Gordon Kirkby

[Public Service Staff Relations Act, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have only a few quick words to say in relation to the second group of amendments that have been brought forward by members opposite. In order to bring forth amendments, a number of factors need to be considered.

First, the amendments must be consistent with other amendments that are brought forward and consistent with provisions already in the statute which is sought to be amended by the provisions that are brought forward. In this case the amendments certainly do not assist in that regard. Therefore they ought not to be brought forward because they do not assist with the internal consistency of the act.

Second, the changes that are brought forward need to be consistent with other statutes and laws. Again, this test is also not met. The amendments that are being brought forward conflict with other pieces of legislation. This is the case when amendments are brought forward in a willy-nilly fashion. They are not fully researched and the implications of each of the amendments are not thought out so that we get consistency with other pieces of legislation.

In addition, some of the amendments are also proposing some type of governance changes. They are being brought forward without any type of consultation that would need to be had to make these types of statements.

In any event, I will say that because of these factors, the government will not be supporting the amendments. With respect to the comments made in relation to this bill, these are merely technical amendments to ensure the maintenance of the status quo after court or tribunal decisions have maybe cast some doubt upon the governance. It is simply to maintain the status quo at this time. These things have been vastly overstated.

The government will not be supporting any of these motions.

[Point Of Order, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the hon. member, the request that was made yesterday of the minister to which he replied in the affirmative has absolutely as much to do with this debate as nuclear physics has to growing apples.

I would suggest that the hon. member simply await the reply of the minister.

[Point Of Order, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, first, we are in the middle of a debate completely unrelated to the point of order that had been brought forward by the hon. member.

The Minister of Justice made his statement yesterday. No doubt he will be living up to that commitment in due course. I would just proffer that statement at this time for the satisfaction of the hon. member.

[Public Service Staff Relations Act, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my remarks, in a fairly brief fashion, to some of the issues before the House today with respect to the motions that have been put forward by the member for Bellechasse concerning Bill C-30, an act to amend the Public Services Staff Relations Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

With respect to the motions proposed to amend Bill C-30, they seek to do so by deleting three clauses. Each of Bill C-30's four clauses are intended to achieve a specific but interdependent legislative purpose. For that reason none of the individual clauses can be read in isolation from and without reference to the others.

Similarly, changes in one clause are impossible to make without serious consequences for the rest of the bill. The impact of any one of the hon. member's motions if carried would be more legal confusion or uncertainty caused by the conflicting references or gaps in the Public Service Staff Relations Act, the RCMP Act or the Financial Administration Act.

For example, clause 1 cannot be deleted as proposed by the hon. member's first motion. Doing so would leave conflicting references to the RCMP in the Public Service Staff Relations Act. Similarly, doing away with clause 2 of Bill C-30, which is the proposal put forward by the hon. member's second motion, would leave conflicting references to the RCMP under part I of schedule I of the same act.

Conversely, by deleting the third clause of Bill C-30 as proposed by the hon. member's third motion, there would be no reference to the PSSR Act or to the RCMP. If carried, this motion would leave the legal status of all RCMP employees open to question and without legislative basis under federal statute. I am certain the hon. member would not wish to create this type of uncertainty.

The House has examined the first three motions put forward by the hon. member for Bellechasse. I believe the government has clearly shown why these motions are simply not acceptable.

In all legislation brought forward by the government, it is brought forward after due consideration of how modifications to the legislation are consistent internally within the act for which they are presented and also consistent with provisions in other statutes put forward by the government. On a number of occasions, when amendments are brought forward and with respect to all hon. members who bring forward very discrete and distinct amendments to statutes brought forward by the government, often the interrelationship of how these proposed amendments would affect the total bill or how they would interact with provisions in other pieces of government legislation are overlooked. That is the case in respect of the motions which have been brought forward.

A number of issues have been raised by hon. members in discussing this bill. First, the implication was made that somehow this piece of legislation interferes with collective bargaining. That is simply not the case. I will quote from a speech by the hon. solicitor general where he outlines exactly the relationship between the changes that are being proposed in this bill which are merely technical in nature and which merely seek to clarify ambiguities created by a tribunal or court decision in relation to collective bargaining.

Another issue I would like to comment on concerns collective bargaining. It has been suggested that Bill C-58 was drafted to prevent unionization within the force. However RCMP members have never had the legal authority to enter into collective bargaining and Bill C-58 does not change that. Collective bargaining is a completely separate issue from Bill C-58 and would have to be dealt with by the government and Parliament as a separate legislative matter.

I have been advised that collective bargaining is not a natural or inherent right but a right granted by Parliament only. Collective bargaining rights have never been extended to the RCMP members under either the Canada Labour Code, the Public Service Staff Relations Act or the RCMP Act. The Federal Court of Appeals decision in the Gingras case has done nothing to alter this fact.

I would like to observe in passing that the only issue dealt with by the court in the Gingras case was whether RCMP members were entitled to be paid the bilingualism bonus. The plaintiff raised no other issue and the court's ruling did not go beyond it.

I want to indicate that where qualified, individuals in the RCMP within positions that are designated bilingual are and always will be allowed to avail themselves of this bonus as long as the bonus exists.

Since May 1974, the RCMP has had its own system for addressing labour-management issues and which since 1989 has been provided for in regulations made pursuant to the RCMP Act. This is the RCMP division staff relations representative program, the DSRRs for short.

The program is an internal staff relations program intended to provide a communications network whereby members at all levels can voice their views and concerns through elected member representatives. The members of each division across the country elect at least one full time representative and two part time representatives. For example, "E" Division in British Columbia has six full time representatives and 31 part time representatives, all elected by the members of the division. These divisional representatives have direct access to all levels of management including the commissioner and the solicitor general.

The DSRRs also serve on 11 national committees that deal with issues such as pay, travel and relocation, and health and safety to name but a few. Consultation between management and these committees is ongoing. In addition, conferences involving the commissioner, deputy commissioners, all commanding officers and the DSRRs are held twice a year with the DSRRs setting the agenda.

There is also the RCMP external review committee which provides neutral third party review of certain types of grievances, formal disciplinary and discharge and demotion appeals referred to it from the RCMP.

Furthermore, Bill C-58 does not create a separate employer status for the RCMP. This requires separate and specific legislation. However a consultative process is currently under way in the force involving the DSRRs, which is examining the advisability of moving toward such status.

I should also confirm that Bill C-58 gives no additional power or authority to the commissioner. The bill simply confirms the status quo regarding the force that existed before the Gingras decision.

Again and to conclude, the purpose of Bill C-58 is to remove ambiguities raised by the Gingras decision and to confirm that the primary legislative authority governing the operation and management of the RCMP is the RCMP Act.

As I have indicated, the changes that are being brought forward by the government are merely technical in nature. They serve to remove any ambiguity created by the court decision as to how the management of the RCMP resolves that in favour of the status quo. As has been indicated, these are only technical changes. There have not been major changes or anything that would in any manner change substantively the governance of the RCMP.

With the greatest of respect to those who have put forward different points of view and to those who have put forward the points of view that there have been major changes, I wish to inform the hon. members I am certain it is simply a matter of error on their part. Major changes have not been made. To assure this House, if major changes were ever to be undertaken, it would be a significantly larger process than has been dealt with in this case where merely technical changes are required.

[Petitions, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I put forward a petition, which has been duly certified by the clerk as to proper form and content, from residents of Pickering, Etobicoke, Mississauga and other communities. The petitioners pray that Parliament enact Bill C-205 introduced by the hon. member for Scarborough West at the earliest opportunity so as to provide in Canadian law that no criminal profits from committing a crime.

[Oceans Act, June 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton for his interest in this issue.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage has acknowledged earlier the importance of lacrosse as a sport in Canada and has pledged to restore some of its funding. The minister is pleased to announce the cultural development and heritage program within the Department of Canadian Heritage is providing a contribution of $150,000 to the Canadian Lacrosse Foundation.

Lacrosse, which Parliament has declared as Canada's official national summer sport, has played an important role in the history and culture of our country and in shaping Canadian identity.

The support being provided by the cultural development and heritage program combined with other private sector sources of funds will allow the Canadian Lacrosse Foundation through the Lacrosse Heritage Institute and the Canadian Lacrosse Association to continue this long Canadian tradition.

In addition, consideration is being given to the introduction of a sport development initiative which could assist sport organizations with a large domestic participation base. The minister fully expects that Lacrosse will be one of the sports that would be eligible for funding from such an initiative once it has met the criteria of the new program.

The minister has directed the officials of the department to work with the Canadian Lacrosse Association in order to pursue this

avenue in greater detail. I thank the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton-

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, June 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to add my voice to the second reading debate on Bill C-212, an act put forward by the hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.

The government does not support the bill. The government's opposition to the bill is based on a significant number of factors and very important considerations.

One such factor the government bases its decision on to oppose the bill is the timing. The bill proposes to make a major change to the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board without any discussion or consultation with farmers across the country.

The hon. member who makes this motion comes from a party which says it listens to what the people have to say, which says it seeks input before making decisions to change legislation, which says it will do what its constituents want.

Once again we see, as evidenced by this high handed, pre-emptory proposal, an attempt to change in a very significant and serious manner legislation without proper consultation with farmers, organizations and people across the country whose lives depend on farming; to change the Canadian Wheat Board in a fundamental way without any discussion or consultation with farmers.

This merely shows the hypocrisy with which the Reform Party put forward this idea: listen to the constituents until they do not agree with you and then go ahead and do what you want. This is Reform Party policy to a tee.

The federal government has a process in place where it is now engaged in a prairie-wide consultation with grain producers, grain companies and other organizations that have a direct interest in the future shape of western Canada's grain marketing system.

This is the approach that is always taken by this government. We listen to the organizations that will be affected in order to hear what they have to say. We listen to what farmers, grain companies and corporations involved in the farming industry have to say. We listen to what all stakeholders have to say with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board before deciding on change.

Once we have gathered all the input, we then consider what direction the Canadian Wheat Board will take in the future. This process is in place right now.

Without addressing the specific pros and cons of the bill, the government feels any decisions taken on either the Canadian Wheat Board or the grain marketing system must await the final outcome of this process. This is a process which has been started. Obviously it makes sense that we allow this process to continue, that we allow the committee to make its report to the minister before making a decision.

Certainly it would seem strange if we set out a process to review concerns and issues with respect to the wheat board. We set that process in place and then make changes before the process is even complete. That does not make any sense. Then again, I suppose what does make sense is that it would be suggested by the Reform Party.

The whole issue about grain marketing and the role of the Canadian Wheat Board has been the subject of very intense debate across the prairies for the last three or four years.

The difficulty with this debate has been that it has tended to take place in a rather ad hoc fashion with no co-ordination or focus. That is why the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food last year established the panel that I have talked about, the committee that I have talked about, the Western Grain Marketing Panel.

The panel is composed of a chairman and eight individuals who represent virtually every perspective on grain marketing from one end of the spectrum to the other. That is certainly a fair approach.

We want input to be heard by people who represent all points of view. Proceeding in that manner, the report of the committee will have a significant amount of credibility.

Late last year the panel distributed copies of a tabloid style information package to all western grain producers. This ensured that every farmer in western Canada had complete access to all the relevant facts and figures that relate to grain marketing.

In January the panel conducted a series of town hall information meetings across the prairies. These sessions gave grain producers the opportunity to bring forward their perspectives and opinions, to advance their best arguments and to engage in a logical, face to face dialogue about all the pros and cons of the issue of grain marketing.

The panel has now completed its third phase, hearing more than 80 formal submissions from a wide variety of farm groups and industry. These sessions took place across western Canada. They took place in Winnipeg, Edmonton, Regina.

The Reform Party made a presentation before the panel on March 18. Now it wants to pre-empt the process its members participated in. This does not make any sense at all. As I said before, the only thing that makes sense about something not making sense is that it is proposed by the Reform Party. I take this to mean its participation in the process is that its members agree with the validity of it. I congratulate them for joining in and participating, like they should.

Now I encourage them to let the process take its course, come forward with its conclusions and when the minister makes his decisions, to support the minister in his decisions, which no doubt will be the best for the western grain farmer.

With all the consultations, examinations and cross-examinations, everyone with an interest in western Canada's grain marketing system has had their say on the issue.

As we debate this motion in the House today, the panel is preparing to write its report, which will be submitted to the minister in June. It is from this report, its observations and conclusions based on the input of producers and other stakeholders that the government will look for constructive suggestions on how to move forward.

If the government agreed now to make such a major change to the Canadian Wheat Board before it had received the report we would be dishonouring a commitment we made to the grain producers across the country that no major change would be made without consulting them.

That is something the government will not do, even though the Reform Party seems very keen on doing it. It seems evident by the precise nature of this motion that once again it betrays the motive of the Reform Party, which simply is to utterly destroy the Canadian Wheat Board.

The grain industry is a very competitive industry. Every little shred of information that a competitor can possibly get is of value. Certainly we want to ensure a proper balance between accountability to those it serves and protecting the competitive edge of the Canadian Wheat Board as it is marketing its grain worldwide.

Here we have hon. members from the Reform Party reading from a document that is four years old and setting out criticisms contained in that document when the wheat board has moved on those issues and has improved how it does its business. It has an audit. There is no sense duplicating efforts by having another audit take place which would have-

[Criminal Code, June 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her comments. However, a number of things are, with respect, in error.

It was suggested it would not be illegal to conduct female genital mutilation on someone over the age of 18. That is not the case. It is illegal. The supreme court has made it very clear one cannot consent to aggravated assault, which female genital mutilation is, and therefore it is illegal.

It was also suggested tour operators or those who organize sex tours are not subject to the law. As I indicated before, the Criminal Code already contains provisions which specifically make it clear that travel agents or tour operators offering sex tours are guilty of a criminal offence in Canada.

It was also suggested that people who travel outside the country to have female genital mutilation performed would not be subject to the law. This is also an error in that anybody who leaves the country for the purpose of committing a criminal offence, which female genital mutilation is, is guilty of an offence.

I wanted to clarify some misconceptions put forward but I thank hon. members for their general support of the legislation.

[Criminal Code, June 10th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments but I suggest that in a number of areas there are other and better interpretations of the criminal law than were presented by his remarks.

He indicated he would have preferred if the legislation had explicitly dealt with people who are tour operators or travel agents who offer sex tours. These provisions are already contained within the Criminal Code of Canada. Sections 212.1(a) and (g) specifically provide that everyone who procures, attempts to procure or solicits a person to have illicit sexual intercourse with another person, whether in or out of Canada, or procures a person to enter or leave Canada for the purpose of prostitution is guilty of an indictable offence.

It is clear that sex tour operators or travel agents who organize these types of tours are guilty in Canada of a criminal offence.

Canadian nationals and all permanent residents who obtain or attempt to obtain outside of Canada the sexual services of a person under the age of 18 are guilty of a criminal offence, not just Canadian citizens as was indicated by the hon. member.

[Criminal Code, June 10th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I would like the hon. member to acknowledge that it has been indicated where an individual leaves the country for the purpose of procuring female genital mutilation, that such person would be subject to criminal sanction in this country. Also, where it involved adults, this would be regarded as assault causing bodily harm. The supreme court has indicated that a person cannot consent to bodily harm being inflicted upon them. Therefore, the amendment the hon. member is talking about is not necessary.