Debates of June 3rd, 1996

Canada Pension Plan

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government and the provinces are in the process of reviewing the Canada pension plan. Surely this process must recognize that in the matter of pensions women have very different needs from men.

Can the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women please inform the House how this government will ensure that the special needs of women are accounted for in the process of CPP consultations?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women)]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that question.

In fact 60 per cent of seniors are women and this number is going to increase as the years go by. This issue is very important to their economic independence. The Status of Women Canada, with the Caledon Institute, has looked at the data analysis of the impact of CPP on women. This process is supported by my colleague, the Minister of Finance.

We found that pay and work issues are very different for women and men. Survivor, child bearing and certain benefits impact more specifically on women. Since CPP is a joint federal-provincial-territorial issue, at the federal-provincial-territorial ministers meeting last week, the ministers all agreed that they would go to their ministers of finance and ask them to consider the impact of CPP on women.

International Development

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of International Co-operation.

In March, Markham Electric of Markham, Ontario was informed by CIDA that it was not one of the firms on a short list selected by the minister to submit a proposal to expand a high voltage electrical substation in Mali.

CIDA bureaucrats have determined that Markham and six other firms have the financial and technical capability to complete the project, but the minister in the privacy of his office picked three companies, all from Quebec, for the short list.

Can the minister explain why he denied Markham Electric the opportunity to compete in this bid?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie]

Mr. Speaker, I have taken note of the question put by the hon. member and I will investigate. I will ask my colleagues at CIDA what exactly took place and I will get back to the member.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Mr. Speaker, under Treasury Board rules this was the minister's personal responsibility.

Markham Electric has won over 50 per cent of the international projects which it has bid on. It has completed $100 million worth of worldwide projects for major international funding agencies and foreign governments.

Why does the minister exclude an internationally successful company with an impressive track record from merely bidding on the project in Mali? Was he afraid of getting an offer he could not refuse?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie]

Mr. Speaker, certainly not. On the contrary, CIDA has made the point and I have made the same point since I became the minister responsible for CIDA, that we always take the very best bids. We want to make sure that both the developing country and Canadians receive the best for their money. We will continue to do that.

As far as this case is concerned, I have already told the member that I will take note of it. I have no recollection of only three Quebec firms having been kept on the short list. The member is very lucky to have access to that kind of information because I have not seen it. I have never seen three Quebec firms on a single short list since I have been minister. We will look into it and report back to the member.

CIDA will continue to work hard on every contract making sure that both the developing country and the Government of Canada makes the best use of taxpayers' money.

Banks

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.

The Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions admitted last week that intense manoeuvering by private interests is delaying the release of the white book on the Bank Act.

Are we to understand that the government is negotiating behind closed doors a reform that will meet only the wishes of lobbyists and will present the public with a fait accompli when it is released?

[Doug Peters, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is making wild accusations. That is not correct. The white paper will be out sometime this month. I am sure when it comes out he will see the results are not the results of the things he suggested.

Employment

[Herb Grubel, Reform, Capilano—Howe Sound, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Human Resources Development claimed puzzlement about Canada's high unemployment rates. He does know that they cannot be lowered by more spending and deficits. He should know that we need to lower payroll taxes and government barriers to employment like Germany did recently and like they exist in the United States where the unemployment rate is only 5.5 per cent compared to Canada's 9.5 per cent.

Will the minister use this information for better Canadian policies, or will he continue to stand by in puzzlement while over one and one-half million Canadians look for work and become increasingly cynical about yet another Liberal broken promise?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you how disappointed I am that the usually clear thinking and very careful member would raise a question in the context in which he did. As usual, Canada finds itself reasonably well positioned in a very difficult matter.

The member referred to two countries: Germany and the United States. He is quite right. In the United States the unemployment rate is below that of Canada and in Germany the unemployment rate is considerably higher. The unemployment rate is significantly higher in Germany.

We try to balance between systems we see in operation in other parts of the world. The puzzlement the hon. member refers to was the puzzlement that faced all of the ministers who were present and who are grappling with the unemployment problem that ranges from 3 per cent, which is considered to be a problem in Japan, to the 5 or 6 per cent in the United States, to 9.6 per cent in Canada and to well into double digit unemployment in the nation the hon. member just referred to, Germany.

The Environment

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment has said he believes in a strong federal role for the environment and he is to be congratulated on that. Yet late last week he agreed to a proposal of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment which will see the eventual devolution of responsibilities for environmental matters to the provinces.

Can the minister explain what he will do to ensure that the necessary fisheries trigger remains in the environmental assessment act and that the federal government can indeed administer yet to be tabled legislation affording endangered species and habitat protection?

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure to which meeting the member was referring.

In terms of his allegation of the devolution of more powers on the environment to the provinces, certainly that was not the characterization of the annual meeting of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. A lot of sceptics would have suggested that the meeting would have been another failure. In fact, it was not only a success because Quebec was represented at the

table for the first time in two years, but rather than squabbling about the environment, we put the environment first.

Environment protection should be the raison d'être for all ministers and all governments. Also, the ministers agreed that any harmonization, any initiatives should speak to the highest standards of environmental quality across Canada. The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment has rarely ever said that.

[Translation]

Burundi

[Jesse Flis, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister for International Cooperation.

The political situation in Burundi has been steadily deteriorating these last few months and anarchy is slowly taking over. This is having a destabilizing effect on the whole region of the African great lakes.

What does the minister intend to do to contribute to a peace process for Burundi?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

Canada is deeply concerned with the situation in Burundi and it is in that context that the Government of Canada has put forward and initiated the meeting of the nine major development agencies to consider specifically the situation in the great lake region.

I will chair this meeting to be held in Geneva on June 17 and 18. I will be pleased to report to the House on that most important initiative taken by Canada. On a bilateral level, Canada will keep on providing humanitarian help, which is extremely important for Burundi.

Presence In Gallery

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of a delegation of members of the National Assembly of the Kingdom of Cambodia.

Before we recognize them, I want the House to know there are seven women members of Parliament in the Government of Cambodia. It is they who are with us today. Welcome to Canada.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

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 five petitions.

Occupational Health And Safety

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, today is the first day of a special week for all Canadians. This is a time when we are asked to reflect upon and take action to prevent the accidents in the workplace which are still claiming too many victims.

For the tenth consecutive year, we are celebrating Canadian Occupational Health and Safety Week, the theme for which this year is "Training-Target Zero Accidents".

The issue of safety and health of millions of workers in our country is of primary importance. Is it acceptable that each year some 700 people lose their lives at work? Should we accept that nearly 800,000 persons are injured or mutilated as a result of accidents that occur in their workplace?

Should we not be shocked to learn that 15 million working days are lost as a result of accidents? Should we accept that the Canadian economy supports as much as $10 billion compensation for such accidents?

These figures trouble me deeply. Beyond those cold statistics, there is much suffering, the suffering of persons who are sick or injured, the suffering of their families, the terrible grief of the families that have lost a loved one in tragic circumstances.

This concerns me very directly. My responsibilities include the safety and health of nearly one million Canadian workers, one

million Canadian men and women. It is my responsibility to ensure acts and regulations governing employees under federal jurisdiction are respected. I intend to do everything in my power to make sure they are.

However, these rules alone cannot guarantee workplace safety. At most, they provide a framework. The solution can be found in two words: training and information. The situation will improve only if each worker, each employer assumes his or her own responsibilities in this regard.

In addition, I know that my officials put time and energy into providing assistance and information to people in their workplaces. They also provide a great deal of training aimed at eliminating the causes of accidents. Moreover, I know that their provincial colleagues do the same.

This is not enough. It will never be enough. I repeat, occupational health and safety are ultimately the responsibility of each person who has a role to play in the workplace. That includes all members of Parliament.

It is impossible to ensure constantly that a worker wears his hard hat or protective eye wear if he is not aware of the importance of doing so. It is impossible to force employers to personally and constantly oversee the safety of their employees. Employers and employees must accomplish this task together. They can be given information, trained and brought back into line, but it will never be possible for any government organization to do everything in this regard.

The jobs of many employees are threatened and they sometimes take unnecessary risks for fear of losing their job. What a paradox.

Employers, for their part, are facing increasingly fierce competition. They fall prey to the temptation to Ignore safety rules, in order to speed up the work and save money. This is human, but still unacceptable regardless of the economic environment.

I know that, like me, the hon. members of this House cannot help but be moved by the scope of this drama that is being played out in our workplaces. One in fifteen workers is injured each year. On average, there are two occupational accidents every minute. We must do all we can to improve this sad record.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank you, as well as my colleagues, for the role they will be playing this week and all year round in saving lives and preventing accidents so that our workers can be safe in their workplaces.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I also invite my colleagues to reflect on the tragic situation of so many workers whose life totally changed one day, when they had an accident in the workplace or they learned they were permanently and irrevocably affected by a work-related illness.

How many people have experienced real dramas, not only in personal physical and moral suffering, but also in suffering because of the divisions this may have caused afterwards in their family, over and above the impoverishment and the battles fought, often with the system? Yes, we must state firmly that accidents in the workplace and industrial illnesses must be vigorously fought.

History has shown us that only legislation could effectively give the basic framework, but this legislation does not reach all workers.

There are not enough inspectors and businesses may not know how very quickly an accident can happen or how much a gas, heat and stress can cause irreversible damage to many people.

Experience has shown the only effective way to fight the effects of laxness is to give the workers themselves, in co-operation with businesses, the instruments needed to control their own workplace. This then implies they have the means to know if their workplace is bad for their health, something we do not talk about enough, and also the means to change what is dangerous in the workplace.

Having long worked in this area, I have trouble accepting that responsibility is being put on the workers. I think that, over the years, tribunals and courts have been clear about businesses' responsibility. When a business hires someone to ask him to do a job it benefits from, its responsibility is involved. It seems to me the duty of all members of the House is to ensure the responsibility applies not only after an accident or an illness, but it must be understood prevention is an obligation.

This year's motto is training. I hope training will promote prevention among workers as well as within the work organization.

I take this opportunity to invite the government, which has the necessary means, to use its political leadership to remind businesses of their responsibilities.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, of all the weeks recognized for specific causes and issues, this is one of the more important ones. It is a privilege to respond to the minister's statement.

Occupational health and safety is an issue in which we are all involved. Every year, as the minister has clearly identified, about 800,000 Canadians are involved in job related accidents which result in many work days lost, money not earned, families in trouble and personal trauma experienced by the individual.

The Minister of Labour asks is it reasonable the Canadian economy support as much as $10 billion in compensation for these accidents. The simple answer is it is not reasonable.

In these post-recession days business cannot afford to replace or do without experienced employees who are sidelined because of accidents. The effect on families, the effect on friends and the effect on relationships has already been indicated. It is very significant.

Parliament and provincial legislatures can pass all the laws they want on occupational health and safety, but employers and employees must ensure they are followed, like every other law. With increasing competitiveness and technological advances in the knowledge based society we are faced with new and ever changing conditions and previously unheard of hazards. Every industry and every workplace has its own seen and unseen obstacles as a consequences. The onus has to be on each one of us, owners, managers, supervisors and workers, to look out for ourselves and also for our colleagues.

The theme of the 1996 Occupational Health and Safety Week is "Training-Target Zero Accidents". That is a great target and it is one we should strive for. To achieve this, labour and management have to work together to educate employees on the safe use of equipment and the potential risks and dangers of misuse or neglect of safety precautions.

I must draw to the attention of the House that it is not simply a matter of training, it is not simply a matter of education, it is not simply a matter of information. Three things need to happen to help change people's behaviour. First, they need to know what the issue is. Second, they need to understand the issue. And third, they must accept it. That acceptance often requires a change in attitude.

When the attitude is "I am responsible for my own safety", and the manager takes the responsibility for his or her safety and that of fellow workers, only then will behaviour actually change.

I would like to put this adage to the House: Let us have the attitude of "I am responsible" and recognize that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Interparliamentary Delegations

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian section of the International Association of French-Speaking Parliamentarians and the financial report of the meeting of the political and general administration committee of the IAFSP and its Paris bureau, held March 18 and 19, 1996.

Committees Of The House

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lachine—Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage regarding the review of Bill C-216, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act (broadcasting policy).

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food which deals with the certification of organic agriculture issues and options.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The member for Frontenac is seeking the floor, possibly to express a dissenting opinion.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois insists on dissociating itself from the views of the government regarding the new regulations for biological food production. You will find therefore, appended to this report, part of the dissenting report of the Bloc Quebecois.