Angela Vautour

[Fisheries, September 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in 50 minutes Bob Rae could be walking out of the negotiations. The tension in the communities in the regions of Neguac, Burnt Church and Baie-Sainte-Anne is critical. It cannot go on. The government was not ready for the Marshall decision. Is it telling us today that it is not ready with a plan to make sure that there is no confrontation in the communities of Neguac, Baie-Sainte-Anne or Burnt Church today? We need an answer.

[Employment Insurance, June 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

While the Prime Minister was in New Brunswick last week, he confirmed that the reason why there are only three Liberal seats left in the province is because of the negative impact of the cuts to the EI program.

Now that the Prime Minister has realized his mistake, when will he instruct his ministers to rectify the unfairness caused by the EI reform toward workers dependent on the seasonal industry? I ask the Prime Minister to give an answer to the people of New Brunswick.

[Criminal Code, June 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, if I made that statement I probably read my notes wrong. I am hoping that the Reform Party also has a conscience and is aware of the problem of drinking and driving. I have no doubt that those members support this legislation. I believe I mentioned in my speech that there was all-party support for the legislation.

[Criminal Code, June 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that members of all parties have worked together to ensure that this very important bill gets passed before summer. The summer season brings with it travel holidays for a large number of families. It is imperative that we get the bill through the House as soon as possible to keep impaired drivers off busy roads.

I am glad the government and the other opposition parties have finally come around with their support for the bill. It was the PC Party that pushed for the reintroduction of a clause and we were very happy to see the issue come before committee.

I thank MADD Canada for its consistent support and help on this issue. I am glad the government priorized the legislation and brought it to the justice committee. I thank the all party committee for the enabling legislation to make it through committee without delay or stalling tactics.

From day one the PC Party was the only party that agreed the government's priority at this time should be the protection of human life from needless tragedies and loss of life which we see on Canadian roads every year.

Bill C-18 deals with the life imprisonment provision that was originally part of Bill C-82, an act to amend the criminal code respecting impaired driving which became law in the last parliament. Bill C-18 will allow a judge leeway to invoke a life sentence for impaired driving causing death.

I believe it is important to stop a moment and think about all those who lost their life because someone chose to drink and drive. It is a very serious crime.

Too many young people lose their life, too many parents lose their children, and too many children lose their parents because of alcohol. It is a very serious issue and I am very happy to see that today the House is recognizing the havoc alcohol can wreak on our families.

The PC Party supported Bill C-82 but wanted it to be improved upon from current outdated legislation with tougher sanctions, fines and suspensions. The bill did not give police enough power to protect society from the hard core drinkers who are resistant to change.

Tragically most people have experienced or have known a person whose life has been affected due to the careless actions of a drunk driver. Criminal offences involving drunk drivers have declined 23% between 1994 and 1997, but how many do not get caught?

High school proms and summer vacation time are upon us. MADD statistics state that one in every eight deaths and injuries in road crashes is a teenager. More teenagers die each year as a result of road crashes than any other cause of death. Teen statistics have declined in recent years but recent progress has stalled. In 1997, according to the most recent statistics available, 404 youths aged between age 15 and 19 were killed and another 28,780 were injured in road crashes.

It is also troubling that 40% of the teenage drivers killed had been drinking, three-quarters with alcohol levels in excess of the legal limit of 80 mg per cent and 44% with levels in excess of 150 mg per cent.

Dangerous habits that develop at an early age become the problems of chronic impaired drivers in later life. Groups like MADD are working hard to deal with this problem at an early age, trying to raise the minimum age for drinking, the minimum age for driving, and introducing SmartCard technology to verify the age of an individual trying to buy alcohol. Yet MADD has not been getting enough co-operation from the federal government.

It is hoped that the year long push of the PC Party for Bill C-18 to be passed will benefit the MADD members for all their hard work in stopping impaired driving among all ages of the population.

Continuing with the get tough approach, the Nova Scotia Tory government is considering whether it can charge room and board of $100 or more per day to incarcerated drunk drivers. This idea is only in its initial stages with many details which would need to be ironed out. It along with the results of Operation Christmas shows the positive tough steps the Nova Scotia Tory government is taking to solve this problem.

We also have in New Brunswick what we call Operation Red Nose in which volunteers drive people during the Christmas and New Year's holidays. It certainly works. We also need to have our young people involved in it so they learn that it is not right to drink and drive. As parents we have a responsibility to show our children that it is not right and to set the right example. Not only teenagers drink and drive. We all know that a lot of adult parents set the wrong example.

It is time for the federal government to follow the lead of other provinces. The most horrific side of impaired driving is when we see and hear of the fatalities, the innocent victims who are killed as a result of the thoughtless, selfish act of an impaired person who decides to get behind the wheel.

Last summer I had the opportunity to go to a high school in my riding, LJR, to see a play about a car accident which involved alcohol. Everyone was there, including the ambulance, the RCMP and the kids. According to the play, some kids had been killed in the accident. It was interesting to see these high school students acting out a very serious accident involving alcohol. It is very important that events like that take place in high schools so the teenagers see firsthand the impact of drinking and driving, of not wearing seatbelts and so on.

The federal government has an opportunity to send the message that drinking and driving will no longer be tolerated. Bill C-18 is a great step in the right direction, but we must continue. I commend the all-party justice committee that is sending a clear message through Bill C-18 that if a person drinks and drives and kills an innocent victim, that person is no better than someone who walks down the street with a loaded gun, chooses a victim at random and shoots the person dead.

Increasing the time limit for breathalyser and ASD testing to three hours and strictly enforcing the over .08% blood alcohol concentration limit are all effective amendments to help police in performing their duties.

Although I spoke earlier about the need to educate young drivers, education will only prevent future impaired driving fatalities. Currently the biggest problem is not with youth, but with a generation that should know better. This generation has to take a lot of responsibility for what is happening. A lot of us may be showing the wrong example.

The Canadian Automobile Association has said that the message of the danger of drunk driving is getting through to drivers aged 16 to 21, but impaired driving remains a startling problem for the age group 35 to 45. Thus, hand in hand with Bill C-18 we need more education. It is very important that our provincial counterparts also realize that there is a role to play in our school system and that they should make the time to speak to our students to explain the dangers.

The Insurance Bureau of Canada has said that over a two year period an impaired driving conviction costs at least $5,000 in additional premiums to the consumer.

We certainly support this piece of legislation. It is long overdue. We have to send a very strong message that drinking and driving is not right. It kills and it will no longer be tolerated in this country.

[Employment Insurance, June 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

Now that the period of consultation with respect to the review of the boundaries of EI economic regions is over, will the minister assure us that the changes proposed by MPs and by the public will be taken seriously, and that the necessary adjustments will be made in order to ensure that the new zones are indeed representative of the economic reality of every region across the country?

[Proportional Representation, May 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am always delighted to address the House on behalf of my constituents.

On May 8, 2000, I put a question to the Minister of Human Resources Development. I submitted to the minister that:

—the counties of Albert, Petitcodiac, Hillsborough and Salisbury, are part of an urban economic zone, when they are in fact rural communities with high rates of unemployment.

I asked the minister to tell the House when she was going to begin the consultation process. I also reminded the minister that workers needed an answer before next fall.

Under subsection 18(2) of the EI Regulations, employment insurance regions must be reviewed at least every five years. Finally, this week, consultations began.

I was very happy to see that Hopewell Cape, Alma, Riverside-Albert, Fundy, Salisbury and Petitcodiac had been included in the new rural zone. I will explain why this move was so important.

I will give the House the example of Alma, which has Fundy National Park, and Kent county, which has Kouchibouguac National Park. The employees at Fundy National Park, who were doing the same work as those at Kouchibouguac National Park, needed 655 hours to qualify for employment insurance with a duration of about 15 weeks, while workers at Kouchibouguac National Park needed only 420 hours for a maximum of 32 weeks. That created quite an injustice between the communities.

Unfortunately this spring people working in Albert county, Hillsborough, Petitcodiac and Salisbury, which were zoned in with urban regions, went four months without income because of the 1996 legislation which shortened the period.

I would like to thank the government for correcting some of this injustice. We have to thank it when it does something good and I did see something good happen this week.

However, two communities were excluded from the rural zone in my riding. That is going to cause these communities quite a lot of hardship. The two communities that have been excluded are Elgin and Hillsborough. We have statistics from 1996 which show that those communities were at 17.8% unemployment. I strongly recommend to the minister that these two communities be taken into consideration during the consultation. Both Elgin and Hillsborough have very high rates of employment.

For example, if it stays as proposed, workers from Hillsborough and Elgin will be working in Hopewell Cape. Working side by side in the same industry, one worker will need 420 hours to qualify for maybe a period of 32 weeks, while the other worker working next to him or her will need over 600 hours to qualify for maybe a period of 15 weeks.

I think the government is on the right track in solving the injustice created by the economic zones that we had before. It now has a chance to make it fully correct and just for everyone. I certainly hope that the minister will take my recommendations. I am sure the mayors and community leaders are going to be putting forth recommendations also that those communities be included in the rural zone where they should be.

[Supply, May 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, if I am correct, I should remind the member that the change to the CHST was made under his government. We know that is a problem.

Would the member admit that lack of funding is the cause of the problem we are seeing in health care right now? Every province is asking for health care funding to be restored to the 1993-94 level. Why is the member's government not restoring it so we can stop the privatization of our health care? I did a survey in my riding—

[Human Resources Development, May 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

The minister is aware that certain rural areas, such as the counties of Albert, Petitcodiac, Hillsborough and Salisbury, are part of an urban economic zone, when they are in fact rural communities with high rates of unemployment.

Will the minister tell the House when she is going to begin the process of consulting members with a view to redefining economic zones? I remind the minister that workers need an answer before next fall.

[Volunteers, April 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, today I recognize and thank the many volunteers who are responsible for running our local food banks.

Last week I visited the eight food banks in my riding. It is sad to see that the government is still turning its back on the less fortunate of the country and is leaving them with no choice but to rely on food banks to feed their families. Without the hard work of many volunteers working in our local food banks many families would go hungry.

I take this opportunity to send my personal thanks to the following people with whom I had the pleasure to speak last week: Theresa Richard, Rosalie Richard, Noëlla Léger, Val Goodwin and Jennifer Blacklock, Janice MacKay and Joan Cant, Beryl and Car Kingston, Vicky Crossman and Malcolm Fife. I also give a special thanks to Phyllis Carter for volunteering her time for 11 years at the Sackville and District Assistance Centre.

As a member of the community, I want to thank the volunteers for the important work they are all doing. I know the hours are countless.

[Canada Labour Code, March 24th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to say a few words on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party in connection with Bill C-12, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part II) in respect of occupational health and safety, to make technical amendments to the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Part II of the Canada Labour Code addresses occupational health and safety, as they concern workers and management. The purpose of this bill is to promote health and safety with both workers and employers and to set out the rights and responsibilities of workers and employers in connection with existing or potential workplace hazards.

Labour-related issues are mainly a provincial responsibility. However, the federal public service, federal agencies, and international and interprovincial industries come under the jurisdiction of Ottawa. These industries include air, sea and rail carriers, oil pipelines, banks, broadcasting, uranium mining, ports and telecommunications.

The main thrust of this bill is to expand the role of health and safety committees, by conferring upon them the power to identify and remedy existing or potential hazards, and refusals to work arising out of such hazards, as promptly and efficiently as possible.

The purpose of the bill is to strike a better balance between the responsibilities of the government, employers and employees as far as promoting occupational health and safety is concerned, by placing emphasis on the rules and procedures enabling problems to be settled locally.

The bill is the result of consultations among the government, business and the unions in an effort to modernize our legislation on health and safety, which was last amended in 1985. In general, I think that this bill enjoys considerable support among the groups concerned and, on the whole, I support it.

However, I feel I must raise a number of questions and make some observations on it. No bill is ever complete or perfect. The legislative process is a living one, and those familiar with it, like us, know that laws must continually be amended and improved with the passage of time and changes in circumstances.

Bill C-12 introduces a new concept in the area of occupational health and safety, namely ergonomics. Subclause 125(1)( t ) provides that the employer is required to “ensure that the machinery, equipment and tools used by the employees in the course of their employment meet prescribed health, safety and ergonomic standards and are safe under all conditions of their intended use”.

It looks good, but it is a bit vague and short on details. For the layperson, ergonomics is a strange and sophisticated sounding word. It is, if I have understood correctly, the art or science of designing or changing the workplace to minimize the risk of accidents employees are exposed to in the normal exercise of their duties. I suppose that it is the application of the proverb an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Ergonomics is a good thing for employees and, in the long term, for employers too.

Perhaps the government intends to come out with regulations or guidelines on ergonomics, but the press kit for Bill C-12 is all but silent on the topic. However the U.S. Department of Labour has launched a major ergonomics initiative designed to prevent approximately 300,000 workplace accidents and save $9 billion annually.

The press release describes in detail the roles and responsibilities of unions and businesses with respect to the new ergonomic standards and shows clearly that the U.S. government is very advanced in this field.

Another aspect of safety in the workplace not mentioned in the bill is the psychological protection of workers, their right to work in an environment free of harassment and discrimination. These problems may cause just as much harm in the workplace as accidents or the risk of accidents.

Although the bill provides protection against unfair disciplinary measures for workers who report potential hazards, it does not seem to make any provision for ensuring a psychologically healthy workplace.

In addition, subsection 122(1) defines health as “the absence of physical disease or infirmity or mental illness arising out of, linked with or occurring in the course of employment”, but stipulates that “for the purposes of this definition, the effects of ordinary work place stress are not considered to be physical disease or infirmity or a mental illness”. In the modern world, physical or psychological stress takes a heavy toll in the workplace, particularly if it is repetitive in nature.

It is largely in order to do something about repetitive physical stress that we are encouraging the healthy ergonomic practices I mentioned earlier.

Perhaps the minister will want to touch on this issue during the debate, because I think stress elimination or stress prevention should have been among the main objectives of any legislation on occupational health and safety.

There is another positive aspect to this bill in that it takes into account the particular needs of pregnant or nursing employees. Under paragraph 132(1), an employee who is pregnant or nursing may refuse to work in conditions which she believes may pose a risk to the health of the foetus or child. She must have the existence of such a risk established by a physician of her choice. However, since the employer may reassign her to another job that would be less dangerous, we will have to see how this works out in practice.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada, one of the unions that took part in the consultations, to which I belong, wonders if the employee will be adequately protected under these provisions. Since it represents civil servants, of whom a large number are women, its concerns are legitimate.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada thinks it is unfortunate that employees who work on Parliament Hill are not subject to part II of the Canada Labour Code.

Under part III of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, employees who work on Parliament Hill would be subject to part II of the Canada Labour Code, but it has not been enacted yet.

It would seem that the Liberal government is less eager to improve the occupational health and safety environment of persons working in the political environment of this parliament. I am not sure if that is meant to be a reflection on all of us or just the government.

Section 147 of the act prevents an employer from taking any form of disciplinary action against an employee who has taken part in a proceeding or inquiry relating to a workplace condition or incident. Missing in this section however is any reference to the protection of an employee who testifies before a parliamentary committee looking into occupational health and safety incidents or policies.

As parliamentarians we must never forget that our committees are often courts of last resort. No citizen should ever feel intimidated in appearing before or providing evidence to a parliamentary committee. A person who believes he or she has been disciplined for taking part in a workplace intervention can make a complaint to the board, which I assume means the Canadian Industrial Relations Board or the Public Service Staff Relations Board.

These boards, I also assume, are filled by order in council and as such are political appointments by the government in power. Perhaps the minister could provide us with a listing of the individuals involved so that we can judge for ourselves if they are appointed on the basis of merit or heaven forbid, only on the basis of political affiliation.

Another concern here is that a complaint made under this provision cannot be referred to arbitration or adjudication. Similarly, section 145.1 states that the minister can appoint an appeals officer to adjudicate a decision made through a local health and safety process. Again this is to some extent a political appointment and we have no guarantee that all ministers will be as circumspect as our current minister will be.

Section 146.3 states that the appeals officer's decision is final and cannot be reviewed by a court. I have big problems with any bill that consistently denies a citizen full access to due process. Perhaps the minister could explain the need for such restriction.

Section 135(1) indicates that a workplace with 20 or more employees must have a workplace health and safety committee. Yet section 135(2) exempts a ship from being required to have such a committee, be there 20 sailors or 200. Perhaps the minister could explain why.

Section 137.1 calls for the establishment of a coal mining safety commission. Why does this industry have its own safety commission? This commission too is appointed by the minister and serves during pleasure. If the safety of coal miners deserves special attention, I am not sure that ministerial appointments are the way to go especially when their remuneration and expenses are to be set by cabinet.

Similarly, section 139 empowers the minister to appoint medical practitioners to conduct medical surveillance and examination programs. Section 140 empowers the minister to designate a person as a regional safety officer. This also causes me concern that we are mixing safety and political appointments. I am not sure this is the way to go either.

The bill also contains some technical amendments to part I of the Canada Labour Code. I am told that when the minister appeared before a Senate committee on this part, the minister indicated that the next time this part was opened, the whole of it would be rendered gender neutral. The technical amendments have opened the matter but there is no sign of a gender neutral initiative. Will one be forthcoming?

All in all it is not a bad bill. It certainly makes progress in the field of occupational health and safety. However I have asked some questions and I have pointed out that there are too many political appointments, appointments that should be made in a more transparent arm's length process. I am confident the minister will address many of my concerns when she speaks again.