CONTENTS
Tuesday, June 18, 1996
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3982
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3982
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 3987
Bill C-52. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 3989
Bill C-53. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted. 3989
Bill C-316. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted. 3989
Bill C-317. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 3989
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 3989
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex) 3990
Bill C-4. Motion for third reading. 3990
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed) 3995
Bill C-30. Report stage 3995
Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 3996
Bill C-30. Consideration resumed of report stage andMotions Nos.
1 to 3 4006
Division on Motion No. 1 deferred 4007
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 4017
Mr. Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul) 4017
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 4017
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 4018
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 4023
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 4025
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 4025
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 4025
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 4027
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 4029
Bill C-30. Consideration resumed of report stage 4032
Division on Motion No. 4 deferred. 4033
Bill C-42. Motion for second reading 4033
Motion for reference to committee of the whole 4037
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, byunanimous
consent, the House went into committeethereon, Mr. Kilger in the
chair.) 4037
(Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to.) 4038
(Amendment withdrawn.) 4038
(Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.) 4038
(Clause 7 agreed to.) 4039
(Clause 8 agreed to.) 4039
Motion for concurrence 4039
Motion for third reading 4039
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 4039
Bill C-48. Motion for second reading 4039
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, byunanimous
consent, the House went into committeethereon, Mr. Kilger in the
chair.) 4040
(Clause 1 agreed to.) 4042
(Clause 2 agreed to.) 4042
(Clause 3 agreed to.) 4042
(Clause 4 agreed to.) 4042
Motion for concurrence 4042
Motion for third reading 4042
(Motion agreed to, bill read third time and passed.) 4042
Bill C-25. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 4046
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 140; Nays 92. 4046
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred toa
committee) 4047
Bill C-45. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 4047
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 186; Nays 46. 4047
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referredto a
committee) 4048
Bill C-36. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 4048
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 4048
Bill C-30. Consideration resumed of report stage andMotions Nos.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 4048
Motion No. 1 negatived on division: Yeas, 49; Nays, 182 4049
Motion No. 5 negatived on division: Yeas, 88; Nays, 144 4050
Motion for concurrence 4051
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 128; Nays, 100. 4051
Consideration resumed of motion 4052
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 53; Nays, 173 4052
Bill C-276. Motion for second reading 4053
Bill C-43 Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 4062
3981
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, June 18, 1996
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
English]
The Speaker: I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised
by the hon. member for Kootenay East on June 12, 1996
concerning the placement under Private Members' Business of a
motion for a free conference with the Senate.
I thank the hon. member for raising this matter and the chief
government whip for his contribution to the discussion.
In his submission, the hon. member argued that because his
motion seeking a free conference with the Senate on the
accountability process for the main estimates dealt with the
maintenance of the authority of the House on the management of
its business, it should be considered under Motions, under the
rubric Routine Proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order 67(1)(p).
He also requested that this matter be dealt with expeditiously in
light of the timelines established for the supply process. I have
tried to accommodate his request.
[Translation]
I have examined the arguments and precedents and, in my
opinion, there are two aspects to this point of order: the first,
whether or not free conferences can be employed to deal with
matters such as the one proposed by the hon. member and, second,
under which heading on the Order Paper this motion should be
dealt with by the House.
[English]
In a bicameral Parliament such as ours, the two Houses share in
the making of legislation. Throughout the legislative process, the
House of Commons and the Senate communicate with each other
by means of messages. Historically, on occasions where the two
Houses had reached an impasse on amendments to a bill, they had
resorted to a free conference, a meeting of the representatives of
the House and the Senate at which they attempt, through
negotiation, to resolve their differences on the amendments in
dispute.
(1005 )
In the Canadian context, free conferences have occurred only in
relation to amendments to bills. Although the possibility of
resolving conflict by means of a conference is provided for in our
standing orders, it has not been used since 1947. As the hon.
member acknowledged, Beachesne's sixth edition, citation 748
states in part:
Conferences between the Houses are now obsolete, since their main function,
that of providing an occasion for communicating reasons for disagreement to
amendments to bills, has been taken over by the modern practice of sending
Messages.
In the present situation, in my view it is not for the Chair to
decide whether or not a free conference is the appropriate
mechanism to deal with the substance of the hon. member's notice
of motion. The matter before the Chair is its placement on the
Order Paper.
[Translation]
Over the years, various kinds of motions have been categorized
and assigned their own place in the daily programme, including
private members' motions, motions for leave to introduce bills, and
motions to adjourn under Standing Order 52.
These categories have developed over a lengthy period of time in
response to the need to adapt to the organization of House business.
Some categories are now uniquely reserved for the government or
the opposition, whereas others are reserved for private members
and some very special categories are reserved for items which
affect the transaction of the routine business of the House.
In addition, the kind of motions permissible under ``Motions''
has been narrowed to those that consist primarily of motions for
concurrence in committee reports and motions relating to the
sittings and proceedings of the House.
[English]
It has become the practice that when private members give
written notice of motions pertaining to matters of the type
described in Standing Order 67(1)(p), these motions are placed
under the heading Private Members' Business on the Order Paper.
These include motions seeking to amend the Standing Orders,
providing orders of reference to committees of the House,
arranging the
3982
conduct or the management of House business or in some other
way dealing with the parliamentary environment.
On many occasions where such motions as enumerated in
Standing Order 67(1)(p) have been moved under Motions without
notice, both ministers and private members have sought and been
granted unanimous consent to do so. However, there are currently
no other opportunities for private members to move motions during
Routine Proceedings.
Therefore, the hon. member's notice of motion M-266 is
properly placed on the Order Paper under Private Members'
Business. I thank the hon. member for having brought this matter to
the attention of the House.
_____________________________________________
3982
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to 10 petitions
* * *
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages,
the 1995 annual report on the export of military goods from Canada
and a Canadian strategy document on reduction of military
expenditures in developing countries.
* * *
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in 1992 I was a member of the Standing Committee on
External Affairs and Trade which issued a report on ways to
improve Canada's control of the export of military goods and ways
to diversify the defence industries and promote greater
conservation toward civilian production. It was a good report and
my colleagues on the committee worked hard to come up with
realistic recommendations that would help move government
policy forward in imaginative ways.
(1010)
As the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I can say that a number of
those recommendations are now being implemented. Not all of
them, of course, in part because the international circumstances
have changed; in part because there are limits to what any one
country can do on its own.
I cite the work of the standing committee to underline a crucial
point: this House has a real and irreplaceable role to play in the
formulation of foreign policy. Parliament is able to consult with
Canadians and draw together diverse views in a way that no other
national institution can. It has an honourable tradition of public
involvement and consciousness on leading issues, and has
demonstrated an acute sense of how to promote, even provoke, new
ideas.
[Translation]
I want to turn to Parliament once again. I want to present on the
occasion of the tabling of the annual report on military exports the
main features of our security policy. I encourage the Parliament to
make new recommendations.
[English]
First I want to describe briefly the international context in which
we operate, and give a sense of what Canada is now doing in the
security field.
Canada has long put international security at the centre of
foreign policy. In the years immediately following the second
world war, General Andrew McNaughton led the movement to
place atomic power under multilateral control, and to assure that
atoms would be used for peaceful purposes.
In the 1960s, Tommy Burns was an inspiring force behind the
drive to establish the international machinery for arms control and
disarmament negotiations. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Pierre
Trudeau led the call for nuclear sanity, including a proposal for a
strategy of suffocation to halt the risk of nuclear proliferation.
In recent years, however, the focus has been changing, and
changing in ways that enables Canadians to play to our unique
national traditions, strengths and aspirations.
At the end of the cold war, the prospects of interstate conflict are
diminishing rapidly. Instead, we are more concerned about conflict
within states, that wreak havoc on domestic populations and
occasionally threaten to spill over into neighbouring countries.
If internal conflict does erupt, as we have seen in Cambodia,
Bosnia, Haiti and elsewhere, it can prove even more vicious and
murderous than wars between states, and can have enormous
destabilizing effects on global security.
When internal conflict finally does end, we still face enormous
challenges of building the peace. A ceasefire between states is
much easier to monitor and enforce than a cessation of hostilities
within states. There is no clear border to separate belligerents, no
clear difference between populations.
3983
We must also deal with the new emerging security threats such
as crimes of narco-trafficking, with environmental degradation
and displaced populations. A recent round of UN conferences on
habitat, social development, women's rights, etc., demonstrate that
security of the individual is now a key element of any foreign
policy.
New instruments are being developed requiring new forms of
international co-operation. Last year, for example, Canada chaired
a meeting of G-7 ministers to improve our efforts to combat
terrorism. Our police forces are working more and more closely
with our counterparts throughout the world to address the serious
problem of ruthless criminal organizations.
[Translation]
Similarly, we know that democracy, responsible government and
respect for human rights are fundamental building blocks of
durable stability and security. But our support for these principles
should not take the form of hectoring from the sidelines.
Therefore, we are working with countries-with their
governments, their non-governmental organizations, their
citizens-to build vital, civil institutions that promote human
rights and democracy.
The Dayton accords reflect this approach. Canada played an
active role in supporting the human rights elements of these
accords and is strongly committed to continue providing resources
to this end.
[English]
Prevention of conflict is always the preferred option, but
sometimes there is no stopping the slide into war. What do we do
then? Peacekeeping has been a major achievement of the last 40
years, but in more and more cases the traditional forms of
peacekeeping do not apply. International military units have been
used in recent years to help deliver humanitarian aid in the middle
of war. They are being used to enforce the peace, as NATO is doing
in Bosnia.
Canada is responding to new forms of conflict in new and, we
hope, more effective ways. For example, we believe that the early
and rapid deployment of well-trained UN forces can help smother
emerging conflict before it flames out of control. We have
established a training centre at Cornwallis, Nova Scotia. Our
soldiers are training their counterparts in Asia, Latin America,
eastern Europe and elsewhere in the techniques of peacekeeping
and we have seen in the last few years that these new peacekeepers
are increasingly making a major difference.
(1015 )
We also prepared a major study involving experts from Canada
and around the world on how to improve the UN's capacity to get
peacekeepers in the field much more rapidly. We have a series of
practical, affordable recommendations which we are now
developing at the United Nations.
[Translation]
A third focus is peacebuilding. We know that it is not enough to
simply stop the war. We must also build the peace. What Canada is
doing in Haiti is a good example. There, we are working with the
local government to build political and civil institutions that can
address the needs of the Haitian people. Police from the RCMP and
the Sûreté du Québec are training up a new Haitian police force.
[English]
We know that hate messages can poison a population and make
peace impossible. Therefore Canada recently launched an initiative
in Europe to promote free, democratic media as a counter to the
kind of distortions that helped trigger the war in the former
Yugoslavia. We are beginning to look at broad issues of how the
new information technologies and our high level of skills in
broadcasting can become an effective role and tool of our foreign
policy.
[Translation]
These three strands of conflict prevention, rapid response and
reconstruction and peace building are distinct, but they do reinforce
each other. They have to be drawn together into an effective
approach to conflict. Our resources are finite. Choices have to be
made about what we can do best. This is an area where the views of
Parliament are most welcome and necessary.
[English]
Even as we make these changes we are still faced with a world
arms production still standing at almost $200 billion per year.
Granted, there has been progress in recent years in reducing nuclear
weapons through the START process. The steep cuts to the arsenals
of the former Soviet Union and the United States are welcome.
We now face the prospect of growing nuclear and in most cases
chemical and biological capacity in other states, particularly the
so-called rogue nations which recognize no international norms
and rules. This represents a very serious threat to our security. For
this reason the extension of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty was
crucial. The indefinite extension of the NPT was seen as virtually
unachievable a few years ago, yet with determined effort in
east-west co-operation we made it happen.
At the extension conference last year Canada played a central
role in drafting a Declaration of Principles and Objectives and a
Declaration of Enhanced Reviews that broke the logjam and made
success possible. The latter is of great significance because it
pledges all signatories to review every five years. Preparations for
each meeting will take several years and that is the time to get our
3984
ideas into play. Again, I would consider that Parliament has a
major role to play.
We need new approaches to those regions where proliferation
risks are the highest. Members of Parliament will remember only a
few years ago the great anxiety about the future of nuclear weapons
in Ukraine. After some initial hesitation the Ukraine government
realized that nuclear weapons were an obstacle rather than an entry
card into the wide community and today Ukraine is free of nuclear
weapons. It is also the beneficiary of considerable financial help.
This year under Canadian chairmanship the G-7 concluded an
agreement with Ukraine to shut down the Chernobyl reactor.
We have to consolidate the gains of recent years in reducing
nuclear weapons. One major problem is what to do with the nuclear
weapons grade plutonium which has accumulated from the
destruction of existing weapons in the United States and Russia. At
the nuclear summit in Moscow our Prime Minister announced that
Canada is prepared to consider converting some of this material
into nuclear power generation in Canada.
Our offer is contingent of course on whether the program can
meet strict security and environmental standards. If we go ahead
the program would substantially reduce the stockpile of weapons
grade material that can find its way into countries bent on illicit
nuclear weapons production.
Equally important for attaining security against
non-proliferation is a need to sign a comprehensive test ban treaty
by this fall. The Canadian role has been important both in pushing
for the treaty at Geneva and in providing the scientific work needed
for verification.
Weapons of mass destruction raise the most serious questions
about the future of our planet, but we must never forget that
conventional weapons are the ones that still do the killing in the
conflicts that have raged over the last several years. To limit them
is even more complex than in the nuclear, chemical or biological
fields. In this area the end of the cold war may only have made
matters worse. There is an excessive supply: weapons made
redundant by the end of the east-west competition find their way
cheaply into third world countries. There is a heightened demand
for high tech weapons. Countries that once looked to one or the
other superpowers now feel obliged to protect themselves.
There has been some modest progress but the emphasis is on
modest. The UN register of conventional weapons is a useful tool.
However there are loopholes and real problems of voluntary
compliance. We as Canadians are now working to improve it, but
progress unfortunately will be slow.
(1020)
More optimistically, there are promising signs of the emergence
of new world co-operation and co-ordination regarding the control
of conventional arms and dual-use exports. For decades a NATO
led organization called COCOM established tough barriers to cover
the flow of weapons. The cold war is over and the Russian
federation and former Warsaw pact members in eastern Europe are
now just as concerned about the destabilizing weapons programs of
rogue states as we are.
Last December Canada, its former COCOM partners, as well as
its former Warsaw pact adversaries joined forces to announce a
new regime, the Wassenaar arrangement, to promote greater
transparency and responsibility in global arms and dual-use trade.
Canada is also leading international efforts that could result in a
global ban on anti-personnel mines. Justified as legitimate
weapons of war a few years ago, we have seen recently how these
terrible devices have become instruments of terror against
civilians.
[Translation]
On January 17, we announced a moratorium on the production,
export and operational use of antipersonnel mines. This provided a
dramatic push to international efforts. A year ago we were a mere
handful of hopeful countries and now, a large network of countries
are thinking along the same lines as Canada.
Along with Canada, 35 countries, including the U.S.A.,
Germany and South Africa, have now declared their commitment
to work for a total ban. Last month, during his visit to Ottawa,
Foreign Minister Kinkel of Germany agreed to work closely with
Canada on winning international support for a ban. The Mexican
Foreign Minister did the same.
We have also the commitment of the Central American
presidents. Furthermore, we are working in NATO, in ASEAN and
in consultation with our G-7 partners.
[English]
This coming fall we will break new ground by hosting an
international strategy session in Canada to reinforce work on
securing a ban. We are now mobilizing support for a UN resolution
at the general assembly.
We accept that countries have the right to self-defence, to
maintain militaries and to arm those militaries in a manner
consistent with their legitimate defence needs. Aside from the
so-called rogue states that have removed themselves from all
reasonable international standards of behaviour, there are still
others whose weapons procurement appear to go well beyond the
limits of actual need. The question is: What is legitimate and what
levels of power, sophistication and expense are warranted?
This is particularly worrying in developing countries that divert
scarce resources from economic development toward military
3985
build-up. Do aid flows free up money so that governments can
spend their domestically generated funds on weapons? Or, if aid
funds were held back, would these governments spend their money
on weapons anyway?
The relation between aid policy and military in recipient
countries is now a matter of priority for Canadians. Canada has
taken a leading role internationally in garnering support for further
study and concrete action. Canada raises the issue consistently in
international fora such as the World Bank and the IMF, and has
formed a group of like-minded countries who meet regularly to
define innovative ways to target development co-operation efforts
in this regard.
At the G-7 summit in Halifax last year, G-7 ministers adopted
Canada's proposal to urge multilateral development banks to take
account of military spending. Recently we have proposed that the
OECD conduct a series of case studies on this subject. Today I
tabled a strategy paper and I hope it will be the source of major
debate in this Parliament.
To reinforce our commitment on conventional arms control we
need to look continuously at our record. Export controls are the
most important tool in limiting military exports and most
responsible countries have them in one form or another.
Canada's controls are among the toughest in the world, but I
intend to tighten them further to ensure as far as possible that our
exports do not end up in the wrong hands or end up being used for
unacceptable purposes. I have instructed my officials in the
following way: to carry out more rigorous analyses of the regional,
international and internal security situations in destination
countries to forestall the possible destabilizing effects of proposed
sales; to apply a stricter interpretation of human rights criteria,
including increasing our requirements for end user certificates and
other end use assurances to further minimize the risk that Canadian
military equipment might be used against civilians; and to exercise
the strictest controls over the export of firearms and other
potentially lethal weapons to satisfy me that gun control laws and
practices in recipient countries are adequate to ensure that
Canadian firearms do not find their way into illicit arms trade nor
fuel local violence.
Today I have tabled the sixth annual report on Canada's military
exports. I am pleased to report that military exports decreased 12
per cent in 1995 and remain low as far as lower income developing
countries are concerned.
I want to make Canada an even more responsible player in the
global military goods market and I want Canada to continue to play
a leadership role in the multilateral Wassenaar arrangement. Again
I would invite Parliament to take an active interest in defining this
role.
(1025 )
I have talked today about the ways our foreign policy is being
refashioned around the new security policy principles and
objectives. I am confident we are on the right track but I want to
make sure we continue to move ahead, to look to the future by
building on our solid foundations.
I mentioned earlier the work of Generals MacNaughton and
Burns and of former Prime Minister Trudeau to bring some sanity
to the world, to reverse the rush toward greater and more
destructive weapons. At that time many mocked their efforts as
idealistic dreams or worse. Today their ideas are commonplace, the
starting point for current discussions. I hope parliamentarians will
join us in this search.
[Translation]
Mr. Stépane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise in the House today to speak about Canada's security
policy, more specifically about the tabling of the sixth annual
report on the export of Canadian military goods.
However, before I get to this last topic, I would like, first of all,
to say a few words about the extremely cavalier manner in which
this government, and more specifically the Department of Foreign
Affairs, have acted, given the circumstances surrounding this
debate.
Once again, the opposition parties and the official opposition to
which I belong were not advised until the very last minute that a
debate on Canada's security policy had been scheduled in the
House. In light of this fact, it is extremely difficult for our political
party and for the other parties represented in the House to perform
their duties properly since we cannot prepare ourselves in advance.
If the minister truly wants thoughtful, cohesive and lively debates
to take place in this House, then he must give parliamentarians
sufficient time to prepare themselves.
Unfortunately, the same thing happened in the case of the debate
on renewing the mandate of Canadian peacekeepers in Bosnia.
There again, the government failed to notify the opposition parties
or the official opposition until the very last minute, despite the fact
that this was a matter of utmost importance. Indeed, the debate
centred on whether or not the government should renew the
mandate of our peacekeeping forces stationed in a hostile theatre of
operations. We deplore the attitude taken by the government here,
as it does not appear to have learned anything from that unfortunate
incident.
The situation is even more regrettable given that the new
Minister of Foreign Affairs had shown some sensitivity and
openness toward opposition members by giving them adequate
time to prepare for the debate on Canada's peacekeeping mission in
Haiti. In addition to notifying us in advance of the debate and of the
motion to be debated, the minister invited us to attend a briefing on
the subject and gave us more than enough advance notice. It would
3986
now appear that this was nothing more than a chance occurrence on
the part of this government and that improvisation has now become
once again the order of the day.
I must also deplore the fact that the government is asking us to
speak about an annual report on which we have yet to lay our eyes.
How can we properly comment on a report which only the minister
and his officials have seen? The official opposition has an
important role to play in a democracy. However, it must be allowed
to properly assume this role. Unfortunately, we see that once again,
the government was unwilling to or did not take the necessary steps
to allow us to properly take on our role. Otherwise, it would have
given us the chance to read and comment in advance on the report
on the export of Canadian military goods. Is this not what we are
doing here in the House today?
Furthermore, the minister even took the liberty of giving the
National Press Club of Canada a sneak preview of his speech
earlier this morning, before the House even had a chance to hear it.
What a paradoxical attitude to have toward Parliament, an
institution that the minister professes to respect and whose
opinions he claims to value.
However, I cannot remain silent when our work is made even
more challenging by virtue of the fact that the federal government,
which prides itself on being the champion of official bilingualism,
displays shocking arrogance by sending us the foreign affairs
minister's speech in English only. This reflects a blatant lack of
respect for my political party as well as for all francophone
parliamentarians in the House. The message the federal
government has conveyed to the francophone population is
therefore one of contempt.
(1030)
I demand that the minister give us his assurances that this
intolerable situation will not occur again in future.
Regarding the sale of Canadian military goods abroad, it should
be noted that in 1994, sales to third world countries increased by 40
per cent, setting a new record. In fact, sales to developing countries
rose from $242.2 million 1993 to $342.6 million in 1994, an
increase of over $100 million.
Canada managed to increase its share of the market at a time
when other global arms suppliers were experiencing a general
decline in sales. It will be interesting to see whether Canadian arms
sales to developing countries will have registered another increase
in 1995.
Yet, the minister mentioned in his speech that exports of
Canadian military goods had declined by 12 per cent in 1995.
Despite the decrease, sales of arms and of Canadian military goods
to developing countries remain very strong.
In fact, they remain so strong that the U.S. Congressional
Research Service, the leading authority on the transfer of
conventional arms to developing countries, ranks Canada seventh
among all third world arms suppliers for the years 1991 to 1994.
This agency estimates that Canadian arms sales to developing
countries totalled $800 million over this four year period.
Moreover, it should also be noted that in 1994, Canada sold some
of these military goods to countries with repressive regimes guilty
of systematic human rights violations. Unfortunately, this is
happening despite government guidelines aimed at curbing exports
of this nature. The government was either unable or unwilling to
stop the sale of military goods to these countries.
How can the Minister of Foreign Affairs be proud to announce to
us that Canadian arms sales declined by 12 per cent this year, when
the 1994 annual report on the export of military goods shows an
increase of 48 per cent over the previous year? This means that,
compared to 1993, Canadian arms sales are up 36 per cent. Those
are the real figures.
The Bloc Quebecois is not opposed to trade. Quite the contrary,
in fact. However, when it comes to arms sales, we believe that we
must remain vigilant in the face of the Liberal government's
choices.
In this case, we know for a fact that military goods produced in
Canada are not always used advisedly. For example, in 1994
Canada sold $1.2 million worth of arms to Indonesia. Yet, we know
that this country has been illegally occupying East Timor for the
past 20 years and has been responsible for over 200,000 deaths,
according to Amnesty International.
How can we believe that the goods produced here were not used
to put down this country's population? How can the minister claim
that he is toughening his criteria in order to draw up a list of
countries that can purchase arms from Canada? What the minister
is not saying is that arms sales to Thailand increased from
$620,000 in 1993 to $20.621 million in 1994.
Nonetheless, it is ironic to hear the Minister of Foreign Affairs
give us an overview of his government's record of arms sales to
foreign countries, when as recently as last year, this same
government was seriously negotiating the sale of its fleet of 63
CF-5 fighter aircraft to Turkey.
I even put a question about this issue to the minister of defence
in March 1995. Need we remind the House that the Turkish air
force and artillery were pounding civilian Kurds in northern Iraq at
that very moment?
Even though Canada ultimately sold 13 of its fighter aircraft to
Botswana, the mere fact that it even dared to negotiate the sale with
3987
Turkey is reprehensible. There was reason to be concerned that
these fighter aircraft would be used to bomb civilian targets. The
Bloc Quebecois refuses to compromise where this issue is
concerned.
(1035)
The minister also talked about antipersonnel mines. I would
simply remind the House that the Bloc Quebecois members have
expressed only partial satisfaction with the announced moratorium
on the production, export and operational use of antipersonnel land
mines.
Admittedly, the moratorium is a step in the right direction.
However, in our view, the government missed a golden opportunity
to show some leadership by refusing to destroy its own stocks of
land mines.
The Bloc Quebecois believes that Canada should take the lead in
destroying these weapons.
Nevertheless, I do want to say that the Bloc Quebecois
wholeheartedly supports Canada's participation in UN mine
clearing operations in many countries. Canada must spare no effort
to help toughen up the restrictions on the use of land mines, until
such time as these are completely eliminated from the world's
arsenal of weapons.
On the subject of arms exports, I would like to remind the
Minister of Foreign Affairs of his government's profligate
spending on arms, particularly at a time when it has no qualms
whatsoever about slashing blindly at the expense of most
disadvantaged of all to make up part of its annual financial deficit.
Simply as an example, consider the defence department's recent
decision to purchase 1,600 new anti-tank missiles at a cost of $23.6
million. This brings the total cost of the procurement program to
over $230 million.
One has to wonder what the army did with the first 4,500
missiles it ordered in 1993. Why did the government order an
additional 1,600 missiles when it never really had any use for the
ones it ordered in the first place?
I can understand that we need to be prepared, just in case.
However, I would remind the minister that it is time for his
government to stop imagining enemies hiding behind every bush,
to stop making preparations for war and to put a end to costly and
unjustified large-scale procurement programs.
This government's stubborn insistence on purchasing new
submarines, the usefulness of which has never been proven, speaks
volumes about its logic.
On the one hand, the government is quick to purchase useless
military toys while on the other hand, because of cutbacks, the
level of government assistance to the poorest nations will be the
lowest it has been in nearly 30 years.
An OECD report released in Paris yesterday shows that the level
of official development assistance fell by 7 per cent last year in
Canada to .39 per cent of GNP, whereas internationally, the level
was .7 per cent of GNP.
Canada's contribution has not been so paltry since 1969. This is
deplorable.
In conclusion, it is my hope that the new guidelines announced
by the minister this morning for the export of military goods will
be applied much more stringently and consistently, something
which we have grown accustomed to since the government took
over the reins of office.
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
opportunity to comment on the minister's statement. As it was very
extensive and as I have received it only recently, I will not
comment on everything but I will focus on a few of the most
important issues dealt with in the statement.
I share the minister's opinion that conflict within states
constitutes the major security threat in the coming decade. Our
recent experience in Bosnia, Rwanda and Haiti bear this out.
Unfortunately the UN has been woefully inadequate in dealing
with such conflicts and an increasing burden has been placed on
countries like Canada to intervene on their own to save the day.
This is not acceptable.
The UN must undergo a fundamental restructuring and reform
from top to bottom over the next few years, not decades, if this
trend is to be reversed. As it stands now there is little political
support for the UN on many occasions and even less financial
support.
It could easily be argued the UN is teetering on the edge of
bankruptcy. This will continue if countries like Canada do not lay
down the law at the UN and bring about a fundamental reform.
We can be leaders in the area of fulfilling this role. I firmly
believe the security of the entire world depends on our creating that
reform within the UN or a similar agency. It is necessary. We need
a leader and I think Canada could fill that role very well.
(1040)
There is more to the problems of international conflict resolution
than the UN. It can be traced to this Parliament. We all
acknowledge peacekeeping is one of Canada's great contributions
to building world peace, but look at how Parliament deals with the
peacekeeping issue.
We have in the past held sham debates with inadequate
information about the mission and no votes. How can the minister
argue he really cares about the opinion of Parliament when mission
after mission this continues to happen?
3988
It happened repeatedly with the Bosnia mission where there was
a totally inadequate mandate and no long term plan. Now it
appears it could be happening with Haiti.
The minister well knows the mandate for the Haiti mission
expires at the end of the June, but we still have no long term plan.
Canada has not established clear criteria or conditions under which
we are prepared to continue with this mission. Once again the
minister is getting ready to sign a blank cheque to continue the
Haiti mission.
Does the minister really think this kind of nonsense is
acceptable? Helping Haiti is a worthy cause but there has to be a
plan. There has to be broad based international support including
financial support. There have to be clear criteria for Canadian
participation and there has to be a reasonable chance of success in
an acceptable timeframe.
Yet Parliament has heard nothing about these things. There has
been no information. The UN is still floundering around in typical
fashion and I do not think this bodes well for the future of the
mission, regardless of the good intentions of Canada and the very
commendable work of our soldiers and RCMP and other police
forces and the hardships they have had to endure in Haiti.
Moving on to another topic, I would like to talk about combating
terrorism. Reform fully supports the government in this effort and
we encourage the minister to take bold steps to cut off any terrorist
funding flowing from Canada. In addition, we want to see quick
progress in international co-operation to punish terrorists who use
borders as shields against justice.
On human rights and democratic development, I agree that
isolation and hectoring, to quote the minister, is not productive. We
must assist in the building of institutions which support human
rights and democratic development throughout the world. This is in
our interests and this is what Canadians would want us to do.
With respect to the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons, Reform agrees this is an urgent problem. That
is why we firmly supported the government in its efforts to
indefinitely extend the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. That is also
why we have repeatedly urged the government to take all steps to
ensure the comprehensive test ban treaty is signed as quickly as
possible. We particularly refer to China which we hope will very
soon become a signatory.
The minister's statement also mentioned anti-personnel land
mines which should be banned worldwide. He stated how on
January 17 of this year the government announced a moratorium on
the production, export and operational use of these weapons. I
guess the minister forgot to mention that it was Reform that first
proposed this long before the government ever got around to doing
it.
I congratulate the Reform member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca
who has worked diligently on this topic and who introduced a
private member's bill to deal with this issue last year.
On the minister's proposal for tightening conventional arms
control, Reform broadly supports this concept. However, we wish
to examine the details of the plan before we would comment
further.
There are many areas of security policy on which I believe there
is a broad consensus between parties. However, we need action, not
just endless words.
On the issue of handing over blank cheques to the UN and
blindly supporting peacekeeping missions, the government needs
to rethink its approach. Reform has frequently commented on these
issues and I know the minister privately agrees with much of what
we have to say.
It is up to him to assume responsibility for correcting these
problems and he should do so without delay.
* * *
(1045 )
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 22nd report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in relation to its order
of reference from the House on the matter of the communiqué
published by the hon. member for Charlesbourg on October 26,
1995 concerning the members of the Canadian Armed Forces.
The issue before the committee was a narrow one: Does the
communiqué from the hon. member for Charlesbourg constitute a
contempt of the House of Commons? The committee came to the
conclusion that the hon. member's actions were irresponsible. The
committee cannot find reasonable grounds to show that he was in
contempt of the House or that a breach of parliamentary privilege
had occurred.
The committee does not countenance the actions of the hon.
member for Charlesbourg in sending out the communiqué in the
terms it was, nor does it feel that the hon. member for
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt was acting in an entirely
non-partisan way in raising the matter as a question of privilege
when he did.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak at this stage to give some
explanation as to the reason for the Bloc Quebecois's dissident
report on the whole issue examined by this special committee.
3989
We, the Bloc MPs, have come to the rather easy conclusion that
silence gives consent. That is exactly what the Liberals have done
in this totally insipid report, in spite of everything the committee
heard and mostly did not hear concerning the extremely serious
and precise accusations made by a Reform member of Parliament
against my colleague, the member for Charlesbourg. During the
three months of hearings held on the accusation of insurgency, no
proof was submitted. The Liberals came up with this cowardly
report and we would be their accomplices if we did not speak up.
When reading the Bloc's dissident report, you will see that,
unlike the Liberals' report, it is truly honest.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as
would be expected, the Reform Party also tabled a dissenting report
to what amounted to a Liberal opinion from the committee.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member is aware, I believe, that
he will need unanimous consent in order to make a similar
statement as was made by the previous member.
Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is not unanimous consent.
Accordingly, the Reform Party is not permitted to make a
dissenting opinion in the House today.
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second
report of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status
of Persons with Disabilities.
In accordance with its mandate and under Standing Order
108(3)(c), the committee has considered the upcoming 50th
anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human
Rights. The committee has requested that the government provide a
comprehensive report to the recommendations found in this report
pursuant to Standing Order 109.
* * *
Hon. Jon Gerrard (for the Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-52, an act to amend the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
(1050 )
Hon. Jon Gerrard (for Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-53, an act to amend the prisons
and reformatories act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemarre (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-316, an act to amend the Parliament of
Canada Act (oaths or solemn affirmation).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to introduce a bill to
amend the Parliament of Canada Act.
[English]
This bill would require a federal member of Parliament to take
an oath of allegiance to Canada and the Constitution in addition to
the present oath to the Queen.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-317, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act (small
supplier carrying on a taxi business).
He said: Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling this bill to amend the
Excise Tax Act so that a small supplier carrying on a taxi business
is no longer required to be registered for the purposes of the goods
and services tax.
When the GST was introduced a category of suppliers was
created which was exempt from registering, collecting and paying
GST saving many small business owners from the regulatory
burden of this abhorrent tax. Strangely, upon implementation of
this tax a whole category of workers, taxi drivers, were excluded
from becoming small suppliers although there had been strong
indications that they would be permitted small supplier status.
I am hereby submitting this private member's bill to correct this
injustice and allow these workers the same flexibility that other
workers enjoy. This is but a small step on the way to freeing every
business person from the regulatory burden of the GST.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
3990
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition from members of United Senior Citizens of Ontario Inc.
who reside in Peterborough. They say that the safety of consumers
and senior citizens in particular is at risk because brand name drug
manufacturers are attempting to force generic drug manufacturers
to market their equivalent products in a size, shape and colour
different from the brand name medication.
Any action that affects the look of generic drugs could endanger
patient safety through improper use of medicines. Therefore, the
petitioners request that Parliament regulate the longstanding
Canadian practice of marketing generic drugs in a size, shape and
colour which is similar to that of its brand name equivalent.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
another petition which is from the citizens of Peterborough.
They draw attention to the fact that section 327 of the James Bay
Northern Quebec Agreement discriminates against James Bay
Crees who no longer live in James Bay, Quebec by virtue of their
not living there. The clause states that if the original inhabitants of
James Bay, Quebec leave James Bay territory for longer than 10
years, they are no longer eligible for any benefits under the James
Bay agreement.
The petitioners request that Parliament revoke section 327 of the
James Bay Northern Quebec Agreement due to its contravening the
Canadian Constitution of 1981.
(1055 )
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present three petitions from constituents of
London-Middlesex and other Londoners.
These petitioners note that Canadian law does not prohibit
criminals from selling their stories and financially benefiting
thereby. The petitioners ask Parliament to enact Bill C-205 which
has been moved by my colleague from Scarborough West. Such a
bill would prohibit criminals from profiting from their crimes. I am
very pleased to present these three petitions today.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have six petitions from another 500 constituents.
Petitions continue to come in from people concerned about the
addition of sexual orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act.
They are concerned this will mean the eventual extension of
benefits to same sex couples. They are asking that that not happen.
It appears to be slightly late now, but I am happy to table these
petitions on their behalf.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I wish to inform the House that because
of the ministerial statement Government Orders will be extended
by 35 minutes.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for the
fourth time now, I would like to call to your attention the fact that,
on March 11, 1996, I put four questions on the Order Paper
concerning the choice of Shawinigan instead of Trois-Rivières as
the site for the Department of Human Resources' regional
management centre.
I will say outright that I am counting today on your support to
make all necessary representations to the parliamentary secretary
in order to get legitimate responses to these questions before the
House ajourns for the summer.
[English]
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, as I have previously indicated to my hon.
colleague on the points he has raised, the answers he is looking for
are being assembled. The information is being put together as we
speak. It is certainly my great hope that before we rise for the
summer my hon. colleague will receive that information.
_____________________________________________
3990
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Jon Gerrard (for the Minister of Industry, Minister for
the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of
Western Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for
the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec) moved
that Bill C-4, an act to amend the Standards Council of Canada Act,
be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to support the Minister
of Industry on the third reading of Bill C-4.
3991
Let me begin by thanking the Standing Committee on Industry
for the prompt review of the bill. I would also be remiss if I did
not thank the more than 1,000 Canadians who participated in the
consultations which led to the development of this amendment and
this amended bill.
[Translation]
Its first objective is to provide a structure giving more adequate
support to the efforts of the 14,000 Canadian volunteers who give
of their time, energy and expertise to the national standards system.
[English]
Modern, effective standards are an integral part of creating the
right marketplace conditions to encourage economic growth and
jobs for Canadians. Marketplace framework laws like the
amendments here to modernize the Standards Council of Canada
help create an environment in which Canadians can make the
decisions needed to create jobs and growth. These changes define
the rules of the marketplace to balance the interests of all parties:
businesses and consumers, small and large enterprises, buyers and
sellers, the private and the public sectors.
(1100)
When marketplace framework laws work effectively,
governments can stay on the sidelines, like referees, and let the
private sector get on with the job.
Marketplace framework laws have been at the core of the
government's program to revitalize the Canadian economy. The
changes proposed here fit well with our overall strategy.
When the Minister of Industry tabled the agenda for jobs and
growths in the publication ``Building a More Innovative
Economy'', he outlined how Industry Canada would address four
key elements to help the private sector create jobs and ensure
growth in Canada. These four elements are trade, infrastructure,
technology and the marketplace climate.
The legislation before us addresses one of these elements, the
marketplace climate. Standards establish a common benchmark
against which the performance of goods and services can be
measured. The impact of this legislation will be felt on all the other
elements of our jobs and growth agenda.
Standards promote trade both domestically and internationally.
Internationally, standards like the ISO 9000 series give Canadian
products and services a seal of quality recognized around the
world. Within Canada, standards enable different jurisdictions to
agree on a benchmark for quality that allows them to eliminate
duplication of government services.
Let me give the House an example of how important standards
can be to international trade. Twenty years ago Canadian plywood
was virtually unknown in Japan. Japanese builders had not
accepted the wood frame construction we use commonly in
Canada. There was therefore no market for Canadian plywood in
Japan. Well developed Canadian standards in this area have,
however, helped to convince the Japanese building industry of the
value of wood frame construction.
The forest industry in Canada worked hard with the government
to have Canadian certification recognized. The Canadian Plywood
Association became the first organization in the world to gain
Japanese approval as a foreign testing organization. Today Canada
sells the Japanese 70 million board feet of plywood each year.
Let me also give an example of how participation in standards
development leads to expanded trade. Advanced Information
Technologies Corporation, a Toronto based company, is working
with the International Organization for Standardization to develop
standards for passports that can be read by a machine. Its work has
opened many doors for its business and last year its sales topped
$34 million, with 80 per cent of the sales coming from the machine
readable document business.
Standards are vital in order to build an effective infrastructure. If
members want an example of what can happen when uniform
standards are not applied, study the early history of the railway
industry in North America and in Australia. In Australia each state
applied a different standard gauge for railway tracks. Hon.
members can imagine the result. No train could travel from one
state to the next. Every time one came to a state border the cargo
had to be unloaded from its cars and reloaded on to the next train.
We can shake our heads now in wonder at why this happened, but
we must ensure a similar situation does not now arise in the case of
infrastructure for the next century, infrastructure for the
information highway.
This infrastructure requires a great deal of co-ordination in the
standards that will apply. The standards clearly affect a number of
both federal and provincial jurisdictions, and a wide range of
industries are involved in providing both the road bed and the
content for the information highway. We do not want to find
ourselves in the cyberspace equivalent of having to unload our
information railway cars every time we come to a border.
(1105)
Standards are vital to the healthy development of technology.
The government's overall objective is to create conditions where
we can build an innovative society in which research and
development create technology and the business community adapts
and adopts the best technology possible. That is the way to create
jobs and growth in the modern context.
One cannot have technological innovation without safeguards.
Canadians must be assured their health and safety will not be
3992
compromised by the new processes, the new products and the
industrial designs that make our society innovative.
Canadians want assurances that the buildings erected this year
will not topple next year due to unproven techniques. Canadians
want assurance that the electrical appliances they buy can be
plugged into outlets at home and, once they are plugged in, they
want the assurance a short-circuit will not burn their home down.
Canadians want assurances their natural gas lines will not leak,
that the gasoline they buy has the right octane levels for their car
and that the propane tanks they buy have the right thread fit for
their gas barbecues. Canadians value new innovation and the
convenience of modern technology. However, Canadians will not
compromise safety and security.
This creates clearly a challenge for government. On one hand,
we must encourage creativity and the adoption and adaptation of
new technology. We do not want to slow down innovation. At the
same time we have an obligation to ensure the new innovations will
not expose Canadians to unwarranted risks. Standards are an
effective way in balancing the need for technological innovation
with the need to prevent undue risk. They enable innovators to
know in advance the criteria that must be met.
The criteria have been established as a result of consensus on
how the public interest can best be protected. This enables the
business community, researchers and innovators to forge ahead.
Innovators can be as quick and flexible as they need to be in
responding to new ideas and to new opportunities.
Innovators know that by using standards set for their technology
they will stay within the limits of safety. From my own
constituency the needs are particularly important in farm related
technology and new machinery as well as in the advancing and roll
out of the information highway.
Why has the adoption of standards been part of the government's
strategy to create jobs and growth? Standards help business people,
they help innovators and they help the consumers of Canada to get
on with the task at hand.
People do not always have to be looking over their shoulder to
see what the government thinks. They do not consistently have to
check for government approval, they just apply the standards that
are there and accepted.
The primary objective of this legislation is to make standards a
more effective tool for the creation of jobs and growth in Canada as
well as to provide safety for Canadians.
Bill C-4 is part of the government's overall strategy to create
market conditions where the private sector can get on with the job
of building a modern innovative economy.
[Translation]
I congratulate all those who contributed to the drafting of this
bill and I ask my colleagues to give it their full support.
(1110)
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am going
to take advantage of my remarks on Bill C-4, amending the
Standards Council of Canada Act, to draw to the attention of the
members of this House a series of legislative elements that I regard
as extremely significant.
The Standards Council of Canada is a body created by the
Standards Council of Canada Act, which is chapter S-16 of the
Revised Statutes of Canada. It reports to the Minister of Industry.
Its objects are ``to foster and promote voluntary standardization''
where this is not already ``expressly provided for by law'', in a
number of fields set out in the act, including construction,
manufacturing, production, quality, performance and safety of
buildings, structures, manufactured articles and products and other
goods.
The Standards Council of Canada is made up of representatives
of the federal government, the provincial governments and
industry, as set out in section 3 of the act. All standards are
established on a voluntary basis by the relevant industries, and their
purpose is to encourage and facilitate domestic and international
trade.
Bill C-4, before us today for third reading, enlarges the mandate
and powers of the standards council. In addition to advancing the
national economy, the bill tells us, standardization will have to
support sustainable development; in addition to benefiting public
health, it will have to benefit the health and safety of workers.
The standards council will have an important promotional role to
play, in addition to encouraging standardization where it is not
already mandatory. In its annual report, the council will have to
make recommendations to the minister regarding standards it
considers should be mandatory.
Bill C-4 proposes significant amendments to the existing act. It
chiefly seeks to make the council less ponderous by reducing the
number of its members from 57 to 15. One of those members
would be ``a person employed in the public service of Canada to
represent the Government of Canada''.
The bill would also create two advisory committees: the
provincial-territorial advisory committee, whose Chairperson and
Vice-Chairperson would sit on the council, and the standards
development organizations advisory committee, whose Chairper-
3993
son would sit on the council. Provincial and territorial
representation would thus be assured by the first of these new
committees and representation of expert bodies by the second.
Eleven other people representing the private sector, including
non-governmental organizations, would sit on the council, for a
total of 15 members.
I think it is important to support Bill C-4 for three main reasons.
First, the bill is designed to improve the operation of the Standards
Council of Canada, a federal agency. Second, the bill is designed to
promote economic growth by eliminating pointless irritants. And
finally, Bill C-4 would help to pave the way for a flexible, efficient
and viable partnership between Canada and Quebec.
These reasons deserve closer examination. First, the bill id
designed to improve the operation of the Standards Council of
Canada. Bill C-4 is designed to make the council less ponderous
and more functional. This is a very important process. The federal
government machinery is imposing, weighty, often not very
efficient, and prone to expensive duplication.
The federal government machinery is omnipresent in the
Canadian economy and often hampers economic growth by
legislation or regulations that put a brake on, or put obstacles in the
way of, economic progress.
In this context, measures designed to improve operations are
always welcome. All taxpayers will benefit in the long run. The
agencies and enterprises that do business with the federal
government will also benefit.
Lastly, since governments are constant targets for criticism, the
fact that the federal government wants to introduce some real
changes may well make the public's view of it more favourable,
and fairly quickly, too.
(1115)
The end result will be the development and maintenance of
functional, productive and viable relations between the government
and the various components of our society.
Second, promoting economic growth. The importance of Bill
C-4 lies in the status and mandate of the organization whose
operation it is designed to improve. The standards council plays a
key role in regulating economic processes. Its role is to promote
voluntary standardization by industry; that is the very core of its
mandate.
It would be difficult to argue that standardization does not
matter. Without it, the propensity toward diversification
characteristic of market economies would in the context of vast
trading networks cause an immense variety of problems for the
various transactors.
Apart from wasted resources, increased costs and consumer
dissatisfaction, both domestic and foreign trade would be seriously
affected. Scarcity of resources and the principles of rationalization
and efficiency demand standardization. Standardization means
fluidity, efficiency and effectiveness in trade. Standardization
means the elimination of brakes on trade and of obstacles to trade.
Four factors militate in favour of standardization. First, the
fundamental dynamic of the economy-the interdependence of
trade, competitiveness, productivity, growth and employment.
Second, the age-old dependence of the Canadian economy on raw
materials: although the service sector has been developing steadily
in Canada over the past 30 years, too many of our raw materials are
still not processed in Canada, even now.
Third, the context of globalization in the framework of NAFTA
and trade with other countries of the world. Forth and last, the trend
toward forming local, national and international partnerships.
The principle of voluntary standardization is at the heart of Bill
C-4. This key aspect of the standards council's mandate relies on
promotion of voluntary standardization being done by industry
stakeholders themselves. Encouraging stakeholders to adopt
standards on a voluntary basis has obvious advantages.
This approach assumes that each sector knows itself, its
products, its needs and its stakeholders. It uses a consensus
approach, which minimizes government intervention and control.
In the circumstances, and given the council's role and mandate in
improving efficiency, this is an approach we support.
The third element I wanted to discuss is the implementation of a
Quebec/Canada partnership. This is the third reason for our support
of Bill C-4. We believe that very soon now, Quebec will have
achieved sovereignty and, as it committed itself to doing in the
agreement of June 12 of last year among the Parti Quebecois, the
Action démocratique du Québec and the Bloc Quebecois, it will
negotiate an economic and political partnership with
Canada-essentially because Quebecers want to maintain a shared
economic sphere, and stable, productive and viable political
relations, with Canada.
From this perspective, Bill C-4, like Bill C-19 implementing the
Agreement on Internal Trade, constitutes in our view an important
step toward making such a partnership possible.
In both instances, an effort is being made to improve and
consolidate government agencies that will be better able to serve
our Canadian friends and that will be indispensable in negotiating
the new partnership.
(1120)
To sum up, our support for Bill C-4 is based on the three reasons
I have discussed: it should improve the way the Standards Council
of Canada, a federal government agency, operates; it should
encourage economic growth; and it should help to lay the
groundwork for a partnership between Quebec and Canada that will
be flexible, effective and viable.
3994
We hope that our future Canadian partners will understand that
we are looking forward in all good faith to these improvements
in federal political institutions.
In conclusion, I would like to add that the bill does not in our
opinion seem to pose any major problems. The council's structure
would be changed, and to a slight extent its powers, while the way
it operates would be made less ponderous. The provinces and
territories would drop from 12 representatives to two, but their
proportional representation would be just the same. In addition, the
proposed provincial-territorial advisory committee would give the
provinces and territories the opportunity to make their voices
heard.
Standardization is voluntary. This is simple common sense, as
the economic sectors or companies that decide not to go along are
penalizing themselves at a time when trade is so important, both
within Canada and in North America and the rest of the world.
Given the increased trade among the provinces of Canada,
between Canada, the United States and Mexico under NAFTA and
soon with South America as well, and ultimately with the whole
world, standardization will eventually have to be adopted by all
parties. This is the only logical conclusion for those who want to
trade.
[English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to speak at third reading of Bill C-4, an act to amend
the Standards Council of Canada Act.
To begin thinking logically about this subject, two questions
need to be considered: What are standards and what role do
standards play in Canadian society?
Standards reassure consumers that products and services will
work as they are described and as they are supposed to work. They
also inform consumers about manufacturer tests for quality and
safety and guarantee that human and environmentally safe
production techniques have been used in all manufacturing
processes.
For example, standards tell Canadians that hockey helmets will
not break when players are in a collision on the ice. They tell
Canadians that an electrical cord is safe to use and will not spark a
fire. Standards tell Canadians that their TV reception will not go
fuzzy when they turn on their sets. Indeed, standards ensure
Canadians that products and services provide a level of quality on
which they can rely.
Standards also play an important role in national and
international trade. If a manufacturer in Canada makes a product
that does not meet the standards required by another province or
another country, it will not be allowed to ship or export that product
to the desired destination.
In fact, some countries use unique product standards as artificial
trade barriers to restrict foreign imports. It is important, therefore,
for Canada to encourage national and international co-operation in
the development of common standards.
In that regard, Canada's trade agreements, NAFTA, GATT and
the internal trade agreement, prohibit the use of standards as trade
barriers.
The development of the Standards Council of Canada reflects the
importance the Canadian public places on standards. Established in
1970 as a crown corporation, the Standards Council of Canada
promotes voluntary standardization in Canada and encourages
international co-operation with our trading partners and standards
organizations. It also oversees the Canadian standards system
which consists of organizations that write standards, certify
products and services, tests and calibrates, and registers standards.
The bill before us today changes the form and function of the
Standards Council of Canada in several ways. First, it expands the
current mandate of the Standards Council.
(1125)
Second, Bill C-4 reduces the number of council members from
57 to 15 and adds necessary qualifications for the private sector
representatives.
Third, Bill C-4 changes in the English version the titles of the
president and vice-president to chairperson and vice-chairperson
respectively.
Fourth, it specifies the duties of the chairperson.
Fifth, Bill C-4 establishes the provincial territorial advisory
committee and the standards development organizations advisory
committee.
Finally, Bill C-4 specifies that meetings of the council and its
committees may be held through electronic means.
These are changes to the Standards Council of Canada Act that
the Reform Party of Canada supports.
Let me discuss just a few of these proposed changes. First, the
expansion of the Standards Council of Canada's current mandate
means that it will include all areas where standardization is not
already provided for by law. It will involve more Canadians in
standards activities. It will oversee the national standards system. It
will foster quality, performance and technological innovation in
Canadian goods and services through standards. Finally, it will
establish long term objectives and strategies.
These changes increase the competitiveness of Canadian
industry. Let me explain why. The current role of the Standards
Council relates to the maintenance of the national standards
system. The Standards Council does not develop or promote a
national strategy. This puts Canada at a competitive disadvantage
vis-à-vis other countries, as Canada is one of just a few G-7
members that does not have a national standards strategy.
3995
For example, Britain, Germany and France have well established
strategies designed to support their industry both domestically and
internationally. Often representatives from Canadian steel
companies find that potential customers from around the world
want to purchase steel according to German standards, an
indication of how well the Germans have promoted German
products and German standards throughout the world.
British industry improved the image of its export products by
complying with international standards for quality labelled ISO
9000.
Japan currently provides assistance to many countries in order
for them to adopt national standards based on its system of
standards and as a result Japan acquires a competitive advantage.
The United States also aggressively promotes its standards
internationally, even though it has not formed a formal national
strategy.
A Canadian national standardization strategy would go a long
way to support and help build Canada's commercial
competitiveness abroad. Other countries would be encouraged to
develop our system of standardization and we could gain more
credibility by having Canadian industry accredit themselves with
ISO 9000.
Renewing the Standards Council of Canada mandate to establish
long term objectives and strategies is an important step to
increasing Canada's international competitiveness. It is important
that the Standards Council does not develop its strategies in secret.
Bill C-4 gives Canadians this commitment. It states that more
people will be involved in standards activities. I remind the
Standards Council to make sure it consults small and medium size
businesses and implements their views in planning national
standards strategy. Their interests must not be neglected as they
have been in the past by this Liberal government.
Changes to the Standards Council of Canada membership under
Bill C-4 is an important step in moving in this direction. The
number of public servant members on the council will decrease
from six to one. This change will hopefully make the Standards
Council of Canada become more representative of Canadian
industry, including those from the medium and small enterprises.
(1130 )
The private sector membership of the standards council will also
change under Bill C-4. Private sector members would now have to
represent a broad spectrum of interests and possess the experience
necessary to assist the standards council in fulfilling its mandate.
Hopefully the standards council will become more open,
accessible and accountable to Canadians and Canadian industry
under this change.
I recommend to the minister to make one change that would
improve Bill C-4 in our estimation. That is to follow the
suggestions made by the Canadian Standards Association and add a
review clause to the Standards Council of Canada Act. The review
clause would state that the act be examined on a regular basis such
as five year intervals.
Since standards change rapidly in a fast growing technological
and global economy, it makes common sense to review the
Standards Council of Canada Act to ensure the standards council
and the national standards system remain relevant to the needs of
Canadian industry and Canadian society.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-30, an act to
amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police Act, as reported (without amendment)
from the committee.
The Deputy Speaker: There are five motions in amendment
standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-30, an
act to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police Act.
[Translation]
Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 will be grouped for debate. The vote on
Motion No. 1 will apply to Motions Nos. 2 and 3.
[English]
Motions Nos. 4 and 5 will be grouped for debate but voted on as
follows. Motions No. 4 will be separated on separately. An
affirmative vote on Motion No. 4 obviates the necessity of the
question being put on Motion No. 5. On the other hand, a negative
vote on Motion No. 4 necessitates the question being put on Motion
No. 5.
[Translation]
I will now put Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to the House. Each
Member can have a copy of this decision.
3996
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 1.
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 2.
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 3.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-30 just as I
did when Bill C-58 was introduced in this House at second reading,
on November 17 1974.
We all remember why the government tabled Bill C-58, which
has now become Bill C-30. According to a decision of the trial
division of the Federal Court of Canada, RCMP officers were
basically covered by the legislation pertaining to public service,
subject to working conditions established by Treasury Board and,
indirectly, to the RCMP's incorporating instruments, the Financial
Administration Act and the Canada Labour Code.
(1135)
That lead to the following situation. First, according to the
Gingras decision, the government had to give a bilingual bonus to
RCMP officers. It did not appeal the decision from the trial
division of the Federal Court. It rather decided to table Bill C-58,
which was a kind of backdoor appeal. This is like changing the law
after the decision was rendered.
Mr. Milliken: Oh, oh.
Mr. Langlois: I will wait till my colleague from Kingston and
the Islands has finished.
An hon. member: He just left.
Mr. Langlois: He just left? Thank you. He probably met his
whip on the way out who told him to keep quiet. I would like to
thank the member from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell who, for
once, succeeded in bringing the hon. member from Kingston and
the Islands back in line.
I can now go on. The government tabled Bill C-58 after deciding
not to appeal the Gingras decision. What Bill C-58 basically tells
us is that RCMP members are not part of the public service, they
are not governed by the provisions on public servants or by the
working conditions established by Treasury Board. This is getting
close to the separate employer status that some have always wanted
to give to the RCMP.
There is a much broader problem, a staff relations problem that
has been around for a while and which the study of Bill C-58 made
apparent. There is a gap between command staff and officers of the
RCMP. The study of Bill C-58 clearly demonstrated that working
conditions are not too good.
Some RCMP members wanted to appear before the committee
on government operations to talk about Bill C-58 because it was
directly affecting them. They were told not to wear their uniform
and that they would have to appear in their own personal name,
outside regular hours of work. This job atmosphere is pretty weird
in an organization where everybody is supposed to have the same
goals.
Bill C-58 also touches upon another aspect of working
conditions of RCMP members, that is to say their unionization.
Some members are unionized. At present, RCMP civilian
employees are unionized. The March 1994 Gingras judicial
decision definitely opens the door to the possible application of
Part I and, of course, Part II of the Canada Labour Code to RCMP
officers.
Fearing that its RCMP police officers could unionize, the
government introduced Bill C-58 to exclude them from the
ordinary rules of law applicable to all other Canadian workers
subject to the Canada Labour Code's general rules.
When the minister and RCMP officers appeared before the
government operations committee, they were hard put to answer
the following question: ``For which reasons are you opposed to
unionization, to free negociation of working conditions between
RCMP police officers and the government, their employer?''
All they could say was that since RCMP officers had to look
after the safety of ambassadors and members of the consular corps,
they could not be compared to other Canadian police officers who
dit not have to perform such duties. However witnesses have shown
during committee hearings on Bill C-58 that Sûreté du Québec
police officers, Ontario Provincial Police officers, in their
respective province, have to look after the safety of consular corps
members located in Toronto, Montreal or Quebec City.
(1140)
Now, all things considered, they are not any different. We realize
the distinct status the RCMP command staff is so fond of is like a
sacred cow.
A case is still outstanding before the Quebec Court of appeal. I
am talking about the Delisle case against the Attorney General of
Canada. Staff sergeant Gaétan Delisle, who is now mayor of
Saint-Blaise-sur-Richelieu, claims that the freedom of association
provided for in the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
includes the right to unionization.
The government simply wants to ignore court rulings and
legislate retroactively to deny some rights. This approach is not
appropriate. Let us wait and see what the court rulings on the right
to unionization will be as well as the rulings of the federal
commissions responsible for implementing the Canada Labour
3997
Code before deciding if, according to them, RCMP police officers
can be unionized, and if so, which system should be applied to
them.
We could eventually hold an open debate on unionization
conditions for police officers that would be acceptable to MPs
representing Canadian citizens. Should we have a general system
providing for the right to strike, a system providing for compulsory
arbitration or a system providing for a final offer? These are all
possible options. With a bill such as Bill C-30, let us not exclude
other possible courses of action. Above all, we cannot disregard the
tension seething within the ranks of the RCMP, tension which last
October or November resulted in Staff Sergeant Gaétan Delisle
being ordered not to run for the office of mayor of
Saint-Blaise-sur-Richelieu.
We have indeed come to a pretty pass when a police force's
headquarters seeks to strip one of its officers of his fundamental
right to run as a candidate in a municipal, provincial or federal
election. A grievance has been filed. This whole matter will be
heard by the trial division of the Federal Court. However, this case,
like many others, underscores the prevailing tension.
We are coming very close to restricting individual freedom of
expression. In the case of the communiqué released by the member
for Charlesbourg, an attempt was made to restrict the freedom of
expression of a member of Parliament. This member was brought
up before the procedure and House affairs committee and an
attempt was made to ``do a number'' on him, as they say, to
intimidate him and to restrict his freedom to freely and
democratically voice his sovereignist convictions in an open
debate. We have never hidden our true intentions.
The Gingras case, the Delisle case at the RCMP, Bill C-58, Bill
C-30, the case of the member for Charlesbourg's communiqué: in
all of cases, there is a common denominator, namely an attempt to
restrict democratic rights, whether it be the rights of officers of the
peace, those of RCMP officers or those of the member for
Charlesbourg. To attempt to restrict a member's freedom to voice
his opinion about a platform on which he was elected is to take
matters too far. That is why we will be voting in favour of the
motion at the report stage. We want to have certain provisions
stricken from Bill C-30.
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, with
respect to the first group of motions for Bill C-30, the Reform Party
is guided by the following principles and policies found in our
official policy document, the blue Book.
The blue book policy on the RCMP states:
The Reform Party supports the traditional role of the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police (RCMP) as a police force representative of and responsive to
the populations it serves in Canada's regions.
The blue book policy on official languages states:
The Reform Party supports official bilingualism in key federal institutions,
such as Parliament and the Supreme Court, and critical federal services where
need is sufficient to warrant provision of minority services on a cost effective
basis. The Reform Party supports the removal of bilingual bonuses to civil
servants as federal cost reduction measures.
(1145)
Bill C-30 contains provisions identical to Bill C-58, which died
on the Order Paper as a result of the government's decision to
prorogue Parliament this year.
Bill C-30 removes RCMP officers from the definition of
employee and therefore as members of the public service under the
Public Service Staff Relations Act, essentially separate employer
status. Only civilian members of the RCMP are to be governed by
the Public Service Staff Relations Act. The staff relations for police
officers of the RCMP are to be governed by the RCMP Act.
Bill C-30 was originally introduced as housekeeping in nature;
however, it became evident that the effect of the legislation would
have serious implications for the rights of RCMP members. There
exists concern that Bill C-30 in its present form would completely
eliminate the application of the Canada Labour Code to RCMP
members. At present RCMP members have the protection of part II
of the code concerning health and safety.
In order for the Reform Party to support Bill C-30, it would
require a substantive amendment which would ensure the
continued statutory protection of RCMP officers under the Canada
Labour Code. In my assessment, none of the amendments put
forward by the hon. member for Bellechasse would satisfy this
requirement. Therefore, the Reform Party will not support Motion
No. 1 which would amend Bill C-30 by deleting clause 1. The
Reform Party will not support Motion No. 2 which would amend
Bill C-30 by deleting clause 2. The Reform Party will not support
Motion No. 3 which would amend Bill C-30 by deleting clause 3.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Bill C-30's aim is essentially to overturn the Federal Court of
Appeal's decision of March 10, 1994 in the Gingras case. You will
recall that the appeal court had concluded, at the time, that RCMP
members, most of them law enforcement officers, are members of
the public service and must submit to the rules of Treasury Board.
And also that RCMP members are entitled to the bilingual bonus of
more or less $800 per year.
In May 1994, the government announced that it had no intention
of appealing the Supreme Court of Canada's judgment and that
consequently it would pay the bonus to RCMP members, including
3998
for some of the years during which the government had illegally
refused to pay that bonus. In total, retroactive payments amount to
approximately $30 million.
It seems that RCMP management is disturbed by this Federal
Court of Appeal's decision since it means, according to some
people, that the other rules of Treasury Board would also apply to
the RCMP and its law enforcement officers, namely those
concerning pay equity, the enforcement of official languages laws
and working conditions, except the right to form a union.
But before going further, it would be appropriate to determine
the time context as well as the particular group concerned. What is
the RCMP? Maybe we should start with this definition. There are
15,500 regular members and special constables, about 2,000
civilian members and also 3,400 public service employees.
The 15,500 regular members are in fact law enforcement
officers, the policemen of the RCMP. They are not unionized. The
2,000 civilian members hold support positions such as laboratory
technicians, general technicians, specialists in various fields,
airplane pilots, and there are a indeterminate number of
administrative support staff. The administrative support employees
are not unionized either.
The 3,500 public servants are members of the administrative and
support staff, such as clerks, secretaries, custodians, etc. They were
all hired by the Public Service Commission or came from other
departments.
(1150)
What is worrisome about this bill is the roundabout way it is
trying to achieve what is basically forbidden by the legislation. In
the case of Bill C-30, the authorities are annoyed because, for a
number of years now, there have been pushes inside the RCMP to
unionize the agency.
However, three times already, these attempts have failed.
Unionization in 1996 is not supposed to be a barbaric act that must
be opposed. It is the free expression of a group's desire to protect
itself and to present a united front to the employer.
Bill C-30 aims to overturn the Gingras decision of March 10,
1994. Through Bill C-30, members of the RCMP would be
excluded from the public service and could not therefore unionize.
However, they would be allowed the bilingual bonus, a more or less
roundabount way to take into account the Gingras decision.
But what do members of the RCMP think of this bill? On June 14
I received a copy of the magazine Action published by the RCMP's
staff members association in Quebec. It is probably the special
spring edition. It refers to all kinds of documents. This special
edition is mostly about Bill C-30. There is even a paragraph and a
half where the editor gives his opinion on the bill, and I quote: ``By
introducing Bill C-30, the government is trying to reintroduce Bill
C-58, the very one which gave such grave concerns to the
association and the public. In light of its background, one would
have thought the government would have abandoned and
pigeon-holed it. To our great surprise-I am still quoting the editor
here-we learned that only a few days after meeting with you in
Toronto the government was introducing Bill C-30 which
contained the same provisions as its predecessor, Bill C-58, and
announced that the bill was at the report stage. The adoption of Bill
C-30 would represent a big setback in labour relations at the RCMP
and it would seriously affect the rights of RCMP members''.
These last words concerning the very rights of RCMP members
are rather interesting. RCMP members are asked, of course, to
protect the rights of taxpayers but when their own rights are
involved, they are litterally sent packing.
In Quebec, the provincial government has just put in place a very
interesting program aimed at letting public servants who, in a show
of economic and social maturity, deliberately decide to honestly
and sincerely discuss what could seem a terrible waste of public
monies, a misuse of public funds in order to cut down operational
costs without affecting the quality of services provided. In today's
discussion, that would be the quality of services provided by
RCMP members to Canadian taxpayers.
Bill C-30 obviously snubs all efforts made by these people to
expose in the most honest way the abuses committed inside their
organization. Bill C-30 confirms that the government wants to turn
them into little robots in the service of a small group of individuals
whose only aim is to control situations and therefore influence
events and the people responsible for fabricating these same
events.
In Quebec, the provincial police force is unionized, as are the
Montreal and Quebec City municipal forces and many others. The
RCMP, however, is not interested, thank you.
According to rumours, the employees tried on three different
occasions to unionize. They failed all three times.
(1155)
This completely flied in the face of the charter of rights but, in
Bill C-30, this devious strategy is so well disguised that an official
complaint cannot even be made under the charter claiming that the
federal government does not want, or is trying to prevent, the
unionization of RCMP employees.
The parliamentary process is being used to take certain
fundamental rights away from people. But strangely enough the
people whose fundamental rights we are trying to take away are the
very ones who are responsible for ensuring that the fundamental
rights of all Canadian taxpayers are respected.
3999
To recap, employees who are in a position to find out about
abuses committed by certain people and various branches are
considering forming a union, so a bill is tabled in order to isolate
the only people who have access to documents that might be
compromising.
I am sure that, by the end of this Parliament, the Liberal Party
will have managed to push through this bill putting the RCMP
under the same banner as CSIS-that is, with many millions of
dollars to spend, but without taxpayers ever knowing how the
money is being spent, and even less who is spending it, and on
what.
I fully agree with the motion moved by the hon. member for
Bellechasse, who wants to strike out certain provisions of Bill
C-30.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am not very happy, nor am I in a very good mood. I
cannot fathom that at the end of the session we are faced with a bill
like Bill C-30. I hope you are going to do everything in your power
to block this bill that might have found favour in the 19th century,
but in the 20th century, when we have a charter and since we had
agreed with the Minister of Labour-by the way, where is the
Minister of Labour, where is the Solicitor General?-we had
agreed on a sort of moratorium regarding labour relations with the
minister-
The Deputy Speaker: I would like to remind the hon. member,
with the utmost respect, that as he is aware we cannot mention that
a member is not in the House. It is very possible that the individual
may have been held up by very important business elsewhere.
I ask all members to refrain from mentioning that someone is
absent from the House.
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I was not referring to his physical
presence, I was referring to his intellectual standpoint. After sitting
in this House for the past three years, I am well aware that we
cannot mention the fact that certain people are not in the House. I
apologize if I gave the impression I might want to disobey any of
the Standing Orders.
What I want to make clear to those listening to us and to all the
hon. members in this House is that it is difficult to follow the
government in matters of labour relations. We agreed, the official
opposition agreed that we were going to modernize the entire
labour code in September; I am the labour critic for my party.
When we talk about the labour code, we are talking about part I,
which refers to unfair treatment in the workplace, part II, which
covers workplace health and safety, and part III, which involves
minimum standards.
The proof of what I am saying is that until now the bills that have
been tabled on labour relations have been minor ones. We changed
the minimum wage to put it in line with provincial rates. By
delegating authority, we passed control of nuclear energy over to
the provinces.
There was a tacit understanding with the Minister of Labour to
the effect that, since the legislation was so important, no
fundamental changes would be made until the committee was able
to review the entire labour code. How come this argument was not
applied in the case of the 16,000 RCMP officers? It would have
been more honest for the government to have asked us to study this
in committee.
(1200)
It would have been even more honest, given the situation, which
is as follows. There are a total of 18,000 officers involved, and
16,000 of those are demanding the right to negotiate. We are in a
situation where there are a variety of tribunals, and I know the Bloc
Quebecois critic for the Solicitor General has referred to the
various common law tribunals. These count for something in our
society. What is being said is that the 16,000 RCMP officers are
entitled to collective bargaining. They ought to be considered
employees of Treasury Board. This is something of significance,
after all.
I am issuing a challenge to the ministers, perhaps the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice who is currently
in the House, to give us one of the examples he has in mind of a
situation comparable to that of the RCMP. There is a rule that
applies to labour relations. That rule, which has taken on the shape
of an underlying principle, is that people are entitled to be involved
in determining their working conditions. Not only determining
them, but negotiating them as well, given that our society agrees
that one of the forms of freedom of expression includes the right to
freely negotiate a collective agreement.
That principle, when applied in complete logic, has a corollary.
That corollary is that an outside body ought to be the one to make
an interpretation when there is any disloyal action within a
workplace. RCMP officers are rightfully saying that the RCMP
Commissioner, while no doubt an honest citizen, ends up being
both judge and party to the action, since he is called upon to act as
an administrator and at the same time to settle differences
concerning overtime, patrols, mobility and employee benefits. This
cannot help but lead to a tainted atmosphere, since it is not
compatible with the basic principles of healthy labour relations to
have someone be both judge and judged in the same matter.
It is hard to follow the government. Its logic is dubious, to say
the least. As I have already said, we had agreed with government
not to go ahead with any major legislation on labour relations.
Not only is it not respecting this principle, government is
reintroducing it.
What happened? I think the RCMP was quite clear on this. The
former Minister of Labour, who now holds the heritage
portfolio-though we do not really know how things will turn out
because, as those who follow current events know, the former
minister could become the new minister-had appointed an
independent task force chaired by Professor Sims, of Edmonton.
You are signifying
4000
your assent, so I gather you have followed those events with the
same enthusiasm as I did.
The Sims task force, including Mr. Blouin from Quebec, had
three members at that time. They said very clearly in their report
that RCMP staff members should have the right to collective
bargaining and that the RCMP should be recognized as an
employer under the jurisdiction of the Treasury Board. This is more
than reasonable.
Had you been in their shoes, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you would
have showed as much common sense. These people claim the right
to collective bargaining, but at the same time, they recognize that
their specific responsibilities require them to protect the public,
investigate, provide security services-especially in embassies-
and that they are under contract to eight provinces on the Canadian
territory.
These people show such civic-mindedness, a sense of
responsibility and a will to serve their country-which, in truth, is
made up of two countries on its territory-that they are not asking
for the right to strike; they only claim the right to free collective
bargaining. They are willing to submit to binding arbitration. In
fact this is more and more the case at the municipal level.
(1205)
I think you have to be really dishonest, shortsighted, obtuse like
this government to introduce today a bill like Bill C-30 as if it were
the most natural thing in the world, as if the past meant nothing and
as if there were no agreement on developments in modernization of
the Canada Labour Code.
Those of us in the official opposition, one of the best you will
ever see, have made it very clear that we will do everything to kill
this bill, because we consider it undemocratic and because it denies
the fundamental right of 16,000 workers in the public service-
Mr. Dubé: Archaic.
Mr. Ménard: Archaic is the word. The member for Lévis, never
lacking for the word thanks to his past experience, knows very well
that this sort of situation brings no credit to Parliament.
The RCMP union representatives, believe it or not, produced a
special edition of the magazine Action, in which they proposed the
wording of a bill. I am sorely tempted to introduce it on my own as
a private member's bill. It would not be the first time this sort of
thing has been done, as the member for Rosemont knows.
Finally, I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that,
if we are not careful and if we continue to ignore the most basic
rights of the members of the RCMP, the work atmosphere will
continue to worsen. Nothing good will come out of a situation like
this.
I would like to identify five grievances, five statements of fact
drawn to the attention of each parliamentarian, which should unite
us in our rejection of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I will identify them by
order of importance and will do so carefully knowing that you are
listening attentively to what I have to say.
What the RCMP says in its special edition is, first, that the denial
of the freedom of association and collective bargaining rights for
members of the RCMP is unacceptable and this is according to the
logic we explained this morning.
We are also saying there were acts of retaliation against RCMP
members who dared to support and promote collective bargaining.
It is all reminiscent of the underworld, with mobster-style bosses
making for an intolerable job atmosphere. That happens when you
are both judge and judged. This is the kind of unhealthy situation
that can happen when you are unable to distinguish between
decisions that you must take as a manager and those you make
when adjudicating grievances or litigations.
We also say, it is obvious and members must keep it in mind
when they vote on Bill C-30, that the present divisional
representation system, being completely controlled by the RCMP
commissioner, is essentially aimed at creating an hostile
atmosphere for collective bargaining.
Four, there is no independent and binding system for grievance
adjudication in matters of discipline or any other known area or
type of violation.
Five, Mr. Speaker, since you are reminding me that time flies, I
will only mention the tremendous waste of public funds engulfed in
this inefficient and unacceptable system. While I have an audience,
I am taking the opportunity to denounce the fact that there is no
family policy, as we were reminded a moment ago by the heartfelt
cry of a young Canadian citizen.
In conclusion, the fact is that, as members of Parliament, we
must reject Bill C-30 because it does not respect the fundamental
right to collective bargaining and to have a say in their working
conditions that all our country's workers are entitled to, including
members of the RCMP. I call upon all my colleagues to vote
against Bill C-30 and to ensure that it be referred to the labour
committee where witnesses can present the House with original
proposals concerning the RCMP.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
carefully to the remarks made by the member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, who as you have seen, is an expert in
labour relations.
(1210)
Of course, I am not as experienced as he is in this field. I took
interest in the subject in order to give my views on this bill. I must
say that the government made my task easier. I studied this bill,
which I cannot show you because the rules do not allow me to do
4001
so. It is an eight-page bill. However, of these eight pages, only two
contain clauses, for there are only four clauses in all.
As the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve pointed out, it
would have been more efficient to examine a bill of broader scope.
A bill affecting 16,000 persons is not insignificant. This special bill
is an attempt to impose a particular framework on those people.
This is in line with the way the government usually works, by
introducing piece-meal legislation, in any old way, for individual
cases.
Canadians must be disappointed to see their government passing
such a bill, containing four clauses and four blank pages. This
shows the government's lack of imagination, its lack of depth, its
lack of thoroughness. What is surprising is that it is about RCMP
employees, who come under the Solicitor General. The role played
by the RCMP has always been important in Canada. So has been
the role of their counterparts in the United States. We know the
matter of the FBI is currently being debated in the U.S. The
relationship between the FBI and the government is very
controversial in the United States, as is the relationship between the
RCMP and the Government in Canada.
What does the government want to do? It wants to go back to an
archaic system. I suggested the term to the member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, who agreed because it describes the
situation perfectly. The government wants to backtrack, which is
not fitting for an advanced society belonging to the G-7 such as
Canada. It wants to set RCMP employees apart.
I believe we do need a special framework but, and this is the
official opposition's position, it should be broader, more
comprehensive and all-encompassing. Naturally, Bloc members
look at the situation from Quebec's viewpoint.
In Quebec, we have the Sûreté du Québec, therefore the province
controls its own police force. It operates within a special
framework, but employees still have the rights the member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve mentioned, namely the right to
negotiate, the right to go to arbitration, and the right to take part in
setting their working conditions. On the eve of the 21st century,
these things are normal.
We would never have expected such a backward bill giving full
authority to the commissioner. Let us look at current events. Some
things are of great concern to me. I heard a baby crying before, I
know he does not understand what is going on, but it brought home
how worrisome the situation is.
Cases in point are the RCMP investigation of the former Prime
Minister, and the several instances of security breach regarding the
current Prime Minister. RCMP officers are being criticized by the
government side. I believe they are living in a climate of insecurity
harmful to the proper discharge of their duties. It is obvious they
are under pressure from the top.
(1215)
The government wants to subject them to different working
conditions. I am concerned because if there is an occupation which
needs a very comprehensive code of ethics, this is it, because
officers deal with extremely sensitive issues.
As regards the investigation of the former Prime Minister, for
example, suppose that, as was the case in the United States, the
commissioner feels obligated to respond to requests from the top;
officers, having neither job security nor the means to know that
there might be some abuse of powers, cannot say no for fear of
retaliation.
That is why I find the position of the previous members of the
Bloc Quebecois very logical, because they are requesting that any
part of a bill or a labour code affecting them be much more
complete than that. Quite frankly, four clauses and four blank pages
do not make a very credible bill when you want to improve a whole
situation.
I am talking to members on the other side now present in the
House. We cannot speak of absent members, but we can talk to
those present, who are few, like always. At least I can ask those
who hear us to reconsider their position and declare, as we do, that
this is insufficient, incorrect and incomplete.
I know there will be other eloquent speakers specialized in
labour relations who will rise on this point. I see the member for
Mercier ready to speak and the member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup who comes from a labour relations
environment. I am sure they will want to convince members
present that these statements are sound and sensible. As far as I am
concerned, I thought it was important to do what the member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve suggested, in order to illustrate the
extent of our opposition to this bill which is too limited and too
simple. So I will yield the floor to my colleague, the member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am rising at the report stage on this bill which provides
that only civilian employees of the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police will now be governed by the Public Service Staff Relations
Act, and that staff relations for police officers be governed by the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
To start with, I have to confess that when I was informed that I
would speak on this bill, my thoughts were that, in Quebec, the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police is not the police force with the
most positive image. We had a few major incidents. I will simply
remind hon. members that some RCMP officers were accused of
planting bombs. Others stole the list of Parti Quebecois members; a
list on which I am proud to say I was. The Royal Canadian
Mounted Police in the rest of Canada is also a municipal police
force. It is a force which is more or less the equivalent of the
4002
Quebec Provincial Police for Quebecers, since it deals with
everything from traffic to Criminal Code offenses.
It seems important to me that a police force like that one should
have room to manoeuver, enough independence to avoid a
paternalistic system. When you look at Bill C-30 which we have
before us today, and was C-58 in the previous session, we realize
that it is exactly what it will bring. We will create a paternalistic
system whereby the Commissioner of the RCMP will have almost
life and death power over his staff. If, for example, an officer is not
satisfied with a given situation, or with the way a case is being
handled, and files a grievance, contrary to all the rules of staff
relations, the adjudicator will be appointed by the commissioner.
Therefore, we will have more or less the situation of a small shop
union, a situation similar to what we had in the past in other areas,
and this is not very good for staff relations.
(1220)
This is not healthy in a processing plant, for example, but it is
even more dangerous in a police force that has to apply the law in
Canada. This may even lead to very difficult situations where
police officers who work in Quebec could be asked, in a critical
situation, to behave in a manner that is not necessarily in keeping
with the law. These officers who are living under a fear regime to a
certain extent would find themselves facing unacceptable
situations and would have to choose between their job and their
loyalty to their vision of things. In this regard, the government is
trying, with the bill, to escape a reality, to pull on us a little bill that
completely changes the relationship with RCMP officers, which I
find unacceptable.
We must remember that this bill is the result of what we call the
Gingras decision, where the courts said RCMP officers were like
other public servants and should be covered by the legislation
governing the public service. And the government decided that was
not possible.
Should there not be indeed a special regime for peace officers as
opposed to public servants? That is possible. That is very likely the
right solution, but not in the form the government is giving it. It
seems the government is stretching the limits, is trying because the
Gingras decision, which was not favourable to it, to reverse the
position in such a way that officers will become a little dependent
on the commissioner and RCMP authorities. I think this is wrong in
itself.
There are three different types of relations in the federal
government labour relations spectre. There is the one governing the
public service, with negotiations, which give certain results. On the
other extreme, there is the one the government is proposing in this
bill, where RCMP officers will ultimately find themselves with a
very weak negotiating power. In my opinion, this legislation, if
passed in its present form, is only the prelude to other actions
where workers' rights, the rights of those who work as peace
officers will be gradually eroded.
Instead of taking advantage of the situation as it is now doing, I
think the federal government should take the time to analyze the
situation, to really negotiate with the union representing RCMP
officers within a framework modelled after other similar
frameworks that exist elsewhere. Of course, as we saw in the past,
issues like the police's right to strike are very dangerous and can
lead to unacceptable civilian situations. However, there is a way to
manage labour relations so that RCMP officers still have the power
to negotiate beneficial agreements with the federal government
while remaining independent and not being in the untenable
position of being unable to defend their views.
I think that, in the medium term, this decision benefits the
government as much as it does RCMP officers. Because failing to
create an acceptable climate could lead to events, to difficult
situations, to lawsuits outside the established framework, which
could translate into higher costs and situations that will penalize
both the employees and the government.
We are not against having a special framework for RCMP
officers, but against creating a paternalistic system that will give
the RCMP commissioner inordinate powers over relations with the
employees he manages.
Striking a balance is important because the police must enjoy
sufficient freedom of action. We should heed the old horror stories
concerning several police forces back in the 1940s, 1950s and
1960s, when these forces were underpaid or had to work in
unacceptable conditions so that officers were forced to moonlight.
They were very vulnerable to bribes and that kind of thing. A police
force ought to be able to work in conditions that keep such
temptation at bay.
(1225)
At a time when the government is looking to cut everywhere to
reduce operation costs to a minimum, it could be dangerous to
create a framework where officers are not given enough leeway and
where what powers they have and the working conditions they
should have are being whittled away. It is not to play very fair to
impose a framework like the one the government has in mind now,
especially since there will not be only RCMP officers in the
organization, but also civilian employees, and these employees will
be subject to public service legislation.
This kind of situation, as we saw with the Department of
National Defence, causes impossible imbroglios and often results
in unnecessary expenditures. There will be cases where we will see
two categories of employees competing within the same office.
Difficulties will arise concerning hours on call and that sort of
thing. The model developed for the Royal Canadian Mounted
4003
Police officers, constables and so on must be compatible with the
existing model in civilian life.
If we want both models to be compatible, then the model they
are being offered must allow for real negotiations, where
comparisons can be made between what they are offered and what
other employees are being offered and where, in the end, a decision
can be made that will foster sound labour relations for years to
come. What we are doing today-and it is somewhat surprising
that it all fits in a bill barely two pages long, containing just four
clauses-is completely changing employee-employer relations in
this police force. This is not a very serious approach.
If we really want this police force, which is the most prominent
one across Canada and which deals with extremely diversified
matters-for example, outside Quebec, it deals with everything
from traffic offences to criminal offences of all kinds, while in
Quebec and Ontario, the provincial police takes care of some of
that.
I think that dealing with the whole issue of setting precedents in
a bill merely four clauses long will create a climate of
confrontation for RCMP officers, their representatives and
management, which may well be to the government's
disadvantage, because, in these circumstances, the officers, when
the time comes to define their-
The Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately, the hon. member's time
has expired. The hon. member for Mercier now has the floor.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will pick
up where my colleague had to leave off abruptly. This Bill C-30,
with its four short sections, simply blocks, voids and erases the
effects of the court decision in the Gingras case. This bill will anger
all police officers and all members of the RCMP.
If I had been told a few years ago that one day I would stand up
in the House and support the RCMP, I would have smiled, to say
the least. But in this case, the members opposite ant the public
absolutely have to understand that this police force and many of its
members have long sought unionization. But they are mistreated by
this bill which negates the result of their action; after all, if a ruling
was handed down, it was because there had been complaints, and
the case went to court because everything else had been tried first
without success.
The bilingual bonus was the focus of the court decision.
(1230)
But the decision in Gingras was far from limited to the bilingual
bonus, because to rule on eligibility for the bonus, the court had to
determine the status of the employees. The legislation was such
that, as the library research service has indicated, the only
employer of the RCMP would appear to be the Queen. However,
there is no direct link between the Queen and the Commissioner.
The judge wanted to determine the status of RCMP personnel. In
doing so, he ruled that they were members of the public service and
that they could be governed by part II of the Canada Labour Code
dealing with occupational safety and health, and that they were
eligible to receive the bilingual bonus, something which is not clear
in any act, as long as it was also granted to others. In fact, the
government complied with the ruling and started paying the
bilingual bonus to RCMP personnel. Eventually, RCMP personnel
might even have gained the right to become unionized.
For sometime, 16,000 RCMP personnel, 18,000 counting
civilian employees, thought that they were public servants within
the meaning of the act, and that they were governed by the Canada
Labour Code. But what does the bill do? It abruptly eliminates the
beginning of such recognition, the ability to have some rights
recognized.
My colleague was absolutely right when he concluded by saying
this was not good-to say the least-for staff relations. I think it is
extremely bad.
When a group-not necessarily everyone-which is often the
most conscientious, the most professional and the most vocal one,
wants to have a say regarding staff relations, wants to get fair
conditions and wants to put an end to paternalism and arbitrary
decisions-that is basically what unionization is about-, the
government is bound to create a great deal of discontent if it resorts
to its supreme power, the power to introduce legislation, to take
away, with just four small clauses, what these workers thought they
had finally won after years of efforts.
It is not good to have people in a position of power such as
RCMP officers feel they are treated in a very unfair and arbitrary
manner. Their status will almost be like that of the military. It is
generally understood-I am not an expert in this field-that, in the
army, the commanding officer is the authority. This is
understandable, given the structure and the role of the army.
However, police officers must make decisions during the course
of their work. They must take part in the organization of their
activities. They have a right to be protected by the occupational
safety and health regulations. They are professionals who want a
degree of responsibility. They are law enforcement officers and
they must comply with the notion of authority, but they also wish to
negotiate their conditions of work with the authority appointed by
the government.
4004
(1235)
With regard to the bilingualism bonus, which concerns mostly
francophones in Quebec and Ontario, it is particularly sad that the
government is using this bill to remove the legal bond that had been
acquired to obtain it. We can also understand-we know this is true
for military life-that for francophones, life in the RCMP has not
always been easy. Contrary to other public servants, they are not
entitled to this bonus they have been claiming for a long time.
Moreover, thousands of those who are claiming it are now
retired. We can then understand the tremendous frustration this
bill generates.
I cannot help but totally agree with the recommendation made
earlier by the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, our
critic for labour relations, who said that the government should not
proceed negatively and try to restore a statu quo ante that cannot
exist any more. Indeed, once a court, setting up a legal precedent
with a well-founded decision, has come to the conclusions arrived
at in the Gingras ruling, it cannot be just wiped out in four
paragraphs. This is impossible.
There is nothing in this bill that says what actual conditions will
apply. There is nothing either that says how the workers will be
covered with regard to occupational safety and health. This is
intolerable. This creates conditions that either feed the anger that is
latent or is starting to emerge, or it generates something that is
never desirable either in a private business or in a public
organization, a feeling of discouragement or rejection. Many are
coming to think: ``If they give us no more consideration than that,
we will act the way they consider us''.
In the area of labour relations-and it is like this also in many
areas of life-people behave according to the way they are treated.
Thus, it is highly unacceptable for an organization as important as
the RCMP to treat its members like irresponsible children, because
that is what it amounts to.
Therefore, we, in the Bloc Quebecois, will continue to plead for
the RCMP to have the means to be a more open police force, more
responsible for its operations and also more transparent toward
members of Parliament and the public.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to take part in this debate on Bill C-30, an Act to amend the Public
Service Staff Relations Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police Act.
As you know, I was active for 19 years in the labour movement
in Quebec, and more particularly in the FTQ. Before that, I was a
labour relations lawyer in Chile. So this is a subject matter in which
I have some proficiency.
The right to organize and to bargain collectively has been
considered important for a long time, and it is recognized in all
democratic countries, by the International Labour Organization,
and ratified by most countries. This right does not exclude public
servants or other public employees. These employees are also
covered by the international conventions of the ILO, and more
particularly by conventions on the right to unionize and the right of
collective bargaining.
(1240)
All workers in the private sector, in public corporations or in the
public sector enjoy this important right. They can organize and
negotiate with their employer. In this case, the employer is the
government. We should not discriminate against this group of
workers, the members of the RCMP, because they are part of a law
enforcement organization. They are unionized members just like
all other public servants. They should also be able to negotiate with
their employer, which is the government. I see no reason why they
should not have the collective bargaining right which is provided
for in the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
I am against the militarization of police forces. I think the
members of police forces have rights that must be recognized,
including the collective bargaining right. It helps to create a better
and healthier work environment, particularly between the
employees and their boss. When working conditions are set
unilaterally by the employer, the employees are, of course, annoyed
and dissatisfied. However, working conditions resulting from free
negotiations between the employees and the employer will
naturally have a positive impact on the job atmosphere.
This is why I rigorously object to this bill. I am also against this
bill because it excludes this group of public servants, i.e. RCMP
officers, from the occupational safety and health provisions, which
apply equally to all employees and workers. I do not see any reason
why this group of employees should also be excluded from
provisions which protect the rest of the workers.
Also, I do not see any valid reason why this group of public
servants, employees or workers should not be entitled to the
bilingual bonus. This bonus was introduced for all public servants.
These people belong to the public service. They should be entitled
to this benefit, which is important because they have to work in
English, in French and even sometimes in another language, given
the increasing number of immigrants who speak other languages,
like Spanish or Italian. I was very glad to meet with officers of the
RCMP who could speak Spanish, my mother tongue. These people
should be entitled to the bilingual bonus if they are bilingual, that is
if they speak both French and English.
For all these reasons, I am against Bill C-30 and, of course, I
support the proposals put forward earlier by my colleague from the
Bloc Quebecois, the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.
4005
[English]
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to address my remarks, in a fairly brief fashion, to some
of the issues before the House today with respect to the motions
that have been put forward by the member for Bellechasse
concerning Bill C-30, an act to amend the Public Services Staff
Relations Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
(1245 )
With respect to the motions proposed to amend Bill C-30, they
seek to do so by deleting three clauses. Each of Bill C-30's four
clauses are intended to achieve a specific but interdependent
legislative purpose. For that reason none of the individual clauses
can be read in isolation from and without reference to the others.
Similarly, changes in one clause are impossible to make without
serious consequences for the rest of the bill. The impact of any one
of the hon. member's motions if carried would be more legal
confusion or uncertainty caused by the conflicting references or
gaps in the Public Service Staff Relations Act, the RCMP Act or
the Financial Administration Act.
For example, clause 1 cannot be deleted as proposed by the hon.
member's first motion. Doing so would leave conflicting
references to the RCMP in the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
Similarly, doing away with clause 2 of Bill C-30, which is the
proposal put forward by the hon. member's second motion, would
leave conflicting references to the RCMP under part I of schedule I
of the same act.
Conversely, by deleting the third clause of Bill C-30 as proposed
by the hon. member's third motion, there would be no reference to
the PSSR Act or to the RCMP. If carried, this motion would leave
the legal status of all RCMP employees open to question and
without legislative basis under federal statute. I am certain the hon.
member would not wish to create this type of uncertainty.
The House has examined the first three motions put forward by
the hon. member for Bellechasse. I believe the government has
clearly shown why these motions are simply not acceptable.
In all legislation brought forward by the government, it is
brought forward after due consideration of how modifications to
the legislation are consistent internally within the act for which
they are presented and also consistent with provisions in other
statutes put forward by the government. On a number of occasions,
when amendments are brought forward and with respect to all hon.
members who bring forward very discrete and distinct amendments
to statutes brought forward by the government, often the
interrelationship of how these proposed amendments would affect
the total bill or how they would interact with provisions in other
pieces of government legislation are overlooked. That is the case in
respect of the motions which have been brought forward.
A number of issues have been raised by hon. members in
discussing this bill. First, the implication was made that somehow
this piece of legislation interferes with collective bargaining. That
is simply not the case. I will quote from a speech by the hon.
solicitor general where he outlines exactly the relationship between
the changes that are being proposed in this bill which are merely
technical in nature and which merely seek to clarify ambiguities
created by a tribunal or court decision in relation to collective
bargaining.
Another issue I would like to comment on concerns collective bargaining. It has
been suggested that Bill C-58 was drafted to prevent unionization within the force.
However RCMP members have never had the legal authority to enter into collective
bargaining and Bill C-58 does not change that. Collective bargaining is a completely
separate issue from Bill C-58 and would have to be dealt with by the government and
Parliament as a separate legislative matter.
I have been advised that collective bargaining is not a natural or inherent right but
a right granted by Parliament only. Collective bargaining rights have never been
extended to the RCMP members under either the Canada Labour Code, the Public
Service Staff Relations Act or the RCMP Act. The Federal Court of Appeals decision
in the Gingras case has done nothing to alter this fact.
I would like to observe in passing that the only issue dealt with by the court in the
Gingras case was whether RCMP members were entitled to be paid the bilingualism
bonus. The plaintiff raised no other issue and the court's ruling did not go beyond it.
(1250)
I want to indicate that where qualified, individuals in the RCMP
within positions that are designated bilingual are and always will
be allowed to avail themselves of this bonus as long as the bonus
exists.
Since May 1974, the RCMP has had its own system for addressing
labour-management issues and which since 1989 has been provided for in
regulations made pursuant to the RCMP Act. This is the RCMP division staff
relations representative program, the DSRRs for short.
The program is an internal staff relations program intended to provide a
communications network whereby members at all levels can voice their views
and concerns through elected member representatives. The members of each
division across the country elect at least one full time representative and two
part time representatives. For example, ``E'' Division in British Columbia has
six full time representatives and 31 part time representatives, all elected by the
members of the division. These divisional representatives have direct access to
all levels of management including the commissioner and the solicitor general.
The DSRRs also serve on 11 national committees that deal with issues such as
pay, travel and relocation, and health and safety to name but a few. Consultation
between management and these committees is ongoing. In addition, conferences
involving the commissioner, deputy commissioners, all commanding officers
and the DSRRs are held twice a year with the DSRRs setting the agenda.
4006
There is also the RCMP external review committee which provides neutral
third party review of certain types of grievances, formal disciplinary and
discharge and demotion appeals referred to it from the RCMP.
Furthermore, Bill C-58 does not create a separate employer status for the
RCMP. This requires separate and specific legislation. However a consultative
process is currently under way in the force involving the DSRRs, which is
examining the advisability of moving toward such status.
I should also confirm that Bill C-58 gives no additional power or authority to
the commissioner. The bill simply confirms the status quo regarding the force
that existed before the Gingras decision.
Again and to conclude, the purpose of Bill C-58 is to remove ambiguities
raised by the Gingras decision and to confirm that the primary legislative
authority governing the operation and management of the RCMP is the RCMP
Act.
As I have indicated, the changes that are being brought forward
by the government are merely technical in nature. They serve to
remove any ambiguity created by the court decision as to how the
management of the RCMP resolves that in favour of the status quo.
As has been indicated, these are only technical changes. There have
not been major changes or anything that would in any manner
change substantively the governance of the RCMP.
(1255)
With the greatest of respect to those who have put forward
different points of view and to those who have put forward the
points of view that there have been major changes, I wish to inform
the hon. members I am certain it is simply a matter of error on their
part. Major changes have not been made. To assure this House, if
major changes were ever to be undertaken, it would be a
significantly larger process than has been dealt with in this case
where merely technical changes are required.
* * *
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order. Yesterday during question period the
Minister of Justice was asked if he would table a letter from the
RCMP and he agreed to table that letter.
May I request that this letter, which to the best of my knowledge
has not been tabled, be tabled forthwith.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Justice perhaps can assist the House on the question
just raised by his colleague.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first, we are in the middle of a debate completely unrelated to the
point of order that had been brought forward by the hon. member.
The Minister of Justice made his statement yesterday. No doubt
he will be living up to that commitment in due course. I would just
proffer that statement at this time for the satisfaction of the hon.
member.
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member for
Cariboo-Chilcotin would indicate whether the letter he is
referring to has something to do with the matter before the House
now.
Mr. Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, it has to do with the business I
raised. That letter is necessary for the continuing discussion. We
would appreciate having it tabled.
Mr. Kirkby: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the hon. member, the
request that was made yesterday of the minister to which he replied
in the affirmative has absolutely as much to do with this debate as
nuclear physics has to growing apples.
I would suggest that the hon. member simply await the reply of
the minister.
* * *
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-30, an act to amend
the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police Act, as reported (without amendment) from the
committee, and Motions Nos. 1 to 3.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take part in the
debate on Group No. 1. Is it over?
The Deputy Speaker: Usually, we hear all the interventions
before the parliamentary secretary takes the floor but I do not think
there is any problem.
Mr. Bellehumeur: No, that is fine. I shall speak on the next
group of motions.
The Deputy Speaker: Fine. Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question!
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
4007
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The division on the motion stands
deferred. It will also apply to Motions Nos. 2 and 3.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-30 be amended by deleting Clause 4.
[
English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-30, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 4, on page 2, with the
following:
``47.6(1) For greater certainty, with the exception of Part II, the Canada''.
[
Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, in his speech on the first group of
motions, the parliamentary secretary said that they were only
minor changes on which the opposition needs not ask so many
questions.
(1300)
We always thought the opposite, and the government's approach
had been to say that they were in fact only technical changes. The
bill was referred to the committee on government operations when
it should at least have been sent to the justice committee or the
human resources development committee, considering the radical
and major changes it brings to the overall working conditions of
RCMP officers and to their relations with their superiors.
This not an innocuous bill. We were told that it deals only with
the payment of the bilingualism bonus to RCMP officers, but then
one has to see on what legal grounds the decision was based. That
is one of the biggest flaws in the reasoning of the parliamentary
secretary.
A few moments ago I said that the Gingras decision was a trial
decision of the Federal Court, but, in fact, it was an appeal decision
of that court. The Appeal Division of the Federal Court ordered the
payment of the bilingualism bonus to RCMP officers only because
it could rely on a legal analysis saying that those officers have the
same status as public servants. But if the officers are part of the
public service, that means that they are covered by all applicable
rules that stem from Treasury Board decisions and legislation
applicable to the public service, including the bilingualism bonus
policy.
The Appeal Division of the Federal Court did not decide on its
own that they were entitled to the bonus, it had to make a legal
analysis of the situation. So, the whole question should not be
downplayed.
In clause 4, and this is quite revealing, there is a derogation or
interpretive clause that has a clearly retroactive effect. The clause
reads as follows:
(1) For greater certainty, the Canada Labour Code does not apply to
members, and members are not part of the Public Service within the meaning of
the Public Service Staff Relations Act, nor part of the public service within the
meaning of section 11 of the Financial Administration Act.
The purpose of Bill C-30 is quite obvious. If the government
wished to keep this position, all it had to do was go before the
Supreme Court and plead its case. In this country, we do not
legislate retroactively except in very rare cases and for good
reason. It is a way of legislating, referred to as
nunc pro tunc in
latin, by which the government is trying to ensure retroactively that
if the officers were to go back to court and if Bill C-30 perchance
were passed, they would be told that the law has been changed and
that their rights can no longer be recognized.
Canadian courts do not need clause 4 in Bill C-30. It is up to
them to determine what the state of the law is pursuant to the
general provisions applying to every citizen. One clause, clause 4,
is written only for RCMP officers. This clause does not apply to
everybody. It applies only to one class of citizens. The government
takes their measurements, the size of their coat, pants, shoes, and
hat if they need one, and says that these people, RCMP officers, are
not covered by the Canada Labour Code.
As my colleague for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup mentioned
a few moments ago, as did my colleague for Mercier, labour
relations are a serious problem in the RCMP. There is an unhealthy
climate, and a constitutional state such as ours cannot tolerate that
labour relations be subject to the pleasure by the prince, in this case
the commissioner of the RCMP, who dictates working conditions
and refuses to share his supervisory powers with the country's
regulatory agencies. We believe there should be a system, which
could be unique to the RCMP, that would give members of this
force the right to free collective bargaining.
(1305)
Such free collective bargaining does not exist. Of course, there
are divisional representatives who do their best but, as I was saying
in my remarks on the first group of motions, the climate is such that
the basic trust that should normally exist between management and
employees is just not there. There will be a need for an outside
agency to come it and help settle the disputes and legitimate
grievances that may arise.
The myth that the RCMP exists outside our society must be
destroyed. RCMP members are first-class citizens who have the
right, like everybody else, to have their grievances heard by courts
that are not prejudiced against them. When you look at the existing
4008
grievance adjudication process, the adjudicators can only make
recommendations. They cannot make binding decisions.
I mentioned earlier the case of Staff Sergeant Gaétan Delisle,
mayor of Saint-Blaise, who was reprimanded and who basically
received a notice of discharge because he was a candidate in an
election. That shows how serious the problem is. No other police
force in Canada could have done this. Members of the RCMP are
no different from members of the Sûreté du Québec, members of
the OPP and members of most municipal police forces. Their right
to free collective bargaining must be recognized.
The Gingras decision does not say explicitly that members of the
RCMP can be unionized under Part I of the Canada Labour Code,
but it opens the door. So let us allow the legal debate to take its
course. Given that RCMP officers are considered members of the
public service, does Part I of the Canada Labour Code apply to
them? If so, they can be unionized under the Code. If, after this is
done, it becomes apparent that it is not the appropriate regime for
their collective bargaining framework, there will still be time to
legislate a different framework, which could resemble what has
been done in the case of the Sûreté du Québec.
The vast majority of RCMP officers are not claiming the right to
strike. We could therefore consider a binding arbitration, or final
offer, mechanism, as was often mentioned. In this sense, I support
the motion to delete clause 4. The motion presented by my
colleague, the hon. member for Calgary Northeast, is nonetheless a
lesser evil, in the sense that if we had to include the right of police
officers to unionize by leaving clause 47.6 in Bill C-30, the
recognition that Part II of the Canada Labour Code, as it relates to
health and safety at work, applies, would at least be a consolation
prize.
I am therefore in favour of the motion by my colleague, the
member for Calgary Northeast, but only for these reasons. I believe
that the deletion of clause 47.6 basically resolves the entire issue
and that the right to collective bargaining under the Canada Labour
Code is the same everywhere in Canada.
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
reference to the motions in group 2, in order for Reform Party
members to support Bill C-30 fully, we seek a substantive
amendment which would ensure continued statutory protection of
RCMP officers under the Canada Labour Code. I do not believe the
motion by the member for Bellechasse really satisfies our concern.
Motion No. 4 which states that Bill C-30 be amended by deleting
clause 4, cannot be support by members of the Reform Party.
Motion No. 5 asks that Bill C-30 be amended by adding directly
following ``for greater certainty'', the words ``with the exception of
part II'', which refers to the Canada Labour Code. Bill C-30 was
originally introduced as a housekeeping bill, but it became evident
that the effect of this legislation could have serious implications on
the rights of RCMP members.
(1310 )
Some concern exists that Bill C-30 in its present form would
completely eliminate the application of the labour code to RCMP
members. At present the RCMP has the protection of part II of the
code concerning health and safety. There is no valid reason to
justify the exclusion of the RCMP from the health and safety
regulations listed in part II of the Canada Labour Code.
This amendment, if adopted, would maintain the health and
safety protection of the Canada Labour Code for RCMP personnel.
It would still exempt the RCMP from the Canada Labour Code
overall, with the exception of part II, and it deals strictly with
health and safety. Those are my comments in reference to Motion
No. 5.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I believe it is very important to speak on this group of
motions because the bill before us was introduced following a court
ruling called the Gingras ruling, which has completely changed
labour relations for employees of the RCMP.
The government showed very little planning in its response. The
bill it introduced sets a very paternalistic framework for the RCMP
officers. I believe this legislation is the best proof of it. If this bill is
passed in its present form, the officers of the RCMP will find
themselves excluded form the protection of the Canada Labour
Code in the areas of occupational health and safety. This is
astonishing proof of improvisation on the part of the government.
We all know very well that occupational health and safety is a
very important issue in the work of police officers. They undergo
considerable stress that can have serious physical and
psychological effects. Police officers often have to go through
stressful situations and have to deal with difficult human cases.
This group of our society shows a very high suicide rate, family
problems and all kinds of situations due to difficult working
conditions.
Because this government is excluding them from the protection
of the clauses on occupational health and safety in the Canada
Labour Code, the RCMP officers will be somewhat powerless in
terms of their rights to occupational health and safety. Yet, this
group of workers is more exposed than others to work accidents
and we are not talking here about small accidents but situations
which can be very difficult, complex and have very serious human
impacts.
We should not be holding this debate again today and this is why
we believe the House should support this motion because we have
4009
stressed the fact in the previous groups of motions-and I believe
we proved our point-that this government is improvising and that
this bill will give the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police powers which really are greater than those an
employer should have, in a police force.
This motion is an example of the exclusion of RCMP officers
from a significant area of particular concern to them, perhaps more
than other categories of personnel, because of the impact of
work-related accidents and health problems that may be
experienced, due to the nature of their work.
Another example concerning police officers. They may develop
back trouble, for example, because of ergonomic problems, and
these are not recovered from quickly. Sometimes we have a bit of a
tendency to scoff at such things, but for the person in that situation
it is no joke. Police officers, particularly those in patrol cars, have
about the same situation as people who drive for a living. The long
hours they spend in a car requires ergonomic studies, processes to
ensure that recurring problems are eradicated, for instance all the
back problems these people are liable to develop. It would be
important to ensure that, should they be dissatisfied with how
things are being managed by the RCMP, they would have access to
the appeal process and to adequate protection.
(1315)
There are other safety elements. Police officers carry fire arms,
and often have to deal with criminals and with illicit substances.
There are many aspects of their work that involve safety, and it
seems to me to be inappropriate that their labour relations regime
can be modified with a bill containing only four clauses.
It has been decided that, in future, they would no longer be
protected by the rules that apply to the public service as a whole.
There has been a decision by a judge that they are to be considered
members of the public service, but this decision has been modified
considerably because the government does not accept it, and is
taking advantage of the opportunity to deprive officers of proper
protection. What should have been proposed is a model reflecting
the needs of these peace officers. But, no. The decision was made
to simply include them in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act,
without any sort of protection.
It is a bit like taking people back to the beginning of the 20th
century and forcing them to start a whole series of fights for
working conditions all over again. Both employees and employers
can be the losers in such fights. If occupational health and safety
were not regulated for the public sector across Canada, we would
find ourselves in legal proceedings.
Peace officers will perhaps be obliged to follow the traditional
legal route, which takes a lot of time and creates a lot more
frustration but produces essentially the same results in the end.
Why would the government not listen to these proposals?
If the government does not want the framework governing the
working conditions of the RCMP to be well thought out, it should
at least give RCMP officers appropriate protection in matters of
occupational health and safety to permit them to do their work in
acceptable conditions and to give them recourse when difficult
situations arise.
An officer of the RCMP in Quebec is involved primarily in the
fight against drugs or similar matters. Elsewhere in Canada,
officers also do patrol work. From personal experience, I know that
the people in this area need special support to remain in good
physical condition and to meet the demands of their work. In many
instances, before there were relevant regulations, difficult
situations arose.
People had to take legal proceedings, which they sometimes won
and sometimes lost. It is not just in the interest of the officers
concerned to have this problem properly resolved, it is in the
employer's interest too.
These amendments relating to occupational health and safety, in
a way, send the government a message that it did its job in a
makeshift manner, that it should have provided a labour relations
framework which would have allowed negotiation of acceptable
work conditions. However, this is not the position the government
opted for. Today, we are faced with this situation.
I would not be surprised if, one or two years from now, this
framework needed to be changed, if a new proposal was introduced
in the House to give back to the RCMP employees an acceptable
labour framework. Occupational health and safety is an area where
paternalism can be particularly pernicous.
In the field of occupational health and safety, there is a basic
principle according to which the best way to address a health and
safety problem is to eliminate it at the source. Very often,
employers tend to seek solutions for the problem once it already
exists. The best example is noise. The first thing that was done was
to force the workers to wear ear plugs in order to reduce the decibel
level. In the medium term, having a broader vision, it was realized
that what needed to be addressed was the source of the noise.
(1320)
In the absence of a proper framework to address this kind of
problem, the employer is often going to close his eyes to cases
reported reported to him, and the peace officer concerned will not
have the appropriate means of redress. Then, we will be faced with
more and more regular referrals to health professionals, more and
more regular use of existing legal processes, because when the
labour framework does not provide employees with the proper
means of redress, they tend to seek justice through other avenues.
4010
As an employer, the government would be better off if it took
the time to change the bill we have before us, to flesh it out so
as to ensure that employees can be satisfied with their work
conditions, feel more secure and do their jobs properly. The
framework for negotiations will allow employees to change
regularly their working conditions without necessarily having the
Sword of Damoclès over their heads in the person of the
commissioner, who could say: ``With the authority given me, I can
take action if you make too many demands''.
I hope the House, or in fact the Liberals, will accept to act on
these amendments concerning occupational health and safety in
order to give RCMP officers adequate working conditions and also
to avoid numerous legal proceedings for employers, which would
create significant costs and spoil the job atmosphere for police
officers. If this were the case, it is mostly the client, the citizen that
pays the price of such internal conflicts and, therefore, the
government would not be carrying out its mandate to serve the
population adequately.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, what a pleasure to speak to you again aboutthis new group
of motions.
I do not know if the government is finally going to agree with the
official opposition that the situation we are in is of great concern,
as the member for Kamouraska-Rivière du Loup said. We cannot
behave as if the charter of rights did not exist. What is the use of
having a government constantly reminding us about principles?
How often have ministers risen in the House, the Prime Minister
first and foremost?
How can we forget the Prime Minister's cries straight from the
heart, sincere cries no doubt, telling us that we live in the greatest
country on earth, a country based on freedom and democracy?
How, then, can this be compatible with the bill before us today
and the way the government is going to treat these workers, these
honest citizens, who have a particular mission to carry out in our
society as police officers and rehabilitation workers, and who have
to face situations that are sometimes critical or extremely thorny?
The truth is, and we must repeat it for the benefit of our listeners
who have just tuned in, that in spite of decisions rendered by
various courts of law and supreme courts, this heartless, stubborn
government that is not listening, this doomsday government, which
is coming to the end of the session and is akin to a government at
the end of its mandate, is ignoring the most basic principles of
demacracy.
Let me review the facts. If the government implements this
measure, 16,000 persons will be denied a very fundamental right,
one which is the basis of democracy, that is the right to participate
in the definition of their own working conditions. It is also the right
to be judged, in the event of a dispute, a conflict or unfair
practices, by a third party who is neither judge nor party, as is the
case for all public servants.
(1325)
Why such an obstinate attitude? What is going on in the heads of
the government members? What can the leaders of this government
be thinking of to violate a moratorium whereby we were to
examine the Canada Labour Code in September, just a few weeks
from now, in accordance with the Sims report. You will recall that
the former labour minister, who is now Minister of Canadian
Heritage, had created a task force presided by Mr. Sims, a specialist
in labour relations in western Canada, who, with the help of an
industrial relations specialist, Mr. Blouin from Université Laval,
and other members, decided to make some very specific
recommendations to the government suggesting that the Canada
Labour Code be updated, since no thorough review of that code had
been done since 1972.
We had agreed that a parliamentary committee would hear
witnesses who would speak about the review, the modernisation of
the Canada Labour Code, and tell us how to proceed to update the
first part pertaining to unfair labour practices, the second part on
the OHSC or more precisely occupational safety, and the third part
listing the minimum standards that are so important for all workers
across the country who do not have a collective agreement.
We could have, in a very democratic and enlightened way,
benefited from the debate the Minister of Labour, and member for
Saint-Léonard, was hoping for. Instead, we are now in a very
upsetting situation. You know that as the official opposition, we
have a basic mandate to carry out. We must work to improve the
government, to make it more and more efficient, to bring about a
more enlightened government when dealing with the issues it
brings up.
I do not need to tell you that with the government we have at the
present time it is a full time job and, to be frank, we do not see the
light at the end of the tunnel. There is no predictable way out for us
in a foreseeable future. We do not see any way to improve this
government, to improve its practices.
How can you expect any form of co-operation in this House, a
co-operation which goes through you, Mr. Speaker, when the
government remains as stubborn as it has been. Those who are
watching us today, those who would like to understand what is
going on in the Parliament of Canada, how are they going to react
when they learn that there has been a decision, the Gingras
decision, which said that the RCMP, the 16,000 employees-in fact
18,000-are part of the public service? But you know that the
government is so-I do not know if you are going to let me say
that-astute, although it is not what it really is, you know very well
that it is not the word astute that I should be using, but devious,
4011
even dishonest; the government is so crafty that it is creating two
categories of workers within the RCMP.
It allows 2,000 civilian employees to have access to collective
bargaining. But it tells the 16,000 others that they do not. This is
the extremely harmful, perfidious, age old theory of dividing to
conquer.
Let us recall what is happening and watch as government
members blush. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Labour, who is with us today, will listen to what I am saying,
because if this man has some conscience, if there is moral fibre in
the government members, they must know they are going against
decisions that were made by the courts.
The decision was clear and simple. How can government
members support a bill that goes against the courts? That is what
we are talking about today. We say, and we will repeat it again and
again, and we will try, as opposition members, until we get a very
concrete result, to have RCMP members obtain the fundamental
right, the right that is enshrined at the very core of our freedoms of
functioning, of our democratic freedoms here in Canada and in
Quebec, the right to freely negotiate their working conditions.
Mr. Speaker, have you ever thought-I am sure you did, because
I know you have an alert mind-about the number of hours we
spend in the workplace? Sometimes, it seems quite unbelievable,
but I must say it is because we spend many hours in the workplace.
It is because we are far from having reached the leisure society the
generation of the member for Rosemont had promised us that we
must have interesting working conditions in a work environment,
so that things go smoothly, so that workers are motivated. That
certainly means something in a work environment, in a public body
such as the RCMP.
(1330)
Motivation is not without significance. We are convinced that
motivation requires the right to negotiate freely, with full
knowledge of the facts, as well as the right to be represented by a
bargaining agent to determine working conditions.
We would have understood to a certain extent if a government
member had risen to tell the opposition: ``Yes, but you know that,
for those who have a mission as specific as that of RCMP
members, the right to strike must be examined very closely''. But
this is not the issue. RCMP members, or the 16,000 workers
concerned, are so reasonable-and they even have their own draft
bill-that they are saying to the government and to the official
opposition: ``We do not want the right to strike as our last resort.
We want what several municipalities have implemented''.
Members will recall that several police forces have exercised the
right to bargain freely, and today we, as parliamentarians, are being
asked to do something so reasonable that we cannot understand the
government's refusal to see the facts. They are asking not only for
the right to bargain freely, but also for binding arbitration. The
word ``binding'' does have a legal meaning. It means that the
parties are bound and must agree to allow a mediator to make a
decision. This is the real issue.
We are not very proud of what is happening. We are witnessing
the actions of a very petty government. And that is an
understatement. These people have chosen to turn a deaf ear and
they are about to shamelessly betray a principle which is central to
the very functioning of our society. Canadians will not forget and
their verdict will be pitiless because they will mobilize. We will
help them. They will come to Parliament Hill. They will appear
before parliamentary committees.
You know-and I will conclude because my time is running
out-that the best way to oppose an idea in democracy is to
propose a better one, but not to come to us with a skimpy piece of
legislation that has only four clauses. This measure is so skimpy it
is laughable. I do hope that the government will have second
thoughts about it.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, once again the
hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve pointed out something
important, because this really something lean and mean. This is a
small bill. I am repeating myself, but this has to be repeated
because it cannot be shown on television. It is incredible: the first
page has three clauses and the second, only one, which is the most
important. The rest is made of blank pages. This government talks
about saving everywhere, but the saving was not well-founded in
this case. I am in favour of saving in Parliament, but such a glaring
saving of ideas is too much. We were not asking for that much
saving when dealing with an extremely important subject.
What does clause 4 say, since it is the most important one? It
says: ``For greater certainty, the Canada Labour Code does not
apply to members, and members are not part of the Public Service
within the meaning of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, nor
part of the public service within the meaning of section 11 of the
Financial Administration Act.'' This means that the 16,000 people
working for the RCMP are not covered by the Canada Labour
Code.
To replace that, the government brings forward this small, lean
and mean bill comprised of four clauses. The hon. member for
Calgary Northeast is right about the great probability that the
government will get this small bill passed. There is a major
omission: occupational health and safety. This is important for
everybody, including the members of the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police. As it is, there is no indication that these people will be
protected in the future since it is made very clear that they are not
covered by the Canada Labour Code. They are governed by what?
This legislation only. Sometimes, people in Quebec say that
4012
collective agreements are too long, but this is not a collective
agreement, it is a piece of legislation that is extraordinarily simple.
(1335)
Any schoolchild in third grade who knows how to read can
understand that. I am not an expert or a lawyer, but I can realize the
bill says people in the RCMP are excluded. It does not say, though,
what they will get to compensate. We are confronted with a
legislative vacuum-maybe not a legal vacuum, because there are
other statutes-but there is room for interpretation.
A more serious problem is the enormous power being given to
the commissioner over his 16,000 employees. This will be almost
unprecedented in Canada. He will have this power not only over
trivial matters, but over very important ones too, as important as
the RCMP investigation on the conduct of the former Prime
Minister of Canada. That is quite something. This fact is
recognized, but at the same time, Bill C-30 would set the
operational context.
I do not know what judges or commissioners will be able to do
when arbitration time comes, but the power of the RCMP
commissioner is enormous. That is why I tend to agree with the
hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve when he says that after
less than three years in its first mandate, this government is already
spent and bankrupt.
Since the beginning of June, Liberal members are silent. If it
were not for the official opposition members, I think it would be
rather boring, because very few Liberals, who are the ones
introducing the bills, present arguments in favour of their bills.
What are we to understand? Are they so eager to go on vacation
that they simply want to close this place down? Is that it? Then,
listeners could well wonder what members are paid for. They may
not be overpaid, but they are paid to represent their constituents in
the House of Commons. What do they do? They introduce bills, say
a few words and then leave.
Opposition members move motions and amendments, as we
have just seen, but not one Liberal member rises to speak. Where
are they? Are they out playing golf? Have they gone fishing?
Where are they? We have been here since this morning and, of
course, we cannot speak about the members who are absent, but the
least we can say is that they are not exactly present. However, the
few members who are here could at least take the floor! They keep
silent. These last few months, they have honoured a code of
silence. This Bill C-30 could be known at the code of silence
legislation, because it is so thin. The Liberal members have
stopped speaking in the House of Commons.
What is going on? I think we have here a rather serious political
problem. A number of hon. members have expressed their
opposition to the bill allowing Newfoundland to change its
education system and the Prime Minister said that there would be a
free vote. Thank God for the hon. members of the opposition. I
wonder if the bill would have passed without their support.
I do not want to be impertinent, but I have noticed a connection
between the series of bills recently before the House and the
behaviour of the Liberal members, which have more than one
person worried. I find it strange that the media have not picked up
on this. Also, they do not seem to be in a hurry at the end of this
session, because they are waiting for a specific bill to come back
from the other place. In the meantime, they are just marking time,
killing time, and not introducing any legislation. But when they
introduce bills, they should argue! This is incredible!
(1340)
I call upon the members across the way. They still have time, in
the next two hours, to participate in the debate on this bill so that
we can do our work as parliamentarians, that is, the government
presents a bill, explains its advantages, and the opposition reacts,
criticises and shows the bad sides of that bill.
After that, people can make their own minds. They can also
change their minds and propose amendments, but now the situation
is inanimate, senseless, nothing is happening. There is no debate
because the only team willing to play is that of the opposition,
because it takes its work seriously.
We are asking ourselves some very serious questions about the
content of the bill. The first three clauses are normal and prompt no
comment. The fourth one denies a number of rights which are not
replaced by others and are not specified. Where will this lead? I
fear an incredible backslide, the emergence of a system where one
person has immense power.
There are problems within the RCMP, as shown by the incident
at the Prime Minister's house and the inquiry into the case
involving a former Prime Minister. I would never dare criticize
members of the RCMP because I think they lack supervision and,
at the same time, managers, heads of departments and
commissioners have too much power.
Given that context, these people act as people will. They go
every which way as we say. I ask those Liberal members who have
something good to say about this bill to rise and present their
arguments so that the Canadian public and the 16,000 members of
the RCMP, those guardians of the law and order in our country, will
accept it.
I ask them to take advantage of this forum, the Parliament which
costs us something everyday and every hour. They should respect
Parliament and put forward their positive arguments in support of
this bill. I cannot see a single one, but I am very willing to listen.
4013
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank my
admirable colleague for his speech. I would like to ask him-
The Deputy Speaker: There are no questions or comments.
Mr. Lebel: Very well. I was going to ask him a question, but I
think I can still do so in my speech. I am certain you will agree with
me, Mr. Speaker, as usual.
How are RCMP officers going to react to the fact that they
cannot hope to enter into collective bargaining, or have a safety
code, in short to do what all other workers are allowed to do today,
namely, get together and have their voices heard.
I am afraid that this bill will deprive RCMP officers of any hope
to find a balance between their status and the status of all other
Canadian workers, who have the right to join forces, and
sometimes are compelled to by the social context. From now on,
RCMP officers-that is the police officers of the RCMP-will not
be allowed to engage in collective bargaining, or to form unions or
brotherhoods. All these things that give hope to other workers are
henceforth taken away from them.
What is their attitude going to be with regards to their work?
What is going to motivate them to proudly discharge their duties if,
year after year, their pay scale is going to lag behind those of other
police forces, construction workers or workers in any other fields?
Are RCMP officers going to find themselves in the same
situation as some members of the armed forces? According to a
news item the minister of defence is careful not to comment,
military personnel from Quebec who had been transferred to
Vancouver had to go to the British Columbia welfare office to
cover the shortfall between their military pay and what they need to
live on in Vancouver.
(1345)
I know you agree with me, Mr. Speaker, as always. Except that,
do we wish the same thing for RCMP officers? Is this yet another
roundabout means, a trick this government has found to make
provincial governments pay for a part of its police officers' salary?
There is some machiavellism in that. I refuse to recognize there is
some good faith in a bill containing four clauses. In fact, it contains
only one, because the first three say this is a piece of legislation,
which we all figured out here, but there is one that is fundamental,
and it is clause 4. It takes away all rights from our police officers'
elite.
I think the government is also relying greatly on the fact that the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police has been in existence since 1873, I
believe, and the member for Bellechasse, who is knowledgeable,
may correct me if I am wrong. It has been turned into a religion in
some families. First of all they want a priest in the family, then a
RCMP officer. And the government has used that ever since. It
used the fact it was a vocation for many who joined the RCMP to
underpay them, to impose working conditions that would not have
been acceptable anywhere else, but it did so in the case of the
RCMP because it was a religion.
Religion means privation, of course. Privation means unfulfilled
needs, needs that are not compensated for. It can end up being
dangerous. There have been unfortunate occurrences like the recent
one involving a career officer in the RCMP who turned his service
weapon against himself because he was suspected of some
wrongdoing, maybe rightly so, I do not know, because I have not
investigated the matter. He was allegedly involved in something
improper, according to the media-which I do not always
trust-and he killed himself. If this man had been adequately paid,
if his dignity had been recognized in his work and duties, if he had
had the same opportunities as his fellow officers, if he had been
able to afford going to the restaurant once in a while, with his wife
and kids, maybe he would not have committed suicide. But these
people are asked to behave as if their occupation was a vocation,
like priesthood. ``You are paid less''. And, in polite terms, they are
told: ``Shut up. Do not demand anything''.
Things have to get really awful before an RCMP officer
complains about anything. I can see that when I sit on the scrutiny
of regulations committee. Retired RCMP officers have been
cheated for 15 years in the calculation of their pension benefits. But
during that whole period, not a single one of them has launched
proceedings to argue for his rights before the trial and appeal
divisions of the Federal Court of Canada. An RCMP guy never
demands anything. Does a priest ask God anything for himself?
Never. It is just the same with the RCMP.
Had this problem happened in the public service, it would have
been quickly brought before the Supreme Court of Canada, and
justice would have been done, but the RCMP is like a religion or
like priesthood. You never ask for anything, and if you do, you do
so humbly and never demand anything. If your request is not
granted, well-
I have seen a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police sell
his house at something like $15,000 below market value for fear of
making a profit he could be criticized for by his superiors. This is
as true as the fact that you are in your seat, Mr. Speaker. I know that
you are listening, as always, and I thank you for that.
I would imagine that, coming from so far away, the hon. member
for Bourassa has known a police force or two. He must have
encountered police officers who not as patient and amicable as our
RCMP officers. He has seen it all, the whole range of police forces.
He can tell you himself-I am not putting words in his
mouth-that we are well served by the RCMP. We have come to
rely on the members of the RCMP, who have become, at least in
our minds,
4014
some kind of missionaries. They are paid less than they should be
for the work they do. There are members of police forces much less
important and definitely not as endearing as the RCMP who are
paid better. Personally, I suspect that we pay more for RCMP
horses than RCMP officers. This flies in the face of reason. Of
course, they do have very fine horses.
(1350)
All this to say that we must do our police officers justice and
throwing bludgeon legislation like this at them is certainly not the
way to go about it. How nice: Tourists come here to see the
changing of the guard, with the big fur hats and all. It looks good,
but the fact is that the person under the hat is not paid or underpaid.
This person is not entitled to the same pay as anyone else. I do not
know many people who would agree to stand there under a hot sun
with a fur hat.
I would therefore ask the sponsors of this bill to reconsider and
try to understand where others are coming from, to understand the
tragedy for these people of having no bilingual bonus and no
collective bargaining. In fact, all they are allowed to do is to ride
their horses and shut up. This is really not the sort of life one would
expect.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to make a few comments on the issue of staff relations
between RCMP officers and their employer, the government, from
a perspective which concerns me somewhat, namely staff relations
and public offices which RCMP members can hope to hold.
I am referring, as you know, to the case of the RCMP officer who
got involved in a municipal election and was sharply reprimanded
by his superiors. Such is the current staff relations policy within the
RCMP regarding this issue. Incidentally, such an attitude also
prevailed elsewhere, including in the Quebec public service, of
which I am a former member. Until 1976-77, any public servant
who got elected in Quebec had to resign from his or her position in
the public service.
This, of course, was a serious injustice to public servants, who
not only had to make the major decision of whether or not to run for
office, but to accept the fact that they would have to resign if they
did get elected. I am among those who fought at the time to ensure
that the employer, that is the Government of Quebec, treated its
employees more decently and more fairly and in a less arbitrary
and demanding way.
The act as it stood in 1975, 1976 and 1977-which had been as
all acts enacted by men and women-was amended by the Parti
Quebecois government and nowadays the Quebec public servants
who have the honour of being elected in their ridings to the
National Assembly of Quebec do not have to resign, since they are
entitled to a leave of absence without pay for the whole time they
sit as an MNA and when they leave politics they have the choice,
depending on the length of their terms, of simply going back to
their jobs in the Quebec public service.
That gives you an idea of how far we are from implementing that
type of solution with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the
Government of Canada and their employees. I met the officer who
ran in some municipal election and who brought down his
employer's wrath upon himself. That man was badly hurt; he was a
victim, I think, of a major injustice, of some kind of abuse of
authority, of the latitude given to his employer, because there is no
rational or justifiable reason for the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police to be so hard on its employees, to be so demanding.
The right thing would be for these people, as for all other
workers, to be able to get a leave of absence without pay and to go
back to their jobs after their terms, if it is possible, and I am talking
here about members of Parliament. We could even stipulate that
Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers cannot be elected to the
House of Commons, because they would then be part of one of the
entities acting as their employer, since the Government of Canada
is the employer of the RCMP. But to go so far as to prevent an
RCMP officer from running as mayor or town councillor is, I think,
an abuse of authority worthy of condemnation.
(1355)
It seems that with this bill now before us, the government is
maintaining that policy which restrains rights. It is a question of
fundamental human rights to recognizethat somwone is entitled to
be chosen by his community to represent it. We cannot, for
purely-not to say meanly-administrative resaons, deprive
someone of a right as fundamental as the right to run in an election.
I am pleased to have the opportunity today to share my personal
experience with you. Legislation in Quebec in this regard has
changed significantly. If one was a public servant in Quebec, one
had to resign after having been elected as a member of the national
assembly. This law was passed by men and women.
Today, because the government listened to peoples' demands
and representations, the law was changed so that now a leave
without pay is granted. Why do we not do the same thing with
RCMP officers, maybe with the required differences and
subtleties?
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-30
concerning the members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
should be rejected. The decision made on March 10, 1994, by the
Federal Court-Appeals Division in the Gingras case was very clear.
RCMP officers are members of the federal public service and as
such they have the same rights as the other public servants.
They have the right to unionize and to bargain collectively with
their employer. These principles are recognized in all democratic
countries: The right to unionize and the right to bargain. These
principles should also apply to the members of the RCMP. The
4015
International Labour Organization was very clear on this: Those
principles apply to all wage earners.
I would like to come back to what my colleague from Chambly
said earlier when he commended the RCMP. I agree with him that
the RCMP is fulfilling a necessary, an essential function and that it
is a democratic and very professional police force. I am satisfied
when an RCMP officer is fighting against drug trafficking, for
example.
RCMP officers should have the same rights as the other public
servants, the other wage earners, that is, for example, all rights in
terms of occupational safety and health. A colleague mentioned
that they are sometimes exposed to the same dangers-
The Speaker: My colleague, it being almost 2 p.m., you will
still have the floor and you will be able to continue after Oral
Question Period. We will now proceed to Statements by Members.
_____________________________________________
4015
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Alzheimer's disease affects more than a quarter of a million
Canadians. The cost of the disease is over $4 billion per year.
I recently had the opportunity to meet with the Alzheimer
Society of Ottawa-Carleton. It believes it is vital to protect and
strengthen the principles of the Canada Health Act to ensure that an
effective system exists to meet the needs of Canadians.
Alzheimer organizations across Canada have identified three
specific priorities: to reform Canadian tax laws to provide financial
relief for Alzheimer family care givers; to recognize Alzheimer's
disease as a priority of the national health research development
program; to expand federal program grants that benefit people
affected by Alzheimer's disease.
Alzheimer groups continue to work hard to address the needs of
Canadians who must live with this disease. I congratulate these
dedicated individuals and organization on a job well done.
* * *
(1400 )
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, more than a month ago I
drew the attention of the minister of agriculture to a restrictive
trade practice by the Farm Credit Corporation. He has not yet
responded.
Farm Credit makes feed loans to cattle producers. However, it
appears that these are all channelled through Heartland Livestock
Services, which then handles all the sales. This puts private auction
markets at a severe disadvantage since they are, in effect, forced to
compete against federal government money.
Independent dealers have been cautioned that the FCC has first
call on sale proceeds from any cattle that they receive bearing a
Heartland brand. Thus, besides being subject to unfair competition,
the independents must also act as Heartland's collection agency if a
producer attempts to default.
Independent dealers' tax dollars are being used to favour a huge
competitor. When will the minister get off his duff and investigate
this complaint?
* * *
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the love affair between the media, the Liberals and big business
continues. What Canadians want and need is not getting reported
fairly by the media or acted on by the Liberals. Canadians need
jobs, fair taxes and sensible social programs. The only party in
Canada that fights for what Canadians need is the NDP.
Fortunately, ordinary Canadians are ignoring the big business
message of the media and the Liberals, and even though the
Liberals deny New Democrats full access to Parliament, more and
more Canadians are listening to our message.
How do we know this? In Saskatchewan the NDP government
was re-elected. In Manitoba the NDP leads the polls. In the recent
Halifax byelection the NDP got 65 per cent of the vote. In B.C. the
NDP government was re-elected. Last night in the Hamilton
byelection the NDP finished a strong second with 26 per cent of the
vote.
While the media prop up the Liberals who betray Canadians,
more and more Canadians are ignoring both and voting for the
party that is on their side, the NDP.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to inform this House that an international event took place
in the riding of Châteauguay at the end of May. The Société de
développement économique de Roussillon organized the first ever
international matchmaking session.
People from fifteen countries took part in this event, their
objective being to develop and strengthen contacts with businesses
4016
from other countries. They came from the United States, Mexico,
Europe, Asia and several Canadian provinces.
I want to congratulate SODER, its industrial commissioner and
all the volunteers who contributed to making this event, the first of
its kind in Quebec, a success. I salute this outstanding initiative
which shows the strength of a Quebec that is open to the world,
capable of forming partnerships, particularly with the rest of
Canada, and ready to take its place within the international
community.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
government should vigorously pursue efforts to enshrine in
international law Brian Tobin's efforts to save marine fish stocks.
Rising world demand, indiscriminate industrialized fishing and
environmental changes have stressed global fish stocks to a critical
level. This is not a problem that can be solved by any one nation
working alone. International action, leading to truly global fish
stocks legislation, is necessary.
While putting our own house in order, the Ministers of Fisheries
and Oceans, Foreign Affairs and the Environment should continue
to push vigorously for international laws to protect straddling fish
stocks and highly migratory fish. Protection of particular stocks is
a good first step toward global fish stocks management.
* * *
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex-Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Multicultural Council of Windsor and Essex County has just
completed its annual Carousel of Nations, celebrating the ethnic
and cultural diversity of Canada, this year with the theme of ``Art:
A World without Boundaries''. Every year for two weekends in
June this celebration attracts thousands of Canadian and American
visitors to the area and provides entertainment, food, a touch of
history and the cultural diversity of the various ethnic backgrounds
that make up our country.
This weekend, however, was very special. On Saturday, June 15
a new village was inaugurated. With the help of many friends,
neighbours and esteemed colleagues, the Canadian Unity Village
was opened. This village brought together the special qualities that
were demonstrated during the Montreal rally in October. Canada's
largest national flag, which highlighted the October rally, was
donated to the village by the Windsor Jaycees and provincial flags
lent by my colleagues were mounted to give a panorama of our
beautiful country.
(1405 )
The Canadian Unity Village was a tremendous success and the
celebrations at all the Carousel villages were wonderfully prepared
and visited by thousands of tourists in an atmosphere of friendship
and communication.
It is events like these that encourage mutual understanding and
co-operation, and show why Canada is ranked number one-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Egmont.
* * *
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Stanley
Cup playoffs are over and the coach of the Florida Panthers has
returned to Prince Edward Island for the summer.
Doug MacLean, a native of Summerside, has accomplished what
no Islander before him and indeed what very few Canadians have
accomplished. He coached his team for the NHL finals.
The odds of making an NHL team as a player are very high. The
odds of coaching an NHL team and having that team go to the
Stanley Cup finals are infinitely higher, but Doug has done it in his
first year as head coach of the Florida Panthers. Last Friday, there
was outpouring of warmth and pride in Doug's accomplishments
from the people of Summerside and P.E.I. in general.
As much as anyone can be, Doug MacLean is a self-made man.
His determination and personality have made him the best coach in
the NHL. All Islanders have their fingers crossed as we await the
announcement of the coach of the year in the NHL.
I urge the House to share in my congratulations to Doug
MacLean, his immediate family and parents for a job well done.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
November, Gilles Beaumier, a letter carrier in Amos, in my riding
of Abitibi, was crossing the bridge over the Harricana River when
he saw a young woman in the water. Risking his life, Mr. Beaumier
did not hesitate to jump into the freezing waters to help this woman
whose life was saved thanks to his quick reaction.
I want to salute Mr. Beaumier and to congratulate him, on behalf
of all my colleagues in this House, for the bravery and great
compassion he has shown. For all his fellow citizens, his action is a
mark of exceptional courage.
4017
In recognition of this courageous act, Mr. Beaumier's employer,
the Canada Post Corporation, gave him the Golden Postmark
Award in the outstanding achievement category.
This official reward is well deserved. We express our admiration
and extend our warmest congratulations to Mr. Beaumier.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in April,
Parks Canada hiked the price to hike in Jasper and tourists are not
taking it lying down. The increased fee structure is not only
confusing, it is in complete disarray.
These ridiculous rates are totally outrageous and Parks Canada is
dreaming if it actually believes a head tax will balance the books. It
is a sad day when the Liberals try to save their economic skins by
soaking Canadian families.
Our national parks should be an affordable destination. Families
are being discouraged from enjoying the beauty and splendour of
our national parks. And thanks to the Liberals, business in Jasper
has suffered. Some hotels have seen business decrease up to 25 per
cent because people are driving on through to skirt the tax.
When will the Liberals realize that taxes, taxes, taxes kill jobs,
jobs, jobs?
* * *
[
Translation]
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today the Prime Minister gave a speech at a joint meeting of the
Ottawa-Carleton Economic Development Corporation and of the
Regroupement des gens d'affaires. He spoke about the tasks
awaiting the first ministers at their meeting later this week.
[English]
This meeting will continue the process of the last two and a half
years of governments working together for the good of the nation,
following the successful examples of the infrastructure program,
Team Canada trade missions and progress on removing internal
trade barriers. This first ministers' meeting will be a further step in
restoring a healthy economy and together doing all we can to
ensure Canadians have jobs and opportunity.
The ministers will work on removing irritating conflicts between
federal and provincial roles. They will work to develop a national
plan to eliminate child poverty.
This is not the magic wand and pouf of the Reform Party that
would dissolve the nation into provinces-
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the people of the federal riding of Hamilton East have
re-elected their Liberal MP for a fourth time, with a very
respectable majority.
Our colleague, who will be back with us soon, decided to put her
seat on the line after the opposition parties claimed that our
government had failed to deliver on its promise to abolish the GST.
(1410)
Sheila Copps was brave enough to leave the decision in the
hands of the voting public. On the strength of yesterday's results,
the verdict is clear.
The people in the riding of Hamilton East are in agreement with
our government's policies, and particularly our decision to
harmonize provincial sales taxes with the GST.
We are confident that Sheila Copps will continue to do
everything necessary to represent fully the constituents of
Hamilton East, who have again demonstrated their confidence in
her.
* * *
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Mirabel's Bell Hélicoptère Textron has just announced a
project to invest over $400 million. Recognizing the value and the
great potential of this project, the governments of Canada and of
Quebec have promised to make a repayable contribution of $13.4
million, in addition to providing tax credits of close to $2.8 million.
Thanks to the development of this new product, Bell Hélicoptère
was able to create 250 new high level jobs, in addition to ensuring
the continuation of 260 existing jobs.
This major investment shows once again that greater Montreal is
truly the aerospace hub of Canada.
* * *
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, an exceptional citizen of
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, Mrs. Jacqueline Myre, who is
present in our gallery, received an honourary certificate from
Voluntary Awards Canada.
Mrs. Myre started several original initiatives to help our senior
citizens in the regional county municipality of
Haut-Saint-François, in the Eastern Townships. In addition to
helping create eight mutual aid networks and four natural helpers'
groups, she
4018
chairs the Senior Independence Committee and the Senior Citizen
Abuse Awareness Project. She also developed a regional structure
for the Active Living Program, which provides our senior citizens
with fitness classes adapted to their needs.
Mrs. Myre, you have all our admiration. Please accept our most
sincere congratulations for that well deserved honour.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
political hacks at the parole board are a little burnt out these days.
An internal investigation revealed yesterday that David Barlow got
parole in 1993 because he was a burnt out killer. He was 54 years
old. The parole board admitted it ignored important evidence on
this career killer.
Never mind the history of violence, including murdering a police
officer, killing a 70-year-old store owner in Fredericton and twice
escaping from custody, he was probably burnt out so let us let him
go.
He burnt out, all right. He burnt out of jail and within a year was
charged with robbing a Zellers store at gunpoint and opening fire
on the RCMP in a busy mall in B.C.
Never mind the victims, never mind the RCMP, never mind the
terrorized clerk at Zellers who had a gun stuck in her face. Barlow
is back in the hands of Corrections Canada where ``the lowest
sentence is the law''.
* * *
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last night Hamiltonians showed that they will stand up for someone
who stands up for them.
Sheila Copps kept her word to the voters of Hamilton East. She
put her seat on the line and gave her constituents the opportunity to
judge her performance for themselves. The voters made their
democratic choice very clear.
What Sheila stood for was fairness, compassion, job creation,
clear support of medicare and a strong voice for Hamilton in the
government. The people of Hamilton East responded to the
message and we all look forward to Sheila returning to Parliament
and delivering that message.
I know that Sheila is proud that during the campaign she
canvassed every street and every poll in Hamilton East. The people
of Hamilton East clearly supported her and her message.
I extend the congratulations of the entire caucus to Sheila Copps.
It will be a pleasure to have her back in Ottawa and to resume
working with her.
* * *
(1415 )
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Acadia University in my riding of Annapolis
Valley-Hants is truly losing one of its biggest assets. On July 1,
Mr. Acadia, Bill Parker, is retiring from his position as
vice-president of external relations after 33 years of service to that
university.
Bill's relationship with Acadia was developed during his time as
a student 40 years ago. Over the years, his commitment to the
university has never wavered. Through Bill's leadership and
participation, fundraising drives have brought the university over
$50 million from the private sector since 1963.
As well as helping serve and bringing new buildings to the
university and developing new programs and scholarships, Bill is
quite simply known as Mr. Acadia.
I have had the honour of knowing him very well over these last
number of years and can say honestly that his presence will be
greatly missed and his legacy will not be forgotten.
_____________________________________________
4018
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister is getting ready to meet the premiers at
a conference where he will probably announce the federal
government's intention to withdraw from some areas of provincial
jurisdiction in which it is now involved.
My question is for the Prime Minister or the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs. Will the Prime Minister admit that the
federal government's withdrawal from areas of provincial
jurisdiction in which it is now involved can only be done by
transferring at the same time the funds now spent by the federal
government in these areas? Otherwise, this will be nothing but a
dumping operation likely to place the provinces in a difficult
financial situation.
4019
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the meeting is to enable the two orders
of government to work together, even better than they do now, to
provide Canadians with better services at a lower cost. And we will
succeed.
In some areas, it is important to better clarify the respective roles
played by the two levels of government, as in the case of mining
and forestry. In other cases, the federal government will transfer
substantial amounts to the provinces. For example, $2 billion will
be transferred for active employment measures over the life of this
program. The federal government will also transfer $1.9 billion to
the provinces for the management of some 660,000 social housing
units.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in this regard, given the extremely high cost of renovating
our social housing stock, the Prime Minister said he wanted to give
this area back to the provinces.
Given, then, the substantial amount of renovation work needed,
is the government committed-it is important to set the record
straight on this-to withdrawing from this area, but only if it helps
pay for the work needed to repair all these social housing units?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are committed to
transferring the money we now spend on social housing.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, what I want to find out from the minister-It is important
to set the record straight. The minister talks about the money now
spent by the federal government, but we know that the government
is not spending anything on repairs to our social housing stock,
which has been deteriorating for several years.
My question to the minister is this: Is the federal government
preparing to transfer to the provinces apartments in need of major
renovation work, thus forcing them to pay exorbitant repair bills?
Is this not an example of the kind of federal withdrawal that is
tantamount to dumping on the provinces?
(1420)
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our commitment is
clear. The Leader of the Opposition, however, should make up his
mind. Does he want us to withdraw from areas of provincial
jurisdiction, yes or no? We said we would continue to contribute
the same amounts as at present, to be administered by the
provinces. Any savings will benefit the provinces, which will be
able to do more with the same amount, as there will now be a single
level of management.
The provinces should make up their minds. If they do not want
us to withdraw, we will not.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister gave as an excuse for putting the
securities issue on the agenda of the first ministers' conference the
fact that it was requested by a number of provinces. Six provinces
also asked the Prime Minister to put the GST on the agenda.
My question is for the Prime Minister, the Acting Prime Minister
or the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. How does he explain
his refusal to put the GST on the agenda of the first ministers'
conference, as requested by six provinces representing 90 per cent
of the Canadian population?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the GST issue will be discussed very soon at a finance
ministers' conference.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, when a number of provinces ask that the Canadian social
policy be on the agenda, the Prime Minister puts it on the agenda.
When other provinces ask that securities be on the agenda, the
Prime Minister agrees to put this topic on the agenda. But when six
Canadian provinces ask that the GST be on the agenda, the Prime
Minister says: ``No, we will not discuss the GST''.
My question to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is this:
Why does the Prime Minister not want to talk about the GST, an
issue of interest to the four western provinces as well as to Ontario
and Quebec? Is he afraid?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, one of the comments made was that the agenda was
quite heavy and that there might not be enough time to deal with
everything on it. This is a very good point, but I think that, if we
keep a tight schedule, we should be able to go through the whole
agenda.
The opposition would like to add yet another item. A number of
provinces would like to discuss several other issues. But we have
had to make a selection to put the agenda together. If it is too heavy,
it will require a great deal of discipline on the part of the ministers
to deal with all the issues constructively.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in his-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Southwest.
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, in his luncheon speech today the
Prime Minister outlined the subject matter of the first ministers
conference that will be held later this week.
4020
In particular he said job creation will be one of the main themes
of the discussion. The key to job creation in this country,
particularly private sector job creation, can be summed up in two
words: tax relief. It is taxes, taxes taxes that kill jobs, jobs, jobs.
If job creation really is an objective of the first ministers
conference, why is tax relief not front and centre on the agenda?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government's
record on job creation is already excellent. There have been
600,000 new jobs already created since our mandate began, some
150,000 created in the last six months alone. The job creation
record of the government is top notch.
(1425)
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, its record on job creation is 1.3 million unemployed, 2
million to 3 million under employed and 1 out of 4 Canadians
worried about their jobs.
When the Prime Minister goes into that conference at the end of
the week, of the ten premiers there, eight will have either balanced
their budgets or run surpluses. All those premiers are in a position
to actually deliver tax relief to their people, whereas the federal
government will be taking $25 billion more out of the pockets of
Canadians next year than in its first year in office.
Is it not true the federal government is at the back of the pack
when it comes to tax relief and that is why it is unable to provide
leadership on this subject at the first ministers conference?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, speaking of people
who are at the back of the pack, despite being at the back of the
pack, the Reform Party has suggested in its budget that it would not
reduce taxes until the budget was balanced.
Do Reform members want us to reduce taxes before our budget
is balanced? Is that what they are suggesting as they change their
policy once again? They flip-flopped on the GST time and time
again. Are they flip-flopping on their policy on deficit reduction or
do they really mean it?
We put deficit reduction first. We have achieved our goals on
deficit reduction and we have done a first rate job. We have the
strength of the financial markets behind us now.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is supposed to be some sort of
economist. He would know that under Reform's taxpayers budget
the federal budget would have been balanced this year and tax
relief would have been accomplished.
The Government of Ontario has responsibility for the biggest
regional economy in the country. The federal job strategy has to be
co-ordinated with the job strategy in that province for maximum
effect. The Ontario government has taken the position that tax
relief is the key to job creation in that economy and has acted on
that position in the recent budget.
If the federal government truly believes in co-ordinated
federal-provincial approaches to job creation, why does it not
follow Ontario's lead and put tax relief squarely on the agenda of
the first ministers conference?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have put
harmonization first. We have put co-ordination first. Why does the
hon. member not ask the premier of Ontario why he flip-flopped on
the GST, where there are real savings in government, real savings
in collection of taxes and real savings to the Canadian people?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice.
The minister said on a number of occasions that he had informed
the RCMP about allegations concerning the Airbus issue a few
days after being appointed Minister of Justice.
Can the minister tell us if the allegations made by journalists and
to which he is referring are the ones he was informed about at the
beginning of 1993, when he met with two journalists, as the
Toronto Sun was told by one of his political advisors, Cyrus
Reporter?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question is convoluted. I have
no idea of the Toronto Sun article the hon. member is referring to.
The chronology of the facts is clear from what I have already put on
the record.
In November 1993 I was given information by two journalists. I
consulted with the deputy minister and with the solicitor general.
After that consultation I communicated the information to the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
In doing that I was acting responsibly as the chief law officer of
the crown. As I have observed in the House already, I was also
conducting myself in exactly the same way as predecessors in
office have done, including the Right Hon. John Turner.
4021
(1430)
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Justice repeated in this House that he was not aware of
the negotiations between the lawyers representing the government
and those representing former Prime Minister Mulroney.
How then does the minister explain that, yesterday, he indicated
negotiations had stopped when he said that it is difficult to
negotiate with someone when, 24 hours after an informal meeting
takes place between lawyers, all the details are on the national
news?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I said exactly that. I saw, along
with everybody else, the report on the nightly news.
It became immediately obvious to me there is no point trying to
discuss anything with anybody when that information gets directly
on to the national news. It is no way to conduct any such
discussions.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
GST has hijacked the meeting this week of the finance ministers.
The finance ministers across the country are trying to meet to
discuss true pension reform this week. Instead they have to talk
about how the Liberals are pitting provinces against each other
with a billion dollar GST harmonization pay-off.
My question is for the minister of the GST. If the harmonized
GST is such a great and fair deal, why are 63 per cent of the people
of Nova Scotia dead against it?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the finance ministers
will be discussing a number of issues at their meeting today,
including CPP, which is an important part of the meeting and an
important issue. They may also be discussing the GST.
We have support from business groups and consumer groups
across the country for a harmonized GST. Every major business
and consumer group supports the harmonization project.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
seems fairly clear that 63 per cent of Nova Scotians, the very
people the Liberals are trying to butter up to buy into this
harmonization program, are not supporting it. How can the
minister say every major group across the country is?
The GST still puts the financial screws to Canadians every single
time they go to the cash register. Now it is causing bitterness and
division instead of progress at the finance ministers meeting.
Remember how we got into this mess in the first place, Mr.
Speaker, you were here: a Tory tax, a public outcry, a Liberal
promise; and now crass manoeuvring by the finance minister to
distract attention from his own broken promise.
Why does the minister continue to divide Canadians with this
harmonization scheme? Why will he not unite Canadians by living
up to the election promise to scrap, kill and abolish it? When will
he do that?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is always nice to
listen to the Reform Party.
We especially listened to it when it came out with its minority
report from the finance committee on the GST. It said harmonizing
was the way to go. That is what we did, but here we have the
Reform Party squabbling again.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
On Saturday, Le Journal de Montréal released the content of a
coast guard internal document entitled ``Fleet Merger'' and dealing
with the cuts affecting the coast guard. Once again, the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans is displaying a blatant lack of judgment by
cutting everywhere, except in his province of Newfoundland.
After favouring his province with the fee structure for
commercial traffic, how can the minister justify that he is about to
make drastic cuts of $25 million in all regions of Canada, except in
his own province, where the cuts will only total $140,000?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my response to the hon. member in this instance in
essence is the same as it was in the previous instance.
What is happening to the coast guard is the result of a number of
studies that went back to 1962, 1975, 1990 and which ended in the
mix of DFO and the coast guard. As part of this we are rationalizing
this fleet of 162 ships, reducing it by over 30. The decisions have
not been made. The discussions are still continuing.
(1435)
I am not familiar with the document to which the hon. member
refers, but I can assure him that in this instance, as in any other
4022
instance with the government, there will be no favouritism. The
decisions will be made with fairness and equity for all.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister did
not comment on the figures mentioned in Le Journal de Montréal. I
am asking him the same question again.
How can the minister so blatantly favour his province of origin,
considering the coast guard budget for Newfoundland is the same
as for Quebec and British Columbia, even though traffic in
Newfoundland ports is lighter, and in spite of the fact that the coast
guard is less busy in that province?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is trying to compare different
aspects of a very complex program. Whatever the figures are, I am
not sure where they came from, because a decision has not yet been
made.
My advice to the hon. member is to read the reports with a
certain amount of circumspection and a certain amount of
understanding because the decisions have not been made.
I will tell him one more time that when the decisions are made
they will be made with fairness, equity and just treatment for all.
* * *
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
week the finance minister denied that his changes to the GST were
increasing taxes. Here is a real life example of the damage these
changes are causing.
Dave Quest from Kallal Pontiac Buick in Tofield, Alberta had a
customer come in to sell a truck. As a direct result of the new GST
changes, this dealership's profit has shrunk from about $1,000 to
$80 on the truck; a $920 tax grab for the government.
I want the government to explain to Dave and all the thousands
of other small businessmen out there why it is continuing to pursue
taxation policies which gut business and kill jobs.
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thought the Reform
Party was playing for political points when its members asked this
question every day for the last week or so, but it seems they really
do not understand it. Let me give them an example for Dave or for
whomever out west.
A used car under the old system was subject to the same GST tax
as it is under the new system. A new car under the old system was
subject to twice as much GST as-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Peters: We put an input tax credit on it and the net is exactly
the same. The new system and the old system have exactly the
same GST.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): He really
straightened me out, Mr. Speaker.
Let us look at the RV business. Don Sneyd at Ruston RV Centre
in Burlington said the GST change has directly cost his business
$13,000 since April 23. Dave McKee from the Hitch House in
Barrie says his losses have been closer to $25,000 in the last seven
weeks.
They laugh at that. They think that is funny, but I know there are
Liberal members who are lobbying the finance minister and the
revenue minister over these very changes.
Why does the government continue to deny these GST changes
are anything but a tax grab? When will the minister admit and
recognize that taxes, taxes, taxes kill jobs, jobs, jobs? When will
the government get rid of this boondoggle?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party has
demonstrated its ability not only to come last but to misunderstand
government policy.
The taxes raised under the new and old system of the GST are
identical. They are exactly the same.
How these dealers can lose money when they are paying exactly
the same tax is beyond me. I will be glad to explain it to the hon.
member when he has time.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of International Trade.
When a Canadian citizen inquired of the head office of American
Express why he had not been able to use its travellers' cheques in
Cuba, he was told that it was the policy of that company and of all
of its affiliates throughout the world to follow to the letter the
American embargo on Cuba.
(1440)
Since American Express is clearly violating the current Foreign
Extraterritorial Measures Act, does the minister intend to prosecute
the Canadian subsidiary of this American company as promptly as
possible?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we expect companies incorporated in Canada
to follow Canadian law. That is what the Foreign Extraterritorial
Measures Act which was brought in in 1984 is all about. The
4023
amendments we announced yesterday that would be subsequently
presented to this House deal with strengthening that act in terms of
the provisions of the Helms-Burton law.
I would be pleased to look into the particular case the hon.
member raises because we expect that company and all other
companies to abide by Canadian law.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to announce to the minister that his officials have known
for two years that American Express is breaking the law, yet they
have done nothing.
As he prepares to propose to beef up the present legislation on
foreign extraterritorial measures, can the minister tell us that it is
his intention in future to apply that act more stringently than he has
to date?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our intent in the amendments is to neutralize
the effects of the Helms-Burton law. It is a last resort measure. It is
one I hope we never have to engage in. It is a framework law which
allows that if a company is sued in the United States courts, we
could either block them from getting any of the assets of the
Canadian company here in Canada or a court action could be
instituted here in Canada to recover any funds. It is to neutralize the
effect.
I hope that it acts as an effective deterrent and that companies
think twice before they proceed in the U.S. courts under
Helms-Burton.
The United States government's quarrel is with the Cubans. It
should not be drawing the Canadians or any other country into that
quarrel.
* * *
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday my private member's motion on the demilitarization of
Cyprus as the first step in finding a just and viable solution to the
Cyprus problem was debated in the House. It received all-party
support. MPs from both sides of the House and Canadians of
Cypriot origin are looking now to the government for support.
Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell this House what he
intends to do in response to this unanimous request for action on
the part of the Canadian government?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first I would like to compliment the hon. member on the
resolution. It was a very important statement by members of this
House that, if followed through on, could provide a very important
contribution to the reduction of the conflict and the resolution of
the differences in Cyprus. We can certainly endorse the position
taken by the hon. member and other members who spoke in the
House in support of that resolution.
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday I and several other MPs received sneering personal notes
from child killer Clifford Olson to which he attached his new line
of serial killer cards, a collection of police photographs taken of
him at different stages in his criminal life.
In his letter Olson brags about his prospect for early release this
August using section 745 of the Criminal Code. He claims it is his
democratic right within the charter of rights and freedoms and
common law.
Why will the justice minister not immediately repeal section 745
to wipe the smirk off of Clifford Olson's face and send the message
that early release is not a democratic right or even an option for
cold blooded killers?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to Clifford
Olson who is serving a life sentence for crimes that are absolutely
heinous. He is locked away in a prison cell in an obscurity that he
richly deserves.
I would like to know why the hon. member provides this
platform and allows himself to be used as the instrument of that
man to bring attention to Clifford Olson in this House and in the
public.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1445 )
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let
this House remember it is this government and a previous
government that have set the platform for Clifford Olson and other
killers and that will never be shut down.
The justice minister refers to section 745 of the Criminal Code as
the faint hope clause. He tells Canadians that section 745 is
necessary because killers need a glimmer of hope. What the justice
minister is reluctant to say is that 80 per cent of the killers who
apply for release under section 745 receive some type of early
parole. So much for faint hope. Section 745 is a sure bet clause.
Each time a killer makes an application under section 745, the
families of the victims are forced to relive their tragedy. I ask the
minister, will he or will he not give the families of murder victims a
glimmer of hope called closure? Will the justice minister scrap,
abolish, repeal section 745?
4024
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has any
legitimate concern for the families of victims he will stop allowing
himself to be used as a dupe for Clifford Olson in raising his name
in this House.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, on June 26, the Minister of Natural Resources will make
her decision on moving the offices of Atomic Energy of Canada
from Montreal to Toronto. In addition to the terrible economic
consequences this move will have on the Montreal area, many
people have said that it will save the government nothing, because
the Montreal office is cost effective.
How, under these circumstances, can the minister say she will
save money by moving the offices of Atomic Energy Canada from
Montreal to Toronto? What information is she using to make this
decision?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the potential decision to which the hon. member
refers is not one made by the Minister of Natural Resources. It is
one made by AECL, a crown corporation in an arm's length
relationship with the Government of Canada. We do not
micromanage AECL.
I presume that AECL will make the best decisions it can within
its budgetary constraints based on the best information it has. I am
sure that information will be made public.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, is the minister saying that the government has no input, no
say and nothing to do with investments like those of Atomic
Energy of Canada when the consequences will be disastrous for the
Montreal area? I would like to know how she would react if the
problem were in Calgary, for example?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, let me assure the hon. member that this government is
always concerned with the implications of necessary budget cuts. It
is always concerned about the implications of those cuts for
individuals and their jobs.
Let me reiterate that AECL has had its budget cut, its direct
subsidy from the taxpayer of Canada, from $172 million to $100
million. It has to go through the same process of program review,
of restructuring and downsizing, as the government and other
crown corporations.
I acknowledge to the hon. member that the decisions which
ultimately will be made by AECL will be difficult ones but as I say,
AECL will make public the information on which those decisions
are based. I have no doubt that the business case will be made.
* * *
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last summer
Oak Bay Marine Group, a Victoria based commercial sport fishing
operation, undermined the ability of the department of fisheries to
manage severely depressed chinook stocks by refusing to
participate in a fisheries department conservation program to
protect them and by refusing to supply the department with
accurate and timely catch statistics as required by the Fisheries
Act.
Last week, to obtain that critical data, a search warrant was
executed on Oak Bay Marine's offices. Why, after almost a year of
non-compliance, have charges not been laid against Mr. Wright and
the Oak Bay Marine Group?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that this matter is before the
courts and he also knows that it would be very inappropriate for me
to comment in any detail on this subject.
(1450 )
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the issue is not
before the courts and charges have not been laid. The question is
why?
Bob Wright has said that he refused to provide accurate catch
information to the department because if he had, the department
would have shut him down.
When is the government going to show that it is putting the
conservation of fish before corporate profits and remove Bob
Wright from both the Pacific Salmon Commission and the steering
committee of the minister's Pacific round table?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, acting under the authority of a search warrant,
fisheries officers visited the Oak Bay Marina on June 10. The
officers requested that they be provided with certain documents
relating to an investigation which is currently being conducted.
The marina staff co-operated fully and voluntarily handed over
the documents in question. I will say one more time that because of
the status of this issue, it would be inappropriate for me to
comment irrespective of what the hon. member would like us to do.
* * *
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
4025
An international report states that the average foreign aid budget
spends less than 3 per cent on basic human needs such as health
and education. When eight million children die each year before
they are one year old, what is Canada's foreign aid record on
funding basic human needs? What are we doing to help the poorest
of the poor in this world?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the throne speech we addressed very clearly as a
priority the need to tackle the issue of poverty and deprivation of
children around the world.
I can report to the House that in terms of our own international
assistance package, 21 per cent of the budget goes directly to
human needs. This compares to the 7 per cent of most other
countries. We are substantially ahead of most countries in this area.
We are providing a number of important projects in Africa. We
are providing education for girls and we have a number of water
projects in 15 African countries. Perhaps most important, in the
field of health, we have been a major contributor to the almost total
reduction of iron and iodine deficiencies in children around the
world and to the prevention of the diseases.
My colleague, the Minister for International Co-operation, is
now working effectively to take the percentage of the budget up to
25 per cent which will be directed to basic human needs.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
For some time now, the minister has been trying to convince us
that research and industry in Quebec are going to benefit greatly
from her government's efforts to sell CANDU reactors abroad. But
the first thing we hear is that Atomic Energy of Canada is planning
to transfer its activities from Montreal to Toronto.
Will the minister admit that if AECL leaves Montreal, she will
have deceived Quebecers, since the spinoffs she promised us from
the sale of CANDU reactors will no longer go to Montreal, but to
Toronto?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, not at all. The hon. member should know about her
own private sector high tech community in Quebec and in
particular in the Montreal region.
There are companies that have and will continue to benefit on the
sale of more CANDU reactors. I can assure the hon. member we
estimate that for the sale of every CANDU 6 reactor a minimum of
$100 million worth of benefits go to the Montreal economy and
over 4,000 person years of jobs are created. In fact, I have much
more confidence in the private sector in Quebec than you do
apparently.
The Speaker: The hon. minister would be referring to me and I
have a great deal of confidence.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, what is particularly surprising is that it is the private
sector that is complaining about the possible move of AECL from
Montreal to Toronto.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said, and I quote:
``The new priority given to the CANDU reactors should result in
great benefits for Quebec''.
(1455)
How can the minister stick by such a statement, when we know
that CANATOM, AECL's primary sub-contractor in Montreal,
might move to Toronto if AECL's offices are transferred there?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, again let me assure the hon. member that a thriving,
vibrant private sector as it supports the CANDU reactor sales will
continue in the province of Quebec and in Montreal.
Let me share with the hon. member some of the companies that
benefit: Canatom; Dominion Bridge-Sulzer; GEC Alsthom; Velan
Engineering; CAE Electronics; Lefebvre Frères-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster.
* * *
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the minister of agriculture wants to sell 13,000
government hopper cars to producers. Individuals from the
transport department have stated that the railways under the current
operating agreement have right of first refusal which means they
can match any offer put on the table and the railways own the
hopper cars.
The SEO proposal has failed. The producer coalition is
crumbling. Will either the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
or the Minister of Transport please make it crystal clear to any
groups interested in buying the hopper cars that the railways clearly
have the final say as to who purchases these cars?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is not the policy of the government. It may be the
policy of the Reform Party but it is not the policy of this
government.
4026
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the minister was supposed to answer the question
and he said absolutely nothing, absolutely nothing.
The minister of agriculture has been encouraging producers to
put forward an offer, but putting forward an offer costs money. The
producers are not interested in spending hundreds of thousands of
dollars to make a bid on these cars if the railways can match any
bid and then take ownership of the cars.
They deserve an answer. Does the government have a signed
commitment from the railways to relinquish the right of first
refusal or is this whole bidding process for ownership of the cars an
illusion which gives the producer group false hope?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is simply in error in his facts. We have
not put forward any invitation to bid to any producer group,
railway, insurance company, finance company or any other
company.
We are at the present time, with the assistance of CIBC-Wood
Gundy in Calgary, working out possible ways of approaching the
issue of disposal of the hopper cars. We have made no requests for
tenders to the public. His assumption upon which his question is
based that we have done so is simply a false one.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It has to do with
events in the San Alfonso Valley in Chile in recent days. I have
written to the minister about this.
Earlier this day members of Parliament from three different
parties held a press conference to express their concern that NOVA
Corporation of Canada, the majority shareholder in GasAndes
which is building the pipeline from Argentina through to Santiago,
is associated with a police action against a blockade in the San
Alfonso Valley that in our opinion is dragging the good name of
Canada through the mud and is bringing Canada's reputation into
disrepute.
Is it the minister's intention to express concern on behalf of the
Canadian government at the way the Chilean police are behaving
and the way in which NOVA Corporation is associated with that
police action?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that people were injured in the
clash between demonstrators and riot police on June 13. Although
we do not have the details of the incident, we understand that the
police intervened to remove demonstrators who were blocking a
national highway. According to some reports, some individuals
threw rocks at police, injuring some people.
NOVA corporation is a lead partner in the GasAndes consortium.
This consortium has gone through every single required approval
by Chilean authorities including an environmental impact study.
Amendments were made. It has completely abided by the law and I
am told that many of the standards are very similar to the standards
that exist in this country. They are following the law completely.
The incidents that occurred in the demonstration were most
unfortunate although we have very little information at this point in
time.
* * *
(1500)
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is directed to the Minister of Industry.
In June 1995 the Bureau of Competition Policy outlined a review
of the Competition Act. At that time a discussion paper was
circulated to obtain feedback on several proposed changes to this
act.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers produced a
paper which outlines strong arguments against the bureau's
recommendation to repeal the price discrimination and
promotional allowance provisions of the act.
Would the minister assure the House and the independent
grocers across Canada that their concerns will be explored before
any other changes to the act are adopted?
[Translation]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, may I begin by stating that, when the bill is introduced
this fall, my colleague, the Secretary of State for the Federal Office
of Regional Development-Quebec, will be responsible for it,
being a Canadian expert on the Competition Act.
[English]
Second, I take very seriously the arguments that have been made
by a number of representatives from the small business
community, including the independent grocers, that the existence
of provisions relating to price discrimination and promotional
allowances gives them some protection from actions of large
suppliers, although those provisions have never been used.
Having taken heed of those arguments we will not be
recommending that those provisions be eliminated from the act.
4027
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would like to bring to your attention
the presence in the gallery of one of our visitors. I refer to Professor
Oliviu Gherman, President of the Senate of the Parliament of
Romania and an accompanying delegation.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: My colleagues, I have two questions of privilege
but I will hear first a point of order. You will see the reason why.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. I hope to beg the indulgence of the House to
have all members of the House of Commons join me in wishing the
honorary clerk at the table and the former member for Winnipeg
North Centre, Mr. Stanley Knowles, a happy birthday on his 88th
birthday.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1505)
The Speaker: I have received notice of a point of privilege
which takes the form of a personal statement. I would like to
explain to you before the statement is made that it will be made
simply as a solemn declaration. It is not meant to in any way incite
debate.
I recognize the hon. member for Charlesbourg.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if I
may, I wish to make a solemn declaration today relating to a
question of privilege raised in this House on March 12 by the hon.
member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, a question of
privilege you yourself described as extremely serious, and to which
you attached vital importance, stating, and I quote:
The House today is being faced with one of the more serious matters we have
been faced with in this 35th Parliament. I believe the charges are so grave
against one of our own members that the House should deal with this accusation
forthwith.
I hereby declare that the hon. member for
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, through his overzealous
accusations of call to arms and sedition, has deliberately led the
House and yourself astray, thus bringing doubt and suspicion to be
cast upon a member of the House of Commons, without any proof,
since his charges were based solely upon false interpretations of
my press release dated October 26, 1995.
The report by the Liberal majority and the dissenting report by
the Bloc Quebecois issued by the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs conclude that this entire question is a
matter of political debate and ought never to have been raised
before the House on a question of privilege, particularly one
supported by unfounded accusations.
What is of the most concern to me, apart from the attack on the
rights and privileges of a parliamentarian, is that it is also an attack
on the freedom of expression of all Quebecers and all Canadians.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: My colleague, solemn declarations are generally
free of what I might call any additional accusation. At this point,
although the Chair has a decision to make, I find, with all due
respect, dear colleague, that the words being used today tend more
toward a debate than a solemn declaration. I would like to put an
end to the statement at this point.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Oder, please. My colleagues, I would prefer this
matter to remain closed at this time. I have made my ruling on
behalf of all of the hon. members and I would ask you to respect it.
(1510 )
[English]
This point of privilege, this statement, is terminated. I would ask
members to respect my decision as your Speaker. I ask you that
with the full authority of the House and of my position.
I will now hear a second point of privilege from the hon. member
for Lethbridge.
* * *
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
question of privilege with regard to a personal charge that is against
me in this assembly, a charge that is criminal in nature and which
reflects on my reputation. This has and will continue to affect my
ability to function effectively as a member of Parliament while the
matter remains unresolved.
On March 22, 1983, at page 24027 of Hansard the Speaker ruled:
A reflection upon the reputation of an Hon. Member is a matter of great concern
to all Members of the House. It places the entire institution under a cloud, as it
suggests that among-
4028
The Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member would withhold this
point of privilege. I am prepared to rule on the point of order to
which the hon. member has referred. I would propose to do that
after I have heard any other points of privilege that come up, if
the hon. member permits.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with
that procedure.
* * *
The Speaker: I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised
on May 9, 1996 by the hon. member for Lethbridge concerning the
procedural acceptability of Motion M-1 standing on the order of
precedence for Private Members' Business in the name of the hon.
member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
The hon. member for Lethbridge argued that the motion is
procedurally unacceptable because it contains allegations of
contempt by one member against another and yet had not been
designated as votable by the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs. In other words, the House must be capable of taking
a decision on any motion which contains a charge against a
member. In addition, he questioned the current rules governing
Private Members' Business which have allowed this situation to
occur.
[Translation]
The rules governing private members' business are indeed
complex. Members may put bills or motions on notice, and then
those members whose names have been chosen in a draw decide
which item they wish to put forward for debate in the House during
private members' business hour.
Once the chosen items are placed on an order of precedence, the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs selects which
ones will come to a vote of the House. In the case of Motion M-1,
the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs chose not
to designate this item as votable.
(1515)
Pursuant to Standing Order 92(2), the report of the committee
concerning votable items is automatically deemed adopted, and
therefore stands as a decision of the House. This is how the House
has decided, through its Standing Orders, to deal with private
members' business.
The hon. member is quite correct in his assertion that the
conduct of a member can be brought before the House only by way
of a specific charge contained in a substantive motion. Often, in
such cases, members will choose to raise the matter on the floor of
the House without giving the required 48-hour or two-week notice
and ask the Speaker to give it priority or right of way for
immediate consideration by the House, thus putting all other
regular House business aside.
[English]
What is at stake here is whether or not your Speaker can override
the rules governing the transaction of Private Members' Business
in order that such motions come to a vote even when the sponsoring
member has selected to bring it before the House under that
procedure. I humbly must admit that unless the House changes its
rules I do not have that power.
For the benefit of the House, please allow me to point out that
this is not the first time this type of motion has come before the
House without the possibility of a vote.
On a number of occasions on supply days the opposition has
moved non-votable motions to condemn or challenge ministers for
their actions.
In one case a motion condemning a minister for ``failing to
provide full and satisfactory information on the blatant conflict of
interest situation involving the minister'' was moved as a
non-votable motion on a supply day.
I refer members to the Journals of the House of Commons of
May 12, 1986, page 2160: ``In at least one other instance, a
non-votable supply motion contained a specific charge of contempt
of Parliament against the minister''. The text of this motion can
also be found in the Journals of June 17, 1982, page 5025.
The content of the motion and the fact that it has not been
designated as a votable item under Private Members' Business
does cause the Chair some difficulty.
I understand the concerns of the hon. member for Lethbridge. As
your Speaker I suggest this situation could be corrected either by
the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, the hon.
member for Lethbridge or, for that matter, the House itself. There
are procedures at the disposal of the House to ensure that a sense of
fair play prevails in all of its proceedings so that members are not
placed in this type of position.
In the current circumstances I find that the rules for Private
Members' Business have been followed and that there is therefore
no point of order.
[Translation]
I would like to thank the hon. member for raising this point and
the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell for his
contribution to the discussion.
[English]
The hon. member for Lethbridge on a question of privilege.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, based on your ruling, I
would like to rise on a question of privilege.
4029
The Speaker: I understand the hon. member wants to rise on
a question of privilege. If the hon. member wishes to do so today,
I will listen to his question of privilege.
If he, however, would like to take some 24 hours and return to
the House, I would be willing to hear him tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to
proceed today with my question of privilege under the
circumstances.
Motion No. 1 is still on the floor of the assembly. Because of
that-
The Speaker: The hon. member now has the floor on his
question of privilege.
* * *
(1520)
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in light of
your ruling and based on the fact that Motion No. 1 is still on the
floor before us, I rise on a question of privilege with regard to that
matter which is a personal charge against me as contained in the
motion put forward by the member.
In a sense that charge is one that is criminal in nature and reflects
upon my reputation. This has and will continue to affect my ability
to function effectively as a member of Parliament while the matter
remains unresolved.
On March 22, 1983 on page 24,027 of Hansard the Speaker
ruled:
A reflection upon the reputation of an hon. member is a matter of great
concern to all members of the House. It places the entire institution under a
cloud, as it suggests that among the members of the House there are some who
are unworthy to sit there. An allegation of criminal or other dishonourable
conduct inevitably affects the member's ability to function effectively while the
matter remains unresolved.
The Speaker was concerned with the matter remaining
unresolved. I raised a point of order with regard to private
member's Motion No. 1 in the name of the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
I thank you today for considering that and I appreciate the ruling
you have placed before this assembly. This type of motion and the
affect of this motion is considered an anomaly of the rules.
Although the motion is in order, I would like to demonstrate that its
presence infringes upon my and other members' privileges in the
Chamber.
The motion accuses me of intimidation and coercing others to
intimidate. The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell's
charge against me is in the form of a motion and so he is allowed on
a technicality to get away with what I believe is unparliamentary
language.
For the purpose of my question of privilege, the fact that the
charge against me is in the form of a motion is immaterial. What is
important is that the motion is non-votable. It is non-votable by the
virtue of our standing orders. It is unresolvable and therefore prima
facie.
I would also like to address at this time the issue of raising this
question of privilege at the earliest opportunity. Before raising my
point of order regarding Motion No. 1, I felt it necessary that the
motion be at least scheduled for debate, and I believe we are at that
course of events here today.
The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell agreed with me
because despite the impression I was under at the time, the motion
was not before the House that day and the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell argued that he ought not bring the
matter up until it was before the House. For once I agreed with him.
Fortunately I was allowed to present my argument on that day in
May.
The fact that the motion of the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is a product of our rules led me to
originally pursue the matter as a point of order.
At this point my only hope for a remedy to resolve this charge
against me a question of privilege because the matter remains
unresolved, as you have said so eloquently, Mr. Speaker.
In the ruling I referred to earlier from 1983, the Speaker
considered:
The question for the Chair to determine, therefore, is whether the hon.
member for Lincoln should seek his remedy through the courts, or whether, in
order to bring the matter to a swifter resolution, the Chair should accord this
question of privilege precedence over other business.
As you are fully aware, Mr. Speaker, I do not have the luxury of
bringing this matter before any court. The member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is protected by parliamentary
privilege.
The Speaker in 1983 had another concern:
Given the precedence I have studied, it is clear to me that while the hon.
member could seek a remedy in the courts, he cannot function effectively as a
member while this slur upon his reputation remains. The process of litigation
would probably be very lengthy and there is no knowing how long it would take
before the issue is finally resolved.
Once again there is the emphasis on resolving the matter.
The Speaker was also concerned here with the length of time the
matter was to be unresolved. The member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell could, through a series of trades,
avoid debating the motion. If we do finally get a debate on the
motion it will disappear from the Order Paper after one hour of
debate.
4030
(1525 )
Regardless of those two scenarios, the matter will never be
resolved by this motion. My reputation will be hanging out to dry
forever. As Speaker Sauvé was concerned with, the entire
institution of Parliament will be left under a cloud without ever
being resolved.
Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, page 210,
states that the practice relating to taking up the conduct of members
is a matter of privilege.
If the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell raised this as a
question of privilege the matter would have been dealt with, but it
was not.
To protect my reputation and the reputation of the House I must
raise this matter as a question of privilege. Mr. Speaker, if you rule
this to be a prima facie question of privilege I will be moving the
following motion:
That the member for Lethbridge and the Reform Party of Canada be
exonerated of the allegations levied by the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell of attempting to coerce, intimidate or incite
others to coerce the hon. member for Welland-St. Catharines which are
contained in his non-votable private member's Motion No. 1; and that the
matter of the use of non-votable motions to charge members with contempt of
Parliament be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs.
Mr. Speaker, if you do not consider this a prima facie question of
privilege I would appreciate your guidance and maybe that of the
law clerk on how I can resolve this allegation against me of
criminal intent. I cannot allow this motion to stay on the Order
Paper all summer. This charge has been hanging over my head long
enough. It must be resolved now.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to take but a moment to respond to what has been
stated by the hon. member for Lethbridge.
The hon. member for Lethbridge essentially says today that his
reputation is somehow tarnished by this motion's being on the
Order Paper. He says it is further damaged because the issue is
non-votable and therefore whenever the issue is dealt with in the
House no conclusion will have been arrived at and therefore his
name will not have been cleared, if I understand the allegation
properly.
The member also says the accusation in question, which appears
in my Motion No. 1, ballot item No. 3 on the Order Paper, is
criminal in nature.
I will begin by dealing with the last issue. It has been suggested
on at least two occasions in the remarks of the hon. member that the
allegation listed in Motion No. 1 is criminal in nature.
Mr. Speaker, I remind you of a report tabled in the House earlier
today which clearly indicates to the House that those things that are
criminal in nature are not to be dealt with in the House on matters
of privilege and that a motion should not contain that, and I believe
it does not, and that those issues would be dealt with elsewhere
even if they were in the motion.
To refresh the House's memory, the motion states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the attempt by the hon. member for
Lethbridge and the Reform Party of Canada to coerce, intimidate or incite others
to coerce the hon. member for Welland-St. Catharines-Thorold (the Hon.
Gilbert Parent), in his capacity as Speaker, to make certain decisions in regards
to the status of the Official Opposition in Parliament, constitute a contempt of
this House and consequently that the hon. member for Lethbridge be ordered to
the bar of the House to be admonished by the Chair.
I do not believe that someone's being admonished by the Chair
in Parliament constitutes criminal behaviour. If criminal behaviour
was there I suggest the punishment would be rendered by someone
else and it would probably not be an admonishing by a Chair that
would be the proper sentencing if that kind of criminal behaviour
had been what was done. We are not talking about that at all.
The issue that was brought before the House had nothing to do
with what the hon. member has just suggested. What was brought
before the House is what was believed to have been and still
believed to be a case of someone's doing things to the most senior
officer of Parliament. That is what is contended as being the case of
contempt listed in the motion.
(1530)
I have in hand a memorandum dated January 11, 1996 entitled
``To all Reform constituency presidents, regional organizers and
executive councillors''. This letter says in part: ``What I am asking
you to do is to help launch a high pressure phone, fax and letter
writing campaign to'', and it lists your name, Mr. Speaker. ``The
objective is simple: to make it clear to him that as he contemplates
his decision'', this is the decision to choose who the official
opposition is in this House, ``that Canadians will no longer tolerate
a separatist official opposition''.
It goes on to say that time is running short and that this high
pressure campaign against the occupants of the Chair of this House
should be commenced immediately by fax, letter writing,
telephone calls, and so on so that Mr. Speaker, can and I conclude
``do the right thing''. Presumably Mr. Speaker would rule based on
pressure put on to intimidate him to give a favourable ruling to
those who had asked for the ruling.
That is what is in the motion that was brought by your humble
servant. What was put in that motion is not an allegation of
criminal behaviour. It is an allegation that something wrong was
occurring against the occupant of the Chair of this House, this
House being the institution that all of us cherish.
That is what occurred and nothing else. I am sure that deep down
in his heart the hon. member knows this.
4031
Mr. Speaker, there is even a draft letter to be sent to the
occupant of the Chair with his fax number preprinted on the form.
This draft letter, prepared by the Reform Party and attached and
sent by the hon. member for Lethbridge, is an instruction to the
occupant of the Chair of this House to rule not according to what
is right, but to rule according to the pressure applied to him as
organized by a member of this House.
Mr. Speaker, that is what was asked of you as the occupant of the
Chair of this Chamber. You were asked to rule that way for the
reasons I have enunciated.
I do not pretend that it is criminal and I never will. I never
suggested so, either in my press releases or in the motion that is
today before the House.
[Translation]
What I did say, however, is that this sort of behaviour should not
be how we approach things in this House and should stop. The
events occurring a few days after this motion dealt with matters,
and we hear no more of the issue today. What I have heard in the
House today explains why we have heard no further mention.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
listened to the whip for the government side put forward his case.
In fact he presented an entire debate on the subject.
The question of privilege that has been presented to you today by
the member for Lethbridge is that some method be found to resolve
this issue. The issue is not whether the government whip is allowed
to bring this motion forward. The issue is the dilemma that my hon.
colleague from Lethbridge finds himself in. It cannot be resolved.
It cannot be voted on. It cannot be debated. It is just hanging over
his head like a sword.
That is the issue of privilege, not the motion itself.
The Speaker: With regard to this point of privilege I will take
the information I have under advisement. If the House will permit
me I will reflect on it and I will come back to the House, if it is
necessary, to rule on the point of privilege that the member for
Lethbridge has brought to the House.
* * *
(1535)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, as a member of this House and a colleague of the member
for Charlesbourg and further to the report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I today demand a
public apology in the name of all the members of this House.
I therefore demand a public apology from the member for
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt for having misled this House
by making false accusations that called into question the honesty
and integrity of the member for Charlesbourg. I demand an apology
from the member, otherwise there is nothing to prevent gratuitous
accusations of all sorts from being made against anybody at all.
[English]
The Speaker: Your Speaker is fully aware of the importance of
the statement that the hon. member for Charlesbourg began today.
It was explained before the hon. member began his statement it
was a solemn declaration. It was not a declaration which would
incite debate. I was dealing solely with the statement itself.
There is, of course, an avenue for the hon. member or for the
Leader of the Opposition if they so wish to make a further
statement, a broader statement. The particular avenue that was
chosen today, in my respectful view, is evidently not the one that is
going to fulfil what the hon. member wants to do.
If the hon. member for Charlesbourg wishes to pursue the matter,
then either the hon. member or the Leader of the Opposition or any
member of this House can file a notice of concurrence in the
committee report. That can be done by giving a notice to the Clerk
of the House. At that point there is an avenue for hon. members to
express themselves.
But in the case of this particular statement, my decision is that
this is not the vehicle to be used for making such a statement. That
is why I have asked hon. members to respect the decision of the
Chair, knowing full well that if members want to pursue it, it can be
done by the method which I have suggested.
(1540)
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I understand your ruling on the
solemn declaration. We may disagree on how we see things, but I
accept your ruling.
However, I raised a point of order, and, unless I have
misunderstood, I have had no response to my point of order. I did,
however, very clearly insist on apologies from the member
concerned for having misled the House by intentionally spreading
falsehoods about the member for Charlesbourg. This is a point of
order and not a solemn declaration. I therefore await your ruling on
this.
[English]
The Speaker: The hon. member has asked me to rule on the
point of order. I will take his request under advisement. I will think
about it and if it is necessary I will come back to this House.
>
4032
4032
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-30, an act to amend
the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police Act, as reported (with amendments) from the
committee, and of Motions Nos. 4 and 5.
The Speaker: I believe the hon. member for Bourassa still has 7
minutes or so left. He has the floor.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, thank you
for allowing me to continue my presentation on Bill C-30
concerning members of the RCMP.
I would like to make two comments before resuming my speech.
I was stunned by the unfounded accusations made by a Reform
member against my colleague from Charlesbourg. I think that, with
such accusations, the Reform Party will never have a single
member elected in Quebec.
My second comment is this: I would like to draw members'
attention to the presence in our gallery of a distinguished citizen
from my riding of Bourassa, Victorin Bellemare, who is very
involved in the social, community and political life of Montreal
North. He is accompanied by his family.
As I said, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled in the Gingras case
that RCMP members were also members of the Canadian public
service and, as such, had rights like the right to organize, to form a
union and to negotiate collective agreements.
They do not claim they have the right to strike, as these police
officers provide essential services. If the employer and the
employees' union cannot agree on working conditions, the police
officers would rather resort to arbitration than go on strike.
But they still have legitimate rights. They have rights in terms of
occupational health and safety and, like all other public service
employees, they sometimes fall victim to work accidents or
occupational diseases. Stress, for example, is a very prevalent
problem among police officers, who must sometimes work in
difficult and dangerous conditions. They should at least enjoy the
full protection of all occupational health and safety laws.
I think that, instead of depriving employees like those of the
RCMP of their vested rights, the government should set an example
for the provinces in the area of labour relations.
(1545)
It is a disgrace, for instance, that the federal minimum wage is
lower that the provincial rates. It is unacceptable that the federal
occupational safety and health legislation is not on a par with
provincial legislation like Quebec's. Government should be an
example to the private sector, and this is certainly not the case at
present. Instead, the government is attacking vested rights of
workers, in this particular case the rights of RCMP workers.
Take this other important right: the right to precautionary
cessation of work for pregnant workers. This is not a right that
federal public service employees enjoy, while it is already provided
for in Quebec's legislation respecting occupational health and
safety. A pregnant employee who works in conditions hazardous to
herself or to her unborn child should be either reassigned or
allowed to go on leave for the remainder of her pregnancy.
So far, the federal government has refused to bring down
anti-strikebreaking legislation. Quebec and British Columbia both
have such legislation. Ontario's legislation was just repealed, but
the fact remains that this kind of legislation improves labour
relations and helps create a social climate conducive to economic
development.
I find that democracy has progressed in our society, but not in the
workplace, in businesses and in corporations, where labour
relations in certain areas are still dictated in an authoritarian way,
as in the case of the RCMP. The commissioner of the RCMP has
unlimited rights, while the members of this police force have very
limited rights.
This government has not done very much to improve the
working conditions and life of workers in Canada and in Quebec.
On the contrary, when faced with a legitimate strike of rail workers,
it thought it wise to bring in back-to-work legislation in this sector,
instead of allowing collective bargaining to operate.
The Liberals' labour relations record is very poor. They have
demonstrated a favourable bias for big business, but have not
shown much concern for the average worker. Instead of helping
workers, there are ministers, including the Minister of Human
Resources Development, who attack the Canadian Labour
Congress and who have made disparaging remarks about its
president, Robert White, as well as myself, but for different
reasons.
This government claims to occupy the centre, but we can see that
it is moving with ever increasing speed to the right, the former
Liberal or neo-Conservative right, and that it has done nothing for
the working class as a whole, for the workers of Canada and of
Quebec.
Last Saturday, a women's march ended its journey here in
Ottawa. These women had very legitimate concerns. For example,
they were calling for a job creation program designed specifically
for women. They were also calling for increases in the minimum
wage, day care funding, and grants for women's shelters. All the
government comes up with is ``niet'', there is no money. That is
4033
really a shame because I think the patience of Canadians and
Quebecers is running out.
What will it take for the government to act? Does it want a
revolt? Does it want people to come and demonstrate daily in order
to be granted their legitimate rights, rights which are recognized in
other democracies, particularly in Europe? Here, they are
destroying the social safety net, eliminating social programs.
Where is Canadian society headed with this Liberal government?
(1550)
My time is nearly up and I will conclude by saying that I am very
vigorously opposed to Bill C-30.
[English]
Colleagues, I am asking to resume debate. I just want to make
sure we understand clearly that we are on report stage of Bill C-30.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have only a few quick words to say in relation to the second group
of amendments that have been brought forward by members
opposite. In order to bring forth amendments, a number of factors
need to be considered.
First, the amendments must be consistent with other
amendments that are brought forward and consistent with
provisions already in the statute which is sought to be amended by
the provisions that are brought forward. In this case the
amendments certainly do not assist in that regard. Therefore they
ought not to be brought forward because they do not assist with the
internal consistency of the act.
Second, the changes that are brought forward need to be
consistent with other statutes and laws. Again, this test is also not
met. The amendments that are being brought forward conflict with
other pieces of legislation. This is the case when amendments are
brought forward in a willy-nilly fashion. They are not fully
researched and the implications of each of the amendments are not
thought out so that we get consistency with other pieces of
legislation.
In addition, some of the amendments are also proposing some
type of governance changes. They are being brought forward
without any type of consultation that would need to be had to make
these types of statements.
In any event, I will say that because of these factors, the
government will not be supporting the amendments. With respect
to the comments made in relation to this bill, these are merely
technical amendments to ensure the maintenance of the status quo
after court or tribunal decisions have maybe cast some doubt upon
the governance. It is simply to maintain the status quo at this time.
These things have been vastly overstated.
The government will not be supporting any of these motions.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question is on Group
No. 2.
(1555)
[Translation]
The division is on Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House
to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The recorded division on the
motion stands deferred.
[English]
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
divisions at the report stage of the bill.
Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The vote will take place at
5.30 this evening.
* * *
Hon. Martin Cauchon (for the Minister of Justice, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-42, an act to amend the Judges Act and to make
consequential amendments to another act, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to address the House on Bill C-42, an act
to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to
another act.
4034
Hon. members are aware that crimes of indescribable brutality
have been perpetrated on tens of thousands of people in the former
Yugoslavia and Rwanda. A Canadian judge, Madam Justice Louise
Arbour of the Ontario Court of Appeal has been requested by the
Secretary-General of the United Nations to serve as chief
prosecutor of the UN International Commission on War Crimes for
the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
The appointment of Madam Justice Arbour to this very
important and prestigious international position is without doubt a
great honour to Canada. A necessary condition imposed by the
United Nations for Madam Justice Arbour to take up this
appointment is that her salary and expenses are to be paid by the
United Nations during the period in which she will be serving as
the chief prosecutor. This requirement relates to the UN's own
requirements for the independence of its chief prosecutor and it
would require Madam Justice Arbour to take leave without pay
from the Ontario Court of Appeal and to receive a salary from the
United Nations.
There is no provision in the Judges Act as it is currently
constituted for a federally appointed judge to be granted leave of
absence without pay to work for an international organization such
as the United Nations. Nor does the act permit the salary and
expenses of a judge during the period of leave to be paid by any
organization or entity other than the Government of Canada. The
amendments contained in Bill C-42, which have the full support of
the Canadian Judicial Council, would permit this type of
arrangement to be entered into by Madam Justice Arbour, and
should another appropriate occasion arise, by other Canadian
judges.
This bill makes other minor amendments. The bill transfers from
cabinet to chief justices the authority to approve judicial leaves of
absence of up to six months. This recommendation was made by
the 1992 Triennial Commission on Judges' Salaries and Benefits
and is endorsed by the Canadian Judicial Council. It allows a judge
to request maternity or parental leave without having to seek
cabinet approval.
(1600 )
Bill C-42 also recognizes the importance of the Court Martial
Appeal Court of Canada by including the chief justice of that court
on the membership of the Canadian Judicial Council. The
requirements of the chief justice of the Court Martial Appeal Court
arising out of the representational duties and functions that are
inherent to that officer are also reflected in the bill which
authorizes the payment of a modest representational allowance of
up to $5,000 per year to the head of that court. The chief justices of
the Courts of Appeal of the Yukon and Northwest Territories are
being granted similar representational allowances.
Bill C-42 would also permit the appointment of up to three
judges Canada wide to the provincial courts of appeal which have
been experiencing increasing workloads and backlogs over the past
number of years.
Finally, the bill corrects some technical errors and clarifies some
ambiguous language in the Judges Act.
Bill C-42 is a modest legislative measure but at the same time a
significant one because it will permit a Canadian judge to respond
to a request by the Secretary-General of the United Nations to take
on an international assignment of the utmost importance to the
world at large.
I would respectfully urge all hon. members to approve the quick
passage of amendments to the Judges Act.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Judges Act we are being urged to amend through Bill C-42 is based
on sections 96 and 100 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which
provided that the Canadian Parliament could create a general court
of appeal for Canada, as well as appoint and pay superior court
judges in every province.
This law sets out the working conditions applying to the judges
of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court, the Tax Court
of Canada, the appeal courts and the superior courts in each of the
provinces. This law is like a collective agreement for federally
appointed judges. It also establishes the Canadian Judicial Council,
whose mandate is to make superior jurisdictions and the Canadian
tax commission work better.
Through this law, the legislative power exerts obvious control
over the judiciary. It is the legislative power that decides how much
judges should be paid, what pension and other benefits they should
receive, how much leave they can take, and what activities they can
participate in.
We are being called on today to review some of the working
conditions of federally appointed judges.
Of course, this does not give the government any right to
interfere in the judicial process as it has recently, unfortunately, by
threatening the Chief Justice of the Federal Court himself to take
away all files relating to war criminals and handing them over to
the Supreme Court of Canada if the proceedings were not
conducted more expeditiously.
Judges appointed by the federal government must be able to
perform their duties as their conscience dictates. In order to be
independent, they need working relations where the executive
branch does not have them over the barrel.
Let us take a look at the main amendments. The existing
legislation allows the provinces to create seven positions as judges
in addition to the number prescribed by law for each province as
well as for the Yukon and the territories. The proposed change to
the applicable provision would introduce a degree of flexibility by
giving the provinces the power to appoint more judges.
The purpose of the bill is to increase the number of additional
judges from seven to ten. The provinces will be able to avail
themselves of this provision as required. It seems reasonable to us,
4035
given that how fast cases go to trial and how much work each judge
has to do is dependent on the number of judges.
Several amendments are simply designed to clarify the wording
of certain sections without changing the scope of the legislation.
Let me give you an example. Subsection 27(2) of the existing
legislation states that each judge of the Yukon Territory and of the
Northwest Territories ``who is in receipt of a salary under section
22'' shall be paid an allowance, while in the amendment, reference
is made to the act instead of to section 22 specifically.
(1605)
This amendment was necessary because additional judges are
not paid under section 22, but under sections 28 and 29. As you can
see, we are really talking about technical details. However, it was
clearly not the legislator's intention to deprive additional judges of
this isolation allowance.
A new paragraph provides that, from now on, only a leave of
absence of more than six months will require the approval of the
governor in council. Currently, a leave of absence of more than one
month requires the authorization of the government. This provision
gives more independence to the courts vis-à-vis the executive
power.
In light of the fact that an assistant deputy minister recently
interfered with the judicial process by contacting the Chief Justice
of the Federal Court, we understand the need to ensure greater
administrative autonomy to the judiciary. We must make sure
judges do not have to beg as regards their working conditions, so
that they do not feel at the mercy of the executive. We support this
measure.
The most innovative provision in this bill is undoubtedly the
possibility for judges to now participate, with the authorization of
the government, in international activities.
Until now, judges had to devote themselves exclusively to their
judicial duties. Indeed, section 56 of the Judges Act provides that:
``No judge shall, either directly or indirectly, for himself or others,
engage in any occupation or business other than his judicial duties,
but every judge shall devote himself exclusively to those judicial
duties''.
There exists, furthermore, a tradition requiring judges to avoid
involvement in situations that could oblige them to take a stand in
public.
It is therefore a departure from our legal tradition to allow judges
to take part in international activities. They should, however,
obtain prior approval for leave of absence without pay, but they
may receive remuneration from an international organization.
We believe that this new avenue will be of benefit to the
international community. It will give Canada an opportunity to
share its savoir-faire, to demonstrate its abilities to an international
audience, without detracting from the impartiality of our courts.
For judges, this bill increases the possibility of an international
career in the context of international co-operation projects, and in
the creation and operation of international tribunals. Justice is
called upon to cross borders. Many crimes cannot be effectively
combatted except through international bodies and co-operation
between countries.
If our judges cannot participate in projects involving more than
one country, Canada may find itself left out of certain debates, in
particular those affecting the development of international law and
the creation of international law tribunals. It is also an opportunity
for our judges to acquire in other countries knowledge and abilities
that could enrich our own institutions.
We are in favour of this bill primarily because it will increase the
independence of judges and their exposure to the international
context.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to speak in support of Bill C-42 which amends the Judges Act.
Bill C-42 sets out the terms on which Canadian judges can
participate in international activities, international technical
assistance programs and/or the work of international organizations.
Although the bill does not specifically say so, it would appear
that these amendments to the Judges Act are to assist Madam
Justice Louise Arbour. Madam Justice Louise Arbour is to take up
her appointment to the United Nations team prosecuting war
crimes in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda.
Chief justices are granted the authority to extend leaves of
absence to their judges for periods of up to six months. In situations
such as Judge Arbour's, the governor in council's approval is
necessary as her appointment will be for longer than six months.
Bill C-42 will simply ensure that Madam Justice Arbour, and
similar appointments for longer than six months, will not require
governor in council approval.
(1610 )
The Judges Act does not clearly stipulate who is responsible for
the remuneration of UN appointed judges. Bill C-42 does clearly
designate the UN as the payer of Judge Arbour's salary and
similarly appointed judges' salaries during the time of their UN
appointments.
I am confident most Canadians would agree that it should be the
responsibility of the UN to pay such salaries. Canadians, in my
opinion, would be agreeable to providing legal expertise to the UN
but not additional financial support. Therefore they would be
4036
opposed to paying the moving expenses and other reasonable travel
expenses of UN appointed judges as outlined in Bill C-42.
The UN or other international bodies which second Canadian
justices should be fully responsible for all moving and travel costs
associated with the appointment. We will be introducing an
amendment during report stage of Bill C-42 in this regard.
On March 6 of this year the Liberal government amended the
Judges Act through Bill C-2. Madam Justice Arbour's appointment
by the United Nations occurred in February 1996. Bill C-2 was
introduced and passed therefore subsequent to Arbour's
appointment. I question why the government did not incorporate
the Bill C-42 changes into Bill C-2. Another bill, Bill C-48, is soon
to be before the House and proposes additional changes to the
Judges Act.
Bills C-2, C-42 and C-48 may streamline administrative matters
pertaining to judges, alleviating some judges' preoccupation with
bureaucratic concerns and allowing them to get on with the real
task at hand: ensuring that justice is served; ensuring that convicted
criminals serve time which is proportionate to the severity of their
crimes. These bills, really nebulous and inconsequential pieces of
legislation, will be of little real significance to Canadians.
Canadians do not really applaud the minister's initiatives in this
regard. Canadians' primary concerns are not with these
administrative justice matters. What Canadians really care about is
their personal security and that of their families. These
administrative changes we are spending our time debating today
will do nothing to protect Canadians from the murderers, rapists
and other sadistic criminals who roam our streets and enter our
homes.
Canadians want substantive change within the justice system.
They want pieces of legislation that do something to enhance
public safety. They want a bill which repeals section 745 of the
Criminal Code, not legislation which merely tinkers with that
betraying section of the Criminal Code which allows convicted
first degree murderers the opportunity for early release.
Canadians want first degree murderers' right to a parole
eligibility hearing after serving only 15 years of their 25 year
sentence to be completely abolished. Canadians do not want the
minister giving killers even a faint glimmer of hope. They want
killers behind bars and they want them there for at least 25 years,
not 15 years, not 20 years. Canadians overwhelmingly want
murderers behind bars for the full length of their life sentence.
Canadians also want dangerous offender legislation brought in
by the Minister of Justice and they want the minister to end
statutory release. The minister has promised to bring in an omnibus
bill which would encompass these two initiatives, an initiative
which would significantly enhance public safety. We have yet to
see such a bill. Instead we have these three insignificant
administrative bills.
The Liberal government's failure to make our homes and streets
safer is evident in its lenient justice legislation which has done
more to threaten public safety than it has to enhance it. Bill C-37,
amendments to the Young Offenders Act, is a prime example of
this failure. The government failed to amend the act in accordance
with Canadians' frustration with youth violence and frustration
with Liberal justice leniency.
Reform believes the age limits covered by the YOA should be
changed. We recommend lowering the YOA age definition of a
young person to 10 to 15 years of age from 12 to 17. This is in
recognition of the fact that there are offenders under 12 years of age
who currently slip through the system and go on to be full-fledged
youth criminals because the justice system cannot deal with them.
This was very evident a few weeks ago in Toronto. An 11-year old
boy with accomplices aged 10, 13 and 15 abducted and raped a
13-year old girl. This young offender was well known to the police
who had on more than one occasion picked him up. This well
known juvenile criminal taunted police with the fact that they could
not charge him.
(1615)
The Liberals believe that 10 and 11-year-olds should not be held
accountable for their criminal actions. If the Liberal government
had heeded our well-founded advice and amended the YOA under
Bill C-37 to include 10 and 11-year-olds, there may well have been
one less rape victim in the city of Toronto. One more young person
may not have been so brutally traumatized.
Our amendment to the YOA to include 10 and 11-year-olds is
supported by the Canadian Police Association and Victims of
Violence.
The Liberal government does not believe that 16 and
17-year-olds are mature enough to accept full responsibility for
their criminal actions. We believe that youths aged 16 and 17 are
old enough to assume full responsibility for their crimes and
therefore in all cases of violent crime they should be tried in adult
court.
The reverse onus provisions contained in Bill C-37 place the
onus on the young offender to demonstrate why he or she should
not be tried in adult court. The court will have the discretion to
accept or reject the application, all at a tremendous cost financially
and resource-wise to the Canadian taxpayer.
Even if the 16 or 17-year old is tried in adult court, they will not
receive an adult sentence. Anyone under the age of 18 convicted of
first degree murder and sentenced to life can be paroled in between
five and ten years. Anyone under the age of 18 convicted of second
degree murder and sentenced to life can be paroled after only a
maximum of seven years.
4037
This Liberal government, which professes to be making our
streets and homes safer and to be improving our justice system,
is responsible for the reduction in the parole eligibility of second
degree murderers under the age of 18 from a maximum of 10 to
only 7 years.
The Liberals believe that the publishing of young offenders'
names must be prevented by law. Their priority is the protection of
the offender. Reformers believe that the only way to truly make our
streets safer is by removing the extra privacy and secrecy
provisions of the YOA. YOA records should be accessible and the
names of violent young offenders should be published. Our priority
is the protection of society, not the protection of criminals.
The Liberal government has continually placed the rights of the
offender ahead of the rights of the victim. Under Bill C-37 it
continues to emphasize rehabilitation, not victim compensation.
We believe that the sentencing of young offenders must
emphasize victim compensation, community service, skills
training, education and deterrence to others. Opportunities for
rehabilitation must be emphasized in a disciplined environment.
We believe that parents of young offenders should be held
legally and financially responsible for the criminal actions of their
children if evidence clearly shows that they have not made a
reasonable effort to exercise parental control. Despite
overwhelming support for this amendment to the YOA, the Liberal
government maintains Canadian parents should not be held
responsible.
Bill C-41 is another example of the government's failure to make
our streets and homes safer. In Bill C-41 the Liberal government
introduced alternative measures, which is its answer to the
overcrowding in Canadian prisons. Although in some cases
alternatives to prison may be acceptable, we are opposed to the
system outlined in Bill C-41, as is the Canadian Police Association,
because it does not stipulate what offences are to be part of the
alternative measures program.
Nowhere in the bill did the Liberal government define
alternative measures, nor did it stipulate the limitations to be
imposed on the use of alternative measures. This leaves far too
much discretion to the courts to interpret what is meant by this
portion of Bill C-41. This could lead to an abusive use of
alternatives to prison, particularly in areas of the country where
prisons are overcrowded or there are backlogs in the courts.
Potentially, violent offenders could walk. Does this provide safer
communities and safer streets? I do not think so.
(1620 )
Bill C-45 is another example of Liberal leniency. Under this bill
the Liberal government, despite our strong opposition, chose to
continue allowing violent offenders back on the streets before
serving their full sentences. We propose that all violent criminals
must receive full term sentences. Statutory release, conditional
release or parole must not be given to violent offenders.
We also proposed that offenders who commit another offence
while on parole must serve the remaining time of the original
sentence and then full term for the second offence. The Liberals
defeated our amendment. The government defeated a safer
measure despite its claim it is making our streets and homes safer.
We also proposed that when the parole board grants parole to
violent offenders and that offender commits another violent crime
while on parole, an inquiry be held into the original decision of the
board to release the offender. The Liberals defeated our
amendment. The Liberal government defeated a proposal aimed
solely at protecting the Canadian public.
The justice legislation introduced by the Liberal government
today clearly demonstrates that it has broken its promise to make
our streets and homes safer. What further demonstrates this broken
promise is the absence of legislation. The government, despite
demands from all across Canada, including the police and victims
of violence, has failed to repeal section 745. The Liberal
government has also failed to bring in dangerous offender
legislation. The evidence is clear that the Liberal government has
failed to make Canadian streets and homes safe.
We support Bill C-42 but we do not support the Liberal
government's preoccupation with accommodating the growing
justice industry while failing to more vigorously protect innocent
victims and law-abiding Canadians.
Mr. Kirkby: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if
we could have unanimous consent to take all steps necessary to
have this bill passed in all stages today.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
request for unanimous consent to proceed with all stages of this
legislation. Does the House give its consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
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?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by unanimous
consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Kilger in the
chair.)
4038
(1625 )
The Deputy Chairman: Order. House in committee of the
whole on Bill C-42, an act to amend the Judges Act and to make
consequential amendments to another act.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
a question on clause 1 and, in fact, on the entire bill, as I do not
want to go back to every paragraph to ask the same question.
What I would like to know is the total cost of this bill. Could the
government tell us how much more will have to be spent on judges
as a result of this bill?
[English]
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, a
number of provisions will add cost. First, in clause 1 three judges
are being added to the judges pool for the courts of appeal for the
provinces, two to fill B.C. court of appeal vacancies. The amount
of that expense will be $200,000 per year per judge effective when
the judges are appointed.
With respect to the vacancy to be filled on the Ontario court of
appeal there will be no immediate cost there until after the return of
Madam Justice Arbour.
There are a number of other provisions. The chief justices of the
Yukon and the Northwest Territories courts of appeal now will be
entitled to representational allowances. These two individuals will
receive $5,000 a year each. In addition, the chief justices of the
courts of appeal and the court martial appeal court are to receive a
$5,000 allowance.
An error was discovered in the legislation which at one time did
not allow judges in certain instances to get their expenses. This has
been cleaned up, but that will not be an additional cost to the
government.
I think that is the bulk of the expense with respect to this
legislation.
The Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 1 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Clause agreed to.)
(Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to.)
On Clause 5:
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, as
I mentioned in my intervention on this bill, there is some concern
that the bill does not clarify that the international bodies seconding
our judges will be fully responsible for all reasonable moving and
travel costs associated with the appointments.
Therefore, to ensure that international bodies will be responsible
for these costs, I would like to propose an amendment to clause 5. I
move:
That Bill C-42 in clause 5 be amended by replacing lines 20 and 21 on page 4
with the following: ``reasonable travel and other expenses from an
international''
(1630)
The Deputy Chairman: Before I give the floor to the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, I am of the view
that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Calgary
North is in order. I ask the parliamentary secretary to make his
remarks and intervention respecting the amendment.
Let me just verify a point with the Table once more. I should like
to hear what the hon. parliamentary secretary might add to the
debate.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Chairman,
with respect to the amendment being proposed by the hon. member,
clause 5 contains within it sufficient authorization for the judge to
receive payment for the reasonable expenses which are the subject
of her motion.
In my view the amendment is redundant. In addition, however, it
was my understanding that all parties had agreed that we would
take all necessary steps to pass the legislation today without
amendment. In any event, the provision the hon. member seeks to
bring forward is covered by the legislation.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Chairman, it would appear that the lines to
be replaced in the amendment are lines 15 and 16 on page 4. I will
give a copy to the hon. parliamentary secretary. I apologize to him.
I did not anticipate that we would be dealing with it right now, but I
will make sure he sees a copy of it.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like someone to tell me in French where to find it, because I
must admit that, as far as understanding is concerned, it was a bit
confusing over here.
(1635)
[English]
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Chairman, I have now had an opportunity
to discuss the amendment with the hon. parliamentary secretary
and with legal counsel. I am satisfied the intent of my amendment
is covered by the legislation and I am prepared to withdraw my
amendment.
The Deputy Chairman: So done.
(Amendment withdrawn.)
[Translation]
(Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.)
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 7 carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
4039
(Clause 7 agreed to.)
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 8 carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 8 agreed to.)
[English]
(Title agreed to.)
(Bill reported.)
[Translation]
Hon. Martin Cauchon (for the Minister of Justice and
Attorney General of Canada) moved that Bill C-42, an act to
amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to
another act, be concurred in at the report stage.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): When shall the bill be read a
third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Cauchon (for the Minister of Justice) moved that the bill
be read the third time and passed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
Hon. Martin Cauchon (for the Minister of Justice, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-48, an act to amend the Federal Court Act, the
Judges Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
address the House today on Bill C-48, an act to amend the Federal
Court Act, the Judges Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act.
Under the Judges Act, judges of provincial superior courts and
appellate courts may be appointed from applicants who have at
least 10 years at the bar or as provincial court judges. However
under the Federal Court Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act
eligibility for appointment to each of these two courts is limited to
persons who have 10 years at the bar or who are already federally
appointed judges.
(1640)
Since the time served as a provincially appointed judge does not
count toward eligibility for appointment to the federal court or the
tax court as it does for appointments to the provincial, superior and
appellate courts, this historic anomaly effectively disqualifies from
appointment to these two courts any provincial court judge
notwithstanding his or her extremely high qualifications who had
practised law for less than 10 years prior to his or her appointment
to the provincial court.
There is no legal or policy reason for so limiting the
appointments to the federal court or the tax court in this way.
Furthermore, in all three acts time spent as a provincially or
federally appointed judicial officer such as a master or superior
court registrar during which the applicant's membership in the bar
may have been in abeyance also does not count toward the 10-year
eligibility requirement for the appointment to the provincial,
superior and appellate courts, the federal court and the tax court.
Bill C-48 would amend all three acts to make the appointment
eligibility requirements consistent. Once these amendments are in
effect, time spent either as a lawyer, a provincially or federally
appointed judicial officer or a provincially or federally appointed
judge would count toward the 10 years at the bar requirement for
appointment to any federally appointed court, with the exception of
the Supreme Court of Canada.
For the supreme court it would continue to be the case that only
lawyers of 10 years standing or provincial superior court judges
would be eligible for appointment.
The amendments to the Federal Court Act and the Tax Court of
Canada Act are being given retrospective effect so as to place the
validity of the appointment of a judge appointed in 1990 and
another appointed in 1995 beyond any possible doubt regardless of
how one interprets the provincial laws governing the status of those
judges continuing membership in the bar while they were
provincial judges.
That is all Bill C-48 does. It is a very simple bill with a very
limited technical objective. I urge all hon. members to pursue quick
passage.
I ask at this time for unanimous consent for the House to take all
necessary steps to pass and adopt the bill expeditiously today.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The parliamentary secretary
has asked for unanimous consent of the House to move the
legislation forward today at all stages.
Is there unanimous consent?
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Mr. Speaker, I wish to confirm that we will in fact
be giving our support, because we already indicated it to the
parliamentary secretary earlier. We are therefore keeping our
promise.
4040
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I still have to ask the House
in its entirety. Would the hon. member for Calgary North care to
comment, or can I simply ask if there is unanimous consent to
proceed at all stages?
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, we oppose the bill. However we
do not oppose the process of passing it through all stages today.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House giving its
unanimous consent to proceed at all stages?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, quite
honestly, as for having a great debate on a piece of legislation that
simply changes the number of years a judge must sit before being
eligible for the federal court or the tax court of Canada, I really
could not bring myself to make Parliament or our electors foot the
bill for such a thing.
However, I will say that I would like to add a really minor
amendment, but only we study the bill in the committee of the
whole.
(1645 )
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
are discussing Bill C-48, an act to amend the Federal Court Act, the
Judges Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act. This is the third piece
of legislation brought before the House since February of this year
dealing with amendments to the Judges Act. I have to question why
the government is making all of these piecemeal changes instead of
bringing in one bill to satisfy all the administrative and technical
changes it feels are necessary.
This bill has been brought in specifically to correct a situation
where the justice minister appointed a provincial court judge from
British Columbia to the Federal Court. On November 29, 1995 the
justice minister appointed Douglas Campbell of the provincial
court, criminal division, in Vancouver to the Federal Court of
Canada. The legislation at the time permitted any judge of a
superior county or district court to be appointed to the Federal
Court, but Judge Campbell was a judge of the provincial court. We
are therefore debating a technical amendment to the Federal Court
Act to deal with this oversight.
It is a technical amendment, since the current legislation also
includes provisions that a barrister or advocate who has been at the
bar of a province for at least 10 years is also eligible for an
appointment. Therefore, while Judge Campbell was not from the
proper judge pool, he did in fact have the necessary years of
experience to qualify.
At the Reform Party's national assembly, which was held in
Vancouver two weekends ago, the delegates voted 75 per cent in
favour of the following resolution:
Resolve that the Reform Party supports dissolving the current system of
appointing federal judges and replacing it with a democratic and accountable
method.
We feel that political patronage in the appointment of judges has
been an albatross around the necks of Canadians for years and that
it has to stop. Only with a more transparent appointment process
can Canadians be satisfied that the integrity of our justice system is
protected.
For the reasons I have mentioned, the Reform Party will not be
supporting Bill C-48. We believe it is time to de-politicize the
appointment process in putting men and women on the benches of
the courts of our land. This cannot be achieved until the process is
open and accountable.
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?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by unanimous
consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Kilger in the
chair.)
The Deputy Chairman: Order. House in committee of the
whole on Bill C-48, an act to amend the Federal Court Act, the
Judges Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act.
(1650)
[Translation]
Shall clause 1 carry?
on clause 1.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as I
have just said, I did not speak on this, I did not take the time
allocated to me because I simply wanted have the time to propose
an amendment.
Bill C-48 has our agreement in principle, we agree that certain
technical details do, of course, have to be modified, but if changes
are going to be made, I feel it would be worthwhile to add my
amendment. I shall speak of it now and provide you with the
written copy immediately afterwards.
I move:
That clause 1, page 1, line 18, be amended by the addition of the following
paragraph:
``(d) is or has been a notary of at least ten years standing as a member of the
Chambre des notaires du Québec.''
4041
This would simply make notaries eligible to become Federal
Court judges, which I feel would be a matter of equity. This is
something the Quebec notaries have long been calling for, and our
having a Civil Code and not the Common Law is no reason we
ought not to have the right to have judges from the Chambre des
notaires. That is the reason I am proposing this amendment.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: Colleagues, on a prima facie basis it
would appear that this amendment is in order. I would ask the hon.
parliamentary secretary who is seeking the floor for his comments.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I
would suggest that the proposed amendment is out of order.
Section 98 of the Constitution requires that judges of the courts
of Quebec be selected from the bar of the province. Notaries are not
members of the bar of the province. Therefore it would not be
possible to put forward such an amendment.
(1655)
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Mr. Speaker, in response to what the hon.
parliamentary secretary just said, perhaps I should point out that
the charter of rights and freedoms certainly does not encourage
discriminating against notaries to favour lawyers.
I think that, if the idea is to make this a constitutional or charter
issue, it is up to the hon. members to decide whether they want to
do so.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: The hon. parliamentary secretary.
Mr. Kirkby: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the indulgence of the
Chair to consult.
The Deputy Chairman: If there are no other discussions, I am
prepared to rule on the amendment by the hon. member for
Saint-Hubert. I thank both her and the parliamentary secretary for
their interventions.
I would submit to the committee that the arguments, while they
were of a legal and constitutional nature, my ruling is based on
procedural matters and that in fact the amendment is in order. It
does not go beyond the scope of the bill and it does not add any
charge. Therefore, the amendment is acceptable and I will accept
debate on the amendment.
[Translation]
I am sorry, but I cannot recognize the hon. member on debate, as
she is he one who introduced the amendment.
[English]
Mr. Kirkby: Mr. Chairman, I will make my point with respect to
the amendment very quickly. The government will not be
supporting the amendment. As I indicated before, the amendment
is, in the government's view, unconstitutional.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, it
seems, in looking at the merits of this amendment, that it does fly
in the face of section 98 of the Constitution. Also, if the argument
is that notaries are being discriminated against because they cannot
be elevated to the bar, it seems one could make the same argument
that engineers, nurses or housekeepers are being discriminated
against because they cannot be named to the bench. This seems to
be carrying discrimination to rather far-fetched extremes.
In view of the clear wording of section 98, I believe it would be
in order to reject this amendment.
(1700)
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I think that, in introducing this kind of amendment, the
hon. member for Saint-Hubert was trying to make it very clear that
there is currently some discrimination, and the comparison made
by the previous speaker between a nursing program and a medicine
program is not valid, since, in one case, the program does not
necessarily lead to university degree.
As for law, I think all the hon. members must realize that a
bachelor's degree is required and that future lawyers all undergo
the same training for three years. This means that, if each of us here
picked at random and visited any law faculty, whether at
l'Université de Montréal or at any other university in Quebec, we
would find future notaries attending classes alongside future
lawyers. The hon. member for Outremont should know, since he is
himself a lawyer. The core curriculum, including securities theory
and constitutional law, is the same for all three years.
I think it would be interesting if those who oppose the official
opposition's amendment told us why a person with legal training,
training identical to that of notaries except for the last year of the
bar, should be authorized to deliver judgment from the bench or to
practice law by joining the judicial branch.
I think that the hon. member for Saint-Hubert is right and I know
she is sensitive to any form of discrimination. We must fight side
by side. I think that the hon. member for Saint-Hubert is right to
say that the government would fail miserably if it had to pass the
discrimination test under the Charter, as it intends to perpetuate
discrimination by rejecting this amendment.
4042
[English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am confused by the arguments
being presented by the Bloc members opposite.
The reason I am confused about the hon. member's amendment
is that the request that is being made is for the appointment of a
judge to a tax court. Where we have to draw from the pool and the
pool has to be drawn from the pool of lawyers, constitutionally it
says that judges of the courts of Quebec shall be selected from the
bar of that province. It behoves me to understand where the Bloc
would not be siding on a rule of law that is stated in the
Constitution and a rule of law that is stated in the province of
Quebec where it says the judges of the courts of Quebec shall be
selected from the bar of that province. Notaries are not members of
the bar.
The Bloc opposition is trying to mix apples and oranges. We are
not talking about a constitutional correction. We are talking about
where the pool is being drawn from. The pool is being drawn from
the bar of the province and notaries are not members of that bar.
Why hold us to something that is law in Quebec?
The Deputy Chairman: While committee of the whole
procedures are a little different, I wonder if the member for St.
Hubert wishes to respond to the member for Hamilton West. Shall I
drop the matter? I would require unanimous consent.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Chairman: It will be a voice vote. All those in
favour of the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Chairman: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Chairman: In my opinion the nays have it.
Therefore the amendment is defeated.
(Clause 1 agreed to.)
The Deputy Chairman: Shall Clause 2 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 2 agreed to.)
The Deputy Chairman: Shall Clause 3 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 3 agreed to.)
The Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 4 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 4 agreed to.)
The Deputy Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Title agreed to.)
(1705 )
The Deputy Chairman: Shall I rise and report the bill?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Bill reported.)
Hon. Martin Cauchon (for Minister of Justice, Lib.) moved
that the bill be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): When shall the bill be read
the third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Martin Cauchon (for Minister of Justice, Lib.) moved
that the bill be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read third time and passed.)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon.
member for Verchères, the Canadian Centre for Magnetic Fusion in
Varennes.
* * *
[
English]
On the Order: Government Orders
May 30, 1996-The Minister of Transport-Second reading and reference to
the Standing Committee on Transport of Bill C-43, an act to amend the Railway
Safety Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act.
Hon. Martin Cauchon (for the Minister of Transport, Lib.)
moved:
That Bill C-43, an act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make a
consequential amendment to another act, be referred forthwith to the Standing
Committee on Transport.
4043
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise for debate on
this bill which incorporates amendments to the Railway Safety
Act. We on this side of the House believe this will be a very useful
piece of legislation and we propose that the bill be referred to the
Standing Committee on Transport before second reading.
The Railway Safety Act is a relatively new piece of legislation
which came into effect in January 1988. As is often the case with
new legislation, the act required that a statutory review of its
provisions be undertaken five years after coming into force. Such a
review was carried out in 1994. The report of the committee that
reviewed the Railway Safety Act was tabled in this House on
February 15, 1995 and the government moved very quickly with a
response which was tabled on June 8, 1995.
I am happy to say that the review found Canadian railways to
have a good safety record when compared with other modes of
transportation and when compared with other countries. On page
16 of its final report, the committee concluded that ``railways in
Canada operate safely. On the basis of numerous evaluative
measurements and comparisons with other nations and modes of
transportation, the railway mode is an extremely safe means of
moving freight and people in this country''. The committee also
indicated in its report that the ``work related safety of railways and
the manner in which their operations are carried out have clearly
shown improvement''.
(1710)
The committee looked at the statutory structure and emphasized
that the underlying principles of the Railway Safety Act remain
valid and these key principles can be summarized as: one, the
government sets the standards; two, railway companies decide how
to meet these standards; and three, government monitors for
compliance and enforces where necessary.
The changes made with the passage of the Railway Safety Act in
1988 were significant in that they marked a deviation from the old
command and control approach to railway regulation that had been
the norm until that time. I am pleased that the review committee
confirmed that this enlightened approach to regulation is very
appropriate.
The committee made a number of recommendations for
improving the railway safety regime in Canada. The amendments
before the House represent the legislative changes that are required
to implement many of those recommendations.
Let us address the consultative process. Last summer Transport
Canada carried out extensive consultations on the form of the
legislative amendments. An industry group was established with
representation from the railways, railway labour, the Canada Safety
Council and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to review
the various proposals.
I am pleased to say that the parties worked diligently and
achieved consensus. There was a high degree of unanimity on
safety matters and the various views expressed are reflected in
these particular amendments. Of course there was not complete
unanimity, but this was an excellent opportunity for all points of
view to be aired and to resolve many, many of the differences.
Our government has also discussed these amendments with
provincial representatives who made a number of suggestions.
These suggestions have been incorporated into the amendments.
The amendments to the Railway Safety Act that are being
proposed cover the majority of the recommendations put forward
by the review committee. One of the key amendments relates to the
problem of train whistling in communities. The whistle is an
important safety feature but it can be very disruptive for people
who live close to a railway line. We are probably all familiar with
some of our constituents who have approached us on this issue.
The government's proposal, which was endorsed by municipal
representatives from across the country, is as follows: Where a
municipality has passed a motion and where the location meets
Transport Canada conditions for whistling cessation, the trains
would be required to cease whistling. I believe this is a workable
solution to what has been a very difficult problem.
Railway highway crossings contribute to the greatest number of
rail related accidents, deaths and injuries. The review
recommended that Transport Canada prepare a plan aimed at
reducing the number of crossing accidents by 50 per cent within 10
years.
There are a number of items that will require additional
legislative powers and these are included in the proposed
amendments. They include measures to promote crossing closures
as well as to control the way in which key crossings are used.
A number of the more technical amendments will streamline the
regulatory process and reduce bureaucratic burden. They will
reduce government involvement in unproductive areas but will
allow government to continue to cover the essential items.
It should be noted that some of the recommendations, such as
those relating to branch line abandonment, have already been
covered through the Canada Transportation Act, Bill C-14.
A number of the recommendations, particularly those relating to
co-ordination with provinces, grade crossing improvements and
studying the effects of train whistle cessation at crossings do not
require legislation and Transport Canada is already working to find
a solution to these.
4044
The Railway Safety Act has fostered consultation between all
parties that have an interest in safety. A number of other
legislative changes will streamline the regulatory process and
provide even greater involvement of railway labour in the
development of new rules.
The review committee recommended that the statutory
framework be changed so that the railways could propose
performance standards and a comprehensive safety plan, both of
which would be approved by Transport Canada. Once again these
proposals will permit this to take place.
(1715 )
We are also taking this opportunity to revise and update railway
security provisions. Problems can arise from terrorist acts and
occurrences such as bomb threats. We do not see these as
significant threats to the railway system at present. This therefore
is the time when we should take care to ensure that we have the
right statutory underpinning should such powers be necessary in
the future.
The security provisions in the legislation have been recast using
our model, the Marine Transportation Security Act, a most recent
piece of security legislation. We hope these provisions will not be
necessary, but we are happy we will have them in place as a good
basic foundation should such measures become necessary in the
future.
Finally let us examine the broader aspects of the legislation. The
review of railway safety concluded that our railways have a good
safety record and that we have reason for confidence in the
regulatory regime. When dealing with a topic such as safety,
however, we must be diligent. We must continually be seeking
better ways to do things. We should always strive to improve our
record.
The government has taken a number of steps to revitalize
Canada's rail sector, such as the privatization of the Canadian
National last year. These initiatives will go a long way toward
strengthening Canada's transportation infrastructure and
establishing a sound base to carry our railways well into the next
century.
However and in spite of these changes the government will
continue to place emphasis on the most important aspect of all:
safety. We will continue to be diligent where safety is concerned.
The proposed changes before the House today will streamline and
improve the legislative base for railway safety in the years to come.
I therefore urge all my hon. colleagues in this place to support
the legislation and agree to refer the bill to committee.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-43, an act
to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make a consequential
amendment to another Act.
I would love to share the optimism of the parliamentary
secretary. Unfortunately, certain statistics tell me that, while this
bill seeks to correct certain significant technical flaws and while
the official opposition may help improve it during the review by
the committee, some major issues linger with regard to railway
safety in Canada.
Let me give you a few figures. In 1994, a total of 1,189 accidents
were reported to the Transportation Safety Board of Canada. That
was 17 per cent more than in 1993. There was a net increase of 8
per cent in the accident rate, which climbed to 14,4 accidents per
million of train-miles travelled.
Then there is the fact that most accidents on main lines occur at
level crossings. This suggests that improvements could be made,
and that human or technical errors are often to blame.
It is also reported that, each year, some 300 accidents involve
transporter cars. Worse still is the fact that, in 1994, 114 people
died in train accidents. These figures make us realize that the
situation is much more worrying than the government would lead
us to believe.
Some of the objectives of the bill are to: ``provide for greater
involvement by interested organizations in making rules about
railway operations; provide for the regulation of the use of train
whistles in municipalities; strengthen and clarify provisions
dealing with railway security''. No major initiatives are taken to
correct existing problems.
The government's good intention to tackle the issue should be
reflected in amendments to the bill that would give it more
substance and to face the real issues relating to railway safety.
The bill is silent on a very real problem, particularly in Quebec.
They say there are 3 to 10 times as many defects in the tracks
located in Quebec, because they are older and less well maintained,
a result of the available resources and the fact that rail has long
been considered a sort of homespun way of travel and not given the
chance to become a tool of development. Today, we are paying the
price for this.
(1720)
To add insult to injury, it has just been announced that the
Charny maintenance shop, in the riding of my colleague from
Lévis, is to be closed. The job loss is regrettable. True, 90 jobs in
such a region is not all that significant, but on top of that there is
the significant impact on safety, since now the only track
maintenance shop for the whole of eastern Canada will be located
in Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Imagine, then, that on the CN lines in Quebec there are 51
defects per 65 miles, or 100 km of track, and on the CP lines 31 for
the same 65 miles or 100 kilometres. Yet these figures are not
4045
likely to improve in future because, as well as not having
maintained the track properly, now they are moving the people with
responsibility for maintenance further away, and their territory is
being increased still further. This is tantamount to abdicating from
any responsibility for safety.
The federal government must be judged clearly by the public on
this. Yes, it is entitled to want to propose choices, to privatize
companies. It is entitled to make those choices. We are entitled to
judge the choices, or the way they were made, as the right ones or
not, but there is one thing that must not be sloughed off: the
responsibility for safety.
In this connection, Bill C-43 really contains no measures for
dealing with the situation, or for improving it to any significant
extent. A major debate needs to be held. There are, for example,
newspaper reports stating that the Transportation Safety Board of
Canada contradicts the CN on the number of accidents, yet this is
the body responsible for providing a true picture of the situation
and it is also less in conflict of interest than the companies
operating the railways.
Questions will have to be asked in committee as to why the
statistics I have just given you have not been able to be improved,
and what should be done in future to remedy the situation. We are
told that the number of railway accidents has been constantly on
the increase for the past five years. This again comes from the
Transportation Safety Board. They arrived in February 1996, when
two derailments had just occurred in the Quebec City region within
two weeks.
There is regularly talk about accidents, every month, as I
mentioned in talking about level crossings earlier, for example. So
clearly we have to look a lot deeper at the Railway Safety Act than
the government is doing. At the moment, we could say it is doing
nothing more than fulfilling its obligation to review the Act every
five years. Review does not just mean simply making technical
changes. The point of the review is to ensure that our railway
system is the best it can be. If we have in fact under-used and
under-maintained the rail systems in Quebec and Canada, we must
ensure today, with the vision we want for our system, that we take
every means possible to remedy the situation.
Railway transportation was declining 10 or 15 years ago. Today,
it is on the rise with the use of containers. Furthermore, VIA Rail
for one is trying to revitalize operations and must therefore break
the vicious circle in which rail transportation is not used because it
is inefficient and because it is inefficient less money is allocated to
its operation and maintenance. The end result is poor service that
fails to meet the needs of the people.
It will therefore be important, when this bill is being studied in
committee-because the government has decided to go directly to
committee rather than do an in-depth analysis at second
reading-to study it thoroughly. There will be experts of different
sorts, no
doubt employees who know something about such things. I think
they should enjoy a certain impunity in committee, so that we get at
the truth, can see things as they are, can propose amendments and
make relevant changes.
(1725)
This way, when the law is next reviewed, perhaps in five years,
we will be able to say results were achieved and the statistics,
instead of increasing by 17 per cent, will be stable at least. We will
have made it so that the cause of accidents will only be unexplained
human error, and not the system, poor operation or an insufficient
investment in prevention.
In conclusion, the official opposition intends to be very vigilant
and to ensure that our rail service operates totally safely for the
welfare of individuals and for an improved economy.
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I realize there is very little time before we vote. However I
think it will be quite sufficient for what I have to say today.
I listened to my colleague who just spoke. I am not in
disagreement with the basic concepts he has raised. I look forward
to the matter going to committee so that we can study it in depth.
I find it very interesting that major rail bills like the privatization
of CN Rail, a very big and very controversial bill, was not debated
in the House at second reading. Instead it was forced by the Liberal
government into committee before the debate took place.
I objected to that at the time. I objected to it after the fact. All the
rationales used by the government regarding why it should be
rushed into committee fell by the wayside.
Today we have something that does not have the impact of
something like the privatization of half of Canada's national rail
system. We find ourselves debating it in the House of Commons in
the last week of Parliament, in the dying hours. We are even using
extended hours to debate the bill.
Why is the government trying to tie up the House of Commons
and members of Parliament? House employees and staff are
working overtime, costing something in the range of $50,000 an
hour. That amount is charged to the taxpayers so that we can debate
sending legislation to a committee before Parliament rises for the
summer, and the committee the bill will go to is not meeting until
next fall.
It is a horrendous waste of the taxpayers' money. Why is the
government wasting the time of the House debating bills like this
one instead of getting on with important bills, if it has any to bring
forward? Is the government simply stalling until its absolutely
4046
unconstitutional Bill C-28 comes once again back from the Senate?
Is it just trying to find excuses to hang on until then?
There are problems with the bill that we can deal with in
committee. I will recommend to our party that we give tentative
support to the bill going to committee, at which time we will see
what concerns are brought forward by the public, the users, the rail
companies and those involved with them; what amendments are
offered both by the government and by opposition; and what is
done with them. Then we will make our final decision to support or
not support the bill when it comes back to the House and will have
a purpose for being before the House.
I hope the government will move on if it has something
substantial. If it is worth paying $50,000 an hour in taxpayers'
money to keep the House running in overtime, the government
should bring it forward. If it does not have anything it should have
the decency to say so and to adjourn the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There is every indication
there are other members who wish to participate in the debate. I am
somewhat reluctant to give the floor to someone to speak for all of
one minute.
Therefore I ask the House for unanimous consent to call it 5.30
p.m. and we will resume debate following the votes and private
members' hour. Does the House give its consent to calling it 5.30
p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
The House resumed from June 12 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-25, an act respecting regulations and other documents,
including the review, registration publication and parliamentary
scrutiny of regulations and other documents, and to make
consequential and related amendments to other acts, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5.30 p.m., the House
will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the
motion at second reading stage of Bill C-25.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 111)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bertrand
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dion
Discepola
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-140
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
4047
Cummins
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Stinson
St-Laurent
Strahl
Taylor
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -92
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bertrand
Bodnar
Brien
Caron
Dalphond-Guiral
Dingwall
Dromisky
Dumas
Fillion
Gaffney
Lalonde
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Pettigrew
Walker
(1800 )
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I think you would
find unanimous consent that the House now proceed with the other
bills which have been deferred and that we deal with the two
private members ballot items, M-166 and M-116, after we
terminate voting on the government bills.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House will now proceed
to the taking of the deferred recorded division at second reading of
Bill C-45.
The House resumed from June 17 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-45, an act to amend the Criminal Code (judicial review
of parole ineligibility) and another act, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous
consent to record the members who have voted on the previous
motion as having voted on the motion now before the House, with
Liberal members voting yea.
Mr. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, on this bill I want to be recorded as
voting against.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, on this bill I also wish to be recorded
as voting against.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois
will be voting in favour of this bill.
[English]
Mr.
Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will be voting
no, unless instructed by their constituents to do otherwise.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats present this
evening will vote yes on this matter.
Mr. Peric: Mr. Speaker, I wish to be recorded as voting against
this bill.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 112)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Althouse
Anderson
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dion
Discepola
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Québec)
4048
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Allmand
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Peric
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -46
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bertrand
Bodnar
Brien
Caron
Dalphond-Guiral
Dingwall
Dromisky
Dumas
Fillion
Gaffney
Lalonde
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Pettigrew
Walker
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House will now proceed
to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at
third reading of Bill C-36.
* * *
The House resumed from June 17 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-36, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Act,
the Excise Tax Act, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial
Institutions Act, the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Shipping
Act, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous
consent to apply the results of the main motion for second reading
of Bill C-25 to the motion now before the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 111.]
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House will now proceed
to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at
report stage of Bill C-30.
* * *
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-30, an act to to
amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police Act, as reported (without amendment)
from the committee; and of Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
4049
(1805 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question is on Motion
No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2 and 3.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous
consent that the members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House
except for the hon. member for Ottawa Centre who I understand
had to leave. Liberal members will be voting nay.
I believe you would find unanimous consent to apply that result
to report stage Motion No. 4 as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois
will be voting yes.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will
agree with applying, and members present will be voting no unless
instructed otherwise by their constituents.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats present this
evening will be voting yes on both motions.
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 113)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Ménard
Mercier
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Solomon
St-Laurent
Taylor
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-49
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Benoit
Bertrand
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
DeVillers
Dion
Discepola
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
4050
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-182
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bertrand
Bodnar
Brien
Caron
Dalphond-Guiral
Dingwall
Dromisky
Dumas
Fillion
Gaffney
Lalonde
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Pettigrew
Walker
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 1
defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 2 and 3 defeated.
(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was negatived on
the following division:)
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 113]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 4
defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 5.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with
Liberal members voting nay.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois
will be voting yes.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, this is a good motion. The Reform
Party members will be voting yes unless instructed by their
constituents to do otherwise.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP on this motion
vote no.
Mr. Harb: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting
with the government.
(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 114)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
St-Laurent
Strahl
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -88
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bertrand
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dion
Discepola
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
4051
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Solomon
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-144
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bertrand
Bodnar
Brien
Caron
Dalphond-Guiral
Dingwall
Dromisky
Dumas
Fillion
Gaffney
Lalonde
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Pettigrew
Walker
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 5
defeated.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for Leader of the Government in the
House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.)
moved that the bill be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to request it, I believe
you would find unanimous consent that the members who voted on
the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House, and the Liberal members will be voting yes.
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois
will be voting nay.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members will be voting
no unless instructed by their constituents to do otherwise.
(1810)
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats present this
evening will be voting no on this matter.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 111.]
(Motion agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House will now proceed
to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion No. 166.
_____________________________________________
4051
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from June 13 consideration of the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): As is the practice, the
division will be taken row by row, starting with the mover, then
proceeding with those in favour of the motion sitting on the same
side of the House as the mover. Then those in favour of the motion
sitting on the other side of the House will be called. Those opposed
to the motion will be called in the same order.
All those at my left in favour of the motion will please rise.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 115)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bakopanos
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Caccia
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crawford
Crête
Cummins
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
4052
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Duncan
Epp
Flis
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Knutson
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McGuire
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nunez
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Penson
Peric
Peterson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Regan
Rideout
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Shepherd
Silye
Simmons
Skoke
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Steckle
Stinson
St-Laurent
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Venne
Verran
Wappel
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood-128
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Baker
Barnes
Bélair
Bertrand
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Cowling
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dion
Discepola
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fontana
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Minna
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
Pagtakhan
Patry
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Sheridan
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Vanclief
Volpe
Whelan
Young
Zed-100
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bertrand
Bodnar
Brien
Caron
Dalphond-Guiral
Dingwall
Dromisky
Dumas
Fillion
Gaffney
Lalonde
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Pettigrew
Walker
(1820 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion carried.
* * *
The House resumed from June 14 consideration of the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House will now proceed
to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion M-116
standing in the name of Ms. Meredith relating to Private Members'
Business.
As is the practice, the division will be taken row by row, starting
with the mover, and then proceeding with those in favour of the
motion sitting on the same side of the House as the mover. All
those at my left in favour of the motion will please rise.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 116)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Beaumier
Benoit
Blaikie
4053
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Ianno
Jennings
Johnston
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McTeague
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Parrish
Penson
Peric
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Steckle
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -53
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dion
Discepola
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Sheridan
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
St-Laurent
Szabo
Telegdi
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-173
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bertrand
Bodnar
Brien
Caron
Dalphond-Guiral
Dingwall
Dromisky
Dumas
Fillion
Gaffney
Lalonde
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Pettigrew
Walker
(1825)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion lost.
That concludes the votes for this evening. The House will now
proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as
listed on today's Order Paper.
* * *
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.) moved that
Bill C-276, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (registration
of political parties), be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to address this issue
again. It was discussed on September 27, 1994 in a similar bill
which called for changes to the Canada Elections Act.
4054
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Canada Elections Act
to allow registration of political parties by the chief electoral
officer only when the party nominates a candidate in at least seven
provinces that have in aggregate at least 50 per cent of the
population of all the provinces and at least half of the electoral
districts in each of those provinces.
For democracy to work people have to participate. We had seven
byelections a few months ago, five in the province of Quebec, one
in Etobicoke North in metro Toronto and the other in
Newfoundland. At that time the Bloc Quebecois, who are supposed
to be the official opposition in this Parliament, declined to run
candidates in Etobicoke North and Newfoundland because its
agenda is not of national concern.
Yesterday a byelection was held in Hamilton East. The Liberal
candidate, Sheila Copps, won the riding. Again the official
opposition did not put forward a candidate. By definition official
opposition means a party waiting to form the next government if
the government in power falls so it can start a new process, a new
beginning, with its own party. But in this case the official
opposition totally ignored the fact it represents constituents and
those constituents have the right to be heard and to discuss the
issues.
On the other hand, the third party is the Reform Party with
headquarters in Calgary. Its members claim it is a national party.
Two weeks ago the Reform Party held a convention in Vancouver.
Only 15 delegates from the province of Quebec showed up. The
province of Quebec is 25 per cent of the population of Canada.
Approximately seven million Canadians live in Quebec. However,
only 15 people from Quebec went to the Reform national
convention which had about 1,500 delegates. Only 1 per cent of the
delegates at that convention were from Quebec.
An hon. member: It is a new party.
Mr. Assadourian: My colleague across the way says it is a new
party. It has been around for nine years. How long is it going to be
new? Its members sit in the House of Commons and claim they are
the national opposition, and at the same time they claim they are a
new party. There is no such thing as a new party.
I go back to the Hamilton East election. They forced the deputy
prime minister to resign and the Prime Minister called a byelection.
What happened? Five hundred thousand dollars of taxpayers'
money was spent to conform to Reform Party policies. The Reform
Party spent $45,000 to promote their candidate. What happened?
Their candidate got 2,688 votes only. If we divide 2,688 into the
$45,000 they spent, it means they spent over $15 per vote of
taxpayers' money for no reason at all.
(1835)
What happened to the Bloc Quebecois? It did not even bother
putting up a candidate.
I hope the House passes my motion. The last time the Reform
and Bloc Quebecois ganged up to defeat this bill. They did not
allow it to be votable because the leader of the Reform Party and
Lucien Bouchard are two sides of the same coin. They are both
regional parties. They both sang the same tune every day of the
week for the last almost three years. They have been dividing the
country through their regional interests and Canada as a nation
cannot benefit from in this process.
In the last election in 1993 there were 295 ridings. Thirteen
political parties participated. All of them put candidates in each
and every province, including Reform. It put candidates in all
provinces except the province of Quebec. The Natural Law Party
ran 451 candidates. Somehow Reform members do not accept the
fact that they should become a national party and that is why they
oppose my bill.
Marxist-Leninist Party put forward 51 candidates. The Bloc
Quebecois put up 75 candidates in one province, the province of
Quebec, which qualifies them to be a national party. It won 54 seats
and became the official opposition. The Reform Party complained
and asked why does the official opposition have to be separatists. It
claims to be federalist and with only one seat less than the Bloc
Quebecois so Reform members believe they should be the official
opposition.
A party has to earn the title of being official opposition or
national opposition. A party cannot be the official opposition or
national opposition in this system if it is a separatist party or if it is
a regional party.
When my bill was before the House previously I mentioned in
my speech that when I was running for the Liberal Party in Don
Valley North I saw signs in my riding which said: ``We will run the
country the way we run the campaign''. Reformers ran in the
campaign without Quebec. They ignored Quebec totally. If this is
how they are going to run the country, God save us from the
Reformers.
Mr. Epp: You don't understand what the words mean.
Mr. Assadourian: I just read the sign I had in my riding which
said: ``We are going to run the country the way we run the
campaign'' and the way they ran the campaign was without
Quebec.
In my riding of Don Valley North people had no chance to say
who is to be the official opposition. If the system is to work,
Canadians from coast to coast must be given a chance to decide
who is going to come here and in what capacity.
4055
They voted massively for the Liberal Party. We formed the
government and everybody is happy. The fact is 66 per cent of
the population are voting yes after three years of our government
policy.
Nobody in my riding, in my province and in the nine other
provinces ever had a chance to vote and say who is going to be the
official opposition. This has to be changed. All Canadians from sea
to sea have the same rights, the same obligations toward the
country and toward each other.
My motion addresses that issue. I know the Bloc Quebecois and
the Reform Party ganged up in the committee. They would not
allow this motion to be votable.
(1840 )
I hope soon after this House is dissolved with our second
election these people will come in with a low number. We will have
a decent opposition party which is a national opposition to our
government, to our party. They will change their minds and support
this bill. We have to have a democracy that works, a democracy
that flourishes and allows people to participate.
The way it is, the people in Don Valley North are being denied
the right to say who is to be the official opposition in this
Parliament.
Mr. Epp: They can elect whoever they want. They elected you.
Mr. Assadourian: They elected me to be on the government
side and they elected the hon. member to be in the opposition the
rest of his life. That is the problem. We will go into the year 2,000
and again he will be in opposition. He is going to be less than what
he is today.
The hon. member reminds me-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The House
will deal with one speaker at a time.
Mr. Assadourian: Madam Speaker, what has happened to the
Reform Party? It has come here. It has complained about our
policies. It has destroyed whatever we have tried to build here. It
says that it has to listen to the people, and what has happened? Let
us listen to the people.
There was a byelection in Hamilton. Reform got 10.1 per cent of
the votes. After three years of knocking down our policies day in
and day out, of ganging up with the Bloc Quebecois against us, if
this is the best Reformers can do with 10.1 per cent, then the best
thing that can happen to us is to keep the Reform Party and the Bloc
the way they are so we can be the government into the next century.
Let us put partisan issues aside. Let us help Canada to build a
stronger democracy. Let us allow people a chance to participate,
including the Reform Party and even the Bloc. The numbers may
be too many as far as I am concerned. Maybe five, six or ten will
do the job so there will be a presence here. Basically that is what we
should do.
Those who wish to take advantage of the system have to
participate. Every time they spend a penny in an election taxpayers
of this land finance their campaign on the first $100 or $75 of each
dollar. If that is the case then we should allow each and every
Canadian to participate no matter where they come from, which
party they belong to and whatever their origin. We should not send
them to the back of the bus when they want to participate in this
system.
I would like to share my time with my hon. colleague from
Hamilton-Wentworth.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Madam Speaker,
after hearing the hon. member for Don Valley North, I feel like
saying, as they do in criminal proceedings: I rest my case. But I
will still say what I have to say.
That a bill like this one can be introduced is not a major step
forward for democracy. Let us calmly sum it up for those who
would like to know what it is about. This bill would allow
registration of a political party in Canada only if this party
nominates candidates in at least half the ridings of seven Canadian
provinces representing 50 per cent of the population.
This is not a minimum, but a mountain. Especially since the hon.
member knows full well that the Bloc Quebecois, the official
opposition, only nominates candidates in Quebec. As a result, there
is no way we could comply with the provisions of this bill. As
everyone knows, the Bloc Quebecois' goal is to promote Quebec
sovereignty, a mandate given to us by the people of Quebec. It
would be surprising, to say the least, if there were a Bloc Quebecois
candidate in the riding of Beauséjour or Madawaska-Victoria.
Your constituents would have trouble understanding this, Madam
Speaker.
We have no extraterritorial ambitions, as the Helms-Burton law
does, and although we have many friends outside Quebec, in
particular in the francophone and Acadian communities, we
display no imperialistic tendencies.
(1845)
If this bill were passed-and I thank the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs for not making this a votable motion,
which more or less settles the fate of this bill-we would be
condemned to remain forever in opposition and, most of all, to the
status of a group of independent members. That is to say, only the
election expenses of candidates who receive 15 per cent of the vote
in their ridings would be reimbursed, so our party would not be
4056
entitled to a 22.5 per cent refund of its expenses at the national
level. This would be a major setback.
The Reform Party would also be in a precarious position, as it
first burst onto the scene with the election of the hon. member for
Beaver River to this House. All regional based parties would not
have been so lucky.
We can say one of the good things about Canadian democracy is
that it allows regional parties to emerge, parties like the Bloc
Quebecois or any regional party that may emerge to promote the
interests of one region or another of Canada.
Just the same, the chance of promoting regional interests that
comes with a political system must be recognized. It existed in the
days of the CCF, the New Democratic Party at the federal level, and
of the Progressive Conservative Party. It has always existed.
I do not think that just because an election gave the results it
gave, the 35th Parliament has wiped off the political map a former
national party-we are not going to change the law to prevent them
from trying their luck again. The democratic rules by which the
vast majority of members of this House abide must be respected.
I think that the more we value democracy, the more important we
feel it is that the rights of our minorities be respected. Because if all
democracy stands for is the rights of the majority, the majority
always wins in the end anyway. When a vote is taken by a show of
hands, the majority wins. The guarantees given to the minority are
rights that we must respect because the minority is always at a
disadvantage. That is why we have charters protecting the rights of
minorities, charters that we generally respect.
This is a bill calling for a form of intolerance, a bill designed to
make quick political hay, that completely misses the mark. I think
that the hon. member who introduced this bill will not score very
many points with this bill. For these reasons, I obviously cannot
support this bill. I did not have to tell you since we will not be
voting on the bill. But in the unlikely event a vote were taken, I
would vote no. I will also gladly refuse consent if unanimous
consent is sought to put this bill to a vote.
[English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
believers in democracy, real democracy, who have taken the time to
read through private members' Bill C-276 will have realized that
there are at least two possible ways of interpreting the intent of this
bill.
One of those interpretations would lead us to conclude that the
member who introduced the bill is motivated by a patriotic love for
Canada. Unfortunately though, it is also possible to interpret the
bill as a direct attack, inadvertently I hope, on democracy itself.
Because of the seriousness of the second possible interpretation,
I will deal only with that specific aspect of the bill in the hope that
the member who introduced it will recognize the flaw and will
agree to withdraw the bill before it goes any further.
The plain fact is that Bill C-276 has the potential to place such
unreasonable restrictions on freedom of assembly and equal rights
that many people would be tempted to describe it as irresponsible
and repressive.
Enactment of its provisions would severely curtail the formation
and growth of new parties in Canada, while the old line traditional
parties with their worn out ideologies would be protected by
legislation from the challenge of new and open discussion about
Canada's future.
This bill reminds me, sadly I will say, of a bill that was passed
unanimously by the PCs, Liberals and NDP in this House prior to
the 1993 election. That bill also attempted to protect the turf of the
old line parties at the expense of new parties by requiring the
election of 12 members to this House in order to receive official
recognition as a party.
As we all know, that arrogant attack on the principles of
democracy backfired on the perpetrators in a major way. Two of the
parties which supported that repressive bill, the PCs and the NDP,
ended up with fewer than 12 seats in this Parliament and are no
longer recognized as parties. The PCs and the NDP in effect were
hoisted on their own anti-democratic petards while the group or
groups they intended to suppress were supported by enough of the
voters of Canada that they ended up as officially recognized
parties.
(1850)
It was the voters exercising their democratic rights who
determined the fate of these parties, and it is with the voters that the
power of democracy should stay. Neither the government nor
individual members of this House should be proposing or passing
repressive legislation which interferes with the ability of the people
to meet, organize and run for office under a common party banner.
Those who think it is their prerogative to try to legislatively
influence the outcome of elections through bills like Bill C-276
should recognize that they are playing with fire and that severe
burns are most likely going to be the result. It is not the right of
members of this place to try to preserve their own futures by
restricting the organizational and voting rights of the people who
pay their salaries.
If members have read Bill C-276 they will have noticed that in
order to achieve party status the bill requires a group to nominate
candidates in at least seven provinces containing at least 50 per
cent of the population and 50 per cent of the electoral districts of
Canada. In other words, Bill C-276 makes the arrogant assumption
that there is no value to a party which has its roots in just one or two
provinces and would deny the right of voters to determine for
themselves whether a new party, regional or not, has candidates
who are capable of representing their constituents in this House.
4057
If this bill had been in effect in 1988, it would have prevented the
Reform Party of Canada from being recognized as a party. As a
direct result it would have prevented the name Reform from
appearing on the ballot. Voters would have been unable to
determine which independent candidates listed on the ballot were
actually Reform Party of Canada candidates, leaving the traditional
parties with an unfair advantage. Luckily, Bill C-276 was not in
effect at the time and the Reform Party candidates captured a large
enough percentage of the votes to achieve public and media
recognition which in turn led to further growth and further support.
At the following election in 1993, candidates were run in almost
every province and 52 Reform members were elected representing
five of these provinces. At the same time, PCs dropped to just two
members with no representation west of Quebec, and the NDP
dropped to nine members with no representation east of
Saskatchewan.
If we want to talk about regional parties, we need look no further
than the NDP and the PCs who thought they were invincible, just as
the Liberal side of the House thinks it is today. The fact is we are in
times of great political upheaval and even the smug members on
the government side of the House need to begin thinking about the
future of their party. There is no guarantee that the Liberal Party of
Canada, if it refuses to become more democratic, can survive the
enormous changes which have to take place in this federation over
the next decade or two.
The people of this country want more say in the decision making
process. They want to see truly free votes taking place in this
House on government bills. They want to see MPs representing the
will of their constituents ahead of the party line or their own
personal biases. They want governments at all levels to begin
acting as servants of the taxpayers rather than benevolent
dictatorships.
I will return for a moment to the example of the Reform Party of
Canada. There is no doubt that Bill C-276, had it been law prior to
1990, would have severely restricted the ability of the party to grow
even though the Reform Party of Canada had, and still has, policies
which are national in scope. All of the policies of the party are built
upon three major foundation blocks: fiscal responsibility; justice
and family safety; and democratic reforms which would improve
the way government functions.
These policy foundations are national in scope and always were,
but Bill C-276 could easily have prevented the party from growing
to the point where it has over 50 members in the House of
Commons and can deliver its message to voters all across Canada.
This might have suited the Liberal Party, but it would not have
been democratic. Even if the Reform Party of Canada had not
developed policies which are national in scope, what makes
politicians in Ottawa think they have the divine right to arbitrarily
decide on behalf of their voters whether or not a political party can
exist based solely on whether it is regional in nature?
(1855)
If we believe in democracy, it is the people of Canada who have
the right to decide whether they want to vote for a regional party, a
national party or simply no party at all. No member in this place
should be attempting to interfere with that freedom to choose even
if the outcome of a subsequent election is not to their liking.
Certainly there is the potential to end up with situations like the
one we have in the House today where the official opposition is a
party which makes no secret of the fact that it wants to facilitate the
separation of Quebec from Canada and has no desire to become the
Government of Canada.
If the member who sponsored this bill does not like having the
Bloc sitting as official opposition, he should work on changing the
attitudes of his colleagues on the Liberal side who collectively have
the power to correct the situation without passing restrictive bills
like the one before us today.
This bill throws the baby out with the bath water. Despite the
claims of the government member, it is not crucial that every party
in the House be a national alternative. Neither is it the business of
this House to decide whether regional parties should get the same
tax status rights as national parties.
If the members opposite truly believe in the equality of all
citizens and are not just paying lip service to the concept, then they
are obliged to retain equality of opportunity for all political parties
and their supporters whether regional or not.
If the end result of this democratic freedom leads on occasion to
a less stable political climate than we would like, it is too darn bad.
We will all have to work a little harder as MPs when these
situations occur.
The member who introduced Bill C-276 was probably well
intentioned but the bill contains restrictions on political freedom
which are inappropriate in this parliamentary process. It is my hope
that members will join me in opposing this bill.
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am very pleased to speak on Bill C-276 which calls for the
government to consider allowing the registration of a political
party only when the party nominates candidates in at least seven
provinces that have in aggregate at least 50 per cent of the
4058
population of all of the provinces and at least half of the electoral
districts in each of those seven provinces.
The hon. member for Don Valley North raises the important
issue of access to public funding by federal political parties and the
registration process which primarily governs this access. Public
funding of political parties has several important purposes, and I
would like to mention two.
First, it is seen as a means to broaden the base of party finance. A
broader financial base provides for greater financial stability which
allows a political party to mount effective campaigns including
access to the mass media. Second, it also helps to lessen a political
party's dependence on large contributors. In this way it provides for
a more level playing field for all political parties, thereby
increasing electoral democracy and ensuring meaningful freedom
of speech.
Although there is widespread agreement about the desirability of
public funding for political parties, there has been much debate on
the conditions for access to public funding. The most important of
these conditions is the registration process.
The registration of political parties was introduced in 1970. Two
key criteria for registration set out then and still in force today are
that a political party must either have had 12 MPs when Parliament
was dissolved or nominate 50 candidates by the 28th day before the
election, nomination day. If either criteria is met, the political party
gains access to public funding primarily in the form of income tax
credits, partial reimbursement of electoral expenses and access to
free broadcasting time.
(1900 )
The hon. member for Don Valley North in proposing stricter
conditions for registration may be concerned that scarce public
resources should not be spent on political parties that receive
marginal or trivial voter support. Many of us in this House agree
with this viewpoint. This is why we gave our support to private
members' Bill C-243 by the member for Edmonton Southwest. It
proposed that reimbursement of election spending for registered
political parties be tied to voter support. Currently, reimbursement
is tied to a proportion of the political party's electoral spending.
This bill is now before the Senate.
The hon. member for Don Valley North may also be concerned
about party stability in Canada and in promoting political parties
that have a broad geographical base. This also is a laudable
objective. However, I would not like to see this bill being
interpreted as erecting barriers to new and emerging political
parties, many of which may be regionally based.
In balancing the need for fiscal restraint and encouraging the
promotion of national parties, we must not lose sight of the need to
enhance access to the political system. There must be a balance
between these often conflicting objectives.
It is worthwhile to point out that any reforms we consider should
be assessed against the rights of individuals and groups to associate
and speak freely. Major restrictions to these rights as represented in
this bill would likely be challenged under the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms. We must fine tune our reforms to ensure that
the electoral rights of all Canadians are not restricted.
We should not forget the past work of the Royal Commission on
Electoral Reform and Party Financing, the Lortie commission, and
the all-party special House committee on electoral reform that
studied the Lortie report in 1992 and 1993. It may be instructive to
note that the Lortie report after undertaking an in depth study of the
registration process concluded that the 50 candidate threshold
should remain unchanged.
The commission noted that a political party, which nominates
candidates in 50 constituencies would demonstrate serious intent to
engage in the rigours of electoral competition at a level that
indicates relatively broad appeal for its programs and ideas.
Moreover, experience since 1974 shows that this level is neither
unduly onerous nor lenient for registration. The report goes on to
say that this threshold should continue to serve as a benchmark in
determining which parties may be registered under the Canada
Elections Act.
The all-party special committee agreed with the Lortie
commission in this respect. However, time did not allow
consideration of some of the Lortie commission's other
recommendations on registration.
For example, the commission also recommended that a political
party qualify for registration between elections following
submission of a valid application that would include the declared
support of 5,000 voters who are members in good standing of the
party. This and other recommendations were to be considered at a
future full scale review of the electoral legislation.
More recently, the chief electoral officer, in his annex to the 35th
general election released in February 1996, stated his conclusion
that the current provisions of the act should continue to remain
unchanged. In his view, the 50 candidate threshold still provides a
good balance allowing a good proportion of new parties to enter the
system while excluding from the system parties that have declined.
The chief electoral officer based his conclusion in part on the
work of F. Leslie Seidle of the Montreal Institute for Research on
Public Policy. Mr. Seidle's research suggested that although there
is room for further debate about the registration criteria, it is clear
that the 50 candidate threshold has not been a roadblock to new
parties.
4059
(1905 )
He noted that although each of the last three national elections a
handful of new parties have not met the registration requirements,
several others did. For example, in 1993 six additional parties were
registered. Two recently formed parties, the Reform Party and the
Bloc Quebecois, now hold seats in this House. He also noted that
the 50 candidate threshold served to exclude from the system
parties that have declined. For example, of the six parties registered
in 1974 two, the Social Credit and the Communists, are no longer
registered.
In conclusion, I would like to congratulate and thank the hon.
member for bringing the House's attention to the important issue of
registration of political parties and its effect on our electoral
system. In my view, more work needs to be done. Our approach to
the issue must be comprehensive to ensure that all the impacts are
adequately investigated before changes can be contemplated.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is a delight
to be able to enter into this debate today on a subject that is very
dear to my heart. It is the subject of freedom. It is the subject of
democracy. It is the subject of representation of the people. It is the
subject of the use of the taxpayers' money. It is a subject in which I
have a great interest.
I respectfully indicate to the member who has brought this bill
forward that it is a very ill-advised bill. It is ill advised primarily
because there is a proposal here to manipulate the democratic
process from Ottawa, from a central government. That is not a
democratic process. We take away people's freedoms when there
are all of these different restrictions, especially the ones which are
being promoted here.
I would like to point out to the member that it is not the
government that funds the parties. The reason to have the
registration of individuals for the voting process is to get them on
the ballot. The only reason they would want to be organized into
parties would be in order for them to effectively communicate a
party policy and platform.
There is nothing preventing individuals from running as
independents. That freedom must be preserved. If people in a
community want to elect an independent, they should be able to do
so. One might say he or she has that freedom but the problem with
the current registration system is that they have that freedom at
their own expense while the others have it at public expense.
It is not the government, it is not Ottawa, it is not the Liberal
Party nor any other party that funds the elections. It is the taxpayer.
The root of the problem we are dealing with here is that there are
politicians in Ottawa who presume to pluck the money out of the
pocket of the taxpayer and they decide who then gets to use it.
The finest solution to this would be to eliminate the funding of
elections by Elections Canada, by the people of the country,
through this process. Let us stop to ask the question: Why should I
as a taxpayer send a bunch of money to Ottawa, let the bureaucrats
spin it around and see how much spills over back to me if I qualify
according to some arbitrary rules? When it comes to electing
representatives to this place, each one of us as Canadians should
have the right to use our money for whatever purpose we want and
not be controlled by a centralist government which may have
opposite political views.
I will relate a practical incident of this. For many years I was a
member of a union. I had no choice in the matter. I know I could
have chosen a different profession but it just so happened that I
went into the teaching profession. Both at the secondary and
post-secondary levels it was a condition of my employment that I
belong to that union or association.
(1910 )
I was very annoyed when the union to which I was forced to
belong gave donations to a political party, namely the NDP. I
strongly disagreed with that but I had no choice. My democratic
right, my democratic freedom was beat upon by that principle.
They said: ``It is democratic. There was a majority vote in our
union meeting to send $100,000 to the NDP''. I said that did not
matter, that in this instance they were engaging in an activity I did
not personally agree with and which had nothing to do with
representing me to my employer.
We are talking about the same thing here. We are talking about
the Liberal government or a Conservative government in the past,
maybe even a Reform government in the future. I do not think we
want to give any of those governments the right to say: ``We are
going to allow the taxpayers to put their money into the pot and
they will get it back if they meet certain restrictions, but if they do
not they are not permitted to''. That is a violation of equality. It is a
violation of the principle of economic freedom.
Another thing of importance is I have had a lot of representations
from my constituents and I share the concern many of them have
expressed with respect to the official opposition in this House. I am
sure there are a lot of people on the government side who despair of
the fact that there are separatist opposition members and Reform
opposition members. That is just how democracy works. That has
always been my response.
I have had people say to me: ``Is there not something in our
Constitution that we could use to get those separatists out of here?
What right do they have to be here if their goal is to tear the country
apart?'' I always answer that I do not like it either but the fact is
that by some means they won the support of the people in their
constituencies. Indeed in the last election 54 of 75 seats in Quebec
were won by separatists, by members of the Bloc party and I for
one will not be the one who says that those people in those
constituencies do not have the right to send to this place whomever
they will. That right must be preserved. We must not intrude upon
that by giving funding preferentially to one group or the other,
4060
arbitrarily decided by the government of the day. I would not want
to be a part of that.
Meanwhile I believe it is a proper role of government to so
arrange its affairs that people in this country will not want to leave
it. I do believe this is such a wonderful country that I would never
want to leave it. I would not want to do anything to cause this
country to fall apart.
It often hurts me as a staunch, loyal Canadian with great loyalty
to my country when members on the government side falsely
accuse that Reformers are here to tear apart the country. That is not
true. We are here to keep this country together, to help build it, to
become strong, to keep our economic independence from other
people in the world, other countries, but also to have economic
independence for the citizens of this wonderful country.
It is true we disagree with the governing party of the day on how
some of these things must be done. I for one believe it is very
healthy for the Reform Party to be here. It is very healthy for us to
have the voice that says we should not be spending endless money
that our children and grandchildren will have to repay. We have a
role to play in holding this government financially accountable.
I will not claim that we have had the total success we wanted to
have. It is true that the current government is spending less than the
previous government did, but it is still adding to the debt. I have the
right on behalf of my constituents to voice that and to express it
strongly here.
(1915 )
I also point out that by the rules proposed by this member I
would not have been eligible to receive the rebate on my election
expenses because, according to him, my party would not have been
registered.
Mr. Assadourian: That's not true.
Mr. Epp: I stand corrected. As an individual candidate I could if
I got 15 per cent of the votes, but as a party we would not be
eligible because we would not have been able to register as a party.
I think that is wrong.
I won every poll in my riding. The people in my riding said:
``That is the person we want to send to Ottawa''. They have the
right to do that. I will not put a single restriction in their way.
Consequently, I must speak very strongly against this bill. It is well
intentioned. I believe the member wants to do what is best for the
country. It is just that he has not properly analysed the
consequences of what his bill is proposing.
I would like to say very simply that good ideas always start
small. We would do very well to promote the extension of little
groups. If a group has a good idea it will grow. If it has bad ideas it
will go into oblivion soon enough. The Conservative Party taught
us that lesson.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I will begin by correcting an impression of my colleague
from Elk Island.
Bill C-276 does not affect the ability or the right of a person or a
group of people to run as candidates in an election. It addresses the
right of a group of people to become a registered political party
whereby they would be entitled to certain remunerations, certain
tax breaks and equal broadcasting time during an election.
This is quite a proper thing for government to concern itself with
because we are a national democracy and we define our country by
how we define our members of Parliament. We choose to define
our members of Parliament by political parties which receive some
government funding based on the number in that party; the present
law requires 50. Or, as in the case of Bill C-276, it would be
required that the members of a political party that receives
government funds would have to have nominees in seven out of ten
provinces.
Bill C-276 is fundamentally directed against the concept of
provincial parties, against parties which instead of coming to
Ottawa to represent and to debate the interests of all parts of the
country, come to Ottawa to debate only the interests of one part of
the country, specifically a province.
We can test the wisdom of the concept behind Bill C-276 by
extending the idea to its ultimate extreme. Consider a House of
Commons in which there is nothing but regional and provincial
parties where every group of people represents only the provinces
in which the members of Parliament were elected.
Then we would have a House of 10 parties. We would not need to
have a federal election at all. We could simply use the members
from the 10 provinces and territories to come to this place one or
two times a year to debate and pass laws. We know what would
happen. It would not work because each group would represent
only its provincial interests and we could be described by that
famous term which is relevant even today. We would have a total
balkanization of the country where only provincial interests were
represented.
The bill is aimed directly at that. It is aimed even more
specifically at the Bloc Quebecois.
(1920 )
We heard earlier the hon. member for Bellechasse admitting that
the Bloc Quebecois would have a great deal of difficulty with this
legislation if it were to pass because the Bloc Quebecois represents
only the interests of Quebec. That is how the Bloc Quebecois
defines itself.
The member for Bellechasse conveyed the impression that
because the Bloc Quebecois represents only one province-and it
is a province that seeks some sort of sovereignty association
4061
relationship with the rest of the country according to its current
government-he made the assumption that the Bloc Quebecois
would have no relevance in running members of Parliament in
other parts of the country. Here I disagree most wholeheartedly
with him.
In the recent byelection in Hamilton East 13 candidates ran as
well as candidates from the major parties. Absent was a candidate
from the Bloc Quebecois. I asked myself what would have
happened if a member of the Bloc Quebecois would have run in
that byelection. How would that candidate have been greeted by the
people in Hamilton East?
I occupy a riding not very far from Hamilton East. I imagine a
Bloc MP running in Hamilton East and being received very well by
the people. I know, Madam Speaker, you might find that statement
surprising coming from someone like myself who is certainly very
much a federalist.
I have considered some of the important issues I heard the Bloc
Quebecois express many times on behalf of Quebec. One of them is
self-determination. The people of Hamilton East would understand
the concept of self-determination very readily. I could tell my
colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois that the people around
Hamilton East have a very proud sense of their territory, a sense of
the region.
Indeed, there is quite a sense of rivalry between Hamilton and
Toronto. There is a great desire in the people from Hamilton, and
particularly in Hamilton East, for a kind of self-defining and
self-determination. If a Bloc Quebecois member ran in Hamilton
East and tried to express the concept of self-determination for
Quebec, he or she would be understood.
If the Bloc Quebecois ran a candidate in Hamilton East and
spoke about the need to preserve language, the people in the
audience in Hamilton East would understand him precisely because
those in Hamilton come from many origins. In that part of the city
there are predominantly people of Italian origin.
The people in Hamilton East are of many different language
groups and sometimes of a different first language. It is often
Italian, sometimes Greek, Portuguese, Spanish and sometimes
French I might add. They have a great sense of pride in their
language. They would understand a candidate who aspired to being
a member of Parliament who wanted to defend a language; who felt
a language and a culture was worth defending. They would
understand that.
Again that certainly follows with the concept of a distinct
society. I know the Bloc Quebecois has not exactly supported the
Liberal initiative in that regard. Nevertheless it is a principle that
underlies much of what Quebecers refer to as nationalism or at
least sovereignty. I still see it as a kind of provincialism, in the
sense of province, not in the sense necessarily of being narrow.
People in Hamilton East would understand it if a Bloc Quebecois
candidate explained things like the difference of the civil code, the
difference of the traditions in Quebec. Even better, it would give
them an insight into what motivates so many people who do
support the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois. It would help
enormously in their understanding. They could relate to it in a
sense that in my part of Ontario there is a very strong sense of pride
at being from Ontario. Indeed around Hamilton, MPs are expected
to serve the interests of their province and their city.
(1925 )
I submit that there is not a great deal of difference between that
and Bloc Quebecois members who get up and want to represent,
somewhat narrowly perhaps, the interests of Quebec. There would
not be much difference there.
I could go on. I have often seen the Bloc Quebec members in the
House defending, very expertly, social and cultural issues.
Sometimes it has been an irony to hear the Bloc Quebecois more
effectively attack the government when it is talking about cutbacks
to major cultural institutions like the CBC. It has often been the
Bloc Quebecois that has sprung to the barricades, rather than the
Reform Party.
That would be understood, certainly, in Hamilton East as well
because there is a great sense of pride in cultural institutions, in
song and dance, and the need to communicate among us.
I do not think, for the most part, a Bloc Quebecois candidate in
Hamilton East would have much difficulty in delivering a message
to which people would listen quietly and with great attention.
The only place where the Bloc Quebecois candidate would have
difficulty is with the concept of sovereignty. We each define
sovereignty differently in our minds. However, when the concept of
sovereignty is extended to the idea of actually breaking away from
the country, actually separating from Canada, I have to admit that
no Bloc Quebecois candidate would get much support. On the other
hand, the Bloc Quebecois candidate would do much for the good-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I will give the
hon. member 30 seconds for his conclusion. I apologize for
disturbing him.
Mr. Bryden: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will come to a
conclusion very rapidly.
The point I wish to make is this. The opportunity to speak across
the country, even when someone represents only regional interests,
is what a national party should be all about. It does not matter
whether it ultimately has regional interests at heart.
4062
I support in principle in Bill C-276 because it would force a
party like the Bloc Quebecois or any other party that would want
to represent only a province to get out of that province and deliver
their message to the rest of the country so that the rest of the
country could better understand it.
It is when we are separate, when we represent only regions, then
we become strangers.
_____________________________________________
4062
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-43,
an act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make a
consequential amendment to another act, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I wish to begin by condemning the fact the
Liberal government has put this bill on the order paper at the last
minute, without any advance notice. Our speeches today should
therefore be considered preliminary only and not definitive.
Overall, judging by our first cursory overview, we are in favour of
the bill, but will certainly have certain reservations and
amendments to make at committee.
I wish to address one particular point, the new section 23.1,
which I shall read to you:
23.1 (1) No person shall use the whistle on any railway equipment in an area
within a municipality if:
(a) the area meets the requirements prescribed for the purposes of this section;
and
-this therefore involves the area of a municipality-
(b) the government of the municipality by resolution declares that it agrees that
such whistles should not be used in that area and has, before passing the
resolution, consulted the railway company that operates the relevant line of
railway and has given public notice of its intention to pass the resolution.
(1930)
The reason why I wish to address this particular point is that it
deals with a problem that is a very real one in our region; cities
such as Sainte-Thérèse, Rosemère or Blainville are bothered at 4
a.m. by a train coming through and waking everyone up.
This clause banning the use of the whistle under certain
circumstances must be viewed with favour, in principle, provided
safety is not compromised by the absence of an audible warning.
Level crossing safety is ensured by the use of the whistle, then the
bell and finally a flashing red light. All that would be left is the
flashing lights and the bell.
In many countries, level crossings are protected by barriers, but I
do not believe that is necessary here, because of their high cost.
There is absolute safety with such an arrangement, but it is very
costly and we are not calling for that much.
This clause on not using the whistle in an area within a
municipality contains two noteworthy points: it is not general, and
assumes that the municipality concerned has passed a resolution
declaring that it is agrees that whistles not be used. This is a good
thing, because obviously it is better that the decision-making power
rests with the municipality, the government level that is closer to
the population than Ottawa, when the decision is to be made as to
whether or not whistles are to be used, for the sake of peace and
quiet, while not compromising safety.
It is therefore a good thing that the municipality takes the
decision. If it wants whistles not to be used, it passes a resolution.
No resolution, no ban. That is reasonable.
Another aspect which strikes me as less reasonable is clause
23.1, which states that no person may use the whistle in an area
within a municipality if the area meets the requirements prescribed
for the purposes of this section. This assumes that the minister has,
under this bill, the power to set regulations and impose them on the
municipalities, so that their resolution approving the whistle ban
may be enforced. The municipality must therefore comply with
certain conditions set by the federal government.
Here we see that, once again, the federal government has not
been able to resist the temptation to take advantage of any new
legislation to try to interfere with areas of provincial jurisdiction,
for municipalities are under provincial jurisdiction. They are
creatures of the province and their powers are under trusteeship
from the provincial level. Now we find the federal government,
once again, trampling over the powers of the municipalities, if I
understand this clause properly, stating that they, the federal
government, the Minister of Transport, will set out requirements to
which municipalities must comply with if their resolutions banning
the use of the whistle are to be implemented.
At this point, I believe that this clause must be condemned, for it
goes over the heads of the provinces and thumbs its nose at their
areas of jurisdiction, one of which is the municipalities. It is,
therefore, obvious that we shall have an amendment to propose
concerning the second paragraph of section 23.1.
In closing, I wish to stress, as did the first speaker, that we agree
withe the bill's principle.
(1935)
It claims to improve railway safety, and who can fault virtue.
Overall, these provisions seem to us to be good ones, but we will
have a few reservations to express. These will take the form of
amendments. In closing, I reiterate my protest against the cavalier
fashion in which the bill was presented to us.
4063
You will recall that today's session started in the same casual
way. The Minister of Foreign Affairs also made an impromptu
statement and took us unawares. Now we are closing the day on
the same note, so it is bracketed at both ends by high-handed
actions, and one might well wonder whether the government's plan
B has now been brought to bear on the committees.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased
to rise in the debate on Bill C-43, on railway safety.
First, the closure of the rail maintenance shop in Charny, the
Joffre shop, was recently announced. A look into the matter
because of the closure reveals that, by region, track defects are
between 3 and 10 times higher in Quebec then elsewhere in the
country. This why rail safety is of particular concern to me.
In the case of Charny, the first thing is the loss of 93 jobs, which
is very important. But the Joffre shop also used subcontractors.
There were 150 firms in the Quebec City region working with the
Joffre shop with a total payroll or the equivalent of the payroll of
these 93 employees plus materials. In all, this decision means $5
million less in economic benefits for the Quebec City region.
What is the decision exactly? There were three shops of the same
type in Canada maintaining tracks. There was one at Charny for all
of eastern Canada, one in Winnipeg and the other in British
Columbia. The CN decided to concentrate things in Winnipeg. Last
year, we in the Bloc did not oppose the bill to privatize the CN,
because it was time decisions were made as much as possible from
a business standpoint.
The principle is a good one. However, in practical terms- I will
start with the president, Mr. Tellier, who comes from a political
background, and who, after doing some dirty work, if I may use the
expression, in terms of cuts when the CN was a crown corporation,
contributed to the deterioration of rail lines particularly in Quebec.
There were other decisions at CN such as the decision to transfer
the pay service to Winnipeg, although head office remained in
Montreal. This is a bit odd.
As far as orders and so on are concerned, that section is in
Toronto. In the case of other services, part of the head office was
moved to eastern Canada. CN's head office is an increasingly
empty shell. It is not yet empty, but increasingly so. This leads me
to point out that, as far as the tracks are concerned-and I say this
on my own, it is not the official stand of the Bloc-I would say
there is a deliberate plan to try to deprive Quebec of its primary rail
resources. The Joffre shop in Charny is one example.
(1940)
Somewhat paradoxically, last year, just before the referendum,
this shop, also called La Rotonde, was designated a historical site
by the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): On a point of
order, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Transport.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I am trying my
hardest, but the hon. member has given a five to ten minute speech
and he has said nothing, not a word, about what we are debating
here, the Railway Safety Act and the amendments to that bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): That is not a
point of order.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Madam Speaker, as I have very little time, I am not
going to spend it on a member who is not paying attention. For five
minutes now I have been speaking about the only railway track
maintenance shop in eastern Canada, which is located in Charny,
and that concerns railway safety.
If he wants statistics, I will give him some. The Transportation
Safety Board of Canada said that in 1994, 1,189 accidents were
reported, 17 per cent more than in 1993. This is worrisome. Most
accidents on main tracks took place at level crossings. In 1994, 30
per cent of the total number of accidents took place at level
crossings and 13 per cent of derailments took place on main tracks.
Every year there are 300 accidents involving cars carrying
dangerous materials. Three hundred accidents involving dangerous
materials is hardly trivial. They say only goods are involved. In
1994, 114 people lost their lives in railway accidents. Am I being
relevant, sir, am I talking about railway safety? I am giving you the
statistics.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I am sorry, but
could the hon. member please address his remarks to the Chair?
Mr. Dubé: Madam Speaker, the member has got me going. I
came back from dinner and was feeling a bit sleepy. He has woken
me up and he will be sorry, he will come to regret it. I apologize to
you, Madam Speaker.
In 1994, 158 derailments were reported on main tracks, a 24 per
cent increase. I asked for newspaper clippings so that I could look
over the accident headlines. I will not be able to mention them all,
but I will cover the main ones. On February 5, 1996, Le Soleil
carried the following story: ``CN claims there are fewer accidents.
The Transportation Safety Board says the opposite. While the
Transportation Safety Board of Canada reports an increase in train
accidents in Canada in the last five years, Canadian National, now a
private company, has statistics to show that the carrier has
apparently had fewer accidents''.
I will quote from another article from Le Soleil dated February 5,
1996: ``Steady increase in number of accidents over past five
years''. I do not have a lot of time. Still from Le Soleil, this time
from July 29, 1995: ``There is a terrible dispute over the results of
4064
an investigation into the Transportation Safety Board and CN. They
are not in agreement''.
Obviously, when I asked him a question on the topic this week,
the minister defended himself with statistics provided by CN. But
his own railway safety bureau contradicts the people at CN. The
Minister of Transport should use the data put out by his own
department, but he prefers those produced by CN saying things are
not so bad. They are making a business decision.
Madam Speaker, you come from New Brunswick, and I am sure
your constituents in Edmunston are not happy when they think that
if there is a railway problem, they will have to call Winnipeg. I
know there is only one line in your riding connecting with the main
track and that things will be held up until someone comes from
Winnipeg to repair it. You know how far it is between Edmunston
and Winnipeg. This decision is incredible.
Along with the Railway Safety Act, government is amending
another act because it must do so every five years. They are trying
to tell us that this is not serious, that everything is fine, and yet
there are accidents.
(1945)
I was saying that in Quebec there were ten times more defects
than in certain regions. What I am proposing is that the Minister of
Transport table a bill, that is right, but the people working in this
service must be on the lookout. There must be planning in order to
avoid accidents. Anyone who owns a car knows that proper
maintenance is the way to avoid breakdowns. And that must be
planned.
Right now, as far as the railway in Quebec is concerned, the
service in question only repaired things that were not working well
in order to prevent derailments. The shop in Charny lacked
resources. It was so lacking in resources they had to work overtime,
but that only depleted even more their resources. It was not enough.
It had to subcontract half of its contracts in the Quebec region in
order to try to repair the system.
But not enough is being done in the long term. Not enough is
being done in terms of prevention. It is too bad that when we
mention safety to people from the transport department, they talk
to us about the number of accidents. It is like waiting for someone
to get burned before you start worrying about fire prevention. It is
the same thing.
We should be talking about the condition of the railway. We
should be talking about the equipment we have, the number of
people that should be assigned to correct the situation. I say that
this government is slacking off on railway safety, and that a few
changes to the act will not be enough to silence the member for
Lévis, when they are eliminating 93 jobs in Charny.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on Bill C-43 amending
the Railway Safety Act.
This bill, you will recall, to provide a bit of a background, was
introduced in the House of Commons on May 30 by the Minister of
Transport to amend the Railway Safety Act. It aims to give the
railway companies greater responsibility in the management of
safety, although Transport Canada will continue to set
requirements.
Bill C-43 provides as well for more feedback from the public and
interested parties on matters of railway safety.
It also establishes a framework for communities wanting to stop
the use of the train whistle. I would like to add to the comments
made earlier by my colleague, the member for
Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, who said that we agreed with most
of the provisions of this bill and particularly a certain relaxation in
the use of the train whistle. When I was the Bloc transport critic, I
received many representations from residents of municipalities
requesting the discontinuation of train whistles. These include the
people of Rimouski and of the Cap-Rouge sector of the riding of
Louis-Hébert.
The amendments in this bill are drawn from the
recommendations made by the committee reviewing the Railway
Safety Act in the report it tabled in February 1995 entitled: On
Track: the Future of Railway Safety in Canada. We should note that
Transport Canada accepted 60 of the 69 recommendations.
Those of my colleagues who spoke before me expressed the Bloc
Quebecois' position on this bill. We must criticize the Liberal
government, which arrives at the last minute and puts this bill on
the Order Paper without any prior warning.
I also want to say that I am very surprised by the attitude of the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, the member
for Hamilton West, whom I sat with on the Standing Committee on
Transport. I do not know if the parliamentary secretary's new job
has-dare I say ``gone to his head'', I have to watch my language.
The member for Hamilton West has really changed his attitude. He
was much more flexible when he was with us on the transport
committee. This does not bode well for the future. Perhaps he is
thinking about his personal career, a spot in the next cabinet
shuffle, but, in any event, that is the attitude he has adopted.
(1950)
This aggressiveness by the Liberals is all the more unjustifiable
in light of the fact that we did not systematically oppose all the
measures proposed in this bill. We would have liked to co-operate
with the government in order to improve this legislation, but the
government preferred confrontation, adopting a strategy of holding
a gun to our head. The official opposition is worried and hopes that
the government's plan B with respect to constitutional matters,
which has become the government's policy, is not making itself felt
in transportation issues.
4065
The Railway Safety Act review committee must examine the act
every five years, an initiative we feel is useful for all concerned.
The official opposition views the ongoing improvement of railway
safety as a constant concern and priority. Nonetheless, we note that
the federal transport minister has created an advisory committee on
railway safety composed of members chosen by him, a
representative of the railway companies, shippers, railway
workers' organizations, the public and so on. Provincial transport
departments or their representatives are not members of this
committee. We feel that the transport department of Quebec, and of
other provinces as well, should be on this committee.
One concern was raised by the Government of Quebec with
respect to level crossings. It feels that the federal government has
devoted a large part of its bill to the safety of level crossings and to
intrusions, but it has proposed nothing to improve safety in yards,
even though these accidents, as the government has already
admitted, often involve dangerous goods representing a high safety
risk.
Railway companies like CN and CP have the expertise, the
experience and the responsibility to manage safety in their yards
and sidings, but the number of accidents in these areas continues to
increase. The number went from 191 accidents in 1989 to 358 in
1993 and 460 in 1994. It should be pointed out that most of these
accidents involve dangerous goods. Such cases involve not just
railway safety but public safety.
For your information, main track derailments have increased
15.9 per cent between 1989 and 1994, and approximately 20 per
cent of derailments recorded in 1994 involved dangerous goods.
Under another part of the bill, short line railways, or SLR, will
be required to call upon their own expertise to develop safety
measures, including performance standards, security plans,
building standards, maintenance standards and so on. This change
could indeed prove to be a good thing, but somehow we doubt that
SLRs are prepared to take on this responsibility. Short lines may
not have the technical expertise or the human and financial
resources required to fulfil this responsibility. Bill C-43 should not
increase the risk of rail safety deterioration.
Finally, the last comment I would like to make is the following.
The bill calls for Transport Canada to set up a co-ordinated and
nationally applied mechanism for the regulation of railway safety.
Quebec, however, has its own legislation, the loi sur la sécurité du
transport terrestre guidé, and its own inspection mechanisms, so
why should it take part in this co-ordinated process? Quebec does
not necessarily need a co-ordinated national mechanism to
regulate railway safety in order to co-operate with the federal
government in certain specific instances for inspections or ad hoc
investigations.
In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois criticizes the Liberal
government, the attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Transport and member for Hamilton West in particular,
for having rushed this bill in without any consultation, when the
basic bill had little basis for contention in it, the official opposition
readily lending its support.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is the House
ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The question
is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare the
motion carried on division.
Is there unanimous consent that the House adjourn?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): A motion to
adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted by
unanimous consent. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until
tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.56 p.m.)