House of Commons Hansard #101 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was code.

Topics

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

I shall now put Motion No. 2 to the House.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Bloc

Francine Lalonde Bloc Mercier, QC

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-12, in Clause 10, be amended by adding after line 8 on page 22 the following:

“132.1 (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, an employee described in section 132 may, after informing her employer, avail herself of the legislation of the province where she works that relates to the applicable measures, including those relating to preventive withdrawal, transfer to another position and financial compensation to which she would be entitled under the legislation of the province where she works.

(2) After informing the employer, the employee makes application to the agency appointed by the province for the purpose of administering provincial occupational health and safety legislation and the agency may refuse the application.

(3) The agency referred to in subsection (2) shall process the application according to the laws of the province applicable to pregnant or nursing employees in that province.

(4) An employee who makes the application referred to in subsection (2) may avail herself of the remedies provided for in the legislation of the province where she works.

(5) The Minister shall, on behalf of the Government of Canada, with the approval of the Governor in Council, enter into an agreement with the government of a province or its agent to determine the administrative and financial conditions of applications from employees referred to in subsection (1).

(6) The exercise by an employee of the right under subsection (1) is without prejudice to any other right conferred by this Act, by a collective agreement or other agreement or by any terms and conditions of employment.”

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to move this amendment to Bill C-12. Its purpose is clear—to ensure that all workers, particularly those who are pregnant or nursing, are covered by the legislation in force in their province.

This amendment would mean that workers in Quebec would not be penalized by the federal legislation. Members should know that approximately 100,000 workers in Quebec are covered by the federal rather than the provincial labour code. Workers covered by the federal code will be protected by the bill we are now debating. However, as far as pregnant and nursing workers are concerned, this bill is far inferior to existing provisions in Quebec.

The purpose of this amendment is therefore to ensure that the provincial code applies to all employees described in clause 132 of the bill.

The amendment was drafted by the member responsible for this issue, the member for Laurentides, our labour critic.

I am pleased to be replacing her today, for a number of reasons. The result of the struggles which, in Quebec, gave rise to the present legislation on occupational health and safety and its protection of women, must benefit not only women covered by Quebec's labour code but also women subject to the federal code.

It is ridiculous that, within one province, and even within one federal building, where some employees come under the provincial code, there are women operating under two completely different codes. What we are talking about is the protection of pregnant and nursing women.

This bill is an improvement over the provisions of the Canada Labour Code as they were previously. It does, however, stop short of providing pregnant or nursing women with complete protection. There are several weaknesses in the clause in question, and we are especially flabbergasted that, from the moment their physician declares that there is a danger, women will no longer receive their pay and will be forced to go on employment insurance, if they are eligible.

This is a great departure from the Quebec legislation, which provides for women to retain 90% of their salary. It makes no sense for this to apply in one province. I am not familiar with the legislation of other provinces. I do know that, overall, provincial legislation follows federal legislation rather closely, and I find that regrettable. We in Quebec cannot stand for there being such a difference between the coverage provided to women under provincial legislation and what is provided to women covered by the Canada Labour Code.

That is the reason behind our calling for this amendment. We know that we are again dealing with the matter of Quebec versus Canada. In this case, it is very frustrating because these are social policies.

I was vice-president of the CSN at the time that the Quebec legislation was introduced and discussed, in 1997. It was no easy task to get the provisions contained in the Quebec occupational health and safety legislation passed. Nor has it been an easy task to maintain them. On a number of occasions, the employers who are equally represented on the committee overseeing the implementation of the occupational health and safety act said several times “But that is costly and should not be covered by the CSST”. But the debates and discussions have continued.

The principle is that a pregnant or nursing employee who may feel she, her baby or the fetus is at risk because she is working, should not find it difficult to be moved or, if she cannot be moved to another job, she should be able to stay at home and wait to return to work as an employee and a contributor to the production and enrichment of the compagny.

What we did in Quebec was spread the costs among everyone. It then becomes a general social benefit paid for by everyone. It makes no sense for the present legislation to compel the woman to stay at work. This is the serious part. If the woman does not accept it, what does she do? Does she agree to stay at work, despite the risks? That is what this means, exactly what this means.

It does not encourage a woman to question. It encourages her, if hers is the only income or if this income is vital, to agree to conditions that are dangerous to her or her child or to not nurse the child. This makes no sense. Let no one try to tell me she can receive employment insurance benefits. First, she needs to be eligible for them and then, if she ever needs them because of a layoff or for other reasons, she will no longer be able to draw them.

That means that the health of pregnant women is not given the attention it is due. I do not understand how we could come to that.

I heard the NDP member say earlier that that could be considered elsewhere, but the legislation will be there. Once it is passed, that is what will apply and, as far as I know, there is no thought being given to amending it again.

It seems to me that this amendment is acceptable. I think this is an opportunity, in this House, to allow women in Quebec to be treated on an equal footing with women covered by Quebec's labour legislation.

I am basically begging, because it is women who will be penalized, when all that is needed is agreement for provincial legislation to apply. Furthermore, I should point out that this was the case until 1988, until a constitutional ruling. I should also point out that there is an agreement with one department concerning certain workers.

So, if it can be done by agreement, why could women not benefit in all cases from this right acquired and maintained at such cost by women in Quebec and their male colleagues?

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Madam Speaker, Motion No. 2 seeks to amend Bill C-12 by adding further language to section 132, which would make it such that the rules in the provincial jurisdiction would take precedence over the federal code in matters related to pregnant and nursing mothers in the workplace.

Section 132 consists of totally new language. All of section 132, which deals with pregnant and nursing employees, consists of brand new language and is the product of the same comprehensive, co-operative, joint committee work that has been undertaken for many years between labour and management. The language that we have in Bill C-12 concerning section 132 is what the industry sector stakeholders agreed to. They saw no need to amend it further. There was no directive to us from labour representatives indicating that they wanted additional changes to section 132. FETCO, the employer agency in the federal jurisdiction, was satisfied with the new section 132.

The only amendment that the NDP sought was to add further clarification to one clause. That amendment failed at committee. Frankly, it is not of much concern to us. We only hoped to further clarify the intention of section 132.

With reference to the speech we just heard from the Bloc member, everyone agrees that we should all have legislation that is as civilized as that which is enjoyed by Quebec workers in the province of Quebec. I have no doubt in my mind that pregnant and nursing employees in the province of Quebec are better served than in any other jurisdiction, and that they are better served than they would be under the Canada Labour Code. However, the impact of the amendment the Bloc put forward would give primacy to provincial legislation over federal legislation. In many provinces, if the provincial legislation had primacy, Canadian female workers would have lesser terms and conditions than those provided in the code, other than in the province of Quebec.

The NDP cannot agree with this because in the other nine provinces and two territories the standards would actually decrease, rather than increase to the highest standards, which are those found in the province of Quebec.

The other reason we are reluctant to support this amendment is, as with the first motion, we do not want to see this bill delayed in any way, shape or form. We believe that the motion which was put forward by the hon. member from the Bloc would cause delays.

When this bill reaches the Senate, I believe that the Senate review committee would have serious problems with the language. The Senate would ask for a review by the justice department to see what the real impact would be. Would it overlap with provincial jurisdiction? Could there be a constitutional challenge?

In other words, even if this amendment passed all of those tests, it would cause delays that would take us well beyond the end of this session. It would take us into the fall. Who knows what the future will bring in the fall of this year. We may be faced with an election. It would be very regrettable if this legislation did not get back on the books at all. All of the people in the federal jurisdiction who have been waiting patiently for amendments to part II of the Canada Labour Code, who have been waiting patiently for all the positive changes in part II, would be further frustrated. The whole process would have to be started again.

It is with regret that our caucus cannot support this motion. I should make it abundantly clear that it has nothing to do with the merits of the argument brought forward that pregnant women and nursing mothers need additional recognition due to their special circumstances in the workplace. However, my party is comfortable that part III of the Canada Labour Code deals with the redeployment of pregnant or nursing mothers who feel that they or their babies may be in some danger in the workplace.

Furthermore, part III of the code is being reviewed in the same comprehensive fashion as part II. It is being reviewed by the actual stakeholders, labour and management, and FETCO, which represents employers in the federal jurisdiction. They are seized of this issue. They know that the current code is lacking and needs improvement. Part III is the appropriate place to make improvements to the issues we are talking about, not part II.

I would appeal to all members of the House to support Bill C-12 as amended. The NDP hopes that the bill will be widely received in a positive way by all parties. Let us move quickly to pass the bill into law prior to the end of the session.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Whitby—Ajax Ontario

Liberal

Judi Longfield LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour

Madam Speaker, I want to echo the words of the NDP member opposite. He has very clearly indicated that the amendments we see to section 132 which were presented to the committee are indeed the result of a tripartite agreement.

The amendments proposed by the Bloc would dismiss the work done on the tripartite agreement and would provide for a different kind of classification between one worker in the federal sector and another.

The current legislation would give pregnant women and nursing mothers the right to refuse work which they deem would be of danger to themselves, their fetus or their nursing child. As such, we feel very confident that this legislation would give adequate protection.

On issues of compensation and further review, there is an opportunity under part III of the Canada Labour Code, which deals specifically with maternity related reassignment, leave and benefits. There is an opportunity, in the spirit of labour, management and government working together, to make amendments under part III of the Canada Labour Code. The groups are working on that, and that is where these issues could be dealt with more fully.

We on this side of the House have, for quite some time, wanted to see protection for nursing mothers, fetuses and pregnant women. That is why we were so pleased to see the results of the tripartite agreement that gave, for the first time, under part II, section 132, these protections.

Rather than belabour the point, I will just echo the comments of the member opposite. He has put the situation as we see it clearly and concisely. We would urge all members of the government to support the bill as it currently is before us, and to reject the amendments brought forward by the Bloc today.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

Is the House ready for the question?

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the recorded division on Motion No. 2 is deemed demanded and deferred.

Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the recorded division on the motion stands deferred until Tuesday, May 30, 2000 at the end of the time provided for Private Members' Business.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

Bob Kilger Liberal Stormont—Dundas, ON

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think that if you were to seek unanimous consent, the House might agree to seeing the clock as being 1.30 p.m., and the House could then proceed to Private Member's Business.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

Would the House be agreeable to proceeding in such a fashion?

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed from April 6 consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

International OrganizationsPrivate Members' Business

12:30 p.m.

Reform

Deepak Obhrai Reform Calgary East, AB

Madam Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise and speak to this motion which was introduced by my colleague. The motion calls for co-operation among like-minded nations to develop multilateral initiatives in order to strengthen the capacity of international organizations and prevent conflicts that have created havoc on civilian populations. This is a very important subject as today's conflicts are unfortunately using civilians as pawns in people's desire for power.

I will talk for a moment about what we see on television screens these days. We see conflicts, havoc, devastation and the misery that civilian populations are subjected to these days. The horror stories resulting from these conflicts boggles the mind. An urgent response from the international community is needed in order to respond to these cries for help. These are helpless civilians caught in a conflict for which they have no say.

What is even more tragic is that the majority of these conflicts taking place on continents around the world are against democracy. Democracy is under attack. Elected governments are under severe attack by individuals and organizations that have no ideological desire to improve the lot of the people but are attempting to seize power for their own egotistical desire for power. At the dawn of the 21st century, this is a serious concern that the world community must take into account.

Therefore, my colleague has introduced this motion asking that like-minded nations—when we talk about like-minded nations we are discussing countries that hold democratic values very high—put pressure on countries in conflict and work toward preventing these conflicts from taking place.

There is no point in reacting after the fact. As we have witnessed in the Rwanda genocide, in Kosovo and today in Sierra Leone, the conflicts explode so rapidly, with the civilian population being murdered, that by the time today's international intervention takes place, misery has already been created.

We witnessed the late reaction to Rwanda, the late reaction now to Sierra Leone and, to a degree, the late reaction even in Kosovo where when the international community finally came it was after thousands had already died or had been displaced from their homes. In Sierra Leone, tragically, many people had limbs cut off and children were being used as soldiers.

When we see these things at the dawn of the 21st century, we cannot understand how, with the rapid communications we have and the ability and co-operation we have, we continue to fail to address these issues.

This motion is asking that we address the issue far in advance, identify the areas of potential conflict and move in rapidly to diffuse the situation. We are now trying to address the issue through the international code, but this is after the fact when the damage has already been done to future generations.

We must, for the sake of democracy, for the sake of humanity and for the sake of the children, address this issue now.

What is the driving force that creates these conflicts? Prior to the collapse of the cold war, we had ideologies that drove these conflicts. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the cold war, we now see a marked change in these conflicts. They have now moved in order to fulfil some people's egos. They are fueled by money.

The key issue is that these conflicts are no longer supported by other ideological nations but are supported by money. Where is the money coming from? It is quite sad to see the conflicts that are now being fueled by money. Who is financing these conflicts?

In many Latin American countries, the money comes from drug sales. Where does the money come from on the continent of Africa? It comes from the rich diamond fields. For those engaged in the conflicts today it has become very evident that they are in control of the natural resources and specifically diamonds. They market these diamonds in the international marketplace, take the money and then fuel their war where they create misery.

Aside from plundering the natural wealth, which is not being used to advance the social fabric, the democratic fabric nor the lives of the citizens of that nation, this has been squandered and has helped fuel the majority of the wars that are taking place in many countries around the world.

We in the developed world have the ability to starve off the financial resources that these people are getting by helping to identify the potential future areas of conflict and diffuse them. We are bound to create a situation where they can no longer access money from the international market by selling their diamonds or other natural products, including drugs.

More important, we know from experience that sanctions are not working. Iraq is one example of where sanctions have not worked. In many other countries in the world sanctions have not worked. If sanctions have not worked, what else will work? Dialogue? Diplomacy? Those are good ideas but how will we put pressure on them? In the first place, these people who are responsible for the conflict have refused to listen to the voice of reason.

We are asking all members of the House to look at this motion and at its long term implication that will help solve and prevent conflicts. This is an extremely important motion to me. I hope all my colleagues in the House see the motion in that capacity and support it.

International OrganizationsPrivate Members' Business

12:40 p.m.

Liberal

Bryon Wilfert Liberal Oak Ridges, ON

Madam Speaker, the motion currently before the House in its amended form calls on the government to continue and intensify efforts with other nations to further develop multilateral initiatives in order to strengthen the capacity of the international organizations to enable them to identify the precursors to conflict and improve their conflict prevention capabilities.

Canada attaches great importance to conflict prevention and improving existing international capabilities for early warning. We continue to be involved in ongoing efforts to strengthen the existing tools of international conflict prevention in a variety of fora which have been discussed in previous debates.

Today I will highlight the important work of the G-8 in the area of conflict prevention. As mentioned in previous debates, the G-8, of which Canada is an active member, is seized of this issue. In advance of the G-8 summit in Japan this July, officials have held several policy meetings on a variety of subjects, including conflict prevention.

At a meeting of the G-8 conflict prevention officials in March of this year, it was agreed that recommendations would be made in advance of the leader's summit to undertake a series of initiatives related to small arms, conflict and development, diamonds, and children in armed conflict.

Canada has been heavily involved in advancing key aspects of the human security agenda in the G-8 context and working to ensure efforts complement work in other fora, in particular the UN Security Council.

The work undertaken by the G-8 conflict prevention officials reveals a strong commitment to the implementation of the Berlin communiqué agreed to in December 1999.

There has been considerable development of action oriented conflict prevention initiatives which will draw on the comparative advantage of the G-8 in specific areas. Officials also recognize the importance of effective consideration of the economic side of the conflict prevention in order to ensure a truly comprehensive and coherent approach by G-8 partners.

The G-8 is working in support of national, regional and global efforts to ensure that the challenges of destabilizing proliferation of small arms faced by the international community are addressed.

The G-8 conflict prevention officials have advanced several ideas in response to these challenges which will lessen the impact of destabilization, accumulations of small arms on ongoing conflict, as well as preventing new conflicts.

In particular, the G-8 intends to continue exercising a high degree of responsibility in licensing exports of small arms, while recognizing legitimate defence and security concerns of importing states. It will be implemented in conjunction with demand side measures. In this context the G-8 conflict prevention officials stress the importance of the adoption of the ECOWAS moratorium on the importation, exportation and manufacture of light weapons in October 1998.

The G-8 intends to work to ensure that its expert policies and decisions respect the moratorium and will provide support to capacity building projects in states directly affected by illicit small arms trafficking.

Recognizing that economic growth and sustainable development will exist only when there is peace and democratic stability, the G-8 will promote the consideration of conflict prevention and development assistance strategies. It will enhance assistance to ensure a focused, quick response with the aim of conflict prevention. It will ensure a smooth transition from emergency humanitarian assistance to development assistance in the post-conflict stage.

Specifically the G-8 will work with bilateral and multilateral actors and the international financial institution to promote and develop good governance and respect for the rule of law, including capacity building of administrative, police and judicial institutions.

Along with the organizations such as the OECD development assistance committee, DAC, the G-8 will also monitor and assess bilateral donors practices in seeking to address conflict prevention within the broader development assistance strategies.

As Canada has advanced as chair of the UN security counsel Angola sanctions committee, there is international recognition that illicit trade of certain high value commodities, in this case particularly diamonds, provides funds for arms purchases, which fuels conflict and creates humanitarian crises. This is evidenced by the ongoing conflicts in Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Sierra Leone.

The G-8 conflict prevention officials have called for producing and consuming countries and leaders in the diamond industry to ensure transparency and accountability in the diamond trade.

The G-8 also supports the efforts of African states in strengthening regional law enforcement and internal capacity building for controlling the illicit trade of diamonds.

Of particular interest to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and many other Canadian parliamentarians is the impact of armed conflict on child participants and child victims.

I had the pleasure of leading as chair of the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum a delegation in January to discuss this issue with parliamentarians from Asia, the United States and Latin America. Several approaches to the subject have been agreed upon by the G-8 conflict prevention officials.

These include maintaining pressure against those who involve or target children in armed conflict in breach of international standards such as the ILO convention on the elimination of the worst forms of child labour, which prohibits forced recruitment of those 18 years of age into armed forces and the early adoption of the optional protocol to the convention on the rights of the child on the involvement of children in armed conflict.

The G-8 continues to be an important forum for discussion on armed conflict prevention because of its important influence in setting the international agenda.

With four of the five permanent members of the United Nations security council and the largest financial contributors to the UN, the G-8 countries have much to offer in support of international conflict prevention initiatives.

Canada will continue to support continue to support, participate in and advocate strong co-ordination of initiatives at the G-8 and in other fora that seek to build national and international capacity to prevent conflict. I am pleased to conclude by saying that the government supports the amendment and the amended motion.

International OrganizationsPrivate Members' Business

12:50 p.m.

NDP

Gordon Earle NDP Halifax West, NS

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand today on behalf of the New Democratic Party of Canada to indicate that we support Motion No. 30. In essence it calls upon the government to continue and intensify efforts with other nations to further develop multilateral initiatives to strengthen the capacity of international organizations, for example the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the United Nations, to enable them to identify the precursors to conflict and improve their conflict prevention capabilities.

The motion is very important and contains a number of very valuable words and thoughts. I want to focus a bit on some of the clauses that are quite important. For example, when we talk about multilateral initiatives that in itself says a lot. It talks about co-operation with other nations rather than a unilateral initiative.

Many unilateral initiatives take place where one nation will decide something on its own and move forward. Far too often those kinds of initiatives are based on the narrow economic greed of a nation or on its own particular agenda. Very often they are based upon intimidation, where a nation intends to intimidate other nations to go along with its will.

Yesterday I read in the paper, and I sure others read the same article, about an initiative that was considered by the United States to explode an atom bomb on the moon back in the 1950s to intimidate the Russians. This has just come to light now. That kind of initiative was based upon intimidation and an attempt to display that it was omnipotent, all powerful and could do what it wanted. That is not the kind of thing that leads to peaceful relations between nations.

Many years later we are seeing these things happening again. The United States is attempting to intimidate others to go along with its unilateral move to put up a national defence missile system. Concern has been expressed by nations across the world and by many citizens about it. Even people in Canada have expressed concern about it. Yet we see these intimidation tactics whereby the United States says that it will move ahead anyway and if we do not co-operate we will suffer as a result.

Those are the kind of threats that neighbouring nation is making to Canada. We have to get away from that kind of approach if we want to move forward, if we want to look at preventing conflicts and if we want to work together for a peaceful world and society.

The motion also talks about strengthening the capacity of international organizations. We must agree that the international organizations today are quite weak. For example, let us look at the United Nations. It was very clear during the Kosovo crisis that the United Nations was weak in terms of being able to cope with that situation. It was a NATO led movement that dealt with that situation when in reality it should have been the United Nations that took the led. We know the United Nations has to be strengthened to enable it to cope with the many conflicts that come up today.

Let us also look at the situation regarding Sierra Leone. A number of peacekeepers have been taken prisoner. That does not bode well for the strength of the United Nations, an international organization. We have to seriously look at strengthening these organizations so they may fulfil the kind of role that we determined they should fulfil.

In order to strengthen any of the international organizations such as the United Nations they need to be properly resourced. That brings back the responsibility of each country that is a part of the United Nations to pay its dues and to contribute do the things it is supposed to do as a member of that organization.

We need people of like mind. I think the original motion talked about bringing together like minded people. Indeed this is very important. We need people who are concentrating upon and desirous of obtaining world peace rather than simply preserving their own national identity or their own particular national interests. This is very important when we talk about strengthening the capacity of international organizations.

The third idea that is brought out in the motion, again a very important idea, is enabling the identification of precursors to conflict and to improve conflict prevention capability. This is where it is very important. We must look at bringing about situations that prevent rather than always end up reacting to crises.

Far too often we find ourselves at a stage where something terrible or drastic is happening in the world. We then react and try to correct the situation, but many times we know that if we keep our eyes and ears open, if we are at all interested in what is happening around us, there are many signs that conflict is developing. There are many indications that problems are brewing on the international scene.

Certainly we have to be able to detect that kind of information and to move to prevent these things from escalating to a point where we are sweeping up afterward. With today's technology we should be able to do that. We should be able to clearly identify and know when trouble is brewing.

When we look at our military there is talk about revolutionary and military affairs where we are being presented with the concept of modern warfare based upon technology and based upon the ability to have smart bombs. Ultimately I guess the goal is to have war with very few casualties because everything could be so precise according to the technology. If the technology is precise enough to enable us to conduct that kind of warfare, it should be precise enough to enable us to detect when problems are brewing and developing and to step in to do something before they become a crisis.

When we talk about international organizations, one of the key factors we have to recognize is that no matter how great the technology is today, no matter how advanced the technology is, the human factor must always be dominant. The human factor must remain. Technology is only going to be as useful and good as we as human beings enable it to be. If we put it to the proper use then it can be quite helpful to us. Otherwise it can be very damaging.

That calls for a certain mindset among people who are governing nations and working together for international peace. They must have a mindset or an attitude that is predisposed toward peace rather than toward aggression and war.

We must move away from the idea that everything is controlled by economics. We heard about diamonds being the cause of the conflict in Sierra Leone. In other parts of the world economic advantage has been the moving factor for people. We have to move away from letting economics dominate our lives and start to consider the value of human life in itself. We have to start looking at the lives of those children missing limbs whom we have seen, the victims of a war over economic greed. If we change our mindset we can certainly go a long way toward strengthening these international organizations.

I am reminded of a couple of stories told to me by people who had worked at the United Nations. One young woman who was a lawyer told me how she just quit in discouragement because of the things she saw taking place at the administrative level within the United Nations. Again, it was coming down to personal agendas and people looking toward their own power within the organization rather than looking toward the goals of the organization itself.

I spoke recently to a RCMP officer who had worked through the United Nations in a very high position. He told me about the things that discouraged him on the administrative side of things. When they needed equipment in certain areas in which they were working, they could not get it. They were told there was a lack of resources. Then they would see personal secretaries and people at the top riding in Jeeps and getting the equipment they needed. That kind of approach or attitude is what we have to change if we want to strengthen and create co-operation among our nations and to improve and strengthen our international organizations.

Again the NDP are very pleased to speak in support of this motion. We feel it goes to the heart of what is important when we are dealing with international affairs. People must work together with a proper mindset toward peace and harmony in the world. If we put that behind our efforts, certainly it will go a long way toward improving these international organizations.

International OrganizationsPrivate Members' Business

1 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Bill Casey Progressive Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Madam Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to rise today. It is getting to be a bad habit in that I am following the hon. member for Halifax West again today as I did last night, but I guess I could do a lot worse.

I want to put my comments about this important issue on the record. We have already had the opportunity to discuss the issue at some length through the debate on the motion by my colleague for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, but I have a few additional thoughts.

Most people in my area do not even understand, nor do I, the roles of the IMF, the World Bank, the United Nations, where one jurisdiction starts and one ends, and how they fit together and work. The motion by the hon. member helps to simplify that, to make it clearer for all, and to help define the roles of each organization.

The Conservative Party definitely supports the initiative of the reform member and we want to congratulate him on his excellent work. However we are going to return to what we have already pointed out with regard to the motion's limitations. That is the underlying assumption that it is impossible to determine the signs that predict world conflicts and to develop responses to those conflicts well in advance.

The purpose of the motion is laudable but I think it is somewhat over-optimistic. Even in this Chamber we often have trouble reaching understandings on issues and we have trouble agreeing with one another despite our good intentions. Imagine the difficulty that would be encountered by the various world bodies which certainly have diverging interests even country by country. But then again, walking on the moon was merely a dream 40 years ago, so maybe if we keep trying we can achieve this goal.

The time for reform of international institutions has certainly come. There is no question.

The Minister of Finance explained in great detail during his meeting yesterday morning with the members of the foreign affairs committee that the necessity for reforming these institutions is paramount and the time is now. He stressed the urgency of international co-operation in establishing international standards and codes in order to reduce the risk of financial instability in the world's financial system. We heard the same story from the first deputy managing director of the IMF, Mr. Stanley Fischer. The demonstrations in Washington and Seattle are not isolated gestures either.

It is imperative that the world's institutions listen, respond and understand that their decisions have an impact on ordinary people's everyday lives. It is through national governments and the representatives they mandate to represent us that we will be able to influence these organizations and not otherwise.

We live in a time when everything is done on an international scale. Unfortunately I do not think the people's needs are being genuinely respected. It is not for lack of desire to do so in some corners, but because the way international institutions operate is just too complex and they seem to serve the interests of certain stronger countries at the expense of the less influential countries.

For instance, during the gulf war the UN played an important part in the decision making process, but during Kosovo the UN proved insufficiently effective for some of its members and was promptly replaced by NATO. Why did that system fail?

Everything depends on the interests of the member countries, and the interests often diverge. Another factor is that world bodies have proliferated in recent decades. Their functions have become more ponderous and they have become less effective because of their excessively complex procedures. I am thinking here of the hierarchy of international organizations.

Often the result is either that action is delayed until it is too late or that everyone is so confused and no one really knows anymore what the solution to the problem is or even whether there is a solution. We have seen that firsthand.

The players on the international scene choose an organization that suits them depending on their own interests rather than on the basis of what would be the best way to solve the problem. The best example I can think of is the trade conflicts that may arise and do arise, and there are plenty of them even between Canada and the United States.

If one party thinks it has more chance of winning by choosing the WTO, it will address itself to the WTO for arbitration. But if it is the free trade agreement that would serve its interests better, the country will opt for that process. We are thus finding ourselves in a real spider's web of bilateral, multilateral and international agreements. The result is confusion, inefficiency and ultimately, conflict.

Frequently foreign affairs would like to introduce an initiative but unfortunately finds that it clashes with an agreement signed with one of the world organizations. On a given issue the answer is yes under the agreement with one organization but no under the agreement with another. It has become a real tangle.

When everything becomes too complicated it is time to simplify as proposed in this motion. It is in this perspective the Progressive Conservative Party has concluded that it is high time for the thinking and discussion process on internationalization that is suggested by this motion.

The operations of international bodies should be simplified and clarified with a view to making them efficient and effective enough to meet the needs of ordinary people. Let us not forget that is why they were set up. That is how we will prevent conflicts in the future.

International OrganizationsPrivate Members' Business

1:05 p.m.

Reform

Keith Martin Reform Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek unanimous consent of the House to make some closing remarks at the end of the debate on my private members' motion. I hope the House sees fit to do that. No other motions or additions will be presented at that time.

International OrganizationsPrivate Members' Business

1:05 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

Is there agreement to allow the hon. member who is the sponsor of the motion to close debate with a five minute speech?

International OrganizationsPrivate Members' Business

1:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

International OrganizationsPrivate Members' Business

1:05 p.m.

Reform

Keith Martin Reform Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Madam Speaker, I thank hon. members for allowing me to close with a few minutes on this motion.

The motion which I put forth last year is one which comes out of my experiences working in Africa during the Mozambique civil war. During that time we saw all manner of horrors that were inflicted on people, primarily civilians.

We know that 90% of the individuals who are hurt, maimed, raped, killed, tortured in today's conflicts are innocent civilians.

After the close of the cold war when the Berlin wall came crashing down, the world thought we would have a peace dividend, but this just unleashed a plethora of conflicts around the world. More than 50 conflicts have sprung up which have put very large demands, both financial and in terms of personnel, on all of us as nations but also on the international organizations.

We knew for a long time that Rwanda was going to blow up. Kosovo was going to blow up. Burundi, Angola, the Horn of Africa, Ethiopia, and the list goes on. We saw these precursors to conflict taking place and the world did nothing to prevent it. The consequence of that has been the death, maiming and torture of hundreds of thousands if not millions of innocent people around the world.

We have an extraordinary opportunity to do something about that. Canada has had a moral persuasive force for many years and has been seen by some as a country that stands in the middle and is able to bring different groups together with a common purpose. Not many countries can do that.

Motion No. 30 will enable us to deal with the precursors to conflict and reform the international organizations such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the UN by working with our other member states to reform these institutions to prevent conflict.

How can they prevent conflict? By utilizing economic levers that are used to fuel wars. It takes money to run a war. If we can choke off the money supply, we can choke off the war, not always, but sometimes.

If we allow the status quo to remain, as my colleague from the NDP mentioned, there will continue to be people with their limbs chopped off, people with hot stakes poked in their eyes to blind them, people who have been gang raped, children being used to carry landmines who are blown up as a consequence, and children being used as soldiers in conflict. This cannot be allowed to continue.

If we do not debate this on humanitarian grounds, then at least as a cogent financial argument we can argue on self interest as nations of the world. When a conflict blows up half a world away, it will come back to haunt us in terms of putting our soldiers in harm's way, and putting demands on our defence, foreign aid and foreign affairs budgets.

These demands are actually crushing international organizations, particularly the World Bank whose post-conflict reconstruction costs have increased 800% in the last 12 years. The IMF continues to fund countries that siphon off the funds to buy arms to slaughter innocent civilians.

If we accept the status quo then we are part and parcel of the slaughter that takes place as we speak. Innocent civilians are being tortured in the most heinous ways or are being killed without mercy. We as a nation can do something about that.

I am encouraged by the support this motion has had across party lines. I am confident that as members of different political parties, we can come together to support the motion. It will give the government and members across party lines the ability to work together to act in a leadership role in utilizing the IMF, the World Bank and the UN as levers for the prevention of deadly conflict. At the end of the day it is something we will all be proud of and which we can proudly take to our constituents. More important, we will be doing much to save some of the most innocent people in the world from terrible fates.

International OrganizationsPrivate Members' Business

1:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

It being 1.15 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired. Pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion are deemed to be put and a recorded division deemed demanded and deferred until Tuesday, May 30, 2000 at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

The House stands adjourned until Monday, May 29, 2000, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 1.13 p.m.)