Lee Morrison

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with some regret to speak on Motion No. 21.

I accept the premise of the government that the Treasury Board has painted itself into a corner from which it cannot extricate itself by any means other than back to work legislation. Because we are dealing with an emergency situation, I will support the government's initiative in this respect tomorrow morning when it becomes necessary but it will not be with any degree of happiness because this was not necessary. It never should have gone this far. There is no reason that it should be this way.

The hon. member obviously did not hear my speech last night because he says I changed my mind. I have often noticed that members of his party get confused.

[Division No. 359, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the President of the Treasury Board what good is a tentative agreement or a preliminary without a no strike commitment. It is just a piece of paper.

[Division No. 359, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Chairman, the President of the Treasury Board has indicated to us, as I understand it, that the government has an agreement but it really does not have an agreement. There are some initials on it but they really do not have to abide by anything.

Does this great announcement he made a few hours ago have any meaning whatsoever or are we in exactly the same position, from a purely practical point of view, as we were in yesterday?

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have a rather simple and direct question for the hon. member. Can the member see any reason, either in practicality or in law, why the government could not have brought in targeted legislation to keep the grain moving for the benefit of the western Canadian economy without involving thousands of other unionized workers who have absolutely nothing to do with the principal crisis that has caused us to be debating this today?

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thought I was being rather temperate under the circumstances.

The government has brought in a bill which is going to directly affect thousands of workers who have absolutely nothing to do with the emergency at hand and nothing to do with the problem which we are going to have to resolve. In effect, it is probably going to force a lot of people who would not otherwise want to do so to vote to relieve people of their bargaining rights to solve a problem in one corner of the labour movement.

This is absurd. It is wrong. It is mean and it is Machiavellian. That is the only way I can describe it. I hope the hon. member for Brandon—Souris really had that in mind. I think that is what I got out of his speech. I would like him to confirm that.

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member for Brandon—Souris has seen through some of the Machiavellian aspects of this piece of legislation.

I have never, since I came to parliament, encountered a situation like this, where we have a national emergency of 70 people tying up the entire western agricultural economy. Everyone on this side wants to see that ended, as I am sure even hon. members from the party to my right would like to see that particular disruption ended.

What does this government do? It brings in this bloody piece of garbage that is going to take away the right to bargain by all—

[Young Offenders Act, March 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to speak in support of the bill of the hon. member for Surrey North. The bill is quite clear in its intent to make section 7(2) of the Young Offenders Act a hybrid offence to present clear and genuine penalties to people who make a signed undertaking and then fail to live up to it.

People who post bail for accused offenders forfeit it if the bail conditions are not met. Why should any responsible adult who signs an undertaking to supervise a young offender not have to pay a significant penalty for failing to meet his or her commitment? The concept is fairly clear.

The hon. member for Vancouver East suggested that the proposed legislation might discriminate against parents who for one reason or another lack the means to provide necessary supervision. Section 7(2) of the Young Offenders Act is specifically designed to protect the public. It is not put there for the convenience of the parent. It is to protect the public.

Parents are not obliged to sign these undertakings. There is no rule or coercion which says they must sign these undertakings. If a parent voluntarily undertakes to accept responsibility, I would submit the parent should be held responsible for his or her actions. It is not something that can be done frivolously.

The speech of the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve left me somewhat bemused. I did not know what he was getting at a lot of the time. If I could cut through all of it, it would seem that he rejects the concept of individual responsibility, not just for juveniles but for adults as well. Bill C-260 is all about accepting responsibility for personal undertakings.

The parliamentary secretary and others made reference to the fact that the bill would duplicate one of the provisions of the upcoming youth criminal justice act. It would be covered in section 138 of the act, but I do not accept the premise that because the YCJA may be coming down the road some time in the future we should not be seriously considering this one small amendment to the YOA at this time. One does not stop scrubbing floors at home just because there is a plan to make major renovations. One continues normal everyday maintenance.

Bill C-260 could be enacted now. The new YCJA was only tabled last week. Heaven knows when it will become law. Hopefully it will not become law in exactly the same form in which it is now. It needs a lot of revision and renovation. We could make this one quick fix to help the public, to benefit society in general at this time, simply by enacting a bill that incidentally has been coming down the pike for a year and a half. It has taken that long to reach the point where we are now.

I get a feeling—maybe it is a misplaced feeling—in listening to the hon. parliamentary secretary that there is a slight Machiavellian motive here, the ploy that we should not worry about Bill C-260 because the meat of it will be buried or hidden away in the new youth criminal justice act when it comes down.

Maybe the broader bill is being gussied up a bit with the clause to attempt to force MPs to support a pretty noxious piece of legislation for the sake of one very valuable clause. It is like the old story about a chocolate covered smartie buried in a bowl of manure. Anyone wanting to eat the smartie knows what has to be done. I do not appreciate that approach to legislation.

The parliamentary secretary diverged a little from the debate today. I would like to respond to what she said about the child welfare and mental health systems being all that we need to look after 10 and 11 year olds caught up in the criminal justice system. That is what we are relying on right now. That is what we are doing. We are trying to deal with the 10 and 11 year olds strictly through child welfare and the mental health system and it is not working.

The new YCJA would do nothing to change an approach which has been a dismal failure. I have not had a chance to read the bill in any depth yet but on scanning the bill I cannot see very much serious improvement in the YCJA over the old YOA. It is the old car with a new coat of paint. Why are we taking this long and tedious approach to doing nothing? The Muslims have a saying that the elephant laboured and brought forth a mouse. That seems to be what is happening with the new act.

[Canadian Pacific Railway, March 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian Pacific Railway has donated 1,600 kilometres of abandoned railway right of way to the Trans Canada Trail Foundation and is basking in the warm glow of its public spirited gesture. Time for a reality check.

Thanks to the gravel topped grade that runs down the centre of the land, thousands of tonnes of cinders dumped on it during the steam age and contamination from a century of leaching of toxic wood preservatives, the gift is essentially wasteland. For tax purposes CP valued it at $40 million and received a $13 million tax break. That break alone is three times the market value of the land and the company is relieved of its responsibilities to pay real estate taxes, suppress weeds and so on.

CP tries to justify the high price by referring to urban segments in Nova Scotia and B.C., but they are minimal. Shame on Revenue Canada for approving this scam.

[Movement Of Grain, March 18th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is very unfortunate. It certainly would be nice if there were some ministers here to hear this important debate.

[Criminal Code, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I see the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Atikokan is doing double duty tonight so he has good reason to miss his dinner.

A long time ago, on November 17 to be exact, I asked the Minister of Transport about the nominating process for directors of the Halifax Port Authority. At the time I correctly predicted that the board would be purely Liberal and would include Merv Russell who is back in the saddle again as chairman.

The minister then and more recently invoked the principle that all advisory groups are represented. Of course there are board members from various walks of life. It would be pretty hard to avoid that. But they all share one common important qualification, which is that they have their common loyalty to the Liberal Party.

This problem is not just restricted to Halifax. In Vancouver, only two out of five stakeholder nominees were appointed as directors to the new port authority. I guess this conforms to the Liberal definition of devolution of power to the local level.

Looking ahead, the Prince Rupert Port Authority is scheduled to swing into action on about May 1. I fearlessly predict that one Rhoda Witherly, twice defeated Liberal candidate and current chair of the port corporation, will find a safe berth in that harbour. I will not even be surprised if her campaign manager, a Ms. Denton, makes it into the dock as well.

It is well known and clearly understood that in the Liberal lexicon privatization is a synonym for patronage and the creation of these port authorities is a form of privatization. Can the Liberals just occasionally loosen their grip and respect not only the letter but also the spirit of the marine act? It is not too much to ask.

There were some highly qualified candidates bypassed on the Halifax and Vancouver lists. There are some really outstanding people among those being sponsored for Prince Rupert.

I ask the parliamentary secretary, will the government change its longstanding policy and attach some importance to the business and technical qualifications of non-Liberal candidates to this and other boards?