Gerald Keddy

[Fisheries, April 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I recently received a fax from a constituent, Phylys Wolfe, who wonders just how many more hare-brained scams the government can think up to drive fishermen crazy and into the poor house.

This time it is a MED and safety and firefighting survival course on board fishing boats. This law was supposed to be in effect since 1997 but no one thought to tell the fishermen about it until this winter.

There are 3,200 licences in the Scotia Fundy region, representing about 10,000 fishermen. The government expects all these fishermen to take this course. This will cost every fisherman $700 out of their own pockets for this five day course. There are only five people in all of Nova Scotia to teach this course and they can handle only 24 people per course. Those who do not have a certificate for this course are liable to lose their boat, their licence or receive a fine.

If a skipper hires a crew for one week, one month or two days, that person is supposed to have this course. Now—

[Division No. 360, March 23rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I do have a question for the hon. member who just spoke.

It is a valuable point to raise concerning the problem we will be running into with our transportation system and the total lack of vision the government has shown.

We are missing a more important point. In the collective bargaining system the government supposedly bargained in good faith with the grain handlers and PSAC workers. An agreement was reached and the government turned its back on that agreement. The government came into parliament the very night on which it reached the agreement and said it was going to force the workers back to work. Why bargain? Why is there a bargaining system in place? It begs the question.

Either there is a system where people sit down and discuss issues in a reasonable and rational manner and come up with solutions, and then abide by those solutions, or there is not. The government has completely turned its back on that system. It is a travesty of justice without question. Why did the government go down that route to begin with? Why did it say it would bargain and then not abide by the rules as set out by the government? I do not understand it. I do not think anyone can understand it.

A greater issue is the regional rates of pay. This has nothing to do with grain handlers. The grain handlers are just an excuse for the government. It conveniently found that in western Canada $18 billion worth of grain exports were being held up. It was a convenient excuse for the government to force everybody back to work after it had already worked with them. There is something seriously wrong.

We sat here all night and discussed the bill and participated in vote after vote after vote and clause by clause consideration in committee in the whole. Obviously the government had one thing in mind and is walking out of here with the same thing in mind, that it will bargain in good faith on one hand and enforce legislation on the other hand.

The Liberals can blame it on the grain handlers or blame it on PSAC. They can try to create all the bogeymen that we want to create, but the fact is that those are not the problems. The problem is the Government of Canada that was looking for a stakeout to begin with. It is very unfortunate.

[Division No. 358, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, how does the minister expect us to support the legislation when he stood before parliament tonight and said he had negotiated in bad faith? He has not negotiated in good faith. The question is simple.

[Division No. 358, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the minister is very simple. Everyone here wants to see farmers being able to ship their grain. How do you expect us to support the legislation when you are standing here before us tonight—

[Movement Of Grain, March 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to preface my comments on a few remarks on the comments by the member for Winnipeg Transcona. As always, his comments are enlightening and intelligent.

I would maybe beg to differ that there is a slightly different angle we should be looking at here and it is not questioning whether PSAC members have a right to vote. I would put the emphasis on the shoulders of the government where it rightly belongs because it has not settled this prolonged strike and has allowed it to fester to the point where they are using and threatening the livelihoods of other Canadians because they are desperate and there has been no chance to arbitrate this dispute. That blame lies solely on the shoulders of the government.

It is my pleasure to rise today on behalf of my hon. colleague, the member for Brandon—Souris, to speak on the very important issue facing Canadian grain farmers as a result of the current public service strike. The both of us would like to congratulate the member for Selkirk—Interlake for bringing this issue forward in tonight's debate.

This is an issue that all parties in the House of Commons should be concerned about, not only those from western Canada because it has implications on Canada's reputation as an exporter of grain and surely that would have implications on all Canadians.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada is currently involved in a labour dispute with the Government of Canada. Included in this dispute are approximately 70 grain weighers employed by the Canadian Grain Commission. The functions performed by these 70 workers are mandated under the Canadian Grains Act and cannot be performed by non-Canadian grain corporation staff. The withdrawal of these services has prevented the unloading of grain hopper cars and the loading of vessels.

On March 15, when PSAC grain weighers set up picket lines at five grain terminals in Vancouver, it halted grain movement, preventing 700 unionized grain handlers from going to work, costing not only our producers but our international reputation as a supplier of high quality grain capable of meeting important and time sensitive delivery dates.

First and most important, this work stoppage has also hurt Canadians through delays in income tax refunds. Almost one million income tax returns are stuck in the system. Because of grain delays, Canadian farmers and Canada's reputation as one of the world's best suppliers of high quality grain are being hurt. It needs to be mentioned that Canada exports around $18 billion to $20 billion worth of food products every year and about one-half of these grain exports are grains, oilseeds and related products. These stoppages cause serious damage to the Canadian grain export industry and the prairie economy they are based out of.

I will illustrate how the failure of leadership on this issue is part of a pattern of this government that is failing to serve Canadians.

I want to contrast the government's lack of effectiveness on this issue and how an earlier Conservative government dealt competently with a potential strike situation back in 1991.

There can be no doubt by anyone who has read a newspaper, listened to the radio or watched television in the last few weeks that the public service strike has hurt not just the public service but other sectors of the Canadian economy and, in the area of concern tonight, Canadian grain transportation.

This is not the first time Canadian farmers have been affected by grain delays. Delayed 1997 shipments to contracted international customers, primarily in wheat, have resulted in demurrage charges of $65 million paid for primarily by producers. It has been estimated that an additional $35 million was lost in potential sales because of Canada's inability to deliver. This reflected poorly not only on western Canadian farmers but Canadians as a whole in the international marketplace.

Again Canadian farmers are faced with these disruptions, this time as a result of PSAC strike. Fortunately, farmers will not face huge demurrage charges as they did back in 1997 because the Vancouver Grain Exchange has declared the shutdown an event of delay. This move by the industry body gives exporters 14 days after the situation is cleared up before they face charges.

It is a very time sensitive issue and it is timely to bring it up in an emergency debate.

Another issue is indirect costs to farmers. That could cost millions and the damage to Canada's reputation is immeasurable. In the last 48 hours alone the Canadian Wheat Board stated that it has lost $9 million in sales because of the reliability of our delivery system. The government has dragged its feet on this issue for over two years. It has failed to reach a settlement with table two PSAC workers. I question what the government has done over the past two years. Obviously very little.

Now the federal government has put our farmers in this situation where they are being held hostage. I will use those words. Our farmers are being held hostage because the strike has dragged on, without resolution, at the negotiating table. Our farmers are not being held hostage by PSAC workers, they are being held hostage by the government. This could not have come at a worse time with Canadian farmers suffering one of the most financial crunches since the Great Depression.

On February 10 my hon. colleague, the member for Brandon—Souris who is unfortunately unable to participate in tonight's debate, wrote the President of the Treasury Board urging this government to quickly resolve negotiations with PSAC members. He has yet to hear a reply. The member for Brandon—Souris got up in the House on February 17 and again urged the government to resolve the dispute with the PSAC workers. Still no word from the minister other than “do not worry, we are working on it”.

We must ask ourselves why this government chooses through its own neglect to allow this strike to cause so much damage to the Canadian economy, to agri-businesses and Canada's international reputation. This is not an isolated incident but a pattern within this government that shows a leadership vacuum beginning at the top and a contempt for the legislative and democratic process.

Whether it be the federal government dragging its heels on the farm income crisis, Canada's delayed position on the Kyoto environmental conference or the defence department's decision to purchase EH-101 helicopters only after years delays and after cancelling a previous which cost taxpayers $.5 billion, and the list goes on, everywhere we turn the government chooses to procrastination over leadership, the same kind of failed policy that hurt so many Canadians with the PSAC strike.

Where can we look to for an example of real leadership? In October 1991 there was a Progressive Conservative government in power faced with a labour situation not much different from that faced by the current government. Back then Canada Post was negotiating to bring a number of unions, each with its own collective agreements with CUPW, under one agreement. A series of rotating strikes in August urged the government to do whatever necessary to allow the two parties to come to successful negotiation.

I urge the President of the Treasury Board to seek a quick and speedy resolution to this strike. In the event that it appears to be futile the Progressive Conservative Party would urge, but only as a last resort, to legislate public service employees back to work. If this is not resolved soon all Canadians stand to lose, both PSAC members and farmers. It is time for the government to stand up and show leadership which has obviously been lacking for some time.

The government has a double responsibility here. It has a responsibility with PSAC to settle this in an equitable and timely manner. The government has a timely and important responsibility to western Canadian farmers to enable them to meet export commitments.

[Criminal Code, March 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of Bill C-219, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to using or operating a stolen motor vehicle in the commission of an offence.

It is important that we understand that Bill C-219 deals exactly with that. I will repeat that for members opposite because they seem to have missed the point. It is an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to using or operating a stolen motor vehicle in the commission of an offence.

I commend the hon. member for Wild Rose. Although we have not always agreed on remedies for the justice system, there are many problems in our justice system and I agree that the Liberal government is not always there for Canadians to strengthen the Criminal Code. Tougher provisions are needed in many places.

As mentioned by previous speakers, the bill would amend section 334 of the Criminal Code. The purpose of the amendment is to classify those found guilty of operating or using a motor vehicle that a person has stolen or knows has been stolen while committing an indictable offence, during flight or attempting to commit an offence. It is fairly simple legislation that is being proposed. All we have to do is stick to the facts.

The sentence for such an offence would be a term of imprisonment for one year. It would also require that the sentence be served consecutively of any other punishment if it arises out of the same set or series of events that contributed to the conviction for the first offence.

All of that is to say in common parlance that there would be greater emphasis placed on an offence that was committed while using a stolen vehicle. In short, Bill C-219 would act as a greater deterrent for such offences. Certainly it would be commendable for this type of legislation to come from the Parliament of Canada.

I commend the hon. member's efforts in this regard and I am supportive of the bill. This is a positive measure that the member for Wild Rose brings forward because it addresses two key areas in which there is need for improvement in our Criminal Code. It would toughen the criminal sanctions for those individuals who use a stolen vehicle to assist in the commission of a criminal act. This would be a welcome change because it would additionally punish criminals for the additional steps they have taken, namely to have stolen a vehicle to commit another offence.

The second area of the intended amendment proposed in section 334.1(2), which is very much a truth in sentencing provision, ensures that the sentence imposed on the criminal, mainly the driver, would be served consecutively. That is, it would not be simply dealt away, which is often done in criminal proceedings by a plea bargain. The sentence would be cumulative. It would be served consecutively as opposed to concurrently. This would send a strong message to the thousands of Canadians who lose their vehicles through theft or someone who would commit a robbery and forcibly take their vehicles. It would result in greater accountability and would certainly send a message to the criminal element.

It is important for everyone to understand that when a vehicle is stolen it is often damaged and often never recovered. The person the crime is committed against is greatly inconvenienced. People experience a psychological feeling of invasion when their property is taken or damaged. It is similar to when a person's home is invaded. The purpose of the hon. member's motion is to amend the code to put greater emphasis on this type of offence. I believe it to be a positive one. I would therefore hope there is support at third reading for Bill C-284 brought forward by the member for Calgary Centre.

Those of us on this side of the House, at least those who are interested enough in this bill to speak on it here today, certainly see that voting in favour of this type of legislation is a deterrent to the very thing the hon. member had brought forth.

No matter how well meaning, legislation will go nowhere without the ability to implement and enforce it. I would therefore like to outline some of my concerns with respect to the government's persistence in underfunding a host of law enforcement issues. The solicitor general has often stated publicly that public safety is a strategy and a priority for the government. Instead of talking perhaps the solicitor general could also do a lot to demonstrate that commitment to public safety by supporting legislation such as the initiative brought forward by the member for Wild Rose and by paying greater attention to what our police community is telling him. Quite bluntly, police officers are getting the shaft from the Liberal government.

According to the information revealed by the government's own organized crime committee last April, the national police service needs an additional $200 million over the next four years or it will functionally expire. That will have a great impact on every part of the country. We have already seen a situation evolve where large detachments of the RCMP are underfunded. The solicitor general and the Liberal government decided to cut $74.1 million from the RCMP's organized crime budget.

This is not about leadership or providing resources for the law enforcement community. It is quite the contrary. When you cut 13% from the budget in one fiscal year what do you expect the people who are supposed to uphold the government and the law in this country to do? The RCMP is not the only police force that feels the effect. Municipal and provincial police forces are inevitably forced to pick up the slack. Many of these forces are already burdened by the abandonment of the ports police and are struggling to fill the void left by this government's axe.

We need a real commitment to law enforcement, not just talk, not just debate in the Chamber but real legislation. The government has to bring in legislative initiatives if we are to see real concrete improvements. I applaud the member for Wild Rose for taking such an initiative. it is quite disturbing to think the government would not embrace such a positive initiative on the member's part. I would expect the government to support this legislation since it is votable and as we in the Conservative Party will be supporting it.

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

The aboriginal human resource development strategy will change the way training programs and services are offered to aboriginal Canadians. Criticism of this includes a loss of services to off reserve aboriginal groups such as the Canadian Métis Council and the Native Council of Nova Scotia.

Could the minister guarantee that both groups would receive funding in the future equivalent to what they received under the regional bilateral agreement?

[Swissair Flight 111, March 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester asked an extremely important question on the coast guard. What the minister did not answer was that the only thing that kept the coast guard's budget from being cut sooner in 1998 was the crash of Swissair flight 111. If this tragedy had not occurred, the coast guard boats would have been laid up much earlier in the fall of 1998.

The issue here is safety. Is it the Minister of Transport's intent to ignore the safety of our fishermen and boaters in the same way the minister of defence ignored the safety of our pilots?

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is famous for his promises. He promised to scrap the Pearson airport deal and it cost Canadians $650 million. He promised to scrap the EH-101 and it cost Canadians a bunch of money and more importantly and more recently eight lives, airmen based out of Greenwood, Nova Scotia. He promised in 1972 to provide a reserve for the Caldwell Indian band in southern Ontario. I would like to know the price of that promise both for aboriginal Canadians and non-aboriginal Canadians.

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is aware that in other parts of Canada consultation with local municipal units always takes place whenever there are reserve lands that are coming out of an existing municipal unit. In some cases compensation is even provided for lost municipal revenues. It works in Manitoba. It works in other provinces.

Why did the minister not consult with the local Blenheim municipality prior to her unilateral decision that the new Caldwell reserve would be placed in the Blenheim municipality?