CONTENTS
Friday, March 8, 1996
Bill C-3. Motion for second reading 465
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 476
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 477
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 477
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 479
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 479
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 482
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 482
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 485
Bill C-13. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted. 490
Bill C-14. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 490
(Motion deemed adopted, and bill deemed to have beenstudied in
committee and reported with amendments.) 490
Bill C-15. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 491
Bill deemed read the second time, deemed considered incommittee
and reported with amendments. 491
Bill C-16. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 491
Bill C-17. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 491
Bill C-18. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 491
(Bill deemed read the second time, deemed to have beenconsidered
by a committee and deemed reported withamendments.) 491
Bill C-229. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 491
(Bill deemed read the second time and deemed referredto a
committee.) 491
Bill C-230. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 491
Motion proposed and agreed to. 492
Bill C-3. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 494
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referredto a
committee.) 494
465
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, March 8, 1996
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code
(nuclear undertakings) and to make a related amendment to another
act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise this morning to present
to the House Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code
(nuclear undertakings) and to make a related amendment to another
act. This bill is aimed at promoting stable and productive labour
relations at Canada's nuclear plants.
I first want to point out that this legislative measure does not
diminish in any way Canada's responsibility to protect people
against radiation from some nuclear plants.
In 1993, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Part I of the
Canada Labour Code applied to some Hydro Ontario employees,
namely all those working at nuclear plants, which are subject to
section 18 of the Atomic Energy Control Act. This section deals
with nuclear plants that are declared to be for the general advantage
of Canada.
The Supreme Court made this statement following a 1988 ruling
by the Ontario Labour Relations Board that it was not
constitutionally qualified to hear an accreditation application from
the Society of Ontario Hydro Professional and Administrative
Employees.
This decision was appealed to the Ontario courts, then to the
Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled that Part I of the Canada
Labour Code governing labour relations applied to Hydro Ontario's
nuclear plant workers.
[English]
Subsequently it was clear that part II and part III of the code,
along with the Non-Smokers' Health Act, also applied to these
workers. Part II of the code covers occupational safety and health
and part III covers labour standards.
In practical terms the results of the decision means that
approximately 42 per cent of Ontario Hydro's employees are under
the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada and the remainder are
subject to the labour laws of Ontario.
(1005)
[Translation]
It is clear that two separate labour legislations applying to a
single group of employees constitutes an exceptional situation. But
while being exceptional, this particular and complex situation
causes problems to the employees, their union and Hydro Ontario.
These problems result from having to work under two similar but
slightly different labour systems.
For example, while producing the same effects, occupational
health and safety regulations may vary.
[English]
There are some differences between federal and provincial
technical specifications for the design of scaffolding. However, the
cost of replacing scaffolding to meet federal requirements would
not provide a corresponding improvement in safety.
A similar situation applies to portable power tools. Under federal
legislation, portable power tools must meet standards set by the
Canadian Standards Association but Ontario Hydro requires that
three-pronged CSA approved plugs on portable power tools be
replaced with a twist lock plug. Replacing all plugs and outlets or
seeking the approval of the Canadian Standards Association for the
twist lock plug would result in substantial costs with no
corresponding improvement in safety.
[Translation]
These few examples go to show that split jurisdictions are
inefficient, entail costs to companies and governments and do not
produce any real benefit. After consideration, Ontario Hydro
concluded that workers are provided the same protection under
466
provincial and federal laws, even if the means prescribed to ensure
this protection may differ.
However, these differences add to costs but the employees'
safety is not enhanced in any way as a result.
[English]
Regarding collective bargaining, the company and unions must
contend with two conciliation processes in the negotiation of
collective agreements. Ontario Hydro and the unions have a
longstanding collective bargaining relationship under the
provincial regime going back 50 years.
Because of these concerns, early in 1994 federal and provincial
government officials began to discuss the complicated issue of how
to apply provincial law to Ontario Hydro. Initially the talks, which
also included the company and the union, focused on occupational
safety and health law. As talks progressed between my officials and
their provincial counterparts, Ontario officials expressed the desire
to have all provincial labour laws apply to the province's nuclear
facilities.
Federal officials agreed that from a practical standpoint it would
be logical to have all provincial labour law apply to Ontario Hydro
as well as any ad hoc labour legislation the province might adopt in
the future.
Because of the difficulties produced by a split jurisdiction and
the type of work done at Ontario Hydro, it is felt that the
application of provincial labour legislation would be the best
guarantee of efficient and stable labour relations at Ontario Hydro.
The effects of the 1993 Supreme Court ruling did not stop at the
province of Ontario, but are also relevant as far as Point LePreau
generating station in New Brunswick and Quebec's Gentilly II.
Both provincial crowns appear to be in a legislative void for the
purposes of labour law, although in practice provincial laws
continue to be applied.
In the case of Gentilly II this was confirmed by a 1995 Federal
Court of Appeal decision. In its decision the Federal Court invited
Parliament to forthwith fill the void.
(1010)
[Translation]
I must point out that the bill before the House does not affect in
any way the Canadian government's responsibility concerning
radiation protection in nuclear plants. Today we are setting a
legislative framework for the transfer to the provinces-be it
Quebec, New Brunswick, Ontario or even Saskatchewan, because
federal and provincial apply to mines-of our jurisdiction over
labour under the Labour Code and related legislation.
Of course, in Quebec's case, it is quite simple, because we are
just not involved over there. Workers there are governed by
provincial labour laws. So, immediately after this legislation is
passed, we expect Quebec to submit its draft regulations, upon
which the federal jurisdiction over labour will be transferred.
It is up to the Atomic Energy Control Board to ensure this kind
of protection. The proposed changes will have no impact on the
board's mandate in this regard.
For many years, conventional, that is non nuclear, occupational
safety and health legislation administered by the provinces have
coexisted with the provisions of the Atomic Energy Control Act
regarding radiation protection.
This sharing of responsibility between provincial governments
and the Atomic Energy Control Board does not pose any problem
and never raised any concerns over nuclear safety.
Finally, as regards the other act amended by the bill, hon.
members can rest assured that the Ontario legislation governing the
use of tobacco in the workplace protects workers as well as the
corresponding federal measure does. Consequently, one should not
be concerned if we transfer the powers provided in the
Non-smokers' Health Act. Provincial legislation is as good as ours.
This is what led us to introduce this bill today.
[English]
By simply amending the Canada Labour Code and the
Non-Smokers' Health Act, the federal government will provide a
mechanism that allows for the application of provincial labour law
at nuclear facilities. It is a move that makes much sense in terms of
promoting efficient and stable labour relations in these industries.
The bill provides a mechanism to eliminate the split jurisdiction
in Ontario and can also be applied in New Brunswick and Quebec,
as I stated before. In addition, the mechanism may be applied to the
uranium mines in Saskatchewan which are also regulated by the
Atomic Energy Control Act.
Let us begin with the split jurisdiction in Ontario. At present, the
company is faced with having to comply with two sets of labour
legislation, one federal and one provincial. The bill provides a
mechanism to correct that. It works this way. First, the company is
exempted from having to comply with the Canada Labour Code. At
the same time, it is made subject to provincial labour laws which
are incorporated by reference into federal regulations.
The mechanism may be triggered by passing regulations in
respect of industrial relations, including ad hoc or emergency
legislation, occupational safety and health, labour standards or
workplace smoking rules and regulations. Once the regulations are
in place, provincial labour laws may be applied to nuclear
facilities.
467
I would like to turn now to some specific points regarding the
ramifications of the bill. Regarding occupational safety and health,
the bill provides that provincial occupational safety and health
inspectors may carry out on site inspections. The bill also allows
the provincial labour relations board to hear and determine cases
in respect of labour relations law applying to these nuclear
facilities.
(1015)
In this case of collective bargaining any bargaining agent that
was recognized under part I of the Canada Labour Code remains
the bargaining agent under the provision of this bill. This ensures
successor rights to the bargaining agent and prohibits other unions
from applying to represent that bargaining unit outside of regular
procedures.
Any collective agreement concluded under part I of the Canada
Labour Code continues in force until the life of the contract
expires. This ensures the rights, privileges and duties of both
parties to the collective agreement remain intact.
Other provisions in the bill deal with the application of
regulations, administration, the penalty for committing an offence,
responsibility for prosecutions and the disposition of any fines that
might be levied.
[Translation]
As hon. members know, the government pledged to manage its
finances efficiently and to ensure that the administrative authority
rests with the level of government that is best able to exercise that
authority. By passing the amendments before us today, the
government will fulfil that commitment.
In conclusion, I want to re-emphasize that these changes do not
weaken the authority and the responsibility of the Atomic Energy
Control Board in the least, since we would be going back to the
structure that existed before the related 1993 Supreme Court
decision.
It is because that structure worked very well that I ask hon.
members to support Bill C-3. With leave of the House, if there is
unanimous consent, we could agree that, instead of referring this
bill to the human resources development committee, we could
discuss it here in committee of the whole and then proceed
immediately with third reading.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There has been a request by
the hon. Minister of Labour for unanimous consent that we proceed
in all stages through committee of the whole as opposed to the
standing committee.
Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to begin, as tradition dictates, with my
congratulations to the new Minister of Labour on the
responsibilities conferred upon him by the Prime Minister this past
January. I am certain he will be equal to those responsibilities, and
I know that his community, both the people of Saint-Léonard and
the members of his community of origin, must be extremely proud
to see one of their own rise to such heights, knowing the great
influence that goes with the position.
Before going to the heart of the subject, I would like to state that
I would have liked to see him begin his career as Minister of
Labour begin by introducing legislation similar to Quebec's
anti-scab legislation. I have no doubt that he will do so in the
coming days and months, and this will represent a real test of his
influence within Cabinet. I am issuing this friendly challenge to
him, in the certainty that he will be capable of honouring that
commitment.
The Bloc supports the bill most enthusiastically, for in the end it
represents a delegation of powers, as we have said. The thought has
crossed our minds that, if the Minister of Labour respects his
commitments properly, he could be moved to the
intergovernmental relations portfolio and, inspired by the
dynamics of Bill C-3, step up the return of powers to the provinces.
(1020)
Essentially, as the Minister has pointed out, we are remedying a
situation in which, if he did not act, there would have been a very
real risk of split labour relations jurisdiction in three nuclear
facilities, as well as in the Saskatchewan uranium mines.
As the minister has said, the 1993 Supreme Court ruled that
labour relations relating to nuclear facilities came under the
Canada Labour Code, which went against 50 years of labour
relations practice, because the provinces had been the ones to pass
regulations, set guidelines and generally oversee labour relations
for all that time.
We are delighted that the minister thinks it better we return to the
status quo. This approach to intervention leaves the Bloc very
comfortable supporting Bill C-3. Could you perhaps check later
whether there is consent for the House to go into committee of the
whole, and I will even propose it, if I may, because we would like
to act quickly.
I should perhaps point out what we are talking about in our
attempt to describe the nuclear sector. If the bill is adopted, it
would apply to, as we said, Ontario Hydro, Hydro-Québec, New
Brunswick Power and Saskatchewan uranium mines. It could apply
to some 9,000 workers, including between 6,000 and 8,000 in
Ontario.
468
We can understand the minister's desire to act quickly, because
Ontario, with 6,000 employees in the nuclear sector, gets 60 per
cent of its hydro electric power from nuclear energy. I understand
the minister is also concerned about the vote at Ontario Hydro
among the unions represented on the subject of strike mandates.
If the situation remains unchanged, if our information is correct,
Ontario Hydro and the unions represented could declare a strike
as of April 1.
I understand that the minister obviously does not want anyone to
be deprived of his right to strike, which is a last resort means, but
which, in certain circumstances, is appropriate. But the minister,
like us, thinks that strike action should be a matter for provincial
labour relations.
We repeat, this practice should be contagious. We are obviously
delighted by the minister's decision to retroactively return the field
of labour relations in the nuclear sector to the provinces. At the
start of the debate, we thought the minister should do so, not by
regulating it, but within a legislative context through a delegation
of power between legislative bodies or through amicable
agreement.
The minister, with the help of his officials, has convinced us that,
in this specific case, a number of technical reasons make it
impossible; however I do understand-this is a solemn promise on
the part of the minister, who is known to be true to his words, and
through him of the whole community he represents-that when the
Quebec labour minister, the MLA for Matane, sends him the
regulatory framework proposed by Quebec, the minister is
promising it will be the regulatory framework that will apply to
Hydro-Québec and the Gentilly nuclear plant.
Why does Quebec want to have its own regulatory framework?
Quite simply, it is very important for us, and I do understand why
the minister did not want to venture out in this area, since the
regulatory framework will define which Quebec laws will apply to
this field of jurisdiction, as Quebec workers will henceforth come
under Quebec laws, still of course very specifically within the
nuclear industry.
(1025)
For the information of our listeners, and to make sure it is
absolutely clear in the minister's mind, this delegation of authority
will result in the Act respecting Labour Standards applying to a
number of non unionized workers. You know, Mr. Speaker, how
important this act is. My colleague sitting next to me, who is an
expert in labour relations, knows very well that, for all non
unionized workers, labour standards are the closest thing they have
to a collective agreement. They deal with bereavement leave,
holidays, monetary as well as normative issues.
We understand that the Essential Services Act would also apply,
for the benefit of these workers. I imagine that the minister must
be very pleased; now he can begin to reflect on the need, for the
federal government, to establish a mechanism similar to what we
have in Quebec with the Essential Services Council. The minister
will find there a model which has allowed us to strike not a perfect
balance, but a rather satisfactory balance in labour relations.
Legislation on essential services and councils authorises the
workers to go out on strike in very clearly determined
circumstances and always as an ultimate recourse. We know that
strikes always penalize, but they can also be necessary in some
situations, but users and consumers cannot be left without services
we consider to be essential.
Retrocession would also give the CSST authority for all workers
concerned, and the minister mentioned that point. I am also
thinking, again if our information is accurate, of the construction
workers.
This is not the most important bill the minister will introduce in
this House, we will not judge him on this bill, but I understand
there is a regulatory vacuum in this area which made it imperative
for him to correct the situation. We support this bill, again I repeat,
because of the retrocession to those provinces that request it.
On that point, in committee of the whole, I will have the
opportunity to ask the minister to ensure that the provinces approve
the retrocession because, according to the briefing we had, the bill
specifies ``after consultation with the provinces''.
I wonder whether it would not have been more appropriate, from
a legislative point of view, to mention agreement with the
provinces rather than consultation. The minister, given his political
experience, knows that he could find himself in the following
situation. As he is well aware, labour relations in Ontario are in
turmoil, the premier of that province has a right-wing agenda and
has threatened, even started, to dismantle the anti-scab legislation.
It is not impossible that the minister would come under pressure
from workers who would find it more advantageous to work under
the provisions of the Canada Labour Code in some particular
situations.
He could even come under pressure from third parties, in
particular unions working within a labour confederation, interested
in having the Canada Labour Code apply to their workplace.
I know that the minister will not waver and that he will make
sure that his contacts, unlike what happened with Bill C-76, are not
various intermediary bodies or other groups like unions or
employers, although in that case this last example is probably not
relevant, and that the delegation of authority will be given with the
consent of the provinces.
We are also going to make sure in committee of the whole that
this delegation of authority, even if it is through regulation, is total
and final. What worries a number of unions, in particular the
Syndicat des professionnels d'Hydro-Québec-and we understand
469
that from a parliamentary point of view-is that a regulation could
easily be overridden by another regulation.
We are going to make sure that we do not find ourselves in a
situation where the delegation of authority could be temporary,
lasting only a few months before being superseded by a new
regulation that would undo what the minister is proposing today.
We support the bill, and we will co-operate so that it can be
passed as quickly as possible.
(1030)
However, the minister will allow me to go back to the antiscab
legislation and, if he wants, I will readily work very hard with him
so that we can have a debate in the House on this subject and I
know that the hon. member for Manicouagan has dealt with the
matter.
It is inconceivable that some 18 years after Quebec gave itself an
antiscab legislation, workers under federal jurisdiction still cannot
use it. It is no small matter; it concerns 10 per cent of the labour
force, employees who are working in major areas such as the public
service, interprovincial transportation, radio and television
broadcasting, telecommunications, cable television, banks and
nuclear plants.
Need I remind the House that it affects-I mention this because I
got the exact numbers yesterday-more than 8,500 employers in
40,000 work locations. Imagine the rejoicing in this Parliament if
the minister decided to make history and to fully exert his influence
in cabinet. He would give us the pleasure, during the present
session, in the context of the work of this House, of providing
Canada with provisions that would be included in the labour code
and offer an additional guarantee, an additional means.
What is a legislation that sets out guidelines for the right to
strike? What is a legislation that prevents the use of scabs? It is an
additional way of having civilized labour relations.
I think the hon. member for Manicouagan was extremely
eloquent on that. There is a direct correlation between the existence
of an antiscab legislation and the recurrence of labour disputes.
If the minister wants, we will both be very relentless on this
issue. We will be the ``Laurel and Hardy'' of labour relations in
terms of antiscab legislation and I want to assure him of my whole
co-operation on this matter.
For the time being, we support Bill C-3 and may I be allowed to
move once again that we sit in committee of the whole in order to
speed up things.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): If I understood well, the hon.
member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve is asking for unanimous
consent?
Mr. Ménard: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous consent
to study the bill in committee of the whole House instead sending it
to the standing committee?
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There is not unanimous
consent. Resuming debate with the hon. member for Wetaskiwin.
[English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate my colleague on his appointment as Minister of
Labour.
Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, is heading in
the right direction. Certainly there is a lot of confusion under the
circumstances where there is one group of people under two sets of
labour legislation, provincial and federal.
With all due respect to the minister and his portfolio, we should
be working toward a time when there simply is no federal labour
portfolio. It is a duplication. I refer to the budget speech. The
Minister of Finance, on page 9, talks about duplication of services
and uses as an example meat inspectors, health inspectors and food
inspectors.
This carries on into the Department of Labour and we should see
a devolution of powers in all areas of labour from federal to
provincial in order to downsize government, to get these decisions
closer to the people and to make them more effective and more
efficient. I am wondering why it would not apply right across the
board. Atomic energy facilities are a place to start. I would like to
see legislation move along that line so we could have provincial
jurisdiction.
(1035)
Duplicate departments create overbudensome bureaucracy and
overlap that nobody needs, especially in such difficult fiscal times.
Smaller government is something we should be looking at. I cannot
help but reflect on the Government of Alberta in the 1950s and the
1960s under the guidance of Ernest Manning, recently deceased.
He gave Albertans only essential government. Waste, inefficiency
and duplicity were something he was ever vigilant of. I believe all
governments can learn a great deal about effective government
from the example set in Alberta during that time.
While the Reform Party generally agrees with the bill as set out
by the minister, we will be contemplating amendments later on as
the bill goes through this process. We would provide our qualified
support at this time.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today on Bill C-3, an
act to amend the Canada Labour Code relating to nuclear
undertakings. Like my colleagues on the opposition benches, I
470
extend my congratulations to the minister on his appointment. He
has served this country well in his other capacities in opposition
and in government. I look forward to working with him in his
capacity as Minister of Labour.
I was appointed by my leader on January 10, 1996 as the New
Democratic Party labour critic. I have spent a considerable amount
of time over the last few weeks bringing myself up to speed with
the various legislation the government may be engaged in, such as
the review of the Canada Labour Code, and with various union
responses to government undertakings in this regard. I will enjoy
the debates with the minister and the Liberal government over the
next year relating to human activity and the conditions affecting
Canadians in the workplace.
The government and the opposition seem to think this bill is
nothing but housekeeping; that it simply transfers from one level of
government to another a process that should be simple and easy to
understand. My colleagues in the Reform Party want to extend this
across the board, beyond the specific legislation. That is another
matter entirely.
We have a very specific bill here aimed at the workers of Ontario
Hydro. I want to make clear at the outset that I was one of those in
the House today denying unanimous consent to speed all aspects of
the bill through the House today.
(1040 )
I did that simply because I do not believe that all aspects of this
legislation have been heard by members of the House. I think
reference to the committee will be useful in that members of the
House, particularly members of the opposition, might be able to
hear from some of those people who will be affected directly by
this legislation to assist them in making up their minds about
whether this is the proper thing to do.
I do not feel comfortable as a member of the House having to
make decisions affecting people's lives when I have not heard all
sides of the story, especially as they would be presented in
argument to us as legislators.
Let me put forward a couple of matters that have come to my
attention. I will repeat some of the things the minister put on the
table because it is important to understand the full context in which
the bill is being brought to us.
As indicated, before 1994 workers at nuclear power plants in
Canada came under the jurisdiction of provincial labour
legislation. In Ontario this would be the Ontario Labour Relations
Act.
In 1993 the Society of Ontario Hydro Professional and
Administrative Employees applied to the Ontario Labour Relations
Board to be certified under the Canada Labour Code; in other
words, federal jurisdiction. The application ended up in litigation
before the Supreme Court of Canada. In 1994 the supreme court
decided the nuclear operations of Ontario Hydro did fall within
federal jurisdiction.
A certification was requested by the workers of Ontario Hydro
under the Canada Labour Code. The supreme court upheld them in
this decision. The decision also applied therefore to nuclear
workers in Quebec and New Brunswick, and that is where I believe
some of the confusion exists today.
If they were under provincial jurisdiction and the workers
wanted to be under federal jurisdiction, and the supreme court
agreed with them to be under federal jurisdiction, why is the
government today moving with great haste to put them back under
provincial jurisdiction?
I want to clarify this contradiction. I cannot in all good
conscience stand here and agree with the members of the
government and the members of the opposition in allowing this to
go through. It is important that the workers, especially those who
are part of that application just two years ago, are heard by the
members of the House and consulted and perhaps listened to.
The legislation today puts labour relations involving nuclear
workers back under the jurisdiction of provincial labour relations
instead of under the Canada Labour Code. The government says the
legislation is needed because it is too difficult for provincial
utilities to manage their labour relations if their workforce is under
two different jurisdictions. Non-nuclear hydro employees are still
covered by provincial legislation.
Obviously, as the minister indicated, the legislation is intended
for the Ontario Hydro workforce but will apply in future after
negotiations with Quebec, New Brunswick and even
Saskatchewan.
I have been informed that both the Society of Ontario Hydro
Professional and Administrative Employees and the power workers
union in Ontario are opposed to this legislation. We have not heard
that indicated in the debate today.
The workers want to continue to be covered by the Canada
Labour Code because in all fairness they are quite worried about
how they might be treated by the present Ontario government. The
provincial government has already legislated away rights and
benefits of public sector employees and has taken provincial labour
legislation back 20 years.
The Mike Harris government in Ontario is not a friend to public
sector workers. For the federal government to arbitrarily send
workers under federal labour legislation under the arm of the Harris
government has many of them quite fearful.
As I understand it, the unions say the federal government
introduced Bill C-3 without notice or consultation with them. They
believe the government is pushing this through because the federal
and provincial governments want to strengthen management's hand
471
when the power workers' contract is about to expire and contract
negotiations are about to begin.
(1045 )
The unions believe that this move may have implications on how
workers, who may not be pleased with the process and who may be
considering strike action, will be dealt with. In other words, the
provincial government will have the ability to legislate all striking
hydro workers back to work without consideration of the collective
bargaining process. This could have severe consequences
concerning the hydro union's rights if nuclear operations are sold
or transferred as is being considered within the Ontario context.
There is a great deal to be considered under these circumstances.
As many members know, the privatization of the system in the
province of Ontario is under serious consideration.
It would be improper for the federal government to be seen
intervening on behalf of an employer at a sensitive point in the
collective bargaining process. I believe that is exactly what is being
carried on right now. There is no credible justification for this
legislation and certainly no credible justification for the haste with
which the legislation is proceeding. Certainly the timing is suspect.
The legislation is being advanced with unseemly haste and
without consultation or opportunity for appropriate review, not just
by the people who are involved but by the members of this
Chamber who have a duty to question every aspect of government
legislation before it becomes law. We are not being given, under
the process that is being advocated today, the opportunity to do
that.
I have not been able to gather a consensus in the industry or
among the workers on this issue. Without that consensus, it is the
duty and the responsibility of politicians and parliamentarians to
try to seek one before legislating rights. In fact, the proposed
legislation goes far beyond anything that was previously suggested
in discussions that had taken place.
No explanation has been provided why the initiative is
proceeding independent of the current review of the Canada Labour
Code.
Just a couple of days ago the minister tabled the Sims report that
deals extensively with part I of the Canada Labour Code. No doubt
there will be significant amendments come forward to the Canada
Labour Code. Members will be first of all reviewing, consulting
and debating amendments that the government is going to put
forward.
I do not feel comfortable without having the benefit of a
thorough and broad debate of the Sims report and the amendments
that the government will bring forward in making decisions
relating to changes in the Canada Labour Code and jurisdiction at
this point.
The government should reconsider the haste with which it is
moving today. Certainly it should not proceed with this proposed
legislation until its details have been carefully considered, fair
consultation has been taken and all the affected parties brought in,
consulted with, talked to and all of the issues put on the table.
Certainly members of this Parliament owe the nuclear workers in
the province of Ontario the benefit of the doubt when they consider
the future potential of labour legislation in the province of Ontario.
I did not want to prolong debate but I wanted to make sure that
those matters were put on the table today. I appreciate the House's
indulgence for that.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a very brief question. I appreciate my colleague's points. I
wonder whether at the same time he might give me an indication of
what his party's position is with respect to the nuclear industry
itself. I would be interested in that.
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. The party's
position on nuclear matters is quite clear. As members know, the
issue in front of the House is labour legislation. It is people
involved in existing industries. They are people who have
collective bargaining rights and those rights must be respected.
Regardless of the future position of the nuclear industry and
whether there are federal funds available to continue subsidizing it,
as it has been for years, the workers in the industry deserve the
respect and protection that they have been afforded in the past. I
think we should keep the issue centred on that for the debate today.
(1050)
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take part in
the debate this morning dealing with Bill C-3. As the Minister of
Labour has explained, Bill C-3 will promote efficient and stable
labour relations at Canada's nuclear power stations.
Contrary to comments, consultations did take place with all
parties. Furthermore we are not attempting to take away anyone's
collective bargaining rights. I would not want to be party to that
and I know the minister would not either.
Nuclear power stations are in an unusual situation with respect to
federal labour law. It has always been assumed that provincial
labour laws apply to nuclear power stations, but as has been said
here this morning many times, a 1993 ruling by the Supreme Court
of Canada determined that nuclear generating stations at Ontario
Hydro were subject to the Canada Labour Code. A split jurisdiction
was created at Ontario Hydro whereby the nuclear power workers
472
are subject to federal labour law but the other power workers in
conventional generating plants are subject to provincial labour law.
Passage of this legislation will address that ruling of the
Supreme Court of 1993 by resolving the question of a split
jurisdiction at Ontario Hydro. Ontario and other provinces with
nuclear undertakings will then have a mechanism available
permitting the application of provincial labour laws. This action is
designed to foster efficient and stable labour relations at nuclear
facilities.
[Translation]
With Bill C-3, the government proposes to revert to the situation
as it stood before the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada in
1993.
[English]
A corollary of this decision is in keeping with the federal
government's commitment to flexible federalism. To that end the
legislation before us is consistent with the clarification of roles and
responsibilities between the provinces and the federal government.
[Translation]
Since the labour minister has dealt with health and security in his
speech, I would like to speak about labour relations and
employment standards.
[English]
The majority of workers in Canada's labour force, currently
around 13 million, are subject to provincial statutes. These statutes
govern such activities as local transportation, manufacturing,
construction, the forest products industry and provincial and
municipal employment. But in those activities which cross
provincial or national borders, federal jurisdiction over labour laws
prevail as mandated by the Constitution Act and interpreted by the
courts.
Those areas of federal private sector jurisdiction include
international and interprovincial transportation by land, sea or air,
such as railways, airlines, shipping and specific trucking and
busing operations. As well, federal jurisdiction applies to
communications and broadcasting, including telecommunications,
radio and television; also federally chartered banks, longshoring
operations, federal crown corporations such as Canada Post and
national museums; as well industries declared to be for the general
advantage of Canada such as uranium mining and grain handling.
Part I of the Canada Labour Code, which covers employees
engaged in these federal industries, also provides the legislative
framework for conducting labour relations in the Yukon and the
Northwest Territories. The exceptions are employees in territorial
governments.
(1055)
Hon. members will know that Parliament has adopted separate
legislation, namely the Public Service Staff Relations Act, to
provide for collective bargaining in the public service. In all, some
700,000 employees are subject to part I of the Canada Labour Code
and approximately 250,000 federal government employees come
under the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
The federal government and each province have collective
bargaining legislation. Independent labour relations boards which
administer labour laws exist at both the federal and provincial
levels. It differs slightly in Quebec, which has a labour court and
equivalent administrative mechanisms.
With certain exceptions, both levels of government recognize the
right of employees to join trade unions and to bargain collectively.
Unions and employers have a duty to bargain in good faith.
Collective bargaining agreements generally take the form of
legally binding contracts.
These contracts cover such things as hours of work, wages,
working conditions and job security.
[Translation]
Normally, those contracts cover one to three years, during which
strikes and lockouts are prohibited, in all jurisdictions.
[English]
Finally, Canadian labour laws generally outline a range of unfair
practices and prohibitions relating to both employers and trade
unions. Labour relations boards or the labour court in Quebec hear
complaints of unfair labour practices and have broad corrective
powers.
I trust that this outline of industrial relations in Canada has been
helpful. I believe that some members may be concerned that there
are discrepancies between the federal and provincial employment
standards. That is not necessarily so. Although not identical, labour
standards-
The Speaker: The hon. member will have the floor immediately
following Question Period to complete his speech.
It being 11 a.m. the House will proceed to Statements by
Members.
_____________________________________________
472
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the
Minister of Finance for introducing measures in the budget that
will place renewable fuels on an equal footing with non-renewable
fuels.
The developers of renewable fuels recognize that fossil fuel
reserves are being depleted and sustainable solutions for our future
energy needs have to be found.
473
Renewable fuels like ethanol and bio-diesel provide important
economic stimuli in many areas of the country, including Oxford.
This measure is good for renewable fuels, good for the
environment and good for Canada.
The government has not extended any special powers to the
renewable fuels industry, it has just levelled the playing field with
the oil and gas companies. Renewable fuels never needed a special
break, they just needed an even break.
I applaud this move which will keep Canada in the forefront of
environmental and energy technologies.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to draw attention to International Women's Day.
Today more than ever before, it is important to keep a watchful
eye on the gains made by women in recent years, as their
socioeconomic situation makes them more vulnerable to the impact
of cuts being made left and right in these times of fiscal austerity.
More than 58 per cent of single mother families live under the
poverty line. Women who work full time earn on average less than
70 per cent of what their male counterparts make.
The federal government recently abandoned its child care plan
and announced in the last budget that seniors' pension benefits
would be calculated on the basis of family income. This represents
an incredible setback for women.
The struggle for equality is far from over. That is why the Bloc
Quebecois will always be there to remind this Liberal government
of its commitments regarding equality for women.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the speech from
the throne promises to ``promote the long term conservation and
revitalization of fisheries in Canada''. Those are nice words but
what have the Liberals actually done?
The Liberals have cut funding to salmon hatcheries in British
Columbia, a proven enhancement program. They have cut funding
to sea lamprey control on the Great Lakes, a proven conservation
program. They have implemented groundfish management plans
on both coasts which are unacceptable. Their plan will put B.C.
ground fishermen out of work. So much for revitalization. They
have strangled fishermen by the wallet with a $50 million tax grab
when fishermen can least afford it.
The only thing that has been conserved and revitalized by this
government is the ivory tower on Kent Street and the minister's
office decor.
I call on the minister to restore funding for conservation and
enhancement, cut his bloated bureaucracy and consult with ground
fishermen on both coasts to ensure viability in the fishery.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday's announcement by the President of the
Treasury Board concerning a lifting of the freeze on public service
wages must be taken with a grain of salt. We cannot forget that
collective bargaining in the federal public service has been
suspended for almost six years during which time there has been
massive job loss throughout all departments and agencies.
Let us keep in mind that the Treasury Board package offered
yesterday ties the new wage package to privatization, further
contracting out of existing jobs, and additional schemes that make
it easier for people to leave the public service, things the New
Democratic Party find completely unacceptable.
Again, we are seeing the Liberals supporting the collective
bargaining process but setting the terms of the negotiations before
they even begin. The Liberals seem once again to want their cake
and eat it too.
* * *
[
Translation]
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on this International Women's Day, I would like to take
the opportunity to acknowledge the great strides made by women in
the education field.
Today, women make up the majority of undergraduate students
in Canadian universities and just under half the student population
at the master's level. In addition, more women are teaching in
colleges and universities.
The government promised it would encourage students,
particularly women, to excel in the fields of science, mathematics,
technology and engineering. Our government recognizes that
access to education is a key factor in ensuring that women achieve
social equality and economic independence. We shall pursue our
efforts in this regard.
474
[English]
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
also honoured to rise in the House today to mark International
Women's Day and pay tribute to women's accomplishments in
Canada and around the world.
The federal theme for International Women's Day 1996 is
Strategy for Equality: Managing Change. Its focus is our need to
maintain the momentum toward gender equality in the face of deep
societal change. The Liberal government continues to support
Canadian women in these times of fiscal restraint, globalization,
restructuring, and new technologies.
In the federal plan for gender equality we outlined specific
actions we are taking to advance women's equality to the brink of
the 21st century. The foundation of that plan is a new policy of
gender based analysis of all federal government policies, programs
and legislation.
I am certain all members of the House will join me today in
pledging our commitment to achieving gender equality and in
celebrating the important gains women have made over the years.
* * *
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is my pleasure to announce that Binney and Smith (Canada)
Limited, the maker of Crayola products has just manufactured its
one hundred billionth crayon.
Binney and Smith in the town of Lindsay, Ontario is the lone
manufacturer of Crayola products in Canada. Surely my fellow
colleagues can recall the days when they were kids and covered the
walls with the colours of Crayola.
Crayola has issued a special commemorative blue ribbon crayon
to mark this occasion. It will be distributed in regular packs of
crayons somewhere across North America. Whoever buys the
crayon can either turn it in for a $100,000 bond, or they can keep it.
I ask my fellow members, would they take the cash or would
they keep it?
* * *
(1105 )
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
least Canadians should expect from their elected officials is for
them to pass legislation that reflects the wishes of the taxpayers.
Canadians are looking for tax relief; there is none. They are
looking for the disappearance of the GST but it is still with us.
They are looking for good, permanent, sustainable jobs. They are
not there. They are looking for a solid unity proposal. This
government has provided none. They want section 745 of the
Criminal Code to disappear. It is still with us. They want
meaningful changes to the Young Offenders Act that would deter
youth from crime. That has not happened. They want to feel safe in
their schools, communities and on the streets but they do not. Most
of all they want to be heard and governed accordingly instead of the
dictatorial ``we know best'' attitude this government provides.
This country belongs to the people. Let their voices be heard.
Maybe after the next election when the Reformers replace the
government side this will happen. That is replace, including
abolish.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, on this International Women's Day, I wish to extend my
best wishes to all immigrant and refugee women.
As an immigrant myself, I am thinking in particular of the
thousands of women who have been victims of rape or violence or
who experienced hardship in their countries of origin before
seeking asylum in Canada.
I wish to emphasize the outstanding contribution to our society
made by immigrant women, who face a triple challenge as
immigrants, mothers and workers.
I urge the government to show compassion for persecuted
women seeking asylum in Canada. Eighty per cent of the 23
million refugees around the world are women and children.
Immigrant and refugee women, the Bloc Quebecois salutes you
and supports your efforts to have your rights recognized.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Air Canada is an integral part of a cluster of companies
including CAE, Rolls-Royce, Bombardier, and Spar which together
make up Quebec's vibrant and world renowned aerospace industry.
[Translation]
Air Canada employs nearly 6,000 people in Quebec, and many of
its activities are concentrated in and around Montreal.
[English]
The designated carrier has dropped its route between Montreal
and Italy. As a result 4,629 of Air Canada's 6,000 employees in
Quebec have signed a petition to the Prime Minister asking that Air
475
Canada be designated the flag carrier between Montreal and the
Italian market.
[Translation]
Given Air Canada's importance to the economy of Quebec and
Montreal, as well as the large Italian community in Montreal, I
fully agree with these 4,629 Air Canada employees that Air Canada
should be designated as the flag carrier between Canada and Italy.
* * *
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is now some good news for high-tech, aerospace and
biotechnology companies.
In his budget speech, the Minister of Finance announced that the
Minister of Industry would soon introduce a program called
Technology Partnerships Canada. This initiative will make Canada
more competitive in advanced technologies.
Under this program, the government will share the risks of
technological research with the private sector. This fund will
increase from $150 million this year to $250 million next year.
Moreover, the Federal Business Development Bank will receive an
additional $50 million to finance businesses.
These initiatives will help create jobs and revive the economy in
some parts of the country like the Montreal area and the national
capital region.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq, Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, last week in Igloolik former students of the
residential school in Chesterfield Inlet, operated by the Oblates of
Mary Immaculate received an apology that was a long time in
coming.
During the 1950s and the 1960s Inuit students at the Joseph
Bernier school suffered physical, emotional and sexual abuse. For
over 30 years the victims have struggled with heavy hearts. Their
load was lightened by the sincere apology of the Bishop of the
Hudson Bay diocese, Bishop Reynald Rouleau. I commend the
bishop for this brave act.
As well, I pay respect and honour to all those former students of
the school. Despite their painful burdens and the pace and stress of
the transition to modern society, many have become successful
leaders in their communities. I salute their courage and
determination.
* * *
(1110 )
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, on this international women's day, the Bloc Quebecois
strongly condemns the unacceptable situation in which women are
placed regarding pay equity. In 1996, Canadian women still earn
only 70 per cent of what Canadian men make. This situation has
bad consequences for society as a whole. Equal work should mean
equal pay. However, as we near the third millennium, this is still
not the case.
The only initiative taken by this government regarding
employment was the infrastructure program, which essentially
created temporary employment traditionally associated with men.
Women are also still underrepresented in certain employment
categories. For example, in the federal public service, women only
account for 25 per cent of Transport Canada's departmental
population and 34 per cent of DND's workforce. Moreover, they
hold only 19 per cent of management positions. The government
must act.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, regarding the proposed change in the taxation of child
support payments, I disagree with the approach taken by the
government. I believe the taxation of these moneys should be
worked out between the divorcing parents at the time of divorce,
hopefully with the help of a mediator.
My main concern is that these new rules can be made retroactive.
This new legislation will open the floodgates for renegotiation of
agreements. This will lead to enough litigation among family law
lawyers across the country to ensure that very few of them will be
sitting idle.
The obvious increase in litigation resulting from this change
announced in the budget is particularly upsetting for me. The
justice minister and his Liberal colleagues on the justice committee
voted down my private member's bill on grandparents rights
because Liberal committee members argued it would increase
litigation, in spite of the fact that three eminent family lawyers
argued to the contrary.
Is it the government's intention to help divorcing parents or to
help their Liberal lawyer friends?
476
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very
appropriate during International Women's Week that the finance
minister as part of his annual budget would include changes
affecting child support. These changes affect the most needy in our
society, namely women and children. It is primarily the children of
Canada who are experiencing hardship as a result of marriage
breakdown and subsequent divorce.
Few Canadians think it is right to tax child support as income to
one parent while giving a tax break to another. These changes to
child support will ensure that the benefits will reach the children it
is targeted for and will update a law designed over 50 years ago.
I say bravo to the finance minister, justice minister and the
revenue minister.
* * *
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark-Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
is National Engineering Week. As part of the celebration, I
attended the official transfer of the Canadian Science and
Engineering Hall of Fame from the National Research Council to
the National Museum of Science and Technology.
The hall of fame began in 1992 with the induction of 16
engineers and scientists. A survey had shown that most Canadians
could not name a single Canadian scientist or a single Canadian
science or engineering achievement. National Engineering Week is
designed to make us aware of the contribution engineers make to
our quality of life.
This year a special emphasis has been placed on youth and the
importance of students maintaining interest in mathematics and
science. The continuing success and prosperity of Canada depends
on our having a society that is technically literate.
Canada has produced such hall of fame members as Banting,
Bell and Bombardier. With its new home in the Museum of Science
and Technology, many thousands of Canadians will be exposed for
the first time to men and women who have been true builders of
this country. It gives me great pleasure to salute the 160,000
professional engineers who continue that legacy of building the
Canadian dream.
* * *
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Liberals profess to be federalists but they support the separatist
Bloc Quebecois here in Parliament. Why?
The Prime Minister says his blood boils when he sees those
separatists in front of him but his Liberal MPs in the House
committees vote time and time again for Bloc Quebecois members
to be the committee vice-chairs. Why? There is no consideration of
candidates' qualifications. The Liberals' order to their MPs is
simply: Vote for the Bloc.
In the last week, with the exception of one independent minded
MP who bucked the party line, every single Liberal MP on the
following committees has voted for a Bloc Quebecois member as
vice-chair: procedure and house affairs; environment; foreign
affairs; aboriginal affairs; agriculture; human resources; and
health.
(1115 )
The record so far is that 33 out of 34 Liberal MPs have voted for
the Bloc. We will make their names public. Tune in next week to
see if they do it again in the national defence committee.
* * *
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
the Prime Minister's recent response to the throne speech, he
outlined the measures our government will continue to take to
ensure a strong economy and foster a positive climate for the
private sector to create jobs.
In order to be successful we must forge a new and active
partnership between the public and private sector. With this vision
and agenda in hand, I recently launched ``Completing the Circle''.
This York region initiative identifies available jobs in the
community, provides pre-employment training and matches
unemployed clients to jobs. This local initiative demonstrates the
type of successful partnership that can and must be forged between
the private sector and various levels of government.
Human Resources Development Canada, Tetra Pak and the
Career Foundation have all joined together to enable a minimum of
100 people in the York region to greatly benefit through $200,000
in contributions by HRDC and Tetra Pak.
This is Team Canada in action.
_____________________________________________
476
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
477
The Liberal government's third budget calls for women's
pensions to be determined according to their partner's income in
future, thus reducing their level of benefits and their degree of
economic independence. When questioned yesterday in the House
on this subject, the Minister responded as follows: ``Nine out of
ten women will get more money because of our reform''.
Did the Minister of Finance deliberately attempt to trick senior
women by referring to inappropriate statistics which apply to
single women, not married ones on whom there are no statistics in
his budget documents?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
his budget, the Minister of Finance has tried to be as equitable as
possible, by enabling the most vulnerable members of our society
to continue to receive a pension over the long term, and he has done
so by reducing what would otherwise have gone to the better off.
Clearly women will benefit from this exercise, for they
constitute one of the major vulnerable groups in our society. We
support a system of social programs which redistributes funds from
the most well off to the most vulnerable.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Really, Mr. Speaker, I have no idea whom the minister thinks he is
addressing with that response to a simple, clear, precisely set out
question. Either he just likes to hear the sound of his own voice or
he did not get the question, so I shall repeat it.
On page 16 of the budget speech, we find the following, and I
quote: ``nine out of ten single senior women''-not those with
spouses but single women-``will be better off'' and so on. The
reference was to single women, but the Minister is playing with the
semantics of rich and poor. I want him to answer the opposition's
question on what will happen to married women.
Why is the minister twisting his own statistics and what he said
in his speech? Why will he not answer my question, not his own
idea of a question, but what I asked?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
important question relating to women is how the government is
treating women in general, whether single or not. And the
important principle is not what the opposition member is
proposing. The important principle is: How are we fulfilling our
redistributory role by taking from the most fortunate a portion of
their surplus to pass it on to the most vulnerable members of
society, which include women?
(1120)
The present situation, particularly in Quebec, is such that it is
mainly women who are poor and vulnerable, and our desire to help
vulnerable women is what has prompted changes to our program in
order to ensure them of long term protection. We make no
distinction between categories of women. We want to give all
women the protection to which they are entitled.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the minister is determined not to understand the real
question.
Will the minister admit, without any shilly-shallying, that the
new method of calculating old age security based on family income
treats women like dependent children and represents an
unacceptable backward step for the women of Quebec and of
Canada in their struggle for equality and financial independence?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member of the opposition is determined to create a problem
where none exists, and to refuse to grasp the true principle behind
our reform.
That underlying principle is that vulnerable women are entitled
to government protection. In the system as it exists at the present
time, the guaranteed income supplement already includes the
yardstick of the couple's income, the revenue of the husband and of
the wife. We have extended the principle that applies at the present
time to the guaranteed income supplement to the reform as a
whole.
We have brought in this reform because we, unlike the Bloc
Quebecois, want people to be able to receive government
assistance when they experience hardship. We are the ones
implementing true social democracy.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, and we
say women will continue to be hard headed.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. At a conference on
violence against women organized this year by the UNESCO
women's program, it was concluded that women's financial
independence is the key to change. As the minister has already
determined the fate of female senior citizens by making them more
dependent, would he be willing to improve women's financial
situation generally, and, if so, how would he do it?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, here
again, the important principle is our desire to protect women who
are most at risk, and we are doing so.
We will have revenues redistributed to the women who are the
least well off. In Quebec it is clear that most of those receiving or
478
who will receive the increased pension are women. Furthermore,
cheques distributed to couples will be divided equally between
husband and wife so that each gets half the money due the couple
and so that each may remain independent.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the key
to change lies in women's economic independence. That means
jobs.
In the budget speech, at page 26, the minister said, and I quote:
-that ten years hence increasing child poverty rates will be a thing of the
past-
Are we to understand that the Minister of Finance advocates the
status quo in this area? Is he telling us that his government is
resigned to keeping 1.3 million children in poverty?
[English]
Ms. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely
right. The key to women's equality lies in their economic
independence. The government recognizes that fully.
When one looks at the initiatives we have taken in the past and
looks even closer now at the initiative we took during this budget,
we looked at women at every stage of their lives in order to ensure
their economic independence.
When we look at the education changes we made in terms of
increasing the eligibility for day care and the tax credits for going
to school, we are ensuring single women get the same break as
women who live in families. The child support of the WIS will be
doubled in the next two years.
(1125)
In the seniors package we are ensuring that 90 per cent of
women, whether they live singly or in couples, will benefit from
this new seniors benefit. We are talking about the economic
independence of women.
* * *
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government finger pointing on its broken GST promise seems to be
intensifying.
Yesterday it was somehow the fault of Canadians that the
government has failed to meet its promise and has failed to scrap
the GST. Today we find out it is blaming the provinces. We had this
embarrassing display from government members from
Saskatchewan saying to the premier: ``Please help us hide and
expand the GST''. It is ridiculous.
Why does the government not admit, why does it not come clean
with Canadians and tell us it has absolutely no intention of killing,
scrapping or abolishing the GST despite what it said during the
election campaign?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to
answer that question. We do have every intention of keeping our
promise and every intention of replacing the GST.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is an
issue of trust. The government has betrayed the trust of Canadians
on this issue. It made promises to scrap the GST. It did not say
harmonization. The only people interested in the government's new
super tax are the members opposite.
Ontario has said no, Manitoba has said no, Saskatchewan has
said no, Alberta has said no and British Columbia has said no. The
only provinces that the government is trying to get on side are the
Atlantic provinces and the only way it can do that is to pay them.
Since the provinces have no intention of being co-conspirators in
the government's efforts to fudge the public record, why will the
government not simply live up to its election promise and scrap the
GST?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member
forgets is that there are significant advantages to a harmonization
program. There are significant advantages to having the GST
replaced by a retail tax on an equal basis across the country. The
advantages are clearly there. If the Reform Party does not want to
see those advantages, fine.
It is unfortunate to have the Reform Party accuse the Atlantic
provinces of taking bribes.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is the
hon. member who said they were taking bribes. We said nothing of
the sort.
I remind the hon. member that the Deputy Prime Minister said in
the House that the GST was a job killer. We also know the GST
harmonized would kill 70,000 jobs in Ontario alone. That is four
times as many as the public servants in Ontario are currently
striking over.
It does not matter how many times Liberal members read from
the small print in the red book. They can pretend all they want that
harmonization was what they told Canadians on the campaign trail,
but Canadians know that is not true.
I ask a simple question which Canadians across the country want
answered. Why did you lie?
The Speaker: In the course of question period sometimes words
are used that should not be. I ask the hon. member to withdraw the
word ``lie''.
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word ``lie'' and
simply ask why did it break its election promise to scrap the GST?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to put on the record again exactly what was this party's
election promise. It was spelled out not in the fine print of some
hidden document but in the red book, the basic statement of the
platform, the commitments of this party, on which it was elected by
the Canadian people: ``A Liberal government will replace the GST
479
with a system that generates equivalent revenues, is fairer to
consumers and to small business, minimizes disruption to small
business and'', get this, ``promotes federal-provincial fiscal
co-operation and harmonization''.
(1130)
Our commitment was based on the concept of harmonization and
any attempt by the Reform Party to say otherwise indicates how
blind and deaf it is when it comes to the truth.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Justice intends to introduce, without amendments, Bill
C-119 on juvenile prostitution, sexual harassment and female
genital mutilation.
My question is for the Minister of Justice. Why did the minister
turn a deaf ear to repeated demands the of the Bloc Quebecois that
severe sanctions be imposed on anyone who helps, encourages or
incites someone to mutilate a young girl?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the bill which we will reintroduce
provides clearly that for anyone who engages in the mutilation of a
child or of a woman it is aggravated assault within the meaning of
that term in the Criminal Code and will carry very heavy penalties.
The principles that apply generally in criminal law with respect
to those who aid, abet, counsel or assist will be as applicable to this
offence as they are to any other.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since
information and education are essential to solve this issue, why
does the Minister of Justice, in co-operation with his colleague
from immigration, not inform newcomers right away that the
excision of the clitoris is considered to be a criminal practice that is
not tolerated in Canada?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and her
colleagues are aware that if we are to eradicate this criminal and
savage practice we have to not only take steps in criminal law but
also educate and inform.
The Minister of Health, the Minister of Immigration and
Citizenship and the Department of Justice have been working
together devoting energy, time and effort to educating communities
in Canada and those coming to Canada that this is criminal conduct
and will be prosecuted where found.
* * *
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today
we have learned the provinces are refusing the federal
government's attempts to get them to harmonize the GST and raise
federal taxes.
We know in the budget that the federal government is planning
to cut transfers to the provinces for health, education and CAP by
$7 billion over the next few years.
We all know the provinces have been balancing their budgets. Is
it not the real budget strategy of the government to get the
provinces to balance the federal budget as well?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
numbers and facts in the budget and the actions of the government
speak for themselves.
[Translation]
My supplementary is for the same minister and also concerns the
massive cuts affecting transfers to the provinces, since the minister
did not answer the first question. In spite of its sovereignist agenda,
the Bouchard government pledged to eliminate the deficit created
by the provincial Liberals. Must it also eliminate the deficit
generated by the federal Liberals?
(1135 )
[English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question is simply
not valid. The premise is incorrect. The answer is that is not the
case.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Over the last five years, women's groups have seen their
subsidies go down 5 per cent every year. Yet, on Wednesday, the
Minister of Finance said, and I quote: ``If there is one obligation
before the government today, it is to do what we must so that
confidence can overcome anxiety and hope can replace despair''.
480
Given the disturbing rise in poverty and social problems, and
given the importance of the role played by these women's groups,
will the minister explain the new 6 per cent reduction which brings
to 31 per cent for the last six years the cumulative cuts affecting
these groups?
[English]
Ms. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government in its budget has
stressed very much the economic independence of women.
We have talked about initiatives in tax credits. We have talked
about changing the child support program. We have taken money to
be gained out of that program and placed it into ways to eliminate
poverty. We have looked at how we can empower single women to
go to school and to get training through tax initiatives. There is
more than one way to skin a cat.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, given her government's plan to promote gender equality,
could the secretary of state tell this House about the impact that
these new cuts will have on the promotion of women's equality?
[English]
Ms. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, very important in terms of
women's equality is that the government has agreed to put forward
a plan for gender analysis that will cross every single government
department.
Gender analysis means that every time a policy, a law or an
initiative is taken there will be a lens to look at that policy, law or
initiative to see how it could disadvantage women or men. That
kind of thing has led to changes in the employment insurance bill
and to all of the initiatives we have seen in the budget.
* * *
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the U.S.
government is still not backing down on B.C.'s inside passage. It is
now threatening to charge ferries a toll for crossing between
Vancouver and Victoria.
The cowardly inaction of this government has given the U.S. an
upper hand. That is odd given that when the Prime Minister was in
opposition in 1985 he demanded that the federal government
prevent American boats from entering Canadian waters without
permission. He talked tough then; he is now rolling over.
When will the government stand up to U.S. election year
bullying and declare unauthorized transit of U.S. boats an active
challenge to Canadian sovereignty that will not be tolerated?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
He talks about the U.S. passing laws. The U.S. put its name to a
law 150 years ago, the Treaty of Oregon, which recognized without
contention that the inside passage was internal waters. In internal
waters there is no right of innocent passage.
Irrespective of any laws the U.S. may have passed which ask it to
look for the fees to be returned, which we have refused, this treaty
has stood the test of time and will stand us in good stead if we have
to look at this downstream.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, at the core of this
is the Pacific salmon dispute with the Americans.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs said this week that our
disagreement with the Americans over Cuba was a very serious
affair, while the west coast fishing dispute was merely ``an
annoyance''. His statement underscores the government's attitude
toward British Columbia: just an annoyance.
(1140)
Will the minister apologize to the people of British Columbia
and tell the House what measures the government is taking to
protect the interests of west coast fishermen?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I certainly understand the thrust of the hon. member's
question.
All members of the House are concerned for the 16,000
commercial fishermen in British Columbia who fish a very
difficult species. There are 4,000 stocks, 1,500 streams and a
migration pattern that takes two to five years leading to the Alaskan
and Aleutians Islands. There is a great concern about this.
The mediation process that has been going on since last summer,
of which the hon. member is aware, has stalled. It has not been 100
per cent successful but it has been at least 75 per cent successful.
The success that has been achieved was the basis of a discussion
between the Minister of Foreign Affairs and myself yesterday. I can
assure the House he will be going to Washington with some very
good and very strong options that will support the fishermen of
British Columbia and their concerns.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
481
In November 1993, the Royal Commission on New
Reproductive Technologies, which cost more than $28 million,
underlined the need to legislate against the marketing of human
embryos.
How can he explain the fact that, two years after the tabling of
the Baird report which strongly recommended the criminalization
of egg trafficking, nothing has yet been done by this government to
follow up on the commission's recommendation?
[English]
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her
question.
The Department of Health has taken the position that is
consistent with the expectations of all Canadians. In all cases we
will deal with solid research that is well analysed and properly
evaluated. The health of Canadians will come first and foremost in
all decisions, and every principle of the Canada Health Act will
always be maintained. That is our position and we continue to hold
it.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what is
the government waiting for before it legislates? Is it waiting for
another crisis like the contaminated blood scandal?
Will the secretary of state recognize at least that the voluntary
moratorium implemented last July is a total failure and that the
situation is getting out of control and will he assure us today that he
will take his responsibilities and legislate immediately?
[English]
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the rhetoric is helping at
all. What the department has done and the minister has reiterated in
the House is to pursue a line that allows for the re-establishment of
public confidence in our blood supply system, in maintaining the
process, and in ensuring that all the principles of the health act are
maintained, observed and respected by everybody.
The minister indicated in the House on several occasions that
inquiries such as the one to which the hon. member has referred
have been proceeding according to the mandate of the commission.
We are allowing the commission to go forward. It has already
presented an interim report. The government has acted very
quickly and decisively on all seven recommendations that related
to the federal responsibilities.
Mr. Derek Wells (South Shore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
This week an unprecedented meeting was held in Dartmouth,
Nova Scotia by a coalition of inshore fisheries groups from the
Scotia Fundy region with senior officials of the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans. Along with other hon. colleagues from the
region I worked diligently to ensure this meeting took place, that
fishermen's concerns were listened to and that a positive outcome
could be achieved.
Would the minister please inform the House of the results of this
three-day meeting.
(1145)
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member and his colleagues
for their participation in the meeting to which he refers, along with
Neil Bellefontaine, the regional director general, his staff and the
fishermen. It went on for three days and involved 200 fishermen
representing 47 different groups in six fishery sectors.
It involved some difficult subjects such as groundfish
management, fisheries legislation, licensing policy and the
commercial licence fees for 1996.
I will be holding a press conference following question period
that will give all the details of this. However, the measure of
success that was achieved in the three days of talks is a positive
indicator to me as fisheries minister that the management of
fisheries at difficult times when the resources are very scarce will
go on in a very positive, understanding, consultative and
co-operative manner.
* * *
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
The finance minister, who is really the Liberal's defence
minister, has announced $800 million in cuts to the defence
department which are directed at equipment procurement, such as
armoured personnel carriers, search and rescue helicopters,
shipborne helicopters, submarines, that are all needed to maintain
Canada's combat capability.
How and when will the defence minister manage to purchase this
equipment which is essential to maintain our sovereignty and to
support our troops around the world.?
Hon. David Mr. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member's assertion is absolutely wrong.
482
In the white paper in 1994 we committed to three major
purchases, the armoured personnel carrier, search and rescue
helicopters, maritime helicopters and if a deal was favourable,
submarines.
The question of submarines is still to be decided and has not
been affected by the budget announcement of this week.
The armoured personnel carrier announcement was made last
August and search and rescue in October. Those programs will
proceed.
With respect to maritime helicopters, as a result of the $150
million one-time charge two years hence, we will be deferring the
maritime helicopter program decision for one further year.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, one thing is very clear from the Liberal government.
It has placed the blame for Canada's growing debt on the men and
women of the Canadian armed forces and that is wrong.
The government has promised to foot the bill for some $23
million for a mission in Haiti and it will not even seek
reimbursement from the United Nations, which is normal practice.
At the same time it is gutting the defence budget by some $800
million which will put Canadian sovereignty at risk.
Will the minister agree to reassess each and every overseas
mission until it can adequately fund the Canadian Armed Forces or
at least make the UN contribute to our costs?
Hon. David Mr. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Reform
Party in the last election championed massive spending cuts. In
fact, the leader of his party in reply to the Minister of Finance this
week said the government is not going fast enough. Now we are
told that we should not be cutting in certain areas.
In fact, the Reform Party tried to pose this week as the
guarantors of health and other social programs. Canadians will see
through this rhetoric.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. So as not to
jeopardize its trade, the Canadian government is closing its eyes to
the treatment of babies in Chinese orphanages, abandoning them to
their fate. It would appear, however, that people in Canada and
Quebec disagree.
Could the minister tell us what kind of concrete measures his
government intends to take to put an end to the blatant abuse of
human rights in Chinese orphanages?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the
question.
Federal government officials have visited China. During
conversations with officials the issue of the situation with babies
and small children in China has been raised. We have told them of
our concern about the deplorable conditions we learned about in
which some Chinese children are living. We have offered our
assistance to help them deal with this situation. We have also
referred them to UNICEF. We understand that right now China is in
dialogue with UNICEF and that UNICEF will be providing some
assistance.
(1150)
The Government of Canada supports UNICEF financially and
we will keep an eye on this issue to make sure there are
improvements being made.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister knows full well what we want, and what the Bloc
Quebecois has been condemning for many months now. We want
an unequivocal condemnation by the Canadian government of
children's human rights abuse in Chinese orphanages. Behind the
scene dealings will not protect Canada's reputation in the world.
I would like the minister to tell us when her government is
finally going to adhere to a consistent policy on the issue of trade
and human rights, in order to protect the reputation Canada used to
have, and I do mean used to have, throughout the world?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is very
sympathetic to the issues that the member raises with regard to
human rights issues worldwide. We have officially addressed
abuses to human rights in China. Among those, we have raised the
issue of the conditions in which children and babies find
themselves.
The United Nations Human Rights Commission will be
convening shortly. The Minister of Foreign Affairs will be
attending that meeting in Geneva, along with, we hope, other
parliamentarians. We will all have an opportunity to address these
very serious issues, not only in China but in other areas of the
world where we have serious concerns.
The Canadian government, through CIDA, has also put together
a policy on human rights, democratic development and good
governance. I would be very happy to share this with any
parliamentarian here.
483
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Justice.
On January 24 the minister appointed Mr. John Desotti of
Sudbury, judge of the Ontario court in Sarnia. At the time of this
appointment, was the minister aware that a three-year-old,
unresolved complaint alleging professional misconduct was
pending against Mr. Desotti before the Law Society of Upper
Canada?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Yes, Mr. Speaker. In order to be fair to the man
and fair to the facts, I hasten to add that I was also aware that the
complaint had been investigated and dismissed by the Law Society
of Upper Canada.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
absolutely clear that it was a three-year case, that a review into the
matter was under way and that the appointment by this justice
minister simply threw a cloak of immunity over Mr. Desotti and the
Law Society of Upper Canada lost jurisdiction as a result of this
appointment.
Because of his actions, which violated the fundamental principle
of due process and violated the right of the complainants in this
case to a fair hearing, I ask the minister what action he will take to
have the appointment of Mr. Desotti rescinded until the complaint
or the complainant receives a fair and just hearing and to ensure the
ethics of the newly appointed judge are no longer in question?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, involvement in public life brings a
certain responsibility, including a responsibility to be fair to the
reputation of people. I invite the hon. member to bear that in mind.
What is required of us, as responsible public officials, is more
than simply to cobble together bits of phrases that sound very
righteous and to combine them with indignation.
Mr. Ramsay: Here is the file.
(1155 )
Mr. Rock: Mr. Speaker, I know the facts of this case, so let me
tell the House and the hon. member what really happened.
A client complained to the Law Society about Mr. Desotti when
he was in practice. The Law Society investigated that complaint
and found it without foundation and decided not to proceed. In
those circumstances, having regard to the fact that finding had been
made and looking at the facts and the nature of the complaint, I
exercised my judgment and I brought the man's name forward to
cabinet because he is going to be a good judge.
The client, unhappy with the fact that the complaint had been
found without merit, asked for a review by a lay bencher of the Law
Society. It was while that review was pending that the appointment
was made.
Our judgment and our determination was that the appointment
was appropriate and I invite the hon. member to be fair to Mr.
Desotti and to the system.
* * *
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday it was announced that
non-commissioned members of the Canadian forces will receive a
2.2 per cent pay catch-up to bring them in line with federal public
salaries. This is welcome news to the men and women who have
dedicated their lives to serving of our country.
Will the Minister of National Defence tell the House when these
truly deserving members of the Canadian forces can expect this
measure to take effect? This is another good news story to follow
up on his clarification of the purchase of equipment which he made
just a few minutes ago.
Hon. David Mr. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
thank the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke for his
intervention.
Very few other members in the House have had such a long and
distinguished record in support of Canada's armed forces and I
think that should be recognized.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Collenette: Mr. Speaker, to answer the specific question,
this measure, which is long overdue, will take place on April 1 of
this year.
I would like to thank publicly the men and women of the armed
forces and in particular, the 50,000 non-commissioned members
who will be affected by this pay catch-up. These people have made
a sacrifice over and above the sacrifice made by public servants in
the last couple of years. They were not only caught with the freeze
but their catch-up, which was due in the 1990-1993 period, was
also caught in the freeze. This measure now corrects that injustice.
The morale of the men and women who serve in the armed forces
is particularly good. I saw it last week in Bosnia. I hope this shows
Canadians' appreciation for the work and the sacrifice that they
have been making over the last few years.
484
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Solicitor General.
In her study on the Correctional Service of Canada, Janet
Laishes indicates that almost half of the suicides committed by
inmates in federal penitentiaries in the last four years occurred in
the province of Quebec.
Would the minister therefore acknowledge that the shortage of
correctional officers to supervise inmates is one of the main causes
of this problem?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member has raised an important issue. We are currently
reviewing the report he referred to, but I am not ready right now to
accept the premise to his question.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, in the budget the Minister of Finance briefly referred
to the disposal of a fleet of grain hopper cars. This issue is
extremely important to farmers and they need answers to some
questions very soon. They need the government to reveal its
intentions or even its inclinations of how it is going to deal with
this matter.
Will the Minister of Transport please give the House a couple of
simple answers. When will the government dispose of the 13,000
hopper cars and more important, what is the department's asking
price? The farmers who are interested in buying should at least
know what the numbers are on the price tag.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member
for his question. I know him to be a visitor to the transport
committee and an interested participant.
(1200 )
In answer to his question on the hopper cars, the current policy
of the government is to get out of the business of transportation
assets and transportation services. That is a very successful policy.
This means we are trying to create efficiencies.
The price, as the hon. member will know, on the hopper cars has
yet to be established. That is only fair because, as pointed out
earlier this fall, what we have to do as a government is consult with
the interested parties, CN and CP, but also there has been a call by
the farmers and the producers who will be using those grain cars
and who want to have a say in the opportunity of taking ownership
of those 13,300 grain cars.
We will have to get together and establish who will buy those
hopper cars but only after all the parties have come to the table for
a full and thorough discussion on the matter.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Secretary of State for the Status of Women.
Page 38 of the red book says:
Quality accessible child care is an economic advantage for Canada. It enables
single parents to end dependence on welfare and food banks by re-entering the
workforce. It provides direct jobs for Canadians, particularly for women. On
average, one person is employed for every five child care spaces created.
It is clear the Prime Minister has abandoned his promise to a
national child care program. In the budget the Minister of Finance
clearly has abandoned that promise as well. A voucher system is
not a child care system.
Will the secretary of state for women state publicly today that
she will support a national child care program for Canada?
Ms. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked a question
that is extremely important. Everything she quoted in the red book
is true; it was true then and it is true today.
The Minister of Human Resources Development is looking at
how we can continue to keep that promise and implement it. We
have to keep the process going. We have to discuss innovative ways
we can accomplish this. If we cannot do it with provinces we still
have a commitment to do it.
* * *
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for Secretary of State for the Status of
Women.
This week Canadians are celebrating International Women's
Week, highlighted by International Woman's Day on March 8. It is
an occasion to look back on the accomplishments of women in
Canada and across the globe.
What is the government doing to further the cause of women's
equality?
Ms. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for a very
good question on a very important day.
485
The cornerstone of the government's initiatives for equality
among women is gender analysis. I said earlier how that empowers
and will increase women's economic independence, will look at
their social life and will look at their physical well-being.
We talked earlier about some of the initiatives we have taken
with regard to child support, with regard to the WIS, with regard to
the Canada student loan programs, with regard to employment
insurance. By simply applying gender analysis we have looked at
hours of work instead of weeks of work because we know so many
women work hours in terms of part time jobs and need to get
benefits.
We have talked about empowering education and looking at the
issues that will help young women get an education. We have
talked about the court challenges program and we have done it. We
have looked at violence against women. We have looked at female
genital mutilation. We have the Firearms Control Act, which will
decrease violence against women. We have created centres of
excellence for health. I could go on and on.
The Speaker: I have a point of order and then I will make my
decision on the point of contempt raised by the hon. member for
Beaver River.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order, pursuant to citation 495 of Beauchesne.
When the Leader of the Government in the House and Solicitor
General of Canada quotes from a document, it would be better if
this document were to be tabled, so that all members of Parliament
can have a copy and stop misquoting it. I refer, of course, to the red
book.
(1205)
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would be happy to comply with this well established precedent.
Therefore I am pleased to table in the House the document from
which I quoted. It is entitled ``Creating Opportunity: The Liberal
Plan for Canada''.
For greater certainty, I present it to the table in both official
languages.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I just want to ask you if we need the unanimous consent of
the House to table a document.
The Speaker: No, there is no need for unanimous consent of the
House to table a document. When a minister or any hon. member
quotes from a document, he or she has the right to ask for it to be
tabled.
[English]
Mr. Gray: Mr. Speaker, because of the great interest in the
material I have tabled, I wonder if I could have the unanimous
consent of the House to have it printed in its entirety as an appendix
to today's Hansard.
The Speaker: Does the hon. minister have unanimous consent to
put the motion?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in light of the
interest of members of Parliament with respect to the section of the
red book that refers to child care, I wonder if I could seek
unanimous consent to at least have that placed on the permanent
record of the House.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to
put the motion?
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
The Speaker: I will now rule on the question of privilege raised
by the hon. member for Beaver River on Monday, March 4, 1996
concerning the alleged interference of an official of the Prime
Minister's office in a request to the printing services of the House.
[Translation]
I want to thank the Deputy Leader of the Government in the
House, the Chief Government Whip, the whip of the Reform Party
and the hon. member for Mississauga-South for their comments on
this question.
[English]
In her submission the hon. member argued that an employee of
the Prime Minister's office had attempted to coerce, intimidate and
incite the staff of the House of Commons to refuse a request for
printing which she had made on February 28. This, she claimed,
constituted a contempt of the House and she requested that I rule a
prima facie case.
As hon. members know, I did rule on the matter of the printing of
this document when it was first raised on February 28. As I noted at
that time, the House staff erred by not complying with the request
made by the hon. member for Beaver River, which was entirely in
accordance with the guidelines of the Board of Internal Economy.
486
The document was subsequently printed and I, in the House,
apologized to her for any inconvenience. I also met privately with
the member and she was made aware of all the circumstances
surrounding this matter.
[Translation]
The Chair takes very seriously any matter concerning the
privileges of members, particularly any matter which may
constitute a contempt of the House.
(1210)
The hon. member for Beaver River is correct in pointing out that
new forms of contempt may arise and the House should not be
constrained in dealing with them.
[English]
In dealing with matters of privilege and contempt, it is the House
which determines whether a breach of its privileges or a contempt
has occurred. It is the role of the Chair, based on evidence
presented by the member, to determine whether or not the alleged
contempt is of such importance that the regular business of the
House should be set aside to deal with the matter immediately; that
is, whether or not the matter is prima facie.
Therefore it is the responsibility of any member in raising a
question of privilege, particularly a possible contempt, to bring
forth sufficient evidence to enable the Speaker to find that a prima
facie case exists.
[Translation]
Beauchesne's, 6th Edition, Citation 117(1) states in part:
Once the claim of breach of privilege has been made, it is the duty of the
Speaker to decide if a prima facie case can be established. The Speaker requires
to be satisfied,-that privilege appears to be sufficiently involved to justify
giving such precedence-
[
English]
Since the original matter was raised on February 28 I have had
further discussions with senior House officials. There is no doubt
that House staff was responsible for the mismanagement of this
printing request.
Since the official from the Prime Minister's office did not
initiate the situation but rather reacted based on inquiry from
House staff, it is difficult to conclude from the facts presented by
the hon. member that the official coerced, intimidated or incited the
staff of the House of Commons.
It appears to me that what occurred in this case was done
inadvertently and that it represents an unfortunate but isolated
incident.
I must find that the hon. member did not provide the Chair with
sufficient evidence to allow it to find that a prima facie contempt
had occurred.
I assure all members that the staff of the House of Commons
continues to strive for a high standard of competence and
professionalism in the services it officers. However, I do want to
remind the staff as well as government officials that in dealing with
members of Parliament confidentiality is key and that members
must be able to rely on their complete discretion.
[Translation]
I would like to thank the hon. member for Beaver River for
having raised this very serious issue and assure her, and all
members of this Houses, that corrective steps have been put in
place to ensure that such an occurrence does not take place again.
_____________________________________________
486
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General
transmitting Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 1996, was presented by the Hon. the President of
the Treasury Board and read by the Speaker of the House.
* * *
(1215)
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) and to section 61 of the
Status of the Artist Act, I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, copies of the first annual report of the Canadian Artists
and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal.
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), this report is deemed
permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Human
Resources Development.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to table,
in both official languages, the government's response to 19
petitions presented during the first session.
487
Ms. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is International Women's
Day. It is a day when men and women around the world join
together to mark the achievements of women and the struggles of
women, to witness the tragedy of the many women who daily suffer
poverty and violence silently and powerlessly. However, it is also a
day to celebrate the courage of the world's women, to celebrate the
gains they have made toward equality and to pledge support to
them as they continue the inexorable march toward economic and
social justice.
Today we applaud the remarkable Canadians who have made
outstanding contributions toward that struggle for equality. I want
to acknowledge one such remarkable individual, Senator Florence
Bird, former head of the Royal Commission on the Status of
Women in Canada, journalist and activist.
Later today I will attend the first presentation of the annual
Florence Bird award. This award honours the work of a
communicator who has succeeded in sensitizing the public to the
fact that women's rights are not special interest rights or marginal
rights but basic human rights.
Through the efforts of Canadians like Senator Bird and today's
award winner Karen Levine, executive producer of CBC Radio's
``As it Happens'', Canada has earned a reputation for excellence in
advancing women's equality. Initiatives such as the Florence Bird
award will ensure the important role of public awareness continues.
However, public awareness alone will not ensure women's
equality. It is only one part of many initiatives that will finally
achieve our objective.
[Translation]
Our government will continue to do its part to promote equality,
for it is a basic Canadian value. It is part of our national identity as
well as a source of pride.
[English]
This government believes each and every individual group and
community in Canada must be treated equally and with respect. As
Secretary of State for the Status of Women, I have made the
economic equality of women a priority. Women are today among
the poorest in our society in Canada and in the world. Poverty of
women has a negative impact on the well-being of children, on the
economic viability of a nation and on its social structures.
Economic independence is the first step in eradicating poverty,
violence and low health status. If women were economically
independent, they would be able to create better lives for
themselves and their families. They would be better able to
contribute to the economy and to the life of a nation and the
benefits would accrue to all of us. In the budget we put in place a
number of measures that will improve the economic status of
women in all stages of their lives: as mothers, workers, business
owners, students and as seniors.
The budget demonstrates our commitment to the federal plan for
gender equality which outlines our specific commitment to
advance women's equality through the process of gender based
analysis. Gender based analysis means that every new policy
program and law must be critiqued to see whether it creates a
disadvantage to men or women.
Women and men in general experience life differently,
economically, socially and physiologically. We need public policy
that recognizes those differences. The child support package does
exactly that. It recognizes that the majority of custodial parents are
women and that many children are poor because their mothers are
poor. It will make child support predictable, consistent and fairer
for all children and their parents.
The seniors benefit package has made adjustments not only to
ensure that low and modest income seniors are better supported but
it also recognizes through the splitting of cheques to couples that
family income is not always shared equally.
(1220)
I cannot think of a more appropriate time to announce the child
support package and the seniors benefit than during International
Women's Week. These initiatives illustrate how good public policy
must take a closer look at the reality of men's and women's lives if
it wishes to be relevant and effective.
Yet the principle of gender analysis should not be limited to
government policy alone. It should be extended to the judicial
system, education and health services. It should be a starting point
for decision making throughout society, for each one of us has a
role to play in creating equality, in building the Canada of
tomorrow, a Canada of prosperity, security and hope, a Canada we
will be proud to bequeath to our sons and especially to our
daughters, a Canada that will continue to stand as a model to the
world.
Today on International Women's Day we owe as much to the
world's women, their husbands and their children.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on this
International Women's Day, I wish to honour women from all
walks of life, from all occupations, from all cultures, from all
faiths; mothers, single women, women with partners; in short, all
women who make up our society.
The main purpose of International Women's Day is to take stock
of women's progress toward equality and of what remains to be
done.
488
The fourth international conference on women, which was held
in Beijing earlier this year, was quite helpful in achieving this
goal. An action plan was established, which participating countries
vowed to implement at home.
As far as Canada is concerned, the Secretary of State for the
Status of Women just gave us an overview of her government's
efforts to achieve equality for women. This is very good, and I
applaud her government's declared commitment to the issue of
equality between men and women.
Before outlining some of her government's policies, the
secretary of state paid tribute, and with good reason, to a great
Canadian, Florence Bird. Needless to say, we wish to join in this
tribute. As for myself, I would like to remind the House of the work
done by a great Quebecer, Simonne Monet-Chartrand.
This staunch and tireless militant feminist was known
throughout Quebec and Canada. Yesterday, the award created in her
honour was given to Danielle Fournier, who has been involved with
various community-based organizations over the past 16 years.
I would now like to come back to the Canadian policy on the
status of women and raise a few questions about the impact it will
have on women. The secretary of state said earlier that equality was
a basic Canadian value. Very well.
However, this statement raises a few questions and comments as
far as I am concerned. First, there is the cost issue. How much is the
government prepared to pay to promote equality for women? Let
me phrase the question differently: On this International Women's
Day, will the government undertake to invest as much in helping
women enter the job market as it has already invested and will
invest in all its initiatives to promote Canadian unity? If indeed
equality for women is a basic Canadian value, is it worth at least
$14 million, or the amount the government plans to spend on
propaganda this year?
Women's groups have seen their meagre grants cut by 31 per
cent over the past six years, and would certainly be delighted to
learn that they can expect to receive $14 million instead of the
$8,165,000 currently allocated to them this year in Status of
Women Canada's estimates. I agree with the principle, but what
about the costs?
I have another question, on the same subject. How are equal
rights to be interpreted and the sexual equality plan to be used in
the context of the three budgets tabled to date by this government?
One might be tempted to adopt a cynical view and wonder if this
right is not, in fact, a right to unemployment insurance, to poverty
and to income supplements, given that the government did not
propose any job creation initiative.
(1225)
I remind the secretary of state that, in her speech, she referred to
economic equality. This raises another issue: how can one achieve
economic equality when one does not have a job and must fight
with the government to keep the few miserable dollars that one gets
from it to survive? I am anxious to discuss this issue with the
secretary of state.
I do not want to use International Women's Day as a pretext to
give a negative report on the government. However, I want to stress
the importance, in the current context, of solidarity between
women, and also between men and women.
It is by working together that we will gradually eliminate the
obstacles that still prevent women from enjoying true equality.
These obstacles are violence, pornography, poverty,
unemployment, pay inequity, sexual exploitation and genital
mutilation, to mention just a few.
I believe a great deal of solidarity is required to build a just and
fair society. Governments will have to promote that solidarity
through every means at their disposal.
In conclusion, I want to remind the House of the conditions in
which women from other countries live. This morning, Taslima
Nasreen reminded us that, today, elsewhere, many women will be
raped, sold, forced to engage in prostitution, repudiated, strangled
by their husband, brutalized, disfigured or lapidated because they
gave birth to a girl.
I would ask this House to observe one minute of silence for all
these women.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Does the House agree?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The House stood in silence.]
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to have this opportunity
to speak on International Women's Day. It gives me a chance to
acknowledge the contributions of women across Canada, not only
the professionals but all the women who have had a very positive
influence on their families, friends and even on strangers.
It is a pleasure to respond to the comments of the Secretary of
State for the Status of Women and Multiculturalism because I too
want to talk about equality. The secretary of state said that equality
is a fundamental Canadian value. She stated that equality is a right
in this country, not a special right but a human right. She went on to
state that her government has a strong belief that every person,
every group and every community in this country is entitled to
equality.
489
(1230 )
What she did not say is that in spite of its commitment to
equality, the Liberal government has passed a great deal of
legislation that will treat people differently based on their race,
their ethnic background, their language, their physical abilities and
their gender.
How can the secretary of state possibly say that the government
is interested in equality when a person has to fill out a form about
their ethnic background, their aboriginal status, their disabilities or
their gender before it decides how they will be treated?
How can the government state that it believes in equality on one
hand and then grant distinct society status to some Canadians on
the other hand?
Equality is important in this country. Actually it is vital to the
existence of this country. But it has to be true equality. It has to
mean that all laws apply equally to all Canadians, regardless of
race, creed, colour or gender. It has to mean that all Canadians have
the same opportunities regardless of race, creed, colour or gender.
Only then will this country achieve the true equality that is so
essential and vital to the continued existence of our nation.
The secretary of state claims that economic equality is at the
forefront of her objectives. She states that many of the issues that
women face: poverty, violence and poor health are linked to
economic inequity. Does she suggest that marginalizing women is a
positive way to deal with and foster equality in Canadian society?
It is an interesting statement that the secretary makes. Is she
suggesting that men are spared poverty? Is she suggesting that men
are not victims of violent crime? Is she suggesting that men do not
suffer from poor health? If she really believes that poor health is
only an issue for women, how does she explain that the average
Canadian male will only live to 74.5 years while the average
Canadian female will live to be 81 years old.
There is no question that poverty, violence and poor health are
issues that must concern the federal government. But I would like
to think that any fair minded government would be concerned
about these issues equally for all Canadians, not just a select group.
However, the government does not appear to be fair minded. Its
response to these problems appears to be the creation of, and I
quote ``the federal plan for gender equality'' which will see a
gender based analysis of every new policy, program and law.
In other words, the government thinks it can solve the problem
of the economic inequality that women face by having a bunch of
highly paid bureaucrats sitting around discussing how everything
the government does will impact on women.
If the government is really concerned about the economic
situation of women, I will be happy to give them a piece of advice.
Quit wasting the taxpayers' money so that women and men can
have more money to spend on their families, on their children and
on themselves instead of paying higher taxes and the high priced
salaries of bureaucrats who are sitting around reviewing legislation
for gender inequality.
Striving for equality is a noble pursuit but it has to be true
equality. As a baby boomer, I have witnessed a great change in the
role of Canadian women. There is no question that there was
institutionalized discrimination against women in the 1950s, 1960s
and 1970s.
I have had my share of run-ins with male chauvinists who
believe that a woman's place is in the home. I have also confronted
a great number of females who share that belief. It is not something
that only men believe. However, I am happy to say that the vast
majority of men and women that I deal with truly believe that men
and women should have equal opportunities and be treated equally.
(1235 )
The one noticeable exception is this Liberal government. It still
seems to think that women need some form of government
intervention to compete with men on an equal basis. I find it
somewhat insulting that the government thinks that I need some
form of assistance to compete equally with my male colleagues.
That may be the case on that side of the House, but I assure you,
Mr. Speaker, it is not the case on this side of the House.
If the government is really concerned about creating equality it
should remember that to be truly effective, equality, like justice,
must be blind. Every Canadian should have the same rights and
privileges, as well as the same duties and responsibilities,
regardless of their race, their creed, their colour or their gender.
Ms. McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to respond
on behalf of the New Democratic Party to the ministerial statement.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Does the hon. member have
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on
International Women's Day I would like to thank and congratulate
the new Secretary of State for the Status of Women for her
comments. Especially, as this is a day of celebration, I would like
to congratulate all of those women, in all walks of life, who
490
contribute so much to every community and who bind the country
together through the kind of work which they do in the family, in
the community, in the business world, in the political world, as
homemakers, as truck drivers, whatever profession or work the
women are doing. I want to congratulate every woman who has
made a substantial contribution historically to the country.
In terms of the federal government's commitment to women,
about which the minister spoke, I have no doubt that in a rhetorical
sense the government is committed to the advancement of women.
However, the proof of what one says is really in what one does.
In relation to the budget, which the secretary of state presented
in such favourable terms, I would like to know how the ending of a
national child care program and reducing grants to women's
organizations by 5 per cent, which already work on very limited
funds without core funding, contributes to the equality of women.
How does a reduction in provincial and territorial federal transfers,
which means a reduction in social programs, contribute to the
advancement of women? How does the federal government's
refusal to pay the outstanding amount of pay equity that is due to
women working for the federal public service-some 80,000
women are owed $1.5 billion, as has been directed by the human
rights commission-contribute to the advancement of women.
Finally, how in this budget, with a lack of focus on jobs, can this
government be seen to be furthering the equality of women?
Similarly, I would like to know how the changes to the
unemployment insurance system and the lack of benefits for
women in many areas of this country, such as seasonal workers and
part time workers, can in any way further the equality of women.
With respect to the budget the government certainly deserves to
receive a D minus on furthering equality for women. The Secretary
of State for the Status of Women must deal openly and honestly
with women when she is talking about her general commitment.
We still, because of the economic policies of this and prior
governments, are dealing with an increasing gap between the rich
and the poor. One in five children in this country live in poverty.
We have a long way to go.
On this International Women's Day I would challenge the
secretary of state responsible for women to seriously address the
issues which I have raised with respect to child care and facilitating
independence for women and families. I would seriously challenge
her to deal with the issue of violence against women, pornography
and the inequities which still remain with the huge wage gaps
between women and men in most non-unionized sectors.
Finally, I hope that on International Women's Day the
government and all members of the House will join me in
celebrating the women of this country and their work and will
commit to working for equality, in all fields, for women in Canada
and abroad.
(1240)
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for Leader of the Government in the
House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce a Bill C-13, an act to provide for the
establishment and operation of a program to enable certain persons
to receive protection in relation to certain inquiries, investigations
or prosecutions.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to state that this bill is in the same
form as Bill C-78 of the first session of the 35th Parliament at the
time of prorogation. I therefore request that it be reinstated as
provided in the special order adopted on March 4, 1996.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The Chair is satisfied that
this bill is in the same form as Bill C-78 was at the time of
prorogation of the first session of the 35th Parliament.
* * *
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for Minister of Transport) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-14, an act to continue the National
Transportation Agency as the Canadian Transportation Agency, to
consolidate and revise the National Transportation Act 1987 and
the Railway Act, and to amend or repeal other acts as a
consequence thereof.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to state that this bill is in the same
form as Bill C-101 of the first session of the 35th Parliament at the
time of prorogation. I therefore request that it be reinstated as
provided in the special order adopted on March 4, 1996.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The Chair is satisfied that
this bill is in the same form as Bill C-101 was at the time of
prorogation of the first session of the 35th legislature.
Therefore, in accordance with the motion passed Monday,
March 4, 1996, the bill is deemed to have been studied by the
Standing Committee on Transport and reported with amendments.
491
[English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (for the (Minister of Finance, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-15, an act to amend, enact and
repeal certain laws relating to financial institutions.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to state that this bill is in the same
form as Bill C-100 of the first session of 35th Parliament at the
time of prorogation. I therefore request that it be reinstated as
provided in the special order adopted on March 4, 1996.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The Chair is satisfied that
this bill is in the same form as Bill C-100 was at the time of
prorogation of the first session of the 35th Parliament.
Accordingly pursuant to an order made Monday, March 4, 1996
the bill is deemed to have been read the second time, considered by
the Standing Committee on Finance and reported with
amendments.
* * *
(1245 )
[Translation]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce a bill entitled an act to amend the
Contraventions Act and to make consequential amendments to
other acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-17, an act
to amend the Criminal Code and certain other acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for Minister of Health) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-18, an act to establish a Department of
Health and to amend and repeal certain acts.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is in the same form as Bill C-95 of
the first session of the 35th Parliament at the time of prorogation. I
therefore request that it be reinstated as provided in the special
order adopted on March 4.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The Chair is satisfied that
this bill is in the same form as Bill C-95 at the time of prorogation
of the first session of the 35th Parliament.
Accordingly, pursuant to order made Monday, March 4, the bill
is deemed to have been read the second time, considered by the
Standing Committee on Health and reported with amendments.
* * *
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce
Bill C-229, an act to provide for funding for intervenors in hearings
before certain boards and agencies.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is in the same form as Bill C-339
at the time of prorogation of the first session of the 35th
Parliament. I request that it be reinstated pursuant to special order
of March 4.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The Chair is satisfied that
this bill is in the same form as Bill C-339 at the time of prorogation
of the first session of the 35th Parliament.
Accordingly, pursuant to order made Monday, March 4, the bill
is deemed to have been read the second time and referred to the
Standing Committee on Natural Resources.
* * *
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-230, an act to provide for a national
referendum to authorize the government to negotiate terms of
separation with a province that has voted for separation from
Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling an act to provide for a
national referendum. It would set conditions which must be met
before the federal government can negotiate terms of separation
with a province that has voted to leave Canada.
Democratically, the first condition must be to ensure that
separation really is the will of the majority. Therefore my bill
requires Parliament to determine whether advanced advertisement
for a provincial separation referendum, as well as the ballots
themselves, stated in both official languages that a yes vote means
becoming a foreign state, losing representation in Parliament,
492
losing Canadian citizenship and passport and losing the
unrestricted right to enter, travel and work in Canada.
My bill challenges the separatists to follow some rules. If they
do, my bill requires Canada to hold a binding national referendum
authorizing Canada to negotiate. This bill would establish a
framework in which both the people of Quebec and all Canadians
would have their say on the future of our country.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
(1250)
[Translation]
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Orders 81(5) and 81(6), I wish to introduce a
motion concerning the referral of the estimates to the standing
committees of the House.
There is a lengthy list associated with the motion. If it is
agreeable to the House, I would ask that the list be printed in
Hansard as if it had been read.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Massé: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31,
1996, tabled March 8, 1996, be referred to the standing committees of the House
in accordance with the attached detailed allocation:
[
Editor's Note: List referred to above is as follows:]
To the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Votes 1b, 5b, 6b, 7b, 15b, 36b,
37b, 40b and 45b
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Votes 1b and 15b
To the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage
Canadian Heritage, Votes 1b, 10b, 26b, 27b, 40b, 45b, 60b, 70b, 75b, 85b,
90b, 100b, 101b, 110b, 115b and 145b
To the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration
Citizenship and Immigration, Votes 1b and 5b
To the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development
Privy Council, Vote 30b
To the Standing Committee on Finance
Finance, Votes 31b and 55b
National Revenue, Votes 1b and 5b
To the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans
Fisheries and Oceans, Votes 1b and 5b
To the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Foreign Affairs, Votes 1b, 10b, 20b and 21b
To the Standing Committee on Government Operations
Parliament, Vote 1b
Canadian Heritage, Vote 140b
Privy Council, Vote 1b
Public Works and Government Services, Votes 2b, 10b, 15b, 20b, 22b, 23b
and 30b
Treasury Board, Vote 10b
To the Standing Committee on Health
Health, Votes 10b, 15b and 30b
To the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development
Human Resources Development, Votes 1b, 10b, 15b and 30b
To the Standing Committee on Industry
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Votes 1b and 5b
Industry, Votes 5b, 10b, 30b, 65b, 75b, 90b, 95b and 105b
Western Economic Diversification, Vote 1b
To the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs
Justice, Votes 1b, 5b, 20b, 25b, 35b and 45b
Solicitor General, Votes 1b, 15b, 20b, 25b, 35b 40b and 50b
To the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans ffairs
National Defence, Votes 1b and 10b
Veterans Affairs, Votes 1b and 21b
To the Standing Committee on Natural Resources
Natural Resources, Votes 1b, 20b, 35b and 40b
To the Standing Committee on Transport
Transport, Votes 10b, 25b, 35b and 36b
(Motion agreed to.)
493
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to table in the House today. The
first is signed by constituents from Kindersley-Lloydminster in
the Kindersley area.
The petition states that the Liberals made commitments to the
Canadian public, many of them pre-election promises which have
now been disregarded or ignored by the Liberal government. The
Canadian public is becoming more and more cynical of its elected
officials because of these antics; most recently with the Liberals'
promise to eliminate the goods and services tax, a promise which it
has broken.
Therefore the petitioners request that Parliament oppose and
condemn the federal government's plan to rework the goods and
services tax into a value added tax which may be expanded to
foodstuffs and prescription drugs.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from the communities of Eston
and Elrose calling on the federal government to make sure there is
full utilization of the port of Churchill to improve the economies of
the prairie provinces and Canada as well.
The petitioners call on the federal government to act
immediately to develop a strategy in order to utilize this important
seaport to ship other exports as well as grain. They pray and call on
the House to direct the minister responsible for the wheat board to
ensure that for the upcoming shipping season the port is used to its
maximum and at the very least 5 per cent of Canada's annual grain
shipments be shipped through the port of Churchill.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Third, Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that perhaps is a bit late but
which may be appropriate for next year as well. It was anticipating
the budget which was read a few days ago, prior to my being able to
table this.
The petitioners are also from my riding, in the
Kindersley-Coleville area as well as Brock and Biggar. They are
telling the federal government they are paying approximately 52
per cent of the cost of a litre of gasoline to the government in the
form of taxes. Last year the tax was increased by 1.5 cents per litre
in the federal budget. They are hearing rumours that it may be
increased by 2 cents per litre.
The petitioners also say that in the past 10 years the excise tax on
gasoline has increased by 566 per cent and they do not want any
more tax increases on gas in this budget or, I presume, in future
budgets.
I am glad to present these petitions on behalf of my constituents.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition from the good constituents of the riding
of Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte who will shortly be well
represented again by another Liberal MP, Gerry Byrne.
These petitioners are calling on Parliament to consider extending
the advisability of compensation to veterans of the merchant navy
to the status equivalent to other veterans.
(1255 )
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions to present. The first contains 1,500 signatures of
constituents from the riding of Comox-Alberni, largely from Port
Alberni.
The petitioners request that Parliament allow Canadian citizens
to vote directly in a national binding referendum on the restoration
of the death penalty for first degree murder convictions.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
this petition the petitioners request that Parliament recognize the
right of conscientious objectors to not pay for the military.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I ask that all questions stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I wish to inform the House
that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will
be extended by 23 minutes.
>
494
494
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-3, an
act to amend the Canada Labour Code (nuclear undertakings) and
to make a related amendment to another act, be read a second time
and referred to a committee.
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, prior to question period when I was
speaking on Bill C-3, I talked about the concerns some members
have regarding the possible discrepancies between federal and
provincial employment standards. As I said, this is not so.
Although the standards are not identical under federal and
provincial laws, they are comparable. Of course these are
minimum standards only. Collective agreements and company
policies often exceed these minimums.
Consider the case of the collective agreement that applies to the
power workers in Ontario for the most part. Its provisions exceed
the labour standards of both the Canada Labour Code and the
Ontario Employment Standards Act. By way of example, the
Canada Labour Code provides for nine holidays with pay, the
Ontario law for eight. The collective agreement at Ontario Hydro
exceeds these levels with 10 holidays.
[Translation]
I will give the House another example of labour standards. Let us
take the example of hours of work. An employee's hours of work
are limited in two ways.
[English]
First, payment of overtime at a rate of one and one-half times the
regular rate is required after eight hours in a day and 40 hours in a
week under the Canada Labour Code, and after 44 hours in a week
under the Ontario Employment Standards Act. Second, there exists
a maximum limit on hours of work, which is 48 hours under the
Canada Labour Code, and eight hours in a day and 48 hours under
the Ontario law.
At the same time flexibility is essential to a well managed
operation, so both federal and Ontario law allows for employees to
work in excess of the legislated maximums in the case of an
emergency or by a permit. Where a permit has been issued under
Ontario law, such work requires the consent of the employees'
representatives.
The collective agreement between Ontario Hydro and the Power
Workers Union meets or exceeds these standards. I could go on
with further examples but hon. members can see that having all
provincial labour laws apply to Ontario Hydro's nuclear workers is
the best guarantee for stability at Ontario Hydro.
For that reason I ask that all hon. members support the passage
of Bill C-3. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill
today and I look forward to its early passage.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
It is not the government's intention to proceed with any other
legislation this afternoon. I therefore call upon the Chair to call it
2.30 p.m., the regular time of adjournment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing Order
24, the House stands adjourned until Monday, March 11 at 11 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 1.01 p.m.)