Tom Lukiwski

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I rise on a point of order. I just want to ensure that everyone is aware of the procedures here. Although the Minister of National Defence likes to take all question related to the mission, it is quite clear in Marleau and Montpetit that the questions should pertain to the minister's portfolio. The question being asked by the hon. member would be one, I would suggest, better suited for the Minister of Foreign Affairs, not the Minister of National Defence. I therefore would humbly suggest, Mr. Chair, that the question be ruled out of order.

[November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I can only tell my hon. colleague that the situation concerning Mr. Gomez is extremely complex and of a delicate nature. I would assure my hon. colleague opposite that the minister is taking this issue and this case very seriously. However, it would be extremely premature for the minister or anyone else on the government side to comment further at this time.

Let me say that labour program officials are continuing to gather information from all parties with respect to the issues at hand. We will be taking action and we are taking action currently. We have initiated regular contact with our counterparts in Mexico and have been in communication with the United Steelworkers, Canada, in this regard.

I can assure the House that the government will not hesitate to activate the dispute resolution process under the agreement if we find the Mexican government has not met its obligations.

[November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, first, the minister would like to express his concern and dismay upon hearing news reports of the three bombings that took place yesterday in Mexico City at a Scotiabank branch, the federal electoral tribunal and at the headquarters for the former ruling party in the country's capital. Although no one has reportedly been injured, such incidents of violence cannot be tolerated and political disagreements should be handled with respect for the law.

It is critical that we keep in mind Canada's purpose for entering into international labour cooperation agreements.

Under the landmark North American Agreement on Labour and Cooperation, signed by Canada, Mexico and the United States, in conjunction with the Free Trade Agreement, these three countries agreed to work together to improve working conditions and living standards domestically in order to protect, enhance and enforce workers' rights.

The North American Agreement on Labour Cooperation creates a framework of values and principles that signatory countries must respect. This agreement is based on the promotion of internationally agreed upon labour principles and it contains a mutual commitment to effectively enforce domestic labour laws.

Over the past decade, Canada, Mexico and the U.S. have explored fields of common interest, shared best practices and built networks for the purpose of updating and transferring knowledge in the field of labour.

We want to reinforce here today our sustained commitment to upholding this agreement.

Labour program officials are currently monitoring the situation and are in regular contact with their counterparts in Mexico trying to determine if the government of Mexico has met its obligations under the North American Agreement on Labour Cooperation. As well, officials have been in communication with representatives of the United Steelworkers, Canada.

The minister can assure everyone in the House that this government will not hesitate to activate the dispute resolution process available under the agreement if we conclude that the Mexican government has not met its obligations.

The situation concerning unionist Napoleon Gomez is a complex one. The allegations take place in a very delicate context and I would invite my colleagues to show some reserve in this matter. Members will understand that I cannot, nor can the minister, comment on any immigration or legal matters related to Mr. Gomez since the Privacy Act prohibits the federal government from discussing any individual case.

In regard to the legal status of Mr. Gomez in Canada, if he is still in our country, I would invite the member to ask the question to my colleagues, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the minister responsible for the Canada Border Services Agency. Questions related to any possible notice for apprehension or request for extradition will be handled by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Department of Justice, as appropriate.

[Questions on the Order Paper, November 7th, 2006]

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

[Government Response to Petitions, November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to four petitions.

[Canada Elections Act, November 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, the Minister of Agriculture is quite correct. The province of British Columbia as well as the province of Ontario have enacted fixed date election practices in their provinces.

When we were examining this bill, we called, as a witness, the deputy chief electoral officer from British Columbia to give her experiences and whether she felt that this was a practice the province of British Columbia would continue.

I am here to testify that she absolutely had nothing bad to say about fixed election dates and how they reacted or how they performed in British Columbia. She felt that most citizens approved of it. In her opinion, election turnout went up because of it. All the election processes with which her department had to comply, in other words finding office space, finding DROs and all the other election officials, were so much easier to do under a fixed election date process.

There was absolutely nothing bad in the opinion of the deputy chief electoral officer of British Columbia. I think we will find the same reaction across Canada when we finally enact this legislation.

[Canada Elections Act, November 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my presentation, I said I knew all members would listen with rapt attention to my comments, but I did not realize the questions would be gift wrapped like that.

The hon. member is absolutely correct. There have been several occasions, not only the one in 2000, to which my hon. colleague refers, over the past two decades where incumbent governments, whether they be federal or provincial, have called elections well before the traditional four year election cycle. Why? They have done it for purely political partisan reasons. Perhaps the polls seemed to indicate that they would be in a better position to win an election if an election were called at that particular point in time.

This is the reason why we have introduced Bill C-16, to put an end to the practices of previous governments that used their ability to call an election for their own purposes. In other words, for their own competitive advantages.

Canadians do not want to see that. It is not fair. It is certainly not transparent. It impedes both the business of government and the ability of the democratic electorate to fairly judge elections at a four year cycle.

I would suggest that not only will this bill put an end to those unsavoury practices. It will finally, after over one century of doing things the wrong way, correct the record and will finally put our country on an even keel with some of the more progressive countries that have already adopted fixed election dates.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 6th, 2006]

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

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 92 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.

[Government Response to Petitions, November 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to seven petitions.