Debates of March 3rd, 1997

Highway System

[Philippe Paré, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, members of the Canadian Automobile Association from the Quebec City area remind us that a large part of the Canadian highway system is substandard. Therefore, the petitioners call on Parliament to press the federal government to work with the provinces to ensure our national highway system is upgraded.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(6) it is my pleasure to introduce in the House today a petition from residents of Prince George.

They note that the federal excise tax on gasoline has increased by 566 per cent over the last 10 years and that the federal government reinvests in highways less than 5 per cent of its fuel tax revenues.

Therefore the petitioners request that Parliament not raise fuel taxes again and that the government dedicate revenue from fuel taxes to rebuild Canada's crumbling highways.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4 and 92.

Question No. 4-

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Since the passage of the gun storage laws in Section 86(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada, how many incidents have there been where firearms have been stolen from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, from Provincial Police Forces, from Municipal Police Forces, from individual police officers, from military establishments and from members of the armed forces in Canada, and for each incident include the date, description and details of each of these incidents complete with the results of the investigation, and with respect to each incident, advise ( a ) whether the incident was a violation of Section 86(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada, and ( b ) whether charges were laid and if not, why not?

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

I am informed by the Solicitor General of Canada and the Department of National Defence as follows.

ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE, RCMP

a) Following is the list of incidents where firearms have been stolen from RCMP establishments and from members of the RCMP in Canada for the period 1993 to 1997:

1. "A" DIVISION-95 Sep 07: An RCMP service revolver was stolen from a member's residence. The gun was properly stored. The stolen gun has not been recovered and no charges have been laid.

2. "B" DIVISION-97 Jan 16: An RCMP service revolver was stolen from the locked trunk of a locked unmarked police vehicle. The theft is being investigated by the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and the investigation is ongoing at the present time. The firearm has not been recovered.

3. "C" DIVISION-1993: An RCMP firearm went missing during a move in 1993. The weapon was recovered. No further details are available as the relevant file has since been destroyed.

4. "D" DIVISION-96 Nov 14: An RCMP gun and two clips were stolen from a duffle bag which was in a locked van in downtown Winnipeg. The theft occurred in Winnipeg Police jurisdiction and has been investigated with negative results. The items still have not been recovered. No charges have been laid.

5. "E" DIVISION-Apr 1993: A member reported his firearm missing from his personal effects and it still has not been recovered. No charges have been laid.

6. "E" DIVISION-Sep 1996: A member's service revolver was stolen from his residence. The firearm has not been recovered. charges have not been laid.

7. "F" DIVISION-93 Mar 27: A member's service revolver was stolen from a locked steel cabinet in his residence during the course of a Break and Enter while the member was away on leave. The revolver has not been recovered and no charges were laid.

8. "H" DIVISION-93 Aug 05/06: A member's service revolver was stolen from his residence while he was away on leave and has not been recovered. No charges were laid.

9. "H" DIVISION-93 Dec 17: A member's service revolver was stolen from his vehicle while it was parked at CFB Halifax. The gun has not been recovered and no charges were laid.

10. "H" DIVISION-94 Apr 21: A revolver was stolen from a briefcase which was left inside the locked trunk of a police vehicle. The revolver was recovered one month later when it was purchased by a Halifax Police Department informant and it was returned to the RCMP.

11. "J" DIVISION-95 Dec 23: An RCMP 9mm was stolen from a member's private residence in the city of Moncton, N.B. The theft was investigated by Moncton Police Department and the firearm has not been recovered.

12. "J" DIVISION-96 Nov 03: An RCMP 9mm was stolen from a member's residence in Tracadie-Sheila, N.B. The theft was investigated by the Tracadie-Sheila Police Department and the firearm was recovered and charges were laid.

13. "J" DIVISION-96 Nov 07: An RCMP 9mm was stolen from a member's private residence in Moncton, N.B. The theft was investigated by Moncton Police Department and the firearm has not been recovered.

14. "K" DIVISION-93 Jun 24: Extra firearms were required for training and stored overnight at a gun club within the City of Edmonton where the training was being conducted. The weapons were secured in a vault. When the weapons were retrieved the next day, it was discovered that one service revolver had been stolen. The weapon remains unrecovered. No charges have been laid.

15. "K" DIVISION-96 Aug 17: A member's service revolver was stolen from a private residence during a Break and Enter. The revolver has been recovered and investigation for unsafe storage of a firearm is currently ongoing.

16. "K" DIVISION-95 Sep 20: A member's RCMP revolver was reported missing. The details of this case are not available at this time as an investigation is ongoing.

17. "O" DIVISION-95 Jun 17: A member's revolver sank to the bottom of a lake while the member was on routine patrol on Lake Nippissing. The revolver has not been recovered. No charges have been laid.

18. "O" DIVISION-95 Aug 16/18: A member's service pistol was stolen from his residence during the course of a Break and Enter. The service pistol was stored properly at the time of the theft. The pistol was later returned by the thieves who threw the pistol into the member's backyard. No charges have been laid.

19. "DEPOT" DIVISION-An RCMP pistol was either lost or stolen approximately two years ago. Further details are unavailable.

20. "DEPOT" DIVISION-A recent incident involves an RCMP S&W 5946 pistol which was lost/stolen while in transit with a courier company. An investigation is being conducted with respect to this incident.

b) According to Section 3(1)d) of the Regulations pertaining to Part III of the Criminal Code, the RCMP is exempt from the storage regulations subject to subsection 3(3) of the same Regulations. Section 3(3) states that the exemption applies when firearms are stored in a dwelling house or permission is given by a supervisor.

The RCMP published clear operational directives stating that its members are responsible for the use, safety and storage of their firearms at all times. Any neglect of these directives is considered a breach of the Regulations and is an offence under Section 86(3) of the Criminal Code. When the firearm of a member of the RCMP is lost or stolen, the assessment of the situation includes a decision as to whether or not Section 86(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada has been breached.

With respect to these types of incidents as they pertain to provincial and municipal police forces or police officers, the RCMP's information is very limited. Since other police forces are not required to report to the RCMP incidents of loss or theft of their firearms, the RCMP's Operational Reporting System does not accurately provide information in this regard.

DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE, DND

a) Following is the list of incidents where firearms have been stolen from military establishments and from members of the Armed Forces in Canada for the period 1993 to 1996:

1. Incident DS-0040-28 Aug 93: A 32 calibre was stolen from a hotel room in which the service member was staying. Pistol was being used for an escort of a large sum of money. An investigation was conducted and the firearm was recovered.

2. Incident DS-0041-17 Dec 93: A 38 calibre pistol was stolen from RCMP officer's car while parked at CFB Halifax. An investigation was conducted and the firearm was not recovered.

3. Incident DS-0517-16 Apr 94: Two 22 calibre rifles were stolen during a Break and Enter from a Cadet Corps storage area. An investigation was conducted and the firearms were not recovered.

4. Incident DS-3212-24 Jul 94: Two 177 calibre air pellet rifles were stolen during a Break and Enter from a Cadet Corps weapons locker. An investigation was conducted and the firearms were not recovered.

5. Incident DS-1989-26 Sep 94: Two 22 calibre rifles and a 177 calibre air pellet rifle were stolen from a Cadet Corps storage area. An investigation was conducted and the firearms were recovered.

6. Incident DS-1400-26 Jul 95: A Luger pistol was stolen from a secure display cabinet within an Armoury. An investigation was conducted and the firearm was not recovered.

7. Incident DS-1164-21 May 95: A Smith and Wesson 32 calibre was recovered by Winnipeg City Police. The hand gun had been stolen from a Permanent Married Quarter at CFB Shilo without the owner's knowledge. Weapon was stored in accordance with Section 86(3) of the Criminal Code. An investigation was conducted and the firearm was recovered. No charges were laid.

8. Incident DS-0525-11 Feb 95: A 410 shogun and a Winchester 30-30 rifle were stolen during a Break and Enter at a Permanent Married Quarter at CFB Halifax. Weapons were stored in accordance with Section 86(3) of the Criminal Code. An investigation was conducted and the firearms were not recovered. No charges were laid.

9. Incident DS-1916-21 Dec 94: A 22, a 357, and a 9mm pistol were stolen from a Permanent Married Quarter at CFB Halifax during a Break and Enter. Weapons were stored in accordance with Section 86(3) of the Criminal Code. An investigation was conducted and the firearms were not recovered. No charges were laid.

b) Since the Canadian Forces are exempt from Section 86(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada, the above incidents (1) through (6) cannot be considered violations of that legislation and therefore, charges were not laid. Incidents (7), (8) and (9) were thefts from private residences in which the weapons were stored in accordance with Section 86(3) of the Criminal Code.

Question No. 92-

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

What is the total cost to the Government of Canada of the operation of the Investment Canada Act including the cost of any publications thereunder and in what year prior to 1996 was a decision rendered preventing the take over of a Canadian firm by a foreign investor?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

The estimated cost of administering the Investment Canada Act in fiscal year 1996/97 is $788,000.

The Investment Canada Act came into force on June 30, 1985. Since that time, no investment proposal submitted under the act has been disallowed.

Questions Passed As Orders For Returns

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, if Question No. 18 could be made an Order for Return, that return would be tabled immediately.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 80-

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

With regard to the total budget for the Department of Natural Resources, and for each year since the 1987 fiscal year: ( a ) how much (in actual figures) and what proportion (in percentages) of its research and development budgets have been invested in Quebec, ( b ) how much and what percentage have been invested in Ontario (including the Ontario side of the national capital region and excluding the Quebec side of the national capital region), ( c ) what economic spin-off effects have there been from

the Candu reactors in Quebec, ( d ) what economic spin-off effects have there been in Ontario, and ( e ) what financial commitment has the department made to the neutrino detection project in Ontario, the Triumph project in British Columbia and to Chalk River, Ontario?

Return tabled.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-66, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee; and of Motions Nos. 11 and 12.

Canada Labour Code

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

The hon. member for Wetaskiwin had four minutes remaining.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, since I am not sure how many points I covered when I last spoke I will recap. I also want to raise a point made during question period by the minister of agriculture. In his reply to a question by a member of the NDP, the minister said that if the Saskatchewan government would amend its successor rights it would go a long way to solving the problem with the short line railways and their buyers.

It is a rather strange stance for the minister of agriculture to take when his government is suggesting we should have successor rights in the airline industry. It is strange he suggested that it should not be the same in the railroad industry. We in the Reform Party suggest the section of Bill C-66 that deals with successor rights should be eliminated.

Why should it be eliminated from the bill? We think it complicates things. It does not do what the minister has set out to do, that is to create a balance. It is making legislation for legislation's sake. It is not accomplishing anything.

We also notice the government's amendment to limit the succession rights to the airline securities department. Does it really? Further on we recognize that the governor in council, the cabinet in other words, has the authority to make regulations designating that any other service in any industry would have to comply with the same successor rights provisions. For those reasons we would very much like to see the successor rights portion of the bill removed.

Further, the Sims report from which most of the bill is drafted did not report on the subject. It did not have any consultation with the airlines, the industries or the airports in terms of successor rights.

This is rather ill thought out legislation. It is legislation that may have been brought in to appease certain groups. It is not part of the solution but could be exactly the opposite. It could be part of the problem.

I urge all members of the House to reconsider the portion of the bill that deals with successor rights, specifically clause 47.3 of Bill C-66, and to support the Reform amendment to delete the clause.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I strongly object to the amendments put forward by the so-called Reform Party because the whole issue of successive contracts or previous employers is one of those that cause the most controversy, problems and confusion in labour relations. It is always an extremely sensitive issue.

Section 47.3 improves the situation without going as far as the unions would have wanted. This provision is a rather limited improvement. It is important to mention what it states, for the benefit of our listeners. This provision requires an employer who succeeds a previous contractor as the provider of certain services in the air transportation industry to pay his employees as much as the employees of the previous contractor were entitled to.

We must understand that this issue of contracting out is a very sensitive one and that the intent of the legislation is to preserve a minimum that is unacceptable. It goes without saying that a union always wants to protect its members' jobs. In this case, again in an attempt to control damage, it is provided that the provider of services who succeeds a previous contractor must pay at least equal remuneration.

This is a new provision which seeks to protect the remuneration of unionized workers who might have been adversely affected

following the loss of a contract by their employer. The provision also seeks to ensure that the people working for the supplier who is awarded the contract receive decent wages. It has no impact on the right of a supplier to contract out, provided that the contractors comply with the compensation plan.

While we feel the act does not go far enough, it is nevertheless an improvement and we will strongly oppose the Reform amendment to clause 47.3.

There is also clause 43 amending section 97(a) of the code. New obligations are imposed, including, in clause 47.3, the obligation, for an employer who succeeds a previous contractor, to pay equal remuneration to his employees. The employer must also uphold the conditions of employment while waiting for the board's decision regarding the services to be maintained, preserve the conditions of employment of those employees required to work during a work stoppage to maintain services, and reinstate employees instead of keeping replacement workers. This improvement seeks to make labour relations more civilized. Therefore, we will strongly oppose the amendment tabled by the Reform Party.

The two other amendments also target succession rights. We want to emphasize the fact that this is a mistake. The hon. member must realize that this would not solve anything. It is not true that it would enable contractors to operate with total freedom. Rather, it would create conditions where workers and unions would have no choice but to fight and to use every means of pressure available to them.

Let us not forget that the Reform Party's next to last amendment targets a provision already included in a 1996 act, which also maintained certain rights for workers.

For all these reasons, we are asking the government not to support the amendments proposed by the Reform Party. I would like to support these amendments but, unfortunately, their content as well as the arguments raised by the Reform member give me no choice but to disagree with them.

[George Proud, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour]

Madam Speaker, clause 24 of Bill C-66 adds a provision to the Canada Labour Code which would require an employer succeeding another as the provider of certain services to the air transport industry to pay employees remuneration not less than that which the employees of the previous contract were entitled to receive under the terms of a collective agreement. On the recommendation of the Minister of Labour the governor in council can extend the application of this provision to other industries.

The Reform Party has put forward Motion No. 11 to remove this requirement from Bill C-66. This provision has been included in the bill to address important labour relations matters which not only affect workers in this sector but also impact on the safety of the flying public.

Rather than remove the provision, we are proposing MotionNo. 12 to amend it to address some legitimate concerns which have been raised by representatives in the air transportation sector with respect to its current scope. The amendment we wish to make to clause 24 would limit the immediate application of this provision to employers providing airport security screening services.

We ask members of the House to approve this amendment as it will promote competition based on efficiency gains and enable contractors with unionized employees to answer tender calls; reduce staff turnover and ensure that the personnel assigned to the protection of the flying public have the proper training experience; protect the remuneration of unionized workers who can be penalized when their employer loses a service contract.

What this provision does not do is limit the right of employers in the air transportation sector or any other sector to contract for services. As is presently case the right to contract out services would remain subject to the terms of any collective agreement to which the employer is party. The requirement to maintain remuneration levels would only apply to successor contractors.

At present when a business subject to the Canada Labour Code decides to change contractors at the expiration of a service contract there is nothing in the code that protects the employees of that contractor. Consequently, if those employees were unionized and it succeeded in entering into a collective agreement they often lose the monetary benefits they have negotiated and in some cases they lose their jobs. As well, the employees of the employer that wins the service contract often have poor wage conditions.

We recognize that the air transport industry has a legitimate interest in containing costs and staying competitive. Still, the Canadian air transport industry has itself recognized that the turnover of employees assigned to security service contracts has a negative impact on its ability to maintain a skilled experienced work force. Because of problems caused by the practice of awarding successive contracts for services for security services in the air transport sector, the Department of Transport in its capacity as administrator of major airports reached an agreement with the Canadian airlines in 1988. Under the terms of the agreement the airlines were required to include in contracts for preboard security screening services a clause guaranteeing the employees wages and benefits would be maintained if the level provided for in the contract had existed before the call of tenders.

This agreement which was revised in 1992 resulted in a reduced turnover rate for security personnel, improved working conditions and a better security screening system. It is this policy which the bill now seeks to codify. The Standing Committee on Human Resources Development heard the submissions made by the Air Transport Association of Canada which raised concerns about the

new obligations included in the bill. In the association's view since the agreement entered into with the Department of Transport in 1988 solved the problems associated with tender calls for security services, it would be pointless and unwarranted to formalize the agreement as proposed in section 47(3).

Although we commend the airlines for their co-operation in honouring the agreement of the Department of Transport since 1988, we must not lose sight of the fact that some airports have not been administered by the Department of Transport for a few years now. Their numbers are growing.

As a result, Transport Canada has less direct influence to ensure that this policy is respected. With the proposed amendment to clause 24, the provision will apply in the immediate term only to security screening services.

This will codify the contractual obligations that air transport employers have been honouring for eight years and have been recognized as a reasonable method of correcting the problems associated with contract free tendering for security services.

The proposed amendment addresses the concerns raised by the TAC about the advisability of applying this provision to other services contracted out by its members such as fuelling and ground services.

In the association's view, applying this provision to such services could cause more labour relations problems than it would solve. It is usually the airlines that provide these services with the help of unionized personnel.

In view of the submissions made to the committee and the objectives of this provision we are proposing to limit its application to security screening services.

However, the governor in council will retain authority to extend the application of this section to other services and other industries under federal jurisdiction on the recommendation of the Minister of Labour if problems similar to those which arose as a result of changes of contractors providing preboard security screening services in the airport sector occur.

I urge members to support the government motion and retain the requirement in clause 24 of the bill but with a restricted application. This will ensure that workers in the security screening sector are treated with equity. With respect to the remuneration, it will also contribute to ensuring the safety of the flying public.

In addition, there will be a mechanism available to address problems should they arise in other sectors.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

The question is on Motion No. 11. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

All those in favour will please say yea.