, we
do not think it appropriate to include the special situation of
pregnant and nursing mothers in a general motion on the
definition of danger such as was done during committee. The point
of this amendment is to clarify that situation and to produce
legislation that is designed to protect all workers under federal
jurisdiction.
At the same time we clearly recognize the need to meet the
challenges faced by pregnant and nursing mothers. In fact, the
changes we have already brought forward under part II of the
Canada Labour Code do provide for additional protection for
pregnant and nursing mothers.
1010
More specifically, under the changes that have already been
accepted by the committee and which will be part of the new act
is a section stating that women who believe their workplace
presents a danger to their fetus, or in the case of nursing
mothers to their baby, will have the right to remove themselves
from the activity without loss of pay or benefits. This provision
is found in section 132 of Bill C-12.
It says that a pregnant or nursing mother who believes her job
creates a risk for herself, her fetus or her child will have the
right to stop doing her work and take the necessary time to
consult her physician to ascertain if she is really at risk. If
there is indeed a risk, the employer can assign the woman to
other duties in a safe location. I note that under new section
132 the pregnant or nursing employee who takes time off to seek
the advice of her physician can do so without loss of pay or
benefits.
We believe that the special situation of pregnant and nursing
mothers should be addressed under sections of the code such as
section 132 that deal specifically with their issues and not with
sections that deal with general issues such as one that defines
risk for workers in general.
It is important that all hon. members understand that the
special situation of pregnant and nursing mothers is further
addressed under part III of the Canada Labour Code. This is the
part of the labour code that deals with labour standards.
Those who are interested in maternity related workplace issues
can also be referred to the amendments that were made to part III
of the labour code in 1993. The approach under part III is to
support pregnant or nursing women to remain in the workplace in a
risk free environment. The 1993 amendments provide for maternity
related job modification, reassignment, leave and other benefits
for pregnant and nursing women whose jobs pose a risk to herself,
her fetus or her breast fed child.
Under the existing part III the following process is to be
followed in the case of a pregnant or nursing mother in a risk
related job situation. Employers are first required to modify
the employee's job. If that is not possible, she must be
assigned to a safe job. If no safe job option is available,
leave is provided. Leave is seen as the last resort. In most
cases women taking risk related leave would have access to salary
replacement through employment insurance or a private insurance
plan.
That leads me to remind colleagues about the comprehensive
provisions that exist for maternity leave under EI. I am
speaking of provisions such as 17 weeks of maternity leave and 24
weeks of parental leave, soon to be increased to 37 to mirror
increases in allowable EI parental leave.
Part III of the Canada Labour Code also addresses the special
needs of pregnant and nursing women in the workplace. The
changes that we are making to part II complement these
provisions.
This is still a situation that has our ongoing attention. The
government is committed to making workplaces as family friendly
as possible and that includes improving conditions for women in
the workplace.
We have shown our concern and our willingness to strengthen the
protection for pregnant and nursing mothers in the changes that
we are now making to part II of the Canada Labour Code. We are
open and willing to consider changes under part III. In fact, we
are involved in active discussions respecting part III of the
Canada Labour Code that would follow logically on the reviews of
part I and part II done over the last few years.
With this in mind, we have interested parties representing
labour and management convened as the labour standards client
consultative committee which has already begun discussions on
issues related to labour standards. I expect this group will be
bringing recommendations for future consideration to the Minister
of Labour.
The minister respects the efforts of labour, management and
government to reach a tripartite consensus on challenging issues
in the workplace. At this point however, the best interests of
those affected by the legislation will be served by passing this
amendment and thereby strengthening Bill C-12.
I therefore urge my colleagues in the House to vote in favour of
this amendment so that we can finalize this important piece of
legislation and send it to third reading without delay.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Madam Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois was amazed to see that the definition of health, as
amended in committee, with the support of the Liberal member for
Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, was changed in the bill at the report
stage.
1015
This unacceptable correction to the work done in committee is
designed, and this cannot be said in any other way, to deny
pregnant or nursing women workers adequate protection,
regardless of the other provisions of this bill.
The definition of “risk”, to someone who has worked in
occupational health and safety, influences the decisions made at
various stages by experts, bosses and adjudicators. This is out
of the minister's hands.
Our parliamentary responsibility is to read the texts. What,
then, was this amendment passed in committee? I will read it.
It read:
But the following was added:
These words are no longer in the bill at the report stage.
It read further:
That too, which had been added and adopted by the committee with
the support of a Liberal member, was withdrawn. This concerns
me.
It means that, when the government says it will do something, it
turns around and undoes it. Nobody better try to tell me that
this is not significant, it is. What is incomprehensible once
again is that this was passed by the committee.
Clearly it was not done to get the Bloc Quebecois to give the
bill more support. We do not deny that, in some respects, the
government tried to make improvements, but as concerns the
health of pregnant or nursing women, the bill is far from what
it ought to be.
This explains why, later on, we will introduce an amendment to
enable working women in Quebec and the other provinces, at
least, if they have better provisions, to benefit from Quebec's
legislation and that of the other provinces, if they are better.
Under these conditions, the Bloc Quebecois is fiercely opposed
to the bill. Women workers have long been waging these battles.
It is unacceptable that women are not on an equal footing in a
province like Quebec. Within a single establishment, women,
because they are pregnant or nursing, have a plan that protects
them, that protects the fetus or the child, and in other
instances, there is no such plan. This is unacceptable.
1020
Mr. Paul Crête: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
There have been negotiations and I think you would find
unanimous consent to have Motion No. 2, which is currently in my
name, stand in the name of Mrs. Lalonde.
I seek the unanimous consent of the House to have Motion No. 2,
which I moved, now stand in the name of the hon. member for
Mercier.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member have
the unanimous consent of the House to proceed in such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Madam Speaker, in conclusion, I repeat
that it makes no sense that pregnant or nursing employees do not
have adequate protection and that, within one province, they do
not enjoy the same protection under the federal and provincial
labour relations legislation.
This is unacceptable and a disgrace. It is ridiculous that a
country such as Canada, which boasts that it is a leader, does
not protect pregnant and nursing workers. I cannot understand
how the minister, with all her empathy, has not sorted this out,
because it leaves a gaping hole in this legislation.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-12, a
bill to amend part II of the Canada Labour Code. There are three
parts to the Canada Labour Code and this bill deals only with
part II. This part is the only part of the bill that covers the
federal public service. Interestingly enough, House of Commons
employees are not covered as are other members of the federal
public service. That is something that has caused some concern
and some comment.
Part II of the Canada Labour Code has not been significantly
updated for 15 years. Even this update has a rather chequered
past. It was first introduced just a few days before the last
election writ was dropped, and of course died on the order paper
when the House prorogued for the election.
It took the government another two years after the last election
to reintroduce these changes to the Canada Labour Code, which has
not been updated for 15 years. There seems to be a little
foot-dragging on the part of the government in dealing with this
issue.
One of the positive things about this bill is that there have
been lengthy consultations between both employer groups and
employee associations. The groups have reached a consensus on
the kinds of changes they want to see in part II of the Canada
Labour Code. They would like to see these changes brought in
before the next election, which the Prime Minister is threatening
to call very soon. Therefore, we are hopeful that these changes
will pass through the process before the next election so that
the next government will not have to start all over again.
The Canadian Alliance supports the amendments in Bill C-12.
Amendments to the bill were brought forward by the standing
committee. One of the concerns that has not been resolved
between government and the stakeholders is the matter of the
appeals process. The stakeholders, management groups and
employee groups, agreed that there should be a two stage appeal
process. Currently, if a safety officer issues a directive, then
that directive can be appealed to a regional safety officer and,
if there is concern about the decision in that appeal, a further
review by the Canada Industrial Relations Board is possible.
1025
Bill C-12 would change the regional safety officer to an appeals
officer. This person would be appointed by the minister and
would be given quasi-judicial powers. A decision rendered by an
appeals officer would be final.
There is real concern that the one stage quasi-judicial process
would not be sufficient to protect the rights and the democratic
protections that workers should have. There is a proposal that
recourse should be given from a ruling by an appeals officer to
the Public Service Staff Relations Board.
We would support such an amendment. We believe, in fairness,
that there should be a two stage appeal process. It is
interesting that in almost all of its operations the government
supports multi-levels of appeal, particularly, for example, in
the immigration department. In fact there have been criticisms
that there are too many stages of appeal in some government
departments. However, in this case the government seems to be
wanting to limit the ability of employers and employees to make
sure there is a very clear and well considered final result.
The Canadian Alliance agrees with the whole philosophy behind
Bill C-12; that is, that health and safety in the workplace is
the responsibility of every person at the work site. This is an
important issue to be addressed. It is important issue to have
updated regulations. Between 30 and 40 workers in federally
regulated workplaces die every year on the job, and another
60,000 suffer occupational injuries or illness.
This is a very important matter of concern for Canadians.
Occupational injuries and illness not only cost the people and
families involved, as well as the employers, they also cost the
Canadian economy almost $5 billion a year. Most of us would
agree that an extra $5 billion of productivity could be very well
spent on things like health care, education and other services
for Canadians.
It is clear that government legislation and regulations alone
cannot promote a healthy workplace or prevent accidents. In any
workplace, if accidents are to be prevented, everyone must be
involved.
I refer the House to a report released in November, which was
prepared by the British Columbia Workers' Compensation Board.
British Columbia has very stringent health and safety laws.
Unfortunately, the November report showed that these stringent
laws were doing little to curb workplace fatalities. It is very
clear that a bill such as Bill C-12, which involves everyone,
both employers and employees, in making sure that our workplaces
in Canada are safe and secure to protect the well-being of
workers, is very important.
I urge the House to support Bill C-12. I urge the House to
support the appeal proposal and I urge the government to ensure
that the bill is passed and receives royal assent before the next
election.
* * *
1030
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken
place between the parties and the member for Esquimalt—Juan de
Fuca concerning the taking of the division on Motion No. 30,
scheduled at the conclusion of Private Members' Business today,
and I believe you would find consent for the following motion:
That at the conclusion of today's debate on Motion M-30 all
questions necessary to dispose of the said motion be deemed put,
a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday,
May 30, 2000, at the expiry of the time provided for Government
Orders.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent in the House to proceed in the fashion described by the
hon. deputy whip of the government?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
CANADA LABOUR CODE
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-12, an act to amend
the Canada Labour Code (Part II) in respect of occupational
health and safety, to make technical amendments to the Canada
Labour Code (Part I) and to make consequential amendments to
other acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, the
first amendment we are dealing with today seeks to reverse an
amendment that was passed at the committee stage, moved by a
member of the Bloc Quebecois, that would amend the definition of
danger to make reference to pregnant and nursing mothers.
I want to say by way of opening that the NDP finds no fault
whatsoever and agrees to a large degree with many of the points
made by the recent speaker from the Bloc Quebec. One of the most
compelling representations made to the standing committee dealing
with Bill C-12 was one put forward by Professor Katherine Lippel
from the University of Quebec at Montreal.
The NDP caucus certainly concurs with many of the things she
pointed out about the importance of taking extra measures and
extra steps in the workplace to protect the special interests of
pregnant and nursing mothers. I am glad to point out that the
hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour in her
recent address to the House also seems to agree these are valid
issues that need to be dealt with in the Canada Labour Code at
some point.
In order to protect the health of pregnant workers, their unborn
children or children who are nursing, our party believes that it
is necessary for workers to have the right to be reassigned to
tasks that do not present a danger to their health or the health
of the unborn child or the nursing child.
If the reassignment of these workers to other less hazardous
work is not feasible, the workers should be allowed to withdraw
from work and be compensated thoroughly or without any loss.
Workers should be made whole and should be able to feel free to
leave the workplace without jeopardizing either their income,
opportunity or ability to re-enter the workforce after the
nursing period or the pregnancy is over at the same stage as they
left.
If we were serious about putting a true right to protective
reassignment in place to protect the unborn child or the nursing
child, it is important that it permits the withdrawal of work
without penalty. That is a key point which I believe the member
from the Bloc made. I believe the member was motivated to make
that point because the law in Quebec provides for that. In that
regard the law in Quebec is far more favourable to pregnant and
nursing mothers than the Canada Labour Code.
I wanted to preface my remarks by saying how wholeheartedly we
agree with the concept and how we look forward to the day when
the Canada Labour Code is amended to accommodate pregnant and
nursing mothers in that fashion. I also want to point out that
Bill C-12 is the product of exhaustive consultations between
labour and management over the past seven years across Canada.
The experts in the field, the actual stakeholders and
practitioners in industrial relations in the federal
jurisdiction, have viewed every clause and every aspect of the
bill. They did not seek to amend the definition of danger when
the recommendations were finally put forward to government and
when government finally tabled Bill C-12. Even at every stage of
Bill C-12 to this point, neither the labour community nor the
management community in the federal sector has felt it necessary
to amend the definition of danger as it stands in the act.
1035
The NDP is of the view that Bill C-12 has much merit and is
eagerly anticipated by those who practise in the federal
jurisdiction. It has such a possibility of protecting the health
and safety of workers in the workplace that we are very reluctant
to enter into any kind of amendments at this stage that may delay
the speedy passage of Bill C-12.
The best thing that could possibly happen is that Bill C-12 gets
through report stage, gets into third reading, and gets passed
through the Senate prior to the end of this session of the House.
If it is left over to the fall, we are fearful that it may
jeopardize the progress that has been made through the process of
consultation, negotiation and now debate in the House of Commons.
I liken it to a lengthy and exhaustive round of collective
bargaining. Seven years ago labour and management sat down at
the table to start to review part II of the Canada Labour Code.
Both parties came to the table with a number of issues they
wanted dealt with. They exhaustively went through clause by
clause every aspect of part II of the Canada Labour Code.
Both sides showed real generosity and a spirit of compromise to
make it work. Everyone had to compromise their positions and
temper their demands with reason so they could put together a
package that would be palatable, would serve the needs of their
industrial sector, and ultimately protect the rights of workers.
Bill C-12 achieves that in most regards. One of the gains we
look forward to in Bill C-12 is the strengthening of the rights
of workplace safety and health committees so that they might
better oversee the conditions in the workplace to make sure that
they do not present any danger to workers.
It allows for regulations that every employer has to establish
and monitor a prevention program for the workplace. These are
big moves to anyone who actually knows the realities of this
industrial sector of federal jurisdiction. To actually have
agreed on issues like that one shows huge movement and great
progress.
Whereas we are sympathetic to the issue raised by the member
from the Bloc at committee, we believe the Canada Labour Code
should deal with the rights of pregnant and nursing mothers, but
not in part II. Frankly part III of the Canada Labour Code is
the area which deals with the reassignment of pregnant or nursing
mothers if they feel there is some risk to their health in the
workplace.
I should point out that part III is currently being reviewed and
amended by the same exhaustive process which we dealt with in
part II. We are satisfied the experts in the field, the true
practitioners in the field, will be seized of the issue and will
make recommendations to amend part III to give satisfaction to
those who are concerned about the issue and to those who believe,
as we do, that the current code does not go far enough to look
after the special interests of that group of workers.
We also believe that it would be wrong at this point to change
the definition of danger in part II of the code to specifically
point out any group of workers. The definition of danger should
be a general clause that deals with all workers in the
jurisdiction. It should not point out any particular occupation,
trade, gender or age group.
To be truly legally effective, the definition of danger has to
be a very general term that will stand up to any challenge from
any sector. We believe it was a mistake, although a well meaning
mistake, at the committee to seek to amend the definition of
danger to specifically refer to any type of worker.
The last and final point is that the only reason we find it
necessary to oppose the amendment passed at committee and
therefore vote in favour of the amendment we currently have in
front of us is the very real fear that if this were subject to
review, challenges or exhaustive interpretations by the judicial
department, or even if it ran into problems at the Senate because
it may add some unnecessary complications to the definition of
danger, we may run the risk of delaying the whole bill and losing
the opportunity to pass it in this session of the House.
1040
For that reason I urge all members to vote in favour of the
motion we have in front of us, which would reverse the vote made
at committee to include pregnant and nursing mothers in the
definition of danger in clause 2 of part II of the Canada Labour
Code.
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Madam Speaker, I
have followed the debate on Bill C-12 so far and we in the PC
Party as well recommend speedy approval of it. It seems that it
has the general approval of both labour and management.
We support it fully because key in the bill is an expanded role
for health and safety committees in the workplace that envisions
identifying and dealing with hazards, potential hazards and
related refusals to work quickly and efficiently in the
workplace. Now we have an amendment that addresses in a very
real way the dangers to pregnant and nursing mothers.
The bill claims to seek a better balance between the role of
government employers and employees in dealing with such workplace
incidents, with more emphasis on establishing rules and
procedures to deal with these matters at the local level. I
consider that to be very good indeed.
The bill has come about as a result of consultation among
government, business and labour in an effort to modernize our
health and safety legislation which last underwent a major
overhaul probably back in 1985. The bill has significant support
among the various groups of people involved in it. I understand
that labour has been consulted widely on the bill and that it has
significant support from management as well. In general, as I
said a moment ago, we support it.
It is probably incumbent on us to raise a few questions now that
we have the ear of the minister who is here today. No piece of
legislation is every perfect. No piece of legislation is ever
complete. The legislative process is a living one. Those of us
familiar with it are used to acts of parliament being subject to
ongoing changes as time goes by.
Bill C-12 introduces a new concept in the health and safety
arena called ergonomics. Subsection 125.1 states that employers
shall ensure that the machinery, equipment and tools used by
employees in the course of their employment meet prescribed
health, safety and ergonomic standards.
That sounds very good but it is a bit vague on detail. To the
lay person ergonomics is a strange and very sophisticated
sounding word. It is the art or the science of designing or
changing the workplace to minimize the risk of injury to an
employee in the course of his or her normal duties. It is based,
I would assume, on the old adage we have heard time and time
again that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound a cure.
It is interesting to note that the U.S. department of labour
announced a major ergonomics initiative designed to prevent an
estimated 300,000 workplace injuries, saving $9 billion in the
American economy. An American press release showed that the U.S.
federal government is very advanced in that area with a detailed
description of the roles and responsibilities of labour and
management in meeting these new ergonomic standards.
1045
Perhaps the minister might give us a some information on that,
and expand on it as well.
Another area of workplace safety not covered in the bill is the
notion of the psychological protection of the worker in the
workplace; the right to work in an environment free of harassment
and various other types of discrimination. Such matters can
cause grief in the workplace just as easily as a physical injury
or threat of a physical injury can.
While there are protections against a worker being unfairly
disciplined for reporting a potential workplace hazard, there
appears to be no provision in the bill to provide for a positive
psychological work environment.
Subsection 122(1) of the bill defines health as:
It specifically points out that it does not include the effect
of ordinary workplace stress.
In the modern world stress is often the cause of much grief in
the workplace, especially if the stress, be it physical or
psychological, is repetitive in nature. Indeed, repetitive
physical stress is one of the main reasons we promote the sound
ergonomic practices that I mentioned earlier. Perhaps the
minister could address that issue later. I would have thought
the avoidance or prevention of stress would have been a major
goal in any occupational health and safety initiative.
We have introduced two amendments today. The amendment
introduced by the minister clarifies the meaning of what a
dangerous condition in the workplace involves and addresses risk
related incidents in the workplace. We fully support the
amendment because it expands upon the definition of danger to
give reference to pregnant and nursing mothers.
This is generally a very good bill. It has the general support
of both labour and management. From briefings I have had from
the minister's office, I believe labour and management have been
consulted widely on this. We recommend speedy passage of the
bill and hopefully it will be passed before we rise.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
hope that you are listening carefully, along with the minister
and all the women in the House, because it is to the ladies that
I am speaking. The gentlemen may leave because I am addressing
the ladies.
The fact that the party across the way wants to withdraw the
Bloc Quebecois' amendment is quite simply disgraceful and
unacceptable for women. Over 50% of women and mothers work. Of
these, over 50% are pregnant or nursing their newborns.
The Bloc Quebecois member's amendment, which was passed in
committee and approved by the member for
Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, has been withdrawn.
The result will be two classes of women in Canada—those covered
by Quebec's labour legislation and those covered by the Canada
Labour Code.
1050
What do the women who are covered by the Quebec legislation get?
What does the Quebec legislation provide for women who get
pregnant while working in Quebec? As soon as they get pregnant,
and upon receiving a note from their doctor, the employer must,
if these women work in an unsafe environment, relocate them to a
workplace that is safe for their health and that of the foetus.
This is important. It means that we take care of a pregnant
woman and her foetus. Companies are required to relocate the new
mother to a workplace that is safe and that will not compromise
her health and that of the foetus.
What happens if the company cannot relocate the expectant
mother? She is told to go home and look after her pregnancy, her
foetus and her health. A mother is important and so is a
newborn. “You take care of yourself. Moreover, during your whole
pregnancy and after, we will pay you 90% of your net salary”. In
Quebec, we encourage working mothers to have children.
What does the Canadian legislation provide for women in the rest
of Canada and Quebec women who are governed by it? It says
“Listen, you are pregnant. That is great. If you cannot work, go
home. We will give you about 50% of your salary”. However, it is
not all women who can benefit from that treatment. Only those
who have worked over 700 hours qualify under the Canadian
legislation. This is a terrible shame.
I would like to have the attention of the minister, because the
women in the Liberal Party should fight to get the Bloc
Quebecois' amendment passed. Without this amendment, we end up
back with the two tiered system. There is the Quebec
legislation that may not be perfect but that leans toward
perfection and the Canadian legislation that pushes women and
mothers backwards. This is unacceptable to me, a man. How can
you, Madam Speaker, and the women members sitting here, find
this acceptable? It is, quite simply, unacceptable. The
members should think twice about it. Their solidarity is
necessary. I ask all women members to join with us and vote in
favour of the amendment by the Bloc Quebecois on behalf of all
their Canadian and Quebec sisters who work and who are mothers
or future mothers.
In closing, we must not forget that this concerns some 50% of
the Canadian population. According to Statistics Canada, some
50% of women are in the labour force. If Liberal members have
something to say to their caucus, to Cabinet or to the minister,
who appears to be a good grandmother and mother, but seems more
interested in chatting than in listening to the important things
I have to say, they should say it.
I ask that the minister use her influence to get the Bloc
Quebecois amendment passed.
1055
[English]
The Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Speaker: The question is on the Motion No. 1. 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:
The Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands
deferred.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
ALLERGY-ASTHMA AWARENESS MONTH
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to inform the members of the House and all Canadians that
the month of May is Allergy-Asthma Awareness Month. More than
six million Canadians suffer from allergies and asthma, and this
number is increasing daily. In many cases, this condition can be
life-threatening. In 1978, 2.5% of Canadian children had asthma.
This year it is at 12%.
Allergies and asthma are the number one reason for visits to the
emergency rooms. They are the number one reason why students
miss school. They are the number three reason why people miss
work. Allergies and asthma contribute enormously to productivity
problems and health care costs.
Through education, training and research, the Allergy-Asthma
Information Association and its partner organizations, the Asthma
Society of Canada and the Canadian Allergy, Asthma and Immunology
Foundation, help Canadians in coping with these health issues.
Please join me in wishing the Allergy-Asthma Awareness
Information Association a successful Allergy-Asthma Awareness
Month.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, criminals should not be allowed to profit from their
crimes, especially convicted killers. Yet in Canada not only
does the government allow convicted killers to profit from their
crimes, it pays them at the expense of the victims and victims'
families.
If a husband, wife or common law partner is convicted of
murdering his or her spouse they can still claim their victims'
benefits. Convicted murderers can draw Canada pension plan
benefits from their victims while enjoying the comfort of their
prison cell. This is unacceptable.
To right this wrong, I will be addressing this issue when I
table a private member's bill in the House. My bill will amend
the Canada pension plan to exclude convicted murderers from
collecting benefits from their victims.
In summary, killers in Canada must not be allowed to profit from
their crimes.
* * *
PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
during statements I did not have enough time to finish what I had
started concerning the Prime Minister's visit to countries in the
Middle East. The Dean of the Diplomatic Corps, the ambassador
from Lebanon, who wrote to the other ambassadors, stated that the
Prime Minister's visit was extremely beneficial for not only the
co-ordination, but for the business community, which we will be
hearing from very shortly.
In conclusion, the ambassador mentioned that this visit had laid
the foundation for even stronger binds of co-operation with
countries in the Middle East and understanding between Canada and
the countries of the region.
The letter was signed by the Ambassador of Lebanon, Dr. Assem
Jaber.
* * *
GARY DACOSTA
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
week it was an honour for me to attend a wonderful celebration of
excellent Canadian teachers.
Gary DaCosta, technology department head at Burlington's Lester
B. Pearson High School, was among the teachers presented with a
Prime Minister's award for teaching excellence.
1100
On a daily basis Mr. DaCosta gives his students real life
employment skills and inspires them to work hard and have fun.
His philosophy of respecting students and treating them as mature
individuals is working. His students have won awards and found
fulfilling careers. Interestingly, 50% of his technology
students are young women.
Mr. DaCosta coaches school sports and is involved in school
activities. He was the driving force behind the new safety
policy in every auto shop in the Halton district school board.
I know all hon. members join Mr. DaCosta's very proud family in
congratulating talented Canadian teachers, teachers like Gary
DaCosta.
* * *
LIBERATION OF HOLLAND
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
earlier this month I had the privilege of travelling to Holland
as part of the official delegation returning to mark the 55th
anniversary of the liberation of Holland by Canadian armed
forces. I cannot begin to describe the feeling of pride I felt
as I was welcomed by a truly grateful nation.
Dutch citizens have not forgotten the role Canadians played in
their liberation. Dutch citizens, including the very young, tend
the graves of the thousands of Canadian soldiers and airmen who
made the supreme sacrifice to ensure the freedom of fellow human
beings. Dutch citizens will always remember.
As we prepare to return the unknown soldier to Canadian soil, I
want to pay a very special tribute to the Department of Veterans
Affairs, particularly the Commemorative Department, for its
incredible dedication to the memory of our fallen forces in every
corner of the world. Canada most definitely remembers.
* * *
DIABETES
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, medical researchers at the U of A are
once again proving why Edmonton will go down in history as the
city where medical researchers set the stage for a diabetes cure.
This week Dr. Lorne Tyrell, Dean of Medicine, announced that his
research team in co-operation with the Alberta Foundation for
Diabetes has developed a technique that will potentially cure
type 1 or insulin dependent diabetes.
The team injected insulin-producing cells from donor pancreases
into eight patients and put them on a new low dose immune
suppressing drug. Before this transplant therapy, these patients
needed up to 15 injections a day and lived under the constant
threat of blackouts. Now on average they have not needed insulin
injections for 11 months.
This breakthrough comes 77 years after U of A biochemist James
Collip teamed up with Frederick Banting to develop insulin.
Congratulations to the entire team for what is truly a milestone
in the history of diabetes research.
* * *
SPEECH AND HEARING AWARENESS MONTH
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to inform the House and all Canadians that May is
Speech and Hearing Awareness Month across Canada. This is an
opportunity to promote public understanding and to educate
Canadians about the challenges faced by deaf, deafened and hard
of hearing people.
In this era of advanced technology, we recognize the importance
of being aware of and improving the situation for those who face
hearing related communication barriers. Speech and Hearing
Awareness Month is recognized by volunteers of professional
organizations across Canada. They provide ongoing services to
hearing impaired persons and are planning special activities for
the month of May.
As someone hard of hearing and who deals with this on a daily
basis, I ask all hon. members to please join me in congratulating
the many organizations and volunteers who through their various
programs continue to improve the quality of life for deaf,
deafened and hard of hearing Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
MAY 20, 1980 REFERENDUM
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, twenty years ago
tomorrow, 40% of Quebecers said yes to the sovereignist
approach. In 1995, the figure was close to half. Next time, it
will be a majority.
In the immediate aftermath of the May 20, 1980 referendum,
Premier René Lévesque described recognition of the right to
self-determination as the most valuable outcome of this Quebec
referendum.
Unfortunately, the Canadian government, with its Bill C-20, is
again challenging this precious right of Quebecers to decide
their future freely and democratically.
On the evening of May 20, 1980, René Lévesque told the people of
Quebec “If I understand you correctly, you are telling us: wait
until next time”. He was convinced that it was just a temporary
postponement.
The next time is coming up soon. The next time will be the
right one. The next time, Quebec will become a country.
* * *
[English]
CFB SUFFIELD
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on May 5 on the 55th anniversary of the end of the
fighting in Europe, an unusual ceremony took place at Canadian
Forces Base Suffield in Alberta.
It was to honour the nearly 2,000 Canadian soldiers who
volunteered during the second world war to take part as human
guinea pigs in trials with mustard gas.
1105
During the war the allies were convinced that Germany would soon
resort to chemical weapons of which mustard gas was the most
fearsome of all. It does not kill; it incapacitates by
inflicting huge blisters on the skin, on the soft parts of the
body, in the joints and groin areas and around the eyes.
In order quickly to develop medical and technical
countermeasures, Canada opened a weapons proving ground at
Suffield where these very same injuries were inflicted on our own
soldiers in simulated battle conditions. They suffered in body
and sometimes in mind that their comrades in arms would be spared
the horrors of chemical warfare. Their story remained unknown
for nearly half a century. Now it is known and at last their
country has thanked them.
* * *
POLICE FRUSTRATION
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, each day I receive news releases from the Surrey RCMP
detachment. I would like to read part of one such release dated
March 23, 2000 into the record to illustrate why our police are
frustrated.
The release is titled “Surrey RCMP's Auto Theft Division Picks
Up Vehicle Thief Again”. It goes on to say:
He has an extensive record for stealing trucks. He is prohibited
from driving. He is currently on probation for fraud and
possession of stolen property. He is out on conditional
sentences for theft, possession of stolen property, and
prohibited driving. He is currently charged with possession of
two stolen vehicles. He is currently under investigation for
other vehicle thefts. He will be making an appearance in Surrey
Provincial Court today where police hope he will be held in
custody.
Is it any wonder that our police at times just want to throw
their arms in the air and say why bother?
* * *
WATER QUALITY
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
earlier this week leading scientists and medical experts from
across Canada came to Ottawa to talk with parliamentarians about
water pollution and its connection to human health. It is very
clear from their discussions that there are a number of gaps in
federal water quality policy.
A series of recommendations will result from this meeting. Many
participants said that while there is good enabling legislation
available, governments need to do much more to use and enforce
this legislation. As well, a great deal of concern was raised
about the erosion of the federal government's science capacity,
about the need for stronger, better funded science in the public
interest. We also heard about the need to perform ongoing
monitoring.
I am sure all parliamentarians will look forward to the
forthcoming recommendations from EcoSummit 2000.
* * *
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this week
CBC's president admitted that the mother corp cannot keep local
news on the air due to 16 years of government cuts. He finally
admitted that it has been made very clear to him on several
occasions that the CBC is not a priority of the government. His
plan will eliminate 17 CBC local news shows in favour of a
Toronto based supper hour show with five inserts, one per time
zone.
Our most important cultural institution is redefining Canada as
a country without communities but instead time zones. This
homogenized confederation does not reflect the Canada I know.
The Prime Minister says it is okay, that $1 billion of stable
funding goes into the CBC every year. If only it were true.
Sadly, the CBC has not seen that kind of money for over five
years. The Prime Minister's figure is over $200 million too
high. This may seem like a small chunk of change to the PM but
it is a serious amount of money to the number crunchers at the
CBC.
I urge the Prime Minister to put his money where his mouth is
and actually give the CBC the—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Fredericton.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to take the opportunity to commend the Department of Human
Resources Development for its rapid and thorough response to the
highly publicized administrative audit.
Yesterday the HRD minister provided an update to the HRDC
committee on her department's six point plan to respond to the
audit's findings. Again I commend the minister and her senior
managers for the determination and integrity demonstrated in the
face of a very difficult and largely political last few months.
But I save my most heartfelt commendation for the thousands of
HRDC employees, already overburdened as a result of staff
reductions who are working nights, days and weekends under
terrible conditions because they believe in the department's
programs and their responsibility to Canadian taxpayers.
To all our loyal HRDC public servants, my thanks and my
commitment to continue to seek secure, tangible recognition for
the wonderful work they do.
* * *
1110
[Translation]
MODERN EUROPE
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago,
the French Minister of Foreign Affairs gave a speech that is
considered to have marked the birth of modern Europe. On that
day, Robert Schuman proposed the creation of the European Coal
and Steel Community, which has since become the European Union.
In order to make war in Europe impossible and futile, Robert
Schuman believed in the pooling of certain resources of the
member states, and affirmed the principle of equality of states,
in order to avoid domination of the smaller states by larger
ones.
Seventeen years later, René Lévesque said:
We believe it is possible to avoid this shared impasse by
adapting the two major trends which dominate our era: that of
the freedom of peoples and that of freely negotiated political
and economic coalitions.
The project of sovereignty-partnership was thus born.
Europe is still seeking to preserve that balance between the
pooling of resources and the freedom of peoples to control their
own development.
We wish modern Europe a happy birthday. Long may it continue to
be an inspiration to us.
* * *
[English]
MONA MACDONALD
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to pay tribute
to a very special teacher, Mona MacDonald.
I was pleased to attend the prestigious Awards for Teaching
Excellence reception on May 10, 2000. Mona MacDonald, a teacher
from West Pictou Consolidated School, was one of 16 of
approximately 240,000 teachers in Canada to be awarded the
Certificate of Excellence from the Prime Minister.
Ms. MacDonald has been credited with the establishment of a
learning centre to provide remedial help for students. Each year
she works with approximately 40 students from primary to grade
eight. Many of these students increase their skill levels to a
point where remedial help is no longer necessary.
Ms. MacDonald's philosophy capitalizes on the triple A of
success: attitude, advocacy and assistive technology, to help
both gifted as well as those with learning disabilities. She is
progressive in her thinking and a firm believer that technology
is an important teaching tool in today's classroom which she
calls the comfort zone. Her innovative methods have garnered her
rave reviews from parents and peers alike. She is a devoted
teacher who benefits many with her support and encouragement in
technology.
I wish to thank Mona MacDonald for her dedication to education
and contribution to our future, our youth. Her commitment to
excellence is inspiring.
* * *
[Translation]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Liberal government has introduced its endangered species
bill, a bill that is important to the protection of our
environment. Canada has a rich heritage of climate and scenery
and it is important that it be protected.
This is what the government is working towards by seeking to
have this bill passed. We feel that protection of endangered
species concerns all levels of government. The Government of
Canada is meeting its commitments. It is implementing a
balanced policy to save our fauna and flora.
This bill would require that strategies be defined to identify
each endangered specie.
This is another example of the government's interest in
protecting and promoting our environment, a heritage that we all
wish to preserve and pass on to our children.
* * *
[English]
PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, for
years the legislative provincial ombudsmen and others have been
urging the federal government to establish a federal ombudsman's
office accountable to parliament.
Such a parliamentary ombudsman would have the legislative
mandate to investigate matters of administration by all federal
departments as well as agencies or bodies directly or indirectly
accountable to the federal crown for the proper performance of
their function.
The federal government has resisted this concept and has
supported appointing executive ombudsmen or ombudsman-like
offices in various areas: corrections, banking, official
languages, RCMP, the military, the airline industries, and now it
is looking at an ombudsman for the Export Development
Corporation.
While these ombudspeople may do good work, they are not
accountable to parliament but in many cases are accountable to
the executive branch of government or corporate heads.
There would be immense value gained by having a federal
ombudsman system accountable to parliament. I am urging this
government to establish such an office and to integrate these
existing ombudsman offices into that system so that there will be
a complete, fully mandated, accountable parliamentary ombudsman
system to address the many complaints involving federal
government administration.
* * *
SAANICH PENINSULA HOSPITAL
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I have grave concerns about the future of the
Saanich Peninsula Hospital in my riding.
Once again we are facing further decreases in services provided
in our local hospitals because of continuing funding cuts to
health care by the government.
Last month I spoke in the House about the planned closure of the
level two intensive care unit for children in Victoria, one of
only two facilities in British Columbia.
1115
Now we learn there are proposals to close acute care beds at the
Saanich Peninsula Hospital. Why? Because of funding cuts.
A letter I received stated:
As physicians at the Saanich Peninsula Hospital and members of
the peninsula medical society we have concerns that the proposed
changes will seriously affect the ability of the hospital to
provide adequate acute care services to the community and in
particular surgical services.
We are shutting down services for our children and, once again,
for our seniors. The government continues to erode the health
care system in the country. This is not acceptable.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the privacy commissioner's report
said this: “Successive privacy commissioners have assured
Canadians that there was no single federal government file or
profile about them. We were wrong”.
That is unbelievable. The privacy commissioner says that they
were not properly informed by the government over the years. Why
not?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the privacy commissioner said was
that he understands why the information is collected and that it
is useful in the research of the government.
What he said was that the information is encrypted and that it
is secure. What he said was that he has some concerns for the
future. We have concerns and that is why we want to work with
him to ensure that the system that is secure today will be secure
tomorrow.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it would seem that someone has been
fooling somebody. She talks about encrypted and secure. I do
not think any Canadian believes that.
During the entire mandate of the government, privacy
commissioners have been deceived. They just admitted in this
report “We were wrong. We thought there was no single file”.
They were told there was no single file. That simply is untrue.
There really is a big brother database.
Why has the government been trying to hide the fact that this
database exists?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has not been trying to hide anything
about this database.
I am advised that this database is described in the InfoSource
website and in the department's own website. Information is out
there about this, so my hon. friend should withdraw her
unwarranted assertion. Most of her assertions are unwarranted,
especially this one.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, let me quote again from the HRD
website about this big brother database. It says: “It may be
provided to private sector firms for planning, statistics,
research and evaluation”.
Obviously it is out there in the domain. The Deputy Prime
Minister just bragged about it.
Will the minister be giving private companies Canadians'
confidential information? Or, might she sell it to the highest
bidder?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member is making an assertion that is totally wrong.
I am advised that this information is never sold, and, secondly,
that the information is encrypted and no specific information
about individuals is given out.
The hon. member has just contradicted herself and swallowed
herself whole. First she said that this longitudinal database
was secret. When I pointed out that it is already public on
websites made available to the public, she jumped up and said
“Yes, that's right. It is on those websites”.
Why does she not admit that she does not know what she is
talking about?
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I guess the Deputy Prime Minister
thinks it is all right for private business to have every detail
of our personal lives.
Canadians are outraged and alarmed to learn that the government
has been keeping every detail of their lives on a computer disk,
first because the government has been doing it by stealth,
second, because the government has abused our trust too many
times in the past, and third, because our personal lives are none
of the government's business.
Why are the government and the minister so brazen to keep
violating the privacy rights of Canadians?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member has totally misstated what I said. I did not
say it is all right for the government to give the private sector
details about individual Canadians. I said just the opposite,
and she should withdraw that inaccurate assertion.
They are the last ones who should make these assertions. Her
party said that there should be a DNA database on every person
stopped by the police. Is that respect for privacy? Is that
respect for human rights? No.
1120
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is a tried and true tactic of the
Liberals to attack people who are trying to hold them to account.
Not a single citizen gave permission to this minister and the
government to record the details of their lives on a computer
disk. Worse, it was not done in a transparent manner and it has
been shared outside government with the private sector in a
hush-hush manner. Nobody knew about this until the privacy
commissioner came forward just this week.
What does the government have to say to Canadians when it has
abused their privacy and their trust one more time, too many
times?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we do not abuse the privacy or the trust of Canadians.
We do not intend to do that, and we have not been doing what the
reform alliance would do. To quote the Reform justice critic,
“Even those who are found not guilty or have the charges dropped
should have their DNA recorded on file because police only arrest
people for good reasons”. There are big brother and big sister,
and that is not what Canadians want.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for
months now, the Minister of Human Resources Development has been
serving us up empty words, evasive answers, shaky proof, sham
reports and mismanaged files. The minister has become a cover-up
artist.
When will the minister admit that the revelations about her
department are creating a serious crisis of confidence with
respect to this government from sea to sea to sea?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, the department is
working to provide information in a very transparent fashion.
Let us look at what we have done.
In the context of our six point plan, we began by looking at 37
files, reviewing them in detail. We found overpayments. We went
after and collected most of the money.
We then looked at the rest of the internal audit files. We
looked at them in detail. We found some overpayments. We went
out and collected most of the money.
We then looked at 17,000 active files in detail. We found some
areas where money was owing. We collected the majority. Today,
$6,500 is owing to the government.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister should know that we have long stopped believing in her
figures.
First she told us it was $251.54; she told us she had published
10,000 pages and that everything was going swimmingly in her
department. She has come out with a sham report that leaves out
the more than $2 million that are being investigated. The
minister should know that we no longer trust her.
Will the minister assure us that the RCMP will never get its
hands on her famous files? She cannot even tell us that.
Enough is enough.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I fear that the hon. member is trying to
lump together some individual files that are being handled by the
police. She is presuming the results. She is assuming that
there is a direct connection with the department in all cases.
What I want to ensure is that if these officials do come back
and indicate that there is wrongdoing, then we will take swift
action because we will not accept abuse of public funds.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate getting a clear answer on
the same topic.
Can the minister guarantee that the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service never had and never will have access to
HRDC's megafile either?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, CSIS and the RCMP do not have direct
access to the longitudinal file. If they were to request
information from that file they would have to have a court order.
Finally, I would say that an examination has been done with the
privacy commissioner, which found that there has never been
disclosure for administrative or law enforcement purposes.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the minister undertake, in this House and
in front of everyone, to destroy that megafile that nobody in
Canada wants?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, not even the privacy commissioner
suggested that we do that.
* * *
1125
THE ECONOMY
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
On Wednesday the Bank of Canada increased the bank rate by some
50 bases points. It said that this was a pre-emptive strike
against inflation. Virtually all of the experts have agreed that
this is overkill by the Bank of Canada. In fact the inflation
rate actually fell last month. It did not go up, it fell.
In light of that, will the finance minister put pressure on the
Bank of Canada to reverse the hike in interest rates and refrain
from penalizing the Canadian people for an inflation crime they
did not commit?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is not the custom of the Minister of Finance or the
government to comment on interest rates or exchange rates.
My hon. friend by now should know something about the autonomous
role created by a statute of the House for the Bank of Canada. I
think that one could say that we continue to believe that there
will be good solid growth in the Canadian economy, based on what
has happened so far and with the support of the most recent
federal budget.
I hope that as my hon. friend asks his supplementary question
he will give the government praise for what has been accomplished
so far and what will be accomplished.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance commented on the bank rate
yesterday. The Minister of Finance has the authority under the
Bank Act to put pressure on the governor to change the rates if
he wants to do so.
On top of this, the Toronto-Dominion Bank and the Royal Bank of
Canada yesterday announced record increases in profits in this
country. An increased bank rate will mean more money for big
banks and less money for ordinary citizens.
I ask once again, in light of the fact that a bank rate increase
could also increase the service charge on the national debt by
billions of dollars, will the Deputy Prime Minister change his
mind, talk to the governor of the Bank of Canada and ask him to
roll back the bank rate because inflation is dropping? All he is
doing is slowing down the Canadian economy.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member has things slightly
mixed up, as usual. The Deputy Prime Minister has said that the
finance minister does not intervene in the day to day operations
of the Bank of Canada.
What we need to do is look over the medium term in terms of
fiscal or monetary policy.
With respect to the prime rate and mortgage rates, despite the
recent increases mortgage rates remain between 165 and 200 basis
points below their January 1995 peak levels. The prime rate
remains 225 basis points below its lowest point of April 1995.
* * *
PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
an internal audit recently prepared by Public Works and
Government Services Canada sampled 23 major contracts worth
almost $10 billion. Thirteen of those contracts failed the
audit.
Can the minister explain how public works mishandled $4.3
billion worth of government contracts by his department's own
admission?
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would not admit that at all.
The government contracting process provides equal access to
government contracts for all companies. The procurement process
is open, fair and transparent. It is audited by the auditor
general every year, and we do co-operate. Sole source contracts
are awarded for a very specific reason, whether there is extreme
urgency, low dollar values, or only one person that can do the
job. They are down 18% since 1993 and represented only 6% two
years ago.
They are published on MERX and open to challenge by anyone who
wants to question why they were awarded.
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, that is nice rhetoric from a government's briefing note.
The audit states that Hercules Avionics is beyond the delivery
date. The electronic support and training system is late and
needs to be reviewed. The income security program redesign was
terminated, and the department has no idea if it got value for
its money on the $180 million contract to fix the Y2K bug.
The public works minister has been there for three years and
four projects worth over $1 billion were botched under his watch.
Why has he not done anything to clean up this mess?
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Y2K issue is over and done with. We had good results from all
the work and all the preparation.
The reason this country and all of its computers did not shut
down was because of due diligence on the part of the minister and
the government.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the big brother database is a huge intrusion into
people's lives. It knows their income, when they have been
employed, when they have been unemployed, whether they have been
eligible for EI benefits, whether they have ever been in a
national training program, whether they ever had social
assistance. It even knows their family situations. It knows
about their T-4 slips, their T-1 slips and whether they have
ever been on social assistance at any time in their lives.
It knows everything about us from cradle to grave. Why do they
want this information from innocent, law-abiding citizens?
1130
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for three days now the party of the
extreme right has been saying that we should not have the
research database that we have.
It is interesting that the Harris government, particularly the
ministry of transportation, is selling confidential driver data
including home addresses to private companies without the consent
of Ontarians. It sells this personal information to collection
agencies and insurance companies, the companies that the hon.
member said should not have them.
Do members know what hurts? They are making money from it and
are refusing to tell us in this province how much it is worth.
* * *
PRIVACY
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we have been right more than the
minister. My question is for the Minister of Justice.
A number of the larger provinces, especially British Columbia,
Quebec, Ontario and Alberta, have privacy legislation just like
the federal government. They also allow access to those files
and allow the people to change them if there is misinformation in
them. The federal agency disallows individuals to look at its
files and disallows them to make any changes to them.
Why is it that the provinces allow individuals to make changes
to their files if there is misinformation in them, and why does
the federal government not allow Canadians that same right?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can only speak to the
existing Privacy Act. As I have said in the House, the privacy
commissioner has identified some concerns in relation to the
existing privacy legislation, concerns that are a direct result
of technological change, issues surrounding DNA testing and other
things.
I have indicated to the House that I would be willing to
consider a review of the Privacy Act, along with my interested
colleagues. In fact, these are the kinds of issues that we will
be able to review.
* * *
[Translation]
TRANSGENIC SEEDS
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we
learned that transgenic canola seeds from the Canadian prairies
were sowed in several European countries, because of a lack of
information. The seeds are believed to have been contaminated in
the fields by plantations located over 800 metres away.
Will the Minister of Agriculture recognize that, if he does not
ensure strict control of field testing activities, he will have
to take a large part of the blame for the bad image that Canada
is developing at the international level regarding GMOs?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that the
product being discussed here is safe. It is safe according to
the World Health Organization. It is safe according to the
Canadian regulatory system. It is safe to humans, safe to the
environment and safe to animals. It is safe according to the
World Trade Organization system as well.
The issue at hand is that the company that is selling the
product and the company that is buying the product did not have
their communications in line. The criteria could have been met
but the proper action was not taken.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the
minister admit that, because of his refusal to strictly control
field testing activities and to label all products, Canadian
farmers could lose access to export markets?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no reason for loss of the export
market. Canadian canola has the highest reputation possible of
any product around the world.
The Canadian regulatory system, according to all of what I just
said in my previous answer, says that this product is safe. If a
region of the world wants to make a political decision contrary
to a health decision, it is its right to do so, I suppose.
However the testing procedure is there for the buyer and the
seller to make sure that they get their communications and their
requirements straight between each other. The testing in order
to do that on both parts is available.
* * *
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the situation at Correctional Service Canada seems to be
going from bad to worse. The correctional officers at Joyceville
institution have issued a unanimous vote of non-confidence
against the management of the institution.
By the way, I have a copy of it. I am sure the minister knows
that I will be glad to give it to him if he phones my office with
kindness. How much more proof does the solicitor general need in
order to take some concrete action against the commissioner?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague is well aware
that we have one of the best correctional services in the world.
People from numerous countries around the world come here to see
how it is done.
1135
We in Correctional Service Canada also want to make sure that we
have the best staff. That is why we do reports and make sure we
have the best rapport possible with our employees.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, this guy ought to learn how to answer a question. The
question is about non-confidence.
The Speaker: Order, please. I am not sure, but if the
hon. member is referring to the minister he should address him by
his title and not as this guy.
Mr. Myron Thompson: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. This is not
isolated. I also have a letter to Ole Ingstrup from correctional
officers at Edmonton maximum institution which reads:
The members have instructed the Executive to request your
immediate resignation from your position as Commissioner of
Corrections Canada. This request is in response to your actions
which has brought Corrections Canada reputation into disrepute
and undermined the public's confidence in the ability of CSC to
protect them.
Is the minister prepared to work with the professional frontline
workers and fire this commissioner before there is a morale
problem that is totally explosive?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated previously, the rapport
between employees and management is vitally important. As my
hon. colleague is well aware, we in this country have one of the
best correctional services. An individual is punished for a
crime and is rehabilitated, and that is the way it should be.
* * *
[Translation]
TRANSGENIC SEEDS
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
to all the questions we have asked in the past year about food
safety and the quality of export products, the government has
responded that Canada's reputation was above reproach.
My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In light of the
business of the transgenic seeds in Europe, how can he explain
his laxity and his slowness to set export standards?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I state again that the standards are the
highest in the world. Even the governments of Sweden and the
United Kingdom have both said very clearly that this is not a
health issue.
The product that is being discussed is safe. It is safe
according to the highest standards, safe for humans, safe for
animals and safe for the environment. We are talking about a
business arrangement between two parties, not a health safety
issue at all.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Bloc Quebecois has been asking the government for
regulations to guarantee the exact nature of export products for
a year now.
Is the minister not ashamed to stand up in the House, when he
has done nothing to properly protect our export markets?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not ashamed at all. I am proud to
rise in the House. I am proud as I go around the world to
explain and to have people say to me “We want to talk to you
about your regulatory system in Canada. Your regulatory system
in Canada ensures that the food and the products that we produce
in this country, whether they be consumed in this country or in
the many places in the world that we market them, are the safest
in the world”.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, all the provinces have been working
for the past several weeks on preparing a full meeting of
provincial, federal and territorial ministers of health at the
end of May. This was the timeframe originally established by the
Prime Minister and his government.
Now the Minister of Health is in full blown retreat. We know
from media reports that he is pushing off a meeting until at
least June and probably even later. Could the Minister of Health
tell the House why he is retreating from dealing directly and
immediately with the provinces on fixing Canada's ailing health
care system?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will remind the House that in January I wrote to my provincial
and territorial colleagues to suggest a meeting in May so that we
could discuss needed changes to Canada's health care system and
additional federal money to support a coherent plan to make
improvements. Indeed we met earlier than that. We met in March
and we plan to meet again.
I am waiting for word. We are working with the chair, the
minister from Manitoba, to find an appropriate time for such a
meeting.
* * *
EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, ombudsman or no ombudsman, the response of the Minister
for International Trade to a review of EDC is nothing but
half-measures and missed opportunities.
1140
The minister failed to address the issue of transparency,
accountability and politicization of the lending practises of
EDC. Canadians want accountability from this crown corporation.
The minister continues to ignore this demand. Why?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my preference very clearly goes to
transparency. We are all in favour of accountability. This is
why yesterday the government's response to the report of the
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade was
that we could provide, following the very good work of the
standing committee, a positive and balanced response on the part
of the government that we will look into the need for more
transparency and more accountability at EDC. We have responded
to every recommendation of the standing committee.
* * *
[Translation]
TRANSGENIC SEEDS
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the
Canola matter, the government is refusing to even discuss the
concept of responsibility. This is unbelievable.
My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Who is
responsible for the problem being experienced in Europe at the
present time: Canada, because it has not wanted to pass any
legislation, or Advanta, because that company did not do any
testing?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will repeat that the product being
discussed today has passed through the strongest regulatory
system in the world. Its safety in terms of health, the
environment and its use on animals is without question, which was
agreed to by the World Health Organization and the World Trade
Organization, all those organizations.
If the buyers have a set of criteria that they want the product
to meet, whether it is this product or anything else, it is their
duty and responsibility to explain that to the suppliers and the
suppliers' responsibility to meet what the buyers want.
* * *
BOATING SAFETY
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans introduced new boating safety
regulations, operator competency requirements, age and horsepower
restrictions, and new minimum equipment requirements.
There were 200 fatalities last year. These can be prevented if
people take appropriate safety precautions. What steps is the
minister taking to promote these regulations in order that future
tragedies can and will be prevented?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely
correct. There were 200 fatalities last year from boating
accidents. We as a government are very much concerned. I was
very happy to launch national safe boating week from May 20 to
May 26. The theme this year is a campaign to get trained and to
get an operator's card.
My department has a comprehensive advertising campaign to
promote the new regulations. Over 1.2 million copies of the
safe boating guide are being distributed.
This year we are targeting youth. If our youth take proper
safety precautions we know they will also educate the adults.
Youth play a very important role in ensuring that we start right
at the beginning on taking appropriate safety precautions so we
can prevent those fatalities.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, a computer software firm in my riding is now
considering relocating in the United States. This firm has 400
employees and a payroll of $28 million. This is the kind of
industry that Canada depends on for growth and prosperity.
This company wants to stay in Canada but is frustrated by high
taxes and bureaucratic bungling. What does the Minister of
Finance have to say to the president of this company who does not
really want to move but feels he must to remain competitive?
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would appeal to the company,
the employees and the management to look at federal budget 2000.
In that budget we laid out a plan for a corporate tax reduction
from 28% to 21%. For a small business we apply the 21% rate now
up to $300,000 of taxable income.
When we look at small business tax rates they are the lowest in
the G-7. Our general corporate tax rates are coming down to be
competitive with the best and the lowest in the world.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, when I recently asked the justice minister her
reasons for denying Patrick Kelly a new trial she stated “I
concluded that there was no basis to seek a retrial”.
1145
I find this an odd decision considering that, first, the key
witness who convicted Kelly has admitted she lied during the
trial, and second, in a split two to one decision of the Ontario
Court of Appeal, one judge concluded Kelly should have a new
trial.
How can the minister conclude that there are no grounds for a
new trial when either of these two points should trigger a new
trial, let alone the two points taken together?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the hon.
member can suggest that a dissenting judgment from the Ontario
Court of Appeal should trump the majority judgment in that case.
It makes no sense to me whatsoever.
The Ontario Court of Appeal, at the request of my predecessor,
reviewed the Patrick Kelly case thoroughly. I reviewed its
decision and I reviewed submissions from Mr. Kelly and his
lawyer. I have concluded that there is no evidence to justify a
new trial or other form of judicial proceeding.
* * *
HOUSING
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
today in Le Droit the housing coalition FRAPRU slammed the
government for its complete lack of action on social housing.
Six months ago the government made an announcement. Since that
time not one unit of social housing has been constructed by the
federal government.
How does the minister explain and reconcile that even her own
party's report done 10 years ago on this issue has been abandoned
just as homeless Canadians have been abandoned? Where is the
housing to help homeless Canadians?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am quite aware of the group in Montreal. We are
having discussions with them at this time.
I want to assure the House and the Canadian people that I am
responsible for the homeless. This government has put $753
million of new funding into the homeless situation. In the last
year homeless groups in Montreal have received $4 million to put
toward different community interests.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
point is that no housing has been built. People who live in
social housing, low income residents who live in co-ops, are now
threatened with economic eviction because CMHC has failed to
address the situation of leaky co-op homes.
Will the minister responsible for CMHC ensure that CMHC
officials meet with CHF delegates who are here in Ottawa this
week to address the very real concerns of people who live in
co-ops that are a federal responsibility? These people are
facing a complete building failure because of the leaking
problems. Will the minister ensure that the officials meet with
the delegates? So far they have refused.
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first, CMHC officials not only meet with people who are advocates
of social housing, they also fund a portion of many of these
housing conferences. I was at one two week's ago in my own riding
that was funded with $50,000 of CMHC funding. I think the member
opposite should look into that before she makes such accusations.
CMHC is committed to public and private partnerships. It has
built 15,000 units of very unique housing over the last several
years. It will continue to do this. It is currently ensuring—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester.
* * *
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I just sent over a copy of the Department of Transport estimates
for this year to the government side. In those estimates there
is a line that says “contributions to provinces toward highway
improvements”. Then, in the list of provinces, there is the
province of Nova Scotia which gets $1.8 million. Then there is
the Outaouais, which gets $4.7 million.
Could the minister explain to the people of Nova Scotia where is
the province of Outaouais? Why do they get two and a half times
as much money as the entire province of Nova Scotia for highway
improvements?
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the critic from the opposition
party is quite aware of the fact that over the years we have had
a multitude of individual contracts on a regional basis between
the federal and provincial governments. Many of those contracts
have already expired. Some of them are still in existence. The
question that he has raised pertains to that type of procedure
for dealing with safety and efficiency features on our highways
within our provinces.
1150
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr.
Speaker, if the parliamentary secretary flips over the pages I
sent him and reads on to next year's estimates for contributions
to the provinces, he will see that Nova Scotia falls off the page
completely. It gets zero while the Outaouais gets a raise to $5
million.
How does the province of Outaouais get $9.7 million in the next
two years when the province of Nova Scotia gets less than $2
million? Where is the fairness and what is the explanation to
the people in Nova Scotia?
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated already,
negotiations are going on. What is essential here is that a
national highway policy emerge as quickly as possible with the
co-operation of all the partners, which means that all the
provincial governments must be willing to contribute and take a
very active role in partnership with the federal government to
develop a national highway system.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Canada first gained fame as a agriculture powerhouse through the
development of marquis wheat in 1906. Science will be even
important to ensure the agri-food sector remains competitive and
is environmental sustainable.
What is the minister doing to foster new generation of top minds
in agricultural research?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as has been well known, this government
and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has always
supported the development of young scientists and programs, such
as the science horizons program where over 200 young scientists
are in internship programs. Another program is taking place
today in London, Ontario where over 500 young students in grades
seven to thirteen are being honoured. Some are being given
financial rewards for a Canada-wide science fair.
We have done this in the past, we are doing it now and we will
continue to do it in the future to encourage people to take up a
career in the agriculture and agri-food industry.
* * *
HOUSING
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, there is a regional disaster
which is the size of the Quebec ice storm. The leaky condo
problem in B.C. has brought economic gridlock. There are
thousands of victims who are really hurting.
Will the government continue to record these victim bankruptcies
instead of trying to cover up the problem by changing its
computers? Will it actually put some money on the table, like
RRSP and GST measures, to give real compensation for the faulty
building code? Will it show compassion for victims, instead of
stonewalling the cries for help? Will it pony up instead of
covering-up?
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
GST is a nationally based tax. It is collected from federal
taxpayers right across the country.
The leaky condo problem is a faulty building code which is
provincial and municipal. It is very difficult to take GST funds
from the national taxpayer and pay it out for a mistake that is
local in B.C.
As far as ponying up is concerned, we are facilitating second
mortgages. We are making RRAP funds available and more flexible.
We have offered $75 million in tax free loans to the Government
of British Columbia but so far it has not been taken up.
* * *
[Translation]
TRANSGENIC SEEDS
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister for International Trade.
Does he not find that all the press and television coverage on
the problems caused by the Canadian canola seed, above and
beyond any health risk—that not being what is at stake, but
rather the reliability of Canadian products—is putting not only
the producers, but Canada as well, under a cloud?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many times I have to
say that this product has been through all of the testing that is
done anywhere in the world to establish that it is safe to
humans, to the environment and to animals. There are procedures
available for the supplier to assure to the buyer that the
requirements of the buyer are met. If that did not happen in
this case, that is a business decision and a business arrangement
between the buyer and the seller. It is possible to do and
should have been done.
* * *
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this week
the president of the CBC announced a new look for English
television news: a vision of times zones, not communities; a
homogenized confederation.
Is this the vision of Canada that the government wishes to
portray through our most important cultural institution, or will
the government actually start giving the whole $1 billion in
funding to the CBC, like the Prime Minister suggests is taking
place, which will allow the CBC to keep supper hour shows across
Canada?
1155
[Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week the president
of the CBC appeared before the Standing Committee on Canadian
Heritage, which I believe offered a fairly faithful reflection
of public opinion from one end of the country to the other.
He committed to passing the comments made to him at the meeting
on to those attending the board meeting to be held shortly. It
will be up to them to decide on what direction the CBC will
take.
As far as the government is concerned, our funding is stable. We
are committed to it, and it is our intention to continue that
stable funding.
* * *
[English]
ETHIOPIA
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Deputy Prime Minister is well aware of the devastating problems
brought about by drought and famine in Ethiopia. We know that
Canada has made its contribution.
Could the minister tell the House if Canada will be providing
further aid to Ethiopia over and above what the Canadian
government has done given the fact that the crisis is increasing
daily? Perhaps he could tell us what Canada is doing to make
sure that starving Ethiopians get the relief that they
desperately need in a timely way.
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
raising that extremely important subject.
To date, Canada has given approximately $16 million. We know
there is a catastrophe going on there and we intend to continue
to play a role on behalf of all Canadian people.
* * *
WESTERN ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION AGENCY
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Secretary of State for Western Economic
Diversification.
It has been almost two years since the Western Economic
Diversification Agency signed partnership agreements with the
provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Can the
minister tell us why such an agreement has not been signed with
British Columbia?
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Western Economic
Diversification)(Francophonie), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
agreement was just signed today. There were difficulties with
the previous administration but the new premier has shown an
openness to do business. We are really pleased with that.
I also want to mention that there has already been significant
activity in fuel cells, new media. Those kinds of results are
not unlike what we have seen in the partnership agreements with
the other provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba:
leading edge science, high technology, $20 million from each
level of government in each of the four provinces.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, over a year ago I tabled a motion in the justice
committee regarding home invasions, suggesting that it be made an
aggravating factor at sentencing when robberies, et cetera, are
committed at a residence when the victim is at home. The member
for Winnipeg South referred to my initiative as silly and implied
that I was playing politics.
This past week the Minister of Justice announced that she is
considering this very thing. Is the minister just playing
politics, and if not, then why did she not respond to my
suggestion over a year ago?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at our last provincial and
territorial meeting of attorneys general, I had the opportunity
to put this issue on the table for discussion. A number of my
provincial colleagues felt that the matter of home invasion
required further consideration on my part.
We are looking at a number of options, one of which does include
the possibility of ensuring that judges have the ability to take
into account, as an aggravating circumstance on sentencing, the
fact that a home invasion has taken place.
* * *
[Translation]
SMART COMMUNITIES
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Minister of Industry said the files of the smart
communities had been analyzed by an independent committee. That
is all very well. However, he set up the committee, chose its
members and set the criteria for Groupe Forces of Shawinigan.
Will the minister acknowledge his responsibility in this matter
and reveal the criteria set and the results obtained by each of
the finalists?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, each
member received an explanation of the criteria and of the
selection of each of the winners from the committee.
1200
I would call this a very positive situation. We are the first
country in the world to have 12 projects like that representing
the best ideas of communities throughout Canada. This is
something to celebrate, not criticize.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN FORCES
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, recent
newspaper headlines read, “Racism alive and well in the
forces”. There are 25 racist incidents documented between 1995
and 1999 involving military personnel from coast to coast. These
were reportedly after the forces instituted in 1994 zero
tolerance regulations concerning racist behaviour.
What is being done today to ensure the enforcement of zero
tolerance regulations and to create an appropriate environment
for our Canadian forces?
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to
the member and the House that racism is not acceptable in the
Canadian armed forces and anywhere in Canadian society. We have
completed a racism awareness program and prevention training for
all CF members through our SHARP program. Such training is now
given during basic training and leadership development training.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, this week's revelation that HRDC is keeping files on
every single Canadian was disturbing enough. Coupled with that,
the fact that some computer hacker could get in and get access to
that type of information is further worry for Canadians.
According to Martine Nantel, the legal adviser for the privacy
commissioner, CSIS and RCMP can legally access that information
without a warrant, without any authorization and even without the
knowledge of Canadians.
I ask the government, where are the safeguards for Canadians in
this state run computer information sieve?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I responded to that question earlier
today. Indeed CSIS and the RCMP do not have direct access to
this database. If they were to ask for information, it would
only be with the support of a court order. The privacy
commissioner himself has indicated that there have been no such
requests and it has not been used for administrative work in this
regard ever.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
it is a good thing I was not going for a million dollar question
today. I have to correct two errors in the record.
In my answer to the question from the member for Vancouver East
I said that CMHC was insuring 650,000 units last year. It is
475,000 units.
In my answer to the question from the member from New
Westminster, there is no such thing as tax free loans, but in
this case I was referring to low interest loans for B.C.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, the government's response to six petitions.
* * *
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table,
in both official languages, a number of order in council
appointments made recently by the government.
* * *
1205
PETITIONS
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions today on behalf of
the residents of the Airdrie and Crossfield district of my
riding. They call upon the government at its earliest opportunity
to invoke section 33 of the charter of rights and freedoms, the
notwithstanding clause, to override the B.C. Court of Appeal
decision in order to make it absolutely clear across the country
that child pornography will never be acceptable anywhere in the
country.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, the second petition is presented on behalf of the people
of the area surrounding the town of Cochrane.
The petitioners pray that parliament withdraw Bill C-23 and
affirm the opposite sex definition of marriage and ensure that
marriage is recognized as a unique institution.
[Translation]
LABELLING OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Madam Speaker, I have the
pleasure of presenting a petition bearing 1,155 names. This
petition calls for the mandatory labelling of genetically
engineered foors.
In order to label them, it must be known whether they are
modified or not, and this would avoid the disaster they are
facing in Europe. It is therefore my pleasure to submit this
petition.
* * *
[English]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Madam Speaker, Question No. Q-99
will be answered today.
.[Text]
Question No. 99—Mr. Norman Doyle:
Concerning the vessel Stena Challenger purchased by Marine
Atlantic: (a) what was the price paid for the vessel; (b) was
the normal public procurement process followed and if not, why
not; (c) who were the brokers on both sides of the transaction;
(d) what is the date of construction of the vessel; (e) where
was it built; (f) what facilities will be used to upgrade the
vessel; (g) what is the extent of the upgrading; (h) how
much will the upgrading cost; and (i) has the vessel been
registered under any other names?
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Transport, Lib.): (a) The list price of the vessel, the Stena
Challenger, was $60 million CDN, firm and final. However, it
appears that Marine Atlantic, MAI, was able to negotiate a $2
million reduction on this price, for a final cost of $58 million.
The vessel is also subject to a 25% foreign vessel import duty
and 15% harmonized sales tax, HST, on the purchase price, for an
additional combined cost of approximately $25 million.
(b) MAI followed an open and trasparent process in selecting its
vessel. Early in the fall, MAI carried out some initial market
research on the availability of vessels. Subsequent to receiving
formal direction to negotiate on the purchase of a vessel and to
maximize market coverage, MAI proceeded with an invitation to
tender, ITT, to secure firm offers from brokers.
In their vessel search, MAI went to the market and researched
over 40 vessels that were suggested by shipbrokers. Analysis was
done on the suitability, cost and capacity of the vessels. A
short list of six vessels that appeared to be reasonable
candidates for the gulf service was developed. In November of
1999, a technical team was sent to Europe to inspect the six
vessels.
In december 1999, with a desire to proceed with a transparent
selection process, MAI issued an ITT to maximize market coverage
and to secure firm offers. Using previously developed criteria,
an assessment team composed of MAI personnel and a naval
architect from Public Works and Government Services Canada, PWGSC,
formed a short list of three candidate vessels; a night ferry, a
day ferry and a Ro-Pax, from the 27 vessels offered by brokers
through the ITT. Of the three vessels, one was subsequently
removed due to its advancing age, high price and lack of adequate
head room for commercial traffic. The two remaining vessels,
owned by the same company, were deemed to meet price, condition
and capacity requirements. Of these two, the Stena Challenger was
chosen by MAI as best meeting their fleet requirements.
(c) Twenty-one brokers from around the globe submitted a list of
vessels in response to MAI's ITT. To avoid the issue of multiple
brokers claiming the same vessel, MAI requested that the brokers
provide a letter of acknowledgement from the seller, identifying
them as the preferred broker on any particular vessel. The Stena
Challenger, was submitted by Brax Shipping AB of Gothenburg,
Sweden, along with the appropriate letter of acknowledgement from
Stena Lines.
(d) The Stena Challenger is nine years old. Constructed in 1991,
it will be the youngest vessel in MAI's fleet.
(e) The Stena Challenger was built in Norway by the Fosen Mek
Versteder Shipyard.
(f) The Challenger had undergone a refit prior to being purchased
by MAI and will require only minor modifications. This work will
likely be carried out just prior to the vessel being put into
service on the gulf in 2001 after the current lease contract has
expired. No decision has been made yet as to which facility will
be used to carry out the upgrade.
(g) Having recently undergone a refit, MAI anticipates that very
little upgrading will be required to the Challenger and would
involve such things as the installation of additional seating,
Canadian approved safety equipment and new signage. Most of the
work is minor in nature and it is expected that is should be
completed within a month to six weeks of receiving the vessel.
(h) MAI estimates that it will cost $2 million to bring this
vessel up to Canadian standards, however, registration and vessel
survey and inspection fees are included in this amount. Actual
modifications and upgrade expenses are estimated to cost in the
range of $1.3 million.
(i) No, the vessel has only been registered under the name the
Stena Challenger.
[English]
Mr. Robert Bertrand: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the
remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[Translation]
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Madam Speaker, during Oral Question Period, I
gave some figures to my colleague from St. John's East and I
would like to correct them.
I said $16 million was destined for the victims of the crisis in
Ethiopia. To be exact, I should have said the figure was $16
million for the past three years, which is nearly $45 million.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The record has now
been corrected.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
CANADA LABOUR CODE
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-12, an act to amend the
Canada Labour Code (Part II) in respect of occupational health
and safety, to make technical amendments to the Canada Labour
Code (Part I) and to make consequential amendments to other
acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, discussions have taken place between all parties and I
believe that you would find unanimous consent for the following
motion:
That, when debate on report stage of Bill C-12 ends later this day all
questions necessary to dispose of the said stage of the said bill
shall be deemed put, a recorded division requested and deferred
until the expiry of government orders on Tuesday, May 30, 2000.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous consent
to proceed in this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I shall now put Motion No. 2
to the House.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-12, in Clause 10, be amended by adding after line 8
on page 22 the following:
“132.1 (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
an employee described in section 132 may, after informing her
employer, avail herself of the legislation of the province where
she works that relates to the applicable measures, including
those relating to preventive withdrawal, transfer to another
position and financial compensation to which she would be
entitled under the legislation of the province where she works.
(2) After informing the employer, the employee makes
application to the agency appointed by the province for the
purpose of administering provincial occupational health and
safety legislation and the agency may refuse the application.
(3) The agency referred to in subsection (2) shall process
the application according to the laws of the province applicable
to pregnant or nursing employees in that province.
(4) An employee who makes the application referred to in
subsection (2) may avail herself of the remedies provided for in
the legislation of the province where she works.
(5) The Minister shall, on behalf of the Government of
Canada, with the approval of the Governor in Council, enter into
an agreement with the government of a province or its agent to
determine the administrative and financial conditions of
applications from employees referred to in subsection (1).
(6) The exercise by an employee of the right under
subsection (1) is without prejudice to any other right conferred
by this Act, by a collective agreement or other agreement or by
any terms and conditions of employment.”
1210
She said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to move this amendment to
Bill C-12. Its purpose is clear—to ensure that all workers,
particularly those who are pregnant or nursing, are covered by
the legislation in force in their province.
This amendment would mean that workers in Quebec would not be
penalized by the federal legislation. Members should know that
approximately 100,000 workers in Quebec are covered by the
federal rather than the provincial labour code. Workers covered
by the federal code will be protected by the bill we are now
debating.
However, as far as pregnant and nursing workers are concerned,
this bill is far inferior to existing provisions in Quebec.
The purpose of this amendment is therefore to ensure that the
provincial code applies to all employees described in clause 132
of the bill.
The amendment was drafted by the member responsible for this
issue, the member for Laurentides, our labour critic.
I am pleased to be replacing her today, for a number of reasons.
The result of the struggles which, in Quebec, gave rise to the
present legislation on occupational health and safety and its
protection of women, must benefit not only women covered by
Quebec's labour code but also women subject to the federal code.
It is ridiculous that, within one province, and even within one
federal building, where some employees come under the provincial
code, there are women operating under two completely different
codes. What we are talking about is the protection of pregnant
and nursing women.
1215
This bill is an improvement over the provisions of the Canada
Labour Code as they were previously. It does, however, stop
short of providing pregnant or nursing women with complete
protection. There are several weaknesses in the clause in
question, and we are especially flabbergasted that, from the
moment their physician declares that there is a danger, women
will no longer receive their pay and will be forced to go on
employment insurance, if they are eligible.
This is a great departure from the Quebec legislation, which
provides for women to retain 90% of their salary. It makes no
sense for this to apply in one province. I am not familiar with
the legislation of other provinces.
I do know that, overall, provincial legislation follows federal
legislation rather closely, and I find that regrettable. We in
Quebec cannot stand for there being such a difference between
the coverage provided to women under provincial legislation and
what is provided to women covered by the Canada Labour Code.
That is the reason behind our calling for this amendment. We
know that we are again dealing with the matter of Quebec versus
Canada. In this case, it is very frustrating because these are
social policies.
I was vice-president of the CSN at the time that the Quebec
legislation was introduced and discussed, in 1997. It was no
easy task to get the provisions contained in the Quebec
occupational health and safety legislation passed. Nor has it
been an easy task to maintain them.
On a number of occasions, the employers who are equally
represented on the committee overseeing the implementation of
the occupational health and safety act said several times “But
that is costly and should not be covered by the CSST”. But the
debates and discussions have continued.
The principle is that a pregnant or nursing employee who may
feel she, her baby or the fetus is at risk because she is
working, should not find it difficult to be moved or, if she
cannot be moved to another job, she should be able to stay at
home and wait to return to work as an employee and a contributor
to the production and enrichment of the compagny.
What we did in Quebec was spread the costs among everyone. It
then becomes a general social benefit paid for by everyone.
It makes no sense for the present legislation to compel the
woman to stay at work. This is the serious part. If the woman
does not accept it, what does she do? Does she agree to stay at
work, despite the risks? That is what this means, exactly what
this means.
It does not encourage a woman to question. It encourages her,
if hers is the only income or if this income is vital, to agree
to conditions that are dangerous to her or her child or to not
nurse the child. This makes no sense. Let no one try to tell
me she can receive employment insurance benefits. First, she
needs to be eligible for them and then, if she ever needs them
because of a layoff or for other reasons, she will no longer be
able to draw them.
That means that the health of pregnant women is not given the
attention it is due. I do not understand how we could come to
that.
1220
I heard the NDP member say earlier that that could be considered
elsewhere, but the legislation will be there. Once it is
passed, that is what will apply and, as far as I know, there is
no thought being given to amending it again.
It seems to me that this amendment is acceptable. I think this
is an opportunity, in this House, to allow women in Quebec to be
treated on an equal footing with women covered by Quebec's
labour legislation.
I am basically begging, because it is women who will be
penalized, when all that is needed is agreement for provincial
legislation to apply.
Furthermore, I should point out that this was the case until
1988, until a constitutional ruling. I should also point out
that there is an agreement with one department concerning
certain workers.
So, if it can be done by agreement, why could women not benefit
in all cases from this right acquired and maintained at such
cost by women in Quebec and their male colleagues?
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker,
Motion No. 2 seeks to amend Bill C-12 by adding further language
to section 132, which would make it such that the rules in the
provincial jurisdiction would take precedence over the federal
code in matters related to pregnant and nursing mothers in the
workplace.
Section 132 consists of totally new language. All of section
132, which deals with pregnant and nursing employees, consists of
brand new language and is the product of the same comprehensive,
co-operative, joint committee work that has been undertaken for
many years between labour and management. The language that we
have in Bill C-12 concerning section 132 is what the industry
sector stakeholders agreed to. They saw no need to amend it
further. There was no directive to us from labour
representatives indicating that they wanted additional changes to
section 132. FETCO, the employer agency in the federal
jurisdiction, was satisfied with the new section 132.
The only amendment that the NDP sought was to add further
clarification to one clause. That amendment failed at committee.
Frankly, it is not of much concern to us. We only hoped to
further clarify the intention of section 132.
With reference to the speech we just heard from the Bloc member,
everyone agrees that we should all have legislation that is as
civilized as that which is enjoyed by Quebec workers in the
province of Quebec. I have no doubt in my mind that pregnant and
nursing employees in the province of Quebec are better served
than in any other jurisdiction, and that they are better served than
they would be under the Canada Labour Code. However, the impact
of the amendment the Bloc put forward would give primacy to
provincial legislation over federal legislation. In many
provinces, if the provincial legislation had primacy, Canadian
female workers would have lesser terms and conditions than those
provided in the code, other than in the province of Quebec.
1225
The NDP cannot agree with this because in the other nine
provinces and two territories the standards would actually
decrease, rather than increase to the highest standards, which
are those found in the province of Quebec.
The other reason we are reluctant to support this amendment is,
as with the first motion, we do not want to see this bill delayed
in any way, shape or form. We believe that the motion which was
put forward by the hon. member from the Bloc would cause delays.
When this bill reaches the Senate, I believe that the Senate
review committee would have serious problems with the language.
The Senate would ask for a review by the justice department to
see what the real impact would be. Would it overlap with
provincial jurisdiction? Could there be a constitutional
challenge?
In other words, even if this amendment passed all of those
tests, it would cause delays that would take us well beyond the
end of this session. It would take us into the fall. Who knows
what the future will bring in the fall of this year. We may be
faced with an election. It would be very regrettable if this
legislation did not get back on the books at all. All of the
people in the federal jurisdiction who have been waiting
patiently for amendments to part II of the Canada Labour Code,
who have been waiting patiently for all the positive changes in
part II, would be further frustrated. The whole process would
have to be started again.
It is with regret that our caucus cannot support this motion. I
should make it abundantly clear that it has nothing to do with
the merits of the argument brought forward that pregnant women
and nursing mothers need additional recognition due to their
special circumstances in the workplace. However, my party is
comfortable that part III of the Canada Labour Code deals with
the redeployment of pregnant or nursing mothers who feel that
they or their babies may be in some danger in the workplace.
Furthermore, part III of the code is being reviewed in the same
comprehensive fashion as part II. It is being reviewed by the
actual stakeholders, labour and management, and FETCO, which
represents employers in the federal jurisdiction. They are
seized of this issue. They know that the current code is lacking
and needs improvement. Part III is the appropriate place to make
improvements to the issues we are talking about, not part II.
I would appeal to all members of the House to support Bill C-12
as amended. The NDP hopes that the bill will be widely received
in a positive way by all parties. Let us move quickly to pass
the bill into law prior to the end of the session.
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I want to echo the words of the
NDP member opposite. He has very clearly indicated that the
amendments we see to section 132 which were presented to the
committee are indeed the result of a tripartite agreement.
The amendments proposed by the Bloc would dismiss the work done
on the tripartite agreement and would provide for a different
kind of classification between one worker in the federal sector
and another.
The current legislation would give pregnant women and nursing
mothers the right to refuse work which they deem would be of
danger to themselves, their fetus or their nursing child. As
such, we feel very confident that this legislation would give
adequate protection.
On issues of compensation and further review, there is an
opportunity under part III of the Canada Labour Code, which deals
specifically with maternity related reassignment, leave and
benefits. There is an opportunity, in the spirit of labour,
management and government working together, to make amendments
under part III of the Canada Labour Code. The groups are working
on that, and that is where these issues could be dealt with more
fully.
1230
We on this side of the House have, for quite some time, wanted to
see protection for nursing mothers, fetuses and pregnant women.
That is why we were so pleased to see the results of the
tripartite agreement that gave, for the first time, under part
II, section 132, these protections.
Rather than belabour the point, I will just echo the comments of
the member opposite. He has put the situation as we see it
clearly and concisely. We would urge all members of the
government to support the bill as it currently is before us, and
to reject the amendments brought forward by the Bloc today.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Pursuant to order made
earlier this day, the recorded division on Motion No. 2 is
deemed demanded and deferred.
Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the recorded division
on the motion stands deferred until Tuesday, May 30, 2000 at the
end of the time provided for Private Members' Business.
[English]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I think that if you were to seek unanimous consent, the
House might agree to seeing the clock as being 1.30 p.m., and the
House could then proceed to Private Member's Business.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Would the House be
agreeable to proceeding in such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
The House resumed from April 6 consideration of the motion and
of the amendment.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise and speak to this motion
which was introduced by my colleague. The motion calls for
co-operation among like-minded nations to develop multilateral
initiatives in order to strengthen the capacity of international
organizations and prevent conflicts that have created havoc on
civilian populations. This is a very important subject as
today's conflicts are unfortunately using civilians as pawns in
people's desire for power.
I will talk for a moment about what we see on television screens
these days. We see conflicts, havoc, devastation and the misery
that civilian populations are subjected to these days. The
horror stories resulting from these conflicts boggles the mind.
An urgent response from the international community is needed in
order to respond to these cries for help. These are helpless
civilians caught in a conflict for which they have no say.
What is even more tragic is that the majority of these conflicts
taking place on continents around the world are against
democracy. Democracy is under attack. Elected governments are
under severe attack by individuals and organizations that have no
ideological desire to improve the lot of the people but are
attempting to seize power for their own egotistical desire for
power.
At the dawn of the 21st century, this is a serious concern that
the world community must take into account.
1235
Therefore, my colleague has introduced this motion asking that
like-minded nations—when we talk about like-minded nations we
are discussing countries that hold democratic values very
high—put pressure on countries in conflict and work toward
preventing these conflicts from taking place.
There is no point in reacting after the fact. As we have
witnessed in the Rwanda genocide, in Kosovo and today in Sierra
Leone, the conflicts explode so rapidly, with the civilian
population being murdered, that by the time today's international
intervention takes place, misery has already been created.
We witnessed the late reaction to Rwanda, the late reaction now
to Sierra Leone and, to a degree, the late reaction even in
Kosovo where when the international community finally came it was
after thousands had already died or had been displaced from their
homes. In Sierra Leone, tragically, many people had limbs cut
off and children were being used as soldiers.
When we see these things at the dawn of the 21st century, we
cannot understand how, with the rapid communications we have and
the ability and co-operation we have, we continue to fail to
address these issues.
This motion is asking that we address the issue far in advance,
identify the areas of potential conflict and move in rapidly to
diffuse the situation. We are now trying to address the issue
through the international code, but this is after the fact when
the damage has already been done to future generations.
We must, for the sake of democracy, for the sake of humanity and
for the sake of the children, address this issue now.
What is the driving force that creates these conflicts? Prior
to the collapse of the cold war, we had ideologies that drove
these conflicts. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the
cold war, we now see a marked change in these conflicts. They
have now moved in order to fulfil some people's egos. They are
fueled by money.
The key issue is that these conflicts are no longer supported by
other ideological nations but are supported by money. Where is
the money coming from? It is quite sad to see the conflicts that
are now being fueled by money. Who is financing these conflicts?
In many Latin American countries, the money comes from drug
sales. Where does the money come from on the continent of
Africa? It comes from the rich diamond fields. For those engaged
in the conflicts today it has become very evident that they are
in control of the natural resources and specifically diamonds.
They market these diamonds in the international marketplace, take
the money and then fuel their war where they create misery.
1240
Aside from plundering the natural wealth, which is not being
used to advance the social fabric, the democratic fabric nor the
lives of the citizens of that nation, this has been squandered
and has helped fuel the majority of the wars that are taking
place in many countries around the world.
We in the developed world have the ability to starve off the
financial resources that these people are getting by helping to
identify the potential future areas of conflict and diffuse them.
We are bound to create a situation where they can no longer
access money from the international market by selling their
diamonds or other natural products, including drugs.
More important, we know from experience that sanctions are not
working. Iraq is one example of where sanctions have not worked.
In many other countries in the world sanctions have not worked.
If sanctions have not worked, what else will work? Dialogue?
Diplomacy? Those are good ideas but how will we put pressure on
them? In the first place, these people who are responsible for
the conflict have refused to listen to the voice of reason.
We are asking all members of the House to look at this motion
and at its long term implication that will help solve and prevent
conflicts. This is an extremely important motion to me. I hope
all my colleagues in the House see the motion in that capacity
and support it.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the
motion currently before the House in its amended form calls on
the government to continue and intensify efforts with other
nations to further develop multilateral initiatives in order to
strengthen the capacity of the international organizations to
enable them to identify the precursors to conflict and improve
their conflict prevention capabilities.
Canada attaches great importance to conflict prevention and
improving existing international capabilities for early warning.
We continue to be involved in ongoing efforts to strengthen the
existing tools of international conflict prevention in a variety
of fora which have been discussed in previous debates.
Today I will highlight the important work of the G-8 in the area
of conflict prevention. As mentioned in previous debates, the
G-8, of which Canada is an active member, is seized of this
issue. In advance of the G-8 summit in Japan this July,
officials have held several policy meetings on a variety of
subjects, including conflict prevention.
At a meeting of the G-8 conflict prevention officials in March
of this year, it was agreed that recommendations would be made in
advance of the leader's summit to undertake a series of
initiatives related to small arms, conflict and development,
diamonds, and children in armed conflict.
Canada has been heavily involved in advancing key aspects of the
human security agenda in the G-8 context and working to ensure
efforts complement work in other fora, in particular the UN
Security Council.
The work undertaken by the G-8 conflict prevention officials
reveals a strong commitment to the implementation of the Berlin
communiqué agreed to in December 1999.
There has been considerable development of action oriented
conflict prevention initiatives which will draw on the
comparative advantage of the G-8 in specific areas. Officials
also recognize the importance of effective consideration of the
economic side of the conflict prevention in order to ensure a
truly comprehensive and coherent approach by G-8 partners.
1245
The G-8 is working in support of national, regional and global
efforts to ensure that the challenges of destabilizing
proliferation of small arms faced by the international community
are addressed.
The G-8 conflict prevention officials have advanced several
ideas in response to these challenges which will lessen the
impact of destabilization, accumulations of small arms on ongoing
conflict, as well as preventing new conflicts.
In particular, the G-8 intends to continue exercising a high
degree of responsibility in licensing exports of small arms,
while recognizing legitimate defence and security concerns of
importing states. It will be implemented in conjunction with
demand side measures. In this context the G-8 conflict
prevention officials stress the importance of the adoption of the
ECOWAS moratorium on the importation, exportation and manufacture
of light weapons in October 1998.
The G-8 intends to work to ensure that its expert policies and
decisions respect the moratorium and will provide support to
capacity building projects in states directly affected by illicit
small arms trafficking.
Recognizing that economic growth and sustainable development
will exist only when there is peace and democratic stability, the
G-8 will promote the consideration of conflict prevention and
development assistance strategies. It will enhance assistance to
ensure a focused, quick response with the aim of conflict
prevention. It will ensure a smooth transition from emergency
humanitarian assistance to development assistance in the
post-conflict stage.
Specifically the G-8 will work with bilateral and multilateral
actors and the international financial institution to promote and
develop good governance and respect for the rule of law,
including capacity building of administrative, police and
judicial institutions.
Along with the organizations such as the OECD development
assistance committee, DAC, the G-8 will also monitor and assess
bilateral donors practices in seeking to address conflict
prevention within the broader development assistance strategies.
As Canada has advanced as chair of the UN security counsel
Angola sanctions committee, there is international recognition
that illicit trade of certain high value commodities, in this
case particularly diamonds, provides funds for arms purchases,
which fuels conflict and creates humanitarian crises. This is
evidenced by the ongoing conflicts in Angola, the Democratic
Republic of the Congo and Sierra Leone.
The G-8 conflict prevention officials have called for producing
and consuming countries and leaders in the diamond industry to
ensure transparency and accountability in the diamond trade.
The G-8 also supports the efforts of African states in
strengthening regional law enforcement and internal capacity
building for controlling the illicit trade of diamonds.
Of particular interest to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and
many other Canadian parliamentarians is the impact of armed
conflict on child participants and child victims.
I had the pleasure of leading as chair of the Asia-Pacific
Parliamentary Forum a delegation in January to discuss this issue
with parliamentarians from Asia, the United States and Latin
America. Several approaches to the subject have been agreed upon
by the G-8 conflict prevention officials.
These include maintaining pressure against those who involve or
target children in armed conflict in breach of international
standards such as the ILO convention on the elimination of the
worst forms of child labour, which prohibits forced recruitment
of those 18 years of age into armed forces and the early adoption
of the optional protocol to the convention on the rights of the
child on the involvement of children in armed conflict.
The G-8 continues to be an important forum for discussion on
armed conflict prevention because of its important influence in
setting the international agenda.
1250
With four of the five permanent members of the United Nations
security council and the largest financial contributors to the
UN, the G-8 countries have much to offer in support of
international conflict prevention initiatives.
Canada will continue to support continue to support, participate
in and advocate strong co-ordination of initiatives at the G-8
and in other fora that seek to build national and international
capacity to prevent conflict. I am pleased to conclude by saying
that the government supports the amendment and the amended
motion.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to stand today on behalf of the New Democratic Party of
Canada to indicate that we support Motion No. 30. In essence it
calls upon the government to continue and intensify efforts with
other nations to further develop multilateral initiatives to
strengthen the capacity of international organizations, for
example the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the
United Nations, to enable them to identify the precursors to
conflict and improve their conflict prevention capabilities.
The motion is very important and contains a number of very
valuable words and thoughts. I want to focus a bit on some of
the clauses that are quite important. For example, when we talk
about multilateral initiatives that in itself says a lot. It
talks about co-operation with other nations rather than a
unilateral initiative.
Many unilateral initiatives take place where one nation will
decide something on its own and move forward. Far too often
those kinds of initiatives are based on the narrow economic greed
of a nation or on its own particular agenda. Very often they are
based upon intimidation, where a nation intends to intimidate
other nations to go along with its will.
Yesterday I read in the paper, and I sure others read the same
article, about an initiative that was considered by the United
States to explode an atom bomb on the moon back in the 1950s to
intimidate the Russians. This has just come to light now. That
kind of initiative was based upon intimidation and an attempt to
display that it was omnipotent, all powerful and could do what it
wanted. That is not the kind of thing that leads to peaceful
relations between nations.
Many years later we are seeing these things happening again. The
United States is attempting to intimidate others to go along with
its unilateral move to put up a national defence missile system.
Concern has been expressed by nations across the world and by
many citizens about it. Even people in Canada have expressed
concern about it. Yet we see these intimidation tactics whereby
the United States says that it will move ahead anyway and if we
do not co-operate we will suffer as a result.
Those are the kind of threats that neighbouring nation is making
to Canada. We have to get away from that kind of approach if we
want to move forward, if we want to look at preventing conflicts
and if we want to work together for a peaceful world and society.
The motion also talks about strengthening the capacity of
international organizations. We must agree that the
international organizations today are quite weak. For example,
let us look at the United Nations. It was very clear during the
Kosovo crisis that the United Nations was weak in terms of being
able to cope with that situation. It was a NATO led movement
that dealt with that situation when in reality it should have
been the United Nations that took the led. We know the United
Nations has to be strengthened to enable it to cope with the many
conflicts that come up today.
Let us also look at the situation regarding Sierra Leone. A
number of peacekeepers have been taken prisoner. That does not
bode well for the strength of the United Nations, an
international organization. We have to seriously look at
strengthening these organizations so they may fulfil the kind of
role that we determined they should fulfil.
In order to strengthen any of the international organizations
such as the United Nations they need to be properly resourced.
That brings back the responsibility of each country that is a
part of the United Nations to pay its dues and to contribute do
the things it is supposed to do as a member of that organization.
1255
We need people of like mind. I think the original motion talked
about bringing together like minded people. Indeed this is very
important. We need people who are concentrating upon and
desirous of obtaining world peace rather than simply preserving
their own national identity or their own particular national
interests. This is very important when we talk about
strengthening the capacity of international organizations.
The third idea that is brought out in the motion, again a very
important idea, is enabling the identification of precursors to
conflict and to improve conflict prevention capability. This is
where it is very important. We must look at bringing about
situations that prevent rather than always end up reacting to
crises.
Far too often we find ourselves at a stage where something
terrible or drastic is happening in the world. We then react and
try to correct the situation, but many times we know that if we
keep our eyes and ears open, if we are at all interested in what
is happening around us, there are many signs that conflict is
developing. There are many indications that problems are brewing
on the international scene.
Certainly we have to be able to detect that kind of information
and to move to prevent these things from escalating to a point
where we are sweeping up afterward. With today's technology we
should be able to do that. We should be able to clearly identify
and know when trouble is brewing.
When we look at our military there is talk about revolutionary
and military affairs where we are being presented with the
concept of modern warfare based upon technology and based upon
the ability to have smart bombs. Ultimately I guess the goal is
to have war with very few casualties because everything could be
so precise according to the technology. If the technology is
precise enough to enable us to conduct that kind of warfare, it
should be precise enough to enable us to detect when problems are
brewing and developing and to step in to do something before they
become a crisis.
When we talk about international organizations, one of the key
factors we have to recognize is that no matter how great the
technology is today, no matter how advanced the technology is,
the human factor must always be dominant. The human factor must
remain. Technology is only going to be as useful and good as we
as human beings enable it to be. If we put it to the proper use
then it can be quite helpful to us. Otherwise it can be very
damaging.
That calls for a certain mindset among people who are governing
nations and working together for international peace. They must
have a mindset or an attitude that is predisposed toward peace
rather than toward aggression and war.
We must move away from the idea that everything is controlled by
economics. We heard about diamonds being the cause of the
conflict in Sierra Leone. In other parts of the world economic
advantage has been the moving factor for people. We have to move
away from letting economics dominate our lives and start to
consider the value of human life in itself. We have to start
looking at the lives of those children missing limbs whom we have
seen, the victims of a war over economic greed. If we change our
mindset we can certainly go a long way toward strengthening these
international organizations.
I am reminded of a couple of stories told to me by people who
had worked at the United Nations. One young woman who was a
lawyer told me how she just quit in discouragement because of the
things she saw taking place at the administrative level within
the United Nations. Again, it was coming down to personal
agendas and people looking toward their own power within the
organization rather than looking toward the goals of the
organization itself.
I spoke recently to a RCMP officer who had worked through the
United Nations in a very high position. He told me about the
things that discouraged him on the administrative side of things.
When they needed equipment in certain areas in which they were
working, they could not get it. They were told there was a lack
of resources. Then they would see personal secretaries and
people at the top riding in Jeeps and getting the equipment they
needed. That kind of approach or attitude is what we have to
change if we want to strengthen and create co-operation among our
nations and to improve and strengthen our international
organizations.
1300
Again the NDP are very pleased to speak in support of this
motion. We feel it goes to the heart of what is important when
we are dealing with international affairs. People must work
together with a proper mindset toward peace and harmony in the
world. If we put that behind our efforts, certainly it will go a
long way toward improving these international organizations.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Madam
Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to rise today. It is getting
to be a bad habit in that I am following the hon. member for
Halifax West again today as I did last night, but I guess I could
do a lot worse.
I want to put my comments about this important issue on the
record. We have already had the opportunity to discuss the issue
at some length through the debate on the motion by my colleague
for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, but I have a few additional
thoughts.
Most people in my area do not even understand, nor do I, the
roles of the IMF, the World Bank, the United Nations, where one
jurisdiction starts and one ends, and how they fit together and
work. The motion by the hon. member helps to simplify that, to
make it clearer for all, and to help define the roles of each
organization.
The Conservative Party definitely supports the initiative of the
reform member and we want to congratulate him on his excellent
work. However we are going to return to what we have already
pointed out with regard to the motion's limitations. That is the
underlying assumption that it is impossible to determine the
signs that predict world conflicts and to develop responses to
those conflicts well in advance.
The purpose of the motion is laudable but I think it is somewhat
over-optimistic. Even in this Chamber we often have trouble
reaching understandings on issues and we have trouble agreeing
with one another despite our good intentions. Imagine the
difficulty that would be encountered by the various world bodies
which certainly have diverging interests even country by country.
But then again, walking on the moon was merely a dream 40 years
ago, so maybe if we keep trying we can achieve this goal.
The time for reform of international institutions has certainly
come. There is no question.
The Minister of Finance explained in great detail during his
meeting yesterday morning with the members of the foreign affairs
committee that the necessity for reforming these institutions is
paramount and the time is now. He stressed the urgency of
international co-operation in establishing international
standards and codes in order to reduce the risk of financial
instability in the world's financial system. We heard the same
story from the first deputy managing director of the IMF, Mr.
Stanley Fischer. The demonstrations in Washington and Seattle are
not isolated gestures either.
It is imperative that the world's institutions listen, respond
and understand that their decisions have an impact on ordinary
people's everyday lives. It is through national governments and
the representatives they mandate to represent us that we will be
able to influence these organizations and not otherwise.
We live in a time when everything is done on an international
scale. Unfortunately I do not think the people's needs are being
genuinely respected. It is not for lack of desire to do so in
some corners, but because the way international institutions
operate is just too complex and they seem to serve the interests
of certain stronger countries at the expense of the less
influential countries.
For instance, during the gulf war the UN played an important
part in the decision making process, but during Kosovo the UN
proved insufficiently effective for some of its members and was
promptly replaced by NATO. Why did that system fail?
Everything depends on the interests of the member countries, and
the interests often diverge. Another factor is that world bodies
have proliferated in recent decades. Their functions have become
more ponderous and they have become less effective because of
their excessively complex procedures. I am thinking here of the
hierarchy of international organizations.
Often the result is either that action is delayed until it is
too late or that everyone is so confused and no one really knows
anymore what the solution to the problem is or even whether there
is a solution. We have seen that firsthand.
The players on the international scene choose an organization
that suits them depending on their own interests rather than on
the basis of what would be the best way to solve the problem. The
best example I can think of is the trade conflicts that may arise
and do arise, and there are plenty of them even between Canada
and the United States.
If one party thinks it has more chance of winning by choosing
the WTO, it will address itself to the WTO for arbitration.
But if it is the free trade agreement that would serve its
interests better, the country will opt for that process. We are
thus finding ourselves in a real spider's web of bilateral,
multilateral and international agreements. The result is
confusion, inefficiency and ultimately, conflict.
1305
Frequently foreign affairs would like to introduce an initiative
but unfortunately finds that it clashes with an agreement signed
with one of the world organizations. On a given issue the answer
is yes under the agreement with one organization but no under the
agreement with another. It has become a real tangle.
When everything becomes too complicated it is time to simplify
as proposed in this motion. It is in this perspective the
Progressive Conservative Party has concluded that it is high time
for the thinking and discussion process on internationalization
that is suggested by this motion.
The operations of international bodies should be simplified and
clarified with a view to making them efficient and effective
enough to meet the needs of ordinary people. Let us not forget
that is why they were set up. That is how we will prevent
conflicts in the future.
Mr. Keith Martin: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order to seek unanimous consent of the House to make some closing
remarks at the end of the debate on my private members' motion.
I hope the House sees fit to do that. No other motions or
additions will be presented at that time.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there agreement to
allow the hon. member who is the sponsor of the motion to close
debate with a five minute speech?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I thank hon. members for allowing
me to close with a few minutes on this motion.
The motion which I put forth last year is one which comes out of
my experiences working in Africa during the Mozambique civil war.
During that time we saw all manner of horrors that were
inflicted on people, primarily civilians.
We know that 90% of the individuals who are hurt, maimed, raped,
killed, tortured in today's conflicts are innocent civilians.
After the close of the cold war when the Berlin wall came
crashing down, the world thought we would have a peace dividend,
but this just unleashed a plethora of conflicts around the world.
More than 50 conflicts have sprung up which have put very large
demands, both financial and in terms of personnel, on all of us
as nations but also on the international organizations.
We knew for a long time that Rwanda was going to blow up.
Kosovo was going to blow up. Burundi, Angola, the Horn of
Africa, Ethiopia, and the list goes on. We saw these precursors
to conflict taking place and the world did nothing to prevent it.
The consequence of that has been the death, maiming and torture
of hundreds of thousands if not millions of innocent people
around the world.
We have an extraordinary opportunity to do something about that.
Canada has had a moral persuasive force for many years and has
been seen by some as a country that stands in the middle and is
able to bring different groups together with a common purpose.
Not many countries can do that.
Motion No. 30 will enable us to deal with the precursors to
conflict and reform the international organizations such as the
World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the UN by working
with our other member states to reform these institutions to
prevent conflict.
How can they prevent conflict? By utilizing economic levers
that are used to fuel wars. It takes money to run a war. If we
can choke off the money supply, we can choke off the war, not
always, but sometimes.
If we allow the status quo to remain, as my colleague from the
NDP mentioned, there will continue to be people with their limbs
chopped off, people with hot stakes poked in their eyes to blind
them, people who have been gang raped, children being used to
carry landmines who are blown up as a consequence, and children
being used as soldiers in conflict. This cannot be allowed to
continue.
If we do not debate this on humanitarian grounds, then at least
as a cogent financial argument we can argue on self interest as
nations of the world. When a conflict blows up half a world
away, it will come back to haunt us in terms of putting our
soldiers in harm's way, and putting demands on our defence,
foreign aid and foreign affairs budgets.
1310
These demands are actually crushing international organizations,
particularly the World Bank whose post-conflict reconstruction
costs have increased 800% in the last 12 years. The IMF
continues to fund countries that siphon off the funds to buy arms
to slaughter innocent civilians.
If we accept the status quo then we are part and parcel of the
slaughter that takes place as we speak. Innocent civilians are
being tortured in the most heinous ways or are being killed
without mercy. We as a nation can do something about that.
I am encouraged by the support this motion has had across party
lines. I am confident that as members of different political
parties, we can come together to support the motion. It will give
the government and members across party lines the ability to work
together to act in a leadership role in utilizing the IMF, the
World Bank and the UN as levers for the prevention of deadly
conflict. At the end of the day it is something we will all be
proud of and which we can proudly take to our constituents. More
important, we will be doing much to save some of the most
innocent people in the world from terrible fates.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 1.15 p.m.,
the time provided for debate has expired. Pursuant to order made
earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion
are deemed to be put and a recorded division deemed demanded and
deferred until Tuesday, May 30, 2000 at the expiry of the time
provided for government orders.
[Translation]
The House stands adjourned until Monday, May 29, 2000,
at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1.13 p.m.)