House of Commons Hansard #37 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was farmers.
Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place between all parties and I believe that you will find consent for the following motion:
That the member for Laurier--Sainte-Marie be authorized to speak first on the motion, and that the author of the motion speak later today during the debate.
Business of Supply
The Speaker
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Business of Supply
Some hon. members
Agreed.
Bill C-302. On the Order: Private Members' Business:
December 2, 2004--Mr. Myers (Kitchener—Wilmot—Wellesley—Woolwich) — Second reading of Bill C-302, An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Kitchener--Wilmot--Wellesley--Woolwich.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment ActPrivate Members' Business
Ottawa—Vanier Ontario
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger LiberalDeputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place between all parties with respect to Bill C-302 and I believe that you will find consent for the following motion:
That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice, Bill C-302, An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Kitchener-Wilmot--Wellesley--Woolwich, be deemed to have been read a second time, referred to a committee of the whole, reported without amendment, concurred in at report stage and read a third time and passed.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment ActPrivate Members' Business
The Speaker
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment ActPrivate Members' Business
Some hon. members
Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill deemed read the second time, considered in committee of the whole, reported without amendment, concurred in, and read the third time and passed)
Bill C-304. On the Order: Private Members' Business
December 2, 2004--The hon. member for West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast--Sea to Sky Country--Second reading of Bill C-304, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Battle River.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment ActPrivate Members' Business
Ottawa—Vanier Ontario
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger LiberalDeputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, other discussions have also taken place among all parties with respect to Bill C-304 and I believe that you would find consent for the following motion:
That notwithstanding any Standing Order or the usual practices of the House, Bill C-304, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Battle River, be deemed to have been read a second time, referred to a committee of the whole, reported without amendment, concurred in at report stage and read a third time and passed.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment ActPrivate Members' Business
The Speaker
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment ActPrivate Members' Business
Some hon. members
Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill deemed read the second time, considered in committee of the whole, reported without amendment, concurred in and read the third time and passed)
Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I believe that you will find consent for the following motion:
That at the conclusion of today's debate on the Bloc opposition motion, all questions necessary to dispose of this motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 7, 2004.
Business of SupplyPrivate Members' Business
The Speaker
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Dominic LeBlanc LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to five petitions.
Joe Fontana LiberalMinister of Labour and Housing
Mr. Speaker, since my appointment as Minister of Labour and Housing, I have met with workers, union leaders and business representatives. I have heard about issues that go straight to the heart of Canadians: job security, minimum wage, work-life balance, hours of work, annual vacations and maternity and compassionate care leave. All of these issues are covered by federal labour standards.
Labour standards are a key tool to ensure fairness in the workplace, to protect employees and to provide them with minimum conditions of work. For many employers, labour standards also help create a level playing field that allows them to compete on a more equal footing with other businesses.
Therefore, we have to ensure that federal legislation on labour standards is relevant and adapted to the changing needs of the Canadian workers and employers of today. This is why we are initiating a review of the federal labour standards, that is part III of the Canada Labour Code.
Part III of the code has been amended in recent years, but its overall framework is largely based on the world of work of 1965. Let us consider how dramatically our society, economy, workforce and workplaces have changed since then.
Today we think of work-life balance, flex time, and telework, where an employee can work from the car, the airport and the home. We are seeing a rise in self-employment as well as in the number of employees holding part time or term and casual jobs. The workforce is aging and is more diverse.
Also, many Canadian workers are feeling overworked and overwhelmed, especially those parts of the so-called sandwich generation. These are the workers who struggle to balance their work with their responsibilities to raise children or care for aging relatives.
Many workers also feel vulnerable and want more protection as well as a wider and more rigorous application of labour standards.
Employers today face many challenges. Canadian businesses need to be able to respond rapidly to technological change and stiff global competition. They want to boost their productivity and competitiveness. They want to attract and retain highly skilled workers and ensure that labour laws are applied in a fair and consistent way.
Today, I am pleased to announce the appointment of Professor Harry Arthurs of York University, one of Canada's leading labour law experts, to conduct the independent review of federal labour standards. He will be supported by a panel of advisory experts and business and labour representatives.
Professor Arthurs and his team will examine the needs of Canadian workers and employers through research, international comparisons and a series of nationwide public hearings. Their work will lead to recommendations for both legislative and non-legislative measures aimed at producing practical and workable solutions to the difficult questions of regulation in the modern economy.
I strongly encourage parliamentarians as well as their constituents who have a stake in the modernization of federal labour standards to participate actively in this review process. By working together, we can build quality workplaces in Canada that will assure our economic success and a high standard of living in the future.
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that our nation, our economy, our workforce and indeed our world has undergone significant change since 1965 when the major portion of part III of the Canada Labour Code was reviewed. It started back in the days of the Hon. John G. Diefenbaker and ended in the days of the Hon. Lester B. Pearson.
The review is predicted to take place in the next year or year and a half, and certainly I can understand, with part I of the Canada Labour Code dealing with industrial relations being reviewed in 1999, part II of the code dealing with health and safety being reviewed in 2000, why the minister feels it is important now to have part III reviewed. It will be interesting to see how the process will work and how it will end.
Today's society requires much flexibility, ease of movement and cooperation between employer and employee and a collaborative effort in meeting the challenges of new and developing markets and increased competition in the marketplace and indeed in the global economy.
Business must continue to be economically viable and profitable and at the same time the basic rights and interests of employees must be addressed.
Having said that, there must be a blending of interests of not only employer and employee but that of commerce, industry and the prosperity of our nation as we know it.
Today's announcement of a commissioner and three experts, and with the contributions from business and banking interests, combined with those of the labour movement and employee representatives, should result in a broad based collaborative approach to the review. It must take into account large and small business interests, large sector employee-employer relationships, small sector employee-employer relationships and those in small towns and villages and the rural parts of our country.
Circumstances have changed and relationships have developed that are not necessarily one of employer and employee, but independent relationships where substantial business can be conducted out of a home with computers and modern technology that makes business tools available right on our desktops and, in fact, on our person as we go from place to place.
We have a generation where there are many two worker families with young children to look after and other dependent adults, maternity leave, paternity leave and compassionate leave and these have to be considered in the balance. We need the flexibility to meet ever changing demands and ever changing needs.
The Vanier Institute of the Family published a document entitled, “It Keeps Getting Faster: Changing Patterns of Time in Families”, and this applies as well to the workplace. It states that “--every day routines are hurried and, at times, regimented and largely beyond our control...and there is that nostalgic tug that draws us back to a longing for simpler times when life was uncomplicated”.
However there has been a rapidity in change in recent years and the pace of change has accelerated dramatically with advances in information technology, engineering and the globalization of the economy.
It is in that context that the review is being undertaken and certainly the work of the commission will be monitored and watched closely as it addresses the many issues that have been raised. In the end it is my hope that there will be a blending of interests to the benefit of all of us.
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Madam Speaker, what a good idea it is to review part III of the Canada Labour Code. All the changes made will have a direct impact on 10% of Canadian workers and 7% of Quebec workers in industries governed by the Canada Labour Code. They will also have a domino effect on all collective agreements and on labour standards in Quebec and each of the provinces.
We may perhaps all have preconceived ideas about what is contained in this part of the Canada Labour Code: annual leave, statutory holidays, salary deductions. It is, however, fair and justified to mandate an independent commission to carry out research, consult the public and make recommendations on each of these elements. But would it not be better to aim at modernizing all working conditions, whether covered by part III or not, to mandate the commission and its new head to study and analyze labour conditions in today's economy and to see how labour relations in Canada and Quebec can be changed?
This examination ought not to be only through the lens of part III of the Canada Labour Code, but rather with a view to adapting to the new requirements of life today and a changing world.
There is of course the matter of balancing work and family, reconciling work life and personal life, as the minister has said. Ought we not to also look into the possibility of allowing parents with children under the age of 12 to work a four-day week if they want to? As well, ought we not to look at the possibility of having as many workplace child care facilities as possible? What about specific working conditions for natural caregivers? Then there is psychological harassment, not in itself anything new, although our intolerance of it is and it also warrants looking at.
Another manifestation of our changing times are contract workers. In some companies, it used to be that 70% of workers were permanent and 30% on contract, but now the opposite is true.
Then there is the new phenomenon of the workers approaching retirement age, those who are 50-plus and want to retire gradually. Could this new phenomenon not be combined with preparing the next generation of workers? Are the two unrelated, or could these two new problems solve each other?
Should antiscab legislation not also be considered by the Arthurs commission? Replacement workers are responsible for the unnecessary length of labour disputes. In Quebec, where the statistics are easy to analyze, workers under federal jurisdiction represent only 6.6% of the workforce but are responsible for 48% of the work days lost as a result of labour disputes. This is a telling statistic.
To reassure the minister, I must also add that Quebec employers have no complaints about this legislation, which has been in effect in Quebec for the last 25 years. On the contrary, it suits them.
Precautionary cessation of work also straddles Parts II and III of the Canada Labour Code. Here too, humane solutions must be found, and the current commission would have difficulty justifying any failure to address this issue.
With regard to globalization, a specialty of Professor Arthurs, protection must be given to workers who might be victimized by the demands of employers who introduce new requirements in order to meet the international competition.
In Quebec in particular, the disparities between the Canada Labour Code and Quebec's labour standards have lead to the creation of two categories of workers: those subject to the Canada Labour Code and those working under Quebec's labour standards.
Finally, we should take advantage of this opportunity to resolve certain issues that still remain in regard to federal infringement on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. Regarding parental leave in particular, the federal government signed an agreement in principle with Quebec a few days prior to the election call last June and continues to refuse, despite signing that agreement, to withdraw its reference to the Supreme Court. Compassionate leave also constitutes an infringement on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.
Such negotiations are extremely important for the Bloc Quebecois, which defends the interests of workers and defends the Quebec consensus on—
Michel Guimond Bloc Charlevoix—Montmorency, QC
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With respect to the last sentence in the speech of my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, I would like to know why you decided to rise and prevent her from saying it. I believe that this sentence had some value for the Hansard , the House of Commons Debates.
Canada Labour CodeRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)
I am delighted to respond. My understanding of the rule is that the length of time the minister spoke is the length of time that is assigned to each response from the various parties. I did signal one minute and actually went over the time by a number of seconds as I signalled that she was getting close to the end of her time.
The hon. member for Hamilton Centre.
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, we in the NDP are pleased to see that minority government is working once again for the people of Canada. This review is important, timely and one that we support. We also support and applaud the appointment of Professor Arthurs. He is a well-renowned, respected individual who we believe will serve the people well.
We are dealing with the Canada Labour Code and, first and foremost, we in the NDP caucus believe that the best protection for an employee is a union and a collective agreement. This deals with those workers under federal jurisdiction who do not have the support and protection of a collective agreement and, therefore, they need minimum protections in the law. This is about reviewing that law.
The minister has indicated that the government is prepared to look at a number of areas and we are pleased to hear that. These are crucial areas, such as the hours of work, seasonal employment and ensuring there is a minimum floor of rights and protections for workers.
I have to say, however, that we were disappointed the other day to hear the Liberals indicate that they would not support the legislation proposed by the Bloc member in terms of anti-scab legislation. We see some reference in the notes to this. Hopefully this will be an opportunity for the government to have a second, sober thought and realize the importance of bringing in anti-scab legislation and that it promotes peace and harmony between the parties involved.
We also believe that the federal legislation should be the best available in the country. It ought to be the model but in many ways it is woefully inadequate to achieve that goal. We would hope that the government and the commissioner, in agreement with the Bloc, but with a little different twist, will look at all provincial legislation, not only to ensure that it becomes the bare minimum that is entrenched in the federal labour code but that we take a leadership role at this level and show Canadians, through the actions of Parliament and the laws that we pass, what the acceptable minimum standards of employment protections and rights that workers have, whether they are unionized or not, and that regardless of whether they are covered by provincial legislation or federal legislation, this would be the bare minimum and that nothing less will be acceptable for any worker anywhere in this great country.
I will close by suggesting two important things. First, we would hope that the government would be serious about implementing the results. We are giving the government the benefit of the doubt but the timeframes do raise some suspicions that the government is hoping that this will not come back until after the next election, in which case there may or may not be a minority situation, which takes me to my last point. I hope, whether it is in this Parliament or the next Parliament, that this comes back, if not with an NDP majority, then at the very least--
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Hope springs eternal. It has happened before. I was there.
However, at the very least, hopefully it will be a minority situation where the kind of pressures that force the government to take the action today that it is taking will also be there to put pressure on it to actually enact the legislation. If we do not have legislation at the end of the day, all we have done is taken up a lot of time.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, concerning the list of members of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 18th report later this day.
Dave Chatters Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in accordance with its order of reference of Thursday, November 4, 2004. The committee has considered vote 45a under justice in the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2005, and reports the same.
Sue Barnes LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. The committee has considered its order of reference of Tuesday, November 2, 2004, Bill C-14, an act to give effect to a land claims and self-government agreement among the Tlicho, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Government of Canada.
The committee has considered Bill C-14 and has agreed to report it without amendment.
Caroline St-Hilaire Bloc Longueuil, QC
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-305, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act (children's diapers).
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce this bill, which would amend the Excise Tax Act to exempt cloth and disposable diapers for children from the goods and services tax. In this day and age when the family is considered important, I am counting on all the support of all parliamentarians for this bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
