Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Lost his last election, in 2004, with 33% of the vote.
Questions on the Order Paper March 10th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Contraventions Act March 8th, 2004
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 Act March 8th, 2004
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 Act March 8th, 2004
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 Act March 8th, 2004
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think that we have certainly allowed a lot of leeway in terms of the breadth of discussion in the debate today.
I think when you, Madam Speaker, ask hon. members to be cautious in their language and they come back with a retort that it is a statement of fact, they are questioning your ruling. I would suggest you check the blues because I think we have a case of not only unparliamentary language but complete disregard for the authority of the Chair.
Questions on the Order Paper March 8th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Workplace Psychological Harassment Prevention Act February 26th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate my colleague from the Bloc for bringing this motion forward. We are seeing a rejuvenated private members' process. As someone who was on the committee that discussed at great length for years on how to improve the private members' process, I think we are seeing the fruits of that labour here today.
This particular bill is interesting and I congratulate the member who brought it forward. These types of workplace issues have not been addressed seriously for a long time.
Quite clearly, the costs associated with employees who were harassed and the costs associated with workers who were not feeling secure in their environment were not quantified for a long time. They were not considered. We need to take a very serious look at anything that we can do to improve the environment for workers in the country and for workers of the Government of Canada specifically.
Some of my colleagues have picked up on the technical reasons why they have concerns about the bill. I do not intend to get into that here today. It is clear that the issue of psychological harassment, as the political language of the day would suggest, is on the radar screen of government. It is being looked at by various stakeholders.
This is the first hour of debate for the bill. I hear the member heckling me. Rather than heckling me, I would suggest to my colleague that she wait for the report, which I understand is imminent, to see where this fits and how this is addressed. I would suggest to my colleague that she take a look at the order of precedence and perhaps trade down her second hour because if we can get the document of the stakeholders and their final report, it may fit nicely with the second hour of debate on this particular initiative. That may be something that she would want to consider.
On the surface, the issue of psychological harassment and how that is handled was articulated in an extremely logical and intelligent way by my colleague from the NDP. It is a complex issue, but we should not let the potential complexities of the issue drive us away from having to deal with it.
I agree with my colleague that it is a real threat. I am a little concerned when it gets put under the umbrella of health and safety. It is a different kettle of fish. We must have a certain understanding of the dynamics of a workplace, and a certain understanding of the human interaction that takes place in a workplace. In some cases, where traditional health and safety flaws result in accidents and leave people with injuries or scars, the fallout from psychological harassment is not anywhere near as easy to spot.
I say that with a caveat. We should not let the complexities--that I think we probably have in the past--keep us from putting our best efforts toward coming up with a solution.
As I started off by saying, we must look at the costs of not acting. We must look at the costs of having a workplace where this type of harassment goes on and is not addressed. The problem with that is it permeates throughout the workplace.
Even if individuals are not directly affected, they may see a co-worker who is subjected to working conditions that are completely unacceptable and nothing is done. Or, in the case of the public service prior to whistleblower legislation, some individuals may decide that they are witnessing a circumstance that is unacceptable and try to take action.
Because we do not have the proper processes in place, the person who brings the issue forward, whether it is the person who has been harassed or not, does not get a satisfactory resolution.
In a situation like that, clearly we have not resolved the harassment, but I would argue that we have a much larger problem, that is, we have a culture and a workforce where people do not feel it is worth their effort to bring these situations to light.
I understand that the Quebec government has taken very progressive steps. Like many of the social reforms in the country, they find their legs at the provincial level. I think there is an onus on us to watch and monitor extremely carefully what is going on in the province of Quebec with regard to this legislation. I congratulate my counterparts in Quebec for their steps in this regard.
At the end of the day, the government does take this issue very seriously. It is already well under way in terms of a process of defining where it fits and how we deal with it.
I am not going to go through technical objections, because I think they have been addressed, but I think the government has to do a number of things. We have to sort out exactly our approach to what is an extremely complex issue. That is under way. We are looking at it.
As I say, I have expressed my own view that simply putting this as an addition to health and safety does not do the issue justice. I think it is more complicated than that.
We also have to make sure that as we raise the bar in terms of the standards we expect to be in existence in a workplace, we also, in a parallel and complementary way, put in place processes and structures so that if abuses of that high bar exist, employees feel comfortable coming forward. Nothing will work against the intent of this bill more quickly, as the hon. member from the Conservative Party said, than if we set a very high bar and have no capacity to enforce it. In fact, if that is the approach we are going to take, then I would argue that it is a giant step backwards.
I think the government has laid out a process of consultation with stakeholders. It is very close to tabling its report.
As I said, in the truest spirit of this place I would suggest to the member, as someone who has not yet up their mind on this issue, if she could perhaps trade her second hour and move down, if that report were to come to light, that information put together with the hard work she has done on this bill may result in moving this agenda forward.
Supply February 26th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think if you sought it, you would find consent to see the clock as 5:30 p.m., so we could begin private members' business.
Supply February 26th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am reluctant to interject during my colleague's speech. I am not taking exception to the sentiment and the passion she feels for the topic.
However, I am concerned that by referencing text from letters sent to her she is using language and terms that are not parliamentary. I would ask the Chair's guidance in terms of whether or not she is still bound by the rules of the House in terms of what excerpts she can read from those particular pieces of correspondence.
Criminal Code February 23rd, 2004
Madam Speaker, in response to my hon. colleague, I did preface my comments by saying that I too share the concern.
If we were to look at what is happening in terms of not only the technology that is out there to assist governments in what they do, but also the regulatory frameworks that are necessary to manage in a global economy, as a government, we would be selling Canadians short if we took the position that we have the in-house capacity to do absolutely everything ourselves.
I share the concern. The government has undertaken and will continue to undertake decentralization of services. In the case of my hon. colleague's region and mine, it puts good paying skilled jobs in rural areas. I too will fight erosion of transfer to the public sector if I do not think it is appropriate.
At the end of the day, we must take a look through realistic lenses at approaches that maximize the benefits of these potential partnerships.