House of Commons Hansard #219 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was sentencing.

Topics

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Liberal

Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC

Mr. Speaker, I wondered for a while whether it was a question or a speech. The member asked how would I know it was an indiscriminate beating. My son has gone with girlfriends down those same streets at that same time in the city of Vancouver and has never been touched. He was called a faggot. That was the word used. That is a term used by the people who cruise. Its called going into town to gay bash. That is hate directed at a group.

I do not know if the member knows what he means by special interest groups. The bill deals with women, children, elders and victims. Now we are being told by members of the third party that women are a special interest group. Actually they have said that already. Now children are special interests and victims are special interests. Everyone is a special interest as far as members of the third party are concerned. They do not speak for Canadians. I do not know who they speak for.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Liberal

Bill Graham Liberal Rosedale, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to speak on the important piece of legislation before the House today.

We have heard a lot about the legislation. I asked myself three questions when I looked at the nature of the legislation. First, what does the legislation do? Second, is it necessary? Third, are there any unintended or unfortunate consequences arising out of the legislation? We have heard a lot of talk about some unfortunate things that might arise out of the legislation.

What does the legislation do? It is a comprehensive revision of the nature of sentencing, something that has been advocated by law reform commissions, jurists and criminologists for the last 20 years. We have called out for a comprehensive, important revision of the standard under which sentencing will be conducted. This is an omnibus bill that addresses those issues. It is an extremely important bill that results from studies to grasp the nature of punishment that will prevent crime and at the same time rehabilitate. The bill is directed to that.

It is most unfortunate that discussion in the House has turned around section 718.2 which requires the court to take into consideration whether a crime was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on national origin, language, colour, race, religion, physical disabilities, sexual orientation or any other similar factor. Since third party members have spent their whole time talking about nothing but this and accenting it, let me turn to that question and deal with it.

Is there a need for this provision? Yes, there is. We have heard the parliamentary secretary speak. We live in the century of World War II and of the Holocaust. We can look at the former Yugoslavia about which we have debated in the House. What is taking place in Bosnia today is based on years of hatred brought on by sectarian strife, by people hating one another and holding one another in contempt. In the foreign affairs committee we heard from the B'nai Brith that knows something about this matter. You might listen to this, over there in the third party.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Order. I caution members that this debate has a great deal of sensitivity. It is a debate where there are some very strongly held views, and I know we want to conduct it in a respectful fashion. All interventions must be made through the Chair, through the Speaker, and not directly from one member across the floor to another.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

Bill Graham Liberal Rosedale, ON

Mr. Speaker, our committee received a report from the B'nai Brith called "The Extreme Right: International Peace and Security at Risk". The report of some 350 pages shows that there are still virulent strains of anti-Semitism and racism present in the world which need attention. The report also draws a link between racism, anti-Semitism and homophobia. They are in accordance with the report one and the same thing. The report makes clear that they are the same voices that call for the elimination of people who are different.

When speaking of extremism in respect of the United States, the report indicated:

A major focus of extremism is on homosexuality. Believers have every right to maintain that homosexuality is inconsistent with their theology, but when anti-homosexual campaigns move outside the church and in the public arena characterize gays as sick, disease ridden, perverted by choice, and unfit comrades for clean living solider boys then this is clear extremism. Gay Americans have become the major new scapegoat in their country, perhaps to an extent unknown in other democratic nations, and just as surely as Julius Steicher's Der Sturmer was a direct contributor to Nazi anti-Semitism with all that it led to, so arguably the homophobic outpouring from religious extremists leads to gay bashing and murder.

When I hear comments from members of the House about relativism and about characterizing one group as being outside the bounds of protection afforded by civilized society and refer to natural law, I think of that quote and I shudder. My natural law is found in the Supreme Court of Canada in Egan v. Nesbitt which holds that discrimination is outlawed in the country.

When members on the other side of the House talk about extremism and the problem of violent incidents, I could cite dozens of violent incidents in urban ridings in the country. In my own riding of Rosedale, like the member for Vancouver Centre, I know of people walking down Church Street and having had cars pull up and people jump out who have beaten them up, crying that they were gay.

In August 1989 Alain Brosseau, a young man who was perceived to be gay, was thrown to his death from the Interprovincial Bridge between Ottawa and Hull, which we can see from this building. His attackers testified in court that they were just out to roll a queer. One of the attackers stated that he had put an imitation gun "to the gay's head and he freaked out-I started laughing". Another of the youths dangled him upside down from the bridge, said: "Oh, I like your shoes", and then let go.

In this same city two strangers approached a man returning to Ottawa from Hull and asked him where he had been. When he gave the name of a local gay bar they remarked: "Oh, you are a fag" and beat him so badly that he was in the hospital for two days.

I heard cries from across the House as the former speaker was saying: "Give me a break". Nobody gave those people a break. One of the reasons they did not get a break was the sense that they were fair game as put out in speeches such as we have heard here that allow people to be attacked for their comportment, their religion or their race because they fall outside a tolerated group by certain groups in our society.

This is no longer tolerable conduct in a civilized society. We must not allow it to continue. We must address it in the criminal law. We must frame a criminal law that has as its source a notion of what civilized behaviour is about, which tells our citizens that if they go down this road they will be going into the dark hole that led Nazi Germany into the wars of the past that have ruined Europe. We live in a tolerant society. We live in a pluralistic society. Let us not be fooled by the suggestions put forward that the bill will somehow lead to unintended consequences like condoning pedophilia and other crimes.

The minister has agreed to an amendment which was legally not necessary but one which addressed the issue by saying that it would not make lawful any previously unlawful conduct. This was never a real suggestion. How could it conceivably be said when a judge is considering the appropriate sentence to hand down on a given case, the weight to be given to the surrounding circumstances to prevent further like crimes, that it is relevant? We must not forget that the bill deals with sentencing and how to prevent anti-social conduct. The judge takes these circumstances into account.

How could that conceivably ever lead to an increase in pedophilia, which is a criminal offence known to every judge? It is a total red herring. It has been raised by those who want to discredit the notion of a modern, compassionate, intelligent criminal law that seeks to root out or extirpate evils in society: hatred, racism, homophobia and other forms of intolerable civil behaviour.

We live in a land in which we have had the privilege of peaceful enjoyment as citizens of the country. We are fortunate. We can walk down every street generally free from fear. That is not to say, as members opposite have said, that if we walk around in the middle of the night we too might never be the subject of an attack. I do not deny that. It is a possibility.

However, I am asking members opposite and other members of the House to think of what the bill is doing for people who walk, every day of their lives, down the city streets and are targets of attacks that go to the nature of their humanity and the nature of their being. It is not because they happen to be a haphazard article of attack. The member for Wild Rose said he might be attacked because he was fat.

The member is quite right. I have been accused of looking too English and might one day be attacked for that. However that is not a risk that the member for Wild Rose or I take every day of our waking lives, knowing that we could be the specific targets of people's abuse just because of our human nature, our race or our religion.

This comprehensive sentencing bill was the result of years of study. Sociologists, criminologists and the most learned jurists of the country are trying to come to grips with how we can have a modern Criminal Code that will ensure that all Canadians will be able to live in this blessed land and be able to move into the 21st century in a pluralistic and tolerant society, one in which all of us can be proud to live with as much ease and security as possible in the modern, civilized society of today.

That is the reason I am proud to speak on the bill and I am proud to be a member of the government that has introduced it.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Warren Allmand Liberal Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions I should like to put to the hon. member who is known to be an eminent lawyer.

Members of the Reform Party have suggested that in section 718.2 certain groups are favoured over others. For example, if people are attacked or a crime is committed against them because of their race, national ethnic origin, language, et cetera, they are favoured in sentencing over people who do not belong to the groups listed. In committee we amended that section to add the words "or any other similar factor" so that there would now be no limitation on the groups to be considered under the hate crime provisions.

Now, with that amendment made in committee, if people were attacked because they were bald, fat, Liberals, or Reformers, they would be taken up in the new wording added in committee "or any other similar factor". I would ask the hon. member to comment on that.

Second, it has been suggested that even if we were to include all other groups, why should we have a harsher sentence for a hate crime against a group than for a hate crime against an individual. Is it not true that if in the Criminal Code the maximum penalty for a crime is 10 years, 15 years or life-and I give the example of the Reform Party member of people in his town going down the street and beating up people because they are hateful, not because they are hateful against the group-the judge can give the maximum sentence? If it is 10 years he can give 10 years.

This clause states that if he was to give five years rather than the maximum he might give two more years; he might give seven years. If it is a crime against an individual, could the judge not give the full maximum sentence even though no hate under this section was allowed?

I will put those two questions to the hon. member.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Bill Graham Liberal Rosedale, ON

Mr. Speaker, I think those are two very good questions from the learned chairman of the justice committee.

We are struggling here trying to understand our role as parliamentarians with respect to giving instructions to courts and judges on how to review these cases. The hypothetical case the member has put illustrates clearly that what the judge is being called upon to do is weigh this in his or her mind to determine the social evil there and be able to add to the sentence that would otherwise be handed down. There is no question that if the assault is particularly vicious and if the assault calls for the maximum penalty, the judge is perfectly at liberty to give that penalty to anyone who commits an assault.

We are seeking to give our judiciary the opportunity to send a signal to society. The purpose of sentencing is to send signals to society; it is not just retributive justice. The purpose of sentencing is to send signals to society as to what conduct is tolerable in a civilized society and to enable the court to give extra time for such behaviour to indicate to people that this type of behaviour will not be tolerated. That is precisely what the member's question illustrates, that we have here an opportunity that will enable our courts to speak to the issues and deal with them. In that sense, it is a very intelligent addition to the rest of the sentencing bill.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Reform

Myron Thompson Reform Wild Rose, AB

Mr. Speaker, the connection I cannot get from the hon. member is when he says that when they do these things we are going to get tough and we are going to do this, and that will deter it. Well, for two years I have been saying that we have to get tough on people who murder or sexually assault people.

My friends from the Bloc say I want to throw everybody in jail, lock them up and throw away the key. My friends from the Liberal Party say no, that is not the answer. And now all of a sudden it is? What has changed? Why is it not applied to everybody when these laws are being made? Why say that this particular situation was motivated by that, therefore we are going to sock it to them, and this situation was motivated by nothing, so we are going to take it easy? One is just as dead as the other. The whole thing has to stop.

When are we going to address the whole picture and quit picking on little areas?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Bill Graham Liberal Rosedale, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have some sympathy with the member's position. There is no question that we do not want to tolerate the type of anti-social behaviour he referred to. But the member is totally ignoring the incredible importance in this of being able to deal with other social causes.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Reform

Myron Thompson Reform Wild Rose, AB

They do it now. They already do it.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Bill Graham Liberal Rosedale, ON

We have provisions in our Criminal Code that make it illegal, for example, to preach hatred against others. These are issues that go to the root causes in society.

Earlier I referred the member to the problems in the former Yugoslavia. We are looking at problems in the world today that he and I lived through as we watched a world war evolve and watched the hatreds in sectarian areas around the globe evolve. This bill is seeking to deal in an intelligent and I would suggest a very well thought out way the root causes of those evils, which extend beyond the consideration of the mere issue of violence to which the member is referring.

Criminal acts can be differentiated as one type of criminal act or another in terms of their anti-social consequences. This bill is telling our judges that is what they should look to. In that sense, I support it. It is intelligent and it is needed in the country at this time. The police in my riding are telling us that these types of crimes are on the rise and that this bill is needed.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Reform

Myron Thompson Reform Wild Rose, AB

The police are telling you this bill is no good.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Bill Graham Liberal Rosedale, ON

Believe me, the police in Toronto are telling us it is needed. The member is fooling himself if he does not understand that.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC

Mr. Speaker, I understand that, because of what is yet to come, I will not be able to talk for 20 minutes consecutively and that you are going to interrupt me to allow those who so desire to go to the Senate for Royal Assent.

Allow me to begin by saying that no party line or differences in parties could prevent me from thanking the minister in all sincerity today for his show of courage, firstly for having persevered, because we all know that if any bill raised controversy or stirred up heated debate, the bill that is now before us did.

I am very aware that the minister showed great courage, great compassion. Allow me to thank him, despite the fact that we belong to different parties. I thank him on three levels. First, as a parliamentarian, second, as a citizen, and third, as a homosexual.

I believe, and I hope that all of the terms I will use are parliamentary, yes, I believe that one would really have to be obtuse, stubborn or live on another planet to not realize that some people in our society are the victims of violence. Some people in our society are the victims of violence because they are homosexuals.

Some people may turn a blind eye to this fact, but that does not take away from our duty as parliamentarians not to do as they do. Therefore, I simply reiterate my thanks to the Minister of Justice. My sincere thanks for his courage. Obviously, I will not make a habit of it, but this is a case where sincere thanks are due.

I would also like to say, for the benefit of our Reform friends, that-we all must admit that they are actually quite clumsy in their efforts to understand this reality-it would be interesting for them to come spend a day with the gay community. I would also be tempted to say, if it is parliamentary, that they have actually been rather abrasive in their attempts to remodel Quebec's and Canada's democratic institutions.

It would be quite informative for our Reform colleagues to come and spend a day in the company of a number of spokespersons of the gay community, to cross their white picket fences and come to the gay part of town. I am giving them an open invitation.

I am the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, but just beside it, there is the riding of our Bloc Quebecois whip, a nice guy. His riding includes Montreal's gay neighbourhood. I invite them to drop in, if any of them wish to do the utterly logical thing, which is to try to really understand what it is all about.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

We will continue this debate after our visit to the Senate.

A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:

Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.

Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.

And being returned:

Criminal CodeThe Royal Assent

5:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Honour the Deputy to his Excellency the Governor General in the Senate chamber, His Honour was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to certain bills:

Bill C-43, an act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act and to make related amendments to other acts-Chapter No. 12.

Bill C-44, an act to amend the Immigration Act and the Citizenship Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Customs Act-Chapter No. 15.

Bill C-53, an act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage and to amend and repeal certain other acts-Chapter No. 11

Bill C-75, an act to amend the Farm Improvement and Marketing Co-Operatives Loans Act-Chapter No. 13.

Bill C-81, an act to amend an act respecting the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Company-Chapter No. 14.

Bill C-97, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1996-Chapter No. 16.

Criminal CodeThe Royal Assent

5:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed in today's Order Paper.

I would just like to add that, before going to the Senate, the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve had the floor in the debate on Bill C-41 at third reading, and we will return to this debate following Private Members' Business.

Canada Labour CodePrivate Members' Business

5:20 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard St-Laurent Bloc Manicouagan, QC

That Bill C-317, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act (scabs and essential services), be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to rise in this House today to speak on Bill C-317, anti-scab legislation. This bill, which will amend the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act is aimed at preventing the hiring of scabs to replace employees on strike against or locked out by an employer covered by the Canada Labour Code and employees on strike in the federal public service.

The bill is also aimed at maintaining essential services during a strike or lockout at a crown corporation or in the public service.

As you know, the workers' cause is very important to me. That is why I tabled this bill in this House on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois. This bill would provide adequate protection to workers currently victimized by their employers' disloyal practices.

In Canada, more than 10 per cent of the labour force is subject to the provisions of the Canada Labour Code. This amounts to 217,600 workers in Quebec and over 1,083,000 in Canada.

The debate on the adoption by the federal Parliament of anti-scab legislation that would apply to organizations under its jurisdiction is nothing new. In 1980, the hon. Ed Broadbent, then leader of the NDP, tabled a private member's bill aimed at banning replacement workers. From 1981 to 1992, several unions called one after the other on the federal government to introduce an anti-scab bill.

Finally, in 1990, the Bloc Quebecois tabled, through my colleague, the hon. member for Richelieu, a bill aimed at prohibiting the hiring of persons to replace Crown corporation employees who are on strike or locked out. Unfortunately, this bill was defeated at second reading by only 18 votes.

In 1977, Quebec legislators passed what is commonly referred to as the Quebec anti-scab bill, which went into effect on February 1, 1978.

To understand the reasons behind this bill, we must go back to the early 1960s. In that era of great reforms, relations between the federal government and unions made possible a review of labour laws that led to a sharp rise in union membership. Unions gradually hardened their positions. In the early 1970s, in reaction to the Liberals' election and the imposition of their War Measures Act-as you will recall-, unions openly dissociated themselves from government actions. A strike by the coalition of public sector workers gave rise to a new union solidarity. Within a very short time, this solidarity moved into the private sector.

Afterwards, around the mid-seventies, there were some extremely turbulent strikes. I would point out the Firestone strike, the Canadian Gypsum strike and, particularly, the infamous United Aircraft strike.

It is the Parti Quebecois which introduced the concept of prohibiting the use of scabs.

A significant event happened a week before the bill was passed. During a strike at Robin Hood, a federally regulated company in Montreal, security guards opened fire on strikers and injured eight of them. The person who gave the order to fire was Robert Grynszpan. I am giving his name because, later, he suddenly reappears in the news.

In Quebec, since the anti-scab provisions were adopted, studies have revealed that disputes have indeed been shorter.

It is obvious that the Quebec legislation was not well received by employers. The Conseil du patronat, which was vehemently opposed to this legislation, received in 1991 permission to challenge it before the Supreme Court. However, it later decided to drop proceedings, considering that the climate of labour relations had changed since the provisions of the legislation had been applied. And this last part should really dictate the conduct of the present federal government.

The aim of this bill is not to impose on the rest of Canada legislation that is essentially Quebec's.

In Canada, the tendency seems to be to integrate the principle of prohibition of strikebreakers in labour relations practices.

Recent laws in Ontario, British-Columbia and at the federal level confirm that tendency. These two provinces and Quebec total more de 75 per cent of the population of Canada. Therefore, the majority of workers and employers are regulated by laws which prohibit the use of strikebreakers. Of course, the level of prohibition can vary but the principle remains the same and seems to be accepted by management as well as by labour unions.

In Quebec, a number of unions and employers agree that anti strikebreaker legislation has significantly reduced the number and length of labour disputes. They also recognize it has contributed to lowering the risks of violence on picket lines, which is good for both parties.

Conversely, the use of strikebreakers in recent years has only contributed to extending the duration of labour disputes. Statistics show that the more important labour disputes in terms of the number of workers involved are generally those where strike-breakers are used. It was also noticed that the longer a dispute lasts the higher the proportion of strikebreakers tends to get.

The strike of the Ogilvie flour mill in Montreal, which is still not resolved, is a good example. If I may, I would like to briefly remind my colleagues of a labour dispute that has dragged on and on for over a year now, and which could still last a rather long time if we do not act soon.

In January 1992, the collective agreement between the workers of Ogilvie Mills of Montreal and their employer, Labatt, came to an end.

In June of the same year, the Labatt's Brewery, then the owner of the mill, sold it to ADM Archers-Daniels-Midland Co., a U.S. multinational corporation.

From 1992 to 1993, negotiations to renew the collective agreement were unsuccessful, since the employer was presenting demands based on the working conditions that are common practice in the United States. Can you imagine?

From October 1993 to February 1994, the employer unilaterally imposed working conditions as established in its own proposal.

In February 1994, the union filed a complaint with the Canada Labour Relations Board on grounds that the employer was negotiating in bad faith. In fact, it was simply refusing to negotiate.

On June 6, 1994, a general strike broke out, involving 116 workers-I should add 116 families.

Only four days later, the employer hired scabs to replace these workers. Members should note that it did so through a federal employment centre. Can you imagine that?

I have here in my hands a copy of the ad that was posted in the Employment Centre of Verdun. I will take the time to briefly read some details that were given. It is really unusual.

Date: December 5, 1994, 2.18 p.m., Verdun employment centre. Job offer: forklift operator; $10 an hour; temporary; 40 hours a week, possible overtime. Where? Ogilvie flour mill. They even have the gall to request three to five years experience. But it does not mention whether its is three to five years experience as a fork lift operator or as a scab. There is a hidden anachronism. Further down, it reads: Attention, ongoing labour dispute. One cannot claim ignorance. Then comes the employer's address: Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. (Ogilvie Montreal), 950 Mills, Montreal, Quebec, H3C 1Y4. I will even give a phone number: 514-847-8522, and a contact: Francine Farmer. Attention, company on strike.

Mr. Speaker, this takes the cake. This is blatant proof that the government was in cahoots with a company which was hiring scabs during a labour dispute.

The Ogilvie flour mill is still operating, thanks to scabs, since this is not prohibited under the Canadian Labour Code. It continues to post profits and is using unusual security devices, including surveillance cameras, fences, security guards, to monitor strikers and bring scabs inside the plant.

What is at stake in the negotiations can be summed up as follows: the union's demands are quite simple-there are none. They are not trying to obtain additional jobs, to enhance job security in any way or to obtain any salary increases. The union's demand can be summed up in one sentence: to keep jobs the way they are and salaries at current levels, period.

We could not ask for a better employee attitude in today's climate. They have been very, very understanding. However, here are but a few of management's demands: first, the right to unilaterally modify hours. To put it in simple terms, this means: we will make you work when we want, how we want, how long we want, where we want. Second, the abolition of seniority as a consideration in promotions and layoffs. In plain and simple language, the better you are at sucking up, the better your job advancement possibilities. I know no other term for it.

Loss of job security still means the same thing, so I will not repeat it. Elimination of notice prior to layoff. That means that when you leave for work in the morning, give your wife and children a big kiss, because when you come home that night, you may no longer be working for the same company and you will have nothing to say about it.

More contracting out: this means that you should not forget to tell your wife that it is possible that some guy from out of the blue will get hired to do the same job as you.

More term employees: this means that the possibility that some guy from out of the blue will come in to do your job is even more likely.

Fewer union rights: go back to my first scenario, which was the more you suck up, the better the chances of keeping your job.

Lastly, the meetings with a conciliator were fruitless. Just to make the discussion even more interesting, I would like to add that the famous name that I mentioned earlier, the current manager of the Ogilvie mill, is none other than Robert Grynszpan, the one who gave the order to shoot in the 1977 conflict in which eight strikers were wounded in Montreal. In 1977, in a democratic country which was not in a state of war, one man gave the order to shoot. Today, that same man is the manager of one of Ogilvie's factories in Montreal. He is free to walk the streets, like you and me.

Because they work in an industry which is covered by the Canada Labour Code, the unionized workers of the mill have been made to pay for the failure to prohibit the use of strikebreakers during a labour conflict under that same code. The mill's employees have often demanded that an anti-strikebreaker law be brought in for companies falling under the federal government's jurisdiction. Despite the promise he made in October 1994, the Minister of Human Resources Development put off tabling such a law in the House of Commons, as you will recall, until spring 1995. Also, the Minister of Labour, when she first took office, stated she would make it a priority.

This must have been left out of the red book. In other words, it is high time the government took steps to stop the kind of labour dispute where workers on the picket lines watch strikebreakers get their wages because the federal government is doing nothing to stop this blatant injustice.

Everyone has a right to be respected, and this applies to workers as well. They are entitled to a decent standard of living and to be respected as individuals who have certain rights. When an employer uses pressure tactics like hiring scabs during a legal strike, this puts an undue stress on the employees, increases the likelihood of violence and undermines the bargaining process.

The use of scabs merely leads to dictatorial and disloyal practices, collective bargaining unworthy of the name and poor labour relations that will have the effect of reducing the quality of service, while probably also adding to the ranks of the unemployed.

The use of scabs during a labour dispute automatically gives the employer an advantage. No wonder that employers who resort to this practice are in no hurry to sit down and bargain in good faith.

The case for introducing anti-scab provisions very similar to those in the Quebec Labour Code is quite straightforward. In Quebec, these provisions, introduced in 1978, have stood the test of time. After 17 years, they still hold true. Legislation in Ontario and British Columbia is in fact based on the provisions in effect in Quebec.

The purpose of this bill is to introduce a number of democratic principles that are now accepted in many countries, including ours, principles that we apply every day and which have repeatedly proved beneficial to the settlement of labour disputes.

The statistics show that since anti-scab legislation was passed in Quebec, the duration of labour disputes has decreased by 35 per cent, on average. That is something to consider.

The Canada Labour Code is certainly not perfectly equipped to settle disputes under its jurisdiction. One only has to remember the 1986-87 Voyageur bus strike; the postal strike a few years ago; the strike at the Port of Montreal, which is still fresh in our minds; the three month strike at QNS&L in Sept-îles last year; and, must I remind you, the infamous strike that has been going on for a year at Ogilvie Mills in Montreal.

Today, we are at the second reading stage. The members participating in the debate, who will have to vote later, must tell us whether or not they agree in principle with making social relations, labour relations in Canada more civilized. Then, if they want to make amendments, they can appear before the legislative committee and suggest all kinds of amendments they deem relevant or necessary. But, for the time being, we must look at the principle-I repeat, principle-of the bill.

We must wonder if Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia were justified in introducing a civilized labour relations system, which restored the real balance of power in negotiations resulting from labour disputes.

A strike broken by scabs is no strike but a right to strike hypocritically denied. Either we are for the right to strike, a basic right won by workers after many years of fighting, or we are against. If we are in favour, we will not undermine, either directly or indirectly, the workers' sacred right to strike, with which Canadian employers have learned to live.

Employers learned a long time ago about strikes, lockouts and the bargaining process. In Quebec, we have lived for 17 years with anti-scab provisions, and I submit to you that it would be a shame if this House refused to move with the times and bring its labour legislation into the 20th century, on the eve of the third millennium.

The Canada Labour Code must be updated and improved to meet today's needs and realities.

And the reality today is that there still are honest workers out there who, after having worked 15, 20 or more years for the same company, find themselves hitting the pavement on the strike lines simply to protect the benefits they have acquired over the years for themselves, it goes without saying, and for their families, or quite simply to protect their jobs. Every day, they see strikebreakers, scabs, take their place and take home their pay. This is unacceptable.

I would like to conclude by saying that this problem has already been resolved in three provinces which together represent 70 per cent of Canada's population. As this bill targets a small portion of this country's labour force, it is obvious, in my opinion, that the federal legislation must take into consideration provincial legislation and fill in the gaps between the existing laws. It is high time, in my opinion, that federal legislation take a step forward and restore pride in work and dignity to workers.

Canada Labour CodePrivate Members' Business

6 p.m.

York North Ontario

Liberal

Maurizio Bevilacqua LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join the debate on Bill C-317, a bill to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act which, if enacted, would prohibit the hiring of replacement workers by employers during a legal strike. The bill also contains provisions which are intended to ensure that essential services are maintained in the event of a strike or a lockout in a crown corporation and in the public service.

While this bill proposes changes to both the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act, my comments on this bill are confined to those changes which would affect the Canada Labour Code.

The two specific proposals advanced by the hon. member pertain to the institution of collective bargaining. If I may, I would like to spend a few moments outlining my views on this institution. In a nutshell, I believe in collective bargaining because it works and because it is an institution that promotes democratic decision making.

If one were to go through a copy of the Canada Labour Code, one would find at the beginning a preamble to part I, the section that deals with labour management relations. In my view, this preamble articulates in a very eloquent way why we need and why we have a system of free collective bargaining in this country.

The preamble refers to the promotion of the common well-being through the encouragement of free collective bargaining. It speaks of the freedom of association and of free collective bargaining as constituting the way to determine good working conditions and to promote sound labour management relations. It expresses the desire of the Parliament of Canada to extend its support to labour and management in their efforts to develop constructive collective bargaining practices. In other words, the preamble to part I of the Canada Labour Code conveys in no uncertain terms the federal government's commitment to the preservation and encouragement of collective bargaining.

Political parties of all stripes adhere to this belief in collective bargaining. Not surprisingly, labour unions also support free collective bargaining. Indeed, over the years they have resisted with all the resources at their command any effort to restrict worker access to free collective bargaining or to replace it with government regulations or other mechanisms.

Maintaining that integrity of the collective bargaining process is probably the most important concern of the majority of trade unionists. For many employers collective bargaining provides an efficient way of promoting stability in the workplace, for securing the consent of the workforce and for obtaining innovative solutions to a variety of workplace issues. Employers who value partnerships with labour realize that they can lead to a competitive advantage.

Paul Weiler, distinguished Canadian labour lawyer, author and Harvard professor, describes it best. He states that collective bargaining is a mode of employee representation which serves two vital social functions. First, it obtains for workers a measure of protection from the employer and the vicissitudes of the labour market, protection from substandard wages and benefits and from arbitrary and unfair treatment on the job. Second, it affords workers a degree of participation in an organization's decision making. It requires employees to take responsibility for defining, asserting and if necessary, compromising their concerns.

As Professor Weiler has written: "Collective bargaining is as intrinsically valuable as an experience in self-government. If one believes as I do that self-determination and self-discipline are inherently worthwhile, indeed, that they are the mark of a truly human community, then it is difficult to see how the law can be neutral about whether that type of economic democracy is to emerge in the workplace".

As I mentioned, I support our system of collective bargaining not only because of its democratic nature, but also because of its effectiveness. Something like 95 per cent of all collective bargaining disputes in federal jurisdiction governed by the Canada Labour Code are resolved without resort to a work stoppage.

When a third party is needed and the mediation and conciliation service provides assistance, about 90 per cent of disputes are settled without work stoppage. Time lost due to strikes and lockouts is but a fraction of a per cent, far less than the time lost due to workplace accidents.

The system works because it places the responsibility for the settlement of workplace conflict on the shoulders of those directly involved. It acknowledges that labour and management know best what their needs are and it calls upon them to take ownership of the terms and conditions that govern their employment setting.

By looking south of the border we can get some idea as to what would happen in this country if our system of collective bargaining were allowed to deteriorate. In the U.S. trade unions and collective bargaining are on the ropes and the consequences are starting to be noticed. According to the Commission on the Future of Worker-Management Relations, the decline of unions has contributed to the rise in inequality.

The commission reported among other things that the U.S. earnings distribution among workers is the most unequal among developed countries. Lower paid workers in the U.S. earn markedly less than comparable workers in western Europe. U.S. workers work about 200 hours more during the year than workers in Europe. While occupational accident rates in the U.S. showed little improvement over the past decade, they declined significantly in Canada over the same period. So distressed were the commissioners by what they found that they were moved to declare: "A healthy society cannot long continue along the path the U.S. is moving with rising bifurcation of the labour market".

Of course, our industrial relations system is not noiseless. Work stoppages do occur and people are inconvenienced. But in the vast majority of cases, both labour unions and employers recognize that a work stoppage is far more costly than a peaceful settlement. It is in the interests of both parties to resolve their differences through negotiation rather than through the display of raw power.

It should be emphasized that collective bargaining works for business as well as labour. The majority of respondents in a survey of large employers reported that they are successful in reaching their bargaining goals, that they are able to work together with the union during the life of a collective agreement and that they have the ability to adjust to changes in technology.

It seems to me that what employers and managers value above all else is stability. Generally speaking, stability is what they get through the collective bargaining process.

The private member's bill the hon. member has put forward for discussion would significantly change collective bargaining for enterprises regulated by the Canada Labour Code. It seems to me therefore that such reforms ought to be considered within the context of a comprehensive review of part I of the Canada Labour Code.

Canada Labour CodePrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Reform

Dale Johnston Reform Wetaskiwin, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate today on the bill sponsored by the hon. member for Manicouagan.

The summary of the bill found on page 1a states that the purpose of the bill is to prohibit hiring of persons to replace employees of an employer under the Canada Labour Code or of the public service who are on strike or locked out.

In fact this bill goes much further than just prohibiting hiring of new workers. Modelled after labour legislation in Quebec, this bill proposes that government prohibit anyone from performing the work of a person who is on strike or locked out by companies falling under federal jurisdiction, crown corporations and the public service. It also includes provisions for the maintenance of essential services in the event of a strike or lockout in the public service or a crown corporation if public health and safety are at risk and it gives increased powers to the Governor in Council.

The Public Service Staff Relations Act contains a mechanism for providing essential services in strike situations. To replace the designated employee category of the act with these provisions cannot be viewed as a progressive step.

We know that one of the reasons the member is sponsoring this bill is that he is concerned over the effects of the year long labour dispute at the Ogilvie flour mills in Montreal. Members from all sides of this House have expressed concern over the Ogilvie situation and we are all anxious to see a speedy resolution. I was pleased to hear that progress was made at the mediation meetings held on May 25 and 26. There was an agreement to reconvene the talks on June 20 and 21.

If the hon. member for Manicouagan really wanted to help settle that dispute, he should have supported Bill C-262 authored by my colleague, the member for Lethbridge. If the government and the hon. member and his colleagues were really concerned about the workers at Ogilvie Mills and other workers under federal jurisdiction, they could have got on the ball and voted for Bill C-262 on March 20 and supported the hon. member for Lethbridge on his final offer arbitration bill.

If the hon. member and his colleagues wanted to protect both sides of labour disputes they would advocate final offer arbitration as a sure fire solution to settling labour strife.

When workers at the west coast ports were legislated back to work last year, the Minister of Human Resources Development endorsed the use of final offer arbitration as the settlement mechanism. The transport committee in its recently released national marine strategy recommended a final offer selection mechanism for settlement of all disputes between pilots and their customers.

As I stated in this House on previous occasions there seems to be a growing popularity for final offer arbitration. The transport committee also recommended that the new Marine Transportation Act would provide for final offer selection for the settlement of all disputes between the new not for profit seaway corporation and its employees.

I would like to confirm once again that the Reform Party believes in the bargaining process and we do not want to interfere in the course of two parties coming to an agreement. We see final offer arbitration as a tool that is useful to both sides, labour and management.

There are three provinces in Canada that ban the use of replacement workers in strike or lockout situations: Quebec, British Columbia and Ontario. Just last week voters elected a Progressive Conservative government whose leader promised to repeal Bill 40, the NDP's labour legislation and put an end to the ban on replacement workers in Ontario. Perhaps my hon. colleague would do well to find out if there is public support for anti-worker legislation.

We in the Reform Party are concerned about the impact that strikes and lockouts have on workers, employers, and Canadians, who most often have to bear the brunt of the cost and inconvenience of services withdrawn by monopolistic industries.

The recent strikes in the railway emphasize the weakness in the Canada Labour Code for preventing a shutdown of essential services. I commend the member for attempting to deal with the contentious issue of maintaining essential services. However, this bill does not contain any provision for the continuation of essential services in the private sector.

We would all agree the federal government has a responsibility to act in the best interest of Canadians, but I am surprised the hon. member would increase the powers of the governor in council.

In an interdependent world, economic security is threatened by major strikes involving services that provide linkage on an interprovincial and an international basis. Transportation and communication services, for example, are essential to the daily movement of people, goods, and services. A shutdown for any duration always has significant economic impacts.

Canada's competitive advantage is determined by the efficiency and reliability of the transportation and communication network it relies upon. We simply cannot afford any major shutdowns in the networks that link the country together.

The Canadian economy was hard hit by the $3 billion railway strike in March. The effects of this strike are now seen as contributing factors in the lower than predicted gross domestic product and the fall of the leading economic indicators. This was a hit the Canadian economy could not afford to take.

I believe that if final offer arbitration had been in place it could have defused the problems that faced the parties in this dispute. It is by far the most effective and impartial means of obtaining a solution to the concerns of labour and management where an impasse occurs that inflicts significant damage on Canadians.

There is nothing to prevent both sides from achieving a deal, providing they are being fair and open with each other. In fact, the presence of an arbitrator who is in a position to adopt either side's proposal in entirety exerts a tremendous pressure on both sides to reach an agreement. I believe this would preserve and strengthen the process by which the parties negotiate a contract.

In cases where fundamental issues are at stake, such as employment security, an agreement might never occur through collective bargaining, and a strike or lockout may only make matters worse. The best solution is for someone respected by both sides to make a decision on the fairness of one proposal and for the process to be viewed as legitimate by both sides. Section 57 of the Canada Labour Code which contains provisions for final offer settlement by an arbitrator for disputes that occur during the life of a collective agreement should be amended to include final offer selection in disputes where collective agreements have expired.

I want to assure the House that I believe in the collective agreement process, but in the area of essential services the Canadian people should be protected from costly and disruptive work stoppages. Part I of the Canada Labour Code is under review at the moment. I urge the Minister of Labour to bring the code into line with today's economic realities by expanding the definition of essential services and by providing for final offer arbitration in work stoppages in essential services when the agreements expire.

The end result of a strike or lockout is that the side that is able to withstand the damage longest is considered to be the winner. In reality, we know that neither side wins. Both parties sustain significant losses in relationships and dollars. In the long run, no one benefits from a strike, not the workers, not the employers, and not the Canadian people. I believe this legislation would inflame already strained relations and drive a deeper wedge between labour and management.

The Canada Labour Code is out of date. As legislators, we must find and implement solutions that will best serve the needs of all involved.

Canada Labour CodePrivate Members' Business

6:20 p.m.

Bloc

Osvaldo Nunez Bloc Bourassa, QC

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-317 whose purpose is to add

anti-scab provisions to the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act.

I want to commend my Bloc Quebecois colleague, the hon. member for Manicouagan, on his worthy initiative which I support with vigour and enthusiasm, and especially on the excellent speech he just made.

The purpose of this bill is to ensure there is no undue advantage to either party during negotiations, in order to reduce the duration of strikes and lockouts. Its objective is also to prevent violence during labour disputes.

The gist of this bill is as follows: To prohibit the hiring of persons to replace the employees of a federally-regulated employer who are on strike or locked out and employees of the Public Service who are on strike; and to ensure that essential services are maintained in the event of a strike or lockout in a Crown corporation and in the Public Service.

This bill takes its cue from similar provisions introduced in 1977 by the Parti Quebecois government at the time to amend the Quebec Labour Code. Since then, Ontario and British Columbia have also passed anti-scab legislation. Today, 75 per cent of Canadian workers are covered by these provisions.

The legislation passed by the Quebec National Assembly on December 22, 1977, prohibiting the use of strike breakers during a labour dispute, was the first legislation of its kind in Canada. It was passed following some very violent strikes in the seventies, including the strike at Firestone and Canadian Gypsum and especially the long and difficult dispute at United Aircraft, now Pratt & Whitney. The strikers were members of my former union, the CAW, the Canadian Auto Workers.

Strikes are based on the principle that a work stoppage should be an incentive for the employer to agree to and offer better working conditions. If the employer can hire replacements for the strikers, the strike becomes useless, a costly burden to those who exercise this right recognized by the Canada Labour Code, the International Labour Organization and all democratic countries.

When workers involved in a labour dispute see they are replaced by other people who are often escorted by security guards, they become exasperated, frustrated and may even resort to violence. They are reacting to provocation, and the consequences are disastrous.

Quebec's adoption of anti-scab legislation was in response to strong pressure from the labour movement, and in particular from the FTQ. However, the unions criticized the weakness of the measures approved in 1977 and demanded the use of personnel to replace an employee locked out or on strike be absolutely prohibited.

In fact, the text of the legislation contained errors, which moved the Government of Quebec to propose new amendments to the Labour Code in 1983 in order to correct the discrepancies that appeared through its use and legal interpretation by the labour court, the superior court and the court of appeal.

Approximately 114,000 Quebec bank, federal public service, federal ports, telecommunications and transportation workers come under the Canada Labour Code.

This number includes the 116 employees of the Ogilvie-ADM mills in Montreal, who are members of the CNTU and for whom June 6 marked the anniversary of their first year on strike. This dispute has gone on for over a year because of this American employer's use of scabs. These workers along with the entire labour movement in Quebec and Canada have long called for anti-scab legislation federally.

This afternoon, I met a group of strikers on Parliament Hill, who are currently in the gallery. I would like to salute them and all the workers of Ogilvie-ADM, show them my support and express the hope that a reasonable solution may be found quickly.

I understand their frustrations, because I worked for 19 years at the FTQ, where I witnessed and experienced similar disputes. This dispute is deteriorating because of a skewed balance of power. I also support the campaign waged by the CNTU and the FTQ for the inclusion of anti-scab provisions in the Canada Labour Code.

On September 18, 1992, an explosion at the Giant Gold mine in Yellowknife killed nine miners during a strike in which the employer had hired scabs. This tragedy could have been avoided with anti-scab legislation. This conflict lasted 18 months, ending only in December 1993. Last January, an individual was convicted of causing that explosion.

An anti-scab law would, of course, significantly reduce the risks of violence on picket lines. Under the previous, Tory government, the Liberals supported such legislation. Since they came to power in 1993, they have moved to the right and changed their position. The Minister of Human Resources Development had promised to table an anti-scab bill in December 1994. He did not keep his word.

The new Minister of Labour now uses the excuse that she intends to propose a more extensive reform of the Canada Labour Code, arguing that this legislation has not been amended in 20 years. The Minister of Labour, who is the hon. member for the wealthy riding of Westmount, is even more insensitive than her predecessor in this regard.

She is probably afraid of hurting the interests of her wealthy constituents. Yet, the Ogilvie workers, whose plant is located at the boundary of the minister's riding, are still waiting for her to help resolve this dispute as she promised.

Once again, I ask the government to be consistent with the positions defended by its members when they were in opposition and to table an anti-scab bill to prevent labour disputes from deteriorating and dragging on needlessly. We already know that the

bill tabled by my colleague from Manicouagan will probably not pass without government support, but we will not give up.

The government must share the three largest provinces' positive experiences and realize that anti-scab measures are needed to reduce the risks of sometimes violent confrontation during a strike or lockout.

In Quebec, as my colleague from Manicouagan said, studies point to a significant reduction in the duration of labour disputes since these provisions went into effect. The same phenomenon occurred in Ontario and British Columbia.

We must correct the inequities suffered by the 680,000 workers subject to Part I of the Canada Labour Code. Sometimes, a strike is the workers' only recourse. Adopting legislation in this area would eliminate the inequities suffered by unionized federal workers as opposed to their provincial colleagues, who are protected by an anti-scab law.

In conclusion, I call on the Minister of Labour not to hide behind the comprehensive review of the Canada Labour Code and to immediately table a bill to this effect. I am asking her to act as quickly as she did last March to trample the rights of workers by tabling a special back-to-work bill aimed at rail workers.

For all these reasons, I strongly support Bill C-317.

Canada Labour CodePrivate Members' Business

6:30 p.m.

Kitchener Ontario

Liberal

John English LiberalParliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to address the House on an issue of concern to the government, essential services.

There has been much debate on this topic in other jurisdictions as it applies to their labour environment. I am sure that everyone here appreciates that the federal government is a unique employer, one which has a trusted mandate to ensure that Canadians can be confident in the delivery of government services.

The Public Service Staff Relations Act is a balanced piece of legislation, one which has assisted the parties involved in complex labour disputes for over one-quarter of a century. It should be remembered that it was due to the leadership of a Liberal government that federal workers gained the right to collective bargaining.

However, it was also recognized at that time, and still holds true today, that the right to collective bargaining in the federal public service cannot be to the detriment of the health, safety and security of the Canadian public.

Over the years most labour disputes have been resolved satisfactorily without the need for back to work legislation. It should be noted that the government, as a matter of practice, discourages the hiring of outside workers to do the work of striking employees. In fact, the current policy of the employer on this matter is to rely on managers and staff excluded from the bargaining unit.

It is also important to recognize that the government has never denied the right of individual employees to voluntarily come to work during a strike.

As I have already indicated, the federal government cannot be compared to employers in other sectors. The business of providing government services to Canadian citizens can never be considered in a similar context to the private sector company, one which provides shoes or soap or flour.

There are many services provided by the federal government for which there is no viable alternative. There is a wide range of services which many of us take for granted until that moment when they become delayed or are not forthcoming. For example, we depend on and have confidence in our meat inspectors and officers involved in numerous other federally inspected consumer goods. Moreover, we rely on the transportation systems, the patrolling of offshore and coastal fisheries and the vigilance of officers at border crossings. Individuals on fixed incomes, the unemployed and senior citizens depend on the uninterrupted delivery of social programs.

Without the careful analysis of the effects of new drugs and medications being produced for human and animal use, the health of Canadians could be at risk. I am sure that each of you here could add other areas that I have not mentioned.

As members can see, government services are vital to the health and security of the public. The present language of the Public Service Staff Relations Act ensures that areas essential to the health and safety of Canadians are safeguarded by designating positions which by law cannot strike before any legal strike activity begins.

What this means is that the employer must identify the positions that are essential to the health and safety of the public three months prior to the notice to bargain and three months prior to the expiration of the collective agreement. Therefore, there is at least a six month advance notice as to the positions that are to be designated.

The current process has worked since 1967. As recently as 1993, when reviewing proposed changes to the Public Service Staff Relations Act, the House in its wisdom saw fit to allow this process to continue.

All of this reinforces the fact that the federal government requires a unique legislated labour framework that is different from

other employers in order to ensure delivery of services regardless of labour difficulties that must eventually be overcome.

In addition, it should be realized by all concerned members of the House that the legislation must be reviewed in its totality. It is not advisable to tinker piecemeal with individual sections of an act. Many portions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act were drafted for a specific purpose and for special reasons and must be viewed in balance with each other.

The designation of essential services, for example, which is at issue here, was specifically developed to permit the notion of the right for federal government employees to strike. It also served to allow the government as the employer to cede the right to lock out employees.

In closing, I must caution my colleagues on the wisdom of proceeding with the bill as it relates to the Public Service Staff Relations Act without fully appreciating the history and the experience behind this important existing legislation.

Canada Labour CodePrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-41, an act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing) and other acts, be read the third time and passed.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

June 15th, 1995 / 6:35 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC

Mr. Speaker, my apologies. I was in committee and I thank you for your patience. Before being interrupted to go up to the other Chamber, I was extending a friendly invitation to members of the Reform Party that would help them understand how terribly important this bill is for the gay community.

With courage and conviction, I am going to be daring and stand by the invitation. Therefore, I turn to the Reform Party, with your permission, and I say to them that if, as parliamentarians, they are interested in expanding on their knowledge of the reality of the gay experience and the potential ill treatment to which gays are exposed, I am available to introduce them to spokespersons and leaders of these groups, because if their positions and statements are any indication, I venture to think that although the members of the Reform Party are very knowledgeable in certain areas, they are somewhat less so in this particular area.

I think that, here as elsewhere, a closer look at reality would undoubtedly help them to modify their behaviour and certainly to improve their understanding. I therefore cordially extend to each member of the Reform Party an invitation to come and spend a day with me in the gay village, so that they can meet with the spokespersons and be in-

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

6:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Order. I remind my colleagues that they must always address the Chair, particularly when rather diverging views are being expressed. We are dealing with very emotional and sensitive issues. Consequently, we must show a great deal of respect in order to carry on the debate in the usual parliamentary fashion. Again, I remind hon. members that they must address the Chair, and not each other directly.