Norman E. Doyle

[Supply, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint John. I would like to say a few words in the transportation debate. Coming from an island province, transportation is very important to us and is always uppermost in our minds.

Canada is a physically huge country. From the very beginning of its history as a nation, transportation issues have been very prominent on the national stage. At first it was the building of our Transcontinental Railroad. Then came the highways and the airports. It seems we are always talking about transportation in the House of Commons. Well we should be, because it is very important to every province in Canada.

When Newfoundland joined Confederation back in 1949, our transportation link to the mainland was written into our terms of union, which are part of the Constitution of Canada. It meant that we had a constitutional guarantee of passenger and rail ferry service between the island and the mainland of Canada.

In the 1980s, with the railway still losing money and the service being taken over more and more by trucks in the province of Newfoundland, the federal government and the province of Newfoundland signed a deal to give up the railway in exchange for about $1 billion. Those $1 billion were used to upgrade the Trans-Canada Highway, to rebuild it.

However we still have a constitutional guarantee of a car-ferry link to the mainland. That link is often in the news, as we are all very much aware. When I say our current ferry service is often in the news, it is not often good news. It is generally bad news with continual complaints of poor scheduling, poor accommodations, long lineups and whatnot.

It is a very costly service for the people of Newfoundland. Let me give an indication of how costly it is. A family of four, travelling in a car from North Sydney to Port aux Basques pays $62 for the car, $20 for each of the two adults and $10 for children under 13, for a total of $122 not including the cost of food and other incidentals.

If the family were travelling by way of Argentia to the mainland of Canada it would cost $124 for the car, $55 for each adult and $27.50 for each child, for a total of $289 to travel that small, narrow body of water between Nova Scotia and the province of Newfoundland. That is cost prohibitive.

It is no wonder that three-quarters of American tourists who head into the maritimes never make it to the province of Newfoundland. The Atlantic Ocean is there. The ferry lineup is there. The cost is there. All these factors serve to deter tourists from coming to the province of Newfoundland.

We in Newfoundland have always made the point that our ferry link with the mainland is part of our Trans-Canada Highway. Therefore, why should it cost a traveller more to travel by ferry than it does to drive a similar distance on the Trans-Canada Highway? There is no reason in God's earthly world why that should happen. Instead the rates keep going up and the service seems to be continually getting worse.

Not long ago I raised in the House of Commons the possibility of freezing these rates for an indefinite period of time. The minister was not very receptive to that idea. The government did freeze the rates for this season only, mainly because of the St. John's West byelection. In order to strengthen our growing tourism industry I feel there is a case to be made now for an extended freeze.

I would prefer that the rates be reduced to reflect the cost of equivalent highway travel. Given the reaction last week when I raised this issue with the minister in the House, I do not think he would agree with that. In any case, there is a case to be made for it. Prince Edward Island has a fixed link. Therefore, I cannot see why the people of Newfoundland and Labrador should not have a fixed rate.

Another matter which comes up continually in Newfoundland with respect to the ferry service is the labour relations issue. The workers on the ferry are unionized and have the right to strike. Year after year we are threatened with a strike at the height of the tourism season, about this time each year, just as that very important season is about to begin. That takes its toll on tourists, who do not want to run the risk of being stranded on Newfoundland because of a labour dispute. Sometimes the possibility of a strike is almost as detrimental as the strike itself.

The solution here—and I want to offer the minister a solution instead of a complaint—is to have the ferry service declared an essential service, with workers being given the right to some kind of binding arbitration mechanism. That way both the workers and the travelling public would be protected. However, to date no federal government has come up with a satisfactory answer to that problem.

The majority of the board of directors of the ferry service should be from the province of Newfoundland. Unless it has been changed recently, I do not think the majority of the board of directors is from Newfoundland. After all, the only reason the ferry system exists is to serve the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and people who want to visit the province. The reason the majority of the board of directors should be from Newfoundland is because if we inundate Marine Atlantic's corporate culture with Newfoundlanders we can make service to the Island of Newfoundland its reason for being, instead of a sorrowful duty that it is compelled to perform under the constitution of Canada.

The federal government and Marine Atlantic make the people of Newfoundland feel that they are doing us a favour by providing the service. That attitude seems to permeate the entire operation. That attitude has to change if the service is to be improved.

The importance of improving the ferry service has been made even more important, given the fact that the airline industry has become a monopoly. Air Canada has a virtual monopoly in the outlying areas of the country, making it even more difficult for the travelling public. It is hard to get a flight. Flights are overbooked and flights are cancelled. The service, generally, is not what it used to be. Competition is the best cure. Competition is very important for people who live on an island.

The problem, again, is that Newfoundland is an island province with a very small population. Under these circumstances it is difficult to get a break. Fighting those circumstances was one of the reasons I was sent here to the Parliament of Canada with six other MPs.

I am very disappointed with the Liberal members from Newfoundland. They do not seem to be doing the job of raising the important issues that need to be raised, like Marine Atlantic, like harbour clean-up, like the health issue which is plaguing our province, like Voisey's Bay and Churchill Falls and so many more issues that are vital to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Petitions, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a second petition from approximately 100 people in the riding of St. John's East, which states: “We, the undersigned citizens of the province of Newfoundland, wish to draw the attention of the House to the polluted condition of St. John's harbour; and therefore your petitioners request that the House encourage the federal, provincial and relevant municipal governments to financially support the sewage treatment system required for the clean-up of St. John's harbour”.

This issue I have brought to the attention of the House on at least four, five or perhaps seven different occasions. It is a very serious issue and I would ask parliament to consider it.

[Petitions, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today on behalf of approximately 200 people in the riding of St. John's East. The petition states: “Whereas Canadians are horrified by pornography which depicts children and are astounded by legal determinations that possession of that kind of pornography is not criminal; and whereas it is the duty of parliament through the enactment and enforcement of the criminal code to protect the most vulnerable members of society from sexual abuse; therefore, your petitioners pray that parliament take all measures necessary to ensure that possession of child pornography remains a serious criminal offence and that federal police forces be directed to give priority to enforcing this law for the protection of children”.

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 19th, 2000]

Concerning the vessel Stena Challenger purchased by Marine Atlantic: ( a ) what was the price paid for the vessel; ( b ) was the normal public procurement process followed and if not, why not; ( c ) who were the brokers on both sides of the transaction; ( d ) what is the date of construction of the vessel; ( e ) where was it built; ( f ) what facilities will be used to upgrade the vessel; ( g ) what is the extent of the upgrading; ( h ) how much will the upgrading cost; and ( i ) has the vessel been registered under any other names?

[Ethiopia, May 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister is well aware of the devastating problems brought about by drought and famine in Ethiopia. We know that Canada has made its contribution.

Could the minister tell the House if Canada will be providing further aid to Ethiopia over and above what the Canadian government has done given the fact that the crisis is increasing daily? Perhaps he could tell us what Canada is doing to make sure that starving Ethiopians get the relief that they desperately need in a timely way.

[Canada Labour Code, May 19th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I have followed the debate on Bill C-12 so far and we in the PC Party as well recommend speedy approval of it. It seems that it has the general approval of both labour and management.

We support it fully because key in the bill is an expanded role for health and safety committees in the workplace that envisions identifying and dealing with hazards, potential hazards and related refusals to work quickly and efficiently in the workplace. Now we have an amendment that addresses in a very real way the dangers to pregnant and nursing mothers.

The bill claims to seek a better balance between the role of government employers and employees in dealing with such workplace incidents, with more emphasis on establishing rules and procedures to deal with these matters at the local level. I consider that to be very good indeed.

The bill has come about as a result of consultation among government, business and labour in an effort to modernize our health and safety legislation which last underwent a major overhaul probably back in 1985. The bill has significant support among the various groups of people involved in it. I understand that labour has been consulted widely on the bill and that it has significant support from management as well. In general, as I said a moment ago, we support it.

It is probably incumbent on us to raise a few questions now that we have the ear of the minister who is here today. No piece of legislation is every perfect. No piece of legislation is ever complete. The legislative process is a living one. Those of us familiar with it are used to acts of parliament being subject to ongoing changes as time goes by.

Bill C-12 introduces a new concept in the health and safety arena called ergonomics. Subsection 125.1 states that employers shall ensure that the machinery, equipment and tools used by employees in the course of their employment meet prescribed health, safety and ergonomic standards.

That sounds very good but it is a bit vague on detail. To the lay person ergonomics is a strange and very sophisticated sounding word. It is the art or the 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. It is based, I would assume, on the old adage we have heard time and time again that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound a cure.

It is interesting to note that the U.S. department of labour announced a major ergonomics initiative designed to prevent an estimated 300,000 workplace injuries, saving $9 billion in the American economy. An American press release showed that the U.S. federal government is very advanced in that area with a detailed description of the roles and responsibilities of labour and management in meeting these new ergonomic standards.

Perhaps the minister might give us a some information on that, and expand on it as well.

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 and various other types of discrimination. Such matters can cause grief in the workplace just as easily as a physical injury or threat of a physical injury can.

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 positive psychological work environment.

Subsection 122(1) of the bill defines health as:

—the absence of physical disease or infirmity or mental illness arising out of, linked with or occurring in the course of employment...

It specifically points out that it does not include the effect of ordinary workplace stress.

In the modern world stress is often the cause of much grief in the workplace, especially if the stress, be it physical or psychological, is repetitive in nature. Indeed, repetitive physical stress is one of the main reasons we promote the sound ergonomic practices that I mentioned earlier. Perhaps the minister could address that issue later. I would have thought the avoidance or prevention of stress would have been a major goal in any occupational health and safety initiative.

We have introduced two amendments today. The amendment introduced by the minister clarifies the meaning of what a dangerous condition in the workplace involves and addresses risk related incidents in the workplace. We fully support the amendment because it expands upon the definition of danger to give reference to pregnant and nursing mothers.

This is generally a very good bill. It has the general support of both labour and management. From briefings I have had from the minister's office, I believe labour and management have been consulted widely on this. We recommend speedy passage of the bill and hopefully it will be passed before we rise.

[Division No. 1317, May 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive Conservative Party are voting in favour of this motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Criminal Code, May 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative members are voting in favour of this motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Division No. 1310, May 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative members are voting in favour of the motion.

[Division No. 1308, May 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Conservative Progressive Party members vote yes to this motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 15, which was negatived on the following division:)