Joe Peschisolido

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, September 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honour to rise today to discuss Bill C-49 and to speak forcefully for the bill as the member of Parliament for Richmond. Richmond is in one of the fastest growing areas of this great country of ours, the greater Vancouver area, and in one of the fastest growing provinces, British Columbia.

The bill would ensure that Canada's new electoral boundaries are put in place as soon as possible and give the government the flexibility that it needs and that democracy needs to go to the people to ensure that the changing dynamics and demographics of our country are represented.

The bill's concept is simple, but its purpose is essential. It would achieve more effective representation for all Canadians with the least possible delay by ensuring that Canada's electoral map reflects our changing demographics.

The Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has explained the rationale for the bill, its context, and why it is important to accelerate the effective date of the 2003 representation order. I would like to go through some of the points contained in the bill.

Electoral redistribution is essential to the vitality of our electoral system. It would renew our national electoral blueprint by ensuring that the floor of the House fully reflects the communities we come from and that the voices of all Canadians are properly heard.

The periodic readjustment of electoral boundaries is critical to maintaining this vitality and is necessary if our system is to remain truly representative. Timely redistribution acknowledges a reality that we all live and breathe, that the Canadian population is dynamic and is in constant state of flux.

We know this from our experience and from the census data that reveals the shift of people moving from province to province, from town to city, and from centre to suburb. Newcomers arrive on our shores, children are born, communities blossom and sometimes disappear. The only constant thing is change itself. We must ensure that our electoral system accommodates and reflects these patterns.

There is no other area in this country which I believe better reflects these points than the greater Vancouver area. The greater Vancouver area will see an influx of three seats which is in keeping with the demographics and not only internally in the province. The interior has lost a seat but the greater Vancouver area will gain a seat. We have also seen people from all over the world come to the greater Vancouver area. My City of Richmond has had an increase in population of 22,000 people since the last census. My colleague across the floor from Surrey will see the addition of two seats as well as shifts all over.

That is why we must move quickly on the bill. We must ensure that our electoral system accommodates and reflects the patterns that I and other members have discussed prior to me rising today. That is why our Constitution wisely requires a redistribution after each decennial census in order to ensure that the electoral map reflects the changing face of Canada and that it does so in a timely fashion. As I mentioned, in 10 years Richmond has seen a population increase of 22,000 people. The greater Vancouver area has seen an increase of at least 40,000 or 50,000 people.

Though often regarded as the rallying cry of American independence, this principle is no less deeply enshrined in our country. Indeed, along with the rights of all citizens to vote in free and fair elections, this is the very touchstone of democracy.

What does this have to do with the bill that we have before us today? A great deal, because we are now in a situation where Canada's new electoral map has been finalized. The independent commissions have done their work. Hearings have been held and decisions have been made. An updated electoral map, presenting a truer reflection of Canadian reality, is ready. All that remains is to bring the new boundaries into effect.

Naturally, some period of adjustment is necessary to enable the election machinery to catch up.

Elections Canada and political parties must orient themselves to the new ridings. This cannot happen overnight, nor should we underestimate the amount of work which would be involved. That is precisely why the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act provides for a grace period of one year.

At the same time, we must remember that the longer that implementation of new boundaries is delayed, the longer we remain with an electoral map that is outdated and not as representative as it could and should be.

The period of adjustment should be as short as is operationally possible. That is why I am gratified that the Chief Electoral Officer has indicated that Elections Canada could be ready to proceed with the new boundaries by April 1, 2004. This is four and a half months sooner than the grace period provided by statute, meaning that Canadians would have an electoral map that better reflects their demographic face much sooner in the greater Vancouver area, in British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and right across the country.

What does this mean in practice? Why is it important that the new ridings be in place as soon as practically feasible? For one thing, the new electoral map will increase the size of this House by seven members.

British Columbia and Alberta will receive two new seats each and Ontario three. It is important to those provinces that their relative increases in population be reflected in the composition of this Chamber. To do otherwise would work a serious disservice to their citizens. However, even in provinces that do not gain seats, the need to proceed with redistribution as soon as possible is also important.

We can all think of ridings whose populations have grown dramatically since the 1991 census, with all of the challenges that growth presents for the members concerned and their constituents. The situation is not unique. It is not fair to allow this situation to prevail any longer than absolutely necessary. To do so would unnecessarily jeopardize the principle of effective representation that lies at the heart of Canada's electoral democracy.

In its definitive first pronouncement on the meaning of the right to vote as enshrined in our Constitution, the Supreme Court of Canada identified effective representation as the core principle that must guide electoral redistribution. The court's eloquent words remind us of what is at stake. As Madam Justice McLachlin stated:

Ours is a representative democracy. Each citizen is entitled to be represented in government.

Obviously, that is why periodic redistribution is critical. However, as Madam Justice McLachlin continued:

But parity of voting power, though of prime importance, is not the only factor to be taken into account in ensuring effective representation...Factors like geography, community history, community interests and minority representation may need to be taken into account to ensure that our legislative assemblies effectively represent the diversity of our social mosaic.

I am not suggesting that we have reached a point right now where we must act today. What I do know is that implementing Canada's new electoral map sooner rather than later and with the least possible delay is the best means to avoid having a lack of representation here in Canada and diluting the true representation Canadians ought to have in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario, but also in changes that are occurring within the other provinces.

Let me conclude by asking all members of all parties to join with me in supporting the bill and delivering more effective representation to all Canadians with the least possible delay.

[Criminal Code, September 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that Bill C-45 should be supported as it will make a great contribution to promoting safety in the workplace. As was stated earlier on, the hearings of the standing committee had their origins ultimately in the Westray tragedy, and I believe all members wish to do what they can as legislators at the federal level to eliminate as much as we possibly can, deaths and injuries on the job.

The Criminal Code is not the primary way of promoting safety. Strong laws governing the workplace, like those which this government introduced into the Canada Labour Code, vigorous inspection of farm factories, mines and other high risk work sites and training workers and supervisors in the best safety practices are the first line of defence. However the Criminal Code does represent the judgment of Parliament as to what conduct is so harmful that it must be treated with the utmost severity.

Within the code there are distinctions in the severity of the sentence possible, ranging from the most minor offences punishable only on summary conviction to the most serious punishable by life imprisonment. Causing death by criminal negligence is among those offences that are punishable by life and causing bodily harm is punishable by 10 years of imprisonment. Despite the fact that these provisions have been in the code for many years, prosecutions of corporations for death and injury in the workplace have been rare. These changes in Bill C-45 should lead to more accountability for the most serious cases of endangering workers.

Members of the House may be interested to know that outside experts in the field have come to the same conclusion. Cheryl A. Edwards, a lawyer in private practice in Toronto, wrote an article in the August 22 edition of the Lawyers Weekly . The opening paragraph of the article states:

On June 12, 2003, the prospect of both regulatory and Criminal Code prosecutions emanating from a serious workplace accident became much more real. The federal government introduced anticipated amendments to the Criminal Code in Bill C-45, which, if passed, will create positive occupational health and safety-related duties for corporations, individuals, and other parties defined as “organizations”. Bill C-45 will make it easier to convict those parties of criminal negligence for workplace safety violations.

Let us then deal with Bill C-45 as others have, but I would like to also elaborate on this point. What are the elements of Bill C-45 that will enhance the effectiveness of the Criminal Code in holding corporations accountable for safety?

First, there will be the positive duty imposed on those who undertake or have the authority to direct how another person does work to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm to any person arising from that work. Application of existing criminal negligence provisions would mean that those parties that fail in this duty and show wanton and reckless disregard for safety in doing so could be found criminally negligent.

Similar duties already exist in statutes and regulations governing the conduct of various businesses and even in the common law. Placing the duty, however, in the Criminal Code is an important signal that Parliament intends that everyone take their responsibility for worker safety very seriously.

The criminal negligence sections of the code already impose a legal duty on parents and spouses to provide the necessities of life and on anyone who undertakes to administer surgical or medical treatment to another to use reasonable knowledge, skill and care. It is right that the duty to protect workers and the public from foreseeable harm be placed in the Criminal Code and so treated in the same way as these other duties.

The mere fact that the legal duty is in the code may also serve to simplify some prosecutions. It can also serve as a wake-up call to those who direct work. Reckless disregard of the duty of care can lead to imprisonment for a very long time.

With respect to corporations that are charged with criminal negligence, the rules for attribution of liability set out in the proposed new section 22.2 of the Criminal Code will make it somewhat easier to establish liability of the corporation than is the case under existing common law rules.

Those rules establish a two step procedure. First, the crown would have to show that the actions of a single corporate representative or group of representatives demonstrated a lack of care that constituted a breach of the new legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm. Then the crown would have to show that a senior officer either acted or failed to act in a way which was in a marked departure from that which could be expected of a senior officer in the circumstances.

Both representative and senior officer are defined. Corporations will be liable for the physical acts and the omissions of the director, partner, employee, member, agent or contractor of the corporation. An important innovation of the proposed reform is that the courts will not have to seek a single person who both committed the negligent act or omission and was a directing mind of the corporation. Bill C-45 provides that conduct by two or more representatives can be added together to constitute the negligent conduct.

For instance, if we consider a death or injury in a mine, there may have been a series of errors by employees and supervisors that all contributed to the accident. If a single employee turned off three separate safety systems and miners were killed as a result of an accident that the safety systems would have prevented, the employee would probably be prosecuted for causing death by criminal negligence but the mine operator might not depending on the particular facts. Did the employee act in defiance of direct orders or did the employee act in accordance with company policy and practices?

On the other hand, if three employees each turned off one of the safety systems, none of the employees would likely be subject to criminal prosecution because each one thought there would still be two systems in place to protect the workers. Under existing rules for attributing liability, the mine operator could very well also escape prosecution because no single person was negligent. However under the proposed rules, the fact that the individual employees might escape prosecution would not be a bar to the prosecution of the corporation. After all, the corporation through its three employees turned off the three systems.

Not only is proving the act of negligence going to be easier under the reforms but finding the wanton and reckless disregard for safety that is necessary for a conviction of the corporation is also going to be easier. The fault of the corporation is found through the actions and omissions of a senior officer, which is defined to include persons who play an important role in establishing the organization's policies, and persons responsible for important aspects of an organization's activities, and in the case of a corporation includes directors, the CEO and CFO.

The existing test developed by the courts is, as people have alluded to, quite restrictive. In the leading case, the Supreme Court referred to the person having so much authority in the corporation that the person could be considered the directing mind, alter ego or soul of the corporation. While the Supreme Court recognized that a corporation could delegate enough authority to managers that the corporation would have more than one directing mind, it is clear that the court is looking for persons on the very highest rungs of the corporate ladder.

Again, in the words of Ms. Edwards in the Lawyers Weekly :

The proposals do not eliminate the “directing mind” doctrine, as it would still be necessary to prove culpability of a senior official. However, the doctrine would be altered to eliminate the requirement to show [their] direct involvement, and it would be altered to allow the actions of lesser corporate representatives to make the organization party to the offence of criminal negligence.

This clearly signals an expectation that senior management take a proactive role in health and safety matters. The conduct of senior management could very well come under unprecedented scrutiny from investigators.

It is not only Ms. Edwards who expects Bill C-45 to have a major impact. In an article in Worksite News, Norman Keith, another lawyer from Toronto specializing in occupational health and safety issues wrote:

Bill C-45 extends legal duties to a new level that will likely include foremen, lead hands, and even co-workers. The requirement “to prevent bodily harm to that person, or any other person, arising from that work or task” goes farther than any current OHS legislation in Canada. Nova Scotia requires employers to be responsible for members of the public at or near the workplace, however, Bill C-45 casts the net farther to include all persons that may be affected by the work or task.

It is certainly my hope and expectation that Ms. Edwards' prediction of “unprecedented scrutiny” and Mr. Keith's prediction of “a higher level of accountability” will come true.

In passing Bill C-35, Parliament will be responding positively to the Westray tragedy. The new rules and the positive duty combined should ensure that the Criminal Code serves to attribute liability in a way that is fair to workers and their employers when there has been death or injury at work.

[Public Service Integrity Officer, September 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing 32(2), I am pleased to table, in both official languages, two copies of the first annual report of the Public Service Integrity Officer for the period 2002-03.

[B.C. Forest Fires, September 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this has been one of the most challenging summers in history for the people of British Columbia. As we are all acutely aware, we have endured months of ferocious forest fires.

Communities like Kelowna, Cranbrook, Okanagan Mountain Park and others suffered through a summer of uncertainty, multiple evacuations and devastation. Thousands of firefighters, including 2,000 military personnel, continue to fight the fires. Firefighters from the B.C. Fire Service, Ontario and Saskatchewan are doing their best to protect and save communities.

On behalf of all members of the House, I extend our sympathies to those who have been displaced by the fires and our heartfelt thanks and gratitude to the thousands of firefighters who have risked their health and lives in doing their duty. They are true heroes and incredible Canadians.

[Taxation, June 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in April 1999 the federal government started requiring Canadian residents to report their foreign assets in an effort to reduce tax evasion. This is a laudable goal which unfortunately has resulted in negative unintended consequences.

Would-be investors feel this is an unnecessary breach of their privacy and some immigrant investors avoid compliance by changing from resident to non-resident status.

Studies have shown that the foreign asset disclosure rule has taken some $1 billion out of the B.C. economy by discouraging investment. Therefore I urge the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions to review the foreign asset disclosure rule to encourage new business and new investment in British Columbia and indeed in all of Canada.

[Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, May 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to take part in today's debate on Bill C-419, an act to amend the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act.

It is fitting that we are considering this bill as part of private members' business. The bill would directly affect all members in the way we conduct our work and organize our offices, so it is appropriate that we are able to consider these issues in a non-partisan and thoughtful manner.

The government has considered many issues raised in the bill since the enactment of the original act in 1986. The government has not acted on these issues since there has been no agreement among parliamentarians, among ourselves, on how to proceed.

Let me now go through various aspects of Bill C-419. Bill C-419 proposes three main changes to the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act.

First, the bill would amend part I of the act to allow the staff of each MP and senator to negotiate collective agreements. These provisions would apply to parliamentary staff, constituency staff and caucus staff. Each MP and senator would be considered as an employer in relation to their staff. Parliamentary staff would therefore be covered by the same legislation as the employees of the House of Commons, the Senate, and the Library of Parliament. By including parliamentary staff under part one of the act, employees would have recourse through the Public Service Staff Relations Board arbitration and grievance procedures.

Second, the bill would add a new provision to the act to forbid employers to lock out their employees. This prohibition would apply to the House of Commons, the Senate, the Library of Parliament, and each member of Parliament and senator in their role as employers. The bill also includes penalties for employers who cause lockouts.

Third, the bill would bring into force parts II and III of the act. Part II of the act provides for labour standards such as hours of work, wages and leave, et cetera, and incorporates part III of the Canada Labour Code. Part III of the act provides for occupational health and safety standards by incorporating part II of the Canada Labour Code. Parts II and III of the act apply to the staff of MPs, senators, the House of Commons, the Senate and the Library of Parliament.

As I mentioned earlier, although the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act was enacted on June 27, 1986, parts II and III of the act covering labour and health and safety standards have never been brought into force, given concerns among members that these provisions should not apply to parliamentary staff. One concern has been the financial and operational implications that these provisions would have on members of Parliament and senators.

Bill C-419 could result in significant costs to MPs and senators as a result of the labour and health and safety standards under parts II and III. The new provisions in Bill C-419 for collective bargaining for parliamentary staff could also have significant financial implications for individual members of Parliament and senators.

Another concern raised by parts II and III of the act is that they could interfere with the independence of members of Parliament and senators and their parliamentary privileges. For instance, staff could refuse to perform work they considered dangerous, which could prevent the House from sitting or could interfere with the operation of the offices of members of Parliament. In addition, government inspectors would have access to parliamentary premises, including the offices of members of Parliament. I am sure we would all agree that as parliamentarians we must be careful to ensure that our privileges are not unduly constrained so that we can perform our duties and our functions as members of Parliament, as representatives of the people of Canada.

We must therefore find the correct balance between maintaining our privileges while obviously ensuring that the interests of our employees are properly and carefully addressed.

The House of Commons, the Senate and the Library of Parliament have effectively addressed labour issues through other informal ways and means. The House, Senate and Library of Parliament employees have coverage similar to that provided under the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act without interfering--and this is the key point--they have the same coverage and protections without interfering with parliamentary privilege.

I believe that as parliamentarians we should always strive to uphold our duties in our roles as members of Parliament to our constituents, but also importantly as employers, to ensure that our own parliamentary staff have proper working arrangements and proper working conditions.

Perhaps it would be more appropriate for the Board of Internal Economy to create a parallel non-legislative structure to achieve the objectives of the act without the difficulties raised in a more rigid statutory approach.

[Supply, May 26th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I cannot speak for the government of Taiwan. I do not know its motivations. I am not sure what its plans are and I do not particularly care. This is an important point. I am the member of Parliament for Richmond and there is a very serious disease occurring, SARS.

We have had a situation in Taiwan where delay has occurred of x number of days where a political decision was made. If Taiwan had observer status at the WHO, action could have been taken sooner. I do not know whether that would have saved lives. However I would like to err on the side of the health issue here.

The building I am in in Richmond, on Saba Road, has a notice in English as well as in Chinese characters which states very clearly that if people have arrived from Hong Kong, China or Taiwan, they should be isolated for 10 or 12 days and that people should ensure they wash their hands so they do not spread the disease.

The point that I am making is, as a member of Parliament, as the House of the Canadian people, it is incumbent on us to solve a problem. The problem is, in my view, that we have a disease we should contain. We might have diseases in the future that are more serious than SARS. I believe, not changing the political configuration, the best way to do that in this particular case is to give an entity, Taiwan, call it what we will, observer status with the World Health Organization because the risk and the costs are too high.

We are talking about people dying. We are also talking about lack of economic activity. I know what I see when I drive around my riding of Richmond. I see the lack of economic activity. Restaurants are 10% full. The shops of all the different communities in Richmond have 20% to 25% of the sales they had before. Why? Fear of SARS and fear of uncertainty.

I want to stop that. That is why I, as a member of Parliament for Richmond, support this motion to have Taiwan given observer status in the World Health Organization.

[Supply, May 26th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Yukon.

It is my honour as a member of Parliament for Richmond in the wonderful province of British Columbia to stand in the House today and discuss the merits of the motion of the Canadian Alliance, a motion supported by many members of Parliament in the House, that this House support the admission of Taiwan as an observer status at the WHO.

We have heard two or three different lines of argument. One was on the political side, and my colleague from Calgary East talked about those things. We have also heard about the humanitarian and health considerations.

Let me just say that as a member of Parliament for Richmond, that community is the gateway to Asia. The community receives the vast majority of the 150,000 Taiwanese coming into Canada every year and the 6,000 foreign students from Taiwan who study in Richmond and in Vancouver. That community plays a major part in the $6 billion of trade between Canada and Taiwan. Yes, Canada has wonderful and strong economic and cultural ties with Taiwan, but this issue is not a political issue. It is not a debate about geopolitics. Whether this House endorses the motion and supports Taiwan's admission as an observer status at the WHO will not change the position of the Government of Canada. The one-China policy still stands. In the United States, the Congress has approved a similar motion endorsing Taiwan's position as a non-voting member, as an observer at the WHO, and this has not changed the position of the administration of the United States.

Today we are debating an issue about compassion, an issue about life and death matters. As has been mentioned in the House, Taiwan has had 72 deaths based on a disease called SARS. We have had 700 deaths worldwide. We do not know how this disease is mutating. We are not talking about politics. Yes, there is a debate about the World Health Organization, what it states and whether it will then impact upon the United Nations. We have had different precedents arguing both ways. We have member states in the WHO, we also do not have member states. We have the Red Cross, the Vatican and also the PLO. I am not sure of the exact term for its executive branch.

The question is whether this House should endorse a motion that would allow the people of Taiwan, its medical officers, as well as the people of Canada, to have a system with which we could better tackle infectious diseases, viral diseases, and in particular the case of SARS.

The Vancouver International Airport is in my riding of Richmond. I see, day in and day out, less and less people coming in from Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan and mainland China. Those who are coming in have masks and gloves. This impacts upon our economic and cultural links, not only with Taiwan but with China, Japan and Singapore. Something must be done in a compassionate way to deal with this disease but also to maintain those wonderful economic links that exist between Canada and the Far East.

This is what we are talking about now. We have a problem. We are not talking about the grand stage of geopolitics. We are talking about the best way to solve a problem. The solution is to give an entity of 23 million people, or whatever we call it, which participates a great deal in the connections around the world, an opportunity to deal with the SARS disease and everything else. That is the crux of the issue.

Should the House allow the world, Taiwan, the people of Richmond and all Canadians, to better deal with a serious disease that is mutating and that has produced 20 or 30 new cases in Toronto? That is the issue here.

I do not know much about medicine and infectious disease, and that scares me. The people who have lunch and dinner in the restaurants along No. 3 Road in Richmond are concerned about SARS. I assume this is happening all across the country and across the world. Why, because of a false political argument which I do not think applies, should the House not endorse a motion that will simply provide Taiwan, the world community and more important, because we are representatives of Canadian ridings, and in my case as a member of Parliament for Richmond, our communities the tools to deal with what has been a tragic and serious health and economic concern, and it could be a much more serious one?

I would like to end my comments by encouraging everyone in the House to look at the health issues and as members of Parliament endorse the ascension to observer status for Taiwan.

[World Health Organization, May 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Richmond, I rise today to draw the attention of the House to Taiwan's bid for observer status at the World Health Organization.

This is not a geopolitical issue. It is a health issue: a matter of life and death. Viruses and other infectious diseases know no boundaries. SARS has now claimed the lives of 72 people in Taiwan, up from 60 just three days ago, and almost 700 worldwide.

The residents of my riding of Richmond have strong personal, cultural and commercial connections with China, Hong Kong and Taiwan, and the Vancouver International Airport is situated in Richmond. Richmond residents have directly felt the negative health, societal and economic fallout from SARS.

As the member of Parliament for Richmond, I support Taiwan's bid for observer status at the WHO.

[The Environment, May 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, On Monday, May 5 in Victoria, B.C., Environment Canada launched “Let's Drive Green”, the 18th season of its voluntary vehicle emissions inspection clinic program.

This is an opportunity for motorists to bring their vehicles into our voluntary vehicle emissions clinics for testing. Results will come minutes later, along with suggestions on how to keep the vehicle operating at peak performance levels in order to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The “Let's Drive Green” program helps individual Canadians do their part to achieve Canada's commitments under the Kyoto protocol. It complements other transportation related initiatives in our climate change plan, such as the 25% vehicle fuel efficiency improvement target and the one tonne challenge.

“Let's Drive Green” will be visiting 35 cities across Canada. I encourage support for these wonderful events.