Debates of Oct. 22nd, 1996

Government Response To Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages the government's response to 14 petitions.

Canada Labour Code

[Bernard St-Laurent, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-337, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code.

Mr. Speaker, this is the second anti-scab bill I have introduced in the House. This one takes a somewhat different approach, although the objectives are still the same, the only objectives debated and defended by the Bloc Quebecois here in the House of Commons. And we will go on doing so. Only the approach is different.

The House will recall that the previous bill was voted down with a majority of only ten votes. I have reason to believe that the approach I have taken in this particular bill will get us the majority we need to initiate legislation that will eliminate the use of scabs by firms regulated by the Canada Labour Code.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-338, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act (scabs and essential services).

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to introduce a bill whose purpose is to add anti-scab provisions to the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act. It also contains provisions for maintaining essential services in the case of a strike or a lockout.

I would like to point out that more than 700,000 workers work in the federally regulated sector. Quebec passed similar legislation in 1977. I hope that when the time comes, the Liberals will support this initiative as they did when they were the official opposition.

Before becoming a member of Parliament, I worked in the Quebec labour movement for 19 years. By introducing this bill, I am keeping a promise I made to the workers of this country, and it also shows that the Bloc Quebecois is listening to the unions.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

United Empire Loyalists Land Reclamation Act

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-339, an act to permit descendants of the United Empire Loyalists who fled the land that later became the United States of America after the 1776 American Revolution to establish a claim to the property they or their ancestors owned in the United States that was confiscated without compensation, and claim compensation for it in the Canadian courts, and to exclude from Canada any foreign person trafficking in such property.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to introduce a bill that will be known once adopted as the Godfrey-Milliken act.

The purpose of this bill is to permit the descendants of the United Empire Loyalists whose lands were confiscated or occupied by others when they fled the United States in the years following the American Revolution to assert their claims in the Federal Court of Canada.

The court is then required to make a determination as to who the owner of the property was and order it returned to the claimant or the person otherwise entitled; to order that the claimant be compen-

sated by the payment of damages; and to list the names of the persons who are trafficking or who have trafficked in the property.

Those persons then will not be permitted to enter Canada, nor will their families be permitted to enter Canada, and they will be forced to leave Canada if they are in Canada until they return the confiscated property to the rightful owners.

The bill is quite a short one. I think it is one that will find widespread support in the House. I have had indications of support from members opposite. I am looking forward to an opportunity to present the bill.

I hope all hon. members will agree to make it votable so that we can get this bill passed with dispatch and give to Canadians the same rights that Americans enjoy under the Helms-Burton law passed in that country.

I am also aware that, on adoption of this bill, many of the difficulties of finance in the federal government will be satisfied because of the substantial awards of damages that will be available to Canadians.

I suspect that the Minister of Finance will be looking at those for taxation revenue and will be able to solve our deficit problems with the additional tax.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps you would like to seek unanimous consent of the House to refer the bill just proposed to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs before second reading under section 73(1) of the standing orders, recognizing the sincerity with which it has been proposed and, as the mover mentioned, proceeding with dispatch.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when you seek leave of the House to refer the bill immediately, I am going to say no and I will explain why.

Members of this House agreed that a committee of their peers, other members, would make the decision of whether a bill would be votable or not. It is unfair to the other members of the House who have accepted this procedure, as most have, if there is a short-circuiting of the procedure even though for the best of motives.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I am surprised you listened to that intervention. Normally when there is denying of unanimous consent is it not just a yea or a nay? Are there explanations offered?

[The Speaker]

The hon. House leader speaks so quickly that he got most of it in before I had a chance to intervene.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to make this into a debate but a point of clarification. The House leader for the government side said that it was necessary because it is not proper to refer this without a committee of peers. Is it not proper to refer it with unanimous consent of the House?

[The Speaker]

This is the situation, if I may. We had first reading of a bill. We had another member standing on a point of order. I heard the hon. member's point of order. We had someone from the government side wanting to intervene on the same point of order. I had to listen to what he had to say before making a decision.

Having heard all the members who want to intervene on this point of order, we will do what we usually do when unanimous consent is asked. Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent to present the motion?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker]

There is no unanimous consent.

Petitions

[Jack Frazer, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty and honour to rise in the House to present a petition duly certified by the clerk of petitions on behalf of 1,965 individuals residing across Canada.

The petitioners call on Parliament to honour and recognize their Canadian peacekeepers in the form of a Canadian peacekeeping medal.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present pursuant to Standing Order 36 a petition signed by people from all across Canada as they have travelled through our national parks.

The petitioners state that they believe our national parks belong to all Canadians and our first priority is to ensure the cost for Canadians and their families to use and enjoy the parks remain affordable. They are asking that there be a standard fee of $2 per passenger vehicle and that the current fee structure of Canada's national parks be overturned.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition presented to me from citizens in my own riding. This one is from Chilliwack, B.C.

The petitioners call attention to the fact that the new tax convention between Canada and the United States reduces the social security benefits received from the United States by Canadian residents and the implementation of this tax convention has had the effect of unduly penalizing those with low incomes. As it is

the responsibility of the Canadian government to ensure that Canadian citizens are treated fairly and equally, the petitioners call upon Parliament to take the necessary measures to ensure that Canadian citizens who are recipients of American pensions are not unfairly penalized.

Point Of Order

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding what I consider a violation of a standing order through activities that occurred yesterday. I am referring to Standing Order 114(2)(c) which states:

At any time when no list has been filed with the clerk of the committee pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section or when no notice has been received by the clerk of the committee pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, the Chief Whip of any recognized party may effect substitutions by filing notice thereof with the clerk of the committee, having selected the substitutes from among the Members of his or her party and/or the independent members listed as associate members of the committee pursuant to Standing Order 104(4); and such substitutions shall be effective immediately they are received by the clerk of the committee.

Yesterday as an associate member of the committee, I was asked to attend the justice committee, at which time I filed the proper forms, the paper that said I would be substituting for the rest of that day which would entitle me to present a motion at the committee.

The motion I had intended to give was with regard to asking the justice minister to immediately bring forth legislation that would toughen penalties against convicted pedophiles, therefore protecting young Canadians from this most heinous crime. It was based on the movement in Belgium and the actions that are being taken by some people in Canada in that regard.

When the meeting had come to an end of the regular business and when it was my turn to present this motion, the chairman of the committee said that she could not receive the motion from me because I was out of order, I was not a regular member of the committee.

I would like to lay that protest at this time.

[The Speaker]

My colleague, as a general rule when these points of orders deal with the committees, I much prefer to have them settled in the committee.

I would take it that the hon. member has raised this complaint with the chairman of the committee himself or herself, depending who the chairman is. If that has not been done, I would encourage the hon. member to do so.

Has this been done? Could the hon. member answer that question? Has the hon. member raised his complaint with the chairman of the committee?

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Yes, Mr. Speaker. Prior to the vote last night I had a word with the chairman of the committee, who stated to me that she was following the direction from the clerk of the standing committee at the time. If that is the case, it makes it very difficult to function in the manner I had intended. Knowing that the clerk obviously was not familiar with the standing order, I do not know what-

[The Speaker]

I thank the hon. member for that information. Of course, the chairmen of our committees as well as myself very often refer to the advice of our clerks here in the House of Commons. It is a practice which has stood us in good stead.

Having said that, I will look into the matter for the member and if it is necessary, I will come back to the House with information.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have some additional information for you to consider when considering the point of order raised by my colleague from Wild Rose. The member for Yukon was illegally sworn in to the committee. I raise that for you to consider when making your ruling.

[The Speaker]

Of course, we would hope that this information would always be dealt with in committee.

Just in passing, I would note that all hon. members should be in their proper seats when they rise to be recognized in the House. I am sure that is followed for the most part.

If it is necessary on the point of order, I will return to the House.

Question Passed As Order For Return

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

Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 6 could be made an Order for Return, this return would be tabled immediately.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 6-

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

What was the total number of full time employees at each job classification in the respective federal departments for fiscal year 1995?

(Return tabled.)