Tim Uppal

[Canada Labour Code, October 19th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-386.

The bill seeks to prohibit the use of replacement workers during work stoppages in federally regulated sectors. It is important to highlight these key sectors of the economy, which include international and interprovincial rail, road and air transportation, shipping and longshore operations, grain handling, uranium mining, banking, broadcasting, telecommunications, and certain crown corporations such as museums.

This bill is not in the best interests of workers. If it were passed, we would create uncertainty in the labour market in general and in these federally regulated industries in particular. Uncertainty costs jobs.

Clarity, transparency, and a process that resolves disputes without having to resort to a work stoppage, this is how we protect jobs. I suggest to hon. members that especially in these difficult economic times we do not want to replace a system of clarity, transparency, and the resolving of disputes with one that would create more uncertainty.

More important, the bill, if passed, would upset the careful balance that has been established under the current legislation and the programs available to help resolve labour disputes.

I would point out to the House that last year marks the 10th anniversary of the passage of comprehensive amendments to part I of the Canada Labour Code, the part dealing with industrial relations. Those amendments modernized the code and improved collective bargaining in federally regulated industries.

Before passing those amendments, the government of the day consulted extensively. Andrew Sims, Q.C., who was chair of the Alberta Labour Relations Board at the time, chaired a task force that consulted with businesses, unions, academics, and other interest groups.

His task force sought a balance between many different interests. Sometimes these interests were in conflict with one another and sometimes they were in cohesion. We sought a balance between labour and management, the public interest and free collective bargaining, and rights and responsibilities.

Mr. Sims and his task force found a workable balance among these issues. One of the key areas where this balance applied was in the rights and obligations of parties during a work stoppage. This was a contentious issue even among task force members.

These positions of unions and management on the question of replacement workers can be quite polarized. Generally, unions look to a complete ban on the use of replacement workers, while most employers want a free hand.

Even the members of the task force could not reach consensus on this issue. Eventually, the majority of the task force members recommended a balance that would permit employers to carry on operations during a work stoppage, while protecting the union's right to strike and retain its bargaining authority.

That is the balance that was attained in the replacement worker provisions that came into effect under section 94(2.1) of the Canada Labour Code in 1999. It is a provision that has served Canada well for the past 10 years. It is a carefully crafted balance that the hon. member would upset with this bill. It has helped provide a degree of relative peace in labour relations over the past 10 years.

The bill before us today would stir the pot and bring to the surface many of the contentious issues that the task force carefully examined in making its recommendations.

If unions believe that they have employers over a barrel because of the prohibition on replacement workers, some may be encouraged to refuse the concessions that might otherwise resolve a dispute. They hold the trump card.

Independent studies have looked at the impact of anti-replacement worker laws on work stoppages. Most found no evidence that a legislative ban had an effect on activity, but some found that a prohibition on replacement workers led to more frequent and longer strikes.

In this time of economic recovery, we do not need the greater uncertainty that such legislation would bring. On the other hand, the current system of balance on the issue of replacement workers has supported an environment where labour and management are brought together to resolve disputes at the bargaining table, not by resorting to a work stoppage.

I would remind the House of the highly effective programs now in place to bring management and unions together. Through the labour program, the Government of Canada promotes fair, safe, and productive workplaces and co-operative workplace relations.

Unions and employers are provided with federal services to help resolve their collective bargaining disputes through the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, the FMCS. It provides tools for dispute resolution through the services of neutral third-party conciliation and mediation officers. These officers have a mandate to help both parties reach an agreement.

Hon. members will recall, for example, that Air Canada and the Canadian Union of Public Employees reached an agreement with the assistance of federally appointed mediators. Labour stability was one of the key elements to ensure that Air Canada could navigate through the economic uncertainty. Both Air Canada and the CUPE made an extra effort to settle their differences with the help of the federally appointed mediators.

The FMCS also gets involved in arbitration by providing a professional arbitrator, who examines both sides of the dispute and renders a binding decision. The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service also provides dispute prevention services. For example, officers can provide training workshops. They customize these programs to meet the specific needs of the organizations and individuals involved, everything from development of negotiation skills and committee effectiveness to problem solving.

Workshops typically last from one to three days and are delivered by well-trained FMCS mediators. In these ways, the FMCS provides important benefits to employers and unions by improving the relationships between both parties during the closed period of a collective agreement.

The FMCS succeeds in providing these services because the relative strength of both labour and management balances under the current provisions for replacement workers. Neither side wants to provoke a stoppage, both sides are willing to talk, but striking this balance was a complex and demanding challenge. The history of labour relations over the past years indicates that for the most part the Sims task force got the balance right.

One way we can tell that the task force got the balance right is the numerous occasions over the past years that an hon. member of one political persuasion or another has tried to amend the collective bargaining provisions. I cannot begin to count the number of times the House has debated measures similar to those of the hon. member, measures that seek a different balance.

On each and every occasion, the motion or the bill has been voted down. Why? Because it has not represented an improvement over what has been put in place by the task force, and that is the case for this bill from the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel. These measures would breed uncertainty and upset a carefully constructed balance that has helped build and sustain our good labour relations in this country.

This bill is not good for workers, it is not good for the economy, and it is not good for Canada. I urge hon. members to join me in voting against it.

[Doug Korpleinsky, October 1st, 2010]

Madam Speaker, it is my honour today to pay tribute to someone who is unfortunately no longer with us, Doug Korpleinsky. Doug was not only a dear friend to my family and me, but he was also a significant contributor to the Edmonton community.

For many years he coached hockey with the Knights of Columbus, teaching young men the importance of teamwork, commitment and hard work. A few of those players he coached even made it to the NHL.

He was an elected senator of the Edmonton Junior Chamber of Commerce, motivating individuals to create positive change in their community, in our businesses and in the world around us.

He also encouraged young people and people of various backgrounds to understand and get involved in politics, including myself.

Doug Korpleinsky made a profound impact in his community and with the people in his life. This proud Canadian will dearly be missed.

Our thoughts and prayers go out to his mother, Alice, and the rest of his family.

[Citizenship Act, September 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to add to the debate on Bill C-467 brought forward by the hon. member for Vancouver South. This private member's bill stems from the passage two years ago of an act to amend the Citizenship Act.

The government supports the intentions of Bill C-467, which would treat children born abroad or overseas by crown servants, including Canadian Forces personnel, like children born in Canada so they would be able to pass citizenship on to any children they may have or adopt outside of Canada.

We do have concerns with the bill as it is currently drafted, as it does not achieve its intended objective and would have unintended consequences. However, we are looking forward to working in committee to make a few changes that will be needed to ensure the bill achieves its desired objective.

As the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism has said, few things in this world are more precious to Canadians than their citizenship. However, over the past several years we have heard from people who thought they were proud Canadian citizens, only to discover that their citizenship did not exist in law due to inconsistencies in citizenship legislation. When they applied for a passport, they were told that they were not Canadian citizens. People who lived or worked here for years without Canadian citizenship could be denied benefits, such as pensions and health care.

The Government of Canada took this matter very seriously. These were unfair situations due to outdated legislation and so we corrected the mistakes of the past and righted a series of wrongs.

As hon. members are aware, amendments to the Citizenship Act have restored Canadian citizenship to those who ceased to be citizens under the 1947 act. These changes gave citizenship to those who never had it but were born of a Canadian, such as the so-called border babies. These were people whose families live close to the Canada-U.S. border and for whom the closest hospital in which to give birth was in the United States.

We can only imagine how difficult it had to be for someone to believe that they were Canadian, only to discover later that their citizenship was not valid all along. We owe a debt of gratitude to the men and women who came forward and testified before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. They told heart-wrenching stories of how this loss of citizenship had affected them personally.

We also amended the Citizenship Act to support Canadian parents who adopt children from other countries. Such parents no longer have to apply for permanent resident status for their children before he or she is eligible for Canadian citizenship.

The goal of fixing imperfect legislation with the passage of previous amendments was essentially to bring stability, clarity and consistency to Canadian citizenship laws.

Previous amendments to the Citizenship Act also protected the value of Canadian citizenship by ensuring that our citizens would have a real connection to this country.

Along with the hon. members, I agree that the private member's bill before us today is certainly well-intentioned. However, while Bill C-467 does not achieve its objective in its current form, we are prepared to work together to amend the bill. To that end, we will be supporting the bill's passage at this stage so that it can be considered by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, of which I am now a member.

However, I would like to reiterate some of the concerns with the bill as it is written right now. The intent of Bill C-467 is to enable children of crown servants born abroad, including the children of Canadian Forces members, to pass their Canadian citizenship on to any children they may have or adopt outside Canada. However, as drafted, the bill fails to do this.

The bill would also have the unintended consequence of denying citizenship for children of crown servants in situations where the crown servant was born abroad to a Canadian parent. That is because Bill C-467 would remove the right, under section 3.5 of the act, which allows crown servants to pass citizenship on to any children they have while serving abroad.

Bill C-467 proposes to confer citizenship automatically to children adopted abroad by crown servants who were born or naturalized in Canada. The current act already allows anyone who was born abroad and adopted by a Canadian parent who was born in Canada, whether or not that parent is a crown servant, to apply for a grant of citizenship.

The criteria for such a grant respect international obligations that are there to protect the best interests of the child and that respect the provincial jurisdiction on adoptions.

It is true that under Bill C-467, children adopted abroad by crown servants would no longer have to apply for a grant of citizenship, but they would also not be subject to the safeguards aimed at protecting their best interests. The bill would not treat these children the same as those born in Canada. I am sure all members would agree that we should not penalize the children of crown servants who are not able to pass on the citizenship as a direct result of their parent's service abroad in the name of Canada.

The intent of Bill C-467 could be achieved by expanding the exception that exists in the current act to ensure that the children of crown servants and Canadian Forces personnel, like children born in Canada, would be able to pass citizenship on to any children they have or adopt outside of Canada.

We are already working with the hon. member for Vancouver South to ensure the bill achieves its objectives and will continue that co-operation at committee stage.

As my grandfather said, “You can lose your possessions, but never your pride”. It is a pride he always felt in knowing we are and always will remain proud Canadian citizens.

I congratulate the hon. member for proposing this bill and I look forward to working with him to amend it.

[Combating Terrorism Act, September 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, very eloquently my colleague from Abbottsford explained why we need this bill to protect Canadians. He explained how other countries have similar bills. He mentioned the United Kingdom and Australia. An important part of this bill would be what he talked about: the safeguards and the checks and balances. Perhaps my colleague could further explain some of the checks and balances and the safeguards in this bill.

[Multiple Sclerosis, June 14th, 2010]

Madam Chair, the Sherwood Park MS Community Group in my riding is the largest MS group in the country.

On their behalf, I would like to ask the minister how CIHR is mobilizing the research community around CCSVI and MS?

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, June 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, due to the motion moved during routine proceedings today, a number of members were unable to table petitions. There are people here in Ottawa to witness the presentation of those petitions. Therefore, I would ask for unanimous consent to revert to routine proceedings for the sole purpose of allowing members to present petitions, provided we return to government orders.

[Multiple Sclerosis, May 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, as MS Awareness Month begins, I would like to recognize this cause that is so important to many of my constituents and many Canadians across the country.

The Sherwood Park MS Community Group is the largest MS group in the country. It works tirelessly to educate the community and raise awareness about multiple sclerosis. This group holds many events throughout the community, and actively provides information and support to the families and friends of those with MS.

I am pleased to say that funding by the Government of Canada for MS research is making a real difference. These investments are building our overall understanding of multiple sclerosis toward more effective treatment and, ultimately, a cure.

MS is an unpredictable and often disabling disease. I am proud to have such a large group of strong individuals in my riding that are fighting the disease and who live by the motto that MS is not the end but the beginning of a new journey.

[Criminal Code, April 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's debate of Bill C-384. The bill proposes to amend the Criminal Code to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide.

This subject is a very difficult and sensitive one. It touches on the matter of medical ethics and the criminal law. The bill proposes that doctors be authorized to intentionally and actively terminate the life of a patient on his or her request. Under the current criminal law, such an act constitutes murder, or if the act itself, which causes death, is carried out by the patient himself or herself, it constitutes assisted suicide.

I do not support the general principle behind the bill. I do not believe doctors should be given the power to end a human life in this way. Bill C-384 offers death as a solution to pain and suffering. I do not believe that this is the right solution for Canadians.

People with serious but non-life threatening illnesses should be offered treatment and support. So too should people with severe mental pain. People with terminal illness should be offered good palliative care. As a society, we must support quality health care services for all Canadians, including care for the dying.

I fully appreciate how this issue is the subject of great divergent views in our society. Contrary to how some commentators may suggest, the various polls that have been conducted on this issue in Canada have not demonstrated a clear consensus for reforms along the lines of what is proposed in Bill C-384.

The polling questions have generally focused on terminally ill patients. Bill C-384 does not focus merely on persons who suffer from a terminal illness. The scope of the bill is extremely broad. It would allow people who are not in the process of dying to ask a doctor to end their life. It includes people who want to commit suicide due to illness.

Furthermore, the breadth of the proposed amendments is not limited to those who suffer from severe physical illness but also mental illness. On this point, serious concerns have been expressed by several hon. members on how the bill includes a number of vague terms that have not been defined, terms such as severe physical or mental pain, or while appearing to be lucid but left undefined.

I believe doctors would not be provided clear guidance with these proposals. I also believe it would have huge implications for the provisions of medical services, not to mention potentially serious conflict with medical ethical standards.

As another hon. member mentioned earlier in the second reading debate of the bill, the Canadian Medical Association has stated that it does not support euthanasia and assisted suicide. It clearly urges its members to uphold the principles of palliative care. The Canadian Medical Association's policy on this issue is unequivocal: Canadian physicians do not participate in euthanasia or assisted suicide. Furthermore it has specifically stated that it does not support Bill C-384.

We have also heard how the bill does not provide sufficient safeguards to protect against potential abuses and ensure proper reporting. Therefore, the use of vague terms, some of which I have just mentioned, along with the fact that the reporting requirement consists of providing a copy of the diagnosis to the coroner after the fact raises a concern that people's lives could be terminated without their true and informed consent or while they are in a vulnerable state.

Since the introduction of the bill, a number of petitions from Canadians have been forwarded to the House. Those petitions, numbering in the hundreds, possibly thousands, have urged the House of Commons to oppose the bill.

I have already mentioned that I cannot support the general principle behind this bill. I believe that the overall thrust of the present debate at second reading has pointed to serious concerns with this bill, both with the general scope of it and in terms of the many flaws contained in it. As a result of these broad concerns, I think it would be premature for the House to refer this issue to a committee for further study.

[Vaisakhi, April 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, last week marked the Sikh celebration of Vaisakhi, which is the celebration of the birth of Sikhism as a collective faith.

Thousands of Canadians are celebrating throughout the country. For Sikhs it is an opportunity not only for celebration but for community service, which is a foundational principle of the faith. Sikhs have a long and proud history of contributing to the community and to this country, such as Sikh Canadian soldiers serving in our armed forces and in Afghanistan.

Sikhism preaches remembrance of God, truthful living and selfless service.

It is therefore extremely saddening that a handful of individuals have tainted this celebration by indicating possible violence and glorifying some of Canada's listed terrorist organizations. This is not the proper way to convey a message.

This government stands with the Canadian Sikh community in condemning those individuals who have overshadowed this celebration of shared Canadian and Sikh values of equality, humanity and justice for all.

[Protection of Insignia of Military Orders, Decorations and Medals Act, April 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-473 and the protection of military medals, orders and decorations awarded to Canadians.

I want to begin by thanking the member for Perth—Wellington for his efforts to protect Canada's military heritage and for bringing this issue before Parliament.

The tabling of Bill C-473 allows us to reflect on the vital importance of Canada's military heritage and the very important part it plays in our country's development.

Military insignia symbolize a number of events, the most common representing long or distinguished service, while still others denote participation in a war, campaign or peacekeeping mission. The rarest of all signify battlefield valour.

The importance of our military heritage was front and centre just recently on April 9, Vimy Ridge Day, when the government honoured all of Canada's World War I servicemen and women and paid tribute to their achievements and contributions. Ceremonies of remembrance were held across Canada and at the Canadian National Vimy Memorial in France and the Canada Memorial at Green Park in London.

The national commemorative ceremony at the National War Memorial, a symbol of the sacrifices of all Canadians who have served Canada in times of war in the cause of peace and freedom, was especially poignant following the death in February of Canada's last known first world war veteran, John Babcock.

The efforts and sacrifices of Canada's armed forces throughout our history must not be forgotten. As part of our country's heritage, they must be honoured and protected.

Through Bill C-473, the member for Perth—Wellington proposes to fill a gap in the protection of our military heritage, a gap that affects modern military insignia. Let me explain what I mean by that. Important medals and other decorations that are more than 50 years old are already protected under the Cultural Property Export and Import Act. We have measures in place to keep objects of outstanding significance and national importance in the country. The act includes, among other elements, a system of cultural property export control, which requires export permits for a range of cultural property. These measures protect the nation's heritage, while respecting the rights of private citizens to dispose of their own property.

Under the existing act, important medals that are more than 50 years old require a permit to leave Canada. Permanent export may be delayed if the medal is determined to be of outstanding significance and of national importance. If an object for which a permit is sought is deemed to be of outstanding significance and national importance, the permit is refused. That refusal may be appealed to the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board.

On appeal, the board may create a delay period of up to six months to allow Canadian cultural institutions the opportunity to purchase the object in question so that it may remain in Canada. A system of special tax incentives also exists to provide further encouragement for owners to donate or sell cultural property to Canadian institutions. Those who do not comply with the Cultural Property Export and Import Act can be prosecuted and are subject to fines or imprisonment.

However, what protection is there for modern Canadian insignia? We know that serving members of Canadian armed forces are prohibited under the code of service discipline of the National Defence Act from selling their medals and decorations. Military regulations also govern the disposition of medals when a serving member dies. These measures are important and should be respected. However, recent military honours, unlike historic medals, orders and decorations, are not controlled for export.

The member for Perth—Wellington has indicated that his objective with Bill C-473 is to keep important military medals, orders and decorations in Canada. Export control is clearly a matter over which the federal government has jurisdiction and experience. Important medals and other decorations that are more than 50 years old are already controlled for export under the Cultural Property Export and Import Act.

If it is the will of the House to refer Bill C-473 to committee for review, I trust there will be an opportunity to study more fully how to ensure this proposed new legislation can work seamlessly with the Cultural Property Export and Import Act to protect our military heritage. I want to commend my colleague from Perth—Wellington for striking a balance in presenting this bill, between the need to protect our military heritage and the need to respect the rights of individual owners of military insignia.

Military insignia hold significant meaning to veterans and their heirs. Bill C-473 proposes to exempt near relatives of the owner of the insignia from the provisions of the bill. Under Bill C-473, families can continue to care for the valued personal legacy of their veterans, their military insignia, and ensure they will be passed down from generation to generation.

In the first hour of debate on Bill C-473, my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé noted that spouses do not seem to be included in the definition of the relative. I trust there will be an opportunity to study this matter further in committee. I also acknowledge and appreciate my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore and the passion for this issue that he brings to this debate. In his comments, he described the positive experiences of several communities in his area to preserve their military heritage.

Many military insignia are donated to local museums as well as to the Canadian War Museum and Canadian Forces museums across the country. Bill C-473 would not restrict donations to Canadian museums. Owners would still be able to donate military insignia to the Canadian museum of their choice. That is an important protection of their rights.

Most public museums in Canada are also registered charities. As a registered charity, a museum can issue donation receipts for the value of gifts in kind, such as artifacts or specimens. Additional tax benefits may also be available if the gift is certified as being of cultural importance and national significance by the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board.

The government has recognized the need to protect our military heritage through the establishment of museums, including the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the Canadian War Museum and the Canadian Forces museums across the country. The Canadian Museum of Civilization and the Canadian War Museum have more than 1,000 medals, including at least 28 Victoria Crosses, Canada's highest military honour. The network of Canadian Forces museums tells the story of regiments across the country.

Bill C-473 proposes that federal museums should be given the opportunity to purchase modern military insignia if the owners do not wish to donate them to a public museum or wish to transfer the insignia to a near relative or heir or a resident of Canada. I would hope that Canadian Forces museums would also be able to benefit from Bill C-473 to continue their profound tradition of protecting our military heritage.

In conclusion, I am pleased to support Bill C-473 and its efforts to protect our modern military insignia, modern insignia that recognize the contribution of the women and men who still today go to troubled spots around the world. I look forward to further study of the proposed bill in committee.