Debates of March 14th, 1995

The Budget

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I declare the amendment lost.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, on March 4, 1986 then Minister of Justice, John Crosbie, stood in the House and promised to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Today, almost 10 years later, we are still waiting for that promise to be kept. The Prime Minister in 1993 made a firm commitment on the eve of a federal election. He stated the Liberal Party of Canada is firmly committed to banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The Prime Minister went on to say in July 1993: "I will not lie. I will not be a Mulroney who made promises and never kept them. I am not that type of politician".

We are still waiting, not for any kind of special rights or privileges but for basic equality. I have here a letter written in November 1993 by the Minister of Justice: "The government remains committed to amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to add sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination. I will introduce this legislation before the House rises in December".

This is yet another in a long and sorry string of broken promises. What does the Prime Minister have to say now? He said in January that they have four more years in their mandate, and that it is important these amendments receive the full benefit of debate and consultation.

What I find incredible is that this amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation has already been debated for over ten years.

In Quebec, it has been in place since 1977. Quebec was the first province to eliminate and to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Now, ten years later, there will be a referendum and, frankly, I think that Quebecers must be wondering when the government is going to keep its promises. Gay and lesbian Quebecers in particular must be wondering when the government will follow the example of leadership set by Quebec on this fundamental issue.

It is essential this amendment be brought into force partly because there is still widespread discrimination at the workplace, discrimination in extending benefits, the benefits in recognition of gay and lesbian relationships, and discrimination in recognizing families of gay and lesbian people.

I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice will take this opportunity not to tell us, as the Minister of Justice does, that we remain committed to the principle of this commitment, but that at last this government will move forward on the question of basic justice and equal rights.

[Russell MacLellan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway asked a question of the Minister of Justice about the amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act in the House on December 9, 1994.

In reply, the Minister of Justice reiterated the commitment of the government to amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. He also said the main point is this principle is undiminished and the issue of timing should not be the central concern.

On August 6, 1992 in a case brought under the equality guarantees of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Haig and Birch v. Canada, the Court of Appeal for Ontario ordered that the Canadian Human Rights Act must be read to include that ground as of that date and be administered accordingly. The Attorney General did not appeal the order to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The government views this as the current and correct state of the law. Thus, gay and lesbian Canadians can already file complaints with the Canadian Human Rights Commission should they find themselves refused a job or a service because of their sexual orientation. Complaints can be filed and the act's protection sought on this ground.

What is left is the very important symbolic act of making the Canadian Human Rights Act reflect the current state of the law. The amendment to which the government is committed would give Parliament the opportunity of bringing the act up to date. It will also bring the federal government into the ranks of the eight provinces and territories, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Yukon, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, British Columbia and Saskatchewan, which have already amended their human rights legislation to add the grounds of sexual orientation.

This government wants to add the federal laws against discrimination to the list of governments that have joined in this fight against discrimination and thereby assure Canadians of the same high standard of protection at the federal level.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, a week or so ago I asked the President of the Treasury Board to explain the increase in the estimates where the budget for the Treasury Board was being increased to accommodate 10 additional executives at a cost of $3.5 million.

The reply we received from the President of the Treasury Board, from Hansard of March 2, 1995, page 10272, was totally inadequate:

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that overall the executive ranks in the public service have been reduced over the last four years by some 26 per cent.

When I asked a supplementary question because it seemed to me he did not have the grasp of the question, he responded:

Mr. Speaker, I do not know from where the hon. member gets those figures. There is no increase in the staff at Treasury Board.

I beg to differ. The estimates, part III, page 2-43 under activity resource summary quotes management for the Treasury Board, 1994-95 forecast, at 75 full time equivalents at a cost of $6,294,000. The estimates for 1995-96 are for 85 full time equivalents, an increase of 10, at $9,811,000, an increase of $3,517,000.

These quotations are from the estimates prepared by the President of the Treasury Board and tabled in this House by the President of the Treasury Board. Yet, when we ask him a question about his own department, he unfortunately does not know the answer.

The President of the Treasury Board is going to be laying off 45,000 civil servants. These are real people who have families and careers. Their futures are being dashed. At the same time, while these people who perhaps are at the lower end of the civil service scale are being turfed out on the streets, albeit with pension plans and severance packages, we now find out that the Treasury Board is hiring 10 more people at an average cost of $350,000 each.

I do not know what the President of the Treasury Board has in mind with 10 executives at that price. However, if he has anything else in mind other than hiring executives, then there is a total distortion of the facts in the way they are presented here. If he intends to hire 10 more executives, surely he owes this House some justification as to why he intends to pay each of them $350,000.

It is disgraceful that these figures are being presented to us at the same time as the government is downsizing the civil service. We as Reformers have said that you start at the top. You cut at the top. You have no moral authority to cut at the bottom until such time as you have cut at the top.

Therefore, I think the President of the Treasury Board should cut that out of the estimates now so that there is no increase in the executive ranks of the Treasury Board.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Speaker, frankly I am very disappointed to hear such an irresponsible analysis. The President of the Treasury Board indicated clearly to the member for St. Albert that there had been no increase.

The president undertook, on March 2, to look into the specifics of the matter and to provide him with additional information. And that is what I am doing this evening. I would like to provide a more detailed answer.

I hope there is no attempt on the part of Reform Party members to suggest their analysis is accurate. The problem may be confusion with the terms executive and management. In the context of part III of the estimates the term executive is a classification term referring to a specific occupational group. The term management is used to refer to an activity, a function or planning element which is used for the purposes of resource planning.

More specifically, reference was made to figure 6 on page 2-43 of the part III for Treasury Board where there is mention of 85 FTEs, full-time equivalents. These FTEs are made up of 19 for the president's office, 16 for the secretary's office, 5 for the office of the chief informatics officer, 22 for the planning and communications directorate, 10 for legal services support and 13 for a special reserve. This total only includes four positions that are executive or the equivalent. Therefore, it was erroneous on the part of the hon. member to draw the conclusion that the secretariat was increasing its executives.

There was no increase.

I want to finish off very quickly by saying there has been a decrease over four years of about 30 per cent. We expect this decrease will continue.

Surely the hon. member knows that nobody gets paid $350,000 a year.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, on March 3 I asked a question of the Minister of Labour concerning what was then an impending strike at CP Rail. I asked what action the minister planned to take to ensure a continuation of negotiations, thereby avoiding a potentially bitter, long labour-management dispute.

In his response, the parliamentary secretary to the minister stated that his government would simply leave matters to the collective bargaining process. However, in the time that has passed since I first raised my question, strikes and lockouts have occurred throughout Canada escalating to the point yesterday of a complete withdrawal of services by the 3,200 member Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees.

So far the work disruptions involve only the members of that union. However, the other key player, the 4,000 member Canadian Auto Workers union, is prepared to take strike action anytime after March 15, which of course is tomorrow.

The potential consequences of the ongoing labour dispute between the railways and the unions are enormous. To complicate the situation, 405 members of the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union in the British Columbia ports have walked off the job, paralysing the movement of goods in western Canada.

It is imperative the government take quick and decisive action to halt the further disruption of our transportation routes. The fragile Canadian economy simply cannot withstand a blow like this. The uninterrupted operation of our transportation system is an essential element of our economic recovery. No one can dispute that.

More important, when examining the economic implications of a strike, we have to consider the bottom line. Here nobody wins. Too many people are harmed by needless strikes and lockouts. It is simply reprehensible to expose Canadians to more of this kind of nonsense.

Negotiations between CP Rail and the two unions in question have been ongoing for some 15 months. It would appear that neither side is truly serious about arriving at a new contract. If the resolve were there, surely the differences would have been settled peacefully and promptly by now.

Simply suggesting that the two sides continue the collective bargaining process is unsatisfactory. In the meantime, while they continue talks for who knows how long, countless numbers of people will be hurt by a dispute for which they are not responsible.

For this reason, the federal government must now step into this dispute with back to work legislation. This legislation should include a 30-day cooling off period during which meaningful negotiations could take place.

As the work disruption drags on it appears obvious that the government is stalling for time while it drafts anti-scab legislation. A cop-out like that is unacceptable.

Canada's railways account for close to 40 per cent of all freight tonnage moved in the country. Whether they be shippers of newsprint, coal or potash, the auto industry or western grain farmers, importers, exporters and manufacturers they must be assured that they have a reliable method of getting their products to market. Otherwise those markets will dry up.

Foreign buyers need suppliers they can count on. If they cannot rely on the Canadian market they will simply go elsewhere.

Aside from the direct impact of rail stoppages there is immeasurable harm resulting from what is known as the domino effect. Industries which cannot obtain parts or ship their goods will have to shut down production and lay off employees. The longer the government allows this situation to go on, the more far reaching the impact will be on Canadians from coast to coast. This means less revenue for the cash starved federal treasury.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sorry. Your time has expired.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for raising a very important issue.

As the Minister of Labour reported to this House yesterday, CP Rail and three of its unions representing 2,900 workers reached a tentative settlement on March 12, 1995 withthe assistance of the Federal Mediation and ConciliationService. The agreements provide for wage increases, modified employment security and a variety of benefit improvements. The settlements are subject to ratification by the unionmemberships.

I understand that CP Rail is meeting with the BMWE today and I would encourage them to make every effort to settle their collective bargaining differences.

I am advised that the impact of the work stoppage at CP Rail has been limited and that the railway is continuing to operate its core lines.

Collective bargaining is continuing in a number of railway negotiations. The parties must be given every opportunity to settle their disputes in collective bargaining as provided for under the terms of the Canada Labour Code. However, the parties must accept their responsibility to resume bargaining and conclude an agreement not only in the interests of their members and shareholders but also for the Canadian public.

The railways and the unions have the necessary insight and experience to resolve the complex issues in dispute.

Any discussion of legislative intervention at this time would be premature. The federal mediation and conciliation service remains in contact with the parties, available to assist them in their negotiations.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.

Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7.05 p.m.)