House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 53% of the vote.
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation June 2nd, 2000
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
CBC management recently announced that all regional supper hour news programs will be cut to one-half hour in length. The supper hour news program in Newfoundland called Here and Now is essentially the most successful in the country. It has a market share of 64% and a viewing audience of 157,000. How can the minister justify gutting that program and cutting the budget by 40% down to $1.8 million?
National Cancer Survivors Day June 2nd, 2000
Mr. Speaker, this Sunday, June 4, marks the 13th anniversary of National Cancer Survivors Day in North America.
Last year more than 700 communities across North America took part in this event, and once again the Canadian Cancer Society has arranged events and activities from coast to coast to celebrate the lives of cancer survivors.
The statistics surrounding cancer diagnosis are tragic. Fortunately, though, they are getting better. Approximately one in three Canadians will be diagnosed with cancer during their lifetime. However, there is good news. More than half of all of those diagnosed with cancer now achieve full recovery. This day is set aside for them.
We rise today to honour those survivors and their families, and to once again thank the Canadian Cancer Society for its hard work in this area.
Canada Labour Code May 31st, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my good friend and colleague from Saint John.
It gives me great pleasure, on behalf of the PC Party, to say a few words on Bill C-12, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code.
I have to confess that I have very little new to say about this bill given the fact that this will be the third time, I believe, I have spoken on it. We are generally in support of the bill because the goal of the legislation, as we are all very much aware, is to promote safety consciousness in the workplace and the boardroom, and to establish the rights and responsibilities of workers and management with regard to real and potential hazards in the workplace.
I do not know what could be more important for workers today than for those of us who come to parliament to bring in good, sound laws and regulations for the workers. A few minutes ago my colleague mentioned a few accidents that happened in the workplace. I know he has quite a great deal of experience in the construction industry.
I remember, having worked in that industry for a number of years, the kinds of hazards that workers generally are exposed to today.
It is very important for us to be cognizant of those facts and to make sure that the laws we bring in address the very important area of safety for people who work not only in the business or office environment but in the construction environment as well.
All in all I think the bill is a very good one. One sign of that is that we only had two amendments to vote on yesterday at report stage. Motion No. 1 was put forward by the minister to provide clearer definitions of health and the real and potential dangers to health, which my party supported.
The other amendment was from the Bloc Quebecois to allow a pregnant or nursing mother to avail herself of the provincial health and safety legislation where the legislation is better or more comprehensive. That amendment did not pass. Quite a number of concerns were voiced about it, but I will not go into them at this point.
Key to the bill is an expanded role for health and safety committees in the workplace, which envisions identifying and dealing with potential hazards and related refusals to work quickly and efficiently in the workplace.
The bill seeks a better balance among the roles of government, employers and employees in dealing with workplace problems and more emphasis on establishing rules and procedures to deal with such matters at the local level.
When a bill like this one is vetted through a number of bodies there is more likelihood that the bill will be acceptable to a broad range of people. The bill came about as a result of consultations among government, business and labour in an effort to modernize our health and safety legislation, which incidentally has not undergone an overhaul since 1985. In general the bill has significant support among the groups of people involved. As I mentioned before we support it as well.
The last time the bill came before the House I pointed out a few of our concerns. I know the minister will not be speaking again on the bill. I think there is a part III of the code to come. When the minister comes to the House with part III perhaps she could address some of the concerns we have put on record for her.
One of our concerns is the whole area of ergonomics. It is a bit vague in detail, as we said before. To the layperson ergonomics is a strange and very sophisticated sounding word. As I understand it, it is the art or science of designing or changing the workplace to minimize the risk of injury to an employee in the course of his or her normal duties.
I would assume it is based on the old adage that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It is an area we are hearing quite a great bit about today. It is an area in which the minister probably should have been more detailed. Perhaps the government intends to bring in regulations or guidelines on ergonomics, but the press kit we received on Bill C-12 is essentially silent on the issue.
Another area of workplace safety not covered in the bill is the notion of the psychological protection of the worker in the workplace: the right to work in an environment free of harassment or various types of discrimination. Such matters can cause a great deal of grief in the workplace just as easily as physical injury or the threat of physical injury. While there are protections against a worker being unfairly disciplined for reporting a potential workplace hazard, there appears to be no provision in the bill to provide for a safe psychological work environment.
I will not continue too long as the member for Saint John has some concerns with regard to appointments to various boards which the bill addresses. I commend and compliment the minister for bringing in the bill. It is a good one. I compliment her as well on the fact that labour, environment and management have been consulted widely in this regard.
Petitions May 31st, 2000
Mr. Speaker, as you are well aware, Newfoundland has had its local CBC cut back a great deal. The petitioners request that parliament intervene to protect the rights of the citizens in the province. The daily CBC program Here and Now is essential to the culture of this very large and sparsely populated region.
The petitioners feel Here and Now is the last vestige of the once creative and leading CBC program producing region in news, current affairs, documentaries, entertainment and variety programs. Here and Now is their daily communication within the province and within the country.
The petitioners pray that parliament will take the appropriate action to ensure that the CBC board of directors adhere to the mandate set out by parliament and maintain at least its current level of support. I note that members opposite do not support that apparently.
Petitions May 31st, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of people from Newfoundland. I have not had a chance to count the number but it looks like there could be 1,000 or 1,500 names. The prayer of the petitioners is as follows “The undersigned residents of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador—
Canada Labour Code May 30th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive Conservative Party will be voting in favour of this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was agreed to on the following:)
Transport May 30th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister about freezing the rate.
Given that he continues to evade that answer, let me try him on this one. Quite often the threat of a strike by workers disrupts tourists headed for Newfoundland. Given the importance of this ferry link to the economy of Newfoundland, would the minister consider having that service declared an essential service with no strikes facing the travelling public and some form of binding arbitration for the workers?
Transport May 30th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
A short while ago I asked the minister for an indefinite rate freeze on the ferry run from Nova Scotia to Newfoundland and the minister scoffed at the idea. Even though this ferry route is essentially part of the Trans-Canada Highway, the cost of travel on it is much higher than an equivalent trip by road.
Given the importance of the ferry link to the future development of Newfoundland, and given that P.E.I. now has a fixed link, why can we not have our fixed rate?
Supply May 30th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, arrangements were made for the purchase of a new ferry. We have been receiving quite a number of complaints from brokers who were supposed to be given an opportunity to bid on the purchase of the ferries. Some of the brokers have been telling us that the system that is currently being used by Marine Atlantic for the purchase of these ferries is not a good system, that it leaves a lot to be desired and that it does not seem to be a transparent system. We have received quite a number of complaints about that.
The making of reservations on the ferry continues to be a nightmare for people who want to travel to the province of Newfoundland.
Supply May 30th, 2000
No, Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that there should be cost controls on everything in the province, if that is what he is asking. I am not saying, either, that some significant improvements have not been made to the ferry service in Newfoundland.
What I am saying, however, is that there has to be some recognition of the fact that we are an island province. There has to be some recognition of the fact that the distance between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland should have a rate charged which is equivalent to what it would cost to travel the same distance on the Trans-Canada Highway. I do not think that is an unreasonable request.
Yes, I am very much aware that there are heavy costs associated with running the ferry service between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. No one can deny that. However, the point has been made continuously to the federal government over the last 15 or 20 years that people should pay an equivalent cost to that which people pay when travelling on the Trans-Canada Highway.
I quoted to him a moment ago the rate if we were travelling from Port-aux-Basques to Argentia. The fee is $124 for the car, $55 for each of the adults and $27.50 for each child, for a total of $289. That is cost-prohibitive. Is it any wonder that people travelling from the United States to Atlantic Canada will very often stop in Nova Scotia? They will not take the time to go across to Newfoundland because it is cost-prohibitive.
We are asking the federal government to recognize that and to say that the costs will be the equivalent rate that travellers would pay on the Trans-Canada Highway for that distance. That is not an unreasonable request.