Debates of Oct. 28th, 1997

Division No. 19

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.

[The Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will vote no, unless instructed otherwise by their constituents.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois will vote in favour of the motion.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, members of the New Democratic Party vote in favour of this motion.

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we will be voting in favour of the motion.

[John Nunziata, Independent, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the residents of York South—Weston I will be voting in favour of the motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 20

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of Esquimalt—Juan du Fuca, I am voting in favour of the motion.

[The Speaker]

Hansard

will show the way the member voted.

It being 6.25 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Fair Wages And Hours Of Labour Act

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should not reinstate the wage schedules under the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, but allow the provincial wages and hours to prevail.

Madam Speaker, in 1935 the Parliament of Canada passed the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. It applied only to private sector contractors working for the federal government on construction projects. An example would be a new post office or some federal government public works project.

In those depression era days, when jobs were scarce and the labour market was plentiful, such legislation may have been justified to some extent to ensure that labourers were not exploited and underpaid for the work performed.

In 1983 Canada was in the midst of another depression, probably the worst one since the dirty thirties. Since the legislation did not stipulate that wages and hours of work schedules were mandatory, the Liberal government of the day suspended all activity relating to schedules for construction projects on federal sites. Those we will remember as the days of six and five, the wage and price control program the Liberals told Canadians they would never implement but did.

It seems the Liberal government has a long history of broken promises.

Schedules were frozen at 1982 levels so contracts would remain within this six and five range. When the Liberals were defeated in 1984 the new government re-evaluated the need for these schedules.

This evaluation revealed that the legislation was largely irrelevant and affected only a small segment of the construction sector, approximately 3%, and that the wages, hours of work and overtime problems it was designed to address in 1935 were being dealt with quite adequately under provincial legislation through collective agreements and by the marketplace.

Wage schedules and the survey on which they were based were found to be expensive to administer and statistically unsound. In 1987 the government officially suspended the issuing of schedules for a three year trial period. That trial period found that the introduction of wage schedules would likely increase so-called fair wage compliant levels only marginally. However, the cost to the department of those schedules was estimated to be approximately $270,000.

We know these approximations are just that and generally they tend to run a lot higher than originally set out. It was felt this high administration cost did not warrant a continuation of the practice of maintaining wage schedules.

Fast forward the VCR to April 24, 1997. The prime minister was just a few days from calling a federal election, and the government's olive branch, Bill C-66, otherwise known as amendments to the Canada Labour Code, was in the process of going down in flames in the other place.

The Liberals, it seems, were in a bit of a panic mode. The Reform Party was gaining momentum. The Liberals feared that their reign was in danger of collapse and that one of the wise things to do was to dispatch the Minister of Labour to Hamilton, the centre of the universe, of course, and home of the former deputy prime minister.

In an attempt to curry favour with the left and secure the Hamilton area seats, the minister announced the reinstatement of those expensive, outdated, unneeded, unnecessary schedules. This was the same government that, only months before, announced with much fanfare that it would no longer set minimum wage rates.

Almost exactly a year ago, on October 30, 1996, the House passed Bill C-35, which aligned the federal minimum wage with the general minimum wage rates established by the provinces and territories.

The rate paid to an employee is based on the employee's province or territory of employment. That is a concept that the Reform Party agrees with, that the going rate in Alberta, British Columbia or even in areas of Alberta or British Columbia or Ontario should be the going minimum rate.

However, the portion of Bill C-35 that Reformers did not agree with was that, if the governor in council did not agree with the rate in the provinces, it could interfere. We say, hands off. If it is good enough for private enterprise and if it is good enough for the provincial governments, then it should be good enough for the federal government as well.

The government showed that it had at least a reasonable amount of faith in the ability of the provinces to set minimum wage, therefore we have to wonder why it would take the opposite approach on wage rates and hours of work in the construction industry.

If the provincial minimum wages are satisfactory, why are the provincial laws governing construction wages and hours not adequate? In other words, if someone is a contractor and had a job in Ontario working for the provincial government doing a public works project, then the federal government would not interfere. It would be a deal between the contractor and the wage earner, the trades people or the labourers.

If someone had a job in the private sector in Ontario—same contractor, now—then the marketplace would determine what those people were paid for their services. However, the minister is suggesting that if that same contractor had a job working for the federal government in the same province with the same crew, it would be subject to the fair wages and hours of work schedules.

I really cannot get a grip on this because what is the rationale? We have been led to believe that not only will the reinstatement of these schedules cost the government the bare minimum, $270,000, and very likely more dollars in administrative costs, estimates are that implementation of the wage schedules will add 2% to 5% to the tab for all construction projects.

That is at a time when the country can ill afford increased contract prices. Why are the contractors going to do this? They are simply going to hedge their contracts. They are going to build this in. They are going to say, it is possible that the federal government is going to impose something on us later so we are going to have to build in something to protect ourselves.

They simply cannot, as a contractor, as an employer, take on a contract for x dollars and then have the person who they are working for, in this case the federal government, come back and say that it has decided because of a complaint that as contractor you did not live up to the schedules and it will cost x dollars. The end result is that these contractors are going to build that extra price into the contract right up front.

If we are to believe the things that the finance minister says about not embarking on a spending spree, and we would like to give him the benefit of the doubt on that, higher costs brought on by the implementation of this outdated practice will mean fewer projects and fewer jobs everywhere but in the labour program of Human Resources Development Canada. We can expect to have more bureaucrats as a result of these schedules.

Let us look back into history a bit more. In 1996, the average hourly construction wage for union and non-union workers in Alberta was higher than what the government was paying its trades people. That hardly seems to be rationale for bringing in schedules called fair wages and hours of work, when the construction industry is already exceeding what the federal government is paying its trades people. There is no rationale there.

I believe this is a blatant attempt by the government to interfere in the marketplace. It will cost taxpayers millions of dollars in unnecessary costs and ultimately, lost wages and lost jobs.

Perhaps a lot of workers complained about unfair wages so let us take a look at that. In 1990 an evaluation revealed that during the three-year trial from 1987 to 1990, six complaints were registered involving fair wages. Two of these were in Newfoundland and Labrador where further investigation turned up that these people were in compliance. In other words, there was no basis for the complaint. Four were in Yukon where violations were found and arrears were collected. During this period, the Department of Public Works awarded 4,622 contracts with a greater value of $30,000 per contract for a total value of $1.428 billion. The fair wage arrears amounted to $31,401, an amount that is .00002% of the $1.428 billion total of other contracts.

I am told that over the last three and a half years in Alberta and the Northwest Territories there have been a total of 26 complaints involving this legislation, virtually all concerning overtime and a few concerning wages. Of these 26 complaints, six were said to involve so-called fair wages and two violations were found. One violation involved wages in the amount of 40¢ an hour and the second is said to involve wages of less than $2 an hour.

Are you confused yet, Madam Speaker? Because this is rather confusing to me. Here are examples of workers who say they are not being remunerated fairly. They make their complaints and in the last three and a half years, 26 of them were in Alberta and in two cases it was found that they were not coming up to the rates. These two cases are out of all the contracts that are awarded by the federal government.

If this process can be put in place, why is it that we need to implement these schedules? This is more than I can comprehend. This sort of rationale escapes me.

In a letter to the Minister of Labour, the president of Merit Contractors stated:

Two fair wage violations over a three and a half year period, involving millions of dollars of work, present a strong case for not using additional resources or mechanisms such as schedules to address the matter that is not problematic.

I would like to have seen this motion as a votable item. However, it is not. The only thing I have at my disposal now is to urge the Minister of Labour to reconsider this rather unnecessary, expensive consideration.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour]

Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to speak to Motion M-9, a motion put forward by the member for Wetaskiwin.

The member is urging the federal government not to reinstate wage schedules under the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. He also wants provincial wages and hours to prevail. My hon. friend is a keen and intelligent observer of matters related to the work force. Very often he has interesting things to say. I do not usually find myself agreeing with his point, however, I do respect his dedication, commitment and knowledge of workplace issues.

With respect to this motion, I understand the reasoning behind it, but I do not support it for a number of reasons.

Let me begin by describing for the members of the House what Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act is exactly. The Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act began as a policy resolution of Parliament many years ago. It was in 1900. The act first emerged in 1935. It was passed to provide that every contract with the Government of Canada for the building, remodelling, repair or demolition of any construction project must contain obligations covering the payment of fair wages, hours of labour and other working conditions.

The objective here, which I sure the member supports, is to ensure that the expenditure of public funds does not result in the exploitation of labour. Because there is a Fair Wage and Hours of Labour Act every construction contract made with the federal government includes provisions requiring the contractor to pay the employees fair wages and to observe specified labour standards.

One effect of the legislation is to remove wages as an element in the tendering process. In other words all contractors who wish to tender on a federal government construction project will know in advance what rates they will be expected to pay for the labour component of their costs. A very good thing for contractors to know.

In the past the wage component of the act was administered by attachments of schedules of wage rates to the construction contract signed with contractors on federal construction projects. These schedules contain details pertaining to the classification of workers who were involved in the project and the fair wage rate for each classification in a particular geographic area. The fair wage rates were determined by wage surveys prepared by the federal Department of Labour. Another very good fair transparent way.

The process was discontinued in 1982, at least in part, because the cost of conducting the surveys was very high. As a result the obligation to pay the fair wage remained. It was left to the contractor to determine what that fair wage was. There are some obvious problems with that approach.

During recent consultation, interested parties told officials of the department that the act could not accomplish its legislative purpose without the publication of fair wage schedules. Even those who advocate the repeal of the act expressed the opinion that, should the act remain, then fair wage schedules would have to be published in order for the legislation to be effective.

An example of the problem associated with maintaining the act but not publishing the schedule is this. A complaint could lead to a decision during or after the completion of the project that the contractor was not paying a fair wage and must pay more retroactive to the beginning of the work. That kind of liability could obviously be disastrous to a contractor and I do not think there is anybody in this Chamber who would want that to happen.

Last April, after almost a year of consultations with stakeholders in the construction industry it was announced that the wage schedules would be reinstated. However, the announcement included the fact that a new process would be put in place for determining the schedules.

It is very important that we understand this new process. The idea is that the construction and labour relations associations which are employer groups located in every province will meet with the building and construction unions and also with the non-union contractor associations in each province and try to find a consensus on a range of fair wages for every trade.

With the new mechanisms all the stakeholders will have the chance to take part directly in the decision making of fair wages. If the schedules worked out by the stakeholders are consistent with the intent of the legislation then they will be adopted by government, but only then.

We believe in consultation and we believe that is a very important part of this legislation.

This method would seem to be a reasonable compromise. However, any compromise, any agreement as to what is fair is not always easy to achieve. While we believe the reinstatement of wage schedules is in everybody's interest because of the certainty it would bring to employees and employers, we are not 100% certain the process will work.

That is why we have a pilot project in the member's home province of Alberta to find out. This debate is very important and I thank the hon. member for bringing the subject forward. We are all concerned that we do the right thing.

It is unfortunate that the decision in this discussion is a bit premature. The fact is we will have better information once we have the results of the pilot project in Alberta and we should enter into that really gladly, because to find information, to find consultation should really be a goal of all members of Parliament.

Finally, let me turn to the other part of the member's motion which contemplates replacing federal wage schedules with provincial schedules. That idea fails to take into account that only five provinces and one territory have legislation similar to the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. What would the member propose for the other jurisdictions?

The member has put a lot of thought into his motion. I congratulate him on beginning this important debate, but we are at the beginning. I believe we must wait for the results of the pilot project in Alberta before we debate the matter further.

The publishing of fair wage schedules after a transparent and open process leading to the establishment of those fair wages would allow workers and contractors to know what they will be receiving and what wages they will have to pay. There would be no surprises for anyone.

Certainly it would be premature at best to cancel a program which has every success, all partners, before this pilot project has even begun. I believe the member's motion must be defeated.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of my party, the Bloc Quebecois, and as its labour critic, to comment on the motion by my Reform Party colleague from Wetaskiwin, Motion M-9, which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should not reinstate the wage schedules under the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, but allow the provincial wages and hours to prevail.

The purpose of the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act is to set standards for salaries and hours of work for people employed in federal construction projects. More specifically, it provides that all construction contracts concluded by the Government of Canada must contain provisions requiring contractors to pay fair wages and to comply with the standards on hours of work and on overtime defined in the act.

It is a clear and noble purpose. It also aims at removing the wage element from the tender process so that public funds are not used to exploit workers. This Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, which came into effect in 1935, was vigorously enforced until 1982, with pay grids or wage schedules designed in co-operation with employer and employee associations across the country.

These grids were attached to contracts dealing with government works, and this was done by agreement between the parties. But in 1982, all this stopped because it was established that the federal government intended to stop conducting the investigations that served as a basis for establishing the grids used to set fair wages and hours of labour.

Starting in 1983, investigations were no longer conducted, which leaves us with a kind of vacuum that the Reform Party would fill by saying that such a grid should not be reinstated. Except that, as it happens, on April 24, just three days before the election was called, the then Minister of Labour announced in Hamilton that, if re-elected, the Liberal Party would reinstate the said grids.

After analyzing and holding consultations on the situation, we have come to the conclusion that it is in the public interest not to drop these grids, as suggested in the motion put forward by our colleague from the Reform Party, but to reinstate them at a future date, in the interest of the workers concerned.

Two points were of particular concern to us, the first one being that restoring these grids would work against the mechanisms that Quebec has set up in labour relations and on labour issues, namely Quebec's minimum wage act and everything to be found in collective agreements in Quebec in the area of construction.

We found the answer to our concerns in a 1979 court ruling in Quebec by Mr. Justice Beetz, in the case of Construction Montcalm Incorporé v la Commission du salaire minimum, where the judge comments on an argument put forward by the defendant to the effect that the area is regulated by the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act; the judge made a ruling, on which we base our position in relation to Quebec. The ruling states:

The purpose of these clauses is to ensure a minimum wage for all persons working for contractors who have been awarded a contract by the Government of Canada for the construction, restoration, repair or demolition of a structure. However, the act does not prevent the crown from signing a contract with a contractor who pays his employees an amount greater than the minimum wage. Furthermore, the act does not prevent enforcement of a provincial act providing for payment of a minimum wage or of an actual wage that is equal to or greater than the minimum wage provided under federal law.

You will understand that, consequently, the fears or concerns we might have had have been dispelled by this judgment, which clearly states that federal law does not contravene Quebec legislation or prerogatives.

Our second concern, and I will conclude with this, is to wonder what, in this situation, the fate of the workers concerned, the construction workers on federal projects, will be. Getting back to the bill, its intended purpose is to remove the wage aspect from the bidding process, so that cut-rate wages will not be paid in order to get a better chance at a federal contract. The intention in removing pay from the bidding process is to prevent public funds from being used to exploit workers.

Are we to understand that there is a sort of vacuum at this time, and that contractors can bid at cut rates for federal contracts? If so, we know that the government commitment dates back to April 24, and now it is October 28. The matter has dragged on for a good six months, with a federal commitment in place. There has been a loophole since 1984, a sort of laissez-faire approach, perhaps a dangerous laxity, bowing to the laws of the marketplace when the livelihoods of thousands upon thousands of workers in Canada are at stake.

I therefore consider that the government's commitment ought to be met, and met as soon as possible. I do not know if the foot dragging is at the Department of Labour or with the Department of Human Resources Development, but either the government was serious and must move on it, or the Minister of Labour of the time just said any old thing. That would perhaps not be surprising for this government, because it has changed its mind so often over the years.

Let us think back to Mr. Trudeau in 1978, with the 18 cents a gallon promise—back in the days when we had gallons. and Mr. Clark's promise at the time, probably responsibly made, for he was the Prime Minister. Mr. Trudeau made fun of him. I personally remember hearing the radio spots as they are called, telling farmers that they would have to stop ploughing halfway down the row because gas would cost too much under the Conservative government. Over the years, the Liberals perhaps increased the price from 18 cents to 35 cents a gallon, with never an apology, the same as with the promises about wage controls that the Liberals back then said they would never bring in. And the GST recently. Liberals would never bring in wage controls, Liberals would never change the GST. The Liberals would never renew the helicopter contract.

We know how these folks blow with the wind. We perhaps have a good example in Mr. Trudeau, who was the defender of social democracy, of the just society, who never kept a promise either. So I am worried.

I oppose the Reform Party motion, and I am in favour of the government's plans, but I am very worried about how serious and responsible they are, when they say things on April 24 and on October 28, there is still no news. Although I asked, I could find no up-to-date document regarding the restriction or the government's intentions. We received the press release on April 24. That shows how serious this government is.

We could wonder where it is headed, apart from operating on a day to day, ad hoc basis, without ever, it must be said, keeping its promises. We therefore oppose the motion by our Reform Party colleague and fervently hope that the government will assume its responsibilities and keep its promises.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on Motion No. 9 and in so doing I say shame on the member and shame on the Reform Party for introducing this motion.

The Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act was initially crafted in 1935 to protect employees from substandard wages and to create a level playing field for contractors bidding on federal contracts. The government then stopped posting fair wages in 1987. On April 24 of this year the concept of the fair wages schedule was restored.

Tomorrow in Edmonton all of the major players in the construction industry in that province will be sitting down to work out a fair wages schedule for federal construction work for that province. They will look at all of the classifications of the workers involved, the fair wage rates for those classifications and the geographic areas they apply to.

This Reform motion is an attack on the taxpayer. It is an attack on fairness and an attack on youth employment opportunities. I will tell the House why.

The underground construction economy costs taxpayers billions of dollars. This issue of fair wage schedules is an issue of quality, of ensuring that the taxpayer gets full value for the dollar. It is an issue of honesty, accountability and fair play. What does the hon. member fear about fairness and about ensuring quality control over the use of taxpayers' dollars?

This motion sets out to scuttle a process that is just gearing up, a process aimed at establishing a level playing field for all contractors. Without establishing these wages, there would not be a level playing field for contractors.

This motion supports the underground economy in the construction industry. This is where fair-minded contractors lose out. This is where Canadians simply wanting a fair and decent wage for their work lose out. This is where the taxpayer loses. With cash paid for the job at the bottom of the subcontracting ladder, tax revenues are lost, EI contributions are lost and CPP contributions go unpaid.

The timing of this motion seeks to subvert an important set of negotiations occurring this week. It seeks to subvert similar negotiations that will follow in months to come in other provinces.

Keeping federal construction contracts above aboard helps ensure taxpayers' dollars are not misused. It helps to get the best value out of every dollar spent. It helps to support fair-minded contractors. It works toward the health and safety of all Canadian construction workers.

I know that my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre wants it on record that the NDP will be watching these negotiations very closely, not only the ones in Alberta this week, but in other provinces over the months to come to ensure that fairness and just wages triumph.

This motion deserves to be soundly defeated. In fact the government should go one step further and ensure that in all federally tendered contract documents the following language is put in place: “Contractors must hire qualified journey persons and indentured apprentices only”. This language would go a long way to ensure that fair wages are paid, that improved health and safety is the practice and not the exception, and that youth are supported through apprenticeship programs.

If the Department of Public Works and Government Services were to ensure that all contracts had this language, it would go a long way to supporting good, solid apprenticeships for youth, job opportunities for young Canadians, support for those who support this invaluable education and skills training for young workers.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Resuming debate. Does the hon. member understand that if he chooses to exercise his right of five minutes it will close the debate?

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Yes, Madam Speaker.

There are so many places to start I hardly know where to begin. My colleague the parliamentary secretary implies that employees are now not being paid a fair wage. She says she would like to see that and so would I.

However I would put to my hon. colleague that people are being paid fair wages. Evidence of that is in my talk where I say that there have been very few complaints made. Of the complaints made, a lot of them have been found to have no basis. There is quite conclusive proof that people are being paid fair wages at the time.

The parliamentary secretary further says that there is no 100% guarantee that the system they are considering will work. I propose that the system now is working. Case in point, there are .00002% of the cases where it is not working. That is so close to 100% I do not see how the parliamentary secretary could possibly argue.

On the matter of overtime, these schedules we are talking about would restrict workers to work eight hours a day. Any time after that would have to be overtime. I realize that my friends in the more socialist parties would say that is great, that it is a good thing.

However a lot of contracts now are negotiated by the employer and the union to allow trades people and labourers to work four 10-hour days rather than five 8-hour days. The result of that is when they are working away from home, as in the construction business, most of the time they can work their 40 hours in four days rather than five days and have a long weekend every weekend. They would have actually more time to spend with their families.

If we come in with wage schedules that say that it cannot be done, then we will deny these people time spent with their families. I am positive my colleagues would not want to have these people spending more time on the job and less time with their families.

I thought I had done such a good job of delivering information, unbiased of course, to my colleague from the Bloc that he would certainly support this. I was very surprised to see that he would say “yes, yes, I think it is a good idea that the federal government would interfere with the wage schedules and hours of work in my province of Quebec”. I was amazed.

I thought all along that the Bloc among other things, stood for more autonomy of the provinces, more devolution of power to the provinces, more made in the province solutions rather than top down things from the federal government, a paternal type of government. I guess I was wrong.

My colleague from the Bloc talked about a vacuum. There is no vacuum. The area that he claims to be a vacuum is filled by people who are getting fair wages. The case for that again is 99.888% of the contracts now are being paid fair wages.

I want to close on this note. I think my time is pretty well up. I think that any time I am admonished by the NDP, my constituents leap up and say “yahoo, that guy is on the right track”.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

As no other member wishes to speak, and the motion has not been made a votable item, the time provided for consideration of Members' Business has now expired and the item is dropped from the Order Paper.

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

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, certainly the issue I am speaking to is something I am quite excited about.

All members had a life before they come to Parliament. The area I worked in was community justice and how a community deals with people who cause problems in the community.

There is no question that crime has been with us ever since civilization started and it will be with us for a long time to come. The fact of the matter is that we are taking steps to empower local communities to start dealing with some of the issues of crime at the local level.

Too often in the past we have passed laws in Ottawa and in provincial capitals and we have not paid enough attention to what the local community can do in the whole area of crime prevention.

In the 35th Parliament I had the pleasure of tabling the justice committee report on young offenders. It was on the final sitting day of the last Parliament.

One recommendation that came out in the report related to the whole issue of crime prevention. Strongly underlying crime prevention, we in the justice committee recognized that it was imperative to allow local communities to take ownership in trying to deal with some of the difficult problems. How can we prevent crime from occurring? How can we make a safer and more secure community?

Clearly justice at the community level belongs to the whole community. It belongs to the schools, the churches, the families, the service clubs, the organizations, the police and the courts. However it has to be done in partnership. For far too long we have not supported efforts at the community level to combat crime and to build safer communities.

I am very pleased to tell the House that on April 16 the 20th justice dinner is going to be hosted in the Waterloo region. That is where members of the community come together, the police, the crown, the judiciary, victims groups and service clubs. They come together to try to see how they can better play a role in building a safer community. There is no question that the whole issue of diversion and prevention is much better than the one of apprehension and spending more and more money on reacting to crime.

I am very pleased that we have a program of crime prevention which will be directed at the local communities where they can take ownership.

I was very heartened when I put that question to the Minister of Justice because it is of critical importance. The program will succeed if the local communities take leadership and the federal and provincial governments provide back-up assistance.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, first I would like to commend the hon. member for raising the question and most important for the leadership role he has played in his own riding to establish a comprehensive and collaborative crime prevention approach through partnership in his community.

The best way to reduce crime in Canada is to prevent it. Crime prevention is a priority for this government, for the minister and indeed for all Canadians. A recent poll stated that over 80% of Canadians consider that the government has an important role to play in crime prevention.

We believe that crime prevention starts with understanding the various problems faced by the different communities, helping them identify their needs and involving them in finding solutions.

Unlike our friends on the right and some of the opposition members I might point out we believe that to reduce crime we must support measures that alleviate the underlying risk factors that contribute to criminal behaviour, factors such as poverty and unemployment.

As promised in the Speech from the Throne, the government is developing a new initiative that builds on the work of the National Crime Prevention Council which this government established. This initiative will target community level prevention projects, as the hon. member stated, getting money into the hands of those who know what the problems are and how to best deal with them.

The program will obtain resources for activities based in the communities or initiated by them. To help communities develop programs, we will provide them with material resources and promote crime prevention measures. We will also ensure they get the training they need and we will support innovative projects.

Effective crime prevention operates at the local level but requires partnership at all levels. The government and the minister intend to pursue this initiative in co-operation with other orders of government, the private sector and other partners in social development and a justice system. I thank the member for his question.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the health crisis in the downtown east side community of Vancouver continues. This community is facing an epidemic characterized by the highest incidence of HIV infection of intravenous drug users in the western world. It is reported that there is a 50% infection rate of an estimated 6,000-plus intravenous drug users who frequent the area and now this crisis is spreading to other areas as well.

As reported today, HIV infected drug users are showing up in larger numbers in the Kamloops and Kootenay regions. On September 25 the Vancouver and Richmond regional health board declared a public health emergency because of this issue. On October 23 the board brought forward an action plan to respond to this crisis.

There is a desperate need for leadership from all levels of government to combat this health crisis, to save lives, to protect the community and to reduce harm associated with obtaining drugs on the street. So far the province of British Columbia, the regional health board and even the municipal government have responded, but not the federal government.

The question being increasingly asked is where is the Minister of Health.

Since this summer I have raised this issue many times. I wrote to the minister in July, in September and in October not only to make the minister aware of the extent of this health emergency and its devastating impact on people and the community of Vancouver East but also to request a meeting so this issue could be discussed further. There has been no response and no action.

Why is the minister ignoring the national action plan on HIV, AIDS and injection drug use published in May and produced by the national task force? Why is the minister not participating with other interested parties across the country in the 10th annual B.C. conference on AIDS taking place in Vancouver this very week?

At that conference the chair of the national task force, Dr. Hankins, charged yesterday that politicians are afraid to take the lead on this issue.

When it comes to the political will shown by the federal government, I would agree with her on that assessment. In the Vancouver Sun recently the Minister of Health was quoted as saying that the HIV injection drug crisis in Vancouver East is a justice issue, but when the Minister of Health was the justice minister in 1995 he told the then minister of health of British Columbia, when discussing the Cain report, that this was a health issue.

It is time to stop passing the buck because lives hang in the balance. How many more people have to die before this government takes action? When will the federal Minister of Health show leadership as called for in the national task force report and make it clear that he will acknowledge this epidemic as the health crisis it is and take action?

If the minister does not, in ten years can we expect a royal commission posing the same questions that the Krever commission has already posed such as why when we had the chance to act did the government do nothing, or why did lives have to be lost because the political will was lacking?

I call on the minister to act now or he may find himself the first witness called to task if his inaction and the government's inaction result in even more lives lost and devastated communities.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is quite right to place her concern where it is. Unfortunately her assessment of what the minister and the department have been doing is completely off base. Health Canada is acutely aware of the situation in British Columbia and recognizes the seriousness of the issue from both regional and national perspectives.

Vancouver's HIV epidemic among injection drug users is an emergency health crisis. It is a multifaceted health crisis that brings into play other illnesses such as hepatitis C, tuberculosis, alcohol and drug addiction and mental health as well as other factors like poverty, housing, transportation and access to services.

Health Canada will work in close co-operation with the Minister of Health of British Columbia and with the Minister of Child and Family Welfare Minister of that province, and also with other federal departments that are in continuous contact with the Vancouver—Richmond Health Council.

Health Canada is presently working on the creation of an interinstitutional task force including federal departments and various regional and national organizations, in order to implement measures to deal with the health crisis.

These groups will develop and implement a federal plan identifying the complete range of health determinants that are responsible for this crisis.

Based on discussions with provincial and local governments the federal response could include a range of activities such as developing new and innovative methods for delivering services and programs for populations at risk. I include among them aboriginal peoples, women, people with mental illnesses and youth.

It could include activities to broaden community support for HIV intervention and care issues including interest in and compassion for injection drug users and, finally, improving the co-ordination of services in areas such as addictions, mental health, social services, housing and medical care.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7.22 p.m.)