House of Commons Hansard #21 of the 37th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was police.

Topics

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Hinton)

Thank you for your comments. I will take that into consideration.

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

London West Ontario

Liberal

Sue Barnes LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Madam Speaker, I look forward to your looking into that matter.

I have sat here all day. We started the day in the chamber doing third reading debate on a very important bill for the government, Bill C-10. It is a bill on which many people have worked long and hard. The chamber was engaged and all parties were working together debating the objectives of the bill. We also heard the dissenting viewpoint from a party but we were debating at third reading stage so we could go to the vote at third reading.

This afternoon we saw the use of a valid procedural tool, a hoist motion. What I have been listening to for the last number of hours was not the debate on the bill but the debate on the hoist motion, which would put this bill on hold for six months. It was perfectly legitimate to move that motion. That is not a problem.

However, I have been listening attentively to every speech today. I have been listening as a representative of constituents who have the same concerns for community safety, the same concerns about grow operations, the same concerns about young people and education. I wanted to hear a valid reason for not proceeding with the bill, for not proceeding to the vote on the bill, for not moving the legislation forward.

Even though all parties in the chamber have been engaged in third reading debate, surprisingly I have been listening to one party debate this motion. This motion was not about the bill, it was about the motion to hoist the bill, to delay it. That is the position of the opposite side. What have I also heard members opposite say? I have heard them say that mandatory minimums are the solution.

Perhaps we should look at one state in the United States because they refer to that country a lot. California has some of these three strikes and you are out bills. What do we see there? We see a state that spends more money on incarceration than it does on education, which is a shame because it does not work. If it worked, perhaps I would be willing to embrace something like it, but what works is really important.

I listened to the debate all afternoon. Members were talking about the government allowing or encouraging certain things. That is not so. In fact, I have only heard that type of message from the opposition. In reality all we are doing in the bill is making the sanction efficient and consistent in a manner that police organizations and prosecutors across the country will be able to free up the resources in the courts and make it a ticketing offence on the streets. If a minor were involved, the parents might be advised, something along those lines, something that might have an impact on young people.

I have heard the criticism about the differential in the fine rates between the younger person and the adult. Maybe we want the young person involved in paying the fines. Maybe these sanctions are not about putting kids in the cycle of not being able to pay fines and therefore escalating a system that does not work.

Millions of dollars for the drug strategy have been announced. It is very difficult to get the honest answer out if misinformation is put on the table and I have seen that strategy used before in other areas where it has failed. In fact, on other bills there have been lots of strategies used. I can remember a time when I stood as the chair of the aboriginal affairs--

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Hinton)

With all due respect, there are a number of members who wish to ask questions. I would appreciate it if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada would ask her question or shorten her comments. There are a number of people waiting.

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

Liberal

Sue Barnes Liberal London West, ON

Madam Speaker, I believe I have up to 10 minutes for questions and comments.

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

An hon. member

No, you don't.

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

Liberal

Sue Barnes Liberal London West, ON

I will put my question then to the hon. member, seeing as Madam Speaker wants to limit my involvement, even though I have sat here all day.

I will ask the member how he can justify not giving the judges discretion--

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John Williams Canadian Alliance St. Albert, AB

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I find it rather strange that the hon. member is taking issue with the rulings from the Chair. The fact that she has been here all day, she has had every opportunity like every other member to speak whenever she has wanted to speak. I would suggest that the Chair ensures that the member stays to relevant issues.

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Hinton)

Thank you for your valued advice. I am quite capable of knowing when I am in the wrong position here. The hon. member has the floor for a few brief moments. We do have other questions.

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

Liberal

Sue Barnes Liberal London West, ON

Madam Speaker, does the hon. member find that there is a place for the justice and the judiciary to take into account the individual situations of those people standing before it in a courtroom, so they can use their judicial discretion when they go to sentencing?

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

David Anderson Canadian Alliance Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Madam Speaker, we are not opposed to the use of the judiciary. We are opposed to the abuse by the judiciary of some of the lack of minimums and lack of sentencing commitments.

If the members opposite were as interested in debate as they were on points of order, we would have had a good debate this afternoon. It took a little controversy to stir them up to where they would even get out of their seats. It has been frustrating that we are the only ones who have been debating the issue throughout the day.

I will leave it at that. I know there are other people who want to ask questions.

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Randy White Canadian Alliance Langley—Abbotsford, BC

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that once in a while we get an intervention from the other side. However, there have been basically no speeches from over there. I guess it shows the lack of understanding, although the hon. member across the way tried to explain what the government was doing. The lack of understanding of what we are saying shows that this is not going to register well with most Canadians.

The government has brought in a bill to decriminalize marijuana. It has not got straight the amounts that it is decriminalizing. It has options. The fines differ for young people and older people for some reason. They have put maximum penalties instead of minimums because the judiciary is not giving anywhere close to the maximums.

The government has not addressed the roadside assessment capability of drugged driving and drunk driving and a combination thereof. It has not dealt with the severe damage, and there goes the member. The member does not even stay in the House.

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

Liberal

Joe Jordan Liberal Leeds—Grenville, ON

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The offences pile up. The member has been here long enough and he knows that he cannot refer to the absence or the presence of a member opposite in the House.

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Hinton)

If the hon. member will bear that in mind, please continue and stay within the rules.

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Randy White Canadian Alliance Langley—Abbotsford, BC

Madam Speaker, they are getting a little excited. The problem is there are all kinds of flaws with the bill. There are issues that are not dealt with in the bill.

The government has not even looked at crystal meth. It has not looked at grow ops or roadside assessment. It has not looked at the damage done in the country by way of heroin and cocaine. It has not looked at advertising to young people and to those who are doing it. It has not looked at the mess that Correctional Service Canada and Health Canada have created.

I would ask my colleague this. We come to the House of Commons in a partisanship way. Why can we not as adult politicians in this place come together and try to get a national drug strategy that is meaningful to all Canadians, young people and their parents? Why can we not do that together instead of a government--

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Hinton)

The hon. member for Cypress Hills--Grasslands has 30 seconds to respond.

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

David Anderson Canadian Alliance Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Madam Speaker, I would like to acknowledge my colleague from Langley--Abbotsford and the years of dedication he has put into the whole issue of drugs and prisons. He certainly deserves the applause he is getting.

Once again I will just say that unfortunately we are dealing with a government that is in disarray. It is more interested in looking ahead and trying to campaign than it is in governing the country, and that is to the loss of everyone in the country.

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Hinton)

Resuming debate for three minutes, the hon. member for Langley--Abbotsford.

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Randy White Canadian Alliance Langley—Abbotsford, BC

Madam Speaker, although I am allocated three minutes, I believe I have a further 17 when we again resume debate.

In the next three minutes I will again try to summarize what the problem is. My colleague from Crowfoot and I spent about 18 months on a committee that we initiated in the House of Commons. The government had no impetus whatsoever to initiate a drug strategy or an investigation into the drug situation in Canada. We had to do that from opposition.

At the end of the committee, we had 41 recommendations, many of which I and my colleague subscribed to and some of which we did not. By the way, the overriding recommendation was that abstinence would be the overriding policy throughout the drug strategy. We found out subsequent to that, that the government was into safe injection houses and that it was supporting all kinds of harm reduction techniques. What the government did was take these recommendations, set them aside and brought in this little bill on the decriminalization of marijuana. For goodness sake, I do not know what motivates those people on the other side.

We are talking of hundreds, if not close to one or two thousand people dying every year from the overdose of drugs. If it were from being shot, there would have been a bill effectively dealing with that. If it were for other reasons and if that many people were dying every year, there would have bills all over the place. Instead the government lets this stuff die on the side.

I do not understand for a minute why the government will not deal with crystal meth addiction, with cocaine addiction and with heroin addiction by advertising to our young people, and not through bureaucrats but through the Canadian Medical Association, the people to whom young people will listen. I do not understand why those issues are not dealt with by the government.

During our discussions in the drug committee, time and time again my colleague and I tried to point the committee in the right direction. We found two departments getting the bulk of the money. We also found that, without exception, everybody on the committee freely admitted that those two departments were the worst offending departments. They had no idea where they were going. They had no objectives. They did not know what they were accomplishing or where they were spending the money. What happened? The government came out later on and said that it would give $248 million to these two departments.

The failure is in government. Again it is the government's spending habits about which my colleague just spoke.

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

Contraventions ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:30 p.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Madame Speaker, on February 27, I asked the Minister of National Revenue a question, but the President of the Treasury Board answered. My question mentioned that 22,000 members of the Union of Taxation Employees and the Public Service Alliance of Canada were engaged in negotiations at that time and were asking the employer to remain at the bargaining table, as it was feared that negotiations would come to a halt if an election was called in early May.

The President of the Treasury Board gave the following answer:

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to say that we are in bargaining with our employees. I am not going to discuss those issues here in the House. They are issues that are to be discussed at the tables. There is a process for that.

I am sure the very competent leadership in our unions and in the department will conduct this in a professional manner rather than in the way it is conducted on the floor of the House. This is not where we bargain.

I never asked the President of the Treasury Board to bargain here in the House. I asked him to send the parties to the bargaining table. I agree with him that bargaining takes place at the bargaining table.

We were not trying to negotiate on their behalf, but it must be kept in mind that the new Prime Minister of Canada has said he wanted to freeze public service salaries. These people are worried, when the new PM then turns around and gives his senior staff or ministerial assistants increased of 32%, while public servants are getting 1%.

This is not the negotiation public service workers wanted. They wanted to negotiate, to come to the bargaining table. This is where the government can get involved. One can only conclude that, when it comes down to it, the government is the one paying, and it is the one halting the negotiations.

My question to the minister was about returning to the bargaining table. If the minister had been listening that day, he would have understood the question. it is a matter of getting back to the bargaining table and negotiating in good faith.

For example, it is unacceptable to have a 1% increase in Bathurst, New Brunswick, while it is 1.5% in Ottawa. Gas costs the same everywhere. In fact, I would say it costs even more in Bathurst, New Brunswick than in Ottawa, Hull or Gatineau.

The question is clear. It is a matter of getting back to the bargaining table, and staying there until a collective agreement is reached.

I would like to hear the parliamentary secretary, who is here this evening, reply on behalf of the government. I know that he has a prepared response, but I would like to hear what he has to say about what was asked, that is about getting back to the negotiations.

Contraventions ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

Leeds—Grenville Ontario

Liberal

Joe Jordan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board

Madam Speaker, I hope I can shed a little light on the specifics of my hon. colleague's question.

Since last August, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency has been engaged in collective bargaining negotiations with members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

The CCRA is committed to bargain in good faith in a modern, transparent manner. We respect the role of the unions in collective bargaining. At the same time, our responsibility is to uphold the business obligations of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and satisfy the rights and obligations of our employees.

In 1999, when the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency became an agency, it also became a separate employer. This meant that the Treasury Board Secretariat would no longer conduct collective bargaining negotiations on our behalf.

However, according to the CCRA Act, Bill C-43, the CCRA was required to consult Treasury Board on our human resources plan, including collective bargaining and salary issues.

Recently, at the union's request, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency did agree to continue negotiations using a conciliation process. The parties met the week of February 16, 2004 with the assistance of a conciliation officer. Progress was made and the parties agreed to meet again to continue the conciliation process the week of March 15, 2004. Under the terms of this process, the Public Service Staff Relations Board determines the dates of the hearings in consultation with the CCRA and the union.

The Public Service Alliance has complained that the CCRA is bargaining in bad faith because negotiations are proceeding too slowly. I think most would agree that collective bargaining is never a speedy process.

I would like to reassure the House that CCRA employees will not be inconvenienced as they will continue to work under the terms and conditions of the previous agreement. The new agreement will provide a retroactive salary adjustment.

The CCRA is doing its best to bargain in good faith and is not trying to delay the process. Last August, when negotiations began, the union agreed to the timetable for meetings. In fact, at the union's request, the CCRA added two extra days and adjusted the schedule to accommodate union requests.

The CCRA has successfully concluded two previous collective bargaining agreements as an agency. The CCRA is committed to achieving a fair settlement for its employees. I am confident that will successfully conclude this agreement to everyone's satisfaction.

Contraventions ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Madam Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board has said in his answer on behalf of the minister he represents that there will be negotiations on March 15. It is now March 8. There has been no negotiation for over two weeks. A collective agreement cannot be negotiated when each party stays in its own office. Negotiation takes place around a negotiating table.

When we see the Prime Minister's flip flop, giving 32% increases to those working close to him, while others are dragging along with 1%, it is obvious that the Prime Minister, or the Liberal government, is not prepared to negotiate now, before an election. They are dragging their feet, that is not returning to the table. Negotiating is not done at home, nor in separate offices. Negotiations take place around a table. That is the reason for the term negotiating table. That is the only place negotiations can take place.

That is why the union is saying that the negotiations are not in good faith, because of the impending election. People do not have to wait seven or eight months for a collective agreement. A new one ought to be negotiated even before the old one has expired—

Contraventions ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Hinton)

The honourable Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board.

Contraventions ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

Liberal

Joe Jordan Liberal Leeds—Grenville, ON

Madam Speaker, I think I also said in the answer that the timetable for meetings was something that was determined through the conciliation process and agreed to by both sides.

Clearly the government has a responsibility to enter into good faith negotiations and reach fair settlements for employees while at the same time balancing its responsibilities to the tax treasury.

I would end by cautioning my friend that I think we are all interested in an outcome here, but I do not think we serve that process by trying to micromanage it on the floor of the House of Commons.

Contraventions ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Madam Speaker, on February 27, I asked the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada about the situation in southern New Brunswick, where hundreds, if not thousands, of people had supposedly banked or accumulated hours.

My question was as follows. Did the minister agree that the other people, caught in the same situation, should also have their cases reconsidered?

For example, is the government prepared to act retroactively and give money back to people from Richibouctou-Village, Petit-Rocher, Tracadie-Sheila, Caraquet and Lameque, New Brunswick, who got caught in the same situation with regard to banked hours, wherever they might be?

This evening, I spoke to someone in my riding. In 2001, these people—there were 200 forestry workers in the region—were caught by employment insurance for doing the very same thing. They were from Cap-Pelé. They had to repay the government between $10,000 and $15,000. They received employment insurance benefits of $18 per week. They had to accumulate twice the number of required hours.

My questions are the following: Is there a double standard? Why did the government take this decision right now? If the government acknowledges that there is problem with banking hours, that there is a problem with the small weeks, why does it not change the legislation immediately and return this money retroactively to people who had this employment insurance problem across Canada, whether construction workers in Toronto or Alberta, people working in fish plants, or forestry workers? It is not fair and it is not right that the problem was resolved only in Cap-Pelé. The problem has to be resolved across Canada. It is a problem for which the federal government has a national responsibility, not just in one riding or region of the country. People are suffering and they want there to be justice everywhere.

Will the government act retroactively and resolve the problem for everyone who was caught with respect to banking hours?

Contraventions ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:40 p.m.

London West Ontario

Liberal

Sue Barnes LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Madam Speaker, I would be happy to give my hon. colleague a response. The government is committed to ensuring that employment insurance remains responsive to the needs of all Canadians and that is why the Canada Employment Insurance Commission monitors and assesses the program each and every year.

The commission recognizes that some regions and groups of workers such as seasonal workers can face very particular challenges. The member should know that the government has not stopped working with all the various partners, because we know that workers in seasonal industries want more opportunity to work. The Government of Canada will continue to stimulate local economies to provide sustainable employment opportunities.

However, the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development is responsible for administering and protecting the integrity of EI benefits in a way that is fair to all contributors. EI is a national program. As such, the government has an obligation to ensure that the program is administered fairly and that employers and employees adhere to the regulations governing the program. Because of this, investigations take place regularly on all sorts of issues related to EI in all parts of the country.

Let us be clear on one thing, and I believe the member would know this: the vast majority of claimants are honest, but for the very few, the minority who are not, the department has programs in place to detect fraud as well as prevent and deter fraudulent activity.

To protect the integrity of the EI fund, the department of HRSD conducts investigations into suspected fraud and abuse of the EI program as well as performing an educational program for employers and claimants on their rights and obligations.

The department does conduct several investigations of varying degrees in EI every year. It stands to reason that some of these investigations are more complex than others.

With regard to the specific issue of banking of hours raised by this member, investigations into this practice have been regularly conducted both prior to and since the 1996 legislative reform, in all parts of the country and in a variety of industries.

Just like the bulk of investigations done by the department, I imagine some of the investigations into banking of hours are more complex than others, but I think it is worth mentioning that I am not an investigator nor do I imagine that the hon. member is an investigator in these matters, so it is difficult for either of us to say that two separate investigations should yield a similar or same result. I would imagine that if there are different facts they yield, in different and changing situations, different conclusions. In fact, it is rather presumptuous of us to assume that anyone who is not part of the investigation team could draw such a link.

The bottom line is that each case is individual and decisions regarding consequences are made on a case by case basis by the EI commission at the conclusion of its investigations. The member opposite should know that EI legislation provides for all sorts of consequences, including overpayments, fines, penalties and violations as well as criminal prosecutions that may result in imprisonment. There is quite a range, so I do not think that it is very easy for us here to compare one investigation to another. I hope this assists the member opposite.