House of Commons Hansard #23 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was labour.

Topics

Canada Health ActRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

Reform

Jim Gouk Reform Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-251, an act to amend the Canada Health Act (conditions for contributions).

Mr. Speaker, the need for this bill arises out of the lack of a nationally organized and managed protocol for notification of infectious diseases. Although Health Canada did issue a protocol for notification recently, it is purely voluntary in nature and therefore inadequate.

I am extremely concerned about the federal government's lack of action on this important issue. With each passing year the federal politicians fail to move on this vitally needed plan and more and more lives are being put in unnecessary danger.

Canada's emergency response personnel such as firefighters routinely risk their lives to keep our communities safe, and yet government has not yet extended the courtesy of providing further protection for these workers in the course of carrying out their duties.

Emergency response personnel may come into contact with a variety of contagious diseases in the course of carrying out their duties.

As a result, a procedure is needed that allows hospitals to quickly inform these personnel when patients they have handled in a vehicle rescue or any other type of situation carry a communicable disease such as hepatitis or AIDS.

Knowing essential facts like this quickly and efficiently is the first step in preventing contact with a communicable disease from turning into something worse. Notification procedure allows for testing and early treatment of communicable diseases.

My bill advocates a notification system that is similar to corresponding American legislation recently passed in Washington which addresses concerns about formalized disease notification procedures for emergency personnel.

To ease concern about patients' invasion of privacy, my bill incorporates confidentiality safeguards.

Canada Health ActRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

We are not about to enter into a debate on this bill. The practice is to give a brief explanation of the bill. I wonder if the member could bring his intervention to a conclusion.

Canada Health ActRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

Reform

Jim Gouk Reform Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC

Mr. Speaker, I will. The last Conservative government was opposed to the passage of this bill for a variety of reasons but the Liberal opposition was staunchly in support at least in principle. I am hopeful that I can secure-

Canada Health ActRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Clearly we are engaging into debate here and not an explanation of the bill. I will continue.

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

Criminal CodeRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

Reform

Keith Martin Reform Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-252, an act to amend the Criminal Code (mines).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to reintroduce my private member's bill calling for a ban of the import, export and use of land mines and anti-personnel devices. These devices kill and maim over 25,000 people around the world every year. They are primarily designed to kill civilians.

The primary argument against this has been the military argument. That is being shattered today by the International Committee for the Red Cross which is releasing a document dispelling those military myths.

I hope we can work across party lines to support this important humanitarian bill and save thousands of lives every year.

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

Access To Information ActRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

Reform

Bill Gilmour Reform Comox—Alberni, BC

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-253, an act to amend the Access to Information Act (crown corporations).

Mr. Speaker, this bill would make all crown corporations subject to the Access to Information Act. At present, crown corporations such as Canada Post are exempt from the Access to Information Act even though they are subsidized through Canadian tax dollars.

Canadians are paying for these services and have a right to know that they are getting good value for their money. Last October the auditor general published a scathing report on the operation of crown corporations.

This bill will open corporations to the public and make them more accountable to taxpayers. Many Canadians are demanding these changes and I am hopeful the House will recognize the will of the people and support this bill.

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

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present two petitions to the House today. The first is on taxation of the family.

This petition comes from Penticton, B.C. The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to our society.

They also state the Income Tax Act discriminates against families that make the choice to provide care in the home to preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill and the aged.

The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that decide to provide care in the home to preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill and the aged.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, the second petition comes from Edmonton, Alberta.

The petitioners bring to the attention of the House that consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health problems or impair one's ability; specifically, that foetal alcohol syndrome and other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.

The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to enact legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Reform

Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley East, BC

Mr. Speaker, I continue to receive petitions from time to time from the people of British Columbia who are still very upset about what is happening to CFB Chilliwack. Because new buildings are still opening and infrastructure is continuing there, they feel it is very much a waste of money for the government to close that facility completely. This petition addresses that concern.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Reform

Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley East, BC

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is one for our new Constitutional minister to take note of. The petitioners call on Parliament to ensure the equality of all provinces by refusing to designate one province a distinct society because such a designation confers special status or powers not enjoyed by all provinces. I hope the government and the minister are listening.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Reform

Randy White Reform Fraser Valley West, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition from my constituents in Abbotsford, Aldergrove and Langley, British Columbia, which calls on Parliament to refrain from implementing a tax on health and dental benefits and to put on hold any future consideration of such a tax until a complete review of the tax system and how it impacts on the health of Canadians has been undertaken.

I table this with my full concurrence.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Liberal

Roger Gallaway Liberal Sarnia—Lambton, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions, duly certified, dealing with gasoline prices.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Shall all remaining questions stand?

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed from March 27, 1996, consideration of Bill C-19, an act to implement the agreement on internal trade, as reported from a legislative committee, and of Motion No. 3.

Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation ActGovernment Orders

10:10 a.m.

Bloc

Nic Leblanc Bloc Longueuil, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is again my pleasure this morning to talk to Bill C-19, an act to implement the agreement on internal trade, and especially to Motion No. 3 that I moved to the House.

During the referendum in Quebec, we talked a lot about economic partnership with the rest of Canada, which was part of our main project. We think this agreement on internal trade is a step in the right direction that will allow to speed up somewhat the concluding of this partnership agreement between Quebec and the rest of Canada.

I will deal with the role of the minister of industry. He plays a very important role with regard to economic growth, productivity, competitiveness and employment. There are regulations, and this bill on the agreement on internal trade seems very positive to us as far as productivity, competitiveness and employment in Quebec and in Canada are concerned.

A lot of regulations these days seem to make trade between the provinces sometimes more difficult than trade with the United States, which is totally unacceptable. That is why we find this bill interesting.

Deregulation sometimes causes adjustment problems, and that it why, in our Motion No. 3, we are asking the government not to go too fast in deregulating in certain cases.

It could have a destabilizing effect on some very specific internal trade areas. Bankruptcies and job losses could result. Long term planning and a slightly longer time frame might help prevent this kind of problem, all these bankruptcies, job losses and so on.

Motion No. 3 deals specifically with transportation. The transportation industry is very important in Canada. Various goods are shipped. There is a high volume of activity and the level of business is very important. The industry ensures that our interrelated industries receive their supplies on time. It plays a major role in our economic development and in fostering enhanced productivity in our small and medium size businesses.

Motion No. 3 relates more specifically to bulk shipping by Quebec small businesses. I explained earlier to a government member how important this part of the regulations was. I met with officials of the bulk hauling association, which represents small family companies. By family company, I mean that the father owns a truck, which is used for very local transportation purposes within the rural community, to haul gravel, grain or what not, but only in Quebec and within a very short radius.

In Quebec, we already have regulations governing this kind of transportation. We are of course in favour of liberalizing the transportation industry in general, but this is a very specific activity, in Quebec in particular. In many cases, this activity supports an entire family and these people contracted loans of up to $100,000 or $125,000 to buy a truck. Those who just bought a truck are really worried at the thought that, in the future, a carrier could obtain a federal permit but not have to comply with Quebec's bulk transportation regulations.

This would mean that transport tariffs would not apply to them. There are several regulations, which I shall not list here, governing this sector of activity. And there are four main principles. As far as this very particular mode of transportation is concerned, Quebec does not issue a permit for the company, but for the truck. There is one permit per truck. This means that we are really talking about a one person one truck business. And the trucking activities must be carried out whithin a very short radius.

In bidding for contracts with municipalities or to build roads in the region, there is a floor price set for hauling this kind of stuff, but under the new arrangements, someone could hold a federal permit and not have to play by the same rules.

Essentially, what we are asking for is an exemption period. We are asking the minister to extend the time frame to two, three or even four years. Perhaps then more precise calculations could be made to help these very local small businesses adjust, so that they are at least not confronted with unfair competition because of other types permits being issued locally.

This, we think, is very important because these small family businesses run the risk of going bankrupt. This would cause some major economic disruptions in remote regions, villages and small towns. This plays a rather significant role with regard, for example, to the maintenance of these trucks, and people living off this small business are very concerned. The economic consequences could be disastrous.

All we are asking the minister through Motion No. 3 is basically this:

-to eliminate inconsistencies between the provisions of the Internal Trade Agreement and Quebec's laws and regulations respecting bulk trucking.

We want the law to recognize this type of business, which is very specific to Quebec. I think this would not hurt the liberalization of interprovincial transport in any way. This is directly linked to those

people who provide transport services on a very local basis. We feel that, in this respect, the motion is very important for this kind of business.

If the government does not understand how important it is, we are asking the minister to at least consider allowing for a transition period of two, three or four years before really enforcing the act, so that these small businesses can survive for a while.

Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation ActGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

Reform

Leon Benoit Reform Vegreville, AB

Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words today on the proposed amendment by the Bloc to Bill C-19, the bill which implements the agreement on internal trade.

The motion the Bloc has put forth really is not unlike the amendment put forth by the Liberals on the Reform Party's motion which said that a parliamentary committee should study the allegations of sedition against the Bloc. The amendment the Liberals brought forth on that motion struck all the words before "that" and all the words after "that" and really left nothing of the original motion.

The Bloc by putting this amendment forward is saying: "We do not really want to pay any attention to this agreement for internal trade which we have signed" or: "We do not trust the dispute settlement mechanism". It is one or the other. Either way it is saying that it wants to ignore the agreement or bypass the dispute settlement mechanism and have new negotiations with the federal government in the area of bulk trucking.

This indicates to me that the Bloc has absolutely no faith in the original agreement or it does not trust the dispute settlement mechanism. I can understand some of the Bloc members' concerns with that. The dispute settlement mechanism has no teeth and it could be a very long procedure. However, it is the mechanism that was agreed to when they signed the agreement and I think it is worth giving it a try. This mechanism has not been tried yet. It really cannot be fully tried until the legislation that this motion amends is passed. Bill C-19 will implement the agreement on internal trade. There is so much leeway given in the dispute settlement mechanism that it should be more than enough to protect the trucking industry which this motion deals with.

In the agreement there is a list of legitimate objectives that a province can have which will allow the province to really get around honouring the intent of the agreement. These legitimate objectives are based on public security and safety; public order; the protection of human, animal or plant life and health; the protection of the environment; consumer protection; protection of the health, safety and well-being of workers; and the affirmative action program for disadvantaged groups.

Any of those so-called legitimate objectives could be presented, in this case by the province of Quebec in regard to its bulk trucking industry, and examined by a panel. Surely the Bloc should trust that the panel would examine the legitimate objectives and determine that one or more of the legitimate objectives would allow the panel to tell the industry that it can continue to operate in a way which is different from the rest of the country, or to tell it that there is no reason for it to be given special treatment in this area.

The Bloc motion is really an attempt to disregard the agreement and to get around the dispute settlement mechanism. The dispute settlement mechanism, after this legislation is passed and implemented, will allow five panellists chosen from a pool of 65 panellists to decide in this case whether the trucking industry in Quebec should honour the intent of the agreement or whether it should have special protection.

Two of the panellists will come from the federal pool, two will come from the provincial pool, from a province other than Quebec, and those four panellists will choose a chair. There will be five panellists from the federal and provincial governments and a chair who will determine the issues.

I challenge Bloc members to demonstrate why they do not have any faith that this process would deal with the problem which their amendment is trying to deal with today.

We have to give the process which has been put forth a chance to see if it will work. Granted, a lot of parties, think tanks and people who have examined the agreement do not have a lot of faith in the dispute settlement mechanism as presented. I have grave doubts that it will work, but let us give it a chance. If we find that it does not work, then we should tighten it up very quickly and give it some teeth.

If the Government of Quebec is concerned about the way this agreement will deal with its trucking industry, then it should take it to a panel. When the legislation is passed it could put it through the dispute settlement mechanism. It could put it through the negotiation process first. If that did not solve the problem, it could submit it to a panel and have the issue decided in that manner.

The Reform Party will not support this motion. It really is a motion which disregards the agreement and the dispute settlement mechanism. I do not think it is worthy of being supported by the House.

Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation ActGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

Saskatoon—Dundurn Saskatchewan

Liberal

Morris Bodnar LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, having listened to the proposed amendment of the hon. member from the Bloc, I can indicate that this amendment

would have one effect. That effect would be to tie the government's hands in fulfilling its commitments under the agreement on internal trade. The amendment would in effect unilaterally change the provisions which were agreed upon by all provinces and the federal government.

This is but an implementation bill. The proposed amendment would prevent the federal government from honouring the obligations that were agreed to by all parties. In fact the proposed amendment is intended to respond, I would suggest, to pressure from those within Quebec who have indicated that they wish to keep certain barriers in place.

In presentations to the industry committee, the Association des cammionneurs artisans du Québec made it clear that it wished to retain current measures that restrict trucking of bulk commodities in the province. Those measures are based on Quebec legislation which depends on part III of the Motor Vehicle Transportation Act for its effectiveness. The federal government in the internal trade agreement has agreed to repeal this provision. It is interesting to note that the Quebec government agreed to this provision being repealed in the Motor Vehicle Transport Act when the agreement was signed.

The Bloc is trying to have it both ways. It cannot agree to remove barriers on one hand and insist on keeping them on the other hand. That is the effect of the BQ amendment.

Further, the amendment would, for practical purposes, require that the federal government not fully comply with the agreement on internal trade. It would not be acceptable for the government to go back on its agreed obligations to suit the convenience of a single interest group that wants to maintain internal barriers.

If it was the desire of the Quebec government to change the agreement on internal trade, which it has already agreed to, then it would have to take that matter up with the 12 other parties to the agreement, not just with the federal government.

Trying to amend this bill to avoid meeting the obligations of the agreement is, simply put, not an acceptable way to proceed. For that reason, the government is not in favour of the proposed amendment.

Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation ActGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Is the House ready for the question?

Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation ActGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation ActGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

The question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House of adopt the motion?

Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation ActGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation ActGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation ActGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation ActGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.