Debates of April 30th, 1999

Petitions

[Gar Knutson, Liberal, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition requesting that parliament support a binding national referendum to be held at the time of the next election to ask Canadians whether they are in favour of federal government funding for abortions on demand.

[Gar Knutson, Liberal, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition which is signed by a number of people in my riding. The petitioners pray that parliament enact legislation, such as Bill C-225, so as to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female.

Starred Questions

[Gar Knutson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 225. .[Text]

*Question No. 225—

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Why has Canada not yet ratified Convention No. 98 of the International Labour Organization on the right of workers to organize and to bargain collectively, and has the current government prepared a plan to ratify it during the life of this parliament?

[Gar Knutson, Liberal, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, due to the length of the answer, I ask that it be printed in Hansard as if read.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed. .[Text]

[Claudette Bradshaw, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

The Government of Canada has a continuing strong commitment to the implementation, and where possible, the ratification of Internaltional Labour Organization, ILO, core conventions.

Although the authority to ratify an ILO convention is exclusively federal, the implementation of most ILO conventions falls under both federal and provincial jurisdictions, given the division of powers over labour matters under the Canadian Constitution.

For this reason the longstanding practice in Canada, as regards ILO conventions which fall under both federal and provincial/territorial jurisdictions, like Convention 98, has been to ratify only if all jurisdictions concur with ratification and undertake to implement the convention's requirements within their respective jurisdictions.

With respect to Convention 98, there is a high level of conformity in Canada to the convention's major principles, which include protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and workers' and employers' interference in each other's affairs, and the encouragement and promotion of voluntary collective bargaining. However, Canada has not ratified Convention 98 because there are some divergencies between the convention's requirements and the Canadian situation.

The main obstacle to ratification is that, with the exception of the armed forces and the police and “public servants engaged in the administration of the state”, Convention 98 does not provide for any exclusions from collective bargaining rights. However, in Canada, a number of jurisdictions exclude some other types of workers, such as agricultural workers and certain professionals, from their collective bargaining legislation. This has been interpreted by the ILO as not being in compliance with Convention 98.

Officials of the labour program of Human Resources Development Canada have recently sought further clarifications from ILO officials concerning Convention 98's requirements, with a view to initiating a re-examination of the potential for Canadian ratification of Convention 98, in consultation with the provinces and territories as well as the social partners.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Gar Knutson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-22, an act authorizing the United States to preclear travellers and goods in Canada for entry into the United States for the purposes of customs, immigration, public health, food inspection and plant and animal health, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Preclearance Act

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when members' statements and question period interrupted us I was talking about the very first letter of this bill.

It is a good bill. I personally think there should be no reason for us not to support it. It will save taxpayers some money. It will make travel better for Canadians travelling to other countries, as well as those travelling to other countries for whom Canada is only a stopping point. I believe the regulations will be adequate to preserve the security of the country. If not, we will chase that down when it comes. We need to be sure that the criminals do not get away with anything because of this.

I was talking about the very first letter of the bill. It is Bill S-22. The first letter is S , which stands for Senate. I said that we should really improve this. This is something that is long overdue. It is too bad that we on this side, every time this happens, have to remind the government that what we have is a failed part of democracy, and that is because the Senate is not elected. There is no excuse for that.

The Prime Minister said during the 1993 election campaign, and I have said it so often that I know it by heart, that “Within two years of being the government we will have an elected Senate”. He promised as Prime Minister, “I can make that happen”.

Instead of castigating him for a broken promise, which I would be slightly tempted to do, I would rather put it on a positive note. Quite clearly, before 1993, our Prime Minister was convinced that it was a good idea or he would not have said it. It is a good idea in his mind. It is certainly a good idea in the minds of Canadians. There is no reason in the world for this not to happen. All he has to do is appoint to the Senate, without any constitutional change, the people who are chosen by the electors.

In Alberta, for example, we had a Senate election. Two people were democratically chosen by the people. They are ready to serve the next time there is an opening for the province of Alberta. All the Prime Minister has to do is say that when the vacancy becomes available “I will appoint the person who the people have chosen”. There is nothing wrong with that. It is a compromise, but at least the people serving in the Senate would be the choice of the people rather than the political choice of the Prime Minister.

If the Prime Minister wants to take this reasoning to the ultimate, if he feels that he can better choose who is to represent Alberta or any other province in the Senate, then why does he not do it for MPs? Why do we have elections for members of parliament? Why do we not just let the Prime Minister appoint whomever he will, in whatever riding. We would have nothing but Liberals in the House. Would that not be wonderful?

Unfortunately Hansard does not indicate sarcasm, so let the record show that the member was dripping with sarcasm when he made that statement. That way it will appear on the record.

I will rest my case there. I would be very pleased to support the bill if it came from an elected Senate with the full legitimacy of what we know and understand to be democracy.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion carried on division.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)