Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 134 (Official Version)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to respond to the question of privilege raised by the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington on March 29 concerning the issue of files left behind in the offices of the Leader of the Opposition when this office was occupied by the Conservatives and the Alliance before them.

The member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington wanted assurances that the said files had been returned and that none of them had been distributed. In the question of privilege, he also wanted confirmation that these leftover documents were treated with extreme respect.

First, I wish to confirm that all remaining documents were returned to the sergeant-at-arms on April 10.

Second, I can also confirm that these documents were not copied or tampered with in any way. Only one Liberal researcher looked through the files in question and this one staffer is prepared to state under oath that he did not copy or mishandle the said documents in any way.

I would also like to address the allegations made by the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington that the documents in question were already packaged and waiting to be shipped. The only labelled box contained videotapes of the 2004 Conservative election ads and all other materials were found in desk drawers and cabinets. These have also been returned.

Once again, I can assure the hon. member that all documents in question have been returned to the sergeant-at-arms and were treated with extreme respect.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, on March 29 I did raise a question of privilege and today I would draw your attention to information relevant to this matter.

None of the information that follows was available to me on March 29 and I was therefore unable to place it before you at that time. It is my belief that this information demonstrates that the primary responsibility for the fact that the documents in question were retained for over a year, inspected in detail and selectively shown to assembled media lies with staff at the office of the Leader of the Opposition, acting, at least in part, with the knowledge and consent of the Leader of the Opposition himself.

Mr. Speaker, I had mentioned the Leader of the Opposition in the letters in which I notified you on March 29 that I would be rising later in the day on a question of privilege but at that time I was not yet aware of the degree to which the Leader of the Opposition and his staff had taken the lead role in this matter. That degree has now been made clear to me and I will seek to make it clear to you.

First, it is clear that one or more staffers at the office of the Leader of the Opposition retained my personnel file in the full knowledge that its contents were personal information and, moreover, that they looked inside my file, as well as inside the files of each of the 33 other individuals in their possession. The following facts demonstrate this quite clearly.

At a news conference on March 26, the personnel records were spread out in the foyer of the Wellington Building for the media to inspect and for cameras to record. A glance at the resulting video footage, which the Liberal Party posted on its website, shows that while OLO staff made a cursory effort to hide the really personal information and to expose just the top part of individual personal records, such a display could scarcely have been made without the persons who were handling the documents seeing their contents.

I can think of no case in Canadian history where personnel documents have been treated and displayed in such an unseemly manner. Over and over again in the footage, the word “confidential” is clearly stamped at the top of the documents that the Liberals were displaying to the cameras, along with the names of the persons being reviewed and, in some cases, the name of the reviewer and some additional details. I should note that the Leader of the Opposition allowed this footage to remain on his party's website for several weeks and it is still posted there even as we speak.

In fact, this morning the Liberal Party launched its new website to much fanfare and made sure to retain and to continue to display these confidential personnel files on the new website. Included as a new feature of the website is the capacity for website users to zoom in and examine the visible parts of the documents online at higher degrees of resolution.

At the March 26 news conference, the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering, who had been the Liberal lead spokesman on the matter, gave the following detailed description of the contents of the files which he could not possibly have done unless the files themselves had been examined in detail. He said, “What we are returning today consists, among other things, of 174 personnel evaluations over five years of 34 different employees containing deeply personal information. In our opinion, this represents a gross negligence that the government could leave this much, 174 personal evaluations containing very detailed information on employees, comments by their managers, comments by researchers, comments by 10 sitting MPs and by other members of Parliament not currently sitting”.

We should not, however, conclude from his detailed description that the hon. member is the primary culprit here. In an article in the March 26 edition of The Hill Times, the hon. member's executive assistant was paraphrased as saying that a few individual files from the much larger stash of 30 boxes worth of documents were only passed to the member on March 21. Apparently they were given to him on the basis that the hon. member has a reputation among Liberals for being aggressive. That was his executive assistant's choice of words, not mine.

Additionally, in a press release dated April 4 and posted on his website, the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering made the following statement, “At no time did I read the contents of any of the personnel files. In fact, I had no contact whatsoever with these files other than at the news conference. I am told the personnel files were found lying in drawers and that once researchers discovered what they were, they were put aside and not read”.

Of course, the member made a similar indication in the House today.

If the member never had any contact with the contents of the personnel folders and was only involved with any of the recovered Conservative documents during a five day period between March 21 and 26, then the only way he could have had such detailed information about the contents of the personnel folders would have been if the opposition leader's researchers had read through these files and had provided him with the details that he repeated in front of the cameras. This means, of course, that when the same researchers told the hon. member that they had set the personnel files aside unread, they were not telling the truth.

(1010)

The form in which the files were discovered by the Liberals is of considerable importance. Opening boxes that are addressed to someone else and rifling through the contents is closely akin to intercepting and opening someone else's mail which is, of course, against the law. This is presumably why the Liberal whip told Mike Duffy on March 26:

This wasn't field mail that got misdirected that we opened under the cover of darkness. These were memos that were lying there....

It is by no means certain that the documents were simply lying there.

Here we have to contend with three mutually contradictory versions of how the documents fell into Liberal hands. All three of these versions were provided by the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering. In version one, all the files were found in boxes. In version two, some of the documents were in boxes and some were loose. In version three, none of the documents were found in boxes.

Here is version one as summarized on PoliticsWatch.com on March 26. The report states:

The Liberals discovered the documents in the research bureau that the Tories vacated "three months" after the election, according to [the member for Ajax—Pickering].

[The member for Ajax—Pickering] said the Liberals didn't get around to sifting through the boxes of abandoned documents until recently because it was not a "priority" at the time.

The Liberals incorrectly assumed the boxes contained nothing but garbage.

That directly contradicts what he said today.

Here is version two as reported by Juliette O'Neil of CanWest following the March 26 news conference at which the boxes of documents were shown to the media. She said:

The Liberals said some of the documents were found in drawers of offices abandoned by the Conservatives and others were in boxes.

Here is version three in the form of a direct quote from the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering in the April 2 edition of The Hill Times:

These were files and documents that we found in files and desks. The boxes that they were put in were left behind as empty boxes that may have been used, but most of these were just files that were left in drawers, left on tables, and left in haphazard ways all around the office.

To be precise about things, there is a fourth version.

Back on March 22, when it was still a secret that the Liberals had boxes of Conservative documents in their possession, a press release was issued by the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering, which I believe is still on his website, stating that he was “referring to documents that came anonymously into his possession”.

I think we can just dismiss this fourth version of things as a simple invention since, within days of the claim of anonymous informants, the hon. member's executive assistant was boasting that his boss had been handed these documents by opposition researchers because of his reputation for aggressiveness.

Which of the other three versions is correct remains unclear to me. I do not really trust the responsible parties to tell the truth about whether the law was broken and by which individuals unless they are compelled to do so before a committee of this House.

I must say, however, that the version of this situation which seems most likely to me does involve all or most of the boxes being in files. It seems likely to me that in the course of the exchange of research office space between the incoming and outgoing governments, the movers made a mixup and some of the boxes were rerouted to their point of origin rather than to their intended destination.

I participated in a similar rotation of office space in 1997 when the research staffs of the Reform Party and the Bloc Québécois exchanged offices. I recall that the situation with boxes coming and going was inherently confusing. Because one set of offices had to be emptied before the contents of the other could be brought in, it was necessary to leave pallet loads of boxes at marshalling points in the lobby of the Wellington Building overnight where the only security was that they were shrink wrapped.

As the researcher assigned to the national unity file at the time, I was in possession of documents that I felt were sensitive and in the end, just to be sure I would see them again, I dressed in jeans, found a dolly and moved my own boxes myself.

In February 2006, similar concerns for an efficient move in which no documents would be left behind caused the office manager of the Conservative offices to take certain precautions about leaving documents behind. As the final stage of moving out of their old offices, a small crew of Conservative staffers did a final sweep through the Wellington Street offices that they were leaving. I am informed that they systematically went through filing cabinets and desk drawers, affixing a post-it note to the front of each drawer after it was checked as a visual confirmation that it was empty and calling out to each other as they confirmed that each individual office had been emptied of all documents.

One staffer relates how she even took care to remove errant clothing items that had been left behind and to return them to their rightful owners. This same staffer tells me that she recognizes her own handwriting on the address label affixed to one of the boxes that was returned by the Liberals.

(1015)

Unless I have been lied to by the people who described this process to me, then the documents recovered by the Liberals really are, to use the words of the Liberal whip, “field mail that got misdirected” and was “opened under the cover of darkness”. That means the law has been broken by the Office of the Leader of the Opposition, which has been in possession of stolen property.

Under such circumstances, it is not just the personnel files that must be answered for. I had the chance last week to go through some of the boxes of material that have been returned, not the personnel files, but other boxes. In one box, I found a number of confidential documents that I had written after I became a member of Parliament.

These were not documents intended for Liberal eyes. It was not their right to see these documents even if the documents had been left behind as the result of the kind of “gross negligence” that the hon. members for Ajax—Pickering and Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine spoke of at their press conference when they were returning the boxes.

To be clear, this was private correspondence and private memoranda. Therefore, it is astonishing that nobody on the Liberal side is denying that the Liberals read through it. Indeed, a March 26 news story states that a “researcher, whose name the Office of the Leader of the Opposition would not release, had been slowly working on the thousands of pages of documents left behind by the Conservatives”.

The reading of this mail represents a further unlawful violation of my privacy. It also fills me with concern on a further point. One of the media reports of the March 26 news conference states the following:

[The hon. member for Ajax—Pickering] said the Liberals are keeping approximately 10 other boxes of documents the Tories left behind... As for the remaining 10 boxes, [the hon. member] said the Liberals would continue to examine the contents to ascertain whether or not there's anything in them in the “public interest”.

Unless I am mistaken about how these boxes fell into Liberal hands, this too is possession of stolen property. As well, these documents are likely to be materials that cannot be examined without violating privacy rights, just as my memos could not be examined without violating my privacy. Also, all of this is being done with the full knowledge of the Leader of the Opposition. It is being done by people on his payroll and it is being done on premises under his control.

This means that the Leader of the Opposition is guilty at this moment of facilitating actions that are an ongoing contempt of Parliament, unless, of course, as the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering says in contradiction to his earlier statement in the House today, there are no additional boxes of materials and those 10 boxes were yet another fabrication that he himself made up on March 26, and which, I might add, the Leader of the Opposition took no effort to refute at any time or, as far as I can tell, check into, although of course I am not privy to everything that went on over there.

Mr. Speaker, there is a final reason why I believe you should refer this as a matter of privilege and of contempt of Parliament to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The very people who have retained these documents for over a year, who have characterized them as deeply personal and who have characterized the unintentional misplacing of these documents as gross negligence and a matter of deep concern, felt free to keep them and free to abuse them in this manner.

The hon. member for Ajax—Pickering went so far as to say at his March 26 news conference, “If I'm one of the 34 people who had my personnel files left behind I'd be having a lot of questions and I'd be very upset”.

I am one of the 34 people whose personnel files were left behind, I am very upset, and I actually do have a lot of questions.

Specifically, I have the following seven questions that can be answered only if the responsible parties are compelled to appear before a committee of Parliament to provide answers that make sense, rather than the mutually contradictory accounts we have been given up to this point by the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering.

Number one: were the personnel files found in drawers, as he now claims, in which case their sensitive nature would have been obvious at once? If so, why were these personnel files kept knowingly for a full year?

Number two: were any of the documents, including correspondence from me to other MPs, found in boxes, in which case, effectively, the researchers were intercepting and reading misdirected mail?

Number three: which researchers participated in these acts and which members of the opposition leader's staff knew about the fact that this was ongoing and failed to act to stop it?

Number four: were any of the documents photocopied, scanned or otherwise reproduced?

Number five: when did the Leader of the Opposition become aware of the fact that his staff had possession of these sensitive documents, and why, upon achieving this knowledge, did he fail to act?

Number six: why is the Leader of the Opposition continuing to allow private correspondence to be read by his staff right now, unless it turns out that the latest version of the facts by the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering is the real one? In that case, he would have to explain why he allowed the implication to exist that they had compromising documents they were going through in the “public interest”.

(1020)

Number seven: why is the Leader of the Opposition allowing images of confidential documents to be displayed on his website and will he remove them at once?

Mr. Speaker, if you find there is a prima facie case that the Leader of the Opposition or members of his staff have breached my privileges, or that their actions may put them in contempt of Parliament, I will be prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

The Chair thanks the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington for raising this issue in the first place and the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering for his contribution to the matter.

I will review the arguments put forward by both hon. members and will see, if I can, some of the things that are apparently in the public domain in respect to this matter. But I have to say right off the top of my head on this that in my view this sounds like a complaint, and I have not heard a lot in terms of which privilege the hon. member claims as a member of Parliament has been violated by this.

He may have some personal claim for having material put into the public domain that was private, but that is not a matter of privilege as I understand the rules relating to privilege in the House. And so I am somewhat concerned on this issue and I can assure him that I will review the matter, but I make that preliminary observation that I have not heard a lot that has tied this into one of the privileges that members enjoy, which is my concern.

Legal breaches of the law do not constitute breaches of privilege of the House. They are separate issues. He may be able to assert that the law has been broken in some respect, which I heard frequently, I think, during the course of his remarks. But I am not sure that those breaches of the law necessarily constitute a breach of privileges of members of the House, which is the only area in which I have some say or control and I am able to assist the hon. member by finding that he has a privilege and therefore that the matter could be referred to the committee.

So in the circumstances, as I say, I will look at everything the hon. member has said. I think I have heard enough at the moment, because the hon. member has presented twice on this. The hon. member for Ajax—Pickering has given his remarks. I think we will leave the matter at this point. I will look at the documents to which he has referred, as far as I can, and come back to the House with a ruling in due course.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Routine Proceedings]

* * *

[English]

Status of Women

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Bev Oda (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this morning to speak to the importance of encouraging the greater participation of women in our democratic system of government.

In a democratic country, the governing body must endeavour to reflect the population that it is elected to represent, and Canada's diversity can best be served with the same diversity in the House. We will be enriched by the contribution of a true mix of the unique experiences, backgrounds and skills that our citizens possess.

Recognizing the contribution to be made by women in government must be promoted and encouraged. Canadian women have contributed to the building of our country in countless ways. They have had a significant role to play in our history and must have a key role in determining our future.

Consequently, today we stand to support the efforts to promote the increased participation of women in elected office. We must work together through non-partisan measures to ensure that women have an equal opportunity when it comes to serving in public life.

Canadian women have the skills and insight to make a meaningful contribution to the work of government at every level. They deserve the same opportunity to earn a seat in the House, not through special dispensation, but on merit.

The government does support every earnest effort to increase women's representation and their participation in politics. Because we recognize and welcome the contribution of women in this role, it was the Conservative Party that elected the first woman in the House of Commons as well as the first woman prime minister.

As we work together and continue our efforts to encourage more women to run for elected office, we must also ensure all Canadians that as a government we recognize our responsibility to address their issues and needs.

That is why our Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is working to provide matrimonial property rights to aboriginal women and to have their rights recognized under the charter. That is why our Minister of Health provided $300 million in our budget to support a national vaccine program to protect Canadian women from cervical cancer. That is why the women's programming budget at the Status of Women has been increased to $20 million, the highest ever since its inception.

As we work to promote the increased participation of Canadian women in government, we must always recognize that it is the responsibility across all government, and the responsibility of every elected member, to serve every Canadian, men and women.

(1025)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the minister's statement on Equal Voice's Canada challenge.

Twenty-five years ago, women fought for equality under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and women are indeed equal under the law, but this does not mean that women automatically have equality in all aspects of society. In fact, the opposite is true.

The fact remains that the Conservative government is making it worse. The government removed equality as part of the mandate of the women's program, which in the past has funded advocacy and equality seeking organizations. The government removed political and legal rights from the mandate of the women's program. That one decision is evidence that the government will fail to act on Equal Voice's Canada challenge to elect more women.

The Conservative Party consists of only 11% women, the lowest of any party in the House of Commons and, in any case, the House has a mere 21% women overall. The United Nations believes there needs to be at least 30% to make a significant change in public policy for women.

The Liberal leader has made a commitment to surpass that number. The Liberal leader has taken his commitment to women's equality one step further by pledging to have more women in cabinet, committing to have an equal number of men and women in the Senate, and increasing the numbers of women appointed to executive positions at crown corporations.

The Liberal Party of Canada is the party of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the 1970 Royal Commission on the Status of Women. It is the party that established a Status of Women department. We have a proud history and a record of supporting women's rights and fighting for true equality.

The Liberal Party of Canada will be there for Canadian women. The Liberal Party of Canada will fight for the rights of oppressed women around the world. The Liberal Party of Canada will meet the Canada challenge.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, we have reason to be pleased today, since the action taken by the Equal Voice organization encourages us to address the issue of women's participation in politics. This is unfortunately the only reason to be pleased, when it comes to addressing this issue.

The lack of women in politics is particularly worrisome and we cannot, as a democratic society, merely stand by and observe this phenomenon. We all have an obligation to act, and we must act immediately.

The statement made by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women smacks of cynicism. While we listen to the party congratulate itself, only a little over 10% of its candidates, specifically 38 out of 308, during the last election were women, which demonstrates how little importance it places on women's participation in politics. This party does not stop at merely discouraging women from entering politics. It now muzzles women, preventing them from defending their rights and expressing their discontent with this backward-thinking government. This party, with only 11.2% female elected representatives, is inhibiting the progression of the House of Commons towards equality.

While progressive countries such as Sweden and Norway have reached female representation levels of 45.3% and 37.9%, Canada, because of the Conservatives, has slipped to 48th place, with barely 20%.

The Bloc Québécois, whose caucus is 33% women, had the highest number of elected female members of any federal party in Quebec in the last election. But this is not enough. Our party is actively working to increase the number of female members and will run more female candidates in the next election. This is the commitment we are making today.

The multi-partisan organization, Equal Voice, reminds us that, “Political parties can be catalysts for change. All that is required is political will on the part of party leaders to make a difference.”

The only political will the Conservatives have shown was to muzzle women by abolishing the court challenges program and by changing the eligibility criteria for the women's program. If they want to take on the Equal Voice challenge, and we strongly encourage them to do so, they must reinstate these two programs, as they were when the Conservatives came to power. We will then see how serious their political will is. The Bloc Québécois has that political will, and we are committed to making a difference and encouraging more than ever the vital participation of women in political life, by maintaining this objective of parity, which may seem bold, but really, is only natural.

(1030)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for her statement, but unfortunately, with all that she has done to set back women's rights in Canada, that would be disingenuous. In fact the minister closed 12 regional offices of Status of Women Canada, cancelled the policy research fund, eliminated the word “equality” from the mandate of the women's program, placed severe restrictions on access to funding, and her government cancelled the court challenges program.

I will only say that I hope she truly means what she just said, that electing women is a priority and the Conservatives take it seriously. I have my doubts, but I suppose we can all hope.

I am proud to confirm that the leader of the NDP will also be accepting the Canada challenge later this afternoon during members' statements. Our party has made huge strides in nominating, supporting and electing women to the House of Commons. The NDP constitution ensures women are represented in nomination races. Our campaign team demands that women run in ridings they can win and we have great results to show for this work.

Forty-one per cent of our caucus is female. To date, 42% of our nominated candidates are women. With regard to leadership in the House, the leader of the NDP has appointed the first female House leader, finance critic and defence critic in NDP history. NDP MPs fought and won the right to have a House committee on the status of women.

I also feel compelled to correct the record. The minister has perpetuated a Conservative claim to the first woman elected to this House. In fact, history and Hansard will confirm that Agnes Macphail was certainly not a Conservative. A committed pacifist and a progressive, she fought for seniors pensions, farmers' rights and social democratic causes like prison reform. She was a founding member of the CCF. Most people forget that she was also one of the first two women elected to the Ontario legislature. I certainly hope the minister will check her history books and refrain from tarnishing the good name of Agnes Macphail who was a proud social democrat.

Like never before, women in Canada and our sisters around the world are breaking gender barriers with skills and innovation. We are entering traditionally male dominated fields and achieving great success at the highest levels in both the public and private sectors.

Later this afternoon the House will hear commitments from all party leaders to elect more women. This is a step in the right direction but it is not enough. We need more than words in the House. We need action. Simply appointing female candidates is not an appropriate response.

The participation of women must be part of a party's structure and policy. I challenge every single member of the House of Commons to help elect more women, speak to young women's groups and encourage them, reach out to women who should share this floor with us, help them to win their nominations and help them get elected.

I know the NDP will never rest until 51% of our candidates are women.

* * *

(1035)

Competition Act

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Competition Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (right to repair).

He said: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to bring forward a bill that I believe all members can support. It is the right to repair bill and looks at two different acts, the Competition Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

This bill is important because of the change in the auto industry with regard to on-board diagnostic equipment. That change has led to a number of different servicing requirements that are necessary.

I would point out that the Canadian auto industry is not alone in terms of the consequences of this bill. Similar legislation in the United States and in Europe has adapted different techniques to deal with the fact that this new type of technology creates problems for people and consumers who service their vehicles. Hence, this bill would allow the proper process and procedure so that independent automobile associations could procure the data, tools and materials necessary to fix vehicles.

It is important for competition as well as for the environment. That is one of the reasons that Pollution Probe and the Canadian Automobile Association are supporting this bill. I would suggest that all members of the House get behind this bill in order to have a good, progressive change.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

* * *

[Translation]

Canada Evidence Act

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Serge Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, BQ)

moved for leave to introduce C-426, An Act to amend the Canada Evidence Act (protection of journalistic sources and search warrants).

He said: Mr. Speaker, it is always a great pleasure to introduce a private member's bill for the first time.

I have chosen an issue which has concerned me since the late 1960s and which, unfortunately, is still ongoing. I am referring to the protection of journalistic sources and a civilized way of conducting searches, which sometimes must be done at media premises.

The purpose of this enactment is to protect the confidentiality of journalistic sources. It allows journalists to refuse to disclose information or a record that has not been published unless it is of vital importance and cannot be produced in evidence by any other means.

It establishes specific conditions that must be met for a judge to issue a search warrant to obtain information or records that a journalist possesses and sets out the way in which a search must be conducted to protect that which must be protected.

It also allows journalists to refuse to disclose the source of the information that they gather, write, produce or disseminate to the public through any media, and to refuse to disclose any information or document that could identify a source.

However, a judge may order a journalist to disclose the source of the information if the judge considers it to be in the public interest, having regard to the outcome of the litigation, the freedom of information and the impact of the journalist’s testimony on the source.

In conclusion, the purpose of this bill is not to confer privileges on a journalist but to protect journalistic activity, which is essential to ensure a just and truly democratic society.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

* * *

(1040)

[English]

Petitions

Visitor Visas

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present in the House of Commons today.

The first petition is with regard to visa permits for the Republic of Poland. The current policy is there is a restriction and the petitioners are calling for Parliament to lift the visa requirements for the Republic of Poland.

It is important to point out that the European Union includes part of the Republic of Poland. In fact, Polish soldiers are serving with Canadians in Afghanistan.

The petitioners call upon Canada to lift the visa requirements. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration could move quickly on that with consensus of the House.

* * *

Automobile Recycling

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is with regard to automobile recycling.

There is a series of chemicals in different automobiles, including shredder residue. These chemicals contaminate our environment. The petitioners are calling for the dismantling and recycling of automobiles. It is very important to thank the CAW for this petition. Auto recycling creates jobs for Canadians and cleans up the environment. Auto recycling is a good practice and is being done in many other nations.

* * *

Seniors

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, the final petition is a series of petitions in the hundreds calling for greater support for seniors by the government. The petitioners are calling for the elimination of discrimination on the eligibility requirements. In particular, the petitioners want an amendment to the Old Age Security Act regulations and policies to eliminate the 10-year residency requirement for the OAS and GIS.

The petitioners are well aware there is a poverty gap in Canada that is growing and that seniors are being harmed by these issues. The petitioners are calling upon the government to act. This would be consistent with the NDP motion that called for a seniors charter of rights which motion passed in this chamber.

* * *

[Translation]

Summer Career Placement Program

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Carole Lavallée (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great displeasure to table a petition this morning about the summer career placement program.

It gives me no pleasure to table this petition because by their signatures, people in my riding are criticizing changes to the summer career placement program, specifically, this year's $10 million in cuts, as well as other expected cuts.

This was an excellent program because it enabled young people to find a summer job in their field. Now the government has changed everything, including the decision-making process. Even the Minister of Labour, at home in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region, criticized the new Canada summer jobs program because decisions about subsidies would no longer be made in the ridings and in the regions, but in Montreal and Ottawa.

Here are another hundred signatures against the new program.

* * *

[English]

Visitor Visas

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions. The first petition is from 65 members of the Polish Canadian community in my riding. The petition calls for the lifting of the requirement for visitors visas for people coming from Poland. Poland is now part of the EU and Poland uses all of the same biometric passport technology and other secure passport identification that other EU countries use.

The lifting of the visitor visa requirements would increase family visitation, tourism, cultural exchanges, trade missions and is strongly supported by my community which has a large Polish Canadian component.

* * *

Federal Minimum Wage

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, the second petition has 387 signatures. The petitioners are calling for the federal minimum wage to be reintroduced and raised to $10 an hour. The minimum wage was abolished in 1996 under the previous Liberal government. A minimum wage of $10 an hour would just approach the poverty level for a single person. If a minimum wage were established at the federal level, the influence would extend beyond workers in the federal jurisdiction because it could serve as a best practice for labour standards across the country. The petition calls for passage of my minimum wage Bill C-375.

* * *

[Translation]

Summer Career Placement Program

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Christian Ouellet (Brome—Missisquoi, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, this morning I am tabling a petition from non-profit organizations in my riding, Brome—Missisquoi, including the Learning Disabilities Association of Quebec and municipal recreation and volunteer committees.

This petition was signed by 143 members of NPOs who find this loss of jobs for youth a great shame and who deplore the fact that decisions about jobs for all of Quebec will be made not in each region where people are more familiar with the choices to be made for each student, but by bureaucrats.

These people are very disappointed with the new program and are asking the government to bring back the old program.

* * *

(1045)

[English]

Questions on the Order Paper

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

The Speaker: Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Government Orders]

* * *

[English]

Railway Operations Legislation

Motion that debate be not further adjourned

[S. O. 57]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the consideration of the motion under government orders, Government Business No. 15, I move:

That the debate be not further adjourned.

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1 there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

I will start with the hon. member for Davenport.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying that although we will be supporting the motion under Standing Order 57 and also Bill C-46, we have serious concerns about how the government has handled this situation. Obviously all of us are concerned that prolonging the CN strike has a serious economic impact on our country. This is a very important service to many communities.

The strike has been ongoing for quite a long time and we want to know where the government was. Where was the minister? It seems that the minister has been missing in action. The minister should have been there to bring both parties to the table to resolve this issue from the beginning so that we would not be in the situation we are in today. The fact that we are voting on this closure motion and also subsequently voting on Bill C-46 in many ways indicates the failure by the government to bring about a resolution to the strike.

I want to know what steps the minister has taken. How many times has he met with both parties? What attempts has he made to bring a resolution to this strike?

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the principle of free collective bargaining is accepted by all parliamentarians. However, when a 14-day strike at Canadian National paralyzed Canada's economy and our exports dropped by $1 billion in February as a result of the dispute between CN and the United Transportation Union, our government had a responsibility to act when it saw that the parties did not seem to be able to reach an agreement. Hon. members will recall that after Bill C-46 received first reading, the parties reached an agreement in principle.

However, the members voted nearly 80% not to ratify this agreement, and workers are now holding rotating strikes across the country. We have heard from a number of companies that are affected by these strikes and are afraid they will not be able to move their own goods within their company.

Under the circumstances, how long should we wait? Should we wait until 5, 10, 20 or 30 rotating strikes have taken place? How long should the government wait and let the economic situation deteriorate before taking action? We told the parties that the government would do what it had to do, given that an agreement did not seem possible. We are going to proceed with this bill.

There is nothing preventing the union from reaching an agreement with management. Even though the bill will come into force, the parties can still reach a settlement, in which case it will take precedence. But we are determined to protect Canada's economy.

(1050)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I must say that every time in Parliament that we rise for a question period on a topic such as this which involves closure on a bill that is before the House, or will soon be before the House, it is an occasion that we should treat very seriously because as parliamentarians we are here to debate legislation. We are here to promote public discourse. We are here to put forward various perspectives and points of view.

When a governing party brings in a closure motion, which is what we are now dealing with today, to ram through legislation in an act of desperation, we have this 30 minute period to question why indeed this is happening. I am very pleased to rise today to question the minister and the government as to why they are now, at this point, bringing in closure on the back to work legislation.

It begs a question. Back to work legislation is a very serious issue. The situation involving CN and its employees has been dragging on for months. The members of the union have very legitimate issues around health and safety, which we will get into when we debate this bill. However, to deny workers a legitimate right to negotiate and to go back to the table, to force through legislation and bring in closure on top of that, and to rail this through Parliament in a few hours, which is what is going to take place today unless it can be held up, is a very serious matter.

I want to question the government on the principle and on the grounds of democratic process. It is using this very heavy-handed and blunt instrument of closure to force through this legislation that will deny workers the opportunity to negotiate in good faith.

We have seen CN locking out workers. We saw union members legitimately reject a tentative agreement. They have a right to do that. That is part of the Labour Code. That is part of fair collective bargaining and negotiations: the right of a membership to make its own estimation as to whether or not it agrees to a tentative agreement.

The members decided they did not like that tentative agreement and they voted it down resoundingly. They now, I believe, have a right to go back into the process and get into negotiations, and the minister's office and the government should be facilitating that. They should be using all of their resources to ensure that that happens, not using this hammer and saying, “We give up on this now. We are just going to roll over and do what CN wants us to do. We are going to bring in this back to work legislation and more than that, we are going to use a second hammer to bring in closure and make sure we march it through Parliament as quickly as possible”.

We in the NDP, on principle, find that to be offensive. We find it to be anti-democratic. We find it to be in violation of the basic principles around labour fairness in this country.

I would like the government to respond to that in terms of how it justifies what it is now proposing and putting forward before this House, these very drastic measures to railroad through this legislation.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn:

Mr. Speaker, hon. members must understand that the parties have now been in talks for 19 months. Along the way, we organized our team of mediators to assist the parties. In February, an agreement was reached between Canadian National and the United Transportation Union with the help of our mediators.

Once the agreement was signed, the employees went back to work immediately. We appreciate that they did this, and it is entirely to their credit. However, when the union members democratically decide not to accept the agreement bargained by their leaders, the government cannot allow the economy to be paralyzed every day because of a rotating strike happening in one place or another. When there is a rotating strike in one place, that place is not the only one that feels the impact. In fact, it has a Canada-wide impact.

On Saturday, the parties continued to bargain, and no light can be seen at the end of the tunnel. In the circumstances, it is the responsibility of the members of this House to take action, and to enact a law, because they can see that the parties are not able to reach an agreement at this time. The parties will still be able to bargain. Over the next three months, if they reach an agreement, that agreement will prevail. If there is no agreement, our arbitrator will ask each party to state its position regarding the agreement. Our arbitrator will then decide between A and B, with no middle ground. He will decide between A and B. We believe that this is what we have to do to solve this problem.

The Canada Labour Code was revised in 1999. Parliament did not have to step in again in any way to enact back-to-work legislation. In 2000, Canadian National ratified an agreement. It ratified another agreement in 2003. At present, that does not seem to be possible. In February, there were 14 strike days, an extremely long time, all because of a conflict between an American union and the Canadian union that the two parties do not agree on. Who has paid the price for this problem? The Canadian economy, and the employees whose wages were not paid.

The law we will enact is in the interests of our country's economy, in the interests of the employees, and in the interests of the proper operation of our rail service. It will also mean that the United States and other countries will be able to see that this country is operating properly and that they can count on a fully functioning transportation system.

(1055)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Liberal Party, I guess all of us are rather frustrated that we find ourselves in this particular position. On basic principle, we would all hope that collective bargaining would achieve a desired outcome that would not involve the Government of Canada insinuating itself into a situation that is, at the same time, local as it is macro.

I listened to the minister's answers, and I recall the days that we sat on the manpower and immigration committee when we were looking at resolving a lot of issues dealing with human resources. I know that his heart appears to be in the right place and he wants to take the appropriate actions. It is very non-partisan of me to say that, and I kind of hesitate to pay him a compliment, although he is quite deserving.

He must feel as frustrated as I that his erstwhile allies on the NDP side, who claim to have a righteous position on principle, have eschewed the opportunity offered to them to take a look at the greater interests of people working everywhere in the country. It must be terribly frustrating for him. I feel badly for him.

Before I start to shed a tear, I would like to tell him that the next time he is sitting at the cabinet table to take a look across--and I do not know what the seating order is--but to take a look at his other erstwhile ally, and that would be the Minister of Transport , who has also absolved himself of the great responsibility of looking at the transportation infrastructure needs of this country that led to this mess in labour relations at CN with its employees.

I am not going to pick sides between CN and the union. As I said, from our perspective we are looking at a situation that says that the country is crying out for the intervention of Parliament in a situation that has wide, national impact. While we do not want to see the government come in with a heavy hand, we have to, at this point, get to the nub of the matter. Are we going to ensure that people get back to the table or not? I think that is what the NDP would like us to consider as its sole position.

I am hoping that the Minister of Labour will agree that the measures that he is about to take are going to ensure that people get back to the table and reassess their position. It might not be the philosophical position that the NDP and its moralist rant would like to see happen, but those members have been wrong before many times, so it has become a bit of a litany.

I am wondering whether the minister has already taken the measures necessary to alert both parties that this kind of measure that Parliament is considering today is expected to receive their immediate attention, so we can get on with taking care of the nation's business and that they can be full partners in that, not like their erstwhile parties way off to the left of the fringes.

(1100)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn:

Mr. Speaker, what did the parties agree to in February? They agreed to a 3% increase and a lump sum of $1,000 and they were going to take a year to negotiate their collective agreement. The employees, the union members, have the right not to accept this offer and to decide that it does not satisfy their expectations.

However, what should we as parliamentarians be thinking about? We have to consider that we cannot be in a situation where one morning one area is shut down and the next morning it is another, and the day after that, another, and so on, indefinitely. We have to take action. We are not requiring anything in terms of a collective agreement. The two parties have to sit together at the table and come up with an agreement that works for them.

This is what we are saying: if after three months the parties still do not have an agreement, the arbitrator will ask each side what it wants and he will choose one of the two proposals, not up the middle, but either A or B. The parties can certainly agree. If they come to a mutual arrangement then there is no problem; in fact, that is preferable. However, our responsibility is to ensure that the trains are running, that they are delivering goods to businesses, that our seaports are able to export and that things are operating smoothly from end of the country to the other.

Allow to name a few of these businesses. Yesterday alone we received 78 phone calls from business people and businesses asking us to take action. It has been like that for a few days now, since the decision was made to have rotating strikes. They included Superior Propane in Calgary, Western Grain Elevator Association in Winnipeg, Nutrinor in Saint-Bruno, Keystone Agricultural Producers in Winnipeg, Tembec in Abitibi, Campotex in Saskatoon, Canadian Federation of Agriculture in Ottawa, Canadian Grain and Oilseed Exporters Association in Winnipeg, the Port of Halifax, and the list goes on.

I understand why the Liberal Party is supporting us because, indeed, everyone comes to realize that it is our responsibility to take action. That is what we are doing in the best interests of the employees, of our economy and of railway operations in Canada.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the comments of the minister. I have great concern with the issue of the whole concept of the government to “protect the health of the Canadian economy”. It seems this is the only legislation that can be dealt with by a fast track method and it could trample on workers' rights. Those principles are very important for our party.

Every time the Liberal member for Eglinton—Lawrence speaks there seems to be a widening credibility gap when he talks about the moralist rant of the NDP. This is coming from a member who was willing to take money for his leadership bid from children. Every time the member gets to speak in the chamber, the credibility gap is only surpassed by the prosperity gap in our country.

It is important to note that this is absolutely not the truth about what the NDP is talking. We are talking about a set of principles and rules for workers, and they understand that through legislation passed in the chamber. For the minister to do an act like this and then close debate is very important.

I am concerned about what has taken place since the workers have gone back to work after the failed last attempt at negotiations. We had looked at rotating strikes and also lockouts by CN.

The issues that have been raised by some of the business interests are very important. They are very sincere in many respects and they relate to a lot of different businesses and Canadian consumers across our country, but they have to be done in balance. CN actually locked out a series of workers.

If we are to talk about protecting the health of the Canadian economy, one only has to look at the past budget. For example, I recently had meetings with our domestic auto manufacturers. They were calling for the government to stop the Korea trade negotiations. That is more important to them. Why is there not legislation to protect the health of the Canadian economy relating to that?

Why is Korea sending a delegation on Wednesday when we know the government's budget has caused General Motors to cease investment in Canada? The fee rates that the minister's colleague in industry and finance introduced penalized domestic auto manufacturers and provided a massive subsidy to Toyota, and the RX in particular, at the expense of Canadian domestic vehicles. General Motors has responded by saying that it will not invest in Canada right now. It is all on hold because of the minister's policies.

Where is the minister going with this legislation? Does he really understand that is not only the sole issue being asked to be worked upon?

As to the role of CN in this, has the minister done due diligence to ask it what it has done and why it has locked out certain locations? That is important. It seems that it has shifted to the burden of the worker alone where these are workers' rights. However, at the same time, CN is obliged to come forward to explain why it has locked workers out, and that is important. This is what we are talking about. Legislation at the end of the day is being usurped by the current action.

(1105)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn:

Mr. Speaker, what does the New Democratic Party want? When it becomes clear that two groups cannot reach an agreement, at least not in the foreseeable future, and that Canada's economy is suffering a little more damage every day because of rotating strikes, it is our responsibility to act.

I would like to point out that in February, the strike lasted 14 days. Why? What happened then? There was a conflict between the American and Canadian branches of the United Transportation Union. When the strike began, Canadian National went to the Canadian Industrial Relations Board, saying that the president of the Canadian union did not have the right to call a strike—only the American union could.

When the matter came before the Canadian Industrial Relations Board, the Americans refused to recognize the lawyer who was negotiating. They wanted their own lawyer. Five days passed while the lawyer representing the American union prepared the case. For those five days, Canada's economy was paralyzed as everyone waited to find out whether the strike was legal. In the end, those 14 days of strike action reduced our exports by about $1 billion. That is what it cost Canada's economy. That is why, as soon as it becomes clear that the parties cannot find a solution, we cannot let things go on.

As for these rotating strikes, are we supposed to wait 32 days, 64 days, or 100 days? We must act now. We know—we can see that the situation is deteriorating. It is our responsibility to act, and we are doing so in the best interest of all parties, in the interest of the employees and in the interest of our country's economy.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Joseph Volpe:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wanted to be polite and not interrupt the debate on a point of order until the minister had spoken because he has conducted himself like a gentleman. This is a little less than I can say about other colleagues, especially since we have entered into the area of muckraking with the member for Windsor West.

Elections Canada, which is an arm's length organization that monitors what members of Parliament do in terms of election, examined just his allegation and I am prepared to table the letter. It is unbecoming of a member from the House to attribute or allege behaviour that is dishonourable. I will table the letter from Elections Canada that addresses the issue of age of contributors and the legal presumptions due to family relationships or shared address of contributors. It exonerates anything that my campaign for the leadership did in terms of fundraising.

I ask the hon. member to live up to the word “honourable” and avoid making such smearing comments. These drive-by smears do not help anybody out. If he is a gentleman, he will withdraw the comment. If he is not, he will live with it.

(1110)

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

The hon. member knows that he cannot just table a document. He has to have the unanimous consent of the House to do that.

The point of order has been made. The member is seeking to table a document. Is there unanimous consent to table that document?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

An hon. member: No.

The hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, every time there is a labour dispute obviously there are complicating circumstances. If the situation were easy and clear-cut, the parties would work it out themselves.

Here we have the situation of a private corporation in very difficult bargaining with its bargaining agent. Surely where there is a situation where the agreement is not being achieved by the two parties and that is creating an impact on the economy, the appropriate response by the government is not to come down with a sledgehammer. The appropriate response on the part of the government is to work with the parties to see where the roadblocks are and to do everything possible to assist those parties to come to a freely negotiated collective agreement.

If there were no economic impact in a dispute, I guess one would have to ask what pressure does either party have in taking either lockout or strike action. There is always consequences in a dispute.

The question, though, is will these parties have a democratic right to find a freely negotiated solution with, ideally, the assistance of the government, or will the government come down in an untimely fashion and take away that democratic process by forcing this vote with closure today?

It is not a good precedent for the government to embark on this course of action and I would urge it to reconsider.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn:

Mr. Speaker, I would again like to remind the House of the serious economic consequences that the whole country felt as a result of the 14-day strike.

There were serious consequences for the Canadian Wheat Board, for chemical producers, for the Port of Vancouver, for automobile manufacturers, for farm producers and for operators in the forestry sector. All these stakeholders in our economy were greatly affected by the recent strike in February.

I would also point out that the NDP member thinks that Canadian National is a tough negotiator. Perhaps. Others feel that the union is asking for too much. Maybe so. At some point a decision must be made. We can not allow the parties to jeopardize the Canadian economy because of this dispute.

Our preference is that the parties should reach an agreement. Our legislation will force them to sit down together and discuss the issues. They will have three months to reach an agreement. If they are not able to do so, the arbitrator will ask each of the parties to provide a final offer and the arbitrator will decide. That is what is known as final offer selection. The arbitrator will choose either the offer of party A or of party B. The decision can not be in between the offers; it must be either offer A or offer B. Written into the bill, this puts a certain amount of pressure on the parties to reach an agreement. We believe this legislation is in the best interest of the employees, the Canadian economy and the carrier, Canadian National.

Again, I repeat that we would have preferred that the parties agree between themselves. However, since that does not appear to be possible, the government has a duty and responsibility to act.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I have been following this strike situation very closely, being that my region is dependent upon rail. We haul all kinds of forestry products. We haul sulphuric acid from the smelters, out of the Horne smelter in Rouyn-Noranda and the Kidd Creek smelter in Timmins.

Last week we had a massive train derailment in our region. The Blanche River was contaminated when numerous cars containing sulphuric acid turned over. It was an Ontario Northland line, which is a provincial line. We have had other derailments of our acid trains, and it is of great concern in our region.

I looked at the issues of transportation safety. We have seen a massive increase in train derailments since 2002. The Transportation Safety Board has had very few indepth studies of these accidents and there have been very few prosecutions. Serious questions have been raised about how a company like CN can make the kind of money it does. Questions have been raised about whether there are adequate crews working on the line and whether adequate measures have been taken to ensure that these very long freight trains, which run across the country, have the adequate staffing to support them to ensure public safety.

Therefore, when we are talking about ordering the workers back to work, they have been the canaries in the coal mine, to use the overused expression. They have been the ones speaking out consistently about the lack of support by CN to ensure that we have safety on the ground with adequate ground crews.

What steps has his government taken? It has sat on the sidelines through this dispute?

We are talking about issues of public safety and about ensuring that the CN workers have the support. Are enough workers on the ground to ensure there is adequate safety in rail transportation in our country?

(1115)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn:

Mr. Speaker, I emphasize again the scale of the impact on the Canadian economy, on our farmers, forestry operators, automobile manufacturers, and the whole of the chemical and petroleum industry. Some remote communities were not even receiving food and fuel that were essential for their continuing operation.

In such a situation, our government is obliged to act. It has a duty to act from the moment that the parties have refused to reach an agreement and there is no indication of a settlement of the dispute or good will between the parties. It is in this context that I ask the opposition parties, the Bloc Québécois, the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party, and the independent members to support the government.

It is perfectly obvious that we can not allow this situation to continue. It is in everyone’s interest. Moreover, the parties will have time to discuss the issues and to negotiate an agreement during the coming months.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

The time for questions on the closure motion has expired.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We would like to submit for your consideration that it is inappropriate and out of order for us to proceed to the vote and the point of order is predicated on the following.

The motion itself reads in part that the bill:

--shall be disposed of as follows: (a) commencing when the said bill is read a first time and concluding when the said bill is read a third time, the House shall not adjourn except pursuant to a motion proposed by a Minister of the Crown....

Mr. Speaker, our difficulty is that this motion, if passed, would have the House deal with this bill from first reading through to third with no interruption until it is concluded.

The difficulty, as we see it, is that this bill was already dealt with at first reading on February 23 and, therefore, there has already been an adjournment between what technically and formally has been the first reading and we would argue then that technically we are on second reading. Therefore, it is not possible for the House to comply with the motion given that we have already had an adjournment that has broken the process that the bill outlines.

To support that, Mr. Speaker, I would bring to your attention chapter 12 of Marleau and Montpetit at page 474 where it says in part, referring to the requirement and duty of the Speaker to ensure that everything is in order, “--and that it contains no objectionable or irregular wording”.

Given the fact that the wording not only does not work in compliance, it cannot possibly work as being actual wording that is acceptable. Basically, the wording is imperfect. Imperfect bills are not allowed to go through.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, with both those things in mind and with the supporting evidence, we would ask you to consider that the bill is out of order and needs to be ruled on appropriately.

(1120)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the matter before the House immediately is not the bill itself but rather the motion before us and that we proceed to a vote on the procedural motion that we are debating in this regard. I, therefore, do not see any substance to the argument that has just been made by my friend and I see no obstruction to us continuing to proceed on this matter.

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

Are there any further interventions on this particular point of order?

At this point, the Chair intends to take the point of order under advisement. It does pertain to the motion, not to the motion before the House at the moment but the motion which the motion before the House at the moment pertains to and therefore the Speaker will have an opportunity to rule on the point of order and on the admissibility of the motion in a timely way but not at this particular time. At this time the Chair is obliged to proceed to the taking of the division on the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.

* * *

(1210)

After the taking of the vote:

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Order, please. Something unusual has happened, unprecedented in my limited experience in the House.

The hon. member for Bramalea—Gore—Malton voted, but he was not seated in his seat. His seat has been moved. He did not know and I just discovered this, so might I propose that the hon. member's vote be allowed to count in the circumstances, since it was a genuine mistake on his part and of course on mine. He should have been seated farther down the chamber, let us put it that way, in another seat, and since the actual seat location was not particularly important to this matter, we might allow him to vote even though the rules require that a member be in his own seat to vote, which is why I am being technical about the matter.

Is it agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Speaker: Then we will hear the results of the vote.

* * *

[Translation]

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

(Division No. 152)

YEAS

Members

Abbott
Ablonczy
Albrecht
Alghabra
Allen
Allison
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson
André
Arthur
Asselin
Bachand
Bagnell
Baird
Barbot
Barnes
Beaumier
Bell (North Vancouver)
Benoit
Bernier
Blackburn
Blais
Blaney
Bonsant
Bouchard
Boucher
Bourgeois
Breitkreuz
Brison
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Barrie)
Bruinooge
Brunelle
Byrne
Calkins
Cannan (Kelowna—Lake Country)
Cannis
Cannon (Pontiac)
Cardin
Carrie
Carrier
Casson
Chan
Chong
Clement
Coderre
Cotler
Crête
Cummins
Cuzner
D'Amours
Davidson
Day
DeBellefeuille
Del Mastro
Demers
Deschamps
Devolin
Dhaliwal
Dhalla
Dion
Doyle
Dryden
Duceppe
Dykstra
Epp
Eyking
Faille
Fast
Finley
Fitzpatrick
Flaherty
Fletcher
Folco
Freeman
Fry
Gagnon
Galipeau
Gallant
Gauthier
Godfrey
Goldring
Goodale
Goodyear
Gourde
Gravel
Grewal
Guarnieri
Guay
Guergis
Guimond
Hanger
Harper
Harvey
Hawn
Hearn
Hiebert
Hill
Hinton
Holland
Ignatieff
Jaffer
Jean
Jennings
Kadis
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Karetak-Lindell
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Keeper
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Khan
Komarnicki
Kotto
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Laforest
Laframboise
Lake
Lalonde
Lauzon
Lavallée
LeBlanc
Lee
Lemay
Lemieux
Lessard
Lévesque
Lukiwski
Lunn
Lunney
Lussier
MacAulay
MacKay (Central Nova)
MacKenzie
Malhi
Malo
Maloney
Manning
Mark
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca)
Matthews
Mayes
McCallum
McGuinty
McGuire
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
McTeague
Ménard (Hochelaga)
Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin)
Menzies
Merasty
Merrifield
Mills
Minna
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Mourani
Murphy (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe)
Murphy (Charlottetown)
Nadeau
Neville
Nicholson
Norlock
O'Connor
Obhrai
Oda
Ouellet
Owen
Pacetti
Pallister
Paquette
Paradis
Patry
Pearson
Perron
Petit
Picard
Plamondon
Poilievre
Prentice
Preston
Proulx
Rajotte
Ratansi
Redman
Regan
Reid
Richardson
Ritz
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rota
Roy
Russell
Savage
Scarpaleggia
Scheer
Schellenberger
Scott
Sgro
Shipley
Silva
Simard
Simms
Skelton
Smith
Solberg
Sorenson
St-Cyr
St-Hilaire
St. Amand
St. Denis
Stanton
Storseth
Strahl
Sweet
Szabo
Telegdi
Temelkovski
Thibault (West Nova)
Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest)
Toews
Tonks
Trost
Turner
Tweed
Valley
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vellacott
Verner
Vincent
Volpe
Wallace
Warawa
Warkentin
Watson
Wilfert
Williams
Wilson
Wrzesnewskyj
Yelich
Zed

Total: -- 244

NAYS

Members

Angus
Bell (Vancouver Island North)
Bevington
Black
Blaikie
Charlton
Chow
Christopherson
Comartin
Crowder
Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley)
Dewar
Godin
Julian
Layton
Marston
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
Martin (Sault Ste. Marie)
Masse
Mathyssen
McDonough
Nash
Priddy
Savoie
Siksay
Stoffer
Wasylycia-Leis

Total: -- 27

PAIRED

Members

Emerson
Gaudet

Total: -- 2

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

I declare the motion carried.

* * *

[English]

Government Business No. 15

The House resumed from February 23 consideration of the motion.

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The Speaker: Call in the members.

* * *

(1300)

[Translation]

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

(Division No. 153)

YEAS

Members

Abbott
Ablonczy
Albrecht
Alghabra
Allen
Allison
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson
André
Arthur
Asselin
Bachand
Bagnell
Baird
Barnes
Batters
Beaumier
Bell (North Vancouver)
Benoit
Bernier
Blackburn
Blais
Blaney
Bonsant
Bouchard
Boucher
Bourgeois
Breitkreuz
Brison
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Barrie)
Bruinooge
Brunelle
Byrne
Calkins
Cannan (Kelowna—Lake Country)
Cannis
Cannon (Pontiac)
Cardin
Carrie
Carrier
Casson
Chan
Chong
Clement
Coderre
Cotler
Crête
Cummins
Cuzner
D'Amours
Davidson
Day
DeBellefeuille
Del Mastro
Deschamps
Devolin
Dhaliwal
Dhalla
Dion
Doyle
Dryden
Duceppe
Dykstra
Epp
Eyking
Faille
Fast
Finley
Fitzpatrick
Flaherty
Fletcher
Folco
Freeman
Fry
Gagnon
Galipeau
Gallant
Gauthier
Godfrey
Goldring
Goodale
Goodyear
Gourde
Gravel
Grewal
Guarnieri
Guay
Guergis
Guimond
Hanger
Harper
Harvey
Hawn
Hearn
Hiebert
Hill
Hinton
Holland
Ignatieff
Jaffer
Jean
Jennings
Kadis
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Karetak-Lindell
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Khan
Komarnicki
Kotto
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Laforest
Laframboise
Lake
Lalonde
Lauzon
Lavallée
LeBlanc
Lee
Lemay
Lemieux
Lessard
Lévesque
Lukiwski
Lunn
Lunney
Lussier
MacAulay
MacKay (Central Nova)
MacKenzie
Malhi
Malo
Maloney
Manning
Mark
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca)
Matthews
Mayes
McCallum
McGuinty
McGuire
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
McTeague
Ménard (Hochelaga)
Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin)
Menzies
Merasty
Merrifield
Mills
Minna
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Mourani
Murphy (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe)
Murphy (Charlottetown)
Nadeau
Neville
Nicholson
Norlock
O'Connor
Obhrai
Oda
Ouellet
Owen
Pacetti
Pallister
Paquette
Paradis
Pearson
Perron
Petit
Picard
Plamondon
Poilievre
Prentice
Preston
Proulx
Rajotte
Ratansi
Redman
Regan
Reid
Richardson
Ritz
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rota
Roy
Russell
Savage
Scarpaleggia
Scheer
Schellenberger
Scott
Sgro
Shipley
Silva
Simard
Simms
Skelton
Smith
Solberg
Sorenson
St-Cyr
St-Hilaire
St. Amand
St. Denis
Stanton
Storseth
Strahl
Sweet
Szabo
Telegdi
Temelkovski
Thibault (West Nova)
Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest)
Toews
Tonks
Trost
Tweed
Valley
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vellacott
Verner
Vincent
Volpe
Wallace
Warawa
Warkentin
Watson
Wilfert
Williams
Wilson
Wrzesnewskyj
Yelich
Zed

Total: -- 240

NAYS

Members

Angus
Bell (Vancouver Island North)
Bevington
Black
Blaikie
Boshcoff
Charlton
Chow
Christopherson
Comartin
Crowder
Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley)
Dewar
Godin
Julian
Keeper
Layton
Marston
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
Martin (Sault Ste. Marie)
Masse
Mathyssen
McDonough
Nash
Priddy
Savoie
Siksay
Stoffer
Wasylycia-Leis

Total: -- 29

PAIRED

Members

Emerson
Gaudet

Total: -- 2

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

I declare the motion carried.

* * *

Railway Continuation Act, 2007

[Government Orders]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC)

moved that Bill C-46, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of railway operations, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

He said: Mr. Speaker, the Canada Labour Code and our labour legislation allow us to strike a balance between the parties' rights to collective bargaining and the use of tools such as strikes and lockouts. When the parties do not reach an agreement within a reasonable timeframe and the Canadian economy is seriously affected as a result, the government not only should act, but has a duty to act. We are at that point now.

As you are aware, the tentative settlement reached on February 24 between Canadian National and the United Transportation Union was not ratified by 79.44% of the employees. I therefore must introduce the Railway Continuation Act, 2007, today. This bill provides for the immediate resumption or continuation of the railway operations of the Canadian National Railway Company.

The members of this House know that the February strike at Canadian National by the 2,800 members of the United Transportation Union had an enormous impact. This work stoppage had serious economic consequences across the country. The Canadian Wheat Board, chemical producers, the Port of Vancouver, auto manufacturers, farmers, potash mines and forest and automotive industry stakeholders have all told us how the strike affected their operations.

It is hard for me to take this step today. I would have preferred it if the parties had reached an agreement themselves, and that is why I did everything possible to help Canadian National and the union in their negotiations. But as many members know, the negotiations were long and complicated, lasting 19 months. I would like to take a few minutes to describe the process.

The collective agreements in question cover 2,800 drivers, yardmasters, and trainmen and yardmen. Bargaining to renew these collective agreements has been taking place since September 1, 2006, when the notice to bargain was given. I appointed two conciliators on November 20, 2006, and meetings have been taking place since December 14. The collective agreements expired on December 31, 2006, and failing an agreement the parties were released from the conciliation process on January 19, 2007, that is, three months ago. I then appointed two mediators to try and help the parties to conclude an agreement before they acquired the right to strike or lockout. However, on February 5, 2007, the union announced that the members had voted in favour of a strike to support the union’s demands, and the strike began on February 10.

Canadian National management then attempted to continue offering essential services, such as food and fuel delivery in remote regions, but it was all very difficult. On February 20, I decided to send our senior mediator to Montreal and I asked the parties to work with her to try and reach an agreement. I am referring to Elizabeth MacPherson. Fourteen days into the strike, the parties found some common ground with our other mediator, Laurent Lessard, and Ms. MacPherson, and the workers went back to work. We appreciate the fact that they acted promptly for the sake of railway transportation operations and the resumption of economic activity. They did not delay and we took note of this.

(1305)

[English]

However, last week on April 10, a majority of the union membership rejected the tentative settlement reached between both parties. CN rail workers have since resumed strike action, engaging in rotating withdrawals of service.

Many Canadian businesses struggling to recover from the last strike will once again face costly disruptions. We all know that in just a matter of a few days in February the strike was felt right across this country.

In the Pacific region, mill owners were faced with not having enough raw materials or no means of shipping their finished products. In the north, Canadian workers, owners and investors in the mining industry waited anxiously for much needed fuel. In the prairies, where grain owners have already been reeling from a difficult fall and winter season, the strike meant that no grain was moving.

In Ontario and Quebec, factories and industries struggled to find ways to manage having inventory accumulate while contending with slowing supply lines. In some cases workers were laid off or given reduced work schedules. Continuous uncertainty in the supply chain is the very element we are up against as a result of the rejection of the tentative agreement.

There seems to be little chance of ratifying an agreement at this time. The government and the millions of Canadians who have already been affected by the CN Rail dispute will not stand for any more disruptions to our economy and to our livelihood.

The legislation that we are moving forward today, the Railway Continuation Act, 2007, ensures the continued operation of CN Rail. This act also extends all previous collective agreements between CN and the UTU until the coming into force of new collective agreements to replace them.

[Translation]

The bill also provides for that the final offer selection process will be used to settle the issues in dispute by the parties. What is a final offer? Following three months’ negotiations between the parties, if there are still points of disagreement, the arbitrator will ask each party to make its offer, and the arbitrator will choose either the union’s or the employer’s proposals. There will not be an amalgam of the two proposals; it will be one or the other.

This forces the parties to reach an agreement. This is what we call the final offer. I repeat:, the arbitrator must choose between the employer’s final offer and the union’s. The arbitrator’s decision becomes the new collective agreement. It should be pointed out, however, that passing this bill does not in any way prevent the parties from continuing to negotiate and reaching an agreement. The bill actually expressly provides that the parties can at any time agree to conclude new collective agreements. We hope that the parties will continue to negotiate to resolve this conflict before the arbitrator has to decide the issue, but without paralyzing the economy and while continuing to work for everyone’s sake.

With this legislation, arbitration costs may be recovered in equal parts from the employer and the union. Furthermore, the legislation states that any contravention may result in fines of up to $1,000 for individuals, up to $50,000 for officers of both parties, and up to than $100,000 for the employer and the union if they do not respect the stated conditions.

The act would come into force 24 hours after it receives royal assent, making it possible for workers to be fully informed of its provisions and consequences. I would like to ensure that the members of this House truly understand that our government supports the collective bargaining process, which is fully covered by the current provisions of the Canada Labour Code. A settlement negotiated by the parties is always preferable to a solution imposed by the government. But when nothing works, it is our duty and our responsibility to act in the common interest and in the interest of the sound management of the economic well-being of our country.

The case before us is a good example of the importance of providing a balanced and stable legislative framework. The Canada Labour Code was thoroughly reviewed in 1999. Unions and employers were very involved in the exercise, which led to the amendments adopted in 1999. The current provisions of the code are the result of compromise and consensus, resulting in the well-balanced framework of the Canada Labour Code, part I. The results are evident: the government has not had to use back-to-work legislation since that time. Before the act was amended in 1999, this instrument of last resort— that is, back-to-work legislation— was used much more frequently. In fact, CN and the United Transportation Union have since renewed their collective agreement without a work stoppage.

In 2000, they reached an agreement through a conciliation process. Similarly, in 2003, an agreement was reached with the help of mediation. However, the current situation has become unique, which is why we must act. Railway operations are crucial to the Canadian economy and the well-being of all Canadians. Railway operations have become essential, not as defined by the Canada Labour Code, because this is not yet affecting the health and physical well-being of the public, but in the sense of the health of the economy. Railway operations play a crucial role in the functioning of Canada's economy. Additionally, our government is determined to ensure that Canada's reputation as a leader in the global economy is not tarnished, and that our country continues to be perceived as a place where businesses can depend on a railway network that is a reliable and efficient means of transport.

(1310)

It is our responsibility to intervene when the stability of our economy and the livelihood of thousands of workers are at risk. Government intervention in this dispute is now inevitable. This is why we are proposing this bill here today. The provisions of the bill would allow for a fair and rapid resolution of the dispute. Our message is clear: we have made every possible effort to allow for settlement through collective bargaining, but we are not willing to stand by and watch this labour disruption jeopardize the Canadian economy.

I urge all members of this House from all political parties—the Liberal Party, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP—and independent members to support this position, in order to pass this bill as quickly as possible.

I would remind the House that, regardless of this bill, there is nothing to stop the two parties from reaching an agreement. If they manage to do so, that agreement would take precedence. We must take action. We cannot continue to endure rotating strikes. The 14-day strike in February meant $1 billion lost in exports. Thus, it meant $1 billion out of $5 billion for the month of February.

I would like to reiterate that we encourage Canadian National, the employees and the union to negotiate and reach an agreement themselves. We must take action in the interest of the healthy functioning of Canada's economy.

(1315)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, the NDP cannot vote in favour of this bill because it gives CN managers a blank cheque. We have seen what this bad management has caused in communities across the country; I will come back to that later.

My question is simple. The government had a choice to make. We know full well that the safety of our railway is the major sticking point between the workers and the management of this company.

My question for the minister is simple. Has he talked to the Minister of Transport about resolving the railway safety problems that communities have been dealing with for years now? Have they tried to find solutions to satisfy the workers who are concerned about the growing number of accidents across the country?

Since the main problem is safety, did he talk to the Minister of Transport about what the government could do to resolve the safety issue? That is the problem. The problems raised by the minister are not the crux of the problem. This is a matter of safety in our railway operations. Communities have to deal with the accidents that occur across the country. Have there been discussions to resolve these differences, instead of simply telling the companies that we will impose what they want?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn:

Mr. Speaker, what does the hon. member want? Would he like the Canadian economy to be paralyzed for months and months because of a strike, because from the union's standpoint at Canadian National, we know there was a dispute between the American union and the Canadian union? Would the hon. member like the economy to be paralyzed and for us to wait indefinitely?

People are writing in to us. Some of them may even come from his own riding.

[English]

This includes Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, Sultran Ltd. in Calgary, Superior Propane in Calgary, Western Grain Elevator Association, West Fraser Timber in Vancouver, Nutrinor in Saint-Bruno, Keystone Agriculture Producers in Winnipeg, Tembec in Abitibi, Canpotex in Saskatoon, Canadian Chemical Producers' Association in Ottawa, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in Ottawa and others.

Just yesterday our office received 78 phone calls from people asking us to please proceed with this. They need security in transportation and they need the economy going well. We answered the people from across Canada. We said that it was their responsibility, my responsibility and our responsibility to act for the health of the country

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Carole Lavallée (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I have an important question to ask the minister about his bill.

When he appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development to speak against Bill C-257, one of his arguments went like this, “You can see how well balanced my current legislation on replacement workers in the Canada Labour Code is working. Since it came into effect in 1999, there has been no need to pass back-to-work legislation”.

I would like the minister to explain something to me. We still have the same legislation on replacement workers, which is not really any legislation at all. Employers only need to pretend to negotiate in order to hire as many scabs as they want. But that was the argument he used. He still has the same legislation today. There is still no anti-strikebreaker bill, unfortunately, but the minister is obliged to introduce back-to-work legislation.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn:

Mr. Speaker, if the anti-strikebreaker bill that the hon. member introduced had come into force, the employees would not have been able to return to work between February 24 and April 10, even though the parties had reached an agreement in principle around February 24, because they would have had to wait for the results of the vote to be made known. We would have been without trains for two months.

How could the country function without trains? Would the hon. member please explain to the House why she could possibly want this to happen? Even though replacement workers can be used, it is not always easy to find them. People do not necessarily have the skills needed for the job. It is not easy to find people. That is why it is important to maintain a balance between employers and employees in the Canada Labour Code. It is working quite well.

Despite everything, though, sometimes particular situations arise where it becomes apparent that the parties do not want to reach an agreement and we cannot ensure that there will be good service for the economic health of the country and we have to assume our responsibilities. That is what we are doing here.

(1320)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, the minister is talking about situations where there would be no trains and no service. But that is precisely what we have with all the problems we are seeing at CN because of bad management.

The government did not encourage talks with the Minister of Transport. That is absolutely absurd. So what have we seen for the last several weeks? No trains in Kamloops, Pickering, Montmagny or Fraser Canyon, precisely because of that bad management and lack of safety in the rail system.

What I am hearing from the minister is that the Conservatives have done absolutely nothing to settle the issue regarding those discussions and those disputes with the workers, who in fact want to have a safe rail system. The managers of the companies in the United States simply want to make big profits. So it is their responsibility to take measures that could have settled these disputes.

If I understand correctly, there has not been a single discussion about the question of safety and the escalating accidents we are seeing everywhere. What he is doing here is writing a blank cheque that will encourage more accidents, will encourage the stoppage and shutdown of the rail system across the country, because we will have even more accidents, since they have not solved the core problem.

Why have they not held a single discussion to solve the core problem in these disputes, which is the safety of our rail system?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn:

Mr. Speaker, the Canada Labour Code allows employees to strike. It also allows employers to order a lock-out. That is the principle of balance enshrined in the act. When there is a strike, which the unions are entitled to engage in, and which they call, we have an opportunity to conduct conciliation, followed by mediation and, ultimately, arbitration. At present, that is in the law and that is what we are going to do. We are going to allow the parties to do it. We are going to force them to bargain so that they can reach an agreement.

If one of the parties wants to abuse its powers, thinking that it can force the other to come around to its view, then it risks hitting a bump in the road. Why? Because under our legislation, after three months, if the parties have not agreed, if they have not reached an agreement, they will have to submit their offer. The union will submit its offer based on what it wants, CN management will submit its own offer, and the arbitrator will decide. The arbitrator will select offer A or offer B, but not something between the two.

No one wants to find themselves in that situation. We believe that it is in the parties' interests to sit down, bargain and come to an agreement, while keeping our economy functioning. That is what our legislation does, it provides for our system to function properly.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Labour a question. We saw in his presentation and in his responses that he is thinking about the interests of workers in his plan. I would hope so.

I would like him to explain as briefly as possible whether his plan is compatible with all the existing regulations in the free market for resolving workplace conflicts between management and employees in a company. Can he tell us if the system he is suggesting we consider today, as parliamentarians, is compatible with all the other means available in the free market? Yes or no?

(1325)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn:

Mr. Speaker, during this dispute between the two parties, we made our conciliation services and then our mediation services available, providing the parties with the best people we could offer. They worked hard and an agreement was reached between the representatives of the union and of Canadian National. However, perhaps because of a dispute between unions—this is the right of the workers—the workers decided they were not satisfied with the agreement. They had a 3% annual increase, they had a $1,000 signing bonus and they had one year to discuss. They refused this.

Balance is important here. It is extremely important. One party cannot crush the other. Both parties must come to an agreement that is in the best interests of everyone, to keep the country running smoothly. With this in mind, we must now take—

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

I am sorry, but the clock has run out.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Davenport.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, let me first begin my remarks today by pointing out that the bill we are debating here today is quite frankly the worst way in which labour disputes should be resolved. However, there are times when it is clear that the parties to a labour dispute hold positions that are so utterly irreconcilable there is virtually no reasonable prospect of a resolution being attained.

This reality alone is sufficient for consideration of government intervention. However, let us add to this the fact that today we are dealing with a strike that has the potential to significantly impact the lives of Canadians across the country, as well as our economy, and there is really little option but to intervene. It is indeed a last resort whose time has come.

From the very beginnings of our country, the dream of a national railway linking all parts of Canada was a recognition of the very unique challenges that face us geographically and economically. Our reliance upon our national railway system is undisputed. The realities expressed by Sir John A. Macdonald at the very birth of our nation are the same realities that we continue to understand today. The railway has been an integral part of this country's success, both as a nation and economically.

All of this brings us to the Canadian National Railway strike that began on February 10. Looking back to the beginning of this strike, we cannot help but wonder how anyone could be surprised at how this strike has come to the point where government intervention is unavoidable.

Under Canada's labour code, employers and their union representatives are required to designate which employees are essential prior to a strike being authorized. This process did in fact take place in the case of Canadian National and it is simply inconceivable that both parties would agree that there were no essential workers at CN.

Let me reiterate this statement: the two parties to this labour disruption, CN management and the United Transportation Union, both agreed that there were no essential employees who would need to continue working in the event of a strike.

As members can imagine, this agreement was challenged by the former Liberal labour minister. However, in view of the law, the Canada Labour Code, and the fact that this was mutually agreed upon by both parties, the agreement was confirmed by the Canada Industrial Relations Board: no essential employees.

Since there would be no essential employees in place in the event of a strike, it was simply inconceivable that Canadian National would be able to fulfill its essential duties to Canadians or its business customers. In effect, the die was cast long ago as to how this strike would end.

One can only wonder why the employers in this case would have agreed to such an understanding. If it was indeed simply a strategy to solicit government intervention, then it was wrong, short-sighted and irresponsible.

To this, we can add the obvious difficulties that are currently taking place within the union representing Canadian National employees. As soon as the strike commenced, we quickly witnessed a scenario where the union in Canada was at odds with its international leadership, the latter indicating that it had not authorized the strike to commence and therefore the strike was not sanctioned.

The confusion associated with such a revelation obviously added to the difficulties in resolving this labour dispute. I would also question why, in view of the realities of the situation between Canadian National and the union, the government would wait so long before becoming directly involved in efforts to resolve this issue.

In a country like Canada, vast in geography and sophisticated economically, few would reasonably argue that the rail system in this country was anything but essential, all of which leads us to why we are supporting the back to work legislation today. Let us look at how this strike is impacting Canadians and our economy.

The Canadian Wheat Board informs us that the CN strike threatens the shipment of 10 million tonnes of grain. In fact, delays have already caused grain suppliers $150,000 per day in fees charged by ships stuck in the ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert, British Columbia. The president of the Wheat Board, Mr. Greg Arason, has called upon the government to invoke this back to work legislation.

(1330)

When the strike began in February, it was not long before one of our major industries was affected. Last February, only days passed before the Ford Motor Company was forced to close its plant in St. Thomas, Ontario. Ford and the other major automobile manufacturers are reporting that the same pressures are facing them once again as this strike begins again.

The Mining Association of Canada has expressed the same concerns. Due to the nature of its business and where it takes place, the mining industry clearly has a significant dependency on rail transportation.

Fertilizer producers across this country have also expressed their concerns in view of the coming spring season when their products will be most in demand.

We also recall that in February the rail strike was blamed for increasing gasoline prices for Canadians due to the pressure the strike created in the marketplace. This will surely come to pass once again.

In my home city of Toronto, there is continued uncertainty with respect to GO Transit, which transports hundreds of thousands of commuters each day. Even though there was an agreement in place to keep the Canadian National employees in place during the strike, this uncertainty is clearly of significant concern to those who use this commuter railway service.

Communities across the country rely on rail service. This is particularly true of smaller and more remote communities that rely on rail service for all sorts of commodities, supplies and transportation needs.

These are but a few examples of the dependency Canadian individuals and Canadian industries have on rail transportation. It is indeed our economic lifeline.

As I have said, back to work legislation is really our last resort. However, it is not unprecedented. In fact, since 1950 the federal government in this country has invoked back to work legislation over 30 times. In six of those instances, back to work legislation has been used for the rail industry.

Over the years, governments have clearly recognized the importance to our country of the railway industry for both the personal and the economic interests of Canadians. The need for this legislative approach is reinforced by the statement of the stakeholders themselves.

Just yesterday, Canadian National issued a statement indicating that “CN has concluded that a national collective agreement with the UTU cannot be reached”. From the union we heard over the weekend that “the UTU has no choice but to turn up the heat in their selective and targeted strike action”.

It is obvious that both sides to this labour disruption are becoming more entrenched rather than working together in agreement. One side is saying there is no hope of an agreement and the other is talking about escalating its activities. Quite frankly, Canadians and the Canadian economy cannot continue to countenance these positions.

Having said all of this, I must confess to being disappointed in the government's handling of this issue. Long before the strike began on February 10, the minister and the government understood the essential nature of railway services in Canada.

As I have already stated today, there are questions to be asked of the government. Why would it have left this to the very last minute, so to speak, before the issue appeared on its radar screen? Why would the government have allowed the brinkmanship to escalate to this level before bringing these two parties together to find a resolution that might have avoided the situation in which we now find ourselves? These are important questions for which the government must be held to account.

However, our decision to support this back to work legislation is a reflection of our commitment to put Canadians first. We much rather would have preferred to see the issue between Canadian National and its employees resolved through the normal channels of collective bargaining, but clearly the time for this has passed.

The bill introduced by the government receives our support not because it is prudent action on the part of the government, but because it constitutes a last resort that cannot be avoided. While supporting the passage of this bill, we encourage the government to be more prudent in the future in advance of labour situations like this strike.

Today we will support this bill because it represents the best interests of Canadians and acts to ensure that there is not an overwhelming disruption of our economic interests. I am hopeful that this issue will be resolved in a fair and equitable manner following the process set out in the legislation. We will certainly continue to follow this issue closely.

(1335)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Robert Carrier (Alfred-Pellan, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my hon. colleague's speech, and that of the Minister of Labour, concerning the back to work legislation for CN employees. The official reason given for this bill has to do with avoiding further damage to the country's economy. In principle, that is a valid argument. Yet, I am a member of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and we are in fact just now beginning a review of railway safety. We are learning that, for reasons of profitability, the number of workers on trains is often reduced to a strict minimum and all decisions are made based on how rail companies can reap the greatest profits. This all goes on with the okay of, or unmonitored by, the Department of Transport, which is responsible for ensuring safety. Once again, it is the monetary aspect, the money factor, that supersedes everything else.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague how he can logically support a bill that simply forces workers back to work despite the dangerous conditions that exist on railways, rather than having a bill or a government that is devoted to improving the safety of our rail system. This would prevent the senseless loss of lives, both on railways and in the communities through which our railways run, as we have recently learned in committee. I now give the floor to my hon. colleague for his response to my question.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mario Silva:

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for that question. I have a great deal of respect for CN employees and the excellent work they have done for our country and, of course, to develop our economy and our market.

But quite honestly, we are in a very difficult situation now, and we have no choice but to support this bill. Not only is our economy at risk, but the situation between the employer and the employees is untenable.

The situation at present is difficult and, as members of this House, we have a duty to shoulder our responsibilities and adopt this bill.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the Liberal stance on this. I simply do not understand.

The member should know that we are now facing a situation whereby, because of CN's horrible management, we are facing derailments, collisions, fires and explosions, escalating to a rate of three to four a day now, because of what happened under the Liberals and the Conservatives when they simply gutted safety conditions.

The employees at CN said, “Enough is enough”. They said, “We have to restore some safety standards”. What we are seeing here in the House now is three parties saying that this is fine, that they do not want to see more safety, that they do not want to see those safety concerns addressed. They are saying that they want CN's position, the management position, imposed and simply given a blank cheque.

I cannot understand why the Liberals are supporting the Conservatives on doing something that we know will lead to a state of permanent uncertainty in our railway network. There are three to four accidents every day, any one of which has the potential to shut down portions of our system. When the employees said no to this, that the situation had to be addressed, the Conservatives said no, they were not going to touch safety, no sir, they were going to give a blank cheque to Hunter Harrison and CN's American management.

Why are the Liberals and the Bloc supporting these measures that will lead to permanent insecurity in our railway system?

Out there, Canadians expect us to make intelligent decisions based on the facts. We have seen escalating derailments and escalating safety problems. The employees want to see that addressed, but the government is imposing a settlement and basically imposing CN's management decision on the employees, which will lead to problems right across the country.

Why are the Liberals supporting the Conservatives on what is bad public policy, bad for communities from coast to coast to coast and bad for the employees of CN who want to have safety issues finally addressed?

(1340)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mario Silva:

Mr. Speaker, being a New Democrat in this House means being in the easy chair. It means never having to take responsibility for anything, being critical of everything and not worrying about what will happen to the economy of the country or what decisions will take place.

If the hon. member is really concerned about giving a blank cheque, then maybe he could propose an amendment or perhaps his party could bring in a private member's bill banning all back to work legislation, which his party has so far not done. Perhaps the NDP could say that if there is no settlement within three to five months it will support back to work legislation. Instead, those members like to take the easy road.

They will not bring in any of those amendments or make any of those decisions. All the NDP members like to do is criticize what is happening in the House. They basically say that we should allow things to happen and that even if it takes a year or two there is nothing we can do. They do not want to be responsible in the House.

There are times when issues can be addressed but the reality is how long that will go on. We have a problem here. Even though I am fully supportive of my colleague's argument about safety and of the argument of putting the blame on CN, there is a lot of blame to go around here. To blame only one side is totally unfair.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the member for Davenport understood the minister's position to be that the mediator would only consider one side. In final offer selection, did the member understand the minister to say that the government would select the side of the company or did he understand the process to be one where the arbitrator would take one side over the other and make a decision based on all considerations for only one side and that maybe that decision might be for the union, in other words, on behalf of the employees?

Is it the member's understanding from reading the legislation and from the minister's presentation that the mediator's position has not yet been determined and that we ought to await the final selection? Is that the position that he understood?

(1345)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mario Silva:

Mr. Speaker, obviously all of us in the House understand the message in the bill. The member is absolutely correct. We have a situation where the arbitrator, after hearing all the evidence, has a very good opportunity to agree with the union and with the workers. There is a great opportunity when this decision comes back for that to take place.

There is a mechanism in place that will be followed and respected and we should be very encouraged by that particular position.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Carole Lavallée (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, before I speak directly to C-46, I would like to explain how we got to this point.

How is it that back to work legislation for the railway sector is being introduced in this House when the Minister of Labour has repeatedly boasted publicly in committee and here in this House that since this House passed legislation on replacement workers in 1999, there has been no back to work legislation? He said that that proved the replacement worker legislation, which is now part of the Canada Labour Code, was effective. How is it that this legislation is no longer effective?

The current replacement worker legislation is a sham, because all an employer has to do is keep negotiating or pretend to negotiate with a union in order to hire as many replacement workers or scabs as it wants. That was one of the minister's lame arguments against anti-scab legislation.

Yet this back to work legislation is before us today precisely because there was no anti-scab legislation. And I will tell you why: it is a question of balance.

There are two parties in any negotiations: the management and the union. Negotiation takes place between these two sides. When one party goes in search of replacement workers, looks for new people, new players, that throws the situation out of balance. Moreover, when these new players, these replacement workers, these strikebreakers go past the picketing strikers every morning on a bus and thumb their noses at those unionized workers, the picketing strikers who are having a hard time paying the rent and paying their bills, there is no balance anymore.

When, in addition, the police force lends its weight to the employer and the replacement workers, it becomes three against one and that can not work. The present legislation is not balanced. We see now that this is another example of the lack of balance. The absence of anti-scab legislation is another reason that CN management is so arrogant. It is because there is no anti-scab legislation that CN management has adopted its current strategy, which is not working, by the way. They have not negotiated seriously because there is no anti-scab legislation. They thought they could hire as many replacement workers as they wanted and that they could continue to deliver the goods everywhere.

Unfortunately, that is not what happened. CN had based its whole strategy on hiring replacement workers that it expected to recruit from among retired employees and American workers. But that strategy proved to be ineffective. In addition, it is because there is no anti-scab legislation that CN management hired scabs, realized that was a failure, and now asks for back-to-work legislation to compensate for its failed bargaining strategy based on arrogance toward its unions, confrontation with its workers, and scorn for the work they perform and for their safety.

CN management came before the Standing Committee on Human Resources and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to speak against the anti-scab legislation, which it opposed. They expressed their concerns. It was clear that their approach was more anti-union than anti-scabs. They were told that, in any event, they could not have replacement workers because their workers were too specialized. In fact, when CN management opposed the anti-scab legislation its concerns were distorted by an anti-union bias.

It is not anti-scab legislation, but a labour dispute that CN management is worried about. And the solution is not special legislation; the solution is a balance of power between management and the union; the solution is respect for the workers and their union representatives; the solution is negotiations that respect each party and that is what anti-scab legislation allows, and that is why Quebec has had union peace for 30 years. I cannot resist a little aside: I must say that the Liberals, given their position in favour of this back to work legislation and against the anti-scab legislation, have adopted the same logic as the Conservative government.

The Bloc Québécois is not in favour of Bill C-46 in principle. To the Bloc Québécois, any agreement that is negotiated is better than one that is imposed. The Bloc Québécois therefore still hopes the employees and the employer will find a solution that satisfies both parties. The Bloc Québécois is closely monitoring the various stages of the negotiations and notes that talks between the parties have not completely broken off.

(1350)

When a dispute drags on and negotiations stall, sometimes it is better to implement a process to settle the dispute before it becomes completely bogged down, but we are not in that situation yet.

In 1995, the Bloc Québécois opposed back to work legislation for employees of CN and other railway companies because it did not include any real mediation mechanisms, it did not give employees a chance to express their view, which is highly important when something affects them so critically, and the legislation prohibited the employees and the employer from coming up with a new collective agreement themselves.

Although Bill C-46 is different, the Bloc Québécois finds it has similar shortcomings since it would immediately implement an arbitration process even though negotiation is still possible. Generally speaking, the Bloc Québécois feels that there has to be a balance of power between the employees and the employer. It is this fair balance that gets them to engage in serious negotiation. But there are no provisions for negotiations in this bill.

The Bloc Québécois wants to ensure that workers will not be on the losing end of this process. It is clear to the Bloc Québécois that the Minister of Labour is backtracking on his position that he would not intervene in this dispute. He is doing exactly what his government has done on issues like the environment, where the government brought back a watered-down version of the programs it abolished, and agriculture, where the government rejected the Bloc Québécois' solution to milk protein imports, then appropriated that very same solution.

Although the title does not exactly say so, the sole purpose of Bill C-46, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of railway operations, is to resolve and end the labour dispute. Upon coming into force, the bill will create an arbitration mechanism that prevents the parties from using pressure tactics. The bill prohibits strikes and lock-outs until an arbitrator's decision constitutes the new collective agreement.

The Bloc Québécois is well aware of the logistical and economic problems arising from labour conflicts, especially in rail transportation. However, it is clear that in this case, the problems are still quite small. For example, passenger transportation in the urban centres of Montreal and Toronto has been maintained because the union has given the company verbal assurances that it will continue to protect commuter train services in both regions during the rotating strike.

The same goes for goods transportation—which might be called an essential service—because managers have taken on a large role in providing that service. CN has indicated a number of times that it would do everything necessary to maintain client services, but that it cannot guarantee that there will be no service disruptions. Therefore, this does not mean either total or even partial paralysis.

Obviously, the economic issue is an important one. Various industry stakeholders, such as the Canadian Wheat Board, the Western Canadian Shippers' Coalition, and the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association, have legitimate concerns, but we have to be realistic. Any labour conflict is bound to have an economic impact.

When the Minister of Labour received the 78 calls from representatives of companies asking him to intervene and create this special legislation, I would hope that he redirected them to CN management to ask it to negotiate in good faith.

Economic impacts are not the only things to consider. There is the need to respect everyone's rights, including employees' right to strike. The Minister of Labour's great haste in this situation, his desire to have back to work legislation adopted today, while negotiations are still a possibility, are puzzling, especially since this same minister said there is currently a balance between employees and employers in the Canada Labour Code. Now, at the first sign of trouble, he wants to intervene and resolve the conflict with special legislation.

Yet all of Canada's labour relations laws, with the exception of the right to use replacement workers, are based on free negotiation. Instead of immediately imposing an arbitration mechanism, which could end up pleasing no one, the Minister of Labour should take advantage of the employer's openness to focus on mediation, to encourage it in that direction. Mediation is what eventually leads to a negotiated collective agreement, and thus better labour relations between employees and their employer.

(1355)

Can the minister really set aside this option after only about twenty days of strike action, when there is still hope of arriving at an agreement by mutual consent? It seems that he is pushing for the same solution adopted by the Liberals in 1995 when they immediately imposed arbitration. The Minister of Labour is becoming involved a little too late in this mess. He should have shown leadership a long time ago and forced the parties to bargain in good faith. The government not only has the responsibility to intervene, but also to anticipate and take the measures needed to avoid problems such as this one. One of the measures would have been to vote in favour of anti-scab legislation, which would have created a balance between the parties. It is too late now. It is too late, at least for the time being.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, having used FOS, final offer selection, in negotiations when I was head of a trade union, there is one thing I would note about choosing to use that type of third party arbitration.

If it is a very simple issue that has led to the impasse, such as strictly wages, then it can be a very effective tool. If the impasse has come about because of complicated work rules, or workplace safety and health, or benefits such as child care or a dental plan, then final offer selection is a very crude instrument to use. When the arbitrator is put in the position of choosing one side or the other but not parts of both, and the union is asking for workplace safety and health rules and the company is offering a pay increase of 5¢, those issues are not apples and apples, they are very much apples and oranges. It is difficult for the arbitrator to make a simple ruling.

I do not understand how the Bloc can support the use of final offer selection when some form of interest arbitration would be more suitable for this particular labour impasse.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Carole Lavallée:

Mr. Speaker, I think that this is not a good day for the NDP. Not only did they miss their opportunity to speak a little earlier, but they made us vote twice in a row. The NDP member who just spoke and the member before him—I am sorry, I cannot remember which ridings they represent—believe that the Bloc Québécois will support the Minister of Labour 's back-to-work legislation. I know that the interpretation services here are excellent and that when I speak French they usually provide a very good translation. Therefore I will repeat, for the benefit of the NDP member who just spoke, that the Bloc Québécois does not intend to support the Conservative government's back-to-work legislation. He may wish to ask another question in the same vein, but I repeat it in the hopes that this time he has understood.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

We will move on to statements by members. The hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert will have eight minutes left in her questions and comments period after question period.

The hon. member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

[Statements by Members]

* * *

[English]

George Mussallem

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Randy Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of a Maple Ridge icon, George Mussallem, who passed away a week ago today at the age of 99.

George, like his father Solomon, had a long history of service to our community. He was involved with the Boy Scouts, having started the movement in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows in 1947. He was a Sunday school superintendent at the local United Church. He was elected to four terms in office as a Social Credit MLA, serving with distinction between 1966 and 1983.

George set a good example for future politicians to follow, always putting the interests of his constituents first. The door of his constituency office was always open to us. His constituency office was in a unique location, inside his family's auto dealership, Mussallem Chevrolet Cadillac Limited, which stood as a landmark on the Lougheed Highway for 87 years.

I know my colleagues will join with me in extending our condolences to George's family and friends. George made our community and province a much better place and we mourn his loss with them.

* * *

(1400)

Court Challenges Program

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms today, we must not forget that the charter belongs to the people of Canada and not to the governments.

It is regrettable that today, archaic laws that do not comply with the charter continue to deny justice and the right of citizenship to hundreds of thousands of Canadians. It is a travesty that the government refuses to eliminate legislation that denies Canadians their rights.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin stated, “many Canadian men and women find themselves unable, mainly for financial reasons, to access the Canadian justice system”.

The court challenges program provided Canadians with the means to challenge laws or legislation. Its elimination by this neo-conservative government is a denial of charter rights for most Canadians.

It is shameful that on the 25th anniversary of the charter the government believes that justice in Canada depends on the size of one's pocketbook and not on the merit of one's case.

* * *

[Translation]

Virginia Tech University

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, April 16 will live in memory as a sad day in history, the day 32 people, including Jocelyne Couture-Nowak, a teacher from Quebec, were murdered at Virginia Tech University in Blacksburg, Virginia. The person who committed these murders took his own life. This campus shooting is said to be the deadliest in United States history and comes in the wake of shootings at educational institutions around the world, including the shooting at Dawson College in Montreal last September.

There is no explanation for such acts of violence, which leave only sadness, bewilderment and bitterness. We need to find a solution so that our students can be safe at school. This is one more act of violence that seems to be linked to easy access to firearms, and it bolsters the Bloc Québécois' argument in favour of maintaining the gun registry.

My colleagues and I offer our condolences to the victims' families and friends at this difficult time.

* * *

[English]

Equal Voice

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to offer my support to the Equal Voice Canada challenge. Canadians want women elected in numbers equal to men in the House of Commons.

I am proud of our NDP history. The first woman elected to this House was a social democrat. The NDP is the only party to pass a comprehensive strategy to elect women.

Women are needed in the House of Commons to bring the issues of their communities to the fore. Women's voices change the political agenda. All parties need clear political will, leadership and real measures to elect women, 50% women in their parties and in the House of Commons.

Women and men in the NDP have shown this leadership. Our NDP caucus is 41% women now, a historic high. We need another 10%, however, to reach our goal and we are headed there. I can feel the difference. We do things differently.

Why will the Liberals and Conservatives not do things differently? I am sure that they could put women first, as the NDP has done, and if they could do it, the entire House of Commons, in fact Canada, would be better for it.

Might I add that the NDP's initiative in support of real electoral reform could help us all get there.

* * *

Ukraine

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, 15 years ago Ukrainians overwhelmingly chose to once again become an independent nation. The following day Canada, under the leadership of our prime minister, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, was the first country to recognize the newly sovereign Ukraine.

This Wednesday night, the Order of Kniaz Yaroslav the Wise is being awarded to the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney by Ukrainian President Victor Yushchenko for Mr. Mulroney's “defining personal role in Canada's recognition of the independence of Ukraine and considerable contribution to the development of Ukrainian-Canadian relationships”.

Building upon the foundation of independence, the Ukrainian people have steadily strengthened their democratic institutions.

I wish to congratulate the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney on receiving this honour and the people of Ukraine for the great accomplishment 15 years ago, as well as for their continued determination to embrace their future within the world of democratic nations.

* * *

(1405)

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, while the 25th anniversary of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a happy and proud occasion for all Canadians, it is unfortunate that the Conservative government does not share in the enthusiasm for a document which enshrines our rights and protects all Canadians.

Time after time the charter has come under attack by Conservative members of Parliament who view this vital document as a roadblock rather than an expression of the values that place Canada among the most progressive nations in the world.

It is sad when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is forced to publicly defend the charter since the current Minister of Justice and his government seem unwilling to stand against those who attack our judiciary and scrap the vital programs which provide necessary accessibility to our justice system.

The official opposition reaffirms its support for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and looks forward to the day when the Government of Canada respects the rights of all Canadians as enshrined in the charter.

* * *

Human Rights

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Colin Mayes (Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, human rights are the foundation of Canadian values. Some Canadians believe that Canada defined human rights, but quite the contrary, human rights define Canada.

People from all over the world came to Canada to escape political oppression, religious discrimination and the lack of opportunity in their homelands. These settlers of our country defined our rights and values, how our society should be structured with law and order and the freedom for all citizens to pursue their individual enterprise.

Sadly, the people who met these settlers, the first peoples of this land, were not extended the same freedoms of this new Canada. The Indian Act discriminated against the first peoples of this land. The new Canada tried to change the culture and language of these first peoples.

Our government, led by our Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, has tabled Bill C-44 which would amend section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and once and for all avail the same rights to Canada's aboriginal people that non-aboriginal people have enjoyed since Confederation.

I ask all members to support the bill to remedy this injustice to aboriginal people.

* * *

[Translation]

Patriation of the Constitution

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Vivian Barbot (Papineau, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, 25 years ago today, a constitution was forcibly imposed on Quebec.

At the time, with the exception of Louis Duclos, the federal member for Montmorency—whose name should go down in history—the members of this House from Quebec voted in favour of that law, demonstrating that defending their own people took second place for them. Fortunately, now there are Bloc Québécois members, for whom Quebec comes first.

Our predecessors fought for recognition of our people and equality for Canada's two founding peoples. Instead, Canada imposed its Constitution on Quebec. Today, the ball is in the federalists' court. We, the Quebec sovereignists, want all the powers of a sovereign nation. Until then, we will take back all the powers Quebec can get. Quebeckers have tasted freedom, and anyone who tastes that fruit can never have enough of it.

* * *

[English]

Senate Appointment Consultations Legislation

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, today we are celebrating the 25th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The charter includes democratic rights for each and every Canadian citizen.

I would like to speak about Bill C-43 today. Bill C-43 is an act to allow electors to choose whom they would like to represent them in the Senate. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes democratic rights for all Canadian citizens. Why then should there be any questions in regard to Bill C-43?

Canadians from coast to coast to coast should have the democratic right to have their say on who sits in the Senate of Canada. Bill C-43 would give them that right.

I call on all 307 of my colleagues to support the bill, to modernize our democracy so that our great country will be a true reflection of what its citizens desire.

* * *

[Translation]

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Murphy (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, it is appalling that the Prime Minister and his Minister of Justice missed the conference marking the 25th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Charter is an integral part of the Canadian identity. As part of our Constitution, it is the fundamental law of the land. It is a basic guarantee of the rights and freedoms of all Canadians. Because of the Charter, we can all live in peace in this great, beautiful country we call Canada, knowing that our government has the duty and the responsibility to protect us against any threat to our fundamental rights and freedoms. In exercising these rights and freedoms, we have built a society that has become a great place to live.

The Charter protects us against abuses. Everyone in this House has a duty to defend it against those who would weaken it and infringe on our rights and freedoms.

* * *

(1410)

[English]

Aboriginal Affairs

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rod Bruinooge (Winnipeg South, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, on this the 25th anniversary of the creation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I am very happy to note this government's significant progress on human rights issues, particularly the rights of aboriginal people.

For instance, we have introduced Bill C-44, An Act to repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Bill C-44 proposes a fair, realistic approach to ending nearly 30 years of discrimination that, in many cases, prevented aboriginal people living and working on reserves from filing complaints under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

I also want to talk about the progress we are making on the difficult question of matrimonial real property on reserve. This issue is a serious injustice that often creates suffering for first nations women and children.

Under the guidance of Ms. Wendy Grant-John, a consultative process to identify a legislation solution was undertaken last fall. This process has been completed and Ms. Grant-John's report will be available shortly.

I am very proud of these initiatives and we intend to continue working to ensure that the human rights of all Canadians are respected.

* * *

Trade

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, today I call upon the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Labour to move and implement and act to protect Canadians.

The most important thing we need to do is to protect jobs against the Korea trade deal that is happening right now. We have to do that with a coalition to work on the bankruptcy protection act

This legislation has been available and the government has yet to move on it. Between 10,000 to 20,000 workers go each year without their wages being paid and their pensions protected. The government needs to move on the act right away.

It is necessary because the Minister of Industry has not paid due respect to the manufacturing industry. We have lost 200,000 jobs in Ontario and Quebec, and the minister has done nothing to enact a strategy.

We call today to make sure that there will be a strategy like the NDP green auto strategy that would protect jobs and make sure vehicles are manufactured in Canada, and second, that the minister will actually make sure that the Korea trade deal does not affect Canadian auto workers and that we have a fair trade deal.

A fair trade will only make sure that we will strengthen our job protection for Canadian workers as opposed to what the government is doing by offshoring our jobs. With the current budgetary allocation, it is actually sending Canadian money overseas. That is wrong and that is why General Motors is cancelling announcements in Canada right now.

* * *

[Translation]

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Anthony Rota (Nipissing—Timiskaming, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, today we are celebrating the 25th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is a milestone in our history that all Canadians can take pride in.

Since that historic day in 1982, the Charter has become one of the strongest symbols of Canadian identity.

[English]

The rights and freedoms that are protected by the charter are guaranteed to all Canadians regardless of their age, race, gender, national or ethnic origin, religion, mental or physical ability or sexual orientation. Not all nations have this privilege.

Though many of us take these rights and freedoms for granted sometimes, we must always try to live up to the standards that we have set for ourselves.

As Canadians, we have a responsibility to pause to reflect on the influence and legacy of this day, and especially to celebrate one of the greatest Canadian achievements.

* * *

[Translation]

Abitibi-Témiscamingue International Film Festival

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Marc Lemay (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, on April 11, 2007, the Festival du Cinéma International en Abitibi-Témiscamingue was awarded the Mercuriades prize, given by the Quebec federation of chambers of commerce.

The festival distinguished itself in the leisure and culture category for the outstanding quality of its content and the originality of its related events, by highlighting the talent and resources of Quebec society.

Over the past 25 years, the Festival du Cinéma International en Abitibi-Témiscamingue has become invaluable to those who work in the film industry, both in Quebec and internationally. The festival presents films from around the globe to an audience of devoted movie goers. The visionary founders of this regional film festival did the right thing, and it has become a force to be reckoned with.

On behalf of my Bloc Québécois colleagues, I would like to congratulate Jacques Matte, Louis Dallaire and Guy Parent, the founders of the Festival du Cinéma International en Abitibi-Témiscamingue, who have made it the success it is today.

* * *

(1415)

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to lead that party that, 25 years ago, gave Canadians the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The very essence of the Charter affirms that equality among all Canadians—men, women and children—is the keystone of our democracy.

[English]

Well before the charter, Canadian women struggled to see their rights recognized, including the right to run for office, but now, having this right is not enough.

The fight for equality starts at the heart of our democratic institutions. We need more women in Parliament and in government to ensure that the voices of all Canadians are heard. The Liberal Party is committed to that.

* * *

[Translation]

Member for Sherbrooke

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Luc Harvey (Louis-Hébert, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned that the member for Sherbrooke used the resources of the House of Commons for commercial advertising.

In fact, in the past few days 270 residents of his riding received mail addressed to them from the office of the Bloc member. When they opened it, they found a brochure from a Sherbrooke business. This was paid for by Canadian taxpayers.

After repeatedly denouncing the Liberal culture of entitlement, and patting themselves on the back for asking more than 450 questions about the sponsorship scandal although they could not put an end to it, we have the Bloc Québécois using taxpayers' money for business purposes. The last thing Quebeckers want is a windbag misusing taxpayers' money.

Quebeckers can be reassured. Thanks to the Conservative government, the Federal Accountability Act ensures that there is greater transparency and will help Canadians regain confidence in the integrity of the democratic process.

* * *

Women and Political Participation

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the low participation rate of women in politics is a blemish on democracy in Canada and Quebec. As democratic people, we cannot sit idly by; we all have an obligation to take action immediately.

Women compose 33% of the Bloc Québécois caucus, making it the federal party in Quebec with the highest number of women elected in the last election.

But that is not enough, especially since the Conservatives, through their inaction, are decreasing the percentage of women in this House, lowering it to 48th in the world, as the multi-partisan organization Equal Voice points out.

The organization also says, “Political parties can be catalysts for change. All that is required is political will on the part of party leaders to make a difference”.

The Bloc Québécois has that political will and we are committed to increasing the number of female candidates from our party in the next election. In the spirit of a truly representative democracy, we are challenging the other parties to do the same.

ORAL QUESTIONS

[Oral Questions]

* * *

[English]

Government Programs

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the Law Commission, the court challenges program, federal funding for legal aid, and a fair and non-partisan judicial selection process, all cancelled by the Prime Minister in an attempt to undermine the charter.

Why does the Prime Minister not use this historic day to correct his mistakes and reinstate these measures that are so important to the integrity of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

(1420)

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the question from the Leader of the Opposition is important. However, if you do not mind, I would like to take a minute to say a couple of words about the tragedy yesterday in Virginia.

[Translation]

We have learned that a Canadian was among the victims in Virginia yesterday. I am sure that the thoughts and prayers of everyone in this House are with her and her family.

[English]

When we saw the events overnight, it is really almost impossible to comprehend why an individual would take his own life and that of so many others in this way. I think we can all say that our thoughts are with all the victims, their families and the community.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition would like to join the government in conveying its condolences to the families affected by this terrible tragedy.

[English]

I now give the Prime Minister the opportunity to answer my first question.

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition knows we have a difference of opinion on the efficacy of some of these matters. They may be important things to lawyers, but I look at some of the things this government has done to promote rights in this country, like addressing the historical injustice of the head tax, dealing with victims of hepatitis C and the residential schools legacy.

We brought in measures to protect the rights of women and children from acts of criminality. I think probably most important of all, we have a piece of legislation before the House to protect and extend the most important right of all, the right to vote and the right to vote for the representatives in the Senate of Canada.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did not answer my question at all.

[Translation]

I repeat: the benefits of the Charter are too valuable to let people undermine it because of negligence or spite. There are too many battles to be fought, too many rights to be won.

Why, then, does the Prime Minister want to take away Canadians' ability to defend their Charter rights? Will he take advantage of the opportunity provided by this day of celebration to reinstate the court challenges program?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, this government believes that instead of paying lawyers, we must act to protect citizens' rights. This government and those that preceded it supported the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. All parties in this House supported it. Today, we continue to support it.

[English]

This party has a proud history of human rights protection, not just with the charter, but beginning of course with the first legislative act: the Bill of Rights of Mr. Diefenbaker in 1960. It is an important legacy that this party defends.

* * *

Charter of Rights and Freedoms

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister to show that he is in the tradition of a progressive Conservative.

The Prime Minister must find a way to celebrate the charter, instead of being mute about it. A good way to show that is to say that he will make sure that all Canadians have access to the benefits of the charter, whatever the size of their wallet.

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition talks about being mute on rights. Where was he when the historic injustice of the Chinese head tax was not fixed? Where was he when the Air-India inquiry was never properly constituted? Where was he when a residential schools agreement was never signed? Where is he when we are trying to pass legislation to protect the rights of women and children from criminals in the country? Where was he when we recently agreed to the United Nations rights on the declaration of the disabled?

The government is acting on rights, unlike the record of that government which did not get the job done.

(1425)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I rise in some astonishment. I am still waiting to hear the Prime Minister of Canada, in the House, welcome the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as an enhancement of our liberties. I have not heard it.

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, obviously the deputy leader of the Liberal Party was not listening to my answer in French when I said precisely that. In fact, not only does this party support the charter, I, as some of us know, have been in court on a number of occasions to actually promote human rights in the country.

I am glad, as a government, that we are able to actually advance some of these rights.

* * *

[Translation]

Aerospace Industry

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, many countries make a point of helping their aerospace industry. When Brian Mulroney was prime minister, he took concrete action to help the aerospace industry, especially in Quebec, where the industry is concentrated. However, there are four representatives from Quebec in cabinet and they cannot even lift a finger to ensure that Quebec receives its fair share of the aerospace contracts.

How can the Prime Minister justify that his Minister of Industry, who comes from Quebec, lowered Quebec's share of the spinoffs for all future contracts to 15% when Boeing had set Quebec's share at 30% for the C-17s?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of Industry, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we have already indicated and I will say again that this government will not tell Boeing who to conduct business with. Why? It is quite simple. The primary goal of this government is to ensure that the Canadian Forces get the better equipment they need at the best possible price.

Telling Boeing who to do business with would not be economically viable. It would increase the cost of military procurement on the backs of Canadian taxpayers. Unlike the Bloc Québécois, this government does not score political points on the backs of Quebeckers.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, this government is not telling Boeing what to do, Boeing is telling this government how to spend taxpayers' money. That is the reality.

We are not afraid of standing up for Quebec. In the words of Sue Dabrowski, the general manager of the Quebec Aerospace Association:

The federal government has a responsibility... We must [use the economic spinoffs] to protect the industry in Quebec, exactly as the government did to protect the auto industry in Ontario.

What is the Prime Minister waiting for to stand up and ensure that Quebec receives its fair share?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of Industry, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the Bloc Québécois' criticism. The Bloc Québécois should read its own platform before criticizing our military procurement for our soldiers. If we relied on the Bloc Québécois platform, there would not be any industrial spinoffs for Quebec since the Bloc Québécois is against the procurement of cargo planes. It is a very simple equation: no C-17 planes, no economic spinoffs for Quebec.

The Bloc Québécois is being truly inconsistent on this.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Paule Brunelle (Trois-Rivières, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry keeps saying that Quebec's aerospace industry will be able to hold its own, be competitive and get sub-contracts for Boeing's C-17 aircraft.

How can the minister demonstrate such bad faith knowing that his government gave the contract to Boeing without issuing a call for tenders, and knowing that Boeing's activities compete with Quebec's industry rather than complementing it?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of Industry, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we decided to do business with Boeing for one simple reason: it is the company that can provide what our military personnel need.

It is important to consider that we want Canadian businesses to keep positioning themselves for the long term in Boeing's supply chain. We want the economic spin-offs to be good and effective for all parts of Canada.

Unlike the Bloc Québécois, we are working in the best interest of Canadians, especially Canadian taxpayers.

(1430)

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Paule Brunelle (Trois-Rivières, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, a spokesperson for Boeing said that the company was having problems giving sub-contracts to its competitors in Quebec. By failing to require that 60% of the economic spin-offs from this contract end up in Quebec, the Minister of Industry has put the Quebec aerospace industry in a very difficult position. He should admit that his colleague, the Minister of National Defence, is a far better lobbyist for the aerospace industry in Ontario and western Canada than he himself is for Quebec's aerospace industry.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of Industry, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, rather than try to convince Quebeckers that it is useful here in Ottawa, the Bloc Québécois should congratulate our government for all of the business opportunities we have made possible for aerospace companies in Quebec and Canada. Canadians will benefit from economic spin-offs totalling more than $13 billion over 20 years.

Before it gets too critical, the Bloc Québécois should ask itself what it could have done for the aerospace industry. The answer is simple: nothing.

* * *

Afghanistan

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, the tragic events at Virginia Tech University bring back memories of the shootings at the École polytechnique and Dawson College. It is truly shocking. We offer our condolences to the family of Jocelyne Couture-Nowak and the families of all the people who were wounded or killed at Virginia Tech.

When the Minister of National Defence is talking about a deployment in Afghanistan that could last 15 years, the Prime Minister has a duty to table his plans. Will the Prime Minister wait until the last minute again to unveil his plans for Afghanistan to Canadians?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, this Parliament has approved the mission in Afghanistan until February 2009. If the government wants to extend that mission, it will obtain Parliament's support.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):

Let us hope, Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives do not do it the same way they did last time, with a last minute motion and a debate that was not permitted to be fully conducted by the Canadian people. That is not the right way to set this sort of strategy.

This kind of improvidence we have seen before. The Department of National Defence has just missed a deadline in Federal Court to respond to a case started by Amnesty International with regard to the treatment of Canadian prisoners in Afghanistan. The government could not even follow the simple court rules, so it is now having to ask for an extension. The Minister of National Defence has already had to apologize on this general matter.

Which is it to the Prime Minister? Is it incompetence or is the government trying to hide something?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I follow the details of the question.

Let me just say this. We understand that the New Democratic Party has been opposed to the mission in Afghanistan since it was undertaken in 2001. The fact is this government, the United Nations and this Parliament believe this mission is important for the Afghan people, for the United Nations and for our national interests.

While our men and women in uniform are there and in dangerous circumstances pursuing our interests, they deserve the support of all members of the House.

* * *

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, testimony at the public accounts committee is proof positive that the government needs to appoint a full judicial inquiry to investigate the RCMP pension scandal. Four different witnesses; four different stories. The committee will continue to do its work at public accounts, but a judicial inquiry has the powers necessary to get to the bottom of this issue for the benefit of the RCMP officers, and they deserve this.

The public accounts committee yesterday passed a motion calling for a full inquiry. When will the minister from the government call for a full judicial inquiry?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, once again, we have said very clearly that we want to get answers quickly. We want to find out exactly what took place. We do not want to handle this situation the way the previous government did by ignoring it. We have a process in place to do that. An independent investigator has been appointed. His work begins. He will be reporting in June.

If among the things he reports or suggests is that there should be a more formal inquiry, then we will proceed with that, but we would like to get some answers right away. The RCMP deserves that and the people of Canada deserve that.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough. The longer it takes for the minister to call a judicial inquiry, the longer it will take for the RCMP officers to get the answers for which they are asking.

Four separate witnesses yesterday, including one who has already given conflicting testimony, told four different stories. It is time for a full judicial inquiry. The RCMP know it. We know it in this Parliament. The Canadian public knows it. It seems the government does not know it.

When will it call for the full judicial inquiry? It is necessary.

(1435)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, one of the key individuals who has testified at the committee has already said that he is pleased with fact that we are going ahead with an investigator this way, and wants to get answers.

I wish we would get some positive assistance on this rather than this full anger we hear. I wish there had been the same type of anger from the member opposite when the former minister of public safety said:

—let me reassure everyone in the House that there is no conduct on the part of the commissioner that needs to be investigated.

I wish that kind of ire had been directed toward the then minister so we could have had answers then instead of now.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, since March 28, Liberals have been calling for a full judicial inquiry into the RCMP pension scandal. Yesterday the public accounts committee endorsed this call even though Conservative members on the committee abstained from voting on the matter. Yet the minister continues to stonewall, blocking full accountability for an organization that just happens to be deciding whether to investigate him for the Jim Hart scandal.

When will the minister do the right thing and call for a full judicial inquiry into the RCMP?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, all of this feigned irritation coming from the Liberals would be funny if it were not so pathetic. Where were they when all these events were unfolding while they were in the government?

The Conservative members on the committee yesterday said very clearly that if it turned out, following the report that we will get in June, that a more formal inquiry was needed, then so be it. However, members here and the RCMP and Canadians want answers as soon as we can get them. We do not want to wait two or three years. We want the answers now and that is what we intend to get.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy of this. Yesterday we learned, despite the minister's denials, Mr. Zaccardelli gave him a full briefing on what happened months ago. In Maclean's, on March 29, the former Conservative public accounts chair said, “I would rather see a judicial inquiry”.

Yesterday's highly conflicted testimony reinforces that a non-arm's length, powerless investigator, who reports to the minister, will be unable to get to the truth.

When will minister stonewall call a public inquiry, or does he plan to ignore the will of the committee?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite, rather than running around the Middle East crying for the delisting of Hezbollah, had focused on things that were going on here at home, we might have had answers more rapidly on this. This is why we have a process in place that will get to the bottom of it.

When I was talking with then commissioner Zaccardelli, I asked him about this. I did not give a carte blanche clearance as the previous minister of public safety did. I asked questions on this when the Auditor General brought this forward and I said that there would be follow-up, unlike the Liberals who did nothing.

* * *

[Translation]

The Environment

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Marcel Lussier (Brossard—La Prairie, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the Groupe interprovincial et industriel sur les réductions de gaz à effet de serre submitted a position paper to the government in February, calling on the government to work within the Kyoto protocol, for both strategic and financial reasons, and to immediately establish a carbon trading market.

How can the government, which received this report two months ago, continue to delay agreeing to the demands of this group, which has demonstrated that even private enterprise is ahead of this government when it comes to protecting the environment?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John Baird (Minister of the Environment, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear. We have a real action plan for reducing greenhouse gases.

A few months ago, we began giving details of that plan. We made a number of announcements in the budget, including between $4 billion and $5 billion of new money towards supporting our environment.

We also indicated that we will regulate industry for the first time, and we will be presenting this action plan over the next few days.

(1440)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Marcel Lussier (Brossard—La Prairie, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the government wants to establish a carbon trading market only within Canada. However, this would constitute a very serious handicap for our businesses that would like to deal on the international market.

Will the government admit that the reason it insists on denying Canadian businesses access to the international carbon market is because it refuses to set absolute targets consistent with Kyoto, which is an essential condition to joining the international market?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John Baird (Minister of the Environment, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say very clearly that it is not in our best interest to purchase credits from countries such as Russia, where there have not yet been any reductions in greenhouse gases. This is something that the Bloc Québécois supported in this House, but this is not something we intend to do. We are going to announce the other part of our program in the very near future. The members will have all the necessary details and will determine if they will support our plan, which will bring about real reductions in greenhouse gases. This is something that the Bloc Québécois has not been able to do in the past 15 years.

* * *

Natural Resources

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, this government keeps saying it will respect the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. Yet government officials are holding secret meetings to discuss the bulk sale of water.

Is the Minister of Natural Resources planning on taking the advice of environmental groups, which are demanding that the government withdraw from any talks concerning the bulk sale of water?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Gary Lunn (Minister of Natural Resources, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that there are no secret meetings, no in-camera meetings going on. If she has some information that she would like to bring forward, we would be more than happy to look at it.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the minister that Quebec already prohibits the bulk export of water, and that this comes under Quebec's jurisdiction.

Could the Minister of Natural Resources explain how he can justify talks on a subject that is not even within his jurisdiction?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Gary Lunn (Minister of Natural Resources, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, again I can reassure the member there are absolutely no meetings going on. I have had no meetings with anyone, so she is sadly mistaken.

* * *

[Translation]

Afghanistan

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, we cannot say that the Minister of Defence is a model of clarity.

He says that we are in Afghanistan to seek vengeance and that we will remain until progress becomes irreversible. He is now talking about violent conflicts such as Afghanistan for the next 10 or 15 years.

In his nostalgia for the cold war, he is spending $650 million on tanks that he wants to send to Kandahar, a strategic error if ever there was one.

Can the Minister of National Defence tell us, rather than always having to clarify his position, whether or not his real intention is to have Canadian troops remain in Afghanistan beyond February 2009?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):