Dave Chatters

[Petitions, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to present a petition on behalf of the family of Barb Danelesko and some 300 other constituents of mine. They ask that the Young Offenders Act be changed to reflect the character of young offenders by increasing the maximum penalties for violent crimes, such as first and second degree murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated assault, aggravated sexual assault and armed robbery, to double the current maximum penalties and to allow the publication of young offenders' names after a second indictable offence, to also lower the age limit which defines a young person to include only those between the ages of 10 to 17 and, with violent crimes, youth aged 15 or older should be transferred to adult court.

[Canada Labour Code, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that my speech is not so exciting that everyone in the House would want to stay and listen.

Motion No. 7 calls for the inclusion of a clause requiring that the board hold a certified representational vote on union certification when 35% of the employees sign cards requesting union certification. In its current form the Canada Labour Code states the board may hold such a representational vote but does not bind it to it.

This means the board could choose to ignore the wishes of workers in one respect or another. Union certification may be forced on workers or denied to workers if such a democratic process is not in place. The proposed clause ensures that the wishes of the majority are heard and upheld.

The second motion in this group moved by the hon. member Wetaskiwin is Motion No. 30. This motion has my unwavering support and should have the support of every other member in this House.

Motion No. 30 calls for the removal of clause 46. Clause 46 allows the board to certify a trade union despite lack of evidence of majority support. This is the issue that has caused all the controversy this afternoon, the trampling of democracy and the lack of respect for the democratic rights of union workers.

This is unacceptable and it allows for the board to make assumptions about the wishes of the workers. This clause suggests that it is acceptable for the board to force union certification on workers if it believes that it was only unfair labour practices that prevented workers from voting in favour of union certification. This might be acceptable if there were a concrete way to determine unfair labour practices. The reality, however, as exemplified in the Wal-Mart case is that the board does not always know the minds of workers.

In the Wal-Mart case the board assumed that Wal-Mart was using intimidation tactics to bully workers into voting against trade certification. This was not the case and now the workers have launched a decertification drive.

This clause leaves it up to the CIRB to determine what constitutes unfair labour practices and in essence to presume to know the minds of the workers better than the workers themselves.

To go against the wishes of the workers and to override their democratic right to determine the majority opinion through a representative vote is absolutely unacceptable. Members from the other side of the House are saying this clause protects workers who are being intimidated by their employers. However, if this is the case, that employees are afraid to vote honestly by secret ballot, then there is something wrong with the voting process and not with the way this legislation operates to protect them.

I certainly cannot support this bill in its current form without other amendments being proposed.

[Canada Labour Code, May 7th, 1998]

Someone did say that. The member at the other end of the House said exactly that. I would ask him how he can judge what my conscience is or whether I am voting for my constituents.

On the other hand, a couple of days ago the member who sits opposite, the member who is running off at the mouth over there, during a very emotional vote in this House was crying her eyes out simply because her party and her leader had threatened her and coerced her into voting the party line. The evidence was pretty clear that she was not voting for her constituents, or with her conscience for that matter.

This bill has a lot of flaws and a lot of problems. The robbing of the democratic process is only one of them. There are many other issues about replacement workers and about taking one particular commodity out of the process, such as protecting the right to load grain in the port of Vancouver while not providing that same protection for other commodities and causing all kinds of problems in a strike situation.

This is a bad bill in many ways.

The proposed motions in Group No. 2 include two motions moved by my hon. colleague from Wetaskiwin which would greatly improve the quality of the bill and go a long way in bringing back some democracy, some fairness and effectiveness to the bill.

Before I discuss the motions of my colleague from Wetaskiwin, I want to mention two motions that were moved by the hon. member for Trois-Rivières. Motion No. 6 proposes the removal of clause 6 from the legislation. My colleagues and I are opposed to the removal of that clause. Clause 6 allows the board to decide a matter without having to hold an oral hearing. I think this clause is important to the process of streamlining the CIRB's procedures.

The whole process of scheduling an oral hearing and adhering to the strict oral hearing procedures unnecessarily prolongs many board decisions. Many decisions can simply be made by the board without the need for oral hearings. Such oral hearings are lengthy and expensive and should be reserved only for the most important matters.

This clause increases the speed and efficiency with which minor cases are dealt by bypassing the oral hearing process.

Therefore I am opposed to Motion No. 6 which calls for the removal of clause 6. I am also opposed to Motion No. 8, also moved by the hon. member for Trois-Rivières. This motion removes a phrase in clause 16, amending it to allow the board to revoke the appointment of an employer representative without having to satisfy itself that the employer representative is no longer qualified to act in that capacity.

By removing this part of the clause the government would be removing the employer's right to fair representation. Typically, a group of employers would select one representative and if this representative is arbitrarily removed because as few as one person in the employer's group calls for it, the wishes of the other employers in the group are disregarded. Again, it is a sleight to the democratic process.

It is my position that there should be a vote by which the majority of members of the employer's group have the opportunity to decide what action is taken.

The selection of the clause requiring the board to be satisfied the employer representative is no longer qualified to act in that capacity protects the wishes of the majority. The removal of this part of the clause as proposed in this motion would only serve to weaken the employer's association. Therefore I think in good conscience I could not support this motion.

I certainly can and do support the two motions in this group proposed by my hon. colleague for Wetaskiwin.

Motion No. 7 calls for the inclusion of a clause requiring that the board hold a representational vote on union certification when 35% of the employees sign cards requesting union certification. Of course this is getting into the particular motion that has caused all the controversy this afternoon.

In its current form the Canada Labour Code states that the board may hold such a representational vote but does not bind the board to the vote. This means the board could choose to ignore the wishes of workers in one respect or another.

[Canada Labour Code, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate at the report stage of Bill C-19. It seems that the debate, I guess because of the latitude allowed in this place, is deteriorating into some kind of debate over the different conceptions of democracy rather than perhaps the motions before us on this bill. I guess I will have to make my comments as well before I get into the technicalities of the bill.

Some of my career was spent in labour-union negotiations and collective bargaining. Quite clearly, in that process there is a very delicate balance between the rights of the union and the rights of management. It can be easily skewed one way or the other. In my view this bill certainly skews the advantage to the union side. I think that is a dangerous direction in which to go.

When members opposite stand and tell me, having been here five years, that I am not voting with my conscience or for my constituents—

[Canada Lands Surveyors Act, May 6th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, while we support this bill and the principle of what it is trying to achieve, there were some concerns with the bill. I was hoping that the parliamentary secretary might address some of those issues. The members opposite might have noted that there were only a few as we were going through it clause by clause.

I question the wisdom or the need for the minister to appoint two lay people. My colleague, who is a land surveyor, raised that question as well. When the minister has representation through the Surveyor General of Canada on the council, why is it necessary and why is it desirable to have two patronage appointed lay people on that council as well? I would be interested in hearing the government response through the parliamentary secretary.

The other point I wanted to raise is that we had some concerns with the power of a surveyor or a licence holder to have access to private land at any reasonable time as long as that person takes reasonable precautions to avoid damage during the survey. It seems to me that that is a powerful provision in the bill. Perhaps the private landowner would be entitled to some protection for the entry, or that the surveyor would have to go through some process to gain access to the land, to assure the landowner that their interests in that land are protected.

I wanted to raise those concerns on the record before this bill passed third reading. I would be interested in hearing some kind of government response to those concerns. We have not had that opportunity. Unfortunately, I am not sure if we have enough government members present to do that.

[Canada Lands Surveyors Act, May 6th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member a question of clarification. I thought he said that the board would consist of five members. It is my understanding that the board would consist of the president, the vice-president, the past president and three members, the Surveyor General of Canada and two persons appointed by the government. That is considerably more than five members. I was confused by his explanation.

I have some concerns, this being a non-government organization, a professional organization that will be responsible to its membership, with an ex-officio member being the Surveyor General of Canada, about what the requirement would be for the minister to have two patronage appointment positions on the board.

[Canada Lands Surveyors Act, May 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate on Bill C-31, the Canada lands surveyors act. The bill as the parliamentary secretary has stated transfers the responsibilities of the existing board of examiners for Canada lands surveyors to the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors.

The Association of Canada Lands Surveyors is a non-government association with mandatory membership. In other words, one cannot be a Canada lands surveyor without having membership in this association.

As with any bill introduced in the House for second reading, it stirs an interest, a curiosity as to why it is introduced and what efficiencies or benefits Canadians gain from either the change in legislation or the new legislation.

Upon inquiry and investigation this is kind of a curious situation with the Canada lands surveyors in that it seems to make perfectly reasonable sense to do what this bill proposes to do. However, one has to wonder why now. Every province in Canada has for years had a professional association of surveyors, and the surveyor general assures me that the reason for this is it will provide better service to Canadians than the Government of Canada has been able to provide in the past.

That raises questions as it has raised in previous times. If it is good for the country why did it take so long for this government to admit it and to get on with the business of introducing and passing the bill?

I would like to go through how the bill will serve Canadians better. First, it would transfer responsibility for developing and maintaining professional standards among Canadian lands surveyors from a federal agency to a non-government agency. This non-government agency, the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors, will be responsible for designing and implementing a complaints and discipline process that the government itself does not seem to be able to put in place, or to maintain to the same degree at least, as this non-government organization.

Currently there does not appear to be any formal process to deal with complaints of quality of workmanship or professionalism of Canada lands surveyors.

Under existing legislation the board of examiners must prove gross negligence or corrupt practices to discipline a land surveyor. Certainly those are pretty draconian measures and not an easy task to achieve.

Through the proposed changes, however, there will be very clear processes by which the complaints may be filed against individual surveyors. These changes call for the formation of a complaints committee and a discipline committee, the latter of which will have the power to discipline a surveyor in a number of ways if proved negligent or incompetent.

I wholeheartedly agree with the creation of two committees. We need to protect the good name of responsible and reputable surveys as well as the integrity of the Canada lands survey system. As my colleague the parliamentary secretary pointed out, the Canada lands surveyors have a long and glorious history of service in Canada and certainly in opening up this country for settlement.

I believe the implementation of a formal discipline process will help us to accomplish the goal of maintaining that integrity and that reputation. The complaints and discipline committees set up as a result of this transfer will have the power to discipline surveyors guilty of incompetence or professional misconduct.

It would be very time consuming and costly for the federal government to design and implement such a process. Therefore I was delighted to learn that through this transfer the association will assume financial responsibility for this process as well.

The association will not receive funding through the government but rather through the collection of membership dues from its member Canada lands surveyors. Second, through the transfer of responsibilities this bill will result in the creation and operation of a practice review program that will ensure that Canada lands surveyors maintain professional standards.

Lands surveyors will be required to continue to upgrade skills in order to ensure high quality and accuracy of surveys. The practice review program will be fully funded by the association, as will the continuing education program through which surveyors can continue to upgrade skills.

Currently each of the 10 provinces has professional associations operating in much the same way as the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors.

Like other professional associations, ACLS will have mandatory membership and similar standards to its sister associations in the 10 provinces. The proposed changes mean that surveyors surveying on public lands, including land in Yukon and Northwest Territories, on Indian reserves and in national parks as well as in offshore areas, will be adhering to the same standards as surveyors elsewhere in Canada. Surveyors across Canada will be expected to show the same level of skills and professionalism.

I support the government's efforts to eliminate and streamline government agencies. This transfer would not eliminate but streamline the responsibilities of the legal surveys division of Environment Canada. It would relieve this agency of the burden of setting and enforcing professional standards among Canada land surveyors. The surveyor general would continue to establish standards for and manage surveys made under the Canada Land Survey Act. The surveyor general will also retain custody of records of all such surveys. These changes will simply shift responsibly for the licensing and continual review of the performance of surveyors without infringing on the surveyor general's control over the surveys produced.

Such government downsizing and streamlining is purported to serve the interests of the Canadian public. However, in reviewing the proposed act I wondered if this act would truly benefit the average Canadian. The government has itself admitted that the introduction of this act was largely driven by the interests of the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors. The association has been asking for this role for 10 years. However, as history has shown, it is often the case that many professional associations act in the best interests of the professionals they represents rather than in the interests of the clientele the professionals serve.

Therefore I was interested in how this transfer would protect the interests of the average Canadian. It is, after all, the average Canadian I was elected to represent. In answer to this I found that the proposed changes would standardize the quality of surveying services received by all Canadians. This act will establish the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors as a non-government professional association that adheres to similar standards as its provincial counterparts. This means that residents in Yukon and Northwest Territories, Indian reserves and town sites within national parks will receive the same quality of survey service as Canadians living elsewhere in Canada. Approximately 450,000 Canadians residing on Canada lands will directly benefit from these changes.

This in itself does not positively reassure me that Canadians are being well served by the changes being proposed by this act. However, I am reassured by the fact that the professional association will not be completely autonomous of the federal government. The association will be a self-governing body within federal jurisdiction. Through this act the minister retains the power to take such measures as the minister considers appropriate to fulfill any objective of the association the minister is of the opinion the association is not fulfilling. Providing the acting minister has the best interests of Canadians at heart, this clause can be used as a means of government intervention should the association fail to meet its obligation under this act.

It is not uncommon for Canadians to engage in disputes over property lines. Many Canadians do not notice the errors in the surveys of their land until they go to build a fence, pave a driveway or plant a tree. Although this is only one small aspect of land surveying, it is my hope that this transfer of responsibility will raise the quality of surveys to a level whereby such disputes can be avoided from the outset by high quality surveys. It is also my hope that ACLS will honour its obligation to the Canadian public by serving the interests not only of the member surveyors but of the Canadian public as a whole.

I believe this act, if properly implemented, will result in an association of responsible, professional and reliable surveyors equipped with the most current skills and knowledge. Therefore I and my party support Bill C-31.

[Alberta Fires, May 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in the Saguenay flood and in the ice storm in Ontario and Quebec the government did not wait for formulas and for the provinces to follow protocol. The Prime Minister and his government were there within hours.

It has been three days and this is the first fire situation in history in Alberta yet the government has not responded. How would he know if the Government of Alberta is handling the situation well?

[Alberta Fires, May 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, for the third time in as many years, disaster has struck northern Alberta. For three days now wild fires have been raging across northern Alberta destroying homes, farms, businesses and families.

Why has the Prime Minister not had the compassion and caring to so much as pick up the phone and call the premier of Alberta and ask how the federal government might help in this situation?

[Alberta Forest Fires, May 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, for the past few days fires have raged out of control through northern Alberta.

I would like to express gratitude to all those who are working day and night, putting their lives on the line to try to save homes, farms and businesses.

Our hearts go out to the many residents who, for the third year in a row, have had to deal with devastating natural disaster.

The residents of Smith, Hondo, Swan Hills and High Prairie have had to leave their homes not knowing if they will have homes to return to.

Our most heartfelt sympathy goes out to those who have lost their homes, businesses or places of employment.

At times like these, in the Canadian spirit, we must be ready to help in any way we can.