Debates of May 9th, 2005

Committees of the House

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My request to defer this vote must stand because the Standing Orders regarding the deferral of votes are very clear. They state that during the ringing of a 30 minute bell, either the government whip or the chief opposition whip may ask the Speaker to defer the division, which must be no later than the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on the next day.

The fact that the government whip wants to defer the vote to a later time today demonstrates that the vote on this particular motion can be deferred. The real question is, which deferral takes precedence?

I would argue that the latter deferral takes precedence because the authority of the chief government whip and the chief opposition whip in determining when this vote takes place is equal. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that I was the concluding speaker and so, presumably, I have the right to leave my chair at the conclusion of the debate.

In determining when this vote takes place, and I think you can, the right of the chief opposition whip and the government whip to defer is equal. The government and opposition members are given the maximum time to prepare for a vote. On that basis, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that you take the latter deferral, which would be until tomorrow.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add an argument, which occurred to me as I was listening to my honourable colleague. The parties had concluded an agreement today. The leaders of the four parties are absent. They went to pay tribute to the veterans and to take part in the celebrations for VE Day, 60 years ago.

It was agreed that no vote would be held here in this House, since the four party leaders were absent. We are keeping our word, as are the Conservatives. I am sure the NDP is doing so as well. If the Liberals do not want to keep their word, we will inform their Prime Minister that they broke the non-aggression pact in order to allow the—

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I find it somewhat hilarious to hear the Bloc member actually suggesting he respects rules.

In any event, the motion that is before the House is not a confidence vote in any event. I would suggest that what we were looking to do was to facilitate this going to committee because I believe that the committee will do its work. There was no agreement with respect to House business. The leader of the official opposition made that very clear before he left on this trip.

In any event, this is an instruction to the committee. I would like to see the committee get on with its work. If the official opposition wants to defer this vote until tomorrow, that is fine with us. We wanted to get it to committee, so that the committee could begin its work and ultimately deal with the motion.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I would like to thank the government whip and House leader, the hon. member for Roberval, and the whip and House leader for the official opposition. I think we have eaten up the five minutes to see if we could come to an agreement and apparently we have. We will have a vote tomorrow at the end of government orders.

Petitions

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present a petition on behalf of the wonderful people from Semans, Saskatchewan, who are extremely concerned about the potential closure of rural post offices.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present this afternoon, both of them dealing with the same issue.

The petitioners from my riding of Prince George--Peace River and from Oshawa, Port Hope, Peterborough, Lindsay, Whitby and Ajax, all in the great province of Ontario, wish to draw to the attention of the House that adoptive parents make a significant social contribution to our society and often face significant adoption related costs, but out of pocket adoption expenses are not tax deductible as yet.

Therefore, they are calling upon Parliament to pass legislation to provide a deduction for expenses related to the adoption of a child.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions to present. First, I have petitions signed by 186 residents of your province, Mr. Speaker, including I believe several of your constituents, praying that Parliament maintain the criminal prohibition on assisted suicide. They note their concern that the Minister of Justice has proposed a parliamentary debate on legalizing assisted suicide.

I also have a petition signed by some 53 residents of Abbotsford, British Columbia, calling on Parliament to maintain the prohibition on assisted suicide.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have another petition signed by some 200 residents of various parts of Alberta, including Edmonton, calling upon Parliament to preserve the traditional definition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

I have a further petition signed by over 200 residents of Alberta and Saskatchewan calling upon Parliament to use all possible legislative and administrative measures to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first is from petitioners who pray that Parliament act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition says that marriage is an institution so basic to the human condition and asks that Parliament take all necessary means to maintain and support the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, Question No. 131 will be answered today.

Question No. 131

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Lanark, ON]

Regarding the status of CFB Bagotville, does the government have any plans or, if there is no plan, has there been or are there ongoing discussions or consideration being given: ( a ) to close the base; ( b ) to eliminate or reduce any of its capabilities and/or personnel strength; or ( c ) to change its role or function?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

In response to ( a ) the government has no plans to close Bagotville.

In response to ( b ) there will be no reduction of operational capability or operational tempo at CFB Bagotville. This summer, as part of its ongoing efforts to maintain an effective wing organization and transform to meet today's defence needs, the air force will be reorganize the two residents CF-18 squadrons. As a result of this reorganization, two military positions will be transferred to the new Canadians Forces Air Warfare Centre in CFB Trenton and one civilian position will be reintegrated into the CFB Bagotville public service work force under the Treasury Board priority referral program. There will be no change in the number of aircraft at CFB Bagotville. Moreover, an additional 13 civilian contractor positions will be added in support of the construction of two new CF-18 simulators.

In response to ( c ) the role and function of CFB Bagotville will remain unchanged.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 118, 127 and Starred Question No. 126 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 118

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

With regard to the statements that the Minister of International Trade made in the House of Commons on March 9 and 11, 2005, concerning the $350 million allocated to the softwood lumber industry: ( a ) who receives this money; ( b ) how much has already been spent; and ( c ) what is the breakdown per recipient?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 127

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

With respect to the transfer of funds from the government of Canada to the government of Nova Scotia for the post-secondary education institutions, what are the precise, actual / projected transfer amounts to the government of Nova Scotia for each of the fiscal years 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006, and 2006-2007 under each of: ( a ) the current funding formula in which funds are divided amongst the provinces based on their general population as a percentage of the general Canadian population (per capita); ( b ) a funding formula in which funds are divided amongst the provinces based on the number of students attending post-secondary education institutions in that province as a percentage of the number of students attending post-secondary education institutions in Canada (per student); and ( c ) a funding formula in which funds are divided amongst the provinces based on the number of full-time-equivalent students attending post-secondary education institutions in that province as a percentage of the number of full-time-equivalent students attending post-secondary education institutions in Canada (per student, full-time equivalent)?

(Return tabled)

*Question No. 126

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

With respect to the Employment Insurance Program Compassionate Care Benefit: ( a ) how many people have applied for the benefit each month since it came into effect; ( b ) how many people were granted the benefit; and ( c ) how many people were declined the benefit and for what specific reasons?

(Return tabled)

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

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

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to return to a question I asked originally on February 25. At that time, I wanted to make sure that the House was aware of media reports in February which indicated that Stoney Mountain Penitentiary, which is located in my riding, was ranked third out of 54 federal prisons for weapons seizures.

Also, correctional officers confiscated nearly 1,200 weapons across Canada during 2004. They put their lives at risk every day, but the government will not provide them with stabproof vests.

As well, the government has continued to delay coming to an agreement with the officers union and they have now been without a contract for almost three years.

At that time I asked when the government was going to make a decision to go back to the table in good faith and start negotiating with the correctional officers. Unfortunately, nothing happened.

I did not receive much of a reply, so on March 31, I tabled Question No. 121 in the House, which was just answered last week. My question was:

With regard to the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement between the government and Correctional Service of Canada employees nearly three years ago; (a) what is the current state of negotiations?; (b) is the government currently engaged in negotiations?; (c) when does the government estimate that a contract with the Corrections officers will be signed?

Treasury Board responded that:

--on November 30...after several meetings, the conciliation officer appointed by the Public Service Staff Relations Board...informed the parties of his decision to terminate the conciliation process based on his assessment that the number and the scope of issues still remaining provided a limited perspective that the conciliation process would lead to a settlement.

This is completely unacceptable.

Correctional officers right across this country put their lives on the line with some very dangerous individuals in our Correctional Service penitentiaries.

I have been through the two federal institutions in my riding, Stoney Mountain Penitentiary and the Rockwood Institute. Let me tell members that while walking through there I was looking at a group of individuals who were there for a reason.

As well, a very aggressive recruiting campaign is happening with gangs and it is almost impossible to manage the situation in the penitentiary. During our break week I was out there again looking at the whole problem of gangs. There is a gang environment. These individuals cannot be allowed to mix. Up to six gangs are now participating in recruiting new inmates.

All sorts of terrible things are happening there and it is the guards who are putting their lives on the line to maintain the peace. People outside in the community are actively recruited and are throwing drugs over the fence using slingshots and potato guns and other things of that nature. Inmates have access to drugs while they are out in the yard because people out in the community are willing to take the risk of providing drugs to the criminal element inside the penitentiary.

Therefore, when is the government going to negotiate in good faith with the correctional service union so that, first, officers can be properly compensated for the risks they take in managing and caring for those inmates? Second, when is the government going to provide them with the proper equipment so they can protect themselves, so they can protect their lives?

I look forward to the response.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's comments. I share his concerns.

I used to be a correctional officer myself. I worked in a maximum security institution when I was going to school and university. I know very well the challenges that are faced by a correctional officer on the line, particularly those in maximum security and medium security institutions where correctional officers are at times faced with some very difficult circumstances and very challenging inmates, to say the least.

Let me also say, though, that our government is committed to ensuring the safety of the officers and to giving them the ability and the powers to do the difficult jobs that they do. I also want to say that we are deeply grateful for the work correctional officers do to keep our streets safe.

On the issue of negotiations, let me say for the hon. member that negotiations on a new agreement began in March 2002. Since then, the employer has been working diligently to come up with an agreement that is satisfactory to both parties. Although the parties have been at the bargaining table for over 75 days to negotiate a new collective agreement, several major issues continue and still remain on the table.

Officials at the Treasury Board Secretariat and representatives from the bargaining union are in discussions at this moment to determine the most appropriate course of action to resolve these difficulties. Let me be very clear: the Treasury Board is committed to the collective bargaining process with the ultimate goal of reaching a negotiated settlement that is fair to the correctional officers and fair to the taxpayer.

During negotiations, CSC is guided by the Public Service Staff Relations Act and fully respects the correctional officers' rights and demands.

CSC's mandate, as I said before, is to provide a safe working environment. We are trying to do a number of things, including trying to help ensure that our officers have the ability to detect contraband, which is a challenging task at the best of times. As a result, one of the issues the hon. member brought up was the issue of protective clothing.

I want to assure the member that protective clothing and equipment is available to correctional officers in the course of their duties. This includes that every federal institution has a supply of vests that are stab and bullet resistant, which are part of the security equipment they carry, including, I might add, that those in maximum and medium security institutions have the ability to have handcuffs, and most of them in fact do. They also have available to them chemical agents that are used to immobilize an inmate who is causing difficulties.

I have federal institutions in my riding too. I know that this has been a very difficult time for our correctional officers. I have spoken with the Treasury Board minister. He is seized with the desire to try to resolve this as quickly as possible within the confines of the rules that restrict him. I want to assure the hon. member that he is trying to work with his officials and CSC officials to try to resolve these difficult issues very quickly so they can get back to work with a contract.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his answer and I appreciate the fact that the equipment is being made available to the correctional officers. We have many brave men and women who work in these facilities and put their lives at risk. We do not need to encumber them with indecision on whether or not they are going to have a good contract, fair compensation and the ability to do their jobs effectively with the proper equipment.

The parliamentary secretary said that the government is committed to ensuring the safety of the officers and to making sure that there are negotiations, but the fact of the matter is that it has been almost three years that these officers have been without a contract. It is time to step up to the table in good faith. In the response that I received in my enquiry of the ministry, it was stated that negotiations broke off on November 30, 2004. It is time to come back to the table in good faith, settle this, resolve it and use whatever means possible so that our correctional officers and their union know that they are being respected by the government.