37th PARLIAMENT,
2nd SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 110
CONTENTS
Tuesday, June 3, 2003
|
 |
Information Commissioner |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Juno Beach Centre |
|
|
Hon. Rey Pagtakhan (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Science, Research and Development), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Procedure and House Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.) |
|
|
Petitions |
|
|
Firearms Registry |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Iraq |
|
|
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Canada Post |
|
|
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.) |
|
|
Rights of the Unborn |
|
|
Mr. Janko Péric (Cambridge, Lib.) |
|
|
The Environment |
|
|
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.) |
|
|
Questions on the Order Paper |
|
|
Ms. Judy Sgro (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Points of Order |
|
|
Standing Committee on Transport--Speaker's Ruling |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
|
|
Public Service Modernization Act |
|
|
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Mac Harb |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Mac Harb |
|
|
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Diane Bourgeois |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Diane Bourgeois |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
(Division 175) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand |
|
|
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand |
|
|
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Dale Johnston |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Pension Act |
|
|
Hon. Paul DeVillers (for the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Science, Research and Development) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Hon. Paul DeVillers (for the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Science, Research and Development) |
|
|
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and pased)
|
|
|
Lobbyists Registration Act |
|
|
Hon. Andy Mitchell |
|
|
Mr. Serge Marcil (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Procedure and House Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
|
|
Lobbyists Registration Act |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. John Bryden |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
|
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
|
|
Workplace Training |
|
|
Mr. Janko Péric (Cambridge, Lib.) |
|
|
Child Pornography |
|
|
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Batteries Électriques Gagnon |
|
|
Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.) |
|
|
International Coffee Organization |
|
|
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.) |
|
|
Bureau de consultation jeunesse de Laval |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.) |
|
|
World Partnership Walk |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Environment |
|
|
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.) |
|
|
François Gagnon |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ) |
|
|
Rowing |
|
|
Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Justice |
|
|
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation |
|
|
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Contracts |
|
|
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC) |
|
|
Church of Saint-Joachim in Châteauguay |
|
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ) |
|
|
Colin Gibson |
|
|
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.) |
|
|
Foreign Affairs |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Jean Bouchard |
|
|
Mr. Jean-Guy Carignan (Québec East, Lib. Ind.) |
|
|
Urban Affairs |
|
|
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.) |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Softwood Lumber |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Air India |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Softwood Lumber |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Claude Drouin (Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC) |
|
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
Employment Insurance |
|
|
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
Softwood Lumber |
|
|
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Claude Drouin (Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Gasoline Prices |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Fisheries and Oceans |
|
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Softwood Lumber |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
International Aid |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Susan Whelan (Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.) |
|
|
The Environment |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Softwood Lumber |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Shipping |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Firearms Registry |
|
|
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Foreign Affairs |
|
|
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Denis Paradis (Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa) (Francophonie), Lib.) |
|
|
Justice |
|
|
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Air Canada |
|
|
Mr. Sébastien Gagnon (Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Foreign Affairs |
|
|
Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Canada Lands Company |
|
|
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Steve Mahoney (Secretary of State (Selected Crown Corporations), Lib.) |
|
|
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
|
|
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act (Members' Staff) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 176) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
|
|
Supply |
|
|
Allotted Day--Norad |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 177) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
|
|
The Environment |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 178) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
|
|
Public Service Modernization Act |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 179) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Julian Reed |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Julian Reed |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Nick Discepola |
|
|
Mr. Dale Johnston |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
|
(Division 180) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
|
|
|
Points of Order |
|
|
First Nations Governance Act |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
|
|
First Nations Governance Act |
|
|
Speaker's Ruling |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Motions in amendment |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. David Kilgour (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP) |
|
|
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. David Kilgour (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP) |
|
|
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC) |
|
|
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Binet) |
|
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Rex Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls, PC) |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Trade |
|
|
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Scott Reid |
|
|
Ms. Colleen Beaumier |
|
|
Fisheries |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Georges Farrah (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Georges Farrah |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Tuesday, June 3, 2003
Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
* * *
(1005)
[Translation]
Information Commissioner
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to section 38 of the Access to Information Act, I have the honour to lay upon the table the report of the information commissioner for April 1, 2002 to March 31, 2003.
This report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
[English]
Juno Beach Centre
Hon. Rey Pagtakhan (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Science, Research and Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Veterans Affairs, I declare June 6, 2003, a day of recognition to commemorate the official opening of the Juno Beach Centre in Courseulles-sur-Mer in Normandy, France. The day coincides with the 59th anniversary of D-Day and the start of the Normandy campaign to liberate western Europe from the Nazi tyranny, and a day it shall be. Almost 1,000 Canadian veterans will gather there with our Prime Minister to pay tribute to Canada's contributions during the Second World War. It equally will be my honour to join them on Friday at this historic beach on this historic day.
Declaring this coming June 6 a special day gratefully acknowledges the dream and the hard work of the Juno Beach Association to see this centre established. I commend the association, and particularly its president, Mr. Garth Webb, for their dedication and determination.
I applaud Canadian benefactors nationwide who contributed--businesses, provincial governments and individual citizens--for their charitable spirit toward the realization of this dream. The Government of Canada takes pride in being able to provide significant support to this laudable endeavour.
I would like to thank Halifax councillor Mr. Brian Warshick and colleagues in the House, particularly the members for Haliburton--Victoria--Brock and for Dartmouth, for conveying to me their interest in today's ministerial declaration. How fitting and proper indeed it is to issue one.
D-Day at Juno Beach brought Canada to centre stage internationally during the Second World War, just as the battle of Vimy Ridge did during the Great War. On D-Day, 340 young Canadians lost their lives on Juno Beach. More casualties followed in the 10 weeks it took to cross the countryside of Normandy. Five thousand and twenty-one Canadians paid the supreme sacrifice.
The numbers alone are telling. What brings us greater sorrow is knowing we lost them in their prime. They never returned home. They missed the opportunity to raise their own families. But all of them, together with their comrades who were fortunate to return, including those on the home front, raised the banner of freedom and peace.
The Juno Beach Centre aims to memorialize for future generations the life lessons of this epic battle. It aims to teach future generations about the heroic role Canada played during the Second World War, not only in Normandy, but also in other places such as Hong Kong and Italy. It aims to remind the older generation and to teach the younger about the war effort on the home front: that all three of Canada's military services, the Royal Canadian Air Force, the Royal Canadian Navy, and the Canadian Army proved themselves to be a better match against the powerful enemy forces they met, and that the Merchant Navy, for its heroic part, carried the troops and the landing crafts in which the troops stormed the beaches.
On this Friday, June 6, I ask all Canadians to pause and reflect, to remember those gallant Canadians, to remember that they served their country with valour so that we and our children and our children's children might live in freedom and peace and to remember that they helped shape our nation. To them we owe our never-ending gratitude as a people. To them we owe a duty to carry forward their life stories and their love for Canada and her values. This we pledge to do today, tomorrow and forever.
(1010)
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, there is something unique about the event to which we will be travelling on Friday. It is unique in the way that the emphasis for this development came not from governments but from the veterans themselves.
The veterans saw that there was a compelling need to preserve the memory and to tell the story of Canada's military and civilian contributions during World War II. To date there has been no significant Canadian memorial anywhere that ranks these achievements, not until a select group of veterans got together and went ahead and built this fine facility, which will be officially opened Friday, June 6, one year ahead of the 60th anniversary of June 6. I am indeed very proud to recognize this 59th anniversary and I am indeed proud to be able to represent Her Majesty's loyal opposition.
This is a dream come true for thousands of veterans. We in the House of Commons have many people to thank. Mainly we thank the veterans of Canada, and we also say thanks for the provincial help, as the minister has mentioned, and the federal help. Let us also remember that there was one unarmed group of the military there and that was our Merchant Marines. We shall never forget that. Let us also pay tribute to the groups of individuals, the businesses and the corporations that also gave money for this event.
I knew some of the men who went on the Juno raid in 1944. One of the interesting things is that last year at this time we visited Dieppe and some of the returnees who were not slaughtered at Dieppe were also on this raid, as well as those from north Africa and the Italian campaign.
It is an honour and a dream come true and this monument will serve for many generations.
Already there and also on their way there are groups of Merchant Marines. The House on May 19 gave first reading to Bill C-411, which would enact a Merchant Marine Navy Day on September 3 every year. I would be grateful, and I think the Merchant Marines who were there would be grateful, if the House would have both second and third reading of the bill, and I would ask for unanimous consent. Then they could have their day recognized while they are there and by the time they return.
(1015)
The Deputy Speaker: I would say respectfully to the members, particularly on the subject matter presently before the House, that the Chair would appreciate a little more clarification. My understanding is that presently we are dealing with the minister's statement. We do not have a motion as such before the House, which the member has referred to with regard to unanimous consent. I wonder if the member for Souris—Moose Mountain would clarify things.
Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I will not include it as part of my remarks to the minister. Later on a point of order I will make a motion at that time.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois joins with the minister and all other colleagues to commemorate the events of June 6, 1944. It is easy for me to speak about that day because my father, who took part in the liberation of Holland, told many stories about those events.
Of course, he did not take part in the landing in Normandy. DUring this landing, Canadian troops set foot in Europe for the first time. They expected strong resistance since the Nazis had built a whole series of bunkers and put barbed wire and guns on the beach in anticipation of the landing. Quebeckers and Canadians distinguished themselves during the battle.
We must remember that the Americans landed on Utah and Omaha Beaches. The British had three divisions, which landed on Sword and Gold Beaches, and on Juno Beach in the middle. Canadians and Quebeckers played a heroic role in breaking through enemy lines; unfortunately, a great number of them lost their lives. There were 14,000 Canadians under the command of General Keller. At the end of the day, there were 1,074 casualties, including 359 killed in action.
It is important to remember our veterans, and I believe that the younger generations today does not know what sacrifices those people made. It is important to commemorate this event every year, and also to have an interpretive monument at Juno Beach to explain to future generations how important those who fought for our freedom really were.
We will therefore take part in any event held to honour veterans because, as I just said, they fought and died for the values of our societies—of Europe, Canada, and the United States. These people knew the importance of freedom, including the freedom of speech. They also knew that we live in a democratic system and were prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice, to risk their lives to protect these values.
Therefore, when an event such as June 6, 1944 is to be commemorated, we must clearly state that we are in full agreement. Many people risked their lives and many lives were lost. They were people who could have stayed at home and they could have said, “I just want to live a quiet life with my family”.
Yes, of course, there was conscription, and we cannot overlook this fact. Quebeckers said no to conscription, and yet, many Quebecers went overseas to serve and do their duty. My father was one of them, along with the 14,000 Canadians mentioned earlier, undoubtedly several thousand from Quebec.
And so, I think this is the appropriate thing to do. Let us commemorate, let us make sure that the history is known, so that the next generation knows that the quality of life we enjoy today, and the fact that we live in a democratic and open world, where there is freedom of expression, are due in large part to these soldiers, who landed on the beaches of Normandy on June 6, 1944. The war in Normandy was difficult. We lost many soldiers there, in order to preserve the values of which I have just spoken.
In conclusion, we in the Bloc Quebecois, along with all the parties in this House, are going to commemorate the these people's actions. Lest we forget.
(1020)
[English]
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party it is an honour to pay tribute to the people who, 59 years ago, not only gave their lives but also participated fully in the freeing up of what we call today in the west, the free world. I wish to congratulate the minister on his statement and on the initiative of the Canadian government in involving itself in commemorating such a tremendous occasion.
I doubt if there is anyone in the House who directly or indirectly has not been touched by some involvement in the second world war. When we were going through the darkest days, as Churchill said, when things looked pretty grim for Europe, when we saw nations like France, Italy, and others under the control of the Germans, the future looked very dim for Europe and consequently the western world. But it was the Canadians who did what Canadians always do. When our friends are in need, when they are in trouble, Canadians are there by their side. That is the way it always has been. That is the way it always should be.
In this case, 14,000 Canadians--and we can only imagine what it was like in those days--came from the farms of western Canada, from the outlying regions of eastern Canada, and from Quebec, to cross the ocean to participate in a battle in a strange new world, and to do it so heroically. The Norman invasion turned a page. From that day on we started to move toward freeing Europe, and by doing so, freed the western world.
It is an honour and a pleasure that we pay tribute to the people who participated in that great battle, that great war. It is something that we should pass on to our children and grandchildren because we who have this great freedom in this country should never forget those who paid the price to give it to us.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, provincially and federally across the country, it gives me great pleasure to thank the minister, the government, and all those people who will be attending and those who will remember the activities of what happened on June 6, 1944.
The father of my colleague from the Bloc, the member for Saint-Jean, was a liberator. I was born in a country that his father and many others liberated. I am the by-product of what happens when we fight for peace, freedom and democracy around the world. On June 6, 2003, we will be commemorating that magnificent symbol of what the interpretation centre will mean, not just to what happened on that particular day but the story and the events of that particular day.
At the legion in Windsor, Ontario, bookmarks are given to guests when they visit which says “Let peace be their remembrance”. This is what this interpretation centre should do, not only tell the story but encourage people to work for peace around the world so that we do not have to go through this terrible event again.
I wish to recognize our Sergeant-at-arms, himself a veteran, who served his country and his colleagues. We do this in remembrance of the sacrifice that he made, and those who could not come back from that terrible day and the events of the war as well.
I would like to remember the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and those veterans who fought in the service of the British empire who are now part of Canada. They too served their country with valour and distinction. I want to mention two people in my area of Nova Scotia who have worked so hard to bring this day to fruition: Mr. Doug Shanks, a veteran and a member of the legion who worked very hard to raise funds so that we could have this interpretation centre, and Councillor Brian Warshick of the Halifax regional municipality, who worked tirelessly to bring this day to fruition. He has advised me to advise all Canadians that on June 6 we should pause and reflect upon what happened on that day, and how the turn of the war came about. I encourage all Canadians to pause and reflect on June 6 upon what happened on that particular day.
On behalf of the New Democratic Party, federally and provincially, it gives me great pleasure to travel with the veterans affairs minister and others in the House, and in a non-partisan way to participate this Friday in an event that should be commemorated for many years to come. To all those veterans and their families who paid the ultimate sacrifice, I wish to express my thanks and wish them all the best. May God bless them.
* * *
(1025)
Committees of the House
Procedure and House Affairs
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 32nd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for Nova Scotia. This report and related evidence will be forwarded to the commission for its consideration.
I would like to thank the subcommittee that worked on this report and all the members who made presentations to it.
* * *
Petitions
Firearms Registry
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that calls on the federal government to scrap the gun registry because as of January 1, 2003, thousands of Canadians, through no fault of their own, now possess unregistered firearms. Anyone who tries to register a firearm is now exposed to federal prosecution. It is recognized that nine out of ten provinces as well as MPs, senators and the Auditor General of Canada all agree that the Canadian firearms registry is out of control.
My petitioners call upon Parliament, the Department of Justice and the Government of Canada to declare an immediate amnesty for all unregistered firearms or, in the absence of an amnesty, to scrap the firearms registry altogether.
* * *
Iraq
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition today on behalf of the Muslim community in Fort McMurray. It is protesting the war in Iraq and urging the Canadian government to urge the United States to pull its troops out of the country and get on with the humanitarian efforts to rebuild the country.
* * *
Canada Post
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of my constituents. The petitioners wish to draw to the attention of the House section 13 of the Canada Post Corporation Act that discriminates against rural route mail couriers who do not have the same pay or working conditions as other mail couriers with Canada Post. The petitioners ask that Parliament repeal that section of the act to allow for parity and equality.
* * *
Rights of the Unborn
Mr. Janko Péric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the privilege to present to the House a petition with 100 signatures from concerned citizens of my riding of Cambridge.
In Canada one child in four dies before birth as a result of induced abortion. More than half of all Canadians believe that human life deserves protection prior to birth. The petitioners call upon Parliament to enact legislation to protect Canadian unborn children.
* * *
The Environment
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition on behalf of Mr. Brian Holmes of Ontario regarding aerial spraying. Mr. Holmes has collected signatures from across the country from concerned Canadians who believe that chemicals used in aerial sprayings are adversely affecting the health of Canadians.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to stop this type of high altitude spraying. The petition has been duly certified by the clerk and I present it at this time.
* * *
(1030)
Health
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from citizens of Peterborough area and elsewhere who are concerned about acrylamides. Acrylamides are dangerous toxic substances known to cause cancer in mice and which are formed from sugars. The petitioners point out that potatoes and grains contain these precursors in huge amounts, and that the concentration in fries exceeds 600-fold to 700-fold those allowed for these substances in drinking water in the United States.
The undersigned citizens request that Parliament legislate that all labels on processed foods be required to show the concentration of acrylamides therein.
* * *
Questions on the Order Paper
Ms. Judy Sgro (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 173, 211, 225 and 227.
[Text]
Question No. 173--Mr. John Reynolds:
Pertaining to the Commonwealth Day that took place
Monday, March 10, 2003 and the 1.7 billion people from the Commonwealth
countries, can the government please indicate the amount, in dollars, spent by
the government on all activities and undertakings in Canada to recognize this
day and our membership in the Commonwealth?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
The Department of Canadian Heritage has not been involved in the undertaking of activities or celebrations in recognition of Commonwealth Day. Therefore no money was spent.
Question No. 211--Mr. Rob Merrifield:
With regard to dental plastics containing bisPhenol A
(BPA), also known as BisGMA: (a) is Health Canada aware of studies
questioning the safety of this product; (b) is Health Canada convinced
of the safety of this product; (c) how does Health Canada test and
approve dental plastics before they are allowed on the market; (d) what
tests were undertaken on “Conquest”, a dental plastic containing BisGMA;
(e) how many enquiries has the minister received from alleged victims of
dental plastic containing BPA; (f) is Health Canada considering
compensation for alleged victims of BPA; and (g) is Health Canada aware
of jurisdictions which have banned dental plastic containing BPA; if so, what
are they?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.):
(a) No.
(b) Yes.
(c) Health Canada does not test any dental restorative materials, including dental plastics. Dental plastics are regulated as a medical device in Canada. The manufacturer of these products must provide evidence that the material satisfies the safety and effectiveness requirements of the Food and Drugs Act and the medical devices regulations before it may be legally sold in Canada. The medical devices regulations also require the reporting of adverse events or incidents causing injury to users of medical devices.
(d) There is no Health Canada licence for a dental device named Conquest. Dental restorative materials, such as those that contain BPA, are class III devices. The medical devices regulations require manufacturers of class III devices to provide evidence of safety and effectiveness before being authorized to sell. Manufacturers are obliged to inform the regulator should evidence to the contrary come to light. Health Canada has found no test results or other evidence suggesting that Conquest or other dental restorative materials containing BPA are unsafe.
(e) One inquiry has been made on behalf of an alleged victim.
(f) No.
(g) Health Canada is not aware of other jurisdictions that restrict the use of dental plastic containing BPA.
Question No. 225--Mr. Peter Stoffer:
With respect to the control of firearms in Canada and
to the 9,000 reported revocations and refusals of licenses pursuant to the
provisions of the Firearms Act, and for each of the following types of license:
possession-only license (POL), possession and acquisition license
(PAL)(non-restricted) or possession and acquisition license (PAL)(restricted):
(a) how many of the 9,000 revocations and refusals fell into each of
these two categories;( b) how many of those whose applications were
refused were first time applicants and how many were seeking renewal of their
licenses; (c) how many licenses were refused pursuant to section 5(1) of
the Firearms Act (FA) because of: (i) concerns that applicants might harm
themselves; or (ii) concerns that the applicants might harm others; (d)
how many licenses were refused pursuant to section 5(2)(a) of the FA because of
convictions or discharges under section 736 of the Criminal Code during the 5
years preceding the application; (e) how many licenses were refused
pursuant to section 5(2)(b) of the FA because of treatment of mental illness
during the 5 years preceding the application; (f) how many licenses were
refused pursuant to section 5(2)(c) of the FA because of a history of violent
behavior during the 5 years preceding the application; (g) how many
licenses were refused pursuant to sections 3(d), 3(2), or 4(1) of the Firearms
Licenses Regulations (SOR/98 – 199) because a former spouse, an ex-spouse, or a
common law partner expressed concern regarding the acquisition of firearms by
the applicant; (h) how many licenses were refused pursuant to section 6
of the FA because the applicants were under prohibition orders; (i) how many
licenses were refused pursuant to section 7 of the FA because: (i) the
applicants did not complete the non-restricted courses; or (ii) the applicants
did not complete the restricted courses; (j) how many licenses were
refused that do not belong to either of the two categories referred to in the
above paragraph (i); (k) how many licenses were revoked pursuant to
section 70(a)(i) of the FA because the applicants are no longer or never were
eligible; (l) how many licenses were revoked pursuant to section
70(a)(ii) of the FA because the applicants contravened a condition of a
license; (m) how many licenses were revoked pursuant to section
70(a)(iii) of the FA because the applicants were charged or discharged under
section 736 of the Criminal Code or because they committed an offense listed in
section 5(2)(a) of the FA; (n) how many licenses were revoked for
reasons others than the ones referred to in the above paragraphs (k),
(l) or (m); and (o) how many licenses were revoked
pursuant to section 16(1) of the Firearms Licenses Regulations (SOR/98 – 199)
because a chief firearms officer who issued a license becomes concerned that
the holder thereof has been involved in: (i) an act of domestic violence; or
(ii) stalking?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
The answer is as follows:
a) Stats are as of May 5, 2003.
| Licence Type |
Refused |
Revoked |
|
| PALs |
2,169 |
2,498 |
4,667 |
| POLs |
2,981 |
1,871 |
4,852 |
| |
|
Grand Total |
9,519 |
There is no statistical breakdown available for questions (b) to (o).
The CFC is in the process of reviewing its statistical and other information requirements. This is part of our ongoing efforts to report on program achievements and effectiveness.
Question No. 227--Mr. Garry Breitkreuz:
With respect to reference and background checks done
on each Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL) applicant, what is the total
number of PAL applications that have been processed since December 1, 1998, and
how many of the two references per PAL application were actually
called?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
As of May 10, 2003, the total number of PAL applications that have been processed since December 1, 1998, is 659,083. Reference checks are performed during the course of an investigation, at the discretion of the investigator, based on the issue being assessed. There are no statistics available on how many of the two references per PAL application were actually called.
The CFC is in the process of reviewing its statistical and other information requirements. This is part of our ongoing efforts to report on program achievements and effectiveness.
[English]
Ms. Judy Sgro: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, government orders will be extended by 18 minutes.
[English]
Earlier in the proceedings, following statements by ministers, the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain spoke of a point of order. Is he ready to proceed with that now?
The hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain.
Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to allow Bill C-411, an act to establish merchant navy veterans day, to pass in all stages so that we can announce it to the merchant marine before June 6.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
Points of Order
Standing Committee on Transport--Speaker's Ruling
[Speaker's Ruling]
The Deputy Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. government House leader on May 29, 2003, concerning the procedural acceptability of the third report of the Standing Committee on Transport presented earlier that day.
[Translation]
I thank the hon. government House leader for having drawn this matter to the attention of the House. I would also like to thank the hon. members for Thunder Bay—Superior North; New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby; Saanich—Gulf Islands; Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel; Acadie—Bathurst; Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d’Orléans; Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan; and Ottawa West—Nepean for their comments.
[English]
In questioning the receivability of the transport committee's third report, the government House leader drew four points to the Chair's attention. He indicated, first, that in order for a properly constituted committee meeting to take place simultaneous interpretation services must be available.
Second, he contended that provision must be made for the recording of committee deliberations so that a permanent record of the deliberations, corresponding to the debates of the House, may be produced.
[Translation]
Third, he noted that committee meetings are usually open to the public and to members of the media, who are also entitled to simultaneous interpretation services.
Finally, the government House leader indicated that no notice had been sent out for the committee’s meeting on May 29.
[English]
The government House leader raised concerns that these four elements had been ignored by the transport committee, which met in a room in the parliamentary restaurant rather than in one of the fully equipped committee rooms. In the absence of these elements, he argued that the report of the committee must be regarded as not having been adopted at a properly constituted meeting and, therefore, the Speaker should rule it out of order.
In replying to these concerns, the chair of the transport committee, the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, stated that at its meeting on May 28 the committee had decided to continue its deliberations on the morning of May 29. When quorum was lost, the committee was prevented from taking any decisions with respect to the estimates it was studying so the chair suspended the meeting until the next day.
The chair pointed out that the committee met in a room in the parliamentary restaurant only because none of the regular committee rooms were available at 8:00 a.m. on May 29 and the committee was working to respect the reporting deadline for main estimates set out in Standing Order 81(4).
[Translation]
Hon. members will be familiar with the beginning lines of Standing Order 81(4), which read:
|
In every session the main estimates to cover the incoming fiscal year for every department of government shall be deemed referred to standing committees on or before March 1 of the then expiring fiscal year. Each such committee shall consider and shall report, or shall be deemed to have reported, the same back to the House not later than May 31 of the then current fiscal year— |
This year, May 29 was the last sitting day prior to the May 31 deadline on which reports on the estimates could be presented
(1035)
[English]
The hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North indicated that a recording was made of the proceedings at the meeting and that an interpreter from the Interpretation and Parliamentary Translation Service was present. He also stated that the quorum requirement was satisfied and that the clerk of the committee was present to ensure that the committee's decisions were properly recorded in its minutes.
Most important, the chair also pointed out that no objections to any of the committee's arrangements were raised by the members who attended the meeting.
I have examined the minutes of the transport committee Meeting No. 30, the only documents available to the Speaker since the meetings were held in camera, and the minutes confirm the committee chair's statements.
I would now like to respond to the four objections raised by the hon. government House leader with respect to this case.
First, there is the question of simultaneous interpretation. Like the hon. members who spoke to this issue, I too would like to underline the obligation that we have to respect the rights of members to use the official language of their choice. Hon. members at the committee acknowledge that ad hoc arrangements were made for interpretation and that these were considered satisfactory by the committee members present.
Second, there is the matter of recording. There is no disputing that the committee chose to meet in a room where the usual services could not be provided and that recording for transcription and subsequent publication was not available. Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that, in the view of the members of the committee present, the meeting room was adequate to their needs since the committee was meeting in camera, transcription was not required and publication was not contemplated.
On the fourth point at issue, the matter of notice, here again since the meeting was in camera, neither the public, the media nor other members would be entitled to attend the meetings so the matter of notice in their regard is moot.
Your Speaker is, however, somewhat troubled by the notion of an overnight suspension of proceedings. As hon. members know, if the Speaker's attention is drawn to a lack of quorum and no quorum is found, the House must adjourn forthwith. While it may be argued that no such obligation exists for committees, I would not consider the unorthodox actions of the transport committee in this particular instance to be a precedent in committee practice.
The chair of the committee has explained the circumstances of his decision to suspend the meeting on Wednesday night having lost the quorum needed to adopt a report and to reconvene at the earliest possible moment on Thursday so as to be able to report on the estimates within the timeframe provided by the standing orders. Your Speaker is bound to accept the explanation of the hon. member.
[Translation]
However, the fact remains that, like my predecessors, I am very reluctant to interfere in the work of any committee. I think it is worth reminding the House of the liberty that it grants to committees. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, page 804, states:
|
—committees are bound to follow the procedures set out in the Standing Orders as well as any specific sessional or special orders that the House has issued to them. Committees are otherwise left free to organize their work. In this sense, committees are said to be “masters of their own proceedings”. |
[English]
The actions of the Standing Committee on Transport in this instance might well have given rise to various questions perhaps about the overnight suspension, perhaps about meeting without the usual services or notice, but the fact is, as the chair of the committee has stated, no such questions were raised in the committee itself, nor did anyone who rose to speak in response to the government House leader's point of order make that claim.
Hon. members know that should they have procedural concerns about matters related to the arrangements that a committee has made for its meetings or the conduct of its business, it is in the committee itself that they should raise them.
I have said that committees are granted much liberty by the House but, along with the right to conduct their proceedings in a way that facilitates their deliberations, committees have a concomitant responsibility to see that the necessary rules and procedures are followed and the rights of members and the Canadian public are respected. Issues concerning such matters should be brought before the committee for resolution.
(1040)
[Translation]
As I have said, in the present case, no such questions were raised and no evidence has been presented to suggest that the transport committee exceeded its authority to conduct its proceedings as its members saw fit.
[English]
On that basis, after reviewing the minutes of the transport committee's meeting and the contents of the third report itself, I find that the report was adopted by the committee in conformity with our rules and practices, that the report has been duly presented in the House and that it is now properly before the House.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
Public Service Modernization Act
The House resumed from June 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C-25, an act to modernize employment and labour relations in the public service and to amend the Financial Administration Act and the Canadian Centre for Management Development Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed; and on the motion that the question be now put.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to Bill C-25, the public service modernization act.
Before I start I want to congratulate the minister, the minister's staff and all those who have participated in the development of the legislation. I also want to thank every public servant who works for the Government of Canada. I am sure members will agree with me that this country is well-served by the fine, high quality public servants who keep the government functioning and who provide quality service to Canadians.
The government has put tremendous effort into bringing about an act to, as one might say, put the house in order. Some of the key objectives of the bill are to ensure a transparent hiring process in the public service, to look at the issue of merit in the public service, to improve employee-employer relations, to deal with issues affecting the services that we provide Canadians and many other issues that will render the public service even more efficient in the way it conducts its business.
However, like every legislation that comes before the House, it goes to committee and consultation. As well, witnesses appear before committees with ideas and suggestions.
I must admit, Mr. Speaker, I am standing before you today a bit late with what I have to put before the House basically because the information came to my attention at a very late hour. It was after the House dealt with the report stage of Bill C-25, as well as after the committee had the chance to deal with the bill.
I had a meeting last week with a representative of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Mr. Edward Cashman, who is the regional executive vice-president for the national capital region who was elected to this position. I want to congratulate him on his election and that of his colleagues who came with him to make a presentation concerning Bill C-25.
This was the first interaction I had with the representatives of the union on these issues. As far as I was concerned, there was widespread support for the bill. In essence, I concluded that because my office had not received any kind of a communication to the contrary. We did not receive the amount of calls we normally would have received on legislation that comes before the House.
Nonetheless, that is not to say that the concerns raised by Mr. Cashman, on behalf of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, are not important concerns for which the House needs to take note.
I have promised Mr. Cashman two things. The first was that I would put on the record some of the concerns that his group outlined and brought to my attention, and that I would speak with the minister and her office with regard to the points that the union reps raised.
The points that were raised were in three categories. One of the issues the union people raised dealt with merit. They were concerned that the changes to merit could create a situation where there could be abuse by managers when it came to staffing.
(1045)
The second point raised by the union rep concerned essential services and the issue of voting. On the issue of essential services, they wanted to know what would constitute an essential service employee.
The union also had a concern on the notion of voting. If there is a strike vote, the union is mandated to notify all those who are in the work unit. Members of the union told me that this might be somewhat problematic in that in some cases when a strike vote is called they may or may not be able to communicate with every person who works in the unit simply because some of them may not be members of the union. As a result of that, they may have difficulties dealing with this issue.
I have raised all three points with the minister and she has assured me that, first, she is willing to meet with the union rep at the earliest possible opportunity; and second, she is eager to ensure that once the bill goes through the House and the policy is introduced to do the implementation, the employee reps will be included in the consultation process that will be taking place and that in fact their views will be heard. The minister is willing to address some of the points and hopefully she will provide answers that will meet the interests of the public servants, both in terms of employees as well as employers.
On the notion of merit, I have been told that the merit laws, by virtue of this legislation, have been made stronger than they were before.The clause that has been included in the legislation would not only ensure that employees meet the minimum and basic requirements, but that the employer looks for additional qualifications the potential employee may have, such as language skills, level of education and other talents that might be of use in the public service. It not only talks about the minimum requirements, which would bring it into harmony with what existed before, but it goes beyond that.
In other words, I wanted the employee to score a certain percentage, but also I wanted it to go beyond that. If they have the qualifications and could score even more that would be an asset and that would be taken into consideration. This was the explanation the minister provided to me. It is a positive thing to consider and to look at in a positive fashion.
However, in addition to that, I have been informed that in the event the agent of the employee, which is the union, has a concern about a specific item it would still have the ability to appeal it or question it. In this particular case I think it is a positive thing. It would give the employee rep the opportunity to question in the event something like that takes place.
(1050)
The second concern raised by Mr. Cashman deals with the potential for abuse by an employer. Provisions in the act make it difficult for an employer to do that. In essence it strengthens the merit clause and makes it literally impossible for an employer to abuse its position. Should that take place, then the employee representative as well as the employee would have provisions under Bill C-25 to appeal and go to the next step.
I would like to raise the points of union representatives specifically and put them on the record for the interest of the House. While I know we are in third reading and there is no provision to introduce any type of amendment at this stage, I want to put them on the record because I promised Mr. Cashman I would do so.
In the section that deals with prohibitions and enforcement, division 14, the union asked for the following:
|
That Bill C-25 in Clause 2 be amended by deleting lines 11 to 17 on page 84. |
|
That Bill C-25 in Clause 2 be amended by deleting line 20 on page 84 and replacing it with: “189(1) or section 195 is guilty of an”. |
|
That Bill C-25 in Clause 2 be amended by deleting line 28 to 29 on page 84 and replacing them with: “contravenes section”. |
|
That Bill C-25 in Clause 2 be amended by deleting lines 7 to 11 on page 85. |
Then we move on to the merit clause. In essence the union would liked to have sees the following:
|
That Bill C-25 in Clause 12 be amended by deleting line 15 on page 126 and replacing it with: “person to be appointed meets the”. |
|
That Bill C-25 in Clause 12 be amended by deleting lines 19 to 29 on page 126. |
|
That Bill C-25 in Clause 12 be amended by deleting line 6 on page 127 and replacing it with: “graph 30(2)(a)”. |
|
That Bill C-25 in Clause 12 be amended by replacing lines 36 and 37 on page 128 and replacing them with: “paragraph 30(2)(a)”. |
|
That Bill C-25 in Clause 12 be amended by replacing lines 40 and 41 on page 128 with: “-cations referred to in paragraph 30(2)(a), other than language”. |
|
That Bill C-25 in Clause 12 be amended by deleting lines 7 to 16 on page 129. |
|
That Bill C-25 in Clause 12 be amended by deleting lines 34 to 40 on page 129. |
All these amendments would have been in order if they had been made at the committee level. If in the event a member of Parliament was unable to introduce them under special circumstances, Mr. Speaker, you could have made a ruling whereby the amendments could have been introduced in the House during report stage.
Unfortunately that was not the case. The amendments did not come in at a time where it could have been possible to introduce them, either at committee or at report stage. Therefore, for the interest of the House, I have tabled them here. There may have been other amendments that did not come to my attention, and I would suggest that as the bill sees its way through the House on the way to the Senate, that the union representative will have an opportunity at that time to go to the Senate and make those suggestions there.
However I would like to stress the importance of the union working with members of Parliament on both sides of the House, like it happened in this case. Unfortunately, it arrived at the last minute.
(1055)
I hope in the future the relations between both the employee representatives and the employers will move to the next step, and that is a positive cooperation, a dialogue, a cohesive interaction whereby the minister will be informed at an early stage when legislation is about to come before the House and where a discussion will take place in an atmosphere of willingness to move things forward in the best interests of both the union and the government.
I remember the Prime Minister once stating that the government looked at its public servants as being a part of the solution, not part of the problem. That is really what has defined the government, what has defined the actions of this minister and what has defined the actions of all members on this side of the House. We look at the public service employees as being a part of the solution. They are a part of the team that makes the country so great, one of the greatest countries in the world.
Having said all that, it is my hope that this legislation will go through the House and that at the earliest possible opportunity the union representatives will take the minister on her offer, which she made to me yesterday, to meet with them. The minister is willing to talk specifically with regard to the concerns that have been brought to my attention and that I have brought to the attention of the minister on their behalf. Specifically, they deal with some of the details and clarifications that are required in my view to bring about a positive conclusion to this legislation.
This is long overdue. We know the Auditor General raised a number of concerns dealing with the public service act and some of the provisions within that act. I am happy to see this coming before Parliament at a very opportune time, not only to deal with the concerns raised by the Auditor General in her latest report but to address some of the issues which need to be addressed as well.
I thank the House for giving me the opportunity to speak on this very important issue. I thank both the government as well as the union for giving me the opportunity to speak today.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. I find it rather strange that he presented us with a series of valid amendments or suggestions regarding the bill. Unfortunately, after going through the whole list, he said that under current House procedures, they were out of order. His intentions were good but, as we know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
In conclusion, he noted that the union had proposed amendments at the very last minute, and that in future there should be some kind of dialogue with the department and the minister beforehand.
In this regard, if we look at the history of labour relations in the federal public service, we see that dialogue is not the government's forte. It has always favoured strong arm tactics. What is happening today is that we have this bill and everybody will have to comply with it. I think the government is not giving unions the chance to engage in dialogue beforehand so that the act contains provisions that suit everybody.
What I see happening here is the government coming in at the very last minute and saying that the act is 35 years old and has to be revamped, without consulting the unions. Then, it tells them that they should have given notice earlier because now the proceedings in the House are so far advanced that amendments are no longer possible.
Should my colleague not acknowledge that in addition to its role as legislator, the government is assuming the right to impose its will? As he mentioned earlier, they want to clean up the public service. They come and say, “Here is what we have cooked up. You cannot change one iota of it because the procedures of the House will not allow it. End of discussion. Now you have to comply”. I find that the government is pretty heavy-handed with this bill.
(1100)
Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has long been a member of this House, and he is very familiar with its procedures. He is well aware that a bill gets introduced at first reading and that it is referred to a committee after second reading. Then, the bill comes back before the House for consideration at the report stage. Finally, there is a debate at third reading, but no amendments may be proposed.
Second, I do not know if my hon. colleague was listening when I said that the minister responsible for this bill said unequivocally yesterday—during a discussion we had about issues raised by the union representatives—that she is very willing to meet with them and to consider how to address positively the issues raised and how to resolve them. Finally, if further clarification is needed, the minister and the government will provide it.
Third, with regard to the process the government followed in introducing this bill, my hon. colleague, who is an experienced parliamentarian, is well aware that discussions took place with public servants. This bill did not just spring up out of thin air. Discussions were held.
As to the report, the parliamentary committee had the opportunity to discuss it. The union reps had the opportunity to appear before the committee and to make specific amendments in this regard.
When all is said and done, I did my duty as a member, which is to convey the wishes of my constituents. In this case, out of respect and duty, I must raise these points in the House and make known the government's response. As I indicated, I was very pleased with the minister's answer and with the clarifications that she and her team made yesterday.
There will be opportunities for input during the implementation phase, and the government intends to involve the union reps in policy development. They will therefore be able to work with the employers to find specific solutions to specific issues raised by the union reps.
I do not agree with my colleague that the government does not have good relations with its employees. That is simply not the case. I was here when the Tories were in power and I remember the kind of relations that existed between public servants and their employers. It was very sad. I remember those days when more that 60,000 public servants picketed on Parliament Hill. Relations were not that wonderful.
The member knows that all that has now changed. We have created a very positive relationship. Dialogue continues with the union reps. Our colleagues from the government side, the members of the Liberal caucus, talk with the union reps on an ongoing basis and I personally met with some union reps last week.
(1105)
I am here today to convey to my colleagues, including the opposition members, the opinion of the unions who wanted some issues raised Parliament. This is what I have done today.
I also had the opportunity to speak with the minister. She told me quite categorically that she would agree to meet with them to find a solution, particularly regarding certain specific issues, and that clarifications would be provided on other issues.
[English]
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, one concern I have is it seems from the last discourse that the amendments put forth by the union were done in a fashion that they were late or in a time frame that did not provide the opportunity to make improvements to the bill. That is not entirely accurate. We know that over 100 amendments were defeated at the committee. I would like the hon. member to address that. Those amendments dealt with some of the concerns that he discussed and as the hon. member noted, would have improved the bill and would have taken care of those things. Why were they defeated by the government when they would have addressed those very points?
Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I am not a member of the committee. As well, I do not know the details of those amendments.
Sometimes an amendment dealing with an item comes before a committee and the amendment may have been dealt with through the legislation in one way or another. Other amendments may be redundant.
I do not know the details of the 100 amendments my colleague is talking about. I do know the three main concerns that the employees' reps have raised with me. They deal with the issue of merit. They deal with the issue of taking votes. They deal with the issue of essential services and when and how employees can go on strike and to what limit they can take that issue.
I would say that with all three points that I have raised with the minister, I am totally satisfied that when we go to the next step of implementing the legislation, they will be dealt with.
I would suggest to my colleague that the minister has made a very important point, in that she is willing to meet with the union to provide clarification in order to address some of the concerns that were raised.
(1110)
[Translation]
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this is truly an extraordinary opportunity for me to express my view this morning on Bill C-25. It is a bill that interests me tremendously, especially because its purpose is to change the culture in the public service.
Treasury Board wants to use this bill to deal with the constant reduction of the work force in the public service and the growing competition from the private sector.
With this bill, the government believes it could overcome problems relating to representation, the aging staff and professional skills.
Finally, the purpose of this bill is to improve the public's perception of the public service. There seems to be little interest in having a career in the public service because of its bad reputation. This results in poor recruitment. The goal of this bill is to change the approach with regard to the public's view of the public service.
It is also a substantial bill. We would have preferred to debate it in parts since it deals with human beings, the men and women in this work force that we are to manage, or the government is to manage.
It includes amendments, among other things, to the Financial Administration Act. This bill will also improve accountability through the tabling of reports. The President of the Treasury Board is required to prepare reports on the administration of the legislation in terms of human resources management, a report on the obligations that stem from the Employment Equity Act, and a report on the Treasury Board's powers under the Public Service Employment Act.
I felt the need to list these points simply to establish the purpose of this bill. We are disappointed because we know these objectives will not be met. This legislation is meant to make working in the public service an attractive prospect. Again, we doubt very much that these objectives will be met.
I will discuss two points, the amendments made to the Public Service Employment Act, and the fact that it is incumbent on the government as a responsible employer to ensure a healthy work environment where its employees are treated with dignity and respect.
My attention was immediately drawn to one particular provision, that is paragraph 30(2)(b) of the Public Service Employment Act, which reads as follows:
|
—the Commission is satisfied that the person to be appointed meets the essential qualifications for the work to be performed, as established by the deputy head, including official language proficiency. |
The Bloc Quebecois proposed an amendment to change this paragraph by deleting the word essential. We believe that the candidate should meet all the qualifications. Limiting the requirement to essential qualifications creates ambiguity regarding the proficiency level required. In other words, essential could be construed to mean minimal proficiency, and not maximum proficiency.
(1115)
We fear that the deputy head or any senior official could make patronage appointments either by setting requirements that only one person can meet or by selecting among the candidates one who meets the essential qualifications without necessarily being the best candidate.
I would like to draw attention to a program concerning employment equity in the public service. In 1998, the government set up a temporary, four-year program which ended last year: the Employment Equity Positive Measures Program. This program provided the tools to support the aggressive application of employment equity principles in the workplace, thereby enhancing the representation of the four designated groups, that is, women, aboriginals, persons with disabilities and visible minorities.
This program also provided additional resources, services and funding to help departments and agencies turn their good intentions into lasting results.
The program costs were $10 million annually, which means that over four years, they totalled $40 million. This was to help the public service modernize, among other things. Imagine. Through this program, the Public Service Commission's centre for excellence was established and supported. Also, an electronic tool was developed in connection with employment equity positive practices.
When we talk about the public service and modernization, this is a first step. The bill before us does not include any of the outcomes of the Employment Equity Positive Measures Program, which cost $40 million.
This program included four components, three of which were managed and delivered by the Public Service Commission on behalf of the Treasury Board Secretariat. One was the Employment Equity Partnership Fund, the purposes of which were first to build the capacity for employment equity, second to promote a workplace which is supportive, and third to improve representativeness of the workforce and of course to improve retraining.
How is it that, after a program that cost $40 million and delivered a series of suggestions and proposals from public servants, none of this is to be found in the bill before us?
This bill does not guarantee that all the work that has been done through the Employment Equity Positive Measures Program to improve the representativeness and the distribution of designated groups will go on, since the word essential in clause 30(2)(b) will create confusion.
We spent $40 million to try to include people, train them, give them a position in the public service, but with the addition of this tiny word, essential, to the statement of qualifications, these people will not be able to benefit from employment equity. From now on, it will be a matter of choice, and officials will decide which qualifications are essential.
The basic requirements and the best skills will not necessarily be a factor. How sure can we be that we will protect these four designated groups under the Employment Equity Act? One has to wonder.
(1120)
Before moving on to the other component, I would just like to point out to our colleague from Mississauga East, who has just spoken, that the Public Service Alliance sent us a little document on the eve of International Women's Day: an advertisement from the Monday, February 17 issue of Hill Times. It contains a demonstration to the effect that not everything to do with employment equity is necessarily respected—at any rate, not the wishes of Treasury Board as far as employment equity is concerned.
They told us that their union represents approximately 1,600 workers at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the majority of whom are women. In that department, they calculated the numbers of women and men, and realized that at the ministerial level there were five men and one woman, in addition to one secretary. There were three parliamentary secretaries, two men and one woman. In the minister's office there were four men and no women. As for assistant deputy ministers, there were six men and two women. This is all very revealing. In Bill C-25, the Public Service Modernization Act, perhaps the four designated groups ought to have been taken into account.
Now, I have a question, which I might have liked to ask the minister. When she drafted this bill, did she take into consideration the gender analysis. According to Status of Women Canada, this year $11 million were made available to the departments to do a gender analysis, in order to know how to draft legislation to reflect what is due to men and to women.
I wonder: with $40 million here and $11 million there, it seems there is money available. Yet there is no money to invest in our work force. Our colleague from Mississauga East has just said that public servants should be considered part of the solution. Indeed, they must be considered people, human beings entitled to a healthy environment.
I will continue with the second part of my speech, which deals with harassment. The Bloc Quebecois is very concerned about the concept of harassment that may exist in the workplace; indeed, psychological harassment should have been included in the provisions relating to this phenomenon.
With regard to this type of harassment in the public service, the latest numbers tell us that more than 21% of Canadian public servants are affected by harassment. Formal written complaints have been made. How many people in the federal public service do not dare to say a word because they are confronted with this famous oath of allegiance, the oath of confidentiality on what is happening within departments? This is a two edged sword. This famous oath of allegiance says that nothing that happens in the workplace must get beyond the workplace. A a result, people keep their mouths shut, say noything and go on being harassed.
I will get back later to the definition of psychological harassment. This type of harassment must be known and acknowledged by public service managers. The Bloc Quebecois had proposed amendments that would have made the implementation of the policy mandatory for each of the departments.
So I will give you a short definition of psychological harassment. It may happen through words, actions and behaviours that tend to put employees down, to belittle them by treating them as subordinates, to prevent them from getting ahead.
(1125)
This form of violence shows up as workplace harassment, the abuse of power and the abuse of authority.
A little study was done. There is, of course a policy to deal with psychological harassment on the job, or harassment in the workplace. This policy originates with Treasury Board; it was introduced in 1994 and modernized in 2001. We might expect that, if there is a policy issued by the Treasury Board Secretariat, it would be applied everywhere, in all departments. Unfortunately, it was found that of 83 departments, only 7 truly applied the Treasury Board policy. The 76 others have their own policies, and it is not clear to what extent they apply any policy.
Each of these departments has different methods. Sometimes, the policy is applied or action is taken when there is a formal complaint; in other departments, when there are oral complaints, they are dealt with. But that is the extent of it.
I would simply like to remind the House that in terms of harassment, if the process does not work at the departmental level, the person being harassed cannot charge the harasser. Those who are harassed become isolated, fall silent, fall ill, and that costs Treasury Board money.
Many of these policies are incomplete. They do not specify the timeframe within which managers must resolve a case of harassment. Several cases were brought to our attention and, in each instance, managers did not act diligently. Quite often, managers are unaware of this policy.
Also, many harassment complaints have yet to be resolved. Some fall under directive 255, from 1994, and others come under the new policy that came into force on June 1, 2001. If these complaints remain unresolved, it is because many managers and public servants have little or no interest in respecting other people or their rights.
Some 40% of departments adopted in full the policy as of June 2001. When I say 40% adopted it, they did so in writing, but only seven departments apply it. This is significant. It means that there are public servants—over 30%, according to our figures—who are being harassed and do not report it. It could be vertical harassment, meaning by their bosses, or it could be horizontal, meaning by co-workers. Unfortunately, the new bill makes no mention of this.
In closing, I want to say that it is surprising that Bill C-25, which seeks among other things a change in culture and the improvement of labour-management relations, does not ensure a more effective application of the policy on the prevention and resolution of harassment in the workplace.
If the minister truly wants to change the culture of the public service, if she wants to make it an attractive place to work, she must ensure, among other things, the continuity of the employment equity positive measures program, which cost $40 million. She should ensure, as a responsible employer, that all employees have access to a workplace that is not only free of harassment, but that recognizes the existence of harassment and that implements measures and ethical practices to protect workers, like any other responsible employer.
(1130)
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague for her excellent speech, which has captured our attention, particularly its second part dealing with harassment.
My colleague has very considerable expertise on the issue, and society needs women like her to advance the cause of women. I believe there can be no just and equitable society if women are treated inequitably.
Statistics still demonstrate very clearly that women continue to earn less than men with equal skills and education. There are also a number of other factors which lead me to conclude that women are not yet treated on an equal basis with men in our society. I think that, with women such as my colleague, we can advance this cause and move toward a fairer and more equitable society.
I will focus particularly on the second aspect she addressed in her speech: harassment. There is psychological harassment, but there is also sexual harassment. Judging by the Quebec labour department's 1999 report, it is my impression that the government of Quebec is a bit ahead of the federal government as far as the issue of harassment is concerned. I feel that they have taken this issue seriously, far more seriously than the federal government, which seems not to be particularly concerned about it. Moreover, as my colleague has said, a number of amendments have been proposed and rejected by the government.
I would like to hear from my colleague as to whether she thinks I am wrong in my analysis, or whether she shares my opinion that the Government of Quebec is well ahead of the federal government as far as harassment is concerned.
Ms. Diane Bourgeois: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Saint-Jean for this question. Indeed, the issue of psychological harassment is a new, but important concept.
I will draw an analogy, which may seem strange, but we talk about harassment in schools where it is referred to as taxing. We could perhaps talk about workplace harassment, which can take the form of repeated actions or simply something which has been going on for a very long time and which undermines people's health and psychological well-being and causes them to become ill. This is very costly to society.
Moreover, my colleague from Saint-Jean is right. The Government of Quebec is the third in the world to have passed, in December, legislation to address workplace harassment. We can be proud that Quebec passed such legislation.
It is visionary legislation that was not embraced by all employers at first. After six months to put it in place and work the bugs out, now employers are saying, “How right it was to pass this legislation”, because an employer is responsible for the physical and psychological well-being of an employee in the workplace.
Hon. members know that, under the Criminal Code, employees can take their employer to court if, indeed, the employer did not react quickly enough on a harassment issue.
That having been said, there are two countries in the world which have legislation against harassment. France was the first to introduce such legislation, five or six years ago. Timid steps were taken and, in France, they are now changing this legislation somewhat to give it more teeth. Belgium was the second country to introduce legislation, but then again, this legislation being patterned on the French legislation, it is timid.
We hope that a bill can soon be passed in this House to make Canada the first country in the world to have legislation which takes into account whistleblowers, protects them and really addresses the issue so that employees do not experience harassment.
At present, in Canada, there is a policy. But as I demonstrated earlier, it is either not enforced, poorly or sporadically enforced, or enforced any old way. I find that appalling. While employees are being harassed, their employers, the managers, are doing nothing about it. They are not being mean; they just do not know how to recognize harassment. People are starting to talk about it.
I think that, eventually, as an employer, the public service will have to pay attention to the physical environment to ensure that the working climate is healthy and that assistance can be provided to employees.
(1135)
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Terrebonne--Blainville for raising that aspect of Bill C-25 in terms of the impact on our public service and what makes our public service a great public service. The member has often raised in this place issues on behalf of the interests of women, particularly with regard to abuse and harassment, and in this regard harassment in the workplace.
I do not think there is any disagreement in any quarter of the House that harassment of employees, regardless of gender quite frankly, is unacceptable. However the member will also know that we cannot legislate behaviour.
The member's final comments indicated that the responsible approach is education, because people do not know. It is not just those who would perpetrate harassment who have not been sensitized to the fact that their actions are harassing in nature, but also those who are harassed may not recognize or understand what they can do or how it should be done.
I will accept the member's representations with regard to the number of cases that may not have been resolved quickly. I agree with her that to go to court takes far too long to resolve those kinds of issues. We should also be aware that two years ago in the last collective agreement with PSAC, $7 million was allocated for a joint training program for employees and for so-called management on this very subject.
It raises the question as to whether it is the Government of Canada that should take these steps or the Public Service Commission and the employee representation that should raise those issues more forcefully, or continue to raise them more forcefully, so that programs, as necessary, will be implemented to mitigate and attempt to eliminate harassment in the workplace.
[Translation]
Ms. Diane Bourgeois: Mr. Speaker, you know that there have been 498 formal complaints of harassment in the federal public service during the year 2000-01. These are the complaints that have really been filed because they are signed. Right now, some people who are being harassed do not file complaints because they are afraid.
I will give you an example. You said that $2 million have been spent to prevent harassment. The policy is not being implemented; only seven departments implement it. I could give you many examples. I even put questions here, in this House, to the Solicitor General of Canada, who is responsible for the Correctional Service of Canada. Some people have come to my office because they were found in a fetal position under their desk as a result of harassment.
Here is how the system works. The person who is being harassed tells his immediate supervisor, who has to intervene. If he does not, the complaint goes to the region. If the region does not intervene, the complaint goes a bit higher. Except that each individual decides whether there is harassment. But when one is not competent, how can one determine whether there is harassment?
My answer is somewhat brief. I would have liked to elaborate, but I will come back to it another time.
(1140)
[English]
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to speak to Bill C-25, but we see that the government is not interested in the deliberations at this time, so I move:
|
That this House do now adjourn. |
The Deputy Speaker: 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 more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
* * *
(1225)
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)
|
(Division No. 175)
|
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Bachand (Saint-Jean)
Bailey
Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls)
Bourgeois
Breitkreuz
Burton
Cadman
Cardin
Chatters
Comartin
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Davies
Doyle
Duncan
Elley
Epp
Forseth
Gagnon (Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay)
Gallant
Gaudet
Gauthier
Girard-Bujold
Godin
Gouk
Grewal
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harper
Harris
Hearn
Herron
Hill (Prince George--Peace River)
Hill (Macleod)
Hinton
Jaffer
Johnston
Keddy (South Shore)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Laframboise
Lanctôt
Lill
Loubier
Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni)
Marceau
Martin (Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca)
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
Masse
McDonough
Meredith
Merrifield
Mills (Red Deer)
Moore
Nystrom
Paquette
Perron
Picard (Drummond)
Proctor
Rajotte
Reid (Lanark—Carleton)
Reynolds
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schellenberger
Schmidt
Skelton
Solberg
Sorenson
St-Hilaire
Stinson
Stoffer
Strahl
Toews
Vellacott
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Yelich
Total: -- 79
|
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson (Victoria)
Assadourian
Augustine
Bagnell
Bakopanos
Barnes (London West)
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bennett
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Binet
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Bonwick
Boudria
Bradshaw
Bryden
Bulte
Byrne
Caccia
Cannis
Caplan
Carignan
Carroll
Castonguay
Catterall
Cauchon
Charbonneau
Coderre
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cotler
Cullen
Cuzner
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Easter
Eggleton
Finlay
Fontana
Frulla
Fry
Godfrey
Goodale
Harb
Harvard
Harvey
Hubbard
Jackson
Jennings
Jordan
Karetak-Lindell
Keyes
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Laliberte
Lastewka
Lebel
LeBlanc
Lee
Leung
Lincoln
Longfield
Macklin
Mahoney
Malhi
Maloney
Marcil
McCallum
McGuire
McKay (Scarborough East)
McLellan
McTeague
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Myers
Nault
Neville
Normand
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London--Fanshawe)
O'Reilly
Owen
Pacetti
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Péric
Peschisolido
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pillitteri
Pratt
Price
Proulx
Redman
Reed (Halton)
Regan
Robillard
Rock
Saada
Savoy
Scherrer
Scott
Serré
Sgro
Shepherd
Simard
Speller
St-Jacques
St-Julien
St. Denis
Stewart
Szabo
Telegdi
Thibault (West Nova)
Thibeault (Saint-Lambert)
Tirabassi
Tonks
Torsney
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Whelan
Wilfert
Wood
Total: -- 133
|
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to debate Bill C-25. As a matter of fact, I must say that last week I was afraid that it might come before the House, as I had promised my labour friends that I would speak to it.
In a previous life, before I entered politics, I was a union representative in my work place. I started out rather timidly. My workplace was not very big. There were around 200 workers. During the summer, there were a lot of students too.
Why did I get involved with the labour movement? I will tell you a little bit about my personal history by way of explanation. I found there were a lot of injustices in my workplace. I say injustice because I believed the employer was abusing certain people. I called it “employer tyranny”. I could see also that some people were treated differently than others and I thought it essential that there be something to counterbalance the employer tyranny, management and personnel management.
It happened very simply around a table. People told me, “Claude, we would like you to become president of the union”. I agreed. As a result, I was involved with labour unions for 20 years not only in my workplace but also at the local and regional levels, where I assumed certain responsibilities. This is why today I am able to talk about this type of bill.
Today, we believe we should vote against Bill C-25 because of the way it was put to the House of Commons and dealt with in committee.
As a matter of fact, this is not the first time such a thing has happened in a committee. When the opposition suggests valid amendments, often the government majority will just turn them all down. This morning, I even heard some of my colleagues suggest some changes to the bill, and they were told on procedural grounds that it was too late to put them forward. However, while it might have been too late to do so, we put forward amendments in committee and they were flatly rejected.
I have been here for almost ten years now and I have found that the Liberal government is not a government for workers, and this is not the first time that I have said this. It is against workers and I have several examples to illustrate this.
In our first term, Parliament was reconvened to pass special legislation to force rail workers back to work. Supposedly, we were given all kinds of time to speak our minds on the subject. We said, “Madam Speaker, we are moving too fast, the government wants to pass special legislation too quickly and we have not given the union and management enough time to work out their issues”. The result was that people had to go back to work under the yoke of special legislation.
The same thing happened to Vancouver dock workers, where all kinds of national reasons were invoked, and where the government said, “The west coast is being paralyzed, we must force employees back to work”. Once again, the parties were not given time, or enough time, to try to resolve the dispute themselves.
The same is true when it comes to federal trusteeship. There is another example, from my riding, in fact. Workers, or rather former workers, at Singer—since they are before the courts right now—were demanding money from the government, which was supposed to act as a trustee and protect their pension fund. The federal government allowed the company to dip into its surplus. The result is that today, these people, whose average age is 85, under this system of trusteeship, find themselves making $10, $15 or $20 a month. It makes no sense.
Instead of telling the company to dip into its surplus, to stop making contributions, the government missed the opportunity to ensure that the surplus could be used to help Singer employees, which would have made their retirement much rosier than it is presently.
And then, to our amazement, after we asked a dozen questions, we understood why the government had refused to return the money to the Singer employees. It wanted to get its hands on the surplus in the federal government employees' fund. Around four or five years ago, the government said, “We think this surplus is ours”, and it grabbed it.
(1230)
To me, all this means that, when it comes to workers, the only thing that the government is interested in is collecting taxes. It is not interested in providing benefits to these workers through special or effective measures. We have evidence once again with the antiscab legislation. We want something equivalent to what the Quebec government has, that is the banning of scabs, and the government refuses and even argues that unions agree with it that the legislative framework must remain unchanged. This is yet more blatant evidence that the government does not care about workers.
So what is happening today with Bill C-25? The government now argues that the act is 35 years old. The government says that this act must be changed. Now, we find ourselves with a bill that has the same regressive view toward workers. This is why the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to it. For numerous reasons, this bill does not contain the elements required to maintain a good work environment.
In labour relations, there are some very important themes we should always keep in mind. They are also the themes in fashion in labour relations today. One is the issue of corporate culture. Here we see the state as employer, with thousands of workers at its disposal, and the employer's response to problems of corporate culture is to create a bill. Another issue was the way the bill was introduced. There has been very little consultation with the unions. That is completely congruent with the position and tactics the federal government has been employing for many years in its relations with the federal public service unions.
I do not think a bill can make corrections to a corporate culture. A corporate culture is imposed from the top down, starting with the Department of Labour or the Treasury Board. It is then reflected in the delegation of powers to local administrators.
Unfortunately, what we have seen for 35 years, and what is still true today, is that there is no respect for the workers. I know something about that. In my riding there is a military base and an agricultural research station; their employees are all federal public servants. The attitudes in these workplaces are very difficult to live with.
As a former union officer, I have a great deal of trouble accepting that in this corporate culture it is the local administrators who impose their views on the workers. They care nothing for any grievance procedure. They will always object to any and all employee demands. Because of this, grievances often have to go all the way to the top level—and that often is quite costly—instead of the employer investing in employee recognition.
One of the reasons given by the President of Treasury Board during her introduction of this bill was that there were recruitment problems in the federal public service. It is not surprising that there are problems. It will take more than a bill to correct a regressive attitude toward workers. There must be a change in corporate culture and this is not necessarily achieved with a little legislation.
The government must recognize and respect its federal public service. It must prove this on a daily basis and with a legislative framework that should be much more open. This means that, when changes to a workplace need to be made, the union must be consulted. The union must be respected. After all, it, and not the employer, represents the workers. The employer likely represents Treasury Board or any other department with federal employees. So, the union must be recognized, and it is the means through which employees should have more say. It is not about handing down measures, imposing them and saying, “Now, we have legislation. This is what is in the act and you are going to implement it”.
With regard to consultations and the unions, at a senior level, they failed, there were practically no consultations. And today, the unions must appeal to members of Parliament. Each of us has, in turn, received phone calls asking us to try to block Bill C-25.
(1235)
They realized that the attempts to improve the bill in committee, through amendments, failed almost entirely; perhaps one or two amendments were agreed to. So, the business culture cannot be changed by a bill.
As for the bargaining process, let us consider what has happened since the federal public service and the government started bargaining. In the past ten years, I have taken part in at least two bargaining sessions with the federal public service. What happens? The government, which is the employer, is also the legislator. It continues to maintain draconian positions when it comes to the unions. It is impossible to bargain logically. Either the government drags out the bargaining process or else it starts, after some time, to threaten its employees with special legislation.
We know what special legislation means. It means astronomical fines for individuals, the union and union leaders. No one is exempt from this. It is simple, either the government drags its feet at the table or it takes a completely draconian and closed approach to the union. Then we get closer and closer to a black hole, that is special legislation. I gave a few examples earlier of the rail workers strike and the strike at the Port of Vancouver. This does not include all the so-called projects set up by the government for the workers or the non-responses it gives to the workers. I also talked about that earlier.
As for the grievance process, let us not be under any illusions. I think that in matters of arbitration the government will not budge. The only recourse employees have is to file a grievance. I know this from experience. There are hardly any discussions between the union and the employer. The latter is not interested in negotiating anything to do with accommodation on the work site. It says, “I am the local administrator”. I went through the whole bill and took note of the powers that are given to local administrations. It is unbelievable to see how the employer has complete control of the workplace.
The employer might say to the employee, “If you are not happy, file a grievance. I know it will take years before it is settled. If we lose, we will appeal. We will take it further”. The employee waits for years for justice. Often, employees give up because they see they are at a dead end.
As far as essential services are concerned, this is another example I have seen in this bill. The employer is the one that determines essential services. That is just great for a union. I have already seen employers in my province announce, “In our workplace, 100% of services are essential services. Staff has been cut to a minimum and we cannot afford to have a single person absent”.
Now imagine what will happen in federal government workplaces if the word comes down from local administrators that 100% of services are essential services. What means will be left to employees who want to object and force progress at the bargaining table? None whatsoever. All of them are expected to report to work the next day, because 100% of services have been designated essential.
So, in this bill the employer has total control over training, learning, and retraining. He can decide which employees in which units—ones of which he is particularly fond—are to be freed up from work and paid to take training. To the less favoured, he announces, “You keep working. There is no training for you. We are the ones to decide who gets training and retraining”.
This again makes no sense whatsoever. The employer also has the upper hand as far as bonuses and rewards are concerned. In other words, he can authorize lump sum payments or take a certain number of favoured employees out to a restaurant. There will be a great deal of arbitrary judgments involved. All this is what I have fought against in the past, and here it is again in this bill. It is arbitrary and employer-biased, from A to Z.
The same goes for disciplinary measures and sanctions. It is the employer who will decide, on his terms, what sanctions and disciplinary measures to apply. I have seen plenty of these also, of all kinds.
(1240)
I have a lot of people come to my office and say, “I am sick and tired. My employer is constantly on my back even though I am not any worse than the rest of them in such and such unit on the military base or at Agriculture Canada or the research centre. I have been disciplined for a certain behaviour and colleagues with the same behaviour have not”.
Again, this is an example of the employer's arbitrariness. Employers will be able to determine what the needs of the public service are. They may make mistakes. Again, there is no mention of negotiating that with the union. Is anybody in a better position than front line workers to say, “This is what we believe we need in the near future. We are at work everyday in the field and we can see how things are evolving. We can see that service is diminishing. We can see that the demand for service is going up, and this is what we suggest”. But this is not how it will happen. The needs of the federal public service will be determined by the employer, who will decide, “In this area, there will be cuts. In that area, there will be increases”. The employer will proceed without necessarily having the support of the union and without necessarily consulting the union.
It would have been proper to recognize the unions by saying that there should be an agreement or negotiations between the two parties before any cut or increase in service went ahead. As I said before, is anybody in a better position than workers to assess that? They are the ones who are doing the work day in and day out.
As for the power to determine job qualifications, I have also seen that abused. I have seen job ads that practically say, “We are looking for a 25-year-old woman”. It was fair as long as it did not state that the qualifications also included blond hair and blue eyes.
A good number of people are automatically disqualified. So, employers can determine the job qualifications, and in doing so they can also choose the person they want for the job. If this is not the employer being arbitrary, then I do not know what it is.
There is also the whole issue of merit. Who is going to assess merit? The bill refers to essential qualifications. The employer is the one who determines them, and then the employer will say that a person cannot be hired because he or she does not merit the position. Obviously, we will be told that if employees are not happy, all they have to do is file a grievance. However, given what I explained earlier regarding the grievance process, the employee will suffer the injustice for years before an arbitrator rules that he or she is right or wrong. I am citing these examples to demonstrate that all of the powers are in the hands of the employer.
As for psychological harassment, there is an employee from the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency who lives in my riding and works in Lacolle. He has seen me regularly because he has been subject to psychological harassment for years because of his political convictions. This person had to put up with systematic abuse from his employer as well as other workers who had the same political beliefs as his employer, and treated him terribly. This person could complain to his immediate supervisor at the regional level until he was blue in the face, nothing changed.
I would have liked to talk about whistleblowers and provisions to protect those who witness abuse in government. Unfortunately, this bill does not contain any such provisions, and the amendments to include them were all rejected.
The same applies to official languages. Contrary to the Act to promote physical activity and sport, there are no provisions on official languages in this bill.
Lastly, we moved almost 120 amendments to try to improve this bill. The Liberals rejected them all.
To close, for all the above reasons, the Bloc Quebecois does not support Bill C-25, and we will vote against it.
(1245)
[English]
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to ask a question of the member from the Bloc who I know has been very active on this case file. The Bloc has put over 120 amendments because Bill C-25 is so deficient with a number of different working relationship issues that it will make the services more difficult for people being employed by the federal government.
This should be an opportunity to create a bill that will improve morale and increase the efficiency of the workers. The problems, as outlined by the member, will lead to more difficult times I believe.
There are a couple of things the government could have done to fix things. One was the amendment by the member from the New Democratic Party, the member for Winnipeg Centre, on whistleblowing. We believe is a very important issue. We have seen the scandals that have plagued the government for the last few years, the waste and other different problems. The government is spending a tonne of money on the RCMP right now to investigate these matters, which costs the taxpayers.
We were hoping to get some type of amendment to the bill to provide for whistleblowing. I will quickly read the three major parts to it. The Auditor General would be involved when a wrongful act or omission is:
|
(a) an offence against an Act of Parliament or legislature of a province or any instrument issued under the authority of any such Act; |
|
(b) likely to cause a significant waste of public money; |
|
(c) likely to endanger the public health or safety of the environment... |
It goes on further to explain how whistleblowers would be protected so they would be assured that they would not lose their jobs, or would not be intimidated, or would not lose promotion, all those different things. It would save hopefully a lot of the problems which we have had in the past.
I know the hon. member has a number of different amendments from his party that were put forth, many of them that could actually have made this a good piece of legislation. It has not happened.
This is an amendment we had, and I would like to hear his remarks about it.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for giving me this opportunity to talk about whistleblowers. And what an evocative term that is. It would have been very important that the bill include mechanisms to protect these people.
At present, the oath of allegiance is often cited. One must be careful not to say too much; there is a cloud of secrecy surrounding all decisions, as if they were state secrets. At present, government employees who are given tasks which are against their personal ethics can do nothing about it, except resort to the brown envelope system. I am referring to the envelopes one can slide under someone's door to provide details about a given situation.
But why not do things in the open, transparently? For instance, why not allow employees who feel that their ethics are being compromised and that people are going too far to say so? Why not put in place the whistleblower protections necessary? Because they know what might happen to them if they blow the whistle and there is no protection in place. It may well spell the end of their career in the public service.
I think that the government has missed a great opportunity. Recently, there have been scandals where it might have been good for us, as a society, to have public servants say, “Look, what we are being asked to do is not right”. There has been much talk about the sponsorship scandal. There has also been the HRDC scandal, with the billion dollars that disappeared.
Had public servants been protected under a bill like this one, it would probably have saved the government and the taxpayers money. With transparency, the matters could have been resolved and the wrongdoing stopped before it was too late, as in the two scandals I just mentioned.
Once again, the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Quebecois brought in amendments to try and define the concept of whistleblowing, so that problems could be dealt with quickly. Unfortunately, the federal government and the government members rejected these amendments out of hand.
(1250)
[English]
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I want to refer to comments made previously by some of my colleagues. They essentially stated that they thought that the bill was going in the right direction. However they, like myself, have heard over the last couple of days from constituents who are concerned with the fact that the oath of allegiance would be taken out of the legislation.
I certainly have received a number of phone calls, e-mails and faxes from constituents who feel that part of the traditions of Canada, part of what we particularly in rural Canada have believed, are somehow slipping away and that their voice on this is not being heard. I want to assure them, as I can assure all Canadians, that we on this side of the House have heard them. I have had the opportunity to speak with the minister on this issue, as have a number of my colleagues. We will be looking at this issue further.
Recognizing all that the member said about the importance of protecting people who may want to speak out at times but also making sure that the government can function in certain ways, what does he feel about the practice of an oath of allegiance, particularly in terms of a civil servant giving a commitment to the head of state of a country?
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand: Madam Speaker, if the oath of allegiance could be an oath of allegiance to the Canadian taxpayers, I would not have much trouble with that. But an oath of allegiance to the Queen or the Prime Minister—I think it is not incompatible. We can certainly keep the oath of allegiance, but we also need to include a provision in the bill that would protect whistleblowers.
When public servants take an oath of allegiance, they must always remember that they are there to serve the Canadian taxpayer. Once public servants have taken an oath of allegiance and they are asked to do things that go too far, things that are contrary to the interests of taxpayers, I think there must be provisions for them to take action and be protected.
I do not see this as incompatible. On the contrary, I think that permitting public servants to blow the whistle on actions they think are wrong would be a significant counterweight to the oath of allegiance. I think that there is no incompatibility at all. I think it is an element that could be added to the oath of allegiance.
[English]
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-25. We in the House know how important this legislation is. There are some 170,000 civil servants in the country and I am told that if the RCMP, the armed forces and several others are added to that figure, the number gets up to almost half a million workers. This is an important piece of legislation that involves 16 bargaining units. We have a lot of work to do on this front to make sure we have a healthy and vibrant public service.
The role of the civil service has been the subject of no fewer than 37 indepth studies in the last 40 years. It is something that we certainly are trying to get right, but I am not sure how successful we have been.
I have received many letters, as have my colleagues, from people in the public service who have described the contents of Bill C-25 as a slap in the face. I would like to deal with some of the specific problems they have talked about, but first I would like to give a bit of a context for the bill.
We have to keep in mind that the 1990s was a terrible decade for our public service employees. There were seven or eight years of wage freezes with zero per cent increases. There was total devastation with the program review, where one-third of the civil servants were laid off. Many workers were demoralized by job cutbacks. Even though the civil service was reduced by one-third, the amount of work did not change. Employees were struggling with giving service to the public with fewer resources and fewer people to do the job. MPs know that this is the case because we see and hear from our constituents constantly about voicemail and never hearing a human being's voice at the other end of a government phone line because there have been so many cutbacks.
The ultimate insult was when the former president of the Treasury Board took the entire $30 billion surplus out of the employees' pension plan without even considering the fact that a surplus in a pension plan is the property of the employees. A pension plan should be viewed as wages being held in trust until such time as they are needed. When the pension plan went into surplus, the entire surplus of $30 billion was taken out of the employees' pension plan.
The government views surpluses very differently than the New Democratic Party does. In our time here we have certainly seen the massive EI surplus which has grown and grown over the last decade. That money also has not gone toward the purposes for which it was intended. It has gone into general revenues. At the same time a number of unemployed Canadians find that they are unable to collect EI because of the tightening of eligibility rules. The last I heard, only 40% of unemployed Canadians were able to receive EI.
A couple of years ago, the CLC estimated the amount of revenues taken out of Canadian cities because of cuts to EI. At that time the hit for my own community of Dartmouth was estimated to be $20 million. There would be $20 million less per year to be spent in our economy, to be used to support families, to provide a level of security at one of the most difficult junctures in people's lives, that is, when they are faced with unemployment.
The EI surplus also has disappeared. That money has been thrown into general revenues and is not being utilized for the purposes for which it was intended.
As I have said, during the process called program review in which the former finance minister got rid of the deficit, one-third of our civil servants were laid off. In my community of Dartmouth, there are thousands of families in which one or both spouses work for the federal public service. There are offices for DND, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Parks Canada, HRDC, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, Heritage Canada, Environment Canada, Canada Post, ACOA, which is the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, and the Department of Veterans Affairs, just to name a few.
(1255)
We have the regional headquarters for the National Film Board. Until the deep cuts in the 1990s, it was a very important production centre for Atlantic filmmakers and a training ground for young, talented creators getting their start in film. Like dozens of other important government agencies, the Film Board saw devastating cuts in the 1990s. Many people were forced to take a package a number of years before they wanted to leave, stopping them in mid-career when they were just reaching their potential in their field. It is a tragedy how much collective wisdom and knowledge has been lost because of the government's shortsighted program review which saw thousands and thousands of dedicated and caring public servants go out the door.
Now there is Bill C-25, another bill to modernize the public service. The question is how successful is this effort? It falls short in many very important areas and I would like to mention some of them.
Bill C-25 waters down the merit principle by allowing only one person with the essential qualifications of a position to be considered for the job and removing relative merit from the public service employment act. This means that a manager could easily appoint one of his or her favourites to a position.
Bill C-25 also limits the grounds for complaints in a staffing process to abuse of authority and language of choice. Whether or not candidates were tested in their language of choice will be easy to prove, but abuse of authority is almost impossible to prove. This means that very few individuals will be able to successfully challenge any staffing decision that is made.
Bill C-25 also broadens the definition of essential services and gives the employer the exclusive right to determine the level and frequency of services during a strike. This means that the right of strike will be severely curtailed, if not removed completely.
Bill C-25 as it presently stands also gives the employer control of the designations process in a way that makes it difficult, if not impossible, to know which employees are designated and which are not. This means that there will be more problems on the picket line, not fewer.
Bill C-25 also calls for a striking worker who, perhaps unknowingly, prevents a designated worker from entering the workplace to be convicted of a summary offence. This means that the government does not trust its own workers to act responsibly.
Another area that is of very great concern to the New Democrats is that Bill C-25 continues to exclude fundamental workplace issues, such as staffing and classification from collective bargaining. This means that the government has no real interest in working more collectively with unions.
We have heard from some of our Bloc colleagues and also from members of the NDP who have worked hard in committee to try to get some of these important issues addressed. We see again and again a government which we do not believe recognizes the important contributions that the public service makes. Canada's public servants dedicate so much of their lives and talents to make this country work. They make our trains run on time and deliver our mail. Our military, coast guard, immigration and postal services are the meaning of this country and public servants work together to provide those services. The government is not giving the public service the due that is required.
The NDP and the Public Service Alliance of Canada have raised issues in committee, such as the merit principle, grievance procedures, the definition of essential services, strike breaking procedures, staffing and classification for collective bargaining. It is clear that until these issues are dealt with satisfactorily, we will not be able to support Bill C-25 as it currently is drafted.
(1300)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): 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 Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
(1305)
Mr. Dale Johnston: Madam Speaker, since there is a vote already scheduled for 3 o'clock this afternoon, I suggest we defer this vote.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The division on the motion is deferred.
* * *
Pension Act
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-31, an act to amend the Pension Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Paul DeVillers (for the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Science, Research and Development) moved that the bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Paul DeVillers (for the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Science, Research and Development) moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased that today the House starts third reading debate on Bill C-31, an act to amend the Pension Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act.
The fast turnaround time from its introduction on April 10 and the speed with which the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs gave it unanimous approval on May 8 clearly reflects how strongly we all feel for the members of our Canadian Forces and the RCMP.
Thus, when they are sent to areas of operations of elevated risk, all of us are one in the conviction that they should have the most comprehensive coverage and the speediest access possible to disability pension and also health benefits. That is exactly what Bill C-31 accomplishes. Let me briefly recap the highlights of the bill.
For decades now, Canadian service personnel have served abroad in areas of elevated risk designated as special duty areas, or SDAs, as part of United Nations peacekeeping activities for which Canada has become renowned. Quite rightly, they receive disability protection 24 hours a day, 7 days a week when they serve in these designated areas, but the administrative process to officially designate such an area is unduly lengthy and can take up to several months.
The bill before us today will help relieve the anxiety of our service personnel and their families by speeding up the process.
An SDA can quickly be designated by the Minister of National Defence, or the Solicitor General in the case of the RCMP, in consultation with the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and thereby give peace of mind to them before they are sent out for deployment. In fact, the bill extends coverage to include travel to and from special designated areas. Simply speeding up the process does not help those who are similarly at elevated risk while serving inside Canada or in assignments that cannot be geographically described as falling within a special duty area.
The bill now creates a new service category called special duty operation. This new designation recognizes that the face of war and the other challenges to peace and security have undergone tremendous change. Geography no longer offers non-combatant nations a cocoon of safety. Terrorism, in all its forms and disguises, presents a real and a present danger. We may never know where or in what form terrorism may strike next.
It is to this less easily definable battlefield that Canada sends out her men and women in uniform to protect us. Often the enemy is hard to identify, the lines of conflict are not clearly known and the nature of danger is difficult to determine. The new SDO designation takes into account the fluidity of such operations abroad and within our country. These operations are just as hazardous as special duty areas.
It is important to emphasize that special duty operations can encompass situations within our own borders. Think of the devastating floods and the ice storms we have experienced in recent times in Canada, or of the dangers of search and rescue operations. They expose our uniformed citizens to greater than usual danger.
Just as with special designated areas, this piece of legislation also provides RCMP personnel who serve in special designated operations with the same degree of coverage as their military counterparts.
A large spectrum of military operations could be covered by an SDA or an SDO designation. They include armed conflicts in missions conducted under the auspices of the United Nations and NATO and within coalitions of like-minded countries. Domestically, operations authorized under the Emergencies Act or the National Defence Act could also trigger an SDO designation covering such eventualities as disaster relief operations and in-Canada anti-terrorism service.
The spectrum of RCMP operations that could be similarly designated runs a parallel but not necessarily identical track. These operations could include police service within armed conflict situations, again under the auspices of the UN operations abroad, where the officers would be exposed to elevated levels of risk over a specific period of time. These situations might well include activities aimed at re-establishing social order, rebuilding social institutions and offering police training and services to wartorn nations trying to re-establish civil order.
(1310)
The bill allows for the provision of the best coverage possible for members of the Canadian Forces and RCMP sent to areas of operations of elevated risk, and their families. A grateful and caring nation takes it upon herself to provide this as a duty of pride. I thank all my colleagues in the House for their unanimous support for this bill and ask members to give it swift passage today.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague has given an excellent summation of the bill. There are a few points I want to point out to those who may be listening in.
The bill is probably the most modern approach that we could have taken following the awful events of 9/11. It is designed to meet the needs of this decade. It is also designed to meet the needs of a different type of police force, both at home and abroad, so what used to take up to almost a year can now be accomplished with speedy resolution, and we might say within days. That is the way it would be under this bill.
I do not think anyone could raise opposition to the bill. It is modern, it has quick resolution and it deals with only three departments. Therefore, the bill is designed for today. No one in the House, I am sure, would oppose it. In discussions with my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance, we have supported the bill from the very beginning.
I hope the bill gets very quick passage. I do know that other groups of people in Canada have looked at the bill, and I think some of our larger police forces in the larger cities, and other groups such as the firemen, could well look at the bill and I expect they would have a reaction which would pattern after this bill. On behalf of the official opposition, I am very pleased to support the bill. We give it our full endorsement.
(1315)
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Madam Speaker, we also stand in support of Bill C-31.
We in this country take for granted the different agencies that put their lives on the line for us and protect us. Quite often we take for granted what is our own. How often, as we go through life, do we take for granted our families, friends, wives, girlfriends, sons and daughters because they are there. They are supposed to know what is going on. They are there to support, help and whatever. We think that is the way it will always be, not realizing that they also have concerns and needs and that they need attention every now and then.
We do the same thing with our agencies. We put them in place and talk about how proud we are of our different agencies and yet we often forget to pay the attention to them that they deserve. As time slips by many of the concerns and benefits that we should be making sure they achieve we overlook. We suddenly find they are falling behind other groups in society that are up front, lobbying, pushing and whatever, while our solid people and in some cases volunteer agencies are working day and night, putting their lives on the line, asking for nothing and we overlook them.
The hon. member who just spoke talked about other agencies looking at what we are doing for the RCMP and perhaps patterning their plans on the legislation with which we are dealing right now. I agree wholeheartedly with him, that the opportunity is there for the other agencies to make sure that we as legislators look after their concerns.
However let us concentrate on the RCMP. If there is one agency in this country that perhaps does not get the attention it deserves it is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. When we say the word “Mountie” two things come to mind. One is from a national perspective, the person on the horse with the red jacket for whom we feel so proud, a Canadian emblem.
An hon. member: The red serge.
Mr. Loyola Hearn: The red serge, that is right.
The other is the person hauling us in on the side of the road because we are 20 kilometres over the speed limit. In between, it is not just a matter of the statesperson, the emblem of the country, the very proud emblem I might add, but the person we see at all major functions dressed in the red serge, holding the flag and saluting with respect. We have tremendous respect for these people.
On the other hand, we are looking at being the victim of the overzealous policeman sometimes. When we edge a couple of kilometres over the speed limit and we are hauled in and given a ticket, which we deserve by the way, in between we fail to see that there is more to it than just being there for the pomp and ceremony and, on the other hand, enforcing the laws of the land.
We do not realize until we start working with and becoming involved with such agencies the amount of extra work that they do. It is not only the prosecution that they are concerned with. It is prevention. It is the work they do in our schools. It is the work they do with our young people. It is the encouragement they give, rather than the fear and the threats.
When we were growing up we were told that if we were not good the Mounties would be called. We had this fear of police. However that is not the case. They are not to be feared. They are there for our benefit.
If we were to talk to them many of them would tell us that they would much rather spend their time working with young people, with society generally, along the lines of prevention, rather than going out and trying to force a cure by coming down with the heavy hand. We are not making life any easier for them.
(1320)
Let me talk about the rules, the regulations and the bills that we bring in and the laws that we make in this honoured establishment and in our provincial assemblies. One might ask what provincial assemblies have to do with the national police force. As we know all, the provinces have the RCMP which has jurisdiction over many of the laws and rules that govern this country and there are all kinds of provincial implications. Every time a new law or rule is brought in the Mounties are expected to enforce it. We give them more and more work on the one hand but we give them fewer and fewer tools on the other to do the job.
Quite often, in relation to the personal recompense for the work and responsibilities that we shower upon them and the demands we make upon them, we seldom think of asking them how we can make it up to them for the service they provide. As I said before, it is an agency that we perhaps take for granted.
As we deal with legislation like this and when we, as representatives of the people across the country, stand in this hallowed Chamber, the hallowed halls of Parliament, it is only right and fair that we recognize groups such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the firemen, the local police establishments scattered throughout our nation, and the volunteers from other sectors, all of whom make society a bit better and a bit safer for us.
We are the ones who are in a position to thank them on behalf of the people we represent. We are the ones who can ensure that as we try to make life generally better for people throughout the country, we also try to make life better for those who assist us in making life a little better for people throughout the country.
Therefore it is with great pleasure that we support the bill. We should be very conscious as we introduce legislation in the House that we support legislation that will help all the agencies throughout the country that help all of us so much.
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Madam Speaker, it is my privilege, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, to throw our support behind this beneficial change. We believe members of the RCMP play a significant role in contributing to Canadian society. This pension issue could be classified by some as housekeeping or just some type of modern modification, but in reality it is about building confidence and showing that we can do some small things that go a long way.
Members of the RCMP are very important to my constituency. They are the instant recognition for what a Canadian is and Canadian symbolism, showing confidence not only in a government but also demonstrating the pride that we have out there in a very overt way. A good place to look at that is in Windsor where we have so many different cultures and groups of new people coming to get their citizenship. One of the things that we always have is a member from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police at the ceremony. The constable is usually someone that is very personable and very involved with the actual ceremony itself, making a point to sign any autograph, to shake hands, to be part of photos and to say a few words of comfort as well as a congratulatory message. That is important because it exudes confidence in a nation and a confidence that we have which needs to be backed up. This pension addition is a minor modification, in a sense, but at the same time shows that we need to be doing the right things for them.
There are so many other different issues that we think about when we think about members of the RCMP. It is not just the colours of their uniform and the very overt way that we see their presence, whether it be on a horse or in a parade and those types of things, it is the work they do out in the field on a day to day basis. Once again, improving their actual conditions and their confidence in the government will only help that.
In our community and others, they represent the first line of defence in many ways for what is happening at our borders, the people who are needed to respond to more international matters. In our city, where we have a municipal force and a provincial force as well, the Mounties have a different stature than those organizations because they represent the nation. When we have issues they are certainly there providing another level of confidence that sits well with our other supports, be it those other organizations I mentioned, or our firefighters and other first responders that are so important.
Sometimes we take these things for granted because we have these traditions and we know we can always rely on them. Sometimes we forget to do the regular things that are necessary to ensure their long term viability. That is what the bill would do. It would ensure another piece of a larger puzzle and we will have it to pass on.
That is one of the reasons that we support this change. It is something that, once again, is going to show that there is a longstanding commitment behind the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. More important, the Mounties will improve their ability to feel confident in the work setting.
We have been debating most of the morning and over the last few days the working conditions of public servants. We know from the union's response that there are some concerns about Bill C-25 and their working conditions that are going to be enacted and the difficulty that they are going to face. That is the exact opposite from what this is, and that is unfortunate.
We have two situations here. In Bill C-25 we have some regressive actions that are being taken against those workers and the conditions in which they are going to have to live, but what we have here is something which will be of benefit to the RCMP. We think the way to go is to improve the morale of Canadians who are employed through government tax dollars.
In the last 10 years, far too many times there have been cases where those people have tended to be attacked by different individuals and organizations, and that is not right.
There certainly is an opportunity here to do more of what this recommendation says and with the changes that will happen. I hope the government learns something from this and applies it to Bill C-25. I hope it learns that it can do some of these things that sometimes are described as housekeeping but that actually do improve morale, that do improve the quality of service and that give security for those men and women who are serving this country, and their families, who also have to pay some price for being sometimes on the front line of public services. This is overdue for the RCMP and something that we in the New Democratic Party support.
(1325)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and pased)
* * *
(1330)
[Translation]
Lobbyists Registration Act
Hon. Andy Mitchell(for the Minister of Industry): moved
|
the second reading of, and the Senate to Bill C-15, an act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act. |
Mr. Serge Marcil (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to open the debate on the amended version of Bill C-15, An Act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act. This version differs only slightly from that passed March 18.
The Senate made only one amendment to correct an inconsistency discovered in an amendment passed by the House at third reading.
The hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot moved the original amendment during debate at third reading. I understand that he supports without reservation the change recommended by the Senate.
Obviously, the Minister of Industry considers this amendment appropriate under the circumstances.
The Senate's amendment and the original amendment moved at third reading are fully within the meaning of Bill C-15, which is to create a lobbyists registration system that works well now and that will work even better in the future. It is about creating a more transparent lobbyists registration system that is easier to enforce and that continues to earn the trust of Canadians.
The House has every reason to approve the version amended by the Senate. Rapid adoption of the bill means it will be able to receive royal assent and be implemented.
Before addressing the substance of the amendment made by the Senate, allow me to take a moment to remind the hon. members of the context for today's debate.
As my hon. colleagues from all sides of this House will recall, the review that led to Bill C-15 was a lengthy and comprehensive one.
While the original lobbying legislation dates back to 1989, parliamentarians and the public were concerned that it might not go far enough to allow a thorough public scrutiny of lobbying. In response to these concerns, our party promised improvements to the lobbying regime during the 1993 election campaign.
We delivered on our promise. Our government introduced a bill to review the Lobbyists Registration Act, which Parliament passed, and a new act came into force in 1996. This act resulting in the development of the code of conduct for lobbyists and led us to work tirelessly to ensure the efficiency of the new system.
This work has met with success. Gone are the public concerns, which were commonplace ten years ago, about agreements entered into behind closed doors. Why? Because the Lobbyists Registration Act and the system supporting it have brought a high level of transparency to the situation.
A balance has been struck between four principles: first, free and open access to the government is an important matter of public policy; second, lobbying public office holders is a legitimate activity; third, concerning transparency, public office holders and the public must be able to know who is trying to influence the government; and fourth, with respect to efficiency, a registration system for paid lobbyists must not hinder free and open access to the government.
That having been said, enforcement of legislation normally reveals what improvements are necessary. That is what happened with the Lobbyists Registration Act.
In 2001, the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology reviewed both the system and the act. It tabled its report, in which it recommended that the government make a number of changes and take a closer look at certain questions.
The government has followed up on these recommendations, consulted further and produced Bill C-15.
In addition to the usual housekeeping and technical amendments designed to correct minor drafting errors, the bill has three main components.
First, it contains a clearer definition of lobbying.
Second, it simplifies and standardizes registration requirements for all categories of lobbyists and strengthens the applicable cancellation requirements.
Third, it establishes more meaningful enforcement powers.
Neither the House or the Senate standing committees put forward amendments to the substantive elements of Bill C-15.
There were discussions and debates on specific points, but at the end of the day, parliamentarians from both Houses agreed that Bill C-15 would solve some key issues effectively.
(1335)
Nonetheless, during debate at third reading, the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot put forward an amendment to increase the amount of information required from lobbyists. More specifically, it amended subsection 7(1) and added sub-paragraph 7(3)(h.3). Under this sub-paragraph, lobbyists who are former public office holders would have to describe their former duties as part of the registration process.
As the hon. member himself later admitted, this amendment included an unintended loophole. It required information only from corporate lobbyists and lobbyists working for not-for-profit organizations. Consultant lobbyists, who provide lobbying services under contract to companies, organizations, or other clients, were not required to provide the same information.
It is clear that this amendment is inconsistent with the pervasive theme of Bill C-15, which is the equal and transparent application of registration requirements to all lobbyists. Having seen this loophole, the hon. member wrote to the Senate Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament to ask that this omission be corrected. The committee made the correction as requested and the Senate accepted the amendment, which is the only change that was made to the version passed by the House in March.
Essentially, what we have before us is a significant administrative correction we have every reason to accept. It makes absolutely no change in the major thrust of the law, but merely adds one additional detail in the interests of uniformity and greater transparency.
As a result, Bill C-15 as amended will enable us to take one more step toward being able to meet Canadians' growing expectations as far as ethical issues are concerned. It will be compatible with the other steps taken by our government, such as increasing the number of auditor general reports, departmental measures broadening the internal audit procedures, and the adoption of a more comprehensive code governing the conduct of holders of public office.
This bill constitutes one more means of keeping the promise made by the Prime Minister when he revealed his eight-point ethics plan last June. It falls in line with the measures aimed at introducing a guide for ministers of state and parliamentary secretaries in connection with ethical and other issues, as well as with the new rules governing interactions between ministers and crown agencies.
The Senate has asked us to make one minor change to a bill we have already passed once. It is a reasonable change, and one we should approve. We will thus be able to implement the improvements proposed in Bill C-15 to the Lobbyists Registration Act. We will be able to make a system that is working well now work still better in future.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, I am honoured to stand and represent not only the people of my riding but, I believe, people across Canada when we address issues of such interest to the Canadian taxpayer and also to those who are looking for integrity in all the different aspects of the governing process.
Over the years I have been a member of Parliament, I have watched with interest things which have to do with the ethics counsellor, the registration of lobbyists and other related items. If the government can be accused of anything, it can be accused of making timid steps in the right direction but not really getting into the nitty-gritty of what is required.
When we are dealing with lobbyists, we are dealing with basically three kinds of people: those who come here and simply look for change in government policies, social policies, tax policies or whatever; those who come here as individuals representing organizations that are lobbying for change in legislation; and finally, individuals and businesses whose jobs are to lobby to get government contracts. I think the latter of these three groups probably present most Canadians with the largest concern.
When we look at things like buying helicopters for the armed forces or buying computers for all the different government departments, we are talking big bucks, large amounts of money. It is important that the process by which those contracts are let is very open and transparent.
I am in favour of the Lobbyists Registration Act per se. I believe it is a good thing that members, if they engage in these activities, are required to disclose that information and that it be made available. As a matter of fact, in the almost 10 years that I have been here, the accessibility to such lists has been improved vastly by the introduction of the Internet and the great amount of connectivity of Canadians in that mode of communication.
As we know, it is possible to click on an Internet site, the ethics counsellor's website for example, from anywhere in the world and find out who is registered as a lobbyist. Of course the Lobbyists Registration Act spells out who needs to be registered. It also spells out what information needs to be disclosed. Then when we click on the website and ask for that search, we can find out who is currently lobbying the government to get a contract, to sell it huge amounts of computers or whatever item is being bid on.
We spoke in previous readings of this bill, prior to sending it to committee and also in second reading, about the different problems inherent in the lobbyists registration. We must always remember a very important background, and that is disclosure has but one purpose and that purpose is to prevent behaviour which is unethical or illegal. Just the disclosure itself does not justify it. People cannot say that because they have disclosed they now have a licence to do anything they want. It still must be within the law and be within a very high level of ethics.
(1340)
I compare this, for example, to a person who walks into a store and in plain sight of a clerk steals something off the shelf. That person cannot claim that because an employee of the store saw him or her do it, it is therefore not theft. It is theft regardless of whether it was seen. The same thing is true with registration. It provides disclosure but does not give a licence to engage in whatever behaviour is required to get the contract.
We must remember that the purpose and the principle of disclosure is to prevent behaviour which is unethical. In other words, hopefully people will know that what they do will be made public, that they will not get away with it and, therefore, they will not do it. I think that is the basis of the whole Lobbyists Registration Act and the public disclosure of the lists.
When this bill was finally completed earlier this year at third reading in the House, it was sent off to our unaccountable Senate. I know the rules of the House do not permit me in any way to speak disparagingly of the other place and I--
(1345)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I apologize to the hon. member for interrupting, but on a point of order the hon. member for St. John's West.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
[English]
Committees of the House
Procedure and House Affairs
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Madam Speaker, I apologize to my colleague for interrupting while he is in full flight but he will have lots of time. I will not take very long.
I wish to inform the Chair that there have been consultations among the parties and I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
|
That the membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be modified as follows: |
|
Gerald Keddy for Rick Borotsik |
|
And that Rick Borotsik and Gary Schellenberger be added to the list of associate members; |
|
And that Gerald Keddy be removed from the list of associate members. |
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
Lobbyists Registration Act
The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-15, an act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, I do not mind that interruption at all because it helps the people in the party over at the other end of the House try to unscramble its egg.
I would like to proceed with my talk. The bill as passed was then sent over to the other place. I know a number of the senators over there and I have no need at all to question whether they are dedicated or hard-working. I know a number of them work probably much harder than some members of this House. Therefore that is not an issue.
However I really must take every opportunity where we get something back from the Senate, whether it is a bill that is initiated there or whether it is a bill that it has looked at and then sent back here with a revision. I always have to ask this, and continue to review with anybody who will listen. In today's modern age how can we, being a so-called democratic society, justify a whole House of legislators who control what happens in our country without them also being elected? This is an issue which I can never forget to talk about when we deal with something that comes back from the Senate.
I appreciate its work. I happen to agree with the amendment it has sent back on this occasion. It actually did some work which should have been done over here, recognized a shortcoming and sent back the bill with an amendment to fix up that shortcoming. That is great, but that is a specific issue. It was doing its job. It can also do its job and do it better if it had the legitimacy of elected office and accountability to the people that it purports to represent.
The Senate has sent back an amendment and I sincerely wish it would have come back from an elected Senate. However it came back from an hon. House over there trying to do its work and hopefully improving this legislation. I do not know whether the parliamentary secretary, when he gave his little speech, outlined this for whomever was listening, but the Senate amendment basically adds one line. It says that if the individual, who is acting as a lobbyist and who is registering, has been a former public office holder, then he must also disclose in the registration the offices that were held.
As an example, not very long ago I met a former Liberal member of Parliament. He happens to be a lobbyist now. He gets a very fine salary from a large corporation. His job is to come over here and talk to the Liberal cabinet ministers whom he knows intimately, and I mean that in the general sense of the term. He was a member of the Liberal Party and worked with it. Consequently he has the ear of the minister. When the corporation, which he represents, wants to get a government contract, he can walk into the minister's office and the minister will greet him with a “Hi” and use his first name. They are immediately on friendly terms because they have been colleagues.
I do not know about you, Madam Speaker, but I find something just a little offensive about that. Very frankly, whether the person who shows up in the minister's office knows him well or does not know him or her at all, should be irrelevant to who gets the contract. The contract should be based upon very rigid criteria that are written into the contract. Those are the terms to be met and those are the conditions. When the contract is let, companies should bid on it and it should be evaluated objectively as possible to see which contract gives taxpayers the best buy for the money. Whether it is computers or helicopters or vehicles for the government fleet or whatever, there should be a careful cost benefit analysis to see if we are getting the correct return for the money.
(1350)
An hon. member: That is the case now.
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, a member across the way seems to have an ant under his shirt collar.
I hasten to add that it should have nothing to do with whether or not a person can somehow try to influence the minister toward a contract for a particular company. That is a given to me.
All the bill requires at this stage is that there be registration. The amendment from the Senate would require that the member of Parliament state in his registration that he has been a member of Parliament. I have not looked at the details. I think this would be due to regulation, but I wish the Senate would have explicitly said that especially if the lobbyist had been a member of the current government. If that were the case, then there would be a tighter relationship. It would warrant more rigid scrutiny by taxpayers and others accessing the website and the lists in terms of watching what the person did.
There is another disadvantage in this whole lobbyists registration thing. I cannot understand why the members of the government do not understand this. I would think it would be really wise of them not to accept interventions by lobbyists on these things.
Let us say that five bids were submitted and that the best bid was selected, the best value for the dollar on behalf of the taxpayer. Let us say also that it happened to be the company that was represented by the previous MP. Even though it may be legitimate, it would look suspicious and thereby would reduce the honour in which the whole process was held.
It would have been a lot better had there been no representation. It would have been an objective evaluation and the choices would have been made in order to get the taxpayer the best buy for the dollar. There would have been not even the appearance of interference on a friendly, person to person basis by having the best lobbyist.
This leads us to the next issue which is whether there is a process and a place for lobbyists? I hold that there is. I used to think not. Back when I was first elected, I thought there should be no lobbyists. I thought, who needs them? Members of Parliament should listen to their constituents and they should represent in the House what their constituents desire and that should be it.
I had my eyes opened when I became a member of Parliament and realized that we debate many bills and motions in the House, even some with respect to building laws and acts of Parliament in which there are many aspects. Communication is very important. It is valuable to members of Parliament to get a representation from some industrial group, perhaps on behalf of the forestry companies. If each company were to come here individually, we would never get our work done. For them to meet together and to boil it down to their five most important issues and then to visit the members of Parliament and communicate that, would be useful.
Not long ago the firefighters came to Ottawa for their lobbyist day, as they call it. I welcomed them. I like to hear from them and find out what the issues are in terms of the tax act, the Canada pension plan and other areas where we make rules that determine their livelihood and well-being after they retire, if they are not hurt or killed in action. We are making those rules. It is valuable for me to receive a representation from them as a group.
It is also totally useful that they should register as lobbyists. People would know that the firefighters association had a lobbyist. They would know who the person was who tries to bend the ears of legislators. I do not think there is anything wrong with that and it is useful to a degree.
(1355)
It becomes very offensive when the government succumbs to pressure on a personal basis from an in-house lobbyist who used to be a member of the very department that the person is now lobbying. That happens. From time to time we hear of this. A high level employee, a person very high up in the hierarchy in--
Mr. John Bryden: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the member for Elk Island seems to be going on indefinitely. Is there no limit on the time he has to speak?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): No, the hon. member has unlimited time to speak.
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, it is interesting to know that in this particular instance we are not limited to one minute, or 10, 20 or 40 minutes. I could speak for the rest of the day, if I so chose. If all goes well, I should be completed my speech before the end of the day which will give someone else an opportunity to speak.
Let me get back to the thread of my thoughts. Lobbyists have to register under the bill. The Senate has sent back an amendment which forces them to disclose one more additional piece of information and it is a very important disclosure. It is the area in which they served in a department.
I do not believe it is acceptable for a deputy minister, a previous minister or even a member of Parliament, but specifically a deputy minister of a department to retire from government and then get a job with a business firm that will be lobbying to get a contract in the very department in which he or she had served. Disclosure is one thing, but it is not acceptable and I would like the Lobbyists Registration Act to actually prohibit that activity. In other words, it is like the person in the store, it is not just whether or not we know what is happening, but to actually prohibit the activity per se.
I wish the Senate had done its job and brought in some important amendments of that nature instead of this little housekeeping one which increases the disclosure. However I think we are better off by a small degree in this area than we were 10 years ago with what has happened with lobbyists registration and the work our party is trying to accomplish. We are trying to get a truly independent ethics commissioner, not one that is appointed by the government but one that is truly independent as is the Auditor General for example. I would like to see that strengthened even more to the point where Canadians will once again be able to say “We trust our government. We know it is doing the best that it can and all is well in the House”.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[S. O. 31]
* * *
[English]
Workplace Training
Mr. Janko Péric (Cambridge, Lib.): Madam Speaker, three companies in my riding of Cambridge representing the industrial manufacturing, service hospitality and small business sectors were recently recognized for their excellence in workplace training and development.
Canadian General Tower, Cambridge Memorial Hospital and McDonald-Green exemplify the very best in supporting and encouraging a highly skilled workforce. All three companies strive for career related and skill oriented programs guaranteeing the development of a highly adaptive workforce necessary in today's competitive economy.
I join all members in congratulating Canadian General Tower, Cambridge Memorial Hospital and McDonald-Green for their vision, leadership and resolve in producing a skilled workforce.
* * *
(1400)
Child Pornography
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, the Liberals have put Canada on the map again, this time as a haven for child pornography. ECPAT, the world's largest organization to prevent child sexual exploitation, says that Canada is an international embarrassment. Why?
The Liberals have refused to consider raising the age of consent to 16 and have refused to fund operation snowball, Canada's cross-country effort to arrest child pornographers. They appoint judges who consistently throw out verdicts against child pornographers. They stall a sexual offender registry until a tragedy suddenly motivates them. They write a new bill making it legal to have sex with children, as long as there is no position of trust, and legal to have child porn if there is a public good.
With all this evidence about the unwillingness of the Liberals to protect children from sexual exploitation, Canadians would be in their right to ask what is the government's real agenda? The only thing we know for sure, it is not protecting our children.
* * *
[Translation]
Batteries Électriques Gagnon
Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.): Madam Speaker, on May 3, Batteries Électriques Gagnon, which has its head office in my riding of Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, held a gala evening to celebrate its 50th anniversary, and also to highlight the excellent work done by the many employees over the years who contributed so much to the success of this jewel of Quebec's car and truck after-sales sector. Fifty years in business would have been impossible were it not for the ever-present spirit of cooperation and understanding that exists within the company.
I would like to congratulate and pay tribute to the two company founders, André and Claude Gagnon, members of the great Gagnon family. I would also like to thank them for their involvement in my riding of Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel and wish them the best for the continued prosperity and success of their wonderful business.
* * *
[English]
International Coffee Organization
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the coffee industry is in crisis resulting in extreme hardship for coffee producers and workers in Africa, Latin America and Asia. In the hardest hit areas, people are starving to death as a result of the crisis. The root of the problem is overproduction fostered by World Bank policies and the marketing of low quality product.
Without a strong multilateral body such as the International Coffee Organization, producers have no protection. When supply exceeds demand, prices crash.
In 1992 the former prime minister decided to discontinue Canada's membership in the ICO, thus helping to reduce the effectiveness of the organization.
Canada's voice in the ICO would make a difference. We could be part of the solution to the crisis facing millions of African farmers. I urge the Minister of Foreign Affairs to have Canada rejoin the ICO.
* * *
[Translation]
Bureau de consultation jeunesse de Laval
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Madam Speaker, everyone agrees that young people are the future of this country. However, some young people experience serious problems that require help from the community and from the government.
I am therefore extremely pleased to announce that, thanks to a $400,000 grant from the Government of Canada, the Bureau de consultation jeunesse de Laval will be able to build some ten supervised apartments by July.
The purpose is simple: to prevent homelessness among at-risk youth who are between 17 and 22 years old by providing not just a roof over their heads, but also guidance from professional youth workers.
Thanks to this type of initiative, these young people will one day be able to take an active part in our society.
* * *
[English]
World Partnership Walk
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, on Sunday, May 25 the annual World Partnership Walk took place throughout Canada.
It is the largest event of its kind in support of international development and cooperation. Canadians in cities across the country raised over $3 million that will go toward development projects in central Asia and eastern Africa. The money will be matched by a donation from CIDA.
In the city of Edmonton over $300,000 was raised and over 3,000 people participated. I would like to congratulate the 400 volunteers who helped make the Edmonton walk a success, especially Mr. Salim Chatoor, who has been the convenor of the walk for the past five years and once again did a terrific job.
The World Partnership Walk is definitely one of the many great things done by the Aga Khan foundation development network, which was created to realize the social conscience of Islam through institutional action.
I encourage parliamentarians and Canadians everywhere to visit the website, www.worldpartnershipwalk.com, to sign up and to walk in next year's event.
* * *
(1405)
The Environment
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in celebration of Environment Week I want to pay tribute to the efforts of those individuals within Hamilton who have effectively sought to preserve, restore, and protect our environment.
At the 24th annual Hamilton Environmentalists of the Year Award ceremony a number of individuals will be recognized for their contributions to the city of Hamilton.
Scott McNie will be awarded the Doctor Victor Cecilioni Environmentalist of the Year Award. Lifetime achievement awards will be given to Anne Redish and Jim MacDonald. Three awards of merit will be presented for pollution prevention. The first, to Larry Kelly of Kelly Auto Body; the second, to Beth Stormont and Sandra Root; and the third, to secondary school teachers Tina DiClementé and Franca Ianni.
I wish to congratulate these individuals for their contributions to the preservation of the environment in the City of Hamilton.
* * *
[Translation]
François Gagnon
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to welcome to Parliament Hill, François Gagnon, the MP for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier for a day, who will be with us for 24 hours.
François was the winner of the sixth edition of the MP for a day contest and stood out from 1,200 other secondary IV students in an examination on general knowledge of politics.
While in Ottawa, he will have an opportunity to gain some familiarity with the parliamentary work of MPs, and will get a chance to see first hand the hectic lives we lead here on Parliament Hill. Along with his father, Mr. Jacques Gagnon, he was able to meet privately with the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and also with all the members of our caucus.
Mr. Speaker, you too will have the pleasure of meeting this young man after oral question period this afternoon.
On behalf of my hon. colleagues, I want to welcome him to Parliament and wish him an excellent visit.
* * *
[English]
Rowing
Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the members of the rowing teams at Denis Morris Catholic High School, which is located in my riding of Niagara Centre.
The senior boys fours with coxie, under coach Matt Miller, placed first at the Wyandotte Regatta in Detroit, Michigan on May 2 and 3. The junior girls heavy 8, under coach Brian Dell, placed first at the same regatta. The senior boys heavy 8, under coach Brian Dell, placed first at the Mother's Day Regatta in St. Catharines on May 11.
I wish to congratulate all members of these three exemplary rowing teams. They have set the bar extremely high for others to attempt to equal their success.
* * *
Justice
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, last weekend Richmond RCMP officers held the first Annual Constable Jimmy Ng Memorial Road Hockey Tournament in memory of their fallen comrade. Constable Ng was killed last year when his patrol car was rammed by an alleged street racer. The goal of this event was to raise money for a scholarship in Constable Ng's name.
Once again I spent some time with Jimmy's parents, Chris and Theresa. Their courageous resolve to promote awareness of the potentially catastrophic consequences of mixing young inexperienced drivers with high performance cars is commendable. But beyond educating teens and parents, the Ngs also recognize the need for lawmakers to do their part.
Just last week we saw another conditional sentence imposed on a street racer convicted for his part in the death of a 17 year old. Street racing season is upon us. The bad actors know they will not face a day in jail even if their selfish disregard for others kills or injures innocent people.
By its silence and inaction, the government at worst accepts this behaviour or, at the very least, just plain does not care.
* * *
[Translation]
Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation has announced its Excellence Awards for 2003-04.
One hundred and twenty Cegep graduates in Quebec have been given the Excellence Award in recognition of their academic achievement, service to the community, leadership, and interest in innovation.
I would like to congratulate one young man from my riding, Marc-André Marois, from the Cégep de Granby Haute-Yamaska, who received an Excellence Award.
Receiving such an award is a high point in a student's life. It recognizes the academic achievement of our young people.
A Government of Canada initiative, these awards are a major investment in the future of our students. They are a excellent means of promoting academic excellence.
Once again, I congratulate Marc-André. He is a prime example of the fact that Canada's future lies in its youth.
* * *
Government Contracts
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, one year after the sponsorship scandals, the government has yet to get rid of the stench of bogus contracts awarded to Liberal-friendly companies.
In the meantime, organizations that legitimately deserve support from Ottawa are being denied help.
I have an example. Yesterday, the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik asked the Minister of Public Works to help the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League, which will be hosting a major event: the entry draft in Val-d'Or this weekend. He asked for $15,000.
The same government that squandered $1 billion on the firearms registry and $100 million on luxury jets said no.
This proves to voters in Témiscamingue that the Liberals simply do not understand the legitimate needs of the people in the region. Fortunately, the good news is that on June 16 they will have an opportunity to express their displeasure by voting for Rachel Lord, the Progressive Conservative Party candidate in Témiscamingue.
* * *
(1410)
Church of Saint-Joachim in Châteauguay
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my fellow citizens on the occasion of the unveiling, last Sunday, of a commemorative plaque to recognize the architectural heritage of the Church of Saint-Joachim in Châteauguay.
Built between 1774 and 1778, this church was designated an historical monument in 1955 by the Historic Monuments Commission of Quebec for the quality of its furnishings and its construction. This building stands out from religious construction of the time because of the simplicity of its architectural features, both on the interior and exterior, which gives it its unique architectural character.
As governor of the Fonds Saint-Joachim de Châteauguay and sponsor of the fund-raising campaign, I am proud to say that the Châteauguay community has finally received the heritage recognition it deserves.
We are proud to assert today our heritage, our Quebecois vernacular tradition. Bravo.
* * *
[English]
Colin Gibson
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today in the Senate chamber the Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians held its annual assembly to honour those former MPs who passed away during the previous year. Among those so honoured was Colin Gibson, my Liberal predecessor.
He was a fine man. As good as they come. He had an unwavering faith in his country that he demonstrated as a soldier during the second world war and in democratic battle in this House of Commons. As I came to know him, I also appreciated that he had an unflinching belief in the basic goodness of all human beings. That, above all else, was his great strength.
It is a privilege and an honour to attempt to follow in his footsteps in this House.
* * *
Foreign Affairs
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in classic Liberal doublespeak, the Prime Minister lectured G-8 leaders about keeping public spending and budgetary deficits under control, while accepting Bush's argument that the U.S. deficit was a one-shot affair caused by September 11 and the Iraq war. Who is he kidding?
Bush's trillion dollar star wars has massive long term budgetary implications. It is anything but a one-time expenditure. For the Prime Minister to join the chorus warning Iran and North Korea against breaking the nuclear non-proliferation and anti-ballistic missile treaties while sitting at the table with the U.S. to negotiate Canada's role in star wars rings hollow and hypocritical.
The Prime Minister had an opportunity going into the G-8 summit to lead by example and call for an end to weapons of mass destruction. Instead he threw away Canada's diplomatic capital with the decision to participate in star wars.
Shame on the government for undermining Canada's voice for peace around the world.
* * *
[Translation]
Jean Bouchard
Mr. Jean-Guy Carignan (Québec East, Lib. Ind.): Mr. Speaker, on May 29, with supporters and sponsors present, the Les yeux du coeur convoy led by Jean Bouchard started off symbolically from Quebec City.
For the first time in sport and physical activity history, a blind and hard-of-hearing cyclist will be crossing Canada on a tandem bicycle. From June to September, Quebec City athlete Jean Bouchard will pedal from Victoria to Halifax.
Mr. Bouchard has decided to ride across the country to show that we can stay fit at any age, live with disabilities and even overcome them. Jean has been hard of hearing since birth and he lost his sight gradually in his adult years.
Now aged 66, this courageous athlete has become a model of perseverance and discipline. He is still devoting much of his spare time to physical activity. He started this trek across Canada on a tandem bicycle to raise money for the Fondation En Adaptation Motrice Inc., a non-profit organization promoting physical activity, the integration of persons with disabilities and functional independence for seniors.
We commend Mr. Bouchard's initiative and wish him all the best on his journey.
* * *
(1415)
[English]
Urban Affairs
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities recently held its annual conference in Winnipeg, attended by city leaders from all across Canada.
I want to take this opportunity to congratulate FCM and its work on behalf of Canadian cities. The Prime Minister's caucus task force on urban issues, the national round table on the environment, and many other organizations helped to move the urban agenda forward.
We all know the pressures facing municipalities today. The federal government continues its investments in our urban regions. In order to overcome the many challenges, municipalities must be invited by the provinces to be at the table for joint federal, provincial and municipal discussions on strategic priorities.
I challenge all orders of government to put politics aside in the best interests of all Canadians and invite the municipalities to be at the table, always respecting our jurisdictions and our Constitution, and to work together in an equal partnership on ways to address those major pressures.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[English]
Agriculture
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, while the Liberal leadership campaign transition continues to drag on and the Prime Minister jets around the world making verbal gaffes, the bills are starting to pile up for Canadians. We are now over two weeks into the mad cow crisis that has shut down the beef industry costing farmers millions of dollars and putting thousands of Canadian jobs at risk.
Can anyone in the government tell us when we can expect the ban on the importation of Canadian beef to be lifted?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago I had another conversation with U.S. secretary Ann Veneman. Those who have watched the technical briefing today are aware of the fact that because we did not receive some DNA matching there is a 15% chance that the lineage of the case animal was in another line.
We are therefore going to have to do testing on that line. That will take another three or four days before that science is done. We will need that science, as we have said all along, not only to prove it to the United States but to the OIE and others.
* * *
Health
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, that is the short crisis.
Canada is over two months into the SARS outbreak. It is devastating the tourism industry in Toronto. We are one exported case away from another WHO travel advisory, yet the health minister still refuses to implement mandatory interviews at airports.
When will someone in the government require mandatory interviews for SARS at Canadian airports?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said for some time, we do a daily risk assessment and on the basis of that assessment we put in place procedures.
For the hon. member to suggest that it is one case away from a travel advisory is misleading the public. In fact, the WHO had its regular Tuesday meeting today and decided not to impose an additional travel advisory on the City of Toronto. It believes that the procedures in place and the methods of public health being followed by local officials in Toronto are controlling and containing this latest outbreak.
* * *
Softwood Lumber
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I guess it does not matter how many times it makes the same mistake.
[Translation]
Canada has been in a trade dispute over softwood lumber for two years. But the government did not announce anything to support the industry and its workers; it refuses to budge and will not act on the promises it made to the communities.
When will the government finally deliver the goods to the lumber industry and the workers?
[English]
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the hon. member and Parliament what we have done in terms of supporting the softwood lumber industry.
Let me remind the hon. member that there have been $110 million for research and development, $29.7 million to expand offshore markets, $181 million to assist displaced workers and the community adjustment fund, $20 million for an advocacy program, and $15 million for the softwood lumber associations. That is $350 million that the government has committed.
Perhaps the hon. member should do some research before he stands up and asks questions about the softwood--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Crowfoot.
* * *
Air India
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is a well known fact that operational procedures between CSIS and the RCMP have not always been followed. It is a well known fact that the relationship and the communications between the two security agencies have at times been strained. Therefore, there is the very real possibility that CSIS did not inform the RCMP of all pertinent information regarding the Air India flight 182 bombing.
My question is for the Solicitor General. Will he initiate and inquire to assure Parliament and Canadians that all information was given to the RCMP by CSIS?
(1420)
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in effect, that inquiry has been held. It was held in 1991-92 by the Security Intelligence Review Committee when it reviewed this matter extensively. That report stated:
|
We further believe that CSIS fulfilled its mandate to investigate the possible terrorist threats and that it advised the appropriate government and law enforcement agencies of the information it had in a timely and comprehensive way. |
Those are the facts.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, allegations that CSIS erased wiretaps and destroyed files caused the RCMP to launch an investigation, not in 1991 but in 2000, an investigation as to how CSIS was involved in the Air India flight 182 bombing.
Those allegations in 2000 were proven to be true. Why then does the Solicitor General refuse to believe that these new allegations may in fact be true? Why does he refuse to initiate an inquiry to either prove or dispel the serious allegations?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the 1991-92 investigation also talks about the tapes and the comments that the member just raised. It deals with those facts.
I am concerned about the families of the victims out there who are listening to this kind of rumour and rhetoric from the other side. I think it is a bit of a travesty that they would pull those rumours out of the air and possibly jeopardize the longest running investigation and court case in history.
* * *
[Translation]
Softwood Lumber
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last October, the Minister of Natural Resources stated that if the softwood lumber crisis dragged on, the government should increase aid to businesses and workers. Eight months later, in a letter to all the members, the Minister for International Trade is finally acknowledging that the industry's situation has gotten worse.
Will the government now stop assessing the situation, as it repeats ad nauseam, and announce phase 2 of its aid plan for businesses and workers in the softwood lumber industry?
[English]
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I just outlined a few minutes ago all the things that we as the federal government have done, totalling up to $350 million.
We, as a government, the Minister of Industry, the Minister of Human Resources Development, the Minister for International Trade and myself, are following this situation very closely. We want to ensure that our industry can continue to be a dynamic industry and that it can continue its operations.
We are concentrating on making sure we get an agreement but if we do not get an agreement soon, there is no doubt that we will have to do more for the industry to protect--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, everything the minister has mentioned is for the intermediate or long-term. But, the situation is getting worse right now. That is exactly what the Minister for International Trade is telling us. Despite all the wonderful long-term measures, right now, nothing being is being done to help these businesses. This is what is serious.
I hear the minister saying, “If things get worse, aid will be forthcoming”. He has been saying for eight months now, “If things get worse, aid will be forthcoming”. But things have gotten worse and the minister has admitted this. Will he wake up and provide this aid immediately? That is what these businesses need.
Hon. Claude Drouin (Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is important not to inflame the situation. Direct aid cannot be given to the industry because the U.S. would criticize us for doing so and this would not be in the industry's interests. That is what the Bloc Quebecois must understand.
However, at the same time, we have implemented measures of $110 million to support the communities with economic diversification. We have already announced some of these measures. We will continue to work toward this goal with the stakeholders and the provinces. That is what we will do.
(1425)
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister is telling us he intends to let the industry die. Is that what he is telling us?
On the one hand, the Minister for International Trade says that all our practices relating to softwood lumber comply with the rules of international free trade yet, in his letter to us, the minister refers to a two-year transition period to allow us to modify our practices.
How can the minister plan changes to our practices in the softwood lumber industry, when these are, in his own opinion, good practices? Why change what is already compliant?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, two and a half years ago, we adopted a strategy supported by all governments in Canada, including the present and past governments of Quebec. We are determined to pursue our disputes with the Americans before the courts. We know very well that we are going to win and are already starting to do.
That said, I have also assumed the responsibility of opening up a dialogue with the Americans in order to try to find a long-term resolution to the matter at the same time. This is what led to the interpretation bulletins—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, because of the government's inaction, the industries are showing signs of weakness in response to the difficult situation with which they are confronted.
Will the minister admit that, if the industries concerned are beginning to show signs of weakness at present, this is because the government has left them to their own devices to cope with the countervailing duties and because, while he was involved in drafting negotiating strategies, his colleagues refused to take action?
[English]
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been working with the industry. In fact, we have been consulting with the industry. I have met with the industry many times as has my colleague, the Minister for International Trade.
We are working closely with the industry to see what support we can provide them. The $15 million, which I outlined earlier, is as a result of the industry representatives. We have been responding and we will be monitoring the situation. If more needs to be done as a government we will need to consider that.
* * *
Agriculture
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, the U.S. market has been closed to Canadian cattle exports now for two weeks. The industry is losing $11 million a day.
When we add up the cost to workers on the farm, in the processing plants or driving the trucks that carry the beef across the border, that total rises to a staggering amount of over $420 million.
Could the acting Prime Minister tell the House why he is against providing much needed financial assistance to the literally thousands of Canadians whose livelihoods are at stake?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously the situation is very dire for the industry. The government certainly sympathizes with all those affected, and the Minister of Agriculture has made those views well known.
We are assessing the situation. We are certainly mindful of the damage that is being done and we do not preclude any action.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am sure those sympathies are appreciated but it has come to light that an influential U.S. cattlemen's association has written to American politicians urging that the American government extend its ban on Canadian beef for up to seven years. This would have a devastating impact on the Canadian economy.
If the government can afford to waste billions of dollars on a useless long gun registry, contract cancellations and massive government mismanagement, why can it not heed the advice of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and compensate Canadian farmers for their losses as a result?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are working very closely with the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and all those involved in the beef value chain. I met with the beef roundtable.
The hon. member needs to know that the best compensation for our industry is an open border between Canada and the United States, and that is our primary concern.
The government recognizes the situation fully and we will be there with and for our industry in every way we possibly can in order to help all of us and our economy get through this issue.
* * *
Employment Insurance
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there is another important aspect to this story, and that is that 1,000 packing plant workers have been laid off.
Recently the government agreed that workers quarantined as a result of SARS were immediately eligible for EI benefits. However packing plant workers have been laid off as a result of another quarantine, this one affecting beef cattle. Provincial governments and even employers are calling for the waiting period to be waived immediately.
Since the government does not put one red cent into the EI fund but simply creams off the annual surplus, when will it waive the waiting period for employees in the beef industry?
(1430)
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Ministers of Agriculture and Transport have said, the government understands the seriousness of the circumstances.
We certainly want to ensure that the border is opened as quickly as possible. However, in the interim, I want the hon. member to know that the employment insurance is there and that officials are working proactively to assist those who are laid off to ensure that they get their income supports as quickly as possible, but also to discuss the opportunities that are there through work sharing.
The hon. member makes reference to the waiving of the two week waiting period. Indeed he is correct, it was done for health measures. It was done for those who are in quarantine to stop the spread of a communicable disease. This waiving--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver East.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, if EI is covering so much why are so many people hurting?
The Liberals are bungling softwood lumber just like they bungled SARS and mad cow. Whether it is the Atlantic Canada exemption or forest jobs from B.C. to Quebec, thousands of jobs are on the line.
Before the Liberals bungle this again, will the minister commit to sitting down with affected communities, workers and companies from across Canada so he can get input from the people who know what they are doing?
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are not sure what the question was there. There were about six questions and they were not directed toward any minister.
If the questions were directed toward softwood lumber, I can assure the hon. member that we are watching the situation closely. We have already announced $350 million.
If the hon. member is talking about employment figures, the government has created more jobs than any other government in decades. She should keep that in mind when she asks the question.
* * *
Agriculture
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we have word today that another herd has been quarantined to further guarantee that mad cow disease has been held in check. Unfortunately, quarantining a herd at this late date cannot help but set back attempts to reopen the Canada-U.S. border.
Why is it taking so long to identify and quarantine herds that have been in contact with the one and only animal to test positive for mad cow?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe it was explained in the technical briefing by officials at 1 o'clock today. The information just came to us that there had been co-mingling between one herd that had already been quarantined. That information just came forward. In order to complete the science and consider the necessary testing, that had to happen.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the question was: Why did it take so long?
All these delays are enormously costly. Meat packers, cattle feeder operations, everybody is suffering deep losses right now. The minister has said that he has approached cabinet for a compensation package. Producers and feeders have to know whether compensation is coming and, if it is, in what form.
When will the minister release the details of his mad cow compensation package? When will we hear it?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as has already been stated by the Minister of Transport, cabinet and the government are discussing it. We are also discussing it with the industry and with provincial governments.
I will repeat that the best compensation is an open border. We are concentrating on that, but we are not ignoring the other aspects of the seriousness of this to the industry.
* * *
[Translation]
Softwood Lumber
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while softwood lumber companies are announcing layoffs and a slowdown of their activities, the secretary of state for regional development is selling his program for economic diversification. Workers in the softwood lumber sector do not want to change sectors, as the minister is proposing. They want to get their jobs back, that is all.
Four hundred and fifty forestry workers from the Coopérative forestière de Laterrière in my riding lost their jobs and want to get them back.
Does the minister not understand that what the cooperative needs, more than anything else, is a loan guarantee to allow it to resume its activities and rehire its workers?
Hon. Claude Drouin (Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there was a statement, a bit earlier, that we wanted to let the industry die. That is just about the most ridiculous thing that I have ever heard here in the House. The role of the government is to defend people and to support them, and that is what we are doing, but we do not wish to harm the industry. We want people to stay in their chosen field.
However, the Americans are maintaining the status quo on this and feel that we are subsidizing the industry, which is not the case. Meanwhile, we are trying to come up with measures to diversify the economy in the regions. That is what we are doing.
(1435)
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the secretary of state's measures to promote economic diversification do nothing to help the 450 workers at Laterrière right now. Retraining them for another sector is fine and dandy, but what they need if they want to get their old jobs back is a loan guarantee for the cooperative.
Why is this government, which is so out of touch with reality, stubbornly refusing a solution that costs so little, yet is so right and obvious?
[English]
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this was one of the options that was looked at in phase one, which we announced at the time. It is on the table. We never removed it from the table. However we have to make sure we look at all the factors that are out there.
It is something the government has reviewed but no final decision has been made on it. It is still on the table. As part of phase two, if we do not get an agreement there is no doubt we will have to look at options, such as the hon. member has put forward.
* * *
National Defence
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, once again the government is sending Canadian Forces into danger without proper equipment.
The Canadian Forces is scrambling to buy basic equipment like proper assault rifles, like laser sights, like night vision goggles. The military has sped up the orders for the equipment by six months but it still will not receive them in time for its mission in Afghanistan.
Why does the government not learn from its past mistakes and ensure our troops are fully equipped before it sends them into danger?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see the hon. member back in the House after a bit of an absence and to be subjected once again to his unique style of questioning.
On the issue, I have made it abundantly clear to the military some months ago that given the danger and security of this mission, no effort was to be spared and no money was to be spared to ensure that our troops were equipped with equipment to maximize their safety, including the use of unmanned aerial vehicles on time in the field. It is on target to do so.
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, what the minister is saying in fact is quite different from what the outgoing head of the army says. He says that our military personnel are overstretched and that they cannot continue at the current level of commitment. The new head of the army says that our forces are desperately short of soldiers.
Yet the minister says he will not increase the number of military personnel, even as his government asks for troops in the Congo and in the Israeli-Palestinian region.
Why will the government not listen to the most senior military officers and take on more troops and fewer missions?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has conveniently changed the subject. Overstretched is not the same as under equipped.
Yes, as I have said many times in the House, the military is overstretched and we are addressing that issue. However the topic of his first question was whether it was appropriately equipped.
Given that Afghanistan is a dangerous and volatile place, it is our top priority to ensure that our troops have all the equipment on time that is needed to maximize their safety in the field. We are absolutely on course to that end.
* * *
[Translation]
Gasoline Prices
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance confirmed that he had maintained the tax of 1.5¢ per litre of gasoline to fight the deficit, but that he had implemented other income tax cuts.
Can the minister see that his budget decisions are very unfair from a fiscal point of view, since taxi drivers and truckers are paying more than their fair share of the anti-deficit tax he has chosen to maintain, even though their incomes are too low for them to benefit from income tax cuts?
[English]
Hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is actually nothing unfair about a tax that goes into general revenues which helps us with health care and with infrastructure. It also helps us to create the type of environment that has resulted in the creation of over 660,000 jobs from January 1, 2002. It is a leading G7 performance.
I am sure that is good news for the country of Canada. It might not be good news for him.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, that does not make this tax any more just.
How can the minister explain his decision to maintain the anti-deficit tax of 1.5¢ per litre of gasoline, even though this penalizes the regions and the consumers very heavily, because it adds to the cost of transportation and thereby increases the price of all goods in a region?
(1440)
[English]
Hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is unfair is the hon. member's question, trying to say that somehow the tax itself is unfair.
Really there is nothing wrong. Actually the type of economic plan we have created for Canadians has been one that has created a stellar performance across the world. People are talking about how Canada has been able to reduce taxes, liberate its market, create the type of innovative economy that speaks to being number one.
We will try to do better than number one.
* * *
National Defence
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we have just passed the 40th anniversary of the first delivery of the Sea King helicopters. That same year President Kennedy was shot, the Beatles released their first album, our present Prime Minister was elected to Parliament for his first time and I turned 11.
We have all aged since then, some less gracefully than others, that is for sure. After 10 years of promised replacements that never show, our troops are still flying those same Sea King helicopters from 1963.
How much longer does this Prime Minister intend to keep the procurement of new choppers up in the air?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Public Works and I have stated many times that it is a top priority for us to get the new helicopter as quickly as possible.
We have already moved to rebundle the contract which everybody agrees will result in a faster delivery. We are now working very closely with the military to ensure that once it gets the helicopters there is a minimum delay before they are usable.
We are also in discussion with industry, all to the same end, to get that new helicopter as fast as possible.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): That is glacial speed, Mr. Speaker. He talked about overstretched and under equipped. I do have to agree with him there, that is for sure.
It is the 40th anniversary of the Sea Kings but our troops certainly are not breaking out any party hats. The Prime Minister cancelled the replacement contract 10 years ago, and he has waffled on new procurements since a long time. When it comes to making his decision, he is either unwilling or incapable.
Why will the government and the Prime Minister not just admit that he is leaving this whole mess to the next prime minister?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think I have already answered the question about speed of delivery, that we are working on all cylinders to get that new helicopter as fast as we possibly can. I think that was my answer to the hon. member's first question. It is also my answer to her second question.
* * *
Fisheries and Oceans
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last December the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced a new approach to the environmental regulation of placer gold mining in the Yukon.
The announcement will seriously affect a very important industry in my riding. While all Yukoners want to continue protecting the environment, many have voiced their fears that DFO is destroying this historically important industry.
Since the decision, the minister has shown leadership by collaborating with Yukoners to discuss making changes to the proposed new regime to allow placer mining and the Yukon economy to have a healthy future.
Could the minister update the House about the progress being made to help placer mining in the Yukon?
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Yukon, as well as Senator Christensen, for their great work on behalf of all Yukoners.
Since my announcement last December, important discussions have been taking place with the people most affected. Last week my department along with the Yukon government, the Council of Yukon First Nations and the Klondike Placer Miners' Association agreed to work together to develop a new regime that protects fish and fish habitat while allowing for a viable placer mining industry.
With this goal in mind, representatives of these groups have agreed to an implementation steering committee to develop--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Cumberland--Colchester.
* * *
Softwood Lumber
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans told the Halifax Herald that quotas for softwood lumber were all right under certain circumstances.
It is strange because on May 29 the very same minister received a letter from the Maritime Lumber Bureau that said that it was excluded from quota and that it must again be excluded from any attempt to allocate quota.
The Premier of Nova Scotia has said, no quotas. The industry says, no quotas.
Did the Minister for International Trade agree with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans when he went against the entire province of Nova Scotia and said that it was okay to drag Atlantic Canada into the quota regime?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have worked very hard as a united country in the last two and a half years, and I want to thank all of those from all the provinces and all the regions in the country who have stood together to ensure that we can resolve this on a long term basis.
It continues to be our intention to resolve the problems, including the one that we are having in Atlantic Canada. There have been anti-dumping duties charged against Atlantic Canada which we have found to be punitive and which the Maritime Bureau has also asked us to work on its behalf and help remove these anti-dumping tariffs.
(1445)
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker, if we are such a united country and have such a united front, why do the Premiers of Newfoundland, New Brunswick, P.E.I. and Nova Scotia write to the minister and say, no quotas? Why has the Alberta softwood trade council said, no quotas? Why does the British Columbia forestry minister now say, no quotas, that they reject this proposal?
If six provinces are demanding that this proposal be withdrawn, why is the government trying to ram this deal down everybody throats, and why the attack on Atlantic Canada?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this proposal has been conveyed to the United States after consultations. This is not a proposal we are absolutely trying to ram down the throat of anyone.
It is our duty to continue to maintain a healthy dialogue with the Americans. Those people over there would be the first ones to reproach us for not trying harder to bring the Americans back to the negotiating table. This is what we are trying to do.
* * *
International Aid
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, fresh from the G-8 the Prime Minister in yet another vacuous utterance said that he favoured health initiatives for combating HIV-AIDS and improving affordable drug access for developing countries.
However there was no commitment to increase Canada's contribution to the global fund for AIDS, TB and malaria. There was no guarantee of pharmaceuticals for poor countries. Talk is cheap.
When will Canada triple its global fund commitment? When will we lead the fight to help desperate countries get the drugs they need for people at risk, and dying by the millions?
Hon. Susan Whelan (Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada contributed significantly to the creation of the global fund to fight HIV-AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.
We have pledged a total of $150 million from the year 2001 to 2004. We are ranked seventh in the donors of those that are contributing to the global fund. Last year we announced $50 million for HIV-AIDS vaccine through the Canada-Africa fund. We are quadrupling our HIV-AIDS commitment over the next three years within Canada. We are doing our part.
* * *
The Environment
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Speaker, when smog season hits or when sustainable transportation is not in play, the Liberal government acts like it has not been in power for a decade, but it has been. Canada had record smog last summer, and our public transit and rail infrastructure is in shambles.
Will the environment minister get serious about meeting Kyoto targets and mark Environment Awareness Week, which we are celebrating this week, by announcing that 5% of the gas tax will be dedicated to communities to build public transit and freight rail services?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is well aware of the clean fuels and engines program of the Government of Canada which extends over 10 years. The fact is we are reducing the amount of emissions that create smog from the average vehicle in Canada by 90% and the average SUV of last year by 95%, and it will happen over the next four years.
He knows that. He knows the same measures are being taken with respect to diesel fuel and on-road diesel. He knows we have measures in place for small engines, such as lawn mowers, weed trimmers, snowmobiles, et cetera. I suggest he just looks at the record once again.
* * *
Softwood Lumber
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, a week and a half ago the Canadian softwood negotiator tabled a quota-based offer to the Americans, which took almost every Canadian stakeholder by complete surprise. Provincial softwood associations and industry stakeholders continue to be ticked off at being excluded from consultations prior to development of this offer.
Why did the minister allow for this betrayal of the softwood stakeholders?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been working very closely with the stakeholders for two and a half years. We have met them time and again. We are absolutely working on their behalf. When they asked us to challenge the American action before the courts, it was on their behalf that we did it. When we are trying to bring the Americans back to the negotiating table, it is also on their behalf that we are working.
(1450)
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, rather than meeting with the national stakeholders group, the negotiator excluded other points of view and instead met only with five CEOs in favour of a quota-based offer. This is furtive behaviour. This has weakened Canada's negotiating position due to internal divisions. No future offer should be tabled with the Americans unless the stakeholders group is consulted.
Will the minister commit to doing that, right now?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have always consulted with the stakeholders of the industry from east to west, including Quebec, the Maritimes and Atlantic Canada, Alberta and British Columbia. It is very important that we include Manitoba as well. One per cent of our exports to the United States come from Manitoba.
We will continue to work with the stakeholders. We will continue to consult them very closely, and clearly they will be part of the resolution that we are seeking with the Americans.
* * *
[Translation]
Shipping
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport told the House that the disappearance of pilotage on the St. Lawrence would result in no danger, thus contradicting what his own minister recently told the Hill Times, namely, that there would be risks between Quebec City and Montreal.
Can the minister tell us, once and for all, so as to calm down the members supporting the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, whether he intends to maintain the requirement for specialized pilots to ensure protection of the environment along the entire St. Lawrence, all the way from Les Escoumins, as is currently the case?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a very controversial issue because for a number of years pilots have been required on the St. Lawrence Seaway system. With new technologies, arguments have been made that we do not need pilots or do not need as many pilots.
Certainly in the area from Quebec City to the Gulf of St. Lawrence new technologies are obviating the need for pilots. However between Montreal and Quebec City the level of traffic is such that they probably should remain.
This is a matter of debate that I know the transport committee is interested in and I would look forward to any recommendations that come forward from that august--
The Speaker: The hon. minister for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.
[Translation]
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister appears to be ready to find a compromise between those who would protect the St. Lawrence River and those who support the next leader of the Liberal Party, who is himself a shipowner.
As he defends this position, does the minister not understand that the environmental safety of the St. Lawrence may fall victim to a deal with those who support the next leader of the Liberal Party of Canada?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not want to repeat my earlier answer, but I would invite the hon. member to discuss this with his colleagues at committee. I know the member for Hamilton West is quite anxious to have this kind of debate at the transport committee, and I would certainly look at their recommendations.
* * *
Firearms Registry
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, at a news conference this morning, Nova Scotia's justice minister, Jamie Muir, called Ottawa's gun registry a “bad law”, a boondoggle, and unnecessary red tape, and he is directing provincial prosecutors to refer any charges relating to long guns to their federal counterparts. Why will the Liberal government not just admit that its so-called gun registry simply does not work and scrap it?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do find it strange that a person in that high authority would be advising people in his own province to basically break the law.
The member knows, and I would encourage the minister in that province to get up to speed, that we are improving the system. I have said a number of times in the House that it is not our intent within the legislation to criminalize legitimate gun owners. It is our intent to use the registry system to assist NWEST in its ability to track down illegal weapons and make this country safer.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, eight provinces and three territories now say they will not support this fiasco. How does the government plan on implementing the law if these territories and provinces refuse to implement it?
(1455)
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I fully believe that when people understand how this system works and when it continues to work more efficiently than it has in the past, those sensible Canadians out there, and that includes legitimate gun owners, when they see the benefits of the system, will want to register on time so that we can use the system the way it was intended to be used, which is to make our streets and communities safer.
* * *
Foreign Affairs
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week the Secretary of State for Latin America, Africa and la Francophonie represented Canada at the presidential inauguration in Nigeria. Could the Secretary of State please tell the House what he and President Obasanjo discussed during that meeting?
Hon. Denis Paradis (Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa) (Francophonie), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we discussed Nepad, the New Partnership for Africa's Development, based on democracy, human rights and good governance. We congratulated Nigerians as the country moves from one civilian government to another for the first time.
We also raised Canada's concern regarding human rights in Nigeria, especially the application of the Sharia law.
Finally, I must add that President Obasanjo, an important leader of Nepad, shares Canada's view that peace and good governance, including anti-corruption measures, are essential to fostering prosperity on the continent.
* * *
Justice
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, last Thursday in North Vancouver, Judge Rodgers handed down a sentence of six months at home to a 21 year old man for dangerous driving causing the death of a 17 year old student in my riding.
Judge Rodgers said he could not give jail time for this crime because of this government's conditional sentencing law.
Who over there still wants to defend this disaster they call the conditional sentencing law? Does anyone on the government's side really believe that six months at home is an appropriate sentence for dangerous driving causing death?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first he will understand that as Minister of Justice I cannot comment on any decision that has been rendered by a court. As well, I do not feel that it is responsible to comment on a decision.
Having said that, some years we put in place conditional sentencing to be used by the courts. It is used when an offender does not represent a danger to the public. It has been proven to be efficient as well. Having said that, we are going through a review period at this point in time. I know that the justice committee is working on that and we will see what the result is of that review process.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the parents of the student killed as a result of Mr. Arimi's dangerous driving emigrated from Iran in 1997. They said they could not believe that their new country's legal system would permit people to go free under such circumstances. They asked, and I quote, “How can this decision be fair when my son is dead and that man goes free?”
I will ask the Minister of Justice one more time. Does he actually believe that being grounded for six months is an appropriate sentence for driving dangerously and killing a 17 year old? Is he happy with the consequences of his conditional sentencing law?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very simple. No judge actually is forced to use conditional sentencing. It is one of the tools that they have access to in order to deal with offenders. As I said, they use conditional sentencing essentially when the offender does not represent a risk or danger to the public.
Having said that, there is a review process in place and we will see what will be the outcome of that review process.
* * *
[Translation]
Air Canada
Mr. Sébastien Gagnon (Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Air Canada's accumulated debt is up to $12 billion. The company is getting ready to demand major concessions from its creditors, including several regional airports in Quebec.
The concessions Air Canada is demanding could cause serious financial problems for the regional airports in Rouyn-Noranda, Gaspé, Val-d'Or and Bagotville, to name just a few.
Having transferred regional airports that were previously under its jurisdiction to the municipalities, does the federal government intend to grant the Government of Quebec an equivalent subsidy to help the regional airports cope with the financial crisis that Air Canada might put them in?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we cannot prejudge the outcome of the restructuring efforts involving Air Canada, but there is no doubt that airports across the country have been suffering. That is why we are reviewing the leases that Transport Canada has with the major airports and we are reviewing our small airport policy. Hopefully in our deliberations we will be able to deal with some of the issues raised by the hon. member.
* * *
[Translation]
Foreign Affairs
Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
On February 23, 2002, Ingrid Bétancourt and Clara Rojas were kidnapped by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia. As is the case with several other hostages, they are still being detained and the President of Colombia refuses to enter into negotiations with the revolutionary forces.
Does the minister intend to play an active role and call on the Colombian government to start negotiating as soon as possible with FARC for the release of the hostages?
(1500)
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada continues to insist that FARC free all kidnapped persons, including Ms. Bétancourt. We support every effort to resolve the situation.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs has already met with Ms. Bétancourt's sister and daughter. He has also raised the issue several times with his Colombian counterpart, notably on February 18.
Canada continues to offer its cooperation with a view to finding a peaceful solution that will guarantee the safety and freedom of the hostages.
* * *
[English]
Canada Lands Company
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the University College of the Fraser Valley, along with local and provincial governments, has come up with an exciting proposal to convert vacant CFB Chilliwack lands into an educational park. That has the potential for thousands of jobs and thousands of student positions. The provincial government is onside, the local governments are onside and certainly the universities are onside as well. I would like to ask the minister in charge of the Canada Lands Company whether he would give his assurance that he would support the proposed educational facility in the Fraser Valley.
Hon. Steve Mahoney (Secretary of State (Selected Crown Corporations), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member that people on this side of the House are equally concerned and interested in this project. In fact, last week I met with the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of National Defence, the mayor of Chilliwack, the local MLA and the president of the university and we reviewed the project. We are all very supportive of that proposal. Officials at Canada Lands will be continuing to meet with the officials at the city to try to make it happen.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Private Members' Business]
* * *
[English]
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act (Members' Staff)
The House resumed from May 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-419, An Act to amend the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act (members' staff), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: Order. It being 3:02 p.m., pursuant to order made on Wednesday, May 28, 2003, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-419 under private members' business.
Call in the members.
* * *
(1510)
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)
|
(Division No. 176)
|
YEAS
Members
Bachand (Saint-Jean)
Bélanger
Bigras
Bourgeois
Caccia
Charbonneau
Comartin
Crête
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
Davies
Duceppe
Gagnon (Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay)
Gaudet
Gauthier
Girard-Bujold
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Laframboise
Laliberte
Lalonde
Lill
Loubier
Marceau
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
Masse
McDonough
Ménard
Nystrom
Paquette
Picard (Drummond)
Proctor
Rocheleau
Roy
Sauvageau
St-Hilaire
St-Julien
Stoffer
Total: -- 39
|
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Anders
Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands)
Anderson (Victoria)
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Bachand (Richmond--Arthabaska)
Bagnell
Bakopanos
Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls)
Barnes (London West)
Beaumier
Bellemare
Benoit
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Binet
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Bonwick
Borotsik
Boudria
Bradshaw
Brison
Brown
Bryden
Bulte
Burton
Byrne
Cadman
Cannis
Caplan
Carignan
Carroll
Casey
Castonguay
Catterall
Cauchon
Chatters
Clark
Coderre
Collenette
Cummins
Cuzner
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Doyle
Drouin
Duncan
Easter
Eggleton
Elley
Epp
Eyking
Farrah
Finlay
Folco
Fontana
Forseth
Fry
Gallant
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goldring
Goodale
Gouk
Grewal
Grey
Hanger
Harb
Harris
Harvey
Hearn
Herron
Hill (Prince George--Peace River)
Hill (Macleod)
Hilstrom
Hinton
Hubbard
Ianno
Jackson
Jaffer
Johnston
Jordan
Karetak-Lindell
Karygiannis
Keddy (South Shore)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Keyes
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lebel
LeBlanc
Lee
Leung
Lincoln
Longfield
Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni)
MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough)
Macklin
Mahoney
Malhi
Maloney
Marcil
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca)
McCallum
McGuire
McKay (Scarborough East)
McLellan
McTeague
Meredith
Merrifield
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Moore
Murphy
Myers
Nault
Neville
Normand
O'Brien (London--Fanshawe)
O'Reilly
Owen
Pacetti
Pagtakhan
Pallister
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Penson
Péric
Peschisolido
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pratt
Price
Proulx
Rajotte
Redman
Reed (Halton)
Regan
Reid (Lanark—Carleton)
Reynolds
Robillard
Rock
Saada
Savoy
Schellenberger
Scherrer
Schmidt
Serré
Sgro
Shepherd
Simard
Skelton
Solberg
Sorenson
Spencer
St-Jacques
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Thibault (West Nova)
Thibeault (Saint-Lambert)
Tirabassi
Toews
Tonks
Torsney
Ur
Vanclief
Vellacott
Wappel
Wayne
Whelan
White (North Vancouver)
Wilfert
Williams
Wood
Yelich
Total: -- 190
|
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
Bergeron
Calder
Copps
Desrochers
Duplain
Fournier
Gagnon (Québec)
Gagnon (Champlain)
Graham
Grose
Manley
McCormick
Plamondon
Provenzano
Tremblay
Total: -- 16
|
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Supply]
* * *
[English]
Supply
Allotted Day--Norad
The House resumed from May 29 consideration of the motion.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Thursday, May 29, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the opposition motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
* * *
(1525)
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
|
(Division No. 177)
|
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Anders
Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands)
Anderson (Victoria)
Assadourian
Augustine
Bachand (Richmond--Arthabaska)
Bagnell
Barnes (London West)
Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls)
Benoit
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Binet
Blondin-Andrew
Bonwick
Borotsik
Boudria
Bradshaw
Brison
Bryden
Burton
Byrne
Cadman
Cannis
Caplan
Carignan
Carroll
Casey
Castonguay
Catterall
Cauchon
Chatters
Clark
Coderre
Collenette
Cullen
Cummins
Cuzner
DeVillers
Dion
Doyle
Drouin
Duncan
Easter
Eggleton
Elley
Epp
Eyking
Farrah
Finlay
Fontana
Forseth
Frulla
Fry
Gallant
Gallaway
Goldring
Goodale
Gouk
Grewal
Grey
Hanger
Harb
Harper
Harris
Harvey
Hearn
Herron
Hill (Prince George--Peace River)
Hill (Macleod)
Hilstrom
Hinton
Jaffer
Johnston
Karetak-Lindell
Keddy (South Shore)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Knutson
Lastewka
Lebel
LeBlanc
Lee
Leung
Longfield
Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni)
MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough)
Macklin
Mahoney
Malhi
Maloney
Martin (Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca)
McCallum
McLellan
McTeague
Meredith
Merrifield
Mills (Red Deer)
Mitchell
Moore
Murphy
Nault
O'Brien (London--Fanshawe)
Owen
Pacetti
Pagtakhan
Pallister
Paradis
Penson
Peschisolido
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pillitteri
Pratt
Price
Rajotte
Reed (Halton)
Regan
Reid (Lanark—Carleton)
Reynolds
Robillard
Rock
Saada
Savoy
Schellenberger
Scherrer
Schmidt
Serré
Simard
Skelton
Solberg
Sorenson
Spencer
St-Jacques
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Thibault (West Nova)
Tirabassi
Toews
Tonks
Ur
Vanclief
Vellacott
Wappel
Wayne
Whelan
White (North Vancouver)
Wilfert
Williams
Wood
Yelich
Total: -- 156
|
|
NAYS
Members
Alcock
Assad
Bachand (Saint-Jean)
Bakopanos
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bigras
Bonin
Bourgeois
Brown
Bulte
Caccia
Cardin
Charbonneau
Comartin
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Davies
Duceppe
Folco
Gagnon (Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay)
Gaudet
Gauthier
Girard-Bujold
Godfrey
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Harvard
Hubbard
Ianno
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kraft Sloan
Laframboise
Laliberte
Lalonde
Lanctôt
Lill
Lincoln
Loubier
Marceau
Marleau
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
Masse
McDonough
McKay (Scarborough East)
Ménard
Minna
Myers
Neville
Normand
Nystrom
Paquette
Parrish
Patry
Péric
Perron
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Proctor
Redman
Rocheleau
Roy
Sauvageau
Shepherd
St-Hilaire
St-Julien
Telegdi
Thibeault (Saint-Lambert)
Total: -- 73
|
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
Bergeron
Calder
Copps
Desrochers
Duplain
Fournier
Gagnon (Québec)
Gagnon (Champlain)
Graham
Grose
Manley
McCormick
Plamondon
Provenzano
Tremblay
Total: -- 16
|
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Private Members' Business]
* * *
[English]
The Environment
The House resumed from June 2 consideration of the motion.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Monday, June 2, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion No. 385 under private members' business.
* * *
(1535)
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
|
(Division No. 178)
|
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Allard
Anderson (Victoria)
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Bachand (Richmond--Arthabaska)
Bagnell
Bakopanos
Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls)
Barnes (London West)
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bennett
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Binet
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Bonwick
Bradshaw
Brison
Brown
Bryden
Bulte
Burton
Byrne
Caccia
Cadman
Cannis
Caplan
Carignan
Carroll
Casey
Castonguay
Catterall
Cauchon
Charbonneau
Chatters
Clark
Coderre
Collenette
Comartin
Cotler
Cullen
Cuzner
Davies
DeVillers
Dion
Doyle
Drouin
Duncan
Easter
Eggleton
Elley
Eyking
Farrah
Finlay
Folco
Fontana
Forseth
Frulla
Fry
Gallaway
Godfrey
Godin
Goldring
Goodale
Gouk
Grewal
Hanger
Harb
Harper
Harris
Harvard
Harvey
Hearn
Herron
Hill (Macleod)
Hubbard
Ianno
Jackson
Jaffer
Jennings
Jordan
Karetak-Lindell
Karygiannis
Keddy (South Shore)
Keyes
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Laliberte
Lastewka
Lebel
LeBlanc
Lee
Leung
Lill
Lincoln
Macklin
Mahoney
Malhi
Maloney
Marcil
Marleau
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
Martin (Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca)
Masse
McCallum
McDonough
McGuire
McKay (Scarborough East)
McLellan
McTeague
Meredith
Merrifield
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Myers
Nault
Neville
Normand
Nystrom
O'Brien (London--Fanshawe)
Owen
Pacetti
Pagtakhan
Pallister
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Péric
Peschisolido
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pillitteri
Pratt
Price
Proctor
Proulx
Rajotte
Redman
Reed (Halton)
Regan
Reid (Lanark—Carleton)
Reynolds
Robillard
Rock
Saada
Savoy
Schellenberger
Scherrer
Schmidt
Serré
Sgro
Shepherd
Simard
Skelton
Spencer
St-Jacques
St-Julien
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart
Stinson
Szabo
Telegdi
Thibault (West Nova)
Thibeault (Saint-Lambert)
Tirabassi
Toews
Tonks
Ur
Vanclief
Wappel
Wayne
Whelan
Wilfert
Wood
Yelich
Total: -- 185
|
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Anders
Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands)
Bachand (Saint-Jean)
Benoit
Bigras
Bourgeois
Cardin
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Duceppe
Epp
Gagnon (Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay)
Gallant
Gaudet
Gauthier
Girard-Bujold
Grey
Guay
Guimond
Hill (Prince George--Peace River)
Hilstrom
Johnston
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Laframboise
Lalonde
Lanctôt
Loubier
Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni)
Marceau
Ménard
Moore
Paquette
Penson
Perron
Picard (Drummond)
Rocheleau
Roy
Sauvageau
Solberg
Sorenson
St-Hilaire
Strahl
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Total: -- 46
|
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
Bergeron
Calder
Copps
Desrochers
Duplain
Fournier
Gagnon (Québec)
Gagnon (Champlain)
Graham
Grose
Manley
McCormick
Plamondon
Provenzano
Tremblay
Total: -- 16
|
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
Public Service Modernization Act
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-25, an act to modernize employment and labour relations in the public service and to amend the Financial Administration Act and the Canadian Centre for Management Development Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the third time and passed, and of the motion that the question be now put.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the previous question at the third reading stage of Bill C-25.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find consent in the House that those who voted on the Canadian Alliance opposition day motion be recorded as voting on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yes.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
(1545)
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
|
(Division No. 179)
|
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Allard
Anderson (Victoria)
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Bagnell
Bakopanos
Barnes (London West)
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bennett
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Binet
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Bonwick
Boudria
Bradshaw
Brown
Bryden
Bulte
Byrne
Caccia
Cannis
Caplan
Carignan
Carroll
Castonguay
Catterall
Cauchon
Charbonneau
Coderre
Collenette
Cotler
Cullen
Cuzner
DeVillers
Dion
Drouin
Easter
Eggleton
Eyking
Farrah
Finlay
Folco
Fontana
Frulla
Fry
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goodale
Harb
Harvard
Harvey
Hubbard
Ianno
Jackson
Jennings
Jordan
Karetak-Lindell
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Laliberte
Lastewka
LeBlanc
Lee
Leung
Lincoln
Longfield
Macklin
Mahoney
Malhi
Maloney
| |