36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 71
CONTENTS
Friday, March 24, 2000
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1005
| MUNICIPAL GRANTS ACT
|
| Bill C-10. Third reading
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1010
1015
1020
1025
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1030
1035
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1040
1045
1050
1055
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| NATIONAL EPILEPSY MONTH
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| ORGANIC FOODS
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1100
| TUBERCULOSIS
|
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
| WORLD TUBERCULOSIS DAY
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. John Maloney |
| NATIONAL PARK WARDENS
|
| Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
1105
| MEMBER FOR VAUDREUIL—SOULANGES
|
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| GREEK INDEPENDENCE DAY
|
| Mr. John Cannis |
| CONSERVATIVE PARTY
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| OSHAWA HARBOUR
|
| Mr. Ivan Grose |
| RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1110
| TAX ON INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS
|
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
| TOURIST EVENTS
|
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| RANDOL WHIDDEN GANONG
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| NATIONAL CAPITAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| THE CANADIAN FLAG
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
1115
| BILL C-20
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1120
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
1125
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1130
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1135
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Jim Hart |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1140
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| GASOLINE PRICING
|
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1145
| THE BUDGET
|
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| Hon. Andy Mitchell |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
1150
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Ms. Judy Sgro |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1155
| MEMBER FOR BRANT
|
| Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. René Laurin |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
| EMPLOYMENT
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. John Richardson |
1200
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Bill C-206
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1205
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| The Deputy Speaker |
| Tabling of Documents
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1210
| Oral Question Period
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Justice and Human Rights
|
| Mr. Ivan Grose |
| CANADA SHIPPING ACT
|
| Bill C-374
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| PETITIONS
|
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Criminal Code
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Breast Cancer
|
| Mr. Mark Assad |
| Agriculture
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1215
| Mammography
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| Rural Carriers
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| The Constitution
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADA LABOUR CODE
|
| Bill C-12. Second reading
|
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
1220
1225
1230
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1235
1240
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
1245
1250
1255
1300
1305
1310
1315
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1320
1325
1330
1335
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
1340
1345
1350
| Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 71
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, March 24, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1005
[English]
MUNICIPAL GRANTS ACT
The House resumed from February 23 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-10, an act to amend the Municipal Grants Act, be read
the third time and passed.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
privilege to enter the debate on Bill C-10. Essentially, we
should recognize that it is a good bill. It moves in the right
direction and does some of the right things. In particular, it
changes the word “grants” to “payments”. They were grants in
lieu of taxes and now they will be be payments in lieu of taxes.
In terms of what has been happening in the House in the last
little while concerning grants, and the auditor general's
comments yesterday before the HRDC committee and the reports of
his statements this morning in the National Post, we can
easily see that perhaps it was even some kind of a portent on the
part of the minister of public works to change the word
“grants” to “payments”. There are some good reasons he would
want payments rather than grants.
We need to recognize that the bill accommodates much of what
ought to be happening in the world of government and in the world
of business generally.
The bill is also supported by the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities, which has suggested that there are some things
the bill should have accommodated that it did not.
I should also indicate that there was some reticence on the part
of departmental officials as well as the minister to make certain
amendments. I think he should have adopted some of the proposed
amendments, but he chose not to. I will speak about them a bit
later.
The third thing we should recognize is that we can support the
bill as Reformers because our policy is very clear. It states
that all laws pertaining to individuals and the private sector
apply equally to the Government of Canada, its personnel, its
agencies and parliament.
We do not believe that a parliamentarian is above the law.
Neither do we believe that individuals who work for the
Government of Canada ought to be above the law. They are subject
to the law just as any other citizen ought to be subject to the
law. This is particularly relevant when it comes to the business
of taxes to be paid to municipalities or tax assessing
authorities where there are government owned buildings and the
municipality or the taxing authority provides services in the
form of roads, infrastructure and utilities.
It costs money to provide those services and government should
not be exempt from paying an amount that is fair, equitable and
comparable to that paid by other taxpayers to the taxing
authority.
1010
The same issue applies to crown corporations. We should be
clearly cognizant of the fact that both crown corporations and
the government ought to be responsible and pay their legitimate
dues to the taxing authorities which provide services to
government properties.
There are some very serious issues that ought to be talked
about. The constitution of Canada says very clearly that the
minister or the government cannot be forced to pay taxes to the
taxing authority in the municipality where a particular piece of
real estate might be located. The constitution says that the
government is exempt.
This legislation has been crafted in such a way that the
minister may pay in lieu of taxes certain moneys to the taxing
authority. The key word is “may”. It should be “shall”.
Just like the people, the government should have to pay, but the
constitution says that the government does not have to pay.
There is another possibility which could have been adopted,
which is that the minister may not unreasonably withhold moneys.
Or, if he does withhold or amend the amount, he must give reasons
to the taxing authority as to why he is amending, changing or
withholding certain payments in lieu of taxes.
It does not only go to that point; it also goes to the advisory
panel which provides certain advice. I will get into that in a
bit more detail later.
I want to talk as well about late payment of taxes. Supposing
that the government decides through its minister that rather than
pay the taxes on the date specified in the tax assessment it will
pay on some other date. In that case, if the government decides
to make a late payment, it is up to the minister to decide how
late it will be—and there could be a dispute on the dates—and
he may have to pay a bonus or an interest charge.
Business people know very well that if they are late in the
payment of their taxes they are assessed a service charge,
interest on the late payment. I believe that the minister should
be in exactly the same position and should be obligated to at
least give the reasons for which he is withholding the interest
charges.
The bill also provides for an advisory panel. This is a very
useful mechanism. The advisory panel would give the minister
advice on the assessment. If a building that the government owns
is fully occupied by the government, then it should pay the full
amount. If the government has leased the building to a third
party, who is liable? Is it the third party? Is it the
government? Who is liable? The bill provides that the advisory
panel would advise the minister on these issues.
However, the minister is not obligated to take that advice. He
may ignore the advice.
The panel would be comprised of people who understand what this
is all about. It would be made up of tax assessors, people who
know how to evaluate property for its fair market value, whether
buildings or land.
There could be disputes, as there are with tax assessments on
real estate. The minister might question the assessed value. He
might say that it is too high. There is an appeal process.
He may also talk about a variety of other issues when he comes to
the appeal. He may talk about ownership and things of that type.
1015
This advisory panel, which acts as a dispute resolution
mechanism, may provide some advice to the minister. It may say
that the assessment, which the minister says is really too high,
is correct. Or, it may tell the taxing authority that their
assessment probably is too high. Nevertheless, the minister,
regardless of what it is, is not obligated to accept this advice.
He may amend it, he may change it or he may use it. It is
entirely up to him.
Why is it that we are so concerned about these issues? Why is
it that the minister would want to ignore the advice of the
panel? Why is it that the minister might not wish to pay taxes,
or he might wish to pay late, or he might wish to adjust, or
whatever the case may be? He is not obligated. Why is it that
he does not want to have the requirement of this parliament to
give reasons. He should be required to give reasons to the
taxing authorities as to why he would not accept the full
assessment of the taxes that he is to pay. If he has the
authority to pay he should be obligated to pay if he is operating
in an equitable, fair and open basis.
It could be that the minister just simply wants the power to say
that he is able to do this and do whatever he jolly well pleases.
It is quite possible for him to do that. If we look at some of
the arrogance that exists on the front bench that we have seen in
the last little while, it could be that.
I happen to know the hon. minister in this connection and I do
not believe that is his motivation at all. It could be something
else. It could be manipulation. There could be friends in some
of these taxing authorities where the money should be paid
immediately. However, there should be no question that if there
is a late payment the appropriate interest should be paid.
There could be other municipalities or other taxing authorities
where the particular management is not necessarily friendly with
the minister because they may have voted for a different party
rather than the one that is in power. In this case the minister
could say that maybe he should not pay the full amount, that he
should wait a little while, or that he will reduce the interest
rate on this one. There is a possibility of playing favourites
here. I happen to know that the minister involved would not do
that but the possibility exists.
When we make legislation in the House we should write the
legislation in such a way that partisan politics does not become
an issue. When it comes to the business of taxing and paying
taxes, it should be done in a fair, equitable and transparent
manner so that every Canadian is treated the same as every other
Canadian. There should be no particular advantages to one group
vis-à-vis another group. It should not be possible for a
minister to intrude and manipulate the situation to his advantage
or the advantage of the political party that he is involved with.
The very same set of arguments also applies to the panel. Why
should the minister, having a group of experts that is available
to him and providing him with good advice, be in a position to
ignore their advice? I think the advisory panel is there as a
mechanism, as a protection for Canadian taxpayers so that
disputes can be resolved equitably, quickly and in an impartial
way. If the minister chooses to ignore the advice of the panel
he should be required to give reasons for doing so.
We also need to look at a couple of other things. The first of
these are the rights of the taxpayer. What rights do we have as
Canadian taxpayers who support the government, who support the
programs and who pay for the programs even if they do not support
them? What are the rights of the individual taxpayer? The
rights of the individual taxpayer are that we should know where
our taxes are going, how much our taxes are and the basis for
those taxes so that they are equitable and fair and we know
exactly what is happening in each of these areas.
It goes beyond that. There are three crown corporations that
are for-profit corporations. They include the Canada Mortgage
and Housing Corporation, the Canada Post Corporation and the
Royal Canadian Mint. These are only three Crown corporations out
of many more that have somehow been exempted from a requirement
to make payments in lieu of taxes.
Simply because they are crown corporations they can be exempt.
The Business Development Bank of Canada pays taxes because it is
listed in schedule IV. For some reason or other these three
corporations, CMHC, CPC and the Royal Canadian Mint have been
exempted. We do not know why.
1020
It was suggested by the Canadian Federation of Municipalities
and by our amendment that these be included, but it was ignored.
Why? The National Housing Act was amended last year to allow
Canada Mortgage and Housing to pay dividends to its major
shareholder, the Government of Canada. Clearly, it would not pay
dividends if it did not have a profit. We have here a
corporation that uses the services of a municipality which are
paid for by taxes. Why should those corporations not be required
to make payments in lieu of taxes, just like the other crown
corporations?
It is the right of the taxpayer to be protected and that the
taxes be equitable, fair and universal for all those who are
liable.
There is also a responsibility on the part of the minister for
sound management. There have been examples of good sound
management in that particular department, and I commend the
minister, but that is not the issue here. On this particular
issue there has been good management on the part of the
department but there are other areas where the department has
failed and where, I would suggest, the minister should call into
question some of the management practices, in particular the
Canada Post Corporation.
The way in which the rural route mail couriers are being
administered by that particular organization is scandalous,
particularly the way in which the contract process is being
operated. Something needs to be done to ensure that the
contracting procedure and process is fair and equitable. At the
moment it is not.
I now want to move into the area of accountability. The
minister is accountable to this parliament and he should be held
to account. Parliament should know the reasons why taxes have
not been paid, why payments are made in lieu of taxes, why some
people are not paying as much, are late or have had their
interest payments adjusted. We need to have that information.
We also need transparency. What needs to be hidden? Nothing
needs to be hidden. Why should this be some kind of deep secret.
It should not be. Why not tell Canadians that the minister is
appealing a particular tax assessment? Why should we not know
that in his or her opinion it should be reduced? That is
legitimate. If members in the House have a question we can
appeal to a tax appeal authority. The minister is accountable to
parliament.
Finally, there is the business of commitment. We need to know
if there is commitment to peace, order and good government in
this department? I will again refer to that specific instance
with the contracting procedure at Canada Post. It does not
promote peace, order and good government because it pits one
group against another. The process is not open. It is one sided
and, in many ways, discriminates against other people.
If the minister would say that he will be accountable and that
he is committed to this, then we would really be able to say that
we have moved a long way. It could be done with the amendments
we have suggested on the report stage of the bill.
I want to say how significant this is, particularly when I refer
to Mr. Desautels, the auditor general, and his comments from
yesterday. This was reported this morning in the National
Post. He said “If members of parliament are involved in the
decision making process”—in this particular instance he is
referring to job creation grants, but it applies
everywhere—“that blurs the line and makes it harder for them to
play their oversight role of government”.
I cannot underline more strongly than the auditor general did,
the significance of that statement.
1025
It is in the same way that I want to protect not only the
minister but the taxpayers of Canada. I want to tell them that
they will be treated fairly and equitably, and that the decisions
we make will be transparent. If that happens, the auditor
general would not have to give advice like that because we would
be committed right from the start.
I suggest that we must decide to play fairly, equitably and
honestly. We need to tell our municipalities that we are here to
recognize them and respect them.
The principle is the same, whether it is with HRDC grants, EDC
grants or loans, or with any other department. The principle is
that MPs, including the minister, should recognize that all laws
pertaining to individuals and the private sector apply equally to
the Government of Canada, its personnel, its agencies and
parliament. A commitment to that principle characterizes all
Reform MPs and will characterize all Canadian alliance MPs after
Saturday's decision. This policy and this commitment I give to
all hon. members on my behalf and on my colleagues' behalf.
I recommend to the minister that although he missed the
opportunity to protect himself and his successors, he can provide
amendments in the next session of parliament to bring about those
amendments that will protect him and make sure that it is clear
and above-board.
With regard to the three other corporations, CMHC, CPC and the
Royal Canadian Mint, the minister could then bring that amendment
forward and include them under schedule four. We would then have
a fair and equitable treatment of all crown corporations. They
would then be obligated to pay taxes to the taxing authority.
While we agree with the bill in principle and support it, and
while there are many things about the bill we like, I suggest to
the minister that he has not gone as far as he could have gone or
should have gone. It would have been in the interests of this
parliament and all Canadians to have gone further and accepted
some of the amendments that were presented to the House on the
occasion of the reporting of the bill.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, from
the point of view of the NDP caucus and the investigation that we
have done on the bill, we do recognize that the bill represents
over two years of exhaustive consultation with all the parties, a
cross-country tour and I think a genuine effort to allow all the
stakeholders to have an adequate say and adequate input into
developing what we think is a very important bill.
I will go even further by saying that I believe this type of
consultation process could even serve as a model for other pieces
of legislation because it was such a well thought out process.
All of the parties came away fully satisfied that the
consultation was thorough and that they had adequate opportunity
to make a difference and to help shape and craft this type of
legislation.
We would like to see this happen more frequently with other
bills and we would hope that all of the parties, to any piece of
legislation that is crafted, could feel so positive about their
opportunities.
The NDP caucus believes firmly that Bill C-10 will be a direct
benefit to almost 2,000 communities coast to coast to coast. We
believe that it succeeds as a piece of legislation because it
will enshrine, once and for all, the principles of fairness,
equity and predictability in the management of our federal
payments in lieu of taxes, principles which I believe are
important to all members of the House on both sides.
I congratulate the members of the joint technical committee,
which was made up of representatives from the Federation of
Canadian Municipalities, Treasury Board representatives and other
government representatives.
I would also like to recognize all of the municipal
representatives, mayors and councillors who met with the
consultation tour during 1998. They also played such a valuable
role in crafting this legislation.
1030
All members of the House realize that the Government of Canada
enjoys a constitutional exemption from local taxation.
Nevertheless I think we all recognize and agree that we have a
moral obligation as a property owner to help pay for the costs of
local government. We are major occupants of space in the
municipalities and obviously we use the services of the local
government. It is only fair and right that we should be paying
for them. Federal operations should contribute to the social and
economic well-being of the community and certainly should not be
a burden on the local taxpayer.
Over the past 50 years federal governments have adopted the
policy of paying grants in lieu of property taxes in recognition
of the valuable direct and indirect services that it gets from
the municipalities. These payments are now in excess of $375
million annually, which represents a significant transfer of
federal dollars to local communities.
These federal payments contribute to the local economies. They
are of great benefit and as such contribute greatly to the
well-being of Canadians in general. Imagine the impact on the
finances of a region like Ottawa-Carleton or the city of Hull if
the Government of Canada reneged on its burden as a property
owner and stopped making payments in lieu of taxes. It would be
devastating.
It is fair to say that we all recognize and accept the rationale
for these payments. Canadians realize their value and their
necessity. That is not at issue today.
Bill C-10 deals with ways to improve the administration of the
payments. Taking into account the far reaching changes that have
occurred in the municipal taxation front over the last two
decades, the legislation needed to be revamped and upgraded.
The NDP caucus is satisfied that Bill C-10 will bring about
positive, constructive and lasting program changes. It will
confirm that the federal government does have respect for the
standards set for other property owners and that it values the
services it receives from municipal governments.
The goal is to make the process more predictable and to
strengthen the foundation of fairness and equity on which the
program was built and on which it has operated over the last five
decades. We want to make federal payments in lieu of taxes
resemble the taxes paid by private landowners as much as
possible. We believe that Bill C-10 takes us one step further to
that equitable position and still recognizes the federal
government's constitutional exemption from local taxation.
Bill C-10 will change the name of the legislation and the
program. In future, grants in lieu of taxes will be referred to
as payments in lieu of taxes. This more accurately reflects the
more explicit and respectful relationship between the two levels
of government. The type of language used is very important. The
term “payments” rather than “grants” more accurately reflects
the mutual respect between the two levels of government.
Bill C-10 also includes a goodwill clause that confirms our
commitment to fairness and equity in the administration of the
federal payments in lieu of taxes. This is a very positive and
necessary aspect of this newly redefined relationship.
Changes in legislation include a commitment by the federal
government to endeavour to meet the payment schedules put in
place locally. When payments are unreasonably delayed, the
Minister of Public Works and Government Services will have the
power and the authority to make payment of a supplementary amount
to the municipality to compensate for the delay. This is also
something which municipalities needed to be able to rely on as a
stream of revenue from the federal government so that their own
services would not be interrupted by some late payment on the
part of the government.
Bill C-10 addresses the issue of resolution of any kind of
disagreement between the two parties. Any kind of relationship
like this has to have some kind of mediation process that is fair
and impartial and one with which both parties are comfortable.
1035
For all those reasons Bill C-10 will be of service to the
municipalities. We believe the local politicians in the
municipalities are comfortable with it. They have had a
satisfactory opportunity to have input. We believe the whole
process should serve as a model for the development of other
types of legislation. The NDP caucus will be happy to vote in
favour of Bill C-10 at third reading.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, our party is pleased to support Bill C-10 and I am
pleased to speak on behalf of it. In fact I am filling in for my
colleague from Tobique—Mactaquac.
We have made important progress both on this bill and with this
bill. I would like to take a few minutes to summarize what we
have accomplished and how it would benefit taxpayers across the
country. I want to review some of the key objectives of the bill
and explain why our party supports these objectives. I also want
to review some of the problems that exist in the present system
and how I think the bill addresses some of those problems.
There are some problems as well within the bill itself which
various groups have identified for us. I want to talk about
these and how we attempted to resolve them and gauge how
successful we were in resolving them. Specifically I want to
revisit our amendments to the bill and the benefits Canadians
will see as a result of them.
Finally I want to look ahead and identify the areas that still
need to be addressed and will need to be addressed in the future.
First, I want to express personal thanks to the individuals and
groups who worked with our party on this bill. The executive and
staff of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Cities of
New Brunswick Association, the Ontario Municipalities Association
and the Appraisal Institute of Canada all shared their insight
and ideas with us.
I also want to thank my caucus colleagues, specifically the hon.
members for Brandon—Souris, Richmond—Arthabaska,
Compton—Stanstead and of course the hon. member for Saint John.
Memory will tell us that they were all mayors in their hometowns.
I would also like to thank my colleagues from the other parties
who traded ideas with us, and the minister who listened to us
when we said that the bill could be improved. It is not very
often we can talk about a minister who actually wants to talk to
the opposition in an attempt to improve a bill as the minister
did. We thank him very much.
As everyone knows, municipalities fund their activities through
real property taxes and business occupancy taxes. In exchange
for these levies, property owners and businesses receive
municipal services such as water, sewer and waste collection.
For the first 80 years of this country, the government of the
dominion of Canada received all the same services that municipal
ratepayers did without paying a single cent in municipal taxes.
This changed in 1950 with the passage of the Municipal Grants Act
which allowed the national government to make payments or grants
in lieu of taxes. The municipalities got their money from the
federal government without the federal government jeopardizing
its constitutional position as one of the only two levels of
government authorized to collect taxes.
The system has worked quite well for both parties, except of
course when disputes from time to time have arisen. In those
cases of dispute, it has been the federal government that has had
the final say over how much a municipality would receive on a
given property with no appeal available to the municipality. It
has been a very one-sided process.
Bill C-10 is an attempt to introduce a system that will be
fairer to the municipalities in valuing and rating federal
government real property. Another goal of the legislation is to
provide greater equity and greater predictability so that
municipal governments can plan their budgets in advance with
some accuracy knowing approximately how much revenue they can
expect from federal property.
1040
The bill will allow the federal government to pay compensation
when it is late paying its taxes. It authorizes the Government
of Canada to make payments to municipalities when tenants on
federal property default on their tax obligations. Perhaps most
important, this legislation will establish a formal dispute
settlement body so that when disagreements arise over the amount
of payments owed to the federal government, the municipality
concerned or the federal government can refer the dispute to a
dispute advisory panel.
The bill will also expand the definition of federal real
property to include federally owned outdoor swimming pools, golf
course improvements, outdoor theatres, residential driveways and
employee parking improvements so that the federal government
property is treated the same way as other property within the
municipality. It will ensure that first nations governments
receive equal treatment to that accorded other local governments
under the act.
The bill also improves predictability by clarifying provisions
relating to the calculation of payments in lieu of taxes on
federal farm property, the calculation of deductions when
municipalities are unable to provide federal property with
equivalent services to those accorded to private property and the
status of Parks Canada assets as federal property.
Along with Bill C-10 some other important policy changes are
being made. For example, the federal government will consult
with professional appraisal organizations, assessment
authorities, municipalities, federal departments of the crown and
crown corporations on the valuations of special purpose federal
properties, such as penitentiaries, military establishments and
national parks.
The federal government will also seek the advice of these
stakeholders regarding appointments to and management of the
dispute advisory panel. A program advisory council will be
established composed of representatives of stakeholders, to
provide advice to the minister on administrative policy and
legislative matters.
Finally the federal government will commit to paying its
municipal taxes on time, the same as everyone else. Members will
have to forgive me if I choke on that one; the federal government
paying its taxes on time. Who could actually believe that?
Nonetheless the track record of the current federal Liberal
government is not all that impressive on this point. If it can
make some improvements, it would be impressive but we will hold
our breath on that until we see what happens.
The bottom line is that a system that has been unfair,
inequitable and unpredictable will now be more fair and
predictable. The key word is predictable. Ultimately this bill
and the accompanying measures will put more money into
municipalities on a regular basis. That will benefit all
municipal taxpayers. That is why our party supports Bill C-10.
The bill is not without its flaws. When it was first introduced
many complaints were received from the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities that the bill was being rushed through the House
before municipalities had a chance to see the bill, study it and
provide feedback to the government.
Although municipalities were generally pleased with the two year
consultation process that preceded the introduction of the
legislation, when the bill came out they received no notice and
did not get a copy of the bill or briefing materials. We
complained to the minister's office about this. I am not sure
whether we can claim victory, but it seems that again the
minister listened and almost immediately the schedule for second
reading and the committee hearings on the bill were pushed back.
Again the minister listened to those complaints.
1045
Most of the bill is straightforward but our caucus had some
difficulties with the composition and mandate of the dispute
advisory panel, as did some of the stakeholders to whom we spoke.
One item of concern was the requirement that we have relevant
knowledge or experience without defining what those terms meant.
I understand what the intention of the phrase would be. It was
meant to ensure that only qualified professionals serve on the
panel. Unfortunately, because this term was not defined in the
bill, our fear was that it would be left up to the minister of
public works to define it.
That leaves the panel open for political abuse. For example,
what would happen if the minister decided that relevant knowledge
or experience meant that all a person needed to be qualified
would be to be a card carrying member of the Liberal Party?
Mr. Lynn Myers: You know better than that.
Mr. Greg Thompson: When the hon. member gets up I will
listen very carefully to what he has to say. I am glad the
Speaker is not paying attention. When I am finished with this he
will understand what I am saying. It will be very complimentary
but he should be patient. Members on the other side of the House
are not used to compliments. When we start out they are so
frightened by our words that they either hide under their desks
or get up shouting in a madman fashion, which we have seen
recently in the House. We are asking for a little decorum in the
House, Mr. Speaker, by the member opposite. When I am through I
am sure he will come over here to shake my hand in support of my
speech.
At the end of this process, without a definition we could end up
with some patronage in terms of stacking the deck on the panel. I
am sure the member will agree that in future governments the same
could happen. We do not expect this government to be in power
forever and ever, amen. In fact it could come to a crashing end
within the next number of months. We are looking ahead to what
might happen in the future, regardless of party affiliation. We
are saying that potential for abuse had to be eliminated and we
are glad to see that something has been done.
We consulted a number of people in order to attempt to define
the terms of the bill. I know the member for Tobique—Mactaquac
spoke with the Privy Council Office, with some municipal
organizations and with the Appraisal Institute of Canada. In
this case the institute was helpful in suggesting amendments to
the bill that would have required panel members to be selected
from a list provided jointly by it and the same organization in
the province of Quebec.
This was not a bad attempt. However there are two problems with
this definition. First, there are other types of professionals
we want to have sitting on the panel such as real estate
assessors and representatives of municipalities and federal
departments. Second, there is no consistent national definition
of an appraiser. It varies from one end of the country to the
other. It differs from province to province and most provinces
do not require licensing, believe it or not.
For now we are prepared to allow the panel to proceed as the
bill describes. I would urge all members to monitor the
composition of the panel, particularly the member opposite.
Should problems arise in the future the government operations
committee has within its power the ability to review the
legislation. What more could we ask for than a review of the
process?
We were effective in two other areas as well also having to do
with the dispute advisory panel. In the original bill it was
proposed that the panel be appointed by and paid by the minister.
Its advice would be rejected by the minister without an
opportunity for appeal. Any or all panel members could be fired
by the minister at any time for any reason. For a panel that was
supposed to impartially adjudicate disputes between
municipalities and the federal government, usually the public
works department, this process seemed like it was tilted in
favour of the public works department and the minister.
1050
At the time the member for Tobique—Mactaquac likened the
process to that of a criminal trial where the accused person got
to pick the jury. It sounds familiar in this place. The accused
person got to pick the jury, pay the jury, act as judge and face
no appeal. It did not look like a very fair system.
We received the same complaints from the municipalities and
their organizations. Based on these complaints my colleague
drafted amendments to make the dispute panel process much more
balanced and submitted these amendments to the committee where
they were considered.
The first amendment was to remove the threat of arbitrary firing
of a panel member by the minister. If a member could not be
fired by a minister then the member could be free to give more
independent advice without the fear of reprisal. That sounds
like cabinet across the street. Where the bill originally stated
that panel members would serve at the pleasure of the minister,
we changed that so that members would serve on good behaviour.
This means that panel members would now have tenure and could
only be fired for just cause.
The second amendment we presented to the committee that was
adopted was a change to the appointment process. Bill C-10 in
its original form had the panel members being appointed by the
minister. The amendment by the member for Tobique—Mactaquac was
passed by the committee. It proposed that the governor in
council or cabinet would appoint panel members.
The member for Tobique—Mactaquac and I may slightly disagree on
that point. That means the Prime Minister hand-picking, but I
guess that is better than just the minister himself because at
least it would come under the scrutiny of cabinet. The standing
committee thought these two amendments made sense and would
improve the bill and the performance of the advisory panel. It
adopted both amendments unanimously.
Because of these changes the dispute settlement process would be
fair and municipalities could seek larger payments. Ultimately
this could allow municipal taxpayers to get a break on their tax
bills, something I think all municipal ratepayers would
appreciate.
Having said that, there is still one area yet to be resolved
that has not been dealt with in the bill. That is the
outstanding matter concerning business occupancy taxes and
certain crown corporations. It has not yet been determined how
and to what extent Canada Post, the Royal Canadian Mint, Canada
Mortgage and Housing and similar crown corporations would pay
taxes and business occupancy taxes.
Certainly the mandate of these corporations has changed over the
years since the Municipal Grants Act was last updated. It used
to be that these crown corporations served purely for public
policy purposes. In the unlikely event they ever made a profit
it was more by accident than by design. Profit was never in
their vocabulary. Now these corporations serve two purposes. Not
only do they continue to serve an important public policy role.
They also have a mandate to earn a profit to recover costs and to
lessen the burden on taxpayers.
If these crown corporations are conducting business and earning
a profit they should be paying business taxes. The question is
how much. After discussions our party had with representatives
from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and after having
questioned witnesses from FCM and public works in committee, I am
convinced that this problem will soon be solved. Municipalities
and the federal government are continuing to negotiate what
portion of each crown corporation is devoted to purely profit
making activities. The discussion is not yet finished on this
issue.
I look forward to seeing this problem resolved in the very near
future. In conclusion, the bill would bring a more balanced,
predictable and fairer approach to the process of payments to
municipalities.
1055
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It has been brought
to my attention that the hon. minister has deemed to have spoken
but by consent will be able to speak again. The first speaker
when the bill comes back will be the minister.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I realize that you were looking at the minister and did
not see the member beside me stand on questions and comments.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We will go to
questions and comments with the hon. member for
Beauséjour—Petitcodiac.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I have met with some municipalities that have serious
financial problems because of the lack of taxes being paid to
them when they have federal buildings in their very small
communities.
It is quite a disadvantage and it is very clear that the
proportion being given in lieu of taxes to these municipalities
is absolutely unacceptable. These communities cannot provide the
services because of this fact. What is the member's view on this
point?
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my view would be that
federal government agencies, and we are talking about Canada Post
in this particular case, should be paying their fair share of
taxes. They are in business now to make money. It is not a case
of being subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer. If they are
playing by the rules of business as every business should, they
should be paying their fair share of taxes.
It places an unfair burden on municipalities that have to rely
on taxes to look after their communities. I think the bill will
go some distance toward improving that process and making sure
that all municipalities get their fair share of taxes back from
Crown corporations that are now commissioned to make money and
show a profit. What is good for a private business should be
good for government.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
NATIONAL EPILEPSY MONTH
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this month the Canadian Epilepsy Alliance and other organizations
across the country are promoting National Epilepsy Month.
Epilepsy is the most common serious brain disorder in Canada.
Approximately 300,000 Canadians have epilepsy. This disorder
does not discriminate. People of all ages are affected by
epilepsy, especially the elderly.
Unfortunately in most cases involving this disease the cause is
unknown and there is no cure. Also discouraging are the myths
surrounding epilepsy. These myths can be just as damaging to
people suffering from this disorder as the seizures themselves.
I strongly encourage Canadians to make an effort this month to
learn more about this disorder and to develop their first aid
skills accordingly. Only by working together can we greatly
improve the quality of life of people with this problem in this
great nation of ours.
* * *
ORGANIC FOODS
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government never learns from its mistakes. I have
just learned of plans by a government supported agency to take
over complete control of the certification of organic foods in
Canada. If the government allows this plan to proceed it would
put 45 thriving private organic certification companies out of
business.
The Liberals say they want economic diversification but continue
to intrude into the marketplace to eliminate competition, limit
freedom of contract and infringe on fundamental property rights.
Liberal actions speak louder than words. There is a great
concern among the people involved in the organic growing and
processing industry.
1100
In this time of declining farm incomes, this industry continues
to thrive. I do not want to see it hurt because of this
socialist government's desire for a single controlling body.
We have had an agency like that in western Canada for the last
60 years and it has contributed to the current farm income
crisis. This monopoly is called the Canadian Wheat Board. We do
not need another one.
* * *
TUBERCULOSIS
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I call to the attention of parliament the plight of
two billion people in the world who are infected with
tuberculosis, 200 million of whom will develop the disease. One
hundred million will die if no proper treatment is made available
to them.
This may not have the impact that the image of a flood or the
exodus of refugees creates, but the scale of human suffering and
lives lost is no less.
We cannot afford to be complacent only because the incidence of
tuberculosis in Canada is low. One can become infected simply by
sharing the same air with an infected person in a waiting room,
in a bus or in an airplane. It is an ever-increasing risk in our
global village.
The well-being of Canada and her citizens is well served by
contributing our expertise and financial resources to combat this
menace to international public health.
We have a collective duty to help in the global action. This
let us pledge as we mark World Tuberculosis Day today.
* * *
[Translation]
WORLD TUBERCULOSIS DAY
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the House that
today is World Tuberculosis Day.
World Tuberculosis Day commemorates the day in 1882 when Dr.
Robert Koch announced his discovery of the cause of
tuberculosis, the tuberculosis bacillus. We take advantage of
this opportunity to remind hon. members that this disease is
still endemic and out of control in a large part of the world.
One-third of the world's population is infected with the
tuberculosis bacillus, and there are eight million new cases
annually.
[English]
After many decades of continuous decline, unfortunately the
incidence rate of TB cases in Canada has levelled off in the past
several years. With the emergence of drug resistant strains and
the deadly interaction with the HIV/AIDS epidemic, Canada cannot
afford to become complacent in the face of the worldwide TB
threat.
[Translation]
Tuberculosis constitutes a true global emergency, which all
countries must take seriously.
On this World Tuberculosis Day, I would like to express my
support of the ongoing battle being waged by Health Canada and
its partners, including CIDA, against this disease.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadian agricultural products are known the world over for their
high quality.
Over the years supply managed farm commodities have ensured
quality goods and stable prices. Canadian farmers, processors,
retailers and consumers alike have benefited greatly from the
steady and safe supply of regulated products.
Both our Canadian farmers and consumers recognize the obvious
benefits of continuing such programs in the wake of a rapidly
changing global agricultural landscape.
I urge the government to retain supply management for the
benefit of all Canadians. Canadians have a right to enjoy a safe
and healthy food supply and this should be first and foremost in
our minds as we embark on WTO negotiations.
I further urge the government to continue to recognize and
acknowledge that agricultural supply management programs are
essential to ensure the protection and capability of Canada's
agricultural production.
* * *
NATIONAL PARK WARDENS
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
lives of our national park wardens are in danger and the heritage
minister refuses to protect them.
Federal park wardens have been forced to work without the proper
equipment needed to protect themselves. Wardens constantly
encounter poachers, drug dealers and others who are potentially
violent and armed. Poachers face up to five years in jail and
become desperate when apprehended by a park warden.
Knowing these facts, why does the heritage minister ignore her
committee's recommendation that wardens should carry service
revolvers? The government allows Brink's security guards to
carry sidearms to protect money, but refuses the same right to
wardens who protect wildlife, tourists and their own lives.
I proudly represent the people who live in Jasper National Park
and I strongly urge the heritage minister to provide park wardens
with the basic tools needed for their protection and the
protection of the public. Why put our officers at risk when on
the line of duty simply because they were denied basic
protection?
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is a lot of discussion about our health care system and its
sustainability. However, several of my constituents have
recently told me that illness prevention is still the best
medicine. A big part of that is a healthy environment.
I was pleased that in our recent budget there were several
measures for environmental protection and I look forward to
working with all colleagues in this direction.
1105
I also hope that all members will co-operate on this file to
improve our environment and to act upon the measures contained in
the budget. Clean water, clean air and a protected environment
are a big part of our heritage, the heritage I hope to leave for
my grandchildren and for future generations of Canadians.
I hope this is only a down payment on what we will do as a
government for the future of our people and our children. A
clean environment and good health is great for Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
MEMBER FOR VAUDREUIL—SOULANGES
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal
member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges said that he would lose his riding
to the Bloc Quebecois in the next election if the present Prime
Minister remained at the head of the Liberal Party of Canada.
The Liberal member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges is wrong in
attributing such a defeat solely to poor leadership.
It will also be the fault of his government, which has imposed
Bill C-20 to prevent Quebecers from being the only ones to
decide on their future. It will be the fault of his government,
a government that has lost track of $1 billion in Human Resources
Development Canada funds, that has accumulated a fantastic
surplus at the expense of the unemployed and workers, and that
does nothing as gas prices skyrocket.
Unfortunately for the hon. member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges, we can
only confirm his fears. The Bloc Quebecois will indeed take his
seat from him in the next election.
* * *
[English]
GREEK INDEPENDENCE DAY
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
tomorrow, March 25, Canadians of Hellenic descent will be
celebrating the anniversary of the liberation of their former
homeland from the Ottoman Empire.
In 1821, after 400 years of oppression from the Ottoman Empire,
the Hellenes, with the help of heroes such as Lord Byron of
England, restored freedom to Greece, the birthplace of democracy.
Since that time the relations between these two countries have
not been the greatest. Recently, however, the people of Greece
and Turkey have begun to build and exhibit compassion toward each
other. For example, when Turkey experienced a devastating
earthquake last year its Greek neighbours were there to lend a
helping hand immediately. Soon after, unfortunately, Greece also
experienced an earthquake, and the Turkish people were there to
reciprocate immediately.
Since that time the people of both these countries have been
building great relationships by working together on both social
and economic issues.
By this unprecedented willingness to work together, the people
of these two countries seem to be indicating their common wish to
finally create a peaceful environment between their two
countries.
It is also my hope, as we begin the new millennium, that these
two countries will nurture positive energies for a better
tomorrow.
* * *
CONSERVATIVE PARTY
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today's National Post describes Joe Clark's recent
nomination meeting:
Joe Clark...played to an embarrassingly small crowd on Wednesday
night...in Calgary Centre. About 300, by generous estimates,
turned out in a...room that could have held 1,000.
The event got off to a disastrous start when Jim Silye called 30
representatives from community organizations up to the stage.
Nobody came forward. While waiting Mr. Silye said “Does anybody
know any good jokes while I wait for these people?” He then
left the podium, telling the crowd: “Have another drink; I
think I will”.
Facing the grim reality of the evening, Mr. Clark stated “We
have a lot of work to do. I need your help, I need your
prayers—”
Elections are usually run on memberships and money. Seeing as
Joe has neither, I can see why he is relying on prayers.
The editorial concluded:
If 300 supporters is all (his) party can muster at a nominating
meeting of its leader in a riding that many say Mr. Clark cannot
win, it appears Mr. Clark may need all the prayer he can get.
I guess Joe Who has now become Joe Boo Hoo.
* * *
OSHAWA HARBOUR
Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I would
like to talk about Oshawa Harbour, which has just been granted
Canadian port authority status.
Oshawa city council lobbied vigorously to take over the harbour.
I opposed city council's bid because I felt that city council was
not competent to run the harbour as its track record on running
the airport leaves something to be desired.
Be that as it may, under control of the Oshawa Harbour
Commission, traffic and profit have increased year after year.
I have been accused of seeing my city through rose coloured
glasses. I plead guilty to this charge. I look at my city and
say “Why not?” For a first class city, why not a first class
harbour?
Just watch us. We can and we will add to the pride which all of
us have in my city.
* * *
RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the NDP joins with all those who have condemned the massacre of
35 men of the Sikh faith by terrorists on March 21 at
Chittisinghpura in the state of Kashmir.
Religious persecution and religiously motivated killings are to
be abhorred wherever they occur.
The world is an increasingly dangerous place for people of many
faiths, depending on where they happen to be born or where they
live. The Baha'is in Iran and the Christians in Sudan come
quickly to mind, but Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists and
all other faiths each find themselves persecuted in various
contexts. What I find most distressing is state sanctioned
official persecution.
1110
The NDP believes, as I am sure most Canadians do, that the 21st
century is a time when religious discrimination and hatred should
be put behind us forever.
* * *
[Translation]
TAX ON INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
morning the representatives of Attac-Québec and Initiative
Halifax expressed concern that the government seemed to be
ignoring the spirit and the letter of a motion passed a year
ago.
This motion sought to have the government, with the
international community, decree a tax on financial transactions.
Although the motion did not receive unanimous approval, the aim
of it, which was to limit financial speculation, is relevant,
since it affects most of us.
Every day, over $1.8 billion U.S. changes hands in financial
markets. Of this amount, only 5% to 10% is involved in
transactions relating to goods and services. It seems to me
legitimate therefore to control this market.
I support the recommendations of the groups of citizens wanting,
among other things, to have the Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and International Trade, which examines issues of
globalization, mandated to consider the feasibility of measures
to control financial markets, such as the Tobin tax.
* * *
TOURIST EVENTS
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, who has
not yet heard of the internationalcrossing of Lake Memphrémagog,
a marathon swim that brings together the world's best long
distance swimmers, the Bromont International, an international
riding competition, which just this week was awarded the Prix de
tourisme des Cantons de l'Est, of the Orford classical music
festival, of the Cowansville international street musicians
festival, of the arts tour and of the Bedford and Brome
agricultural fair, to name but a few.
The riding of Brome—Missisquoi is bursting with prestigious
events that draw thousands of visitors annually. These events
are what they are today thanks to the energy of the people of
Brome—Missisquoi.
A tip of the hat to the organizers, who work tirelessly and
resolutely to ensure the success of these events. I would also
like to thank the people for their hospitality, which endows
each of these events with a touch of the unique and
irreplaceable.
I therefore invite my colleagues to visit the riding of
Brome—Missisquoi. I am convinced they will have an unforgettable
time there.
* * *
[English]
RANDOL WHIDDEN GANONG
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to honour Randol Whidden Ganong of New
Brunswick who died this past weekend.
Mr. Ganong, without doubt, was one of Canada's most famous candy
makers, if not the most famous candy maker. His accomplishments
went far beyond the candy company that bore the family name in
St. Stephen. Mr. Ganong was an Order of Canada recipient whose
accomplishments were numerous. He spent two years overseas
during the second world war as a member of the Royal Canadian Air
Force. Mr. Ganong was also mayor of his town for two years
before becoming president of the family business. He was the
first president of the Confectionery Manufacturers' Association
of Canada and worked as a director of both the CBC and the New
Brunswick telephone company.
Through good times and bad R. W. was loyal to his family,
community and employees, and one of the most thoughtful,
honourable and principled business leaders Canada has ever
produced. We will miss R. W. Ganong.
* * *
NATIONAL CAPITAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, earlier this week I had the privilege of representing
the Minister of Industry at the launching of the new National
Capital Institute of Technology and the opening of its new
headquarters at Canada's Communications Research Centre in
Nepean.
The institute is an impressive example of partnership between
governments, the private sector and academia to advance research
and development in this region and in Canada's vital
telecommunications sector.
I congratulate the Ottawa Centre for Research and Innovation,
Nortel, Newbridge, Bell Nexxia, QNX, the National Research
Council, the Communications Research Centre, the Canada
Foundation for Innovation and Carleton and Ottawa universities
for this unique partnership that will benefit all Canadians and
keep Canada at the cutting edge of this important economic
sector.
* * *
THE CANADIAN FLAG
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
how a nation views itself is a measure of its pride and
self-esteem. How a nation is viewed by the world is a reflection
of its collective deeds. How a nation projects this image is
through its national symbol.
1115
Our nation is known throughout the world for its deeds in war
and peace. Canada's symbol is its flag, which floats
majestically over this very House. Our flag is the embodiment of
our nation's heart and soul.
To desecrate Canada's flag must be forbidden by law. To defile
the symbol of our nation must have due consequence.
The House will soon decide the importance of our flag. The
member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley wishes to add the
significance of a cloak of law to protect our flag. I ask for
all to support his stand.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-20
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the
introduction of Bill C-20 and throughout the undemocratic process
applied to pass that legislation, the Prime Minister and his
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs have always refused to be
perfectly clear on the majority required for the federal
government to fulfil its obligation to negotiate with Quebec.
While the 50% plus one rule is very clear and fair, the Prime
Minister and his minister have purposely maintained a state of
confusion. But, since yesterday, the cat is out of the bag. In
Calgary, thinking that he was safely out of earshot from
Quebecers, the Prime Minister said that a 66% majority would not
be enough. This is the hidden side of Bill C-20.
This act not only rejects the democratic principle of the
equality of voters, but allows parliament and the federal
government to reject the democratic will of Quebecers, even if
more than 60% of them decide that they want a country.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the auditor general slammed the human resources
department yesterday. He said that he had never seen
mismanagement on the scale of this giant fiasco.
However, the internal audit that uncovered the billion dollar
bungle was only the latest in a long series of warnings that this
and previous HRD ministers have received over the past two
decades. The Liberals ignored those warnings because it allowed
them to continue using taxpayers' money for partisan political
purposes.
If the minister were sincere in wanting to clean up her
department, why did she wait until she was caught before
implementing a plan?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member's question has an inaccurate premise. The
minister did not wait. She released the audit report and the
information on her six point action plan before she took note of
any request to release information.
It is important to note that the auditor general approved of the
six point action plan. It is being carried out. The government
is identifying the problems and addressing them. The hon. member
should give us credit for that.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, every Canadian knows that the minister actually began to
address the problem two days after receiving an access to
information request to release the audit.
Let us consider the HRD minister's, by now, infamous six point
plan that will supposedly clean up her mess. She stumbled, she
stammered and she stifled, and then she stalled and stuttered
before stonewalling. If she had spent more time addressing the
problems and less time with her image consultant, perhaps
taxpayers would take her plan seriously.
If the minister was serious about cleaning up her own
department, why did she have to get caught before she did
something about it?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member's premise is totally wrong. Once again
he and his party are slamming and criticizing an officer of the
House, the auditor general. That is what they are doing when
they are criticizing the six point action plan. The auditor
general said “I do believe this is a very thorough plan for
corrective action to address the immediate control problems that
were identified. Some longer term action plans are also included
that further strengthen the approach”.
The Reform Party ought to apologize to the auditor general and
to the House for the unwarranted criticism of his support of the
six point action plan.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we have always fully supported the auditor general. It
is the Liberal government that only uses his words when it suits
its needs.
It does not matter how many points there are in the minister's
plan. As long as the very first point is political interference
the plan is doomed to failure. With the Shawinigan fountain king
staying on as leader, HRDC has no hope of fixing itself.
The minister and her predecessors have been warned for years
that HRDC was rife with waste and they chose to do nothing about
it.
Why should Canadians believe that the patronage and the
political meddling is about to stop?
1120
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again the premise is wrong. There have been no findings
of improper political interference, unless we want to talk about
the representations by Reform members in support of grants from
the HRD department. The hon. member should be looking at himself
in this regard if he thinks that this is improper. This is
something he in effect is saying.
This government is dealing with these problems. It has the six
point action plan. I think it deserves credit for taking note of
the problems and dealing with them in a way that the auditor
general finds effective and meaningful.
Again, the Reform Party should apologize for criticizing—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Dewdney—Alouette.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Reform Party will not apologize for continuing to keep this
government accountable. The auditor general has warned against
political interference in his report and the Deputy Prime
Minister knows it.
Just to refresh the minister's memory, that is when the boss
puts pressure on the department to dole out cash for fountains
and shifty hoteliers, or when she goes against the rules of her
own program and drops millions of dollars into her own riding.
Political interference will get in the way of any plan to restore
integrity to the way grants are doled out at HRDC.
It is the same players and the same programs. How can it be
expected that there will be anything different this time around?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the
members of the Reform Party spent as much time on their research
as they do on their alliterations they might have some of their
facts correct.
Once again, they are only telling part of the story. They did
not mention what the auditor general also said. He said
“Exceptional circumstances demand exceptional actions. The
action plan proposed is exceptional. I believe it is a very
thorough plan for corrective action”. When asked about
political interference, he said that he had found no evidence of
political interference.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, while the auditor general talked about facts, let us
talk about some other facts. The parliamentary secretary talked
about facts.
The minister took no action until she was caught. That is a
fact. She tried to bury the audit for months and hoped that it
would not be found. That is a fact. When she was outed by an
access request she reluctantly released the audit. Since then
she has stonewalled every attempt to get to the truth. That is a
fact. She has not so much as apologized for this billion dollar
bungle.
With this kind of track record, how can anyone expect anything
but a repeat of this disaster as long as this minister is still
in charge?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
difficult to answer a set of challenges that are untrue. There
is no billion dollar boondoggle. A billion dollars is not lost.
The minister has never stonewalled. She has led us into the new
century of transparency by publishing 10,000 pages of
information, which these people would do well to go through so
they could for once get their facts straight.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
According to the auditor general, the situation at the
Department of Human Resources Development is serious. Indeed,
the auditor general said that, based on his severity scale, this
situation is at the top.
Beyond the six point plan, what is the government prepared to do
to follow up on the auditor general's criticisms and
recommendations?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
auditor general supports the six point plan. He insists that we
must continue with that plan.
Once the auditor general has completed his work, in October, we
will take a very close look at his recommendations. For the time
being, we are following his advice and we are continuing to
implement our six point plan.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased that the government is prepared to follow the auditor
general's recommendations. Let me remind the government of one
recommendation that the auditor general finds extremely
important.
Yesterday, before the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development, the auditor general said that, in order to get to
the bottom of things in such cases, a police investigation is
always required.
What is the government waiting for to launch a police
investigation, particularly in the case of Placeteco?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we do not
wait when things indicate we should do it. If the opposition
party has evidence that it thinks should be referred to a police
investigation, it should present it.
1125
Our review of this particular case suggests that we have all the
invoices that document the expenses of the company and how it
used our money. We are satisfied with that so there is no need
for establishing an overpayment or any such thing, or referring
it to the police.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, if the government wants evidence in the
Placeteco affair, it can have it: a $1 million grant paid out
under a secret agreement that left small creditors out in the
cold; an HRDC trustee who is also the buyer's lawyer; several
friends of the Prime Minister—Claude Gauthier, Gilles Champagne
and Michel Béliveau—are involved.
What is the government waiting for to launch a police
investigation so that we can get to the bottom of things, as the
auditor general says.
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, sometimes I
wonder if that party wants to bring jobs to its province. It
should know that it is difficult to acquire private sector—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I cannot hear the answer.
An hon. member: There are limits.
The Deputy Speaker: Yes, there are limits to the noise in the
House. Everyone is talking at once. It is impossible for the
Chair to hear anything at all.
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown: Mr. Speaker,
the obsession of Bloc members with this file makes me question
their desire to bring jobs to their province. Everybody knows
that in areas of high unemployment it is difficult to acquire
private sector investments. If they insist on asking for all
this private business to be aired publicly, we will have
difficulty in the future getting other private investors to put
their money into Quebec and to create jobs in areas of high
unemployment.
They should question themselves about the long term effect of
their political posturing.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are determined that grants to create jobs
should in fact do just that.
The minister is telling us that she has invoices justifying
payment of the grant. We have in our hands a secret agreement
allowing $1 million to be paid without creating the jobs
announced.
Would the government not agree that the only way of getting to
the bottom of the Placeteco affair is to launch a police
investigation as was done in the case of the Rosemont grant that
found its way to Saint-Maurice?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
difficult to comment on secret agreements and to make any sense
of the paranoia of that particular party on this file.
All I am telling those members is that they are destroying our
ability to attract private sector investment to the province of
Quebec. They are working against the best interests of their own
constituents.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Prime Minister went to Alberta, looked the Premier
of Alberta in the eye and blinked. The nation was treated to the
spectacle of the Prime Minister playing Art Carney to Alberta's
Ralph Kramden while the premier denounced the Prime Minister's
Minister of Health.
Has the Minister of Health considered resigning given that the
Prime Minister has pulled the rug out from underneath him?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member should stop playing Barney Rubble in the
House and get down to reality.
The fact of the matter is that the Prime Minister spoke out
strongly in support of the five principles of the Canada Health
Act. He said that the government would be maintaining them, and
this is exactly the position of the Minister of Health. They are
working together, along with all the cabinet, in support of a
universal quality health care system for all Canadians.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the fact is that the Canada Health Act was created in
1984 to deal with extra billing and user fees when they became a
problem. What is happening in Alberta now is a new level of
something that has already existed in the health care system.
I am asking the Minister of Health, not whether he wants to
defend the five principles, because that may not be enough, but
whether he is willing to change the Canada Health Act so that
this new development in Alberta will not threaten medicare the
way he knows it does threaten medicare.
1130
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as the Prime Minister himself said last night and as we have been
saying in the House for some days, it is only a proposed bill
before the Alberta legislature. The premier himself is talking
about potential amendments. We have not yet seen the
regulations. We will wait for the final product. We will assess
it in relation to the Canada Health Act. As the Prime Minister
stressed last night, we will be there to protect those principles
because that is what Canadians want.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, after having taken a wrecking ball to our health care
system, will the minister now at least admit that he has forced
the provinces to take extraordinary measures? In fact we might
call it radical surgery to deal with the shortfall of federal
funding.
Will the minister at least admit that the crisis has been caused
by him and his government?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
at the outset we should note that the absent leader of the
member's party came out this week in favour of Premier Klein's
approach to private for profit hospitals.
What is needed at this time to fix medicare is a combination of
innovation and long term financial commitment. That is exactly
what we have offered. In fact at my suggestion, ministers of
health are meeting next week. We will go to that table with a
determination to deal with the number one priority of all
Canadians which is to fix medicare.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, this is the old bait and switch technique the minister
has used for years in the House. In reality he does not
recognize the difference between his aspirin and his elbow. It
is time that he stood on his hind legs in the House and took his
responsibility seriously in terms of the lead minister
constitutionally. We are looking for guidance and leadership on
this issue. Throwing it back at some other party in the House
just does not cut it.
When will the minister stand up and defend health care in this
country?
The Deputy Speaker: I assume that the Minister of Health
is aware of the effects of the medicine mentioned by the hon.
member; the Speaker is not.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. minister is defending health care in a vigorous
and effective way. I suggest that if the hon. Conservative
member wants to take his responsibilities seriously, the first
thing he should do is stand up to his leader and tell his leader
to defend health care.
* * *
EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday I asked the Minister for International Trade what
portion of EDC's $118 million net profit came from the Government
of Canada writing off its bad loans. He avoided that question
although he talked a lot about concessional versus commercial
financing.
Let us talk about commercial financing then. In the private
sector the Bank of Montreal has non-performing exposure of 1% on
its loan portfolio. I ask the minister to tell the House today
what percentage of EDC's corporate account loans are
non-performing.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today we have to ask ourselves the
question is taxpayers' money well served by funding such a shoddy
Reform research office? Reform's only source of information on
this file has recognized in its edition this morning that the
article contained many errors. It acknowledged that the $2.8
billion reserve in 1999 does not represent actual loan losses as
alleged by Reform all week long nor—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Peace River.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians have a tough time understanding why it is so difficult
for the minister to answer the question. The question I asked was
what percentage of the commercial loans at EDC are non-performing
loans. Why can the minister not answer this question? How can
Canadian taxpayers know whether they are getting good value for
EDC's commercial operations when EDC continues to shield this
information from public scrutiny?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, will the Reform Party table in the House
its own retraction as well as what was in this morning's edition?
The EDC did not write off $1.3 billion last year. Its actual
loan write-off last year was zero.
* * *
1135
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
we know that $1 million of the funds received by Placeteco went
directly to the National Bank, without the projected jobs being
created.
The Minister of Human Resources Development tells us, however,
that she has $1 million in invoices to justify this payment. So
that means that, in total, there are $2 million floating around,
although there is only $1 million involved.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Why is the minister refusing to make public these invoices,
which would shed a bit more light on this business which is
becoming more and more murky with each passing day?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been
very forthcoming on this file and regarding all our programs. I
remind the member that we have put out 10,000 pages of
information on grants and contributions.
Information has also been provided on this particular file. I am
sure that if the member is serious about obtaining more detailed
information, he will access the channels that have been made
available to him for that purpose.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the parliamentary secretary is trying to cloud the issue. We
are not referring to the documents that have been released, but
to the invoices she has been telling us about for the past two
weeks.
The auditor general admits that only through a police
investigation will we be able to get to the bottom of certain
things that are currently going on at Human Resources
Development Canada.
When will the government ask the RCMP to investigate in order to
respond to the taxpayers' concerns about how the government is
managing public funds?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe the hon. member is not accurately quoting the exact
words of the auditor general.
The auditor general supports our six point action plan and is
also carrying out his own audit, the results of which we expect
to have by the fall. I am therefore asking the hon. member to
be accurate in quoting the auditor general, who, I say again,
supports our six point plan.
* * *
[English]
EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the public accounts report that one category of EDC loans is
worth $140 million and indicate that payment was due in November
1997. This is taxpayers' money. The people of Canada are the
only shareholders of the crown corporation known as EDC.
I ask the minister responsible to explain to the shareholders of
EDC why $140 million of taxpayers' money has not been repaid.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the correction in
this morning's Ottawa Citizen which the Reform Party does
not seem to have taken into account:
A March 18 story and an editor's note on March 22 about the
Export Development Corporation contained errors. While the EDC
set aside $2.8 billion in 1999 to cover potential loan losses,
insurance claims and guarantees, this sum is based on an
accounting formula and does not represent actual loan losses.
Nor did EDC write off $1.3 billion—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Kelowna.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
minister has not addressed the question at all. The hon.
minister must recognize at least at one point in his lifetime
that he has made a mistake.
It is interesting to hear this minister, not only today but on
other days, blather on about the fact that Canadian taxpayers are
not on the hook for the bad loans of EDC. Let me read for the
hon. minister a quote from the EDC which does not see it that
way: “It is a fact that the Canadian government has invested in
EDC in the form of equity, which makes the Government of Canada
EDC's sole—”
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister for International
Trade.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have said it time and again. It is $1
billion over the last 56 years in the equity account. Let me
continue to quote the correction recognized by the Ottawa
Citizen this morning:
EDC officials say that they expect most impaired loans to be
repaid eventually, and that actual loan write-offs in 1999 were
zero.
Will the members opposite apologize for their misinformation in
the House all the time, and all their allegations about this
crown corporation which helps Canadians with exports?
* * *
1140
[Translation]
HEALTH
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Prime Minister said in Calgary that more money
could, if needed, be available to maintain the integrity of
Canada's health care system.
My question is for the Minister of Health. Could he tell us
whether the statement by the Prime Minister means that the
government intends to make transfer payments to the provinces to
enable them to administer their respective systems according to
their own priorities?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have
in Canada a countrywide health care system funded in large
measure by the Government of Canada. A third of the public
money spent on health care is spent by the Government of Canada.
As the Prime Minister said last evening, we intend to increase
the level of funding with a long term plan to solve the problems
of our health care system.
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
everyone knows that Canada's health care system needs more
money. All we want to know is how much and when?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
need two things for our nationwide health care system.
The first one is innovation, to implement innovative practices
to improve the quality and accessibility of health care
services.
The second is an appropriate level of funding, and the
Government of Canada will do its share.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the human resources minister is responsible for a
billion dollar bungle. Her department warned about it last
August. She did not do anything about it until January, two days
after we put in an access request for that audit.
I can see why she is trying to hold up any more releases, but
there is a statutory deadline of 30 days. Dozens of requests
have gone unanswered months past their due date.
Why is the minister ignoring her responsibility under the act
and when will she see that these access requests are released?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our past
record speaks for itself on these access to information requests.
We have released 75,000 pages this fiscal year under the Access
to Information Act. In the past 10 weeks alone, the department
has received 526 requests. This is compared to the 531 requests
we received in the entire 1998-99 fiscal year.
The member opposite should ask himself if his constituents want
department officials spending all their time answering detailed
questions or serving them.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, our
constituents would like to have some accountability at HRDC.
Much of what we requested are already completed documents. They
are ready to go. The minister pretends she wants transparency.
The only transparency is the apparent attempt to muzzle the
department.
The Access to Information Act is clear. Departments have 30
days to return requested information. Dozens of requests have
not been dealt with yet.
Is the minister's clampdown a result of some embarrassment or
fear over the possible damaging content of these documents?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is
absolutely no clampdown.
As a matter of fact it is odd that the members of the Reform
Party differ with their researcher on this one. The researcher
was recently quoted as saying that HRDC has one of the best
access to information offices in Ottawa.
* * *
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, every day we
hear news that confirm the negative impact of the gasoline price
increase on the economy.
The one-point rise in the inflation rate since January is
evidence of that impact. However, Ottawa will collect, through
the GST, an additional amount of close to $250 million, because
of the increase in the price of gasoline.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Considering the
financial means at its disposal, should the government not give
a break to taxpayers by immediately reducing the excise tax on
oil products?
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, tax reductions were recently announced in
Budget 2000.
1145
[English]
We know that the price of petroleum is coming down. We know
that in terms of the GST it represents one cent of the twenty
cent increase over the last few months. The provinces have much
more excise tax on gasoline than the federal government. We are
hoping that the price of crude will continue to go down. It has
not had an amazing effect; it has had a very limited effect on
inflation.
* * *
THE BUDGET
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the recent federal budget
focused on creating better lives for Canadians in a rapidly
changing world.
My question is for the Secretary of State for Rural Development.
Could he inform the House on how the budget has responded to the
specific concerns of rural Canadians?
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Rural
Development)(Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern
Ontario), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is a number of very
specific initiatives in the budget: $54 million for community
futures; $160 million to connect rural Canadians to the Internet;
a $2.6 billion infrastructure program, a large portion of which
will go to rural Canada; and $30 million to assist our natural
resource industries both in forestry and mining.
Most important is that the budget recognized that the
circumstances of rural Canadians were different from those of
urban Canadians. Unlike the Reform Party there is a recognition
that government will work in partnership with rural Canadians,
communities and businesses to better the lives of rural
Canadians.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has no problem funnelling HRDC cash to
companies with friends of the Prime Minister on their boards. At
the same time only 26% of AIDA money that the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food promised to farmers in December 1998
has made it to them. As a result the agriculture minister is
guilty of financial mismanagement.
Why does the government find it so easy to shovel money to its
rich friends and cannot get emergency help to farmers who need
it?
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, leave it to a
party that was to cut $600 million from the agriculture program
to find fault with a government that will be providing $3.3
billion over the next three years.
As a matter of fact his province of Manitoba will be held
harmless with the new arrangement. It got 60 crisp, brand new 60
million dollar bills just a short time ago. In addition, it will
be getting another $40 million so they will be held harmless with
this program in the future.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, let us talk about the reality of the public relations
exercise we heard yesterday. It is awful short on details.
Nobody knows who is going to qualify and how they are going to
trigger it. There is no provincial agreement. Saskatchewan and
Manitoba come up short again as the hardest hit areas.
Could the government explain how it is that HRDC grant
recipients could get money without putting pen to paper and yet
farm families that filled out pages and pages of AIDA
applications come up with nothing?
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, they call $3.3
billion nothing. The province of Manitoba will not receive any
less in safety net moneys than it does today.
That is in addition to the $60 million we recently gave it in
the $435 million in the new safety net program. This is there
and the details will be figured out between the provinces and the
federal government over the next short period.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday's report from the expert panel on Canada's
national parks tells us what thousands of Canadians already know,
that services in the parks have deteriorated because of the
government's chronic underfunding.
The Narrows campground in Prince Albert National Park is one
example. The park has struggled to keep the campground open but
last winter people were told that this summer there might be no
modern toilets or fresh water.
Will the minister commit to putting more money into Canada's
national parks so that our citizens can begin to enjoy them once
again?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, one of the things the member will find, if he has an
opportunity to read the very comprehensive ecological integrity
report, is that one of the points put forth by the panel is that
we have to get our ecological house in order before we can go to
the Minister of Finance for more money.
One of the reasons we have to do that is that in the past each
superintendent looked upon each park simply from the perspective
of delivering services in that park.
What that meant was an ever arching increase in development.
1150
What we need today is to make sure that we look at everything
through an environmental lens, and that is what we intend to do
with implementing the recommendations of the panel.
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, again on the environment, the study by the Pembina
Institute shows that the governments greenhouse gas emissions
policy is a complete failure.
The government is relying on a voluntary program to have major
polluters reduce emissions, but those emissions have actually
increased by 7% since 1990. We have to move quickly to put in
place programs to encourage the move toward the use of renewable
resources. When will the government do something real about
supporting a move toward renewable resource use?
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, actually the government
has been working with governments at the provincial and
territorial levels and with experts across the country to put in
place an action plan that will see us meet our Kyoto target.
On Monday and Tuesday the Minister of Natural Resources and the
Minister of the Environment will be meeting with their provincial
and territorial colleagues to get that agreement battened down
and to make sure that we are getting things in place, because we
have a huge responsibility to Canadians and to people across the
world.
Voluntary action is important. It is not the only thing. We
have to do other things, but it is a critical component.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
government just released its third monitoring and assessment
report, following the drastic cuts to the employment insurance
program. This report shows a 5.7% reduction in the number of
claims from frequent claimants.
In light of this report, has the minister concluded that
everything is fine regarding seasonal unemployment in our
communities?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for the NDP
even good news is turned into bad news. The fact is that this
report reflects the strong performance of the economy and the
creation of 400,000 new jobs last year, of which 85% were full
time. Today the economy is stronger than ever and the
unemployment rate is at its lowest level since 1976.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, this issue is too important to me to be joked about.
While the government is saying everything is well, as we speak I
have constituents in my riding who see themselves with no income
because of the actions taken on the part of the Liberal
government.
Why is the minister refusing to recognize the degree of hardship
caused by the drastic cuts to the EI program and refusing to
introduce measures that will put an end to the suffering which we
are seeing in our seasonal communities? Does the minister have
an answer for the people who have no income now? Everything is
not well.
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very
difficult to make the argument that as a group frequent claimants
and seasonal workers have been treated unfairly.
This year's report indicates that frequent claimants such as
seasonal workers benefit from the hours based system. They now
have an average entitlement period of 32.8 weeks, three weeks
higher than it was before the reform to EI.
Even with the intensity rule in place, the average weekly
benefit rate of frequent claimants exceeded the average for all
claimants of regular benefits by 8.2%. They are having higher
benefits and they are having them for a longer period.
* * *
EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister for International Trade. Would he once and
for all refute the comments and the allegations that were made in
the House by a desperate Reform Party looking to smear the
government?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, absolutely. All week long Reform has
made all sorts of allegations, now denied by its only source of
information.
Let us be constructive in the House this morning after the
denials and let us read the quote from Mr. Malcolm Stephens,
former chief executive of the British equivalent of the EDC who
said:
In my experience the facilities available to Canadian exporters
are flexible and are administered with the professional expertise
which has few rivals in other countries around the world.
This is what Canada stands for.
* * *
1155
MEMBER FOR BRANT
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
the Liberal Party members earn rewards for blowing billions of
dollars while they receive applause at conventions, standing
ovations in the House and even protection from an angry public.
In the real world managers would be fired with cause, but in
Liberaldom they are congratulated and handed a bigger portfolio.
When is the member for Brant getting the finance job?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is obvious the hon. member is getting ready to seek
the job of either leader of the Reform Party or the united
alternative. In spite of that his baseless question is not going
to get him any brownie points even in his own party.
The member for Brant is doing a great job as Minister of Human
Resources Development. The Minister of Finance, the member for
LaSalle—Émard, is doing a great job as Minister of Finance. We
are all very happy with that, as are Canadians generally.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a federal
investigation at the Department of National Defence revealed
that a number of expenses had been paid twice.
Moreover, instead of trying to recover the moneys paid by
mistake, it appears the department preferred to consider these
undue payments as losses.
Does the minister intend to take disciplinary and administrative
action to correct this situation?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the reference that perhaps the hon.
member is making is to a duplicate payment, which was noted in
the media of recent times. It has not been written off. We are
taking every action we can to collect it.
We have substantially cut down this kind of problem. We are
taking corrective action to reduce this kind of situation and to
make sure that people are properly trained to ensure respect for
the taxpayer dollar.
* * *
TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime
Minister. Is he aware that if he took VIA Rail from Halifax to
Vancouver and he flushed the toilet along the way, the toilet
would be flushed directly on to the tracks, leaving a trail of
poo from coast to coast?
In light of the workers along the tracks and consideration for
the environment, would he announce that the government will
finally take steps to clean up this dreadful situation?
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we can truly appreciate the
kind of environment in which these individuals are working when
the toilets are being flushed along the tracks. There is no
doubt about it; it is a stinky situation.
However, I point out that we have a policy that any new
passenger car providing railway service must have containers. Any
passenger car today that is being renovated must also have the
new container system, and we are hoping that the old cars will be
renovated in a very short period of time.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the HRD
minister has changed the application date for the student summer
employment program. This was done without contacting former
program recipients. This was done without advertising in local
papers. This was done without contacting opposition MPs.
Did the minister contact her government MPs to indicate that the
application date had been changed?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all
initiatives under the student summer job action are designed to
create or help students get employment.
It is my understanding that the deadline for applications under
this program is March 31, 2000, the same as it has been every
other year.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Yesterday, the Panamanian flagship with a crew of 31 carrying a
cargo of salt from Spain en route to New York began to take on
water and sank quickly. The crew was unable to utilize its life
rafts and lifeboats.
Could the minister inform members of the House on the role
played by members of the Canadian armed forces in the rescue of
the members of the Leader L?
1200
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there was a Canadian naval task group,
comprised of three frigates, a supply ship and a destroyer, on
their way to exercises when this tragedy occurred 370 kilometres
northeast of Bermuda.
The HMCS Iroquois, Charlottetown, Halifax and
Toronto and the ship Preserver participated in the
rescue. Sea King helicopters were deployed and, along with the
Hercules and an Aurora aircraft, they rescued six of the crew
members from two life rafts.
I think we owe our congratulations to the members of the
Canadian forces for some fine work.
* * *
EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for
days in the House we have been asking questions about Export
Development Corporation based on its annual reports and based on
the Public Accounts of Canada.
All we have received from the minister is a bunch of blather
with no answers. He seems more intent on talking about the
Ottawa Citizen than answering questions in the House. Why
does he not answer the questions that are put to him?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have to refute the allegations that
members of the Reform Party have made. All week we have heard
talk of billions of dollars of losses and now we recognize that
their source of information, their articles, contain errors.
If the opposition had any dignity it would apologize for having
led Canadian public opinion in the House on the wrong track in
believing that this crown corporation is not doing good work for
Canadians exporters all around the world.
* * *
[Translation]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on June 23, I
submitted an access to information request with a very simple
question: what is the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's process
for approving genetically modified foods. Nine months later, I
received some documents, but no answer to my question.
My question is for the Minister of Health. What reason is there
for this lack of transparency other than that there is no
approval process or that the process is so deficient that the
minister is too ashamed to make it public?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
provided a full response.
* * *
[English]
POINTS OF ORDER
BILL C-206
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my point of order is with regard to Bill C-206 and the
fact that it has been dropped to the bottom of the order of
precedence.
Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, the status of the bill was
challenged by the member for Athabasca, resulting in a committee
study by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
The Speaker ruled on the complaint of the member for Athabasca
and based his ruling on the recommendation from the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which recommended:
That the Speaker require (the Member for Wentworth—Burlington)
to demonstrate that Bill C-206 has the current support of at
least 100 Members, including at least 10 Members each from a
majority of the recognized parties in the House, by filing with
the Clerk a list, in accordance with Standing Order 87(6)(a),
prior to Bill C-206 being set down for the first hour of debate
at second reading. For these purposes only, and without prejudice
to any future cases or recommendations, “support” shall mean
support that the item be added to the Order of Precedence. If
(the Member for Wentworth—Burlington) is unable to demonstrate
such support within the specified period of time, the Speaker
should order that Bill C-206 be dropped from the Order of
Precedence and replaced by the next eligible item under Standing
Order 87(6)(b). Any such removal of Bill C-206 would not affect
in any way (the Member for Wentworth—Burlington's) use of this
procedure for Bill C-206 in the future.
During the discussions at committee, it was suggested that the
member for Wentworth—Burlington be apprised of the intentions of
the committee before the committee actually finalized its report,
in order to allow him time to seek the recommended support for
his bill. The reason for this urgency was because the committee
intended the deadline to be the first opportunity for the bill to
be considered for its first hour of debate. That should have
been today.
By arranging to prevent his bill from being considered today,
the member for Wentworth—Burlington has gone against the
intentions of the committee and the spirit of the Speaker's
ruling. His procedural manoeuvre blocks the next eligible bill
from making it on the order paper pursuant to Standing Order
87(6)(b).
1205
No other member enjoys the advantage of securing a position on
the order of precedence until such time as he or she can obtain
100 signatures. All other members are now required to wait while
the member dithers.
The House has been patient enough and it is unfair to all
members to delay this any further. In the Chair's ruling of
March 21, 2000, the Speaker said:
Failing the filing of the necessary list with the Journals Branch
prior to Bill C-206 being set down for the first hour of debate
at second reading, the item will be removed from the order of
precedence. It will, of course, remain eligible to be returned
to the order of precedence through a later filing of such a list
or by the normal process of the draw.
The member for Wentworth—Burlington rose after the Speaker's
ruling and sought further clarification. He clarified with the
Chair that if he could secure 100 signatures by Friday, March 24,
2000, today, his bill could remain on the order paper. It is
obvious that the member did not obtain the required support in
time.
The member had his chance. He should now proceed as suggested
in the Speaker's ruling. He should file through the normal
process and stop tying up a position on the order of precedence
that would allow other members to take advantage of Standing
Order 87(6)(b).
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have listened carefully to this representation. While I would
not disagree with all or the greater portion of what was said, I
suggest to the Chair that it would be inappropriate at this
juncture to interpret what the procedure and House affairs
committee reported to the House. It is equally or even more
inappropriate to second guess the ruling of the Speaker.
If what we have here is a stick handling, a legal compliance
with the rules of the House for Private Members' Business, that
is every member's right and privilege. I am not so sure that the
procedure that has been used to date is so egregiously out of
order that it should cause the Speaker to further intervene.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, it is obviously not my
intention to get into a lengthy debate today about this issue of
what I feel is a circumvention of the intent of the Speaker's
ruling regarding private member's Bill C-206. However, I would
like to be on record as completely disagreeing with the hon.
member opposite with regard to it being up to every member to
stick handle through the rules.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair has heard the
submissions of both the hon. chief opposition whip and the
parliamentary secretary to the House leader. Obviously, in light
of the allegations by the chief opposition whip in particular, it
is important that the Chair hear from the hon. member for
Wentworth—Burlington. The hon. member suggested that he has
taken advantage of the rules to avoid having the bill called
today for debate. The indication was that he was unable to
proceed today. He is not present in the House and accordingly is
unable to give comments today on this matter and clarify the
issue for the benefit of all hon. members and for the Chair.
However, the Chair does regard the matter as serious and wishes
to take it under advisement. Hopefully we will hear from the
hon. member next week and then a decision will be made in due
course.
I appreciate the hon. chief opposition whip drawing this matter
to the attention of the Chair.
[Translation]
TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if you
were to seek it, you would perhaps find consent but, at the
request of the member for Scarborough Centre, I am truly pleased
to table the tripartite protocol, which was once secret but is
no longer.
I wish to table it. This might further the debate and the House
could finally get to the bottom of the troubling Placeteco
affair.
The Deputy Speaker: Ah, this is an entirely different matter
from the one we discussed.
Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to table this
document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1210
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
during oral question period, the Deputy Prime Minister urged me
to quote the Auditor General of Canada properly, thus implying
that I had misled the House and that I had attributed remarks to
the auditor general that he had not made.
For the benefit of the House, I simply wish to say that what the
auditor general told the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities was this
“In order to get to the bottom of things in such cases, a police
investigation is always required”.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to two petitions.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour, and believe me in this case it is a great honour, to
present in both official languages the second report of the
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, February 21, 2000,
your committee has considered Bill C-23, an act to modernize the
statutes of Canada in relation to benefits and obligations, and
has agreed to report it with amendments.
* * *
CANADA SHIPPING ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
introduced a number of private members' bills that are intended
to bring various Canadian acts in line with the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child.
I am pleased to announce in the House today that the Minister of
Transport has advised me that the amendment outlined in Bill
C-374, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, definition of
child and infant, were introduced in the other place as part of
Bill S-17.
While I thank the minister for his effort and look forward to
the quick passage of Bill S-17, I would like to ask for the
unanimous consent of the House that the order for second reading
of Bill C-374 be discharged and the bill be withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to the
hon. member to withdraw the private member's bill?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Order discharged and bill withdrawn)
* * *
PETITIONS
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to rise pursuant to
Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of a number of
residents of British Columbia who call on parliament to recognize
the fact that Canadians reject the legalization of the possession
of child pornography. They ask the government to intervene in
this matter to establish and strengthen the laws related to the
possession of child pornography to ensure that it will never be
legalized.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition which calls on
the Government of Canada to amend the criminal code in order to
prevent persons convicted of serious crimes from being released
from custody pending the hearing of their appeal except in very
exceptional circumstances.
[Translation]
BREAST CANCER
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I would like to present a petition from
people in my riding who are concerned about the increase in the
incidence of breast cancer.
They call upon parliament to strike an independent committee
that would be responsible for developing, implementing and
maintaining control and quality standards for mammography in
Canada.
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition from the Saskatchewan Farm Income
Coalition group containing around 10,000 signatures.
The Saskatchewan farm families are among the most competitive
farmers in the whole world. They are finding it very difficult
to compete against foreign subsidies, primarily in the United
States and Europe.
1215
These thousands of Saskatchewan farm families are asking
parliament to support them by immediately providing an additional
$1 billion in agricultural trade equalization payments to
Saskatchewan farmers.
Parliament should take note of this and make a special effort to
help Saskatchewan in its time of need.
MAMMOGRAPHY
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
group of petitioners who want the House to enact legislation to
establish an independent governing body to develop, implement and
enforce uniform and mandatory mammography quality assurance and
quality control standards in Canada.
[Translation]
RURAL CARRIERS
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present, in the
presence of the minister responsible for Canada Post
Corporation, a petition signed by 445 people from Quebec,
including from the riding of Verchères—Les-Patriotes.
The petitioners point out that rural carriers do not have access
to collective bargaining to improve their pay and working
conditions.
Too often, these workers earn less than the minimum
wage and their working conditions are from an era that we
thought was gone, whereas their colleagues from the private
sector, who also deliver mail in rural areas, have access to
collective bargaining, as do Canada Post Corporation employees.
The petitioners call upon parliament to repeal paragraph 13(5)
of the Canada Post Corporation Act, which deprives rural
carriers of their right to collective bargaining.
It seems obvious to me that the government must act as soon as
possible to put an end to this kind of discrimination against
rural carriers.
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is my pleasure to present two petitions on behalf of the good
people of Dewdney—Alouette. The first petition has to do with
the high rate of taxes in Canada imposed by the Minister of
Finance.
The petitioners ask the Minister of Finance to reduce taxes
substantially, by 25% in the budget which was just brought down
and in the next three budgets.
THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition is from many petitioners in my riding who are
asking the government to oppose any amendments to the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms or any other federal legislation
which would provide for the exclusion of the reference to the
supremacy of God in our constitution and laws.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA LABOUR CODE
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for the Minister of Labour, Lib.)
moved that 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 others acts, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and privileged to
begin debate at second reading of Bill C-12, an act to amend Part
II of the Canada Labour Code, which addresses occupational health
and safety.
The Government of Canada is committed to safety in the workplace
and ensuring that Canadians live in healthy and safe communities.
This legislation also demonstrates our trust in the ability of
federal employers and employees to recognize and solve their own
health and safety problems together.
This bill makes important amendments to Part II of the Canada
Labour Code. It is good social and economic policy because a
safe workplace, combined with sound labour management relations
and employee involvement in the decision making process, just
makes good sense.
The bill is the second of the Government of Canada's three phase
reform of the Canada Labour Code. The significant amendments to
Part II of the Canada Labour Code communicate the Liberal belief
that initiatives which promote a healthier and safe working
environment, which foster sound labour management relations and
which encourage employee involvement in decision making
constitute not only good social policy but also good economic
policy.
As members can appreciate, occupational health and safety issues
are highly complex.
Part II of the code sets out a legislative framework for
addressing those issues for employees who are within the federal
jurisdiction.
1220
The federal jurisdiction under Part II includes the federal
public service, certain crown corporations, industries declared
by parliament for the general advantage of Canada, such as grain
handling and uranium mining, as well as industries which are
international or interprovincial in scope, such as railroads, air
traffic, pipelines, shipping, long-shoring, banking and
telecommunications. The federal jurisdiction is representative
of a core infrastructure that provides for key economic linkages
both nationally and internationally.
Approximately 10% of the Canadian workforce is governed by the
Canada Labour Code. Part II of the code defines the duties of
both the employees and the employers. It also establishes three
basic employee rights in the health and safety area: the right
to know about hazards in the workplace and ways of dealing with
them, the right to participate in correcting those workplace
hazards, and the right to refuse work which the employee believes
to be dangerous or unhealthy.
The code lays out a procedure to be followed in the event of a
dangerous or unsafe workplace, and also defines the roles and
responsibilities of workers, employers, workplace health and
safety committees and safety officers. The legislation also sets
out the processes and procedures to be exercised in enforcing
those basic rights.
Workplaces have changed and will continue to change. Therefore,
we must periodically review the code to ensure that it meets the
social and economic needs of the day. The last amendments to
Part II were made in 1985. Since that time both the federal
government and stakeholder groups have identified areas of Part
II in which changes need to be made.
The resulting amendments were formulated, first, to ensure that
Part II continues to do what it is supposed to do, namely,
protect workers; second, to align Part II with occupational
health and safety regulations in other jurisdictions; and third,
to modernize the Part II approach to occupational health and
safety regulations.
What may be less obvious is that recent changes in the workplace
have forced employers and employees to confront many new issues
in the realm of workplace health and safety. For example, the
proliferation of personal computers has forced us to pay closer
attention to the ergonomic considerations needed to prevent or
ameliorate repetitive strain injuries.
The bill not only addresses the human side of the equation, but
also the economic side. Each year between 30 and 40 workers in
the federal jurisdiction die on the job, and another 60,000
suffer occupational injuries or illnesses. That is one million
lost workdays annually, nearly 5,000 person years, costing over
$350 million in lost wages, medical aid, rehabilitation and
disability pension payments.
In Canada significantly more workdays are lost each year due to
injury than to strikes or lockouts. In 1995 occupational
injuries and illnesses cost the Canadian economy almost $5
billion in workers' compensation payments. Studies indicate that
the direct and indirect costs of occupational casualties comes to
about $10 billion annually. This is a staggering financial
burden, but it says nothing about the anguish and grief endured
by those who have lost a loved one or those who have lost a limb
or suffer a respiratory disease because of a workplace hazard.
If we could reduce the annual number of workplace injuries and
deaths by just 1% we would realize a saving of approximately $11
million.
I do not mean to imply that Part II of the code is important for
purely economic reasons. On the contrary, the code is an example
of legislation which has far-reaching implications both socially
and economically.
Occupational health and safety is a problem which we must face,
and we must face it together—governments, employers, unions,
workers and health professionals. Jointly we must attack the
problem.
The Government of Canada has recognized that the time has come
to make changes to Part II. The amendments contained in Bill
C-12 are the result of extensive and exhaustive consultations,
including the work that began in 1993 by a legislative committee
composed of organizations representing employers and worker
groups as well as officials of the federal labour program.
This committee was directed to develop proposed amendments based
on the consensus of the parties involved. The process was not
easy.
The parties involved had to make difficult compromises on
individual matters to reach an agreement on the entire package of
proposals. I congratulate the parties for the perseverance they
showed throughout the process. Their recommendations constitute
the vast majority of the contents of this bill.
1225
Overwhelmingly, the parties agreed that the existing code has
worked well and that it could form a basis and a foundation for
the new and improved system. In particular, the parties agreed
that the time had come for a new approach to the regulation of
workplace health and safety. This agreement is reflected in Bill
C-12, which is based on the philosophy that the proper role of
the Government of Canada is to empower workers and employers to
assume responsibility for the regulation of their own workplace.
In general, the government's role should be that of a guide
rather than an interventionist. Workers and employers should be
given the power and discretion to identify and resolve new and
emerging health and safety hazards.
I have no doubt that this is the right approach. The Government
of Canada can only empower the parties rather than impose
solutions from above.
This approach is evident in the amendments to the powers and
duties of existing workplace health and safety committees. These
bodies will be required to regularly inspect their workplaces and
to deal with problems and issues as they arise, reducing the need
for direct government intervention.
In terms of dispute resolution, management and employee
representatives of the committee will be responsible for
investigating all disagreements and conflicts. Only when the
parties cannot reach an agreement will a government health and
safety officer become involved.
This is an example of the trust of the Liberal Government of
Canada in the ability of employers and employees to work
together. It demonstrates that the Government of Canada is
committed to regulating more intelligently, regulating in a way
that ensures the continued health and safety of everyone.
Through Bill C-12 the Government of Canada empowers workers and
employees by introducing health and safety policy committees.
These committees will complement the work of the existing
workplace health and safety committees. Their role will be to
deal with matters such as accident prevention, education of
employees and the acquisition of protective equipment.
The role of the Government of Canada in establishing these new
committees is to ensure that health and safety issues make their
way into the corporate agenda and are addressed at the highest
possible level. For companies which operate in more than one
location, the committees will also ensure some level of
consistency across the different sites.
Although I hope that all companies will take advantage of this
promising new mechanism, the policy committee will only be
mandatory for firms with more than 300 employees. This
represents a small number of employers in the federal sector, but
actually accounts for 85% of all employees.
Although Bill C-12 represents a new approach to health and
safety regulations and a significant realignment of the roles and
responsibilities of the key players, it is clear that the
Government of Canada is firmly committed to existing rights and
is doing its utmost to strengthen workplace health and safety.
In the case of the right to refuse dangerous work, this
commitment means strengthening and clarifying the rights of both
employers and employees. For example, all employees prevented
from working as a result of an employee exercising the right of
refusal will be paid until the end of their shift, whereas the
employee exercising the right of refusal will be paid until the
matter is resolved.
The Government of Canada is also mindful of the rights of
employers, who will be given the discretion to discipline a
worker when the right to refuse is abused or when it is found
that a frivolous claim has been made.
In an area as important as workplace health and safety, the
Liberal government has shown that it is not prepared to stand
still. As promised in the red book, it is moving forward with
regulatory reform which is both economically and socially
progressive.
Five features of the bill seem to be particularly important and
necessary. First, as a result of this bill, local health and
safety committees will be mandated to conduct regular workplace
inspections and will be given increased powers in dealing with
complaints. This will permit the parties to identify and solve
problems swiftly as they arise. This will be done with
government guidance and it will enhance the role of the health
and safety committees.
Second, a management and an employee member of the committee
will be empowered to investigate any unresolved complaint. If
they find a violation of the code, they will ask the employer to
give a written assurance of compliance.
If they find an immediate danger, they will shut off the machine
or otherwise stop the activity. If they cannot agree on a
solution, a government health and safety officer will be asked to
intervene.
1230
Third, a health and safety policy committee at the corporate
level will be required for enterprises with 300 or more
employees. This committee will address a range of issues such as
injury prevention initiatives and awareness activities. This
will apply to over 80% of the federally regulated workforce, many
of whom have already voluntarily established such committees.
Fourth, the Liberal government is committed to help establish
family friendly workplaces. This bill provides additional
protection for pregnant and nursing employees. If an employee
has reason to believe that an activity or condition, such as
exposure to a chemical, will adversely affect her, her fetus or
her child if she is breast feeding, she will be able to withdraw
from the work until she has had the opportunity to consult her
doctor. Under existing legislation the employee has to continue
working until she receives a medical certificate.
Fifth, the bill provides for regulation that will require every
employer to develop, establish and monitor in consultation with
the workplace health and safety committee at both the workplace
and corporate levels, a preventative program appropriate to the
size of the workplace and the nature of the hazards.
These are all important changes. They reflect the Government of
Canada's commitment to occupational health and safety and its
confidence in the willingness and ability of labour and
management to solve their problems in a mutually beneficial
manner.
In closing, I want to emphasize that we take our consultative
obligations in drafting this bill very seriously. It was
lengthy, involved and extensive and included relevant agencies of
the Government of Canada, the major labour organizations and the
major employers and employer groups. They all deserve to be
commended and thanked.
My hope is that the occupational health and safety problem in
this country will certainly be reduced. I believe that this
bill, because it tapped the commitment and concern of social
partners, is an important first step toward this goal. Let the
workplace be what it is supposed to be: challenging, interesting,
meaningful and conducive to good health. By acting now we can
ensure that Canada has in place the type of regulatory framework
we need to compete and thrive in today's economic climate.
The Government of Canada has shown that it remains committed to
improving and protecting the health and safety of workers under
its jurisdiction. Employers and employees have made it very
clear that they are eager to take on their new responsibilities
and work together. It is time that we gave them a chance.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to debate Bill C-12, which is an act that purports to amend part
II of the Canada Labour Code. It deals with occupational health
and safety. Unlike parts I and III, this one also covers the
federal public service.
Part II of the labour code has not been significantly updated
for at least 15 years. There seems to have been a lot of
suggestion that the government moved with all speed, but it has
been 15 years which does not show the alacrity which was
attributed to the government by the previous speaker.
A few days before dropping the writ for the 1997 general
election, a bill to amend part II of the code was tabled in the
House of Commons. I am sure it was not just a move to shore up
Liberal support, even though it took almost another three years
to bring the bill back to the House.
Employer groups and employer associations which have been
involved in the lengthy consultative process now fear that if the
government delays the legislation any longer, another election
will be called and they will have to start all over again. There
is some urgency to move ahead with this bill so that there is not
the same experience as last time.
Health and safety in the workplace is the responsibility of
every person on the work site. Whether it is a labour intensive
industry or a high level high tech desk job, all have stress or
other parts to them and health and safety factors are involved.
The role of government is to set the standards and to provide a
mechanism to resolve disputes when and if they arise.
Government legislation and regulations alone cannot promote a
healthy workplace and prevent accidents. This involves every one
of us. All of us who are involved in the workplace, in a
supervisory capacity or in the actual work activity, are
responsible to make sure it is as healthy and as safe as we can
make it.
1235
In November a report prepared by the British Columbia Workers'
Compensation Board for example showed that the province's
stringent health and safety laws were doing little to curb
workplace fatalities. It just goes to show that there is another
element here and that is the human element; all of us have a role
to play.
According to that report, British Columbians died from work
related injuries at a rate of nearly three per week over the last
decade. Nationally there are approximately 800,000 occupational
accidents annually of which 750 are fatal. One worker is injured
on the job every nine seconds of work time. That gives us an
idea of the magnitude of the problem. Work related accidents cost
the Canadian economy $10 billion a year in direct and indirect
costs. Approximately 18 million days of work were lost this way
in 1997. It is a serious issue.
In any workplace if accidents are to be prevented, everyone must
be involved. The more people understand about workplace hazards,
the better equipped they will be to prevent injury and illness.
The question then is how will the proposed amendments contained
in Bill C-12 help ensure that people are better equipped to
prevent accidents?
The intent of the bill is laudable but some of the provisions
require closer scrutiny. That is precisely what I hope will
happen as the committee delves into the details of this proposed
legislation.
For example, I would like to draw the attention of the House to
the fact that companies with over 300 employees shall, they are
required to form a health and safety committee as well as a
policy committee. The question really arises of why the number
300 was chosen. Is that some kind of arbitrary number? What
happens if a company has 299 employees? Is that a materially
different company from one which has 300 employees? That is the
real question. The government is not so much setting a framework
as saying, “This is what you shall do; this is how you shall
manage your company”.
The argument was made by the hon. member who spoke just before
me that the government's role is to set standards and to provide
mechanisms for the resolution of disputes. However here in this
provision the government is going beyond that kind of situation
and saying to the president of a company, “This is how you shall
organize. This is what you shall do. These are the kinds of
committees we want you to have and these are the ways in which
that committee is to operate and exercise its mandate”.
Another area of concern is the lack of a second stage appeal
process. While we as Reformers favour a reduction in red tape,
it is important to ensure that a fair and effective appeal
process be set in place. Not every decision is the right one in
the first instance. There ought to be an opportunity for both
management and workers to appeal a particular decision.
Under section 146.3 for example, the appeal officer's decision
is final and shall not be questioned or reviewed in any court. I
think an appeals process is essential. If by some chance the
officer errs, there is no recourse for the employer or the
employee to challenge that ruling. It is my understanding that
employer and worker groups have concerns about this particular
provision. I am sure the committee will deal with this and get
into it in some detail. Hopefully a resolution of this concern
can be reached.
Recently a lot of attention has been focused on workplace
stress. Mr. Speaker, in your role as Speaker you are subjected
to all kinds of noise and conflict in this place and in your
office. I am sure you would recognize only too well what stress
can do to an individual.
Bill C-12 refers to workplace stress but it does not attempt to
define it. That is part of the problem. What constitutes
ordinary workplace stress and what constitutes exceptional
workplace stress? Stress affects different people differently.
Different types of employment have their own built-in stress. For
example, the stress of an air traffic controller is slightly
different from that of someone who cleans the latrines in the
airport.
In some situations stress can lead to violence. While the bill
contains a provision relating to workplace violence, it is vague
and open-ended. I am sure the committee will deal with this and
other areas when it studies the bill in detail.
1240
Bill C-12 also allows for the establishment of workplace
violence regulations. Are companies and their safety officers or
safety committees free to develop workplace violence regulations
or will the government impose them? It is a very real question.
A lot of vagueness and a lot of unanswered questions need to be
addressed in this section.
In January at the coroner's inquest into the tragic shooting
deaths at the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Transit Commission,
employees focused attention on workplace stress and violence. The
jury made 77 recommendations, including one stemming from the
problems encountered by police who were not familiar with the
layout of the massive facility.
That is an obvious thing that should have been looked at but it
was not. These are some of the things that ought to be looked at
in some detail.
While up to date information may not prevent a tragedy, it may
save rescuers time and ultimately help to save lives. That is
really significant.
We have to look at this as well with the firefighters. In very
many instances the nature of the fire and the elements that are
actually in combustion dictate the kind of retardant that is
applied. The firefighter needs to know what it is that is
actually burning. It is not just the fire. He has to know what
kind of fire it is. Also in a case like the OC Transpo
shootings, it would have been good if the police officers had
known exactly where to look and where to go and did not have to
waste a whole lot of time in getting there.
Those are some of the areas that we plan to address and look at
in some detail. I am sure the government will go along with this
as we examine the provisions of Bill C-12.
In conclusion, the British Columbia Workers' Compensation Board
study showed that 99% of accidents are preventable. That is
wonderful. If we can prevent 99% of accidents, that is great
but it depends on the workers and management working together,
not some government person coming in and telling them what they
have to do.
The onus is on both the employers and the employees to work
together on how they are going to do this. As I said earlier, the
primary role of the government is not to set the standards but to
provide the mechanisms and show how the mechanisms can resolve
disputes.
These amendments have been in the works for almost 10 years. All
sides have spent a lot of time and effort in coming up with
provisions that are progressive and acceptable to the
stakeholders.
We are anxious to move ahead and get this thing done so that
people will be safe and healthy in the workplace.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a great
pleasure for me to speak in the House today on 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.
Part II of the Canada Labour Code has not undergone any
substantial changes for more than 15 years, as if there had been
no changes in the various areas covered by the federal
legislation. That is completely ridiculous. But what can one
expect of the federal government, after all?
Today, the new Minister of Labour, the hon. member for
Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, is presenting her new reform of part II
of the Canada Labour Code. It was high time for this government
to do something about reforming part II of the code, which has a
direct impact on occupational health and safety in workplaces
under federal jurisdiction. Why do I say it was high time for
the minister to present her reform? Because work-related
accident statistics are of great concern. I shall come back to
this point later.
I would nevertheless like to draw attention to the efforts the
minister and her department have focused on this reform of part
II of the Canada Labour Code. Her efforts are praiseworthy and
it is our duty to call attention to them.
The Bloc Quebecois assumes the minister's good intentions to
improve occupational health and safety in workplaces under
federal jurisdiction.
said, the Bloc Quebecois has done its homework as well, and
has carried out a thorough examination of Bill C-12.
Unfortunately, it contains several weaknesses, but I shall
address tem later on in my speech.
1245
The bill is only at second reading. The Bloc Quebecois is
prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to the minister and
give her a chance to improve her bill. If this should not be the
case, the Bloc Quebecois will have to reconsider its position,
but for the time being, we are only concerned about the
well-being of workers in Quebec and Canada. Bill C-12 is a good
basis for discussions, but certainly not the definitive answer.
As I said earlier, the situation regarding health and safety in
workplaces that are regulated by the Canada Labour Code is a
serious concern.
is why the Bloc Quebecois strongly condemns the
government's lax approach and slowness in adjusting to the new
realities of the global economy and to the growing requirements
for productivity and competitiveness.
These new realities, which have had a deep impact on the
workplace, have also significantly changed occupational health
and safety practices.
As hon. members know, much has changed over the past 15 years in
the workplace, both in Canada and in the world. Unfortunately,
the federal government has let things drift along. The picture
of occupational health and safety is far from rosy. Let me give
you an overview.
Every year, some 800,000 people are wounded or become sick in
the exercise of their duties. Of this number, over 750 die, a
figure that translates to an average of three deaths a day.
In 1997 one employee in five, on average, was injured at work,
a figure that amounts to an accident at the workplace every 9.1
seconds worked. One worker in 31 was injured badly enough to
miss work for at least one day. This translates into an
accident with time lost every 18 seconds worked.
In 1996, 38 deaths as the result of work-related illness or
accident were reported in industries under federal jurisdiction.
An equal number of deaths was reported in 1995. There was a
death resulting from an accident on the job every seven working
days, on average, or one worker in approximately 20,000 died in
the performance of his duties.
The number of disabling injuries increased from 15 per million
hours worked in 1995 to 15.24 for the same time in 1996. In
that year, the level was not as high as the level recorded in
1994 of 15.44, and remains significantly lower than the figure
for 1993 of 16.99.
In terms of economic impact, these accidents are very costly.
Compensation to victims or to their families amounts to some $5
billion a year. If the indirect costs resulting from accidents
are added to this, the figure doubles to some $10 billion.
Members know full well that these figures do not reflect the
great suffering and pain of the victims and their families.
To complete this sombre picture, who do you think are the main
victims of these accidents? One would think that bad luck
hounds this age group. Yes, as you have no doubt guessed, it is
the young.
They are the most likely to be victims of an accident on the
job, fatal or not. The highest number of accidents involving
time off work occur among young people. Between 1993 and 1997,
one third of accidents involving time off work for which
compensation was paid involved young people between the ages of
15 and 29. In addition, the accident rate among men was more
than twice that among women, 3.57% compared to 1.57% according to
the 1997 data.
I have a very specific reason for saving the figures on young
people until the end of this sombre description. I would like
to take this opportunity to digress for a moment on the topic of
orphan clauses. On October 14, I introduced Bill C-212, the
purpose of which was to prohibit discriminatory clauses in the
federal public service. Unfortunately the government did not
wish to debate this in the House.
1250
The effect of Bill C-212 would be to render any provision in a
collective agreement concluded under certain specified
acts—excluding a provision based on the seniority principle—of no
force or effect where employees hired after a specified date do
not receive the same employee benefits, wages or conditions of
employment as those received by other employees covered by the
collective agreement.
As with accidents on the job, orphan clauses, or discriminatory
clauses as some prefer to call them, take a particularly hard
toll on young people. These clauses are a major factor in the
increase in social inequality.
Several studies have demonstrated that income inequalities in
Canada are linked to wage inequalities between young and more
experienced workers. Between 1981 and 1993, men aged 18 to 24
experienced a 20% drop in earnings, while men aged 45 to 54
earned 20% more.
Like work related accidents, orphan clauses are another problem
that has to be remedied. They are preventing young families
from providing their children with proper living conditions from
a very early age.
The Canadian Institute of Child Health has made the following
comment on the financial difficulties being experienced by young
families:
The economic situation of young families with children is worse
than was experienced by the previous generation. In 1976, a
single parent with one child had to work 41 hours a week at
minimum wage in order to keep the family above the poverty
level. In 1993, the number of hours required had risen to 73 hours a
week.
The federal government, and the Minister of Labour in
particular, need to realize the long term effects of a
shortsighted solution such as this, which so heavily
disadvantages the young. What is even more aberrant is that the
Minister of Labour and the federal government do not recognize
these discriminatory clauses. Hundreds of thousands of Quebec
workers coming under the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Code
are not protected against these discriminatory clauses.
When will the government realize that opposition to orphan
clauses has nothing to do with intergenerational conflict and
that, instead, it is these clauses themselves that are dividing
the generations?
Discriminatory clauses penalize young workers and this has major
social impacts on society. The intent here is not to portray
young people as victims but to take time to review the facts,
which seem to go against the values of solidarity and fairness
required for social cohesion.
The introduction of orphan clauses in collective agreements in
the workplace leads to an equity deficit between generations and
this deficit is all the more intolerable within a context where
wealth is getting more scarce. More than ever, in this period of
restraint, we have to show great solidarity.
If we are serious about fighting and condemning the inequity
suffered by the poor, the young and the elderly among others,
solidarity between generations is essential.
Let us revert to the matter at hand, Bill C-12. I was painting
the sad picture of the situation of work-related accidents in
Canada. Let us now take a closer look at the changes the
minister intends to bring about in her reform of part II of the
Canada Labour Code.
First of all, Bill C-12 wants to legislate in matters of health
and safety for private and public sector companies under federal
jurisdiction. Without getting into a comprehensive description
of all the companies to which Bill C-12 will apply, we can at
least indicate that it will affect the public service and crown
corporations such as Canada Post or the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation, and international and interprovincial companies
active in air, rail and road transportation, pipeline transport,
banks, broadcasting, uranium mining, shipping, harbours and
telecommunications.
Part II of the Canada Labour Code gives workers under federal
jurisdiction basic rights, for example the right to know about
hazards in the workplace, the right to be involved in
eliminating these hazards, and the right to refuse dangerous
work.
Part II also defines the role of the safety and health
committees, and the roles and responsibilities of the health and
safety officers.
Finally, Part II sets out procedures to determine whether there
is a real danger when a worker refuses to work.
Let us now have a look at the changes Bill C-12 makes in Part II
of the Canada Labour Code.
1255
Let us start with the local occupational safety and health
committees. Their mandate was to inspect the workplaces. Now,
they will also have to investigate and settle complaints. If the
committee cannot get both parties to agree, a health and safety
officer will step in to try to settle the dispute.
Another change is the new policy health and safety committees
that will be set up in companies with more that 300 employees.
An example of their activities will be the development of
programs for the prevention of health and safety hazards in the
workplace.
In addition, they will be able to investigate, conduct studies
and inspect the workplace. Finally, they will evaluate workers'
protective equipment.
Another major change in this reform of part II of the Canada
Labour Code is a change in the right to refuse to perform
dangerous work. Under the new provisions, an employee who
considers his rights infringed will be entitled to select anyone
in the workplace. This person will be able to participate in
the investigation in the absence of a member of the occupational
safety and health committee. In addition, as was the case
previously, employees exercising the right to refuse to work
because they deem the work too dangerous will be paid for their
shift or for the usual work period.
On the other hand, if one party gives up the right to attend an
investigation, the employer may take disciplinary measures
against the employee abusing the right to refuse dangerous work,
solely so as not to delay an employer's investigation.
The employee facing disciplinary measures may file an appeal
with either the Canada Industrial Relations Board or the Public
Service Staff Relations Board.
The other noteworthy change introduced by Bill C-12 concerns the
appeal and review process. In fact, a position of appeals
officer will be created and, as a result, the appeal process
will be limited to a single stage.
Appeals from health and safety officers who concluded that there
was no danger in the workplace will now be heard by a technical
expert.
This means that the Canada Industrial Relations Board and the
Public Service Staff Relations Board will no longer hear
complaints relating to disciplinary measures taken in exercising
rights under the Canada Labour Code. However, these two boards
will continue to hear cases relating to the right to refuse
dangerous work.
The bill contains new provisions to establish, through
regulations, accident prevention programs in the workplace.
Measures will also be taken to prevent violence in the
workplace. Finally, work space ergonomics programs will be set
up.
These are the main changes to part II of the Canada Labour Code
that are provided for in Bill C-12.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, the Bloc Quebecois has
certain reservations about Bill C-12. According to the Minister
of Labour, the new legislation seeks, among other objectives, to
make employees and employers more accountable, when it comes to
making their work environment safer.
What about this government's responsibility as an employer? As
if the recent blunders at HRDC were not enough, now the Minister
of Labour, whose department is an integral part of Human
Resources Development Canada, also wants her piece of the pie;
she wants to give jobs to good friends of the party. First, they
gave grants and now they are giving jobs.
Bill C-12 contains a number of provisions that create a conflict
of interest or a situation where the Minister of Labour and the
federal government are both employer and legislator, or both
judge and jury. Such situations are found in eight clauses of
the bill.
There is no way the Bloc Quebecois will ignore these flaws in
the sound management of public funds and public service
employees.
1300
Party politics is no longer appropriate when it affects the
health and safety of workers in Quebec and in Canada.
I have another example where the government is judge and jury,
and the Minister of Labour is in complete conflict of interest.
Subsection 135(3) reads as follows:
135. (3) Where the Minister is satisfied—on the basis of factors
enumerated in subsection(4)—that the nature of work being done by
employees at a work place is relatively free from risks to
safety and health, the Minister may,—upon a request from the
employer in the form and manner as prescribed from time to time
by regulation—by order, on such terms and conditions as are
specified therein, exempt the employer from the requirements of
subsection (1) in respect of that work place.
In this clause, it is implicitly stated that the minister may
request, as the employer, an order allowing an exemption from
the requirements of subsection (1) of this section. This is
another conflict of interest that the Bloc Quebecois feels is
completely unacceptable.
There are many reasons why the Bloc Quebecois cannot accept this
state of affairs.
How are we to trust this government to treat its employees
fairly when we see how it approached the pay equity issue with
200,000 of them. This government has shown itself to be
unacceptably lax on this issue. These 200,000 public servants
had to wait more than 15 years for payment.
Fortunately, with the unconditional support of the Bloc
Quebecois, the 200,000 PSAC employees never lost hope in
justice. Pressure from public servants and from the Bloc
Quebecois won the day and we are very proud of that fact.
Today, the minister would like the Bloc Quebecois to accept
similar provisions in Bill C-12. Surely she is not serious. The
Minister of Labour will have to amend these clauses so that
there is no longer any conflict of interest.
Here is another problem with Bill C-12, in subsection 135(2):
An employer is not required to establish a committee under
subsection (1) for a work place that is on board on a ship in
respect to employees whose base is the ship.
I must say I find this exemption quite amusing. In fact, it
reminds me of a particular bill, Bill C-28, which was debated
here in the House during the first session. Members will recall
this bill that the finance minister was trying to have passed
because it could presumably allow his international shipping
company, Canada Steamship Lines Inc., of which he was the sole
owner, to gain some tax benefits.
The bill was sponsored by the finance minister himself.
Both these facts still appear to be a conflict of interest that
violates the government's code of ethics, and the Bloc Quebecois
had demanded some explanations, which, incidentally, never came.
Today, with Bill C-12, ships are again exempted without any
explanation. Members will understand that there is every reason
to wonder about this situation. To quote a proverb, once bitten,
twice shy.
I can say that the Bloc Quebecois is shy about the ships of this
government and its finance minister. We are very anxious to
discuss the matter with the minister, before the committee, to
ask her some questions about this exemption.
Another section of Bill C-12 raises several questions. It is
subsection 137.1(3), and I quote:
137.1 (3) The manner of selection of the members of the
Commission, other than the chairperson and an alternate
chairperson, and the term of office of the members of the
Commission shall be such as may be prescribed.
What is involved here is the term of office and the manner of
selection of the members of the coal mining safety commission.
If members reread the subsection carefully, some questions will
surely come to mind. Why give a very special status to the
chairperson and the alternate chairperson? Why not include in
the bill the term of office and the manner of selection of these
two officials?
Well, once again, welcome to the land of the cronies of the
Liberal Party of Canada. These are other political appoinments
for the government's friends.
While the Bloc Quebecois is familiar with this kind of
appointment, which is common practice for this government, we
will put their last-ditch energy into making sure that this
process is excluded not only from Bill C-12, but from all other
bills the government will introduce that will include patronage
appointments, like this one does at subsection 137.1(3).
1305
From now on, these practices must be a thing of the past. Time
has come for a shift, away from Liberal petty politics and
toward political transparency.
If the Minister of Labour wants the Bloc Quebecois to support
the reform she is proposing to Part II of the Canada Labour
Code, these patronage appointments must be eliminated.
Otherwise, our party will have to reconsider its position.
This new reform of Part II of the Canada Labour Code includes a
revision of the monetary penalties imposed on any person who
commits an offence.
The penalties are much harsher, and the Bloc Quebecois
wholeheartedly agrees with that, especially if we take into
account the fact that, every year, in Canada, 800,000 persons
suffer work related injuries or sickness, 750 of whom died. This
represents three death a day on average.
In light of these frightening statistics, the government should
send a clear message to those who do not comply with the Canada
Labour Code and tell them that there might be a high price to
pay for their offence. That being said, whether or not the
minister gave herself the appropriate means to make sure that
the offenders understand the message remains to be seen. It is
not very clear.
Subsection 154(1) provides that, and I quote:
If a person is convicted of an offence under this Part on
proceedings by way of summary conviction, no imprisonment may be
imposed as punishment for the offence or in default of payment
of any fine imposed as punishment.
What happens when the person who has committed an offence and is
convicted does not pay the fine? This person does not pay the
fine and is not sent to prison either. Where is the punishment
then? Does that mean that if one does not pay a fine, that
person is subject to no other penalty? This certainly is a funny
way to enforce the law.
I would like to come back to the matter of financial penalties.
We all know that the Bloc Quebecois is a political party that
supports all practical and straightforward measures. An ounce of
prevention is worth a pound of cure.
The Bloc Quebecois has an excellent suggestion for the labour
minister on what she could do with the money collected from
fines.
Why not say in the bill that the fines collected should go
directly into a fund that would be used for training and
prevention programs in the various work places under federal
jurisdiction. Would it not be a constructive approach?
This money would be used to train employers and employees, to
give them the tools that they need to prevent work related
accidents? This is a very positive approach that the labour
minister cannot turn down, taking the money from the fines and
establishing programs to prevent the situations that led to the
violation, providing the means to prevent work related
accidents, training and creating awareness among workers and
employers regarding the need to work in a healthy and safe
environment.
To achieve this however, the law will have to be enforced and,
as I have said previously, Bill C-12 lacks clarity in this regard.
One last aspect of this bill the Bloc Quebecois is questioning
is clause 132, which deals with pregnant and nursing employees.
Ever since it was elected to the House, the Bloc Quebecois has
always made it its duty and a priority to stand up for all women
and try to improve their status, including promoting
precautionary cessation of work for pregnant or nursing women.
With Bill C-12, the labour minister finally understood something
had to be done for pregnant or nursing women in workplaces under
federal jurisdiction. It is a start, but it is much too timid.
Quebec has always been a leader in the protection of pregnant
women in the workplace. The same cannot be said of the federal
government.
For years now in Quebec, under the CSST, pregnant or nursing
workers who do not come under the Canada Labour Code may ask for
a reassignment or precautionary cessation of work and still
receive 90% of their net salary, if their work poses a risk to
their health or that of the child to be born, and the employer
cannot alter or change their work environment within the plant.
1310
Section 132 of the federal act is greatly flawed. Quebec workers
who come under the Canada Labour Code are not as well protected
as those who come under Quebec law. Such discrepancy and two
tier system are totally unacceptable.
At the federal level, as soon as an employee receives the
physician's opinion, she can no longer invoke subsection 132(1),
which allows a pregnant employee to ceases to perform her
current job functions.
In Quebec, upon receiving a medical opinion, the employer must
assign the pregnant employee to different functions posing no
risk to the foetus.
If her employer cannot reassign her to another job within the
period prescribed on the medical certificate, the female
employee may stop working immediately and her salary for the
first week is paid by her employer and afterward she gets 90% of
her net salary from the CSST.
Quebec is still leading the pack on preventive reassignment of
pregnant or breastfeeding female workers. What is the federal
government waiting for to follow suit?
There is definitely a consensus among Quebecers and Canadians.
But the minister and her government turn a deaf ear, even if
some government officials are part of the consensus. Let me
clarify.
In March 1998, the Université du Québec à Montréal organized a
symposium on the health of working women. The event was even
funded by the oh so righteous federal health department.
The symposium was attended by experts and organizations from
across Canada interested in occupational health and safety, and
particularly in women's occupational health.
Let us be clear, the action plan developed at the symposium
cannot be disregarded, as it was produced by our best experts in
occupational health for women.
Let me give you a short list of participants.
For Quebec: Gisèle Bourret, head of the Status of Women Division
at the Centrale de l'enseignement du Québec; Maria DeKoninck,
professor at the Department of Social and Preventive Medicine,
Université Laval; Jocelyne Everell, union advisor at the Health,
Safety and Environmental Division of the Confédération des
syndicats nationaux; Carole Gingras, director of the Status of
Women at the FTQ; Danielle Hébert, co-ordinator of the Status of
Women Division of the Confédération des syndicats nationaux;
Nicole Lepage, occupational health and safety counsellor,
Centrale de l'enseignement du Québec; Katherine Lippel,
professor in the department of law, Université du Québec à
Montréal; and many others.
There were also equally credible experts and organizations from
British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and even
Newfoundland.
It is worth noting that Canada was represented by, among others,
Diane Ponée, Director, Policy Analysis and Planning, Women's
Health Bureau, Health Canada, and Michelle Simms, Policy and
Program Consultant, Women's Bureau, Strategy and Coordination
Unit, HRDC. This means without a doubt that the Labour Minister
and this government are aware of the conclusions of the seminar.
Let us talk about those conclusions.
The Action Plan that all participants signed, including Health
Canada and HRDC officials, reads as follows:
In all federal and provincial jurisdictions, the legislation
should provide for precautionary cessation of work for pregnant
or nursing workers if their working conditions are a threat to
their health or the health of their foetus or nursing infant.
Such programs should be modelled on the Quebec legislation which
provides for reassignment to a job presenting no threat...They
should include, whenever reassignment is impossible, the right
to allowances equal to those given in the case of a disability
due to an occupational injury.
Women across Canada cherish Quebec's policies on precautionary
cessation of work for pregnant or nursing workers.
Unfortunately, the minister will not impress the women of Canada
and Quebec with clause 132 of Bill C-12.
1315
I am not the one saying this, nor is the Bloc Quebecois. All the
women of Quebec and Canada want to benefit from the progressive
policies of Quebec.
We can already see the Minister of Labour and the federal
government bragging about the new maternity leave under EI,
saying that employees under federal jurisdiction are now very
well treated.
Let us get serious. Women need at least 600 hours of work to
qualify for maternity leave.
Just imagine a pregnant single mother of one; she will only get
between 50 and 55% of her salary, whereas she would get 90% of
her net salary with the precautionary cessation of work
provision of Quebec's legislation on occupational health and
safety. The federal government is light-years behind Quebec.
If section 132 of Bill C-12 is not amended, the disparity of
treatment between employees covered by the bill and those
covered by Quebec's legislation on occupational health and
safety will remain. Does the Minister of Labour, who is a woman
and a mother of two, really want to perpetuate this unacceptable
disparity? Why should women be the victims of the discriminatory
policies of the Liberal government? I will leave the minister
with that.
As you can see, Bill C-12 is far from being perfect. The minister
will have to make changes to her reform of part II of the Canada
Labour Code. The Minister of Labour can depend on the Bloc
Quebecois for these amendments. So far, the Bloc has done its
homework and it will continue to do so.
We are outlining a very positive thought process to make Bill
C-12 be even more consistent with the new realities of the
workplace. But we do not yet know whether the Minister of Labour
will consider this or whether she will turn a deaf ear on this.
As I said at the outset, the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of Bill
C-12 in principle. Who would be against a reform of part II of
the Canada Labour Code in respect of the health and safety of
the men and women who work in Quebec and Canada? Nobody.
We strongly believe that Bill C-12 is not perfect, far from it,
but it is a good start. It remains to be seen if the Minister of
Labour will be openminded and allow the Bloc Quebecois to play a
role in this reform. We will see.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I can
honestly say, without any fear of contradiction, that in my own
personal life this is the most important piece of legislation
that I have had the opportunity to debate.
From my background as a blue collar construction worker and as a
journeyman carpenter by trade, it has always been of major
interest to me that all Canadians have the basic right to a
clean, healthy and safe working environment; that no Canadian
gets up in the morning to go to work to die; that they get up to
go to work to earn a living. They deserve to earn a living
without the fear of unnecessary risk by the conditions in their
workplace.
I am very pleased to be here today to talk about Bill C-12, the
much ballyhooed and long awaited amendments to Part II of the
Canada Labour Code. What we have in front of us today is the
product of four long years of consultation, consensus building
and of the development of ideas and recommendations that now
manifest themselves in this very worthy bill.
The working group of labour, business and government tried its
best to do everything by consensus. There was no majority vote
on these issues. They worked it around the table in a spirit and
atmosphere of true co-operation because they realized the nature
of the work they were doing was so important and had such a
direct impact on the lives of all those employees or Canadian
workers governed by the Canada Labour Code.
The Canada Labour Code actually has jurisdiction over about
700,000 Canadian workers. This is nowhere near a majority of
Canadian workers but it is certainly a significant number of
Canadian workers, such that it can set a precedent and form a
standard that all other labour relations jurisdictions should
look to in terms of setting their own health and safety
standards.
That is what makes Bill C-12 so critical.
1320
Obviously the employees of the federal government fall under the
Canada Labour Code. Many are crown corporations, et cetera.
Some fall under the Public Service Staff Relations Act. The work
that we do here today and the work that we will do when the bill
goes to committee has a direct bearing and a very important
effect on the lives of many Canadians. It is critical and it is
absolutely crucial.
I began by telling the House how I got interested in health and
safety. It was through my own background. My first job as a kid
growing up was to work in the asbestos mines in the Yukon, which
is not a good career choice. I would not recommend it to anyone,
frankly. The only reason I raise this is that at that time
asbestos was not recognized as a hazardous material.
As young workers, we were there happily working with asbestos
and earning a living. We asked our bosses if there was any truth
to the rumour that this stuff was bad for us and they told us
that it was a harmless, white, fireproof substance. They told us
to continue shovelling it and that we should not worry about a
thing.
It was not until our union finally started to get active, to do
some research and caution us that were realized that the stuff
was not only bad for us but that there was no safe level of
asbestos. One part per billion in the air was too much. At that
time we became aware that on those issues the union was the only
friend a working person had because everyone else was lying to us
in the name of profit and greed. That taught me a lesson when I
was very young.
Later on in my work life I became a journeyman carpenter. I
became very active in my union and became a shop steward for my
union. A very big part of my job was to make sure our members
were not put at risk by some arbitrary production schedule. As I
have said before, there is no production schedule in the world
that warrants or justifies putting people's lives at risk.
I can honestly say that I have dedicated much of my working life
to trying to elevate the standards of working conditions in terms
of workplace safety and health in this country. That is why I am
so very gratified to stand here today and not only debate Bill
C-12 but to actually recommend Bill C-12 with some minor
amendments and modifications that I will be speaking about later.
It is very gratifying for me to finally be here doing something
that is in such a positive light for Canadian working people.
It was not that long ago that this really was not much of a
priority for government or industry in the country. There was a
sort of acceptance that some jobs are just inherently dangerous
and some people are going to get hurt doing those dangerous jobs.
We can no longer tolerate that mindset: (a) there is no reason
for it, and (b) it is morally and ethically reprehensible to even
contemplate that mindset.
As the chief job steward for the carpenters on a hydroelectric
dam, I was very proud that our dam was the first hydro dam in all
of Manitoba that was ever built without killing anyone. On
previous hydro dams as many as seven people would be killed on
the job. There was a saying in the carpentry trade that every
building is a tombstone in a way because it was so normal to lose
a couple of guys. Companies would actually factor that into
their cost and into their productivity.
Thankfully, we have moved away from those days but it really was
not that long ago. As I say, in the late seventies we really
achieved something by building a dam without killing anyone. I
put it to the House that there is no reason that anyone should be
dying on the job. All of those accidents are preventable with
the right measures, with the right legislation and with the right
enforcement.
I do not really have to say anything more in this speech. I
could just stand here and say enforcement, enforcement,
enforcement for the next 20 minutes and that would be the most
important single message that we could deliver to the labour
relations community, employers and employees across the country.
It is so critical.
In recent years, partly due to shortages of enforcement
officers, we have been seeing more and more governments relying
on what they call voluntary compliance orders. A voluntary
compliance order, frankly, does not cut it, especially in the
private sector where some people still view safety as a cost
factor. Even though it is a terribly outdated and obsolete way
of viewing things, some people still look at stopping to put up a
guard rail as a non-productive activity.
Where is the payback? It will slow us down and it will cost us
money. It is a terrible way of doing things.
1325
I will give the House some figures that will illustrate how
wrong-headed that is. We all know the good, moral and ethical
reasons why we do not want anyone hurt or killed at the
workplace. Let me tell the House some of the economics of
workplace safety and health.
In my home province of Manitoba, we lose about 50,000 person
days a year to strikes, lockouts and labour unrest. It is a
productivity issue. In the same period of time, we lost 550,000
person days per year to time lost due to accidents on the job. If
we are so serious about elevating the levels of productivity for
Canadian workers, we could clean up the workplaces, stop the
carnage and save ourselves half a million person days a year in
Manitoba alone.
Frankly, that does not factor in the other detail that we have
looked at in the union movement, which is the secondary impact of
a workplace accident. This means that when one of our colleagues
is struck down, falls or is hurt, injured or killed on the job,
there is a ripple effect throughout the whole workforce.
Productivity is slow on the day of the accident and does not get
up to full speed until many days later. I have seen that happen
many times.
The whole concept of workplace safety and health legislation in
this country is really geared around three things; the right to
know, the right to refuse and the right to fully participate in
the health and safety aspects of our workplace. Those three
things define and shape what we would like to see as a healthy
and safe work environment. The right to know means that we have
the right to know what hazardous materials we might be working
with. We do have WHMIS legislation, Workplace Hazardous Material
Information System, in this country where any worker has the
right to say “Are you sure this chemical I am using is not bad
for me? Prove it to me”. The onus is on the employer to prove
to the worker that it will not hurt them. If we had that kind of
legislation when I worked in the asbestos mine, I would have quit
a lot sooner than I did.
It is a very complex field and it needs at lot of administration
to make it work. It is very complicated now. We cannot just
train people in WHMIS for eight hours and then leave them alone.
We are dealing with very complicated materials now. There are
secondary things that go off with the materials we work with.
This element might be benign and that element might be benign,
but put the two together in our kidney and they turn into a third
element that will kill us. We need to know that. We cannot send
workers in unprotected and ask them to do that kind of thing for
the sake of economics.
Canadians are more cognizant of the issue of workplace safety
and health and the issue of people injured and killed on the job.
The evidence of that is that we now recognize April 28 as the
International Day of Mourning for Injured and Fallen Workers. I
am proud to say that the flag at the House of Commons is lowered
to half-mast. It is recognized officially by a motion passed in
the House of Commons. Canadians are sympathetic, aware and will
be pleased that we are taking these steps to pass Bill C-12 and
make their workplace that much safer. I am proud to say that it
was the former labour critic of the NDP, Rod Murphy, the member
for Churchill, who moved the motion to make April 28 the day of
mourning.
As I said, we think Bill C-12 has a great deal of merits. We
wish it to go speedily through the House, but not unamended. We
have to point out a number of things that are seriously lacking
in this bill. I will go through them briefly.
Almost everything in Bill C-12 was dealt with by consensus
building in the committee with FEDCO, the federal employers group
for the employers, the Canadian Labour Congress Workplace Safety
and Health Committee for the employees and the government at the
table. However, sometimes the language in the bill does not
accurately reflect the consensus made and recorded at the
committee. In places where we saw a gap between what we thought
was agreed to and what is in the bill, we had to ask for that to
be clarified and amended.
In other cases, we felt that there were things that showed up in
the bill that were never brought up at the table. They are very
minor details but surely nothing in this bill should be seen for
the first time by our side because it was supposed to be
developed by this consensus building process.
1330
We find fault with one of the details that is not exactly as it
was agreed to at committee. We would like to see a two tier
appeal system. The recommendation in Bill C-12 is that we go to
a single person being involved in the appeal process. That
person would be an appeals officer, not the Canada Industrial
Relations Board. We feel that is like the fox looking after the
hen house. If one has a grievance about the activities of the
health and safety division, a health and safety division officer
should not hear the appeal.
The second detail we find fault with is the definition of
health. It may sound like we are nitpicking but frankly it is
very important. Definitions are contained in the preamble. If
our definition of a healthy workplace and the government's
definition of a healthy workplace differ, we will have a lot of
problems. We thought we agreed to use the definition of the
World Health Organization as such. Until a letter from HRD on
July 12, 1996, we thought we had a deal. That was arbitrarily
changed by the government side and we would like to know why.
We find fault with the government's definition of health because
it specifically excludes workplace stress as a physical disease,
mental illness or compensable condition. We wholly disagree with
that. We believe that workplace stress is a factor in a person's
general health and must be included in the definition.
There has never been any complaint about stress due to traumatic
events. If one witnesses a terrible tragedy in the workplace and
is unable to work as a result, it is considered a compensable
lost time condition because it was due to a trauma. We believe
that workplace stress in general can also lead to that condition.
We find fault with article 126(1)(j). We call it the rat
clause. Employees are obliged to inform on a colleague who they
may feel is causing unsafe circumstances. The onus or the burden
should not be placed on employees to rat on other employees. The
matter can be brought to the attention of the employer but they
do not have to rat on fellow workers. We want that changed.
Articles 126(1)(k) and 139(1) call for mandatory tests and
medical examinations. Mandatory medical tests are now illegal
under human rights law and international practice. Ontario has
recently changed its law in this regard. Section 28(3) of the
Occupational Health and Safety Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario,
1990, reads:
A worker is not required to participate in a prescribed medical
surveillance program unless the worker consents to do so.
We believe these two articles violate International Labour
Organization technical and ethical guidelines for workers' health
surveillance which was ratified by Canada in 1997.
Four conditions must be met for medical examinations in the
workplace to be all right. First, they must be completely
voluntary. Second, individual test results must be strictly
confidential. Third, workers should have the right to choose the
examining doctor. Fourth, there should be no cost whatsoever to
the worker. Only under these conditions could we agree to have
any kind of mandatory testing program or to contemplate it within
the Canada Labour Code.
With regard to health and safety committee meetings, Bill C-12
calls for mandating nine such meetings per year. Our working
committee believes that it should be twelve and that they should
be monthly. That is what we should be shooting for.
Sometimes we do not get them all done. They have to be
cancelled now and then, but at least we should set out to try to
do it once a month. The single most important aspect to keeping
a clean, healthy and safe work environment is the communication
between labour and management. There must be a co-operative
attempt to work toward a clean, safe and healthy work
environment. Twelve would be the minimum.
There are provinces which already mandate that. British
Columbia requires monthly meetings in its health and safety act.
1335
In terms of pregnant and nursing employees we believe we should
add the following language to section 132. We think it should be
more rigid and state, once it is established that there is a risk
to the health of the pregnant or nursing mother or to the fetus
or child, that division 7 of the Canada Labour Code, part III,
the reassignment section, shall apply. For greater and absolute
certainty we would like to make reference in part II of the code
to the provisions of part III of the code that ensure the safety
of the nursing or pregnant mother.
There is another aspect currently in subsection 147.1(1) that
will need some attention and of which we are critical. This
clause would guard against malicious or vexatious use of the
right to refuse unsafe work provisions. We realize that
complaints under the right to refuse unsafe work can almost
constitute industrial sabotage in a place where the labour
relations climate is so hostile that the employees may seek to
disadvantage the employer by somehow exercising their right to
refuse in a malicious, vexatious or abusive manner.
There was a consensus among the working committee that such a
clause could be present because neither party can deny that such
a possibility may be raised. It was felt that the language put
forward by the government did not accurately reflect the intent
of the agreement made. The proposed language we will be putting
forward as an amendment will achieve the same objective but in
language that we believe will be more balanced. The burden of
proof is clearly on the employer to demonstrate malice or
mischief, and not on the employee.
The final thing I will talk about is what we see as a huge
omission, a huge oversight and a lost opportunity to include what
was voted on and ratified in the House of Commons a few days ago,
and that is reference to the Westray motion. We passed a motion
in the House that the government should amend any pertinent
legislation to pay deference to recommendation 73 of the Westray
inquiry by Justice Richard. Recommendation 73 states:
The Government of Canada, through the Department of Justice,
should introduce in the Parliament of Canada such amendments to
legislation as are necessary to ensure that corporate executives
and directors are held properly accountable for workplace safety.
We read that to mean to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to
contemplate the concept of corporate manslaughter and corporate
murder. The Canada Labour Code should point to the directive of
Justice Richard and the amended criminal code.
If people are found guilty of gross negligence causing workplace
accident or death, they will not only be fined and penalized
under the Canada Labour Code workplace safety and health
provisions but will also be charged under the Criminal Code of
Canada for manslaughter. That is what Justice Richard was
talking about. That is essentially what we believe we ratified
in the motion the other day. We would like to see some reference
to it in the Canada Labour Code.
Other than that, we look forward to dealing with the bill at
committee stage. We hope to work with business, labour and
government to see it through the House for the betterment of all
Canadian workers.
[Translation]
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
is a great pleasure for me to say a few words on behalf of the
Progressive Conservative Party in connection with 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.
Part II of the Canada Labour Code addresses occupational health
and safety, as they concern workers and management. The purpose
of this bill is to promote health and safety with both workers
and employers and to set out the rights and responsibilities of
workers and employers in connection with existing or potential
workplace hazards.
Labour-related issues are mainly a provincial responsibility.
However, the federal public service, federal agencies, and
international and interprovincial industries come under the
jurisdiction of Ottawa. These industries include air, sea and
rail carriers, oil pipelines, banks, broadcasting, uranium
mining, ports and telecommunications.
1340
The main thrust of this bill is to expand the role of health and
safety committees, by conferring upon them the power to identify
and remedy existing or potential hazards, and refusals to work
arising out of such hazards, as promptly and efficiently as
possible.
The purpose of the bill is to strike a better balance between
the responsibilities of the government, employers and employees
as far as promoting occupational health and safety is concerned,
by placing emphasis on the rules and procedures enabling
problems to be settled locally.
The bill is the result of consultations among the government,
business and the unions in an effort to modernize our
legislation on health and safety, which was last amended in
1985. In general, I think that this bill enjoys considerable
support among the groups concerned and, on the whole, I support
it.
However, I feel I must raise a number of questions and make some
observations on it. No bill is ever complete or perfect. The
legislative process is a living one, and those familiar with it,
like us, know that laws must continually be amended and improved
with the passage of time and changes in circumstances.
Bill C-12 introduces a new concept in the area of occupational
health and safety, namely ergonomics.
Subclause 125(1)(t) provides that the employer is required to
“ensure that the machinery, equipment and tools used by the
employees in the course of their employment meet prescribed
health, safety and ergonomic standards and are safe under all
conditions of their intended use”.
It looks good, but it is a bit vague and short on details. For
the layperson, ergonomics is a strange and sophisticated
sounding word. It is, if I have understood correctly, the art
or science of designing or changing the workplace to minimize
the risk of accidents employees are exposed to in the normal
exercise of their duties. I suppose that it is the application
of the proverb an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Ergonomics is a good thing for employees and, in the long term,
for employers too.
Perhaps the government intends to come out with regulations or
guidelines on ergonomics, but the press kit for Bill C-12 is all
but silent on the topic. However the U.S. Department of Labour
has launched a major ergonomics initiative designed to prevent
approximately 300,000 workplace accidents and save $9 billion
annually.
The press release describes in detail the roles and
responsibilities of unions and businesses with respect to the
new ergonomic standards and shows clearly that the U.S.
government is very advanced in this field.
Another aspect of safety in the workplace not mentioned in the
bill is the psychological protection of workers, their right to
work in an environment free of harassment and discrimination.
These problems may cause just as much harm in the workplace as
accidents or the risk of accidents.
Although the bill provides protection against unfair
disciplinary measures for workers who report potential hazards,
it does not seem to make any provision for ensuring a
psychologically healthy workplace.
In addition, subsection 122(1) defines health as “the absence
of physical disease or infirmity or mental illness arising out
of, linked with or occurring in the course of employment”, but
stipulates that “for the purposes of this definition, the effects
of ordinary work place stress are not considered to be physical
disease or infirmity or a mental illness”. In the modern world,
physical or psychological stress takes a heavy toll in the
workplace, particularly if it is repetitive in nature.
It is largely in order to do something about repetitive physical
stress that we are encouraging the healthy ergonomic practices I
mentioned earlier.
1345
Perhaps the minister will want to touch on this issue during the
debate, because I think stress elimination or stress prevention
should have been among the main objectives of any legislation on
occupational health and safety.
There is another positive aspect to this bill in that it takes
into account the particular needs of pregnant or nursing
employees. Under paragraph 132(1), an employee who is pregnant
or nursing may refuse to work in conditions which she believes
may pose a risk to the health of the foetus or child. She must
have the existence of such a risk established by a physician of
her choice. However, since the employer may reassign her to
another job that would be less dangerous, we will have to see
how this works out in practice.
The Public Service Alliance of Canada, one of the unions that
took part in the consultations, to which I belong, wonders if
the employee will be adequately protected under these
provisions. Since it represents civil servants, of whom a large
number are women, its concerns are legitimate.
The Public Service Alliance of Canada thinks it is unfortunate
that employees who work on Parliament Hill are not subject to
part II of the Canada Labour Code.
Under part III of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff
Relations Act, employees who work on Parliament Hill would be
subject to part II of the Canada Labour Code, but it has not
been enacted yet.
[English]
It would seem that the Liberal government is less eager to
improve the occupational health and safety environment of persons
working in the political environment of this parliament. I am
not sure if that is meant to be a reflection on all of us or just
the government.
Section 147 of the act prevents an employer from taking any form
of disciplinary action against an employee who has taken part in
a proceeding or inquiry relating to a workplace condition or
incident. Missing in this section however is any reference to
the protection of an employee who testifies before a
parliamentary committee looking into occupational health and
safety incidents or policies.
As parliamentarians we must never forget that our committees are
often courts of last resort. No citizen should ever feel
intimidated in appearing before or providing evidence to a
parliamentary committee. A person who believes he or she has
been disciplined for taking part in a workplace intervention can
make a complaint to the board, which I assume means the Canadian
Industrial Relations Board or the Public Service Staff Relations
Board.
These boards, I also assume, are filled by order in council and
as such are political appointments by the government in power.
Perhaps the minister could provide us with a listing of the
individuals involved so that we can judge for ourselves if they
are appointed on the basis of merit or heaven forbid, only on the
basis of political affiliation.
Another concern here is that a complaint made under this
provision cannot be referred to arbitration or adjudication.
Similarly, section 145.1 states that the minister can appoint an
appeals officer to adjudicate a decision made through a local
health and safety process. Again this is to some extent a
political appointment and we have no guarantee that all ministers
will be as circumspect as our current minister will be.
Section 146.3 states that the appeals officer's decision is
final and cannot be reviewed by a court. I have big problems
with any bill that consistently denies a citizen full access to
due process. Perhaps the minister could explain the need for
such restriction.
Section 135(1) indicates that a workplace with 20 or more
employees must have a workplace health and safety committee. Yet
section 135(2) exempts a ship from being required to have such a
committee, be there 20 sailors or 200. Perhaps the minister
could explain why.
Section 137.1 calls for the establishment of a coal mining
safety commission. Why does this industry have its own safety
commission?
This commission too is appointed by the minister and serves
during pleasure. If the safety of coal miners deserves special
attention, I am not sure that ministerial appointments are the
way to go especially when their remuneration and expenses are to
be set by cabinet.
1350
Similarly, section 139 empowers the minister to appoint medical
practitioners to conduct medical surveillance and examination
programs. Section 140 empowers the minister to designate a person
as a regional safety officer. This also causes me concern that
we are mixing safety and political appointments. I am not sure
this is the way to go either.
The bill also contains some technical amendments to part I of
the Canada Labour Code. I am told that when the minister
appeared before a Senate committee on this part, the minister
indicated that the next time this part was opened, the whole of
it would be rendered gender neutral. The technical amendments
have opened the matter but there is no sign of a gender neutral
initiative. Will one be forthcoming?
All in all it is not a bad bill. It certainly makes progress in
the field of occupational health and safety. However I have
asked some questions and I have pointed out that there are too
many political appointments, appointments that should be made in
a more transparent arm's length process. I am confident the
minister will address many of my concerns when she speaks again.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare the motion
carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing
Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to
a committee)
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think
that, if you were to seek unanimous consent, the House would
agree to call it 2.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 2.30 p.m.,
this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m.,
pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1.52 p.m.)