Norman E. Doyle

[International Transfer of Offenders Act, May 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-33, an act to implement treaties and administrative arrangements on the international transfer of persons found guilty of criminal offences.

On behalf of the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, in whose name I am making these comments today because he could not be present, we will support the bill in principle, but closer examination will have to take place on the bill.

As with all legislation that passes through the chamber, there is always room for improvement.

As a party, we have clearly stated that we are not opposed to the proposal in the bill and at this stage we can support it in principle. However we are cognizant of the fact that changes to the legislation will be needed. There can be no doubt that we will introduce amendments to the legislation at committee stage.

I am disturbed by the lack of consideration the government has given to victims of offenders. I would draw members' attention to clause 8 of the legislation which seeks to ensure the consent of those involved in a transfer.

Subclause 8(1) defines the parties involved as “the offender, the foreign entity and Canada” but it does not mention victims.

Once again the government has done everything possible to ensure the rights of the criminal but nothing to denote the importance of the victim.

All too often government seems more concerned with the incarcerated than with those who have suffered at their hands. At the very least, the minister should be directed to consider the wishes of the victims, or their families, when instituting the initial stages of a transfer.

Official recognition of those who have been wronged should be included in the bill, and the portion of the legislation that deals with consent actually presents the obvious opportunity to do so.

The general perception out there of our correction system is that it is soft on criminals, and this impression is not without merit. In fact, there have been a number of extremely high profile cases in which offenders have been released early on parole only to reoffend, committing the most heinous of crimes.

As of this time last year, the government was facing over 30 lawsuits based on cases where offenders had been released early only to reoffend almost immediately.

While this does not speak directly to the bill before us now, it should be put on the record that the government is willing to spend over $100 million a year on a long gun registry that does not save lives, yet remains remiss in establishing a victims' rights office.

Not only does the legislation completely ignore the rights of the victims and their families, but it allows the offender the ability to stop the transfer should he or she not wish to be moved.

Subclause 8(2) states:

A foreign offender—and, subject to the laws of the foreign entity, a Canadian offender—may withdraw their consent at any time before the transfer takes place.

This could present long term problems for our already overburdened correction system. It is hard to imagine someone facing a life sentence for murder in this country who would want to be transferred to a prison in a foreign land where the conditions of incarceration may not be as desirable.

When discussing this clause the minister stated:

The prospects for an offender's successful institutional adjustment, rehabilitation and community reintegration would likely be compromised if an offender were forced to transfer against his or her will.

Again I would draw attention to the fact that the government seems overly concerned with the rights of the offender. While all benefit when rehabilitation occurs, we have to recognize that in some cases the goal of rehabilitation is not attainable and we must therefore concentrate our efforts on the protection of society.

If we are to consider the rights of the offender, at the very least we should give equal weight to the rights of the victim and his or her family.

On the surface, setting up legislation that would allow for a quick transfer of Canadian criminals abroad to serve their time in our own institutions does not seem to be without its merit. I would like to draw to the attention of the House clause 33, which defines what a foreign entity is. The clause reads:

In sections 31 and 32, “foreign entity” means a foreign state, a province, state or other political subdivision of a foreign state, a colony, dependency, possession, protectorate, condominium, trust territory or any territory falling under the jurisdiction of a foreign state or a territory or other entity, including an international criminal tribunal.

What this clause does is attempt to define any and all entities which Canadian officials may or may not be interacting with in terms of seeking a transfer. This clause is defining the definition of acceptable authorities with which the Minister of Foreign Affairs can deal in terms of seeking a transfer. However, it is clauses 31 and 32 that compel the minister to act.

Clauses 31 and 32 essentially provide the minister with the ability to supersede the recognized authority of a sovereign state should he or she find a willing accomplice at a local or what we may term a municipal level, should that country not have an official agreement with our country.

To clarify that point, this legislation allows the Minister of Foreign Affairs to enter into an administrative arrangement with a foreign entity for the transfer of an offender in accordance with the act. The ability of one person to interact in an official capacity with another official from another country is one which should be closely looked at. Upon cursory examination, it seems this legislation gives the minister an unprecedented, unbalanced amount of power.

I cannot stress enough the importance the nature of the offence carries in terms of what is acceptable or unacceptable. In order to fully comprehend what it is that needs to be done, we will need to accept the societal norms or at the very least a sense of shared values in terms of sentencing duration. Justice in one country does not equal the same measure of justice in another country and this I do not believe to be transferable.

But while differences of opinion will ultimately vary, there are those who will be pleased that Canadians serving sentences abroad will now have the opportunity to serve out their sentences within the confines of our own system and with all of the rights afforded Canadians.

With the bill the government is attempting to introduce legislation that would allow Canadians convicted in jurisdictions such as Hong Kong to return to Canada to serve their foreign sentences.

[Fisheries, May 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the current troubles in Shippegan and Newfoundland and Labrador show just how desperate fishing communities in eastern Canada have become.

The Minister of Health was absent from the SARS crisis. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is trying to absent himself from the growing crisis in Newfoundland and Labrador and New Brunswick. The current unrest is a sign that people feel Ottawa just is not listening.

Again, let ask the minister if he is going to go to the areas affected and listen to the people who want to tell him in no uncertain terms that the east wants in?

[Fisheries, May 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, since the closure of the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador has said that he will encourage local fishermen to ignore the moratorium on the northern cod. He said that the Newfoundland and Labrador government will not assist the federal government in any prosecutions if fishing continues.

Rather than a violent confrontation on the issue, will the minister now agree to sit down again with the various stakeholders in the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery with a view to reaching a mutually beneficial agreement?

[Cod Fishery, April 29th, 2003]

The member for Bonavista—Trinity—Conception says maybe not, but I think so. I think the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is going to stick to his guns. If he had no intention of sticking to his guns, I believe the minister for ACOA would be pounding his chest tonight, threatening and asking the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to change his mind. The minister has been very quiet, so I believe that the minister of fisheries has made up his mind. The fact that we had this debate tonight is not going to make one bit of difference tomorrow.

I am very disappointed not only with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans but with the minister for ACOA. Knowing full well the impact that this announcement would have, the minister of fisheries and the minister for ACOA went before the microphones in Newfoundland without a long term plan to place before the people, except the measly $23 million in make work programs. Those are not my words. The minister for ACOA said it himself to the people in Newfoundland. He was making $23 million available for make work programs, no long term plan for the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The member for Bonavista—Trinity—Conception mentioned it this evening. Ever since 1992 when the first moratorium came into effect, there has been no long term plan for the future of the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador. What do we have? We have $23 million for make work programs and $6 million announced for a study on seals. That is absolutely shameful.

To announce a $6 million study on seals is equivalent to the Chinese water torture for fishermen. How much more study do we need to do on seals in Newfoundland and Labrador before we come to the conclusion that seals are eating too much fish? Surely it does not require $6 million. It does not require $6 million to know that back in 1992 there were 2.5 million seals in the waters in and around Newfoundland and today in 2003, 10 years later, there are eight million or nine million seals.

If the fish stocks are still in continual decline, then there has to be a problem with the seals out there. The Grand Banks cod stocks we are told, and I think it was mentioned in the committee hearings that we were at, give testimony to the fact that even though parts of that fishery were closed for a long time, the stock never increased by even one fish. There must be a problem with the sealing population.

What is the long term plan that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has for the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador? DFO has been saying for years that nature is going to look after the problem. Nature will probably look after the problem when every single fish is gone and the seals starve to death. Nature can only look after the problem if a proper balance is maintained. The unfortunate thing is that the balance between the seal population and the cod stocks has been upset over the years by foreign overfishing, most of it totally ignored by the federal government.

With these two factors at play, combined with the fact that Ottawa has little or no interest in the fishery that caters to a small place like Newfoundland and Labrador, we are fighting a losing battle. We are victims of our geography. We are victims of the fact that we have a small population base. We are victims of the fact that we have too few seats in Newfoundland and Labrador.

One can only imagine the kind of chaos that would have been created 10 years ago if the Atlantic region had 100 seats. The federal government would not take long to deal with the seal population explosion. Foreign overfishing and custodial management would be high on the agenda and would maintain a prominent position around the cabinet table. However, we are victims of the fact that we have a small population. We do not have a whole lot of political clout, so the federal government does not have to cater to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It does not have to cater to the people of Atlantic Canada.

Is it any wonder that people in Newfoundland and all over the Atlantic region have so little confidence in the federal government, that it is going to represent our interests. It has never represented our interests in the fishery. The cod fishery could be gone forever. There was no long term plan back in 1992 and there is no long term plan for the fishery today. It may never return, and the government still refuses to put its shoulder to the wheel to avert what may very well be the greatest ecological disaster in the history of Canada, probably the history of the world: the complete extinction of the world's greatest fishery resource. That is too bad. I wonder if the people of Canada fully understand or fully believe what is going on here and what has happened since 1992 in particular.

Back in 1949 Newfoundland brought the world's greatest fishery into Canada. We passed the jurisdiction and management of that fishery over to the federal government. Here we are 53 years later. The government is presiding over a disaster of epic proportions.

The government watched without interest as foreigners raped and pillaged the cod stocks in Newfoundland and Labrador. The government watched without interest as the seal herd grew from two and a half million back in 1992 to eight or nine million today, and it did nothing to correct that problem.

As another member before me pointed out, the government ignored the unanimous recommendations of its own fisheries committee on custodial management. It will continue to ignore the recommendations because there is no desire to upset the Europeans. There is no desire to take on NAFO countries who will still continue to pillage and rape fish stocks outside the 200 miles while our fishermen and plants remain idle.

What a sad commentary on our place in Confederation. A once proud nation is what we were prior to 1949. What a sad commentary on the minister representing Newfoundland and Labrador who has done virtually nothing to avert the situation, who has remained silent throughout all the fishery committee meetings on this particular issue and who continues to remain silent.

As a result of the last moratorium back in 1992 Newfoundland lost 70,000 people in 10 years from that small population of a half a million people. We may very well lose another 70,000 in the next 10 years.

Instead of a long term plan, what the minister for ACOA came up with was a great big make work project for the people in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is not serving the interests of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Cod Fishery, April 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words in this debate. I will be sharing my time with the member for St. John's West.

I want to congratulate the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore on a great speech. I am absolutely amazed at his knowledge of Newfoundland and Labrador and generally of the fishery.

One of the most discouraging things in speaking in this debate is the fact that no matter what is said here tonight, no matter how many good points are made, and there have been some very good points made, and no matter what happens, at the end of the day I do not believe it is going to make too much difference to the bottom line. When this debate is over this evening the fishery will still be closed, the communities affected will still be threatened and people will still be unemployed.

[Canada Labour Code, April 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on Bill C-328, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code.

We are all aware that the purpose of the bill is to prohibit employers under the Canada Labour Code from hiring replacement workers to perform the duties of employees who are on strike or locked out. We certainly need this kind of legislation in the country to balance the rights of all individuals, the rights of people who are on strike and the rights of the employers as well.

Clause 1 of the bill provides that workers get reinstated after a strike or a lockout is over. If the striker is not recalled, the onus is on the employer to prove why the striker was not recalled. That sounds eminently reasonable as well. Every individual who is on strike and withdraws services certainly has the right after a strike is over to go back to work. If the individual is not recalled he or she should have a right to demand of the employer that a reasonable reason be given as to why he or she was not recalled. That sounds eminently reasonable to me.

Clause 2 of the bill, proposed subsection 94(2.1), gives detail to the proposed legislation, namely that an employer cannot directly or indirectly employ people to do the work of those who are on strike or locked out. Again that sounds reasonable to me.

Proposed subsection 94(2.2) provides an employer with the right to take measures to avoid destruction of his or her property. I would certainly have to agree with that particular clause. Many employers I am sure suffer a great deal as well when a strike is on, when the strike gets a little out of hand and the employers suffer destruction of the property. This will give the employer the right to take measures to avoid destruction of his or her property.

Proposed subsection 94(2.3) actually constrains the ability of the employer to abuse the right that has been given to him or her under proposed subsection 94(2.2).

Proposed subsections 94(2.4), 94(2.5) and 94(2.6) give the Minister of Labour the tools to investigate breaches of the act.

It appears to me that everyone is covered under the bill. The employer is covered and is given certain rights. The employee is covered and is given certain rights. The government's interests under the Minister of Labour are looked after as well.

Clause 3 of the bill amends section 100 of the Canada Labour Code to provide a fine for people found guilty of breaching provisions of the act.

I support the bill. I have long been a supporter of the fundamental right of an individual to strike. I have always been very reluctant as a matter of fact to place any restrictions on an individual's right to strike, provided of course, and we all agree, that the strike is legal.

Bill C-328 is a way of making the right to strike more effective once a strike becomes a reality. As I said a moment ago, if it is a legal strike, I would be very reluctant indeed to place any restrictions on an individual's right to walk out legally.

There are people who might say that having Bill C-328 is like the labour movement wanting to have its cake and eat it too. However, I would have to ask, what use is cake if one cannot eat it?

Why should anyone be satisfied with having a right but no means to effectively enjoy the right?

All of us have seen many strikes in our lifetime. Some have been easygoing and friendly; others have been very acrimonious, loud and bitter. In every case however, the introduction of a replacement worker has always made the matter much worse than what it really should be. It has always raised the temperature on the picket line when a legal strike is in progress and all of a sudden a replacement worker is bused in. It always sets the devil, if you will, in people on the picket line and well it should. When people have been on a picket line in the rain for days, the sight of replacement workers being bused in is really a bit too much for people to handle.

The employer has certain rights, but we have to remember that the individual has the right to strike. He has won the right to strike and there should not be replacement workers coming in. When it happens, shouts will sometimes replace dialogue. Very often we see that push comes to shove and we see violence on the picket line. Maybe the bill will have the ability to curb some of that. Implementing Bill C-328 would reduce the incidence of acrimony and violence on the picket line.

Very often management employees do as much of the work of the striking employees as they can. However when those management employees start hiring assistants to help them do the work of the strikers, they are asking for problems. They are asking for trouble, because when they do that, it is another kettle of fish. A strike is about withdrawing services. It is not about having the services replaced with the services of other people.

We have to remember something very important as well: Life has to go on when the strike is over. Things get back to normal a whole lot more quickly if there is no nasty incident happening on the picket line and no people are shouting and fighting because replacement workers are coming in. Doing things professionally and rationally is in the best interests of both management and labour.

Let me conclude by saying that in labour relations, let the strike and the lockout be the weapons of the differing parties. Without something like Bill C-328 in spirit or in law, the weapons in labour conflicts can be harsh words or even fists. Let us have Bill C-328 or something like it. In other words, let us have our cake and eat it too.

[Criminal Code, April 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words on Bill C-32, an act to amend the Criminal Code.

The proposed bill, as we are all very much aware, will establish a more serious offence for placing or knowingly permitting to remain in place, a trap or device that is likely to cause death or bodily harm to a person. It also will permit the use of as much force as necessary on board an aircraft to prevent the commission of an offence that would seriously harm people on board. It also makes a number of other amendments to the Criminal Code.

I am pleased to deliver these remarks on behalf of my colleagues, the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, who is the critic in this area. He could not be here today because he is away on Her Majesty's business.

I would like to welcome the International Association of Fire Fighters in Ottawa this week for its annual legislative conference. In Canada it is over 17,000 members strong. We cannot say enough about the work the members do. Those on the frontlines need the support of government, and positive changes to the Criminal Code can send a very strong message to those who would willingly or unwittingly endanger the lives of these brave men and women.

Let me preface my remarks by saying that good ideas and strong legislation that can act as a deterrent in crimes of this nature are long overdue. I am reminded of a private member's bill introduced last October by the member for Nepean—Carleton. His bill seeks to give greater protection to firefighters by creating two new offences of aggravated assault and first degree murder, when the victim is a firefighter acting in the course of his or her duties. That fits quite nicely with what the current Minister of Justice is trying to achieve with the bill.

On a daily basis Canadian firefighters put their lives at risk to save ours. It becomes important that we recognize the sacrifices they are willing to make on our behalf.

As with all legislation, nothing is perfect. A closer examination of the intricacies of the bill will need to be conducted of course at committee stage. However the bill is a great first step and a much needed piece of legislation.

The main portion of the bill amends the Criminal Code by creating a new offence targeting those who would set traps in a place used for a criminal purpose. Currently the offence of setting a trap in any place, which is under section 247 of the Criminal Code, carries a maximum sentence of five years imprisonment. The new offence raises the bar by providing for significantly lower stringent penalties. As subsection 247(2) states:

Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) and thereby causes bodily harm to any other persons is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.

If someone should commit an offence under section 247 that causes injury, the penalty increases to a maximum of 14 years. If that offence causes death, the offender can receive a sentence of life imprisonment.

This legislation of course is aimed directly at illegal drug operations which pose a myriad of dangers to firefighters. Many of these illegal drug operations are rigged with hidden devices such as crossbows and explosives designed to kill or maim anyone who interferes with the operation. Other dangers include illegal electrical wiring, which poses the additional risk of fire, electrified door knobs and cutaway floor boards.

It should also be recognized that all too often these illegal residential grow operations put at risk the lives of those in the community when the fire spreads from one house to another. Innocent families can lose their homes, their valuables or even their lives when criminals rig the wiring in their homes. Anything we can do as lawmakers to put a stop to this criminal behaviour is a step in the right direction.

These types of incidents are not new to those on the frontline. They have occurred in the past. For example, there are multiple cases of Canadian firefighters who have been injured and nearly killed while responding to illegal drug operations. A British Columbia firefighter, for instance, received a very severe electric shock when responding to a blaze. In Brampton, Ontario a firefighter's life was at risk when he fell through floorboards that had been previously cut away.

The International Association of Fire Fighters has pushed for legislation of this sort and is encouraged to see the government finally recognizing the contribution that members of the IAFF play in the daily lives of Canadians.

It is important that we recognize the dangers Canada's firefighters face as a result of illegal drug operations. As I noted earlier, the legislation will amend the Criminal Code by adding provisions to the existing section of the Criminal Code that deals with setting a trap. The legislation also adds provisions for setting a trap used in a place kept for criminal purposes that is likely to cause bodily harm, with a maximum 10 year prison sentence.

If a trap used in a criminal enterprise such as a drug operation causes bodily harm, the legislation calls for a 14 year maximum sentence and life imprisonment if a trap causes death.

Frontline firefighters have to be protected from this growing danger. The nature of these criminal activities creates a risk of fire, with volatile chemicals used in drug labs and electric power stolen through unsafe means. If firefighters and police officers are put at risk, or injured or killed by traps set to defend these criminal enterprises from law enforcement or rival gangs, those who set the traps have to feel the full weight of the law.

In another case earlier this year, Oshawa firefighters had to back away from a residential fire when they discovered that it was an illegal drug lab, loaded with dangerous chemicals. Of course the home was allowed to burn.

While the problem has been most serious in British Columbia and in Ontario as well, illegal drug operations are found in all parts of Canada. They pose a growing threat to firefighters in every province.

We should also be cognizant of the fact that a large portion of firefighters in Canada are volunteer firefighters. They give up their spare time. They give up their evenings and weekends to volunteer in their communities to take courses which will ultimately help them protect our property and our lives.

Amendments to the Criminal Code of this sort are long overdue. I would encourage the government to take a closer look at initiatives brought forth recently by the International Association of Fire Fighters.

For instance, a $500,000 annual investment, a fraction of the cost the government wastes on a daily basis, would give firefighters access to hazardous material training. Currently military reaction is hours if not days away. Firefighters are on the scene in minutes. Training is necessary for their protection and for our protection as well.

Liberal cuts to ports policing, the Coast Guard and the military have put at risk the safety and security of Canadians. The real threat of bio-terrorism, delays in response time and the inability to board planes could cost lives. On these and other important issues the government is only paying lip service. What firefighters need to do their jobs is action and resources. The lives of our firefighters and those who they so selflessly serve and protect deserve no less than our complete protection when the opportunity occurs.

The government also needs to listen to the IAFF when it talks of support in the area of pensions and compensation for those who have been injured in the line of duty.

In his address to the House today, the minister said that he was happy to see that his government was finally addressing the important issue in regard to setting deadly traps. He told us that the number of deaths and injuries sustained by firefighters continues to rise in Canada and that it was a true tragedy when these events occurred.

Using statistics, he noted that there were 13,724 arson fires in Canada last year and that 30% of the fires in his own riding were a result of arson. He acknowledged that firefighting was four times as dangerous as any other occupation and that it was a job that commanded the highest public trust and respect, more than any other professional in the country. Firefighters are people who people trust.

A poll released by the Canadian Press and Leger Marketing in February of this year showed that 96% of Canadians trusted firefighters, the highest level of trust among 20 occupations included in the survey. That says quite a lot.

It is time that the minister and the government truly recognized the sacrifice made by those on the front lines and recognized it in a very substantial way. Firefighters, professionals and volunteers need the support of the federal government in the areas of pensions and compensation for spouses and children. The government should act today and begin the process of establishing a national public safety officer compensation fund in Canada.

The government's argument that the majority of firefighters are municipal employees and therefore not the responsibility of the federal government is hollow and I do not believe sits very well with Canadians.

As the IAFF has stated on a number of occasions, the Canadian government continues to avoid addressing the need for the establishment of a national compensation fund. The families of the nation's firefighters stand to endure financial hardship in addition to the grief of losing a loved one. It is time for the federal government to stop using jurisdictional arguments and implement the national public safety officer compensation fund to benefit the families of Canadian firefighters killed or permanently disabled in the line of duty.

I am pleased to have had the opportunity to make these few remarks today on Bill C-32. Again I welcome the International Association of Fire Fighters to Ottawa this week for its annual legislative conference. The association is 17,000 members strong in Canada. We cannot say enough good things about the work it does.

[Cod Fishery, April 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Newfoundland's minister for ACOA have announced the closure of the cod fishery on the northeast coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that closure will affect 700 plant workers and 2,000 fishermen.

Knowing full well the impact that this announcement would have on these fishermen and their families, the ministers went before the microphones with no long term plan for the future employment of these people or the survival of their communities. Newfoundland's minister announced a measly $23 million to be used, in the minister's words, for make work projects.

I want to tell the minister for Newfoundland that these people do not want make work projects. They want an economic development plan geared to providing a future for themselves and their families. Newfoundland and Labrador has lost 70,000 people since the last moratorium. Let me ask the minister: Where is the plan to stop this out-migration from happening again?

Or does the minister care?

[Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, April 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to say a few words on Bill C-419, an act to amend the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act.

The purpose of the bill is to ensure that staff of members of the Senate and the House of Commons who serve the members in their capacity as member, leader, House leader or whip will not be prevented from being in a bargaining unit. Simply put, the bill affords collective bargaining rights to political staff. It would essentially turn political staff into quasi-civil servants. That is a move with which I think our party would have some very fundamental problems. I would have some fundamental problems with it as well.

This is not the general course I would normally pursue, because I generally support legislation that gives full collective bargaining rights, including the right to strike, to workers in the vast majority of situations. However, political staff are an entirely different kettle of fish. I do not know how it could possibly work when we consider the hours of work that political staff put in and the flexibility that is required of the political staff in putting in overtime and what have you. I cannot see how it could possibly work.

Political staff are not civil servants. Neither are they simply management level civil servants who are exempt from a given bargaining unit. Political staff are simply that, political staff. Their relationship to the member is essentially personal and political. The nature of that relationship is as varied as the number of members in the House of Commons. How could we possibly have one set of rules that would apply to everyone? In this particular instance I think it is fair to say that one size does not fit all.

Members hire a political staffer for a whole bunch of different reasons. There is no criteria set out to hire a political staffer. Sometimes a political staffer is hired because he worked on an election campaign with us, or he is a friend who has a talent we recognize in one particular area. He may not fit the criteria set out in a job description and it might be very difficult to fit him into a certain job description.

One of the ways in which the uniqueness of the relationship between a member and a staffer is acknowledged in the House is by the vacation pay a member's staff receives on an annual basis. That is in recognition of the fact that political staff often work long hours. They work very odd hours. They have no provision for overtime and have no realistic expectation of the usual annual vacation leave that applies in the case of a civil servant.

One thing which struck me as strange was that temporary House committee staff are excluded from collective bargaining rights but they are lumped in with political staff to acquire those rights under Bill C-419. To me that is mixing apples and oranges. House and Senate committees serve all political parties, and committee staff, be they temporary or full time, are essentially civil servants. Therefore I cannot see them as being in the same category as political staff as far as collective bargaining rights are concerned.

I want to congratulate the member from the NDP for taking the initiative. Maybe it requires some debate but I cannot help but say that perhaps the relationship between the NDP caucus and its staff operates a little differently from the rest of the political world with which I am familiar.

I have been in political life since 1979 and this is the first occasion in which I have seen a serious proposal to significantly alter the collective bargaining rights of political staff. Of course, they have no collective bargaining rights at the moment.

Political staff are not rank and file civil servants. They are not public service management staff. They occupy a unique position in the governmental spectrum and one which I feel is not suitable for the stated intentions of the bill.

Regrettably, I do not believe we can support the bill. Again I want to congratulate the member and say that it probably requires some further debate, but on the surface of it, I think we would have some difficulty in granting collective bargaining rights to political staff. It just does not seem to fit.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, March 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very serious problem for students. As I said a few moments ago, students come to my office on a daily basis. They are so frustrated with the current system. They have a $50,000 debt and are trying to get a job, build a home, obtain a car or look after a mortgage. Their plans to get married have to be put on hold because they cannot afford to have children and to raise them, especially when they have that kind of debt load and debt problem to deal with.

Massive cuts to these federal transfers for post-secondary education resulted in provincial student grants becoming provincial student loans. The old provincial student grant system was a whole lot easier to manage than the provincial student loans that we have today, but maybe we have to take a whole new approach to the way education is financed at the post-secondary level.

Ireland took some progressive steps a number of years ago and introduced, essentially, a free education system. Maybe it is time we had a royal commission to look at the way we finance post-secondary education. It is a very important area. The future and well-being of the country depends solely upon the educational system that we have and how people are able to take advantage of it and avail themselves of it.

Maybe it is time we had a truly progressive think tank who sat down and had a look at post-secondary education, using the models that Ireland used a number of years ago to finance its educational system.

I do not have an answer that I can provide for the hon. member in a nutshell, but it is of sufficient importance to warrant some kind of new approach to the whole system of financing education in Canada.