GOVERNMENT ORDERS

PUBLIC SERVICE STAFF RELATIONS ACT

The Speaker: I believe the hon. member for Bourassa still has 7 minutes or so left. He has the floor.

Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to continue my presentation on Bill C-30 concerning members of the RCMP.

I would like to make two comments before resuming my speech. I was stunned by the unfounded accusations made by a Reform member against my colleague from Charlesbourg. I think that, with such accusations, the Reform Party will never have a single member elected in Quebec.

My second comment is this: I would like to draw members' attention to the presence in our gallery of a distinguished citizen from my riding of Bourassa, Victorin Bellemare, who is very involved in the social, community and political life of Montreal North. He is accompanied by his family.

As I said, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled in the Gingras case that RCMP members were also members of the Canadian public service and, as such, had rights like the right to organize, to form a union and to negotiate collective agreements.

They do not claim they have the right to strike, as these police officers provide essential services. If the employer and the employees' union cannot agree on working conditions, the police officers would rather resort to arbitration than go on strike.

But they still have legitimate rights. They have rights in terms of occupational health and safety and, like all other public service employees, they sometimes fall victim to work accidents or occupational diseases. Stress, for example, is a very prevalent problem among police officers, who must sometimes work in difficult and dangerous conditions. They should at least enjoy the full protection of all occupational health and safety laws.

I think that, instead of depriving employees like those of the RCMP of their vested rights, the government should set an example for the provinces in the area of labour relations.

(1545)

It is a disgrace, for instance, that the federal minimum wage is lower that the provincial rates. It is unacceptable that the federal occupational safety and health legislation is not on a par with provincial legislation like Quebec's. Government should be an example to the private sector, and this is certainly not the case at present. Instead, the government is attacking vested rights of workers, in this particular case the rights of RCMP workers.

Take this other important right: the right to precautionary cessation of work for pregnant workers. This is not a right that federal public service employees enjoy, while it is already provided for in Quebec's legislation respecting occupational health and safety. A pregnant employee who works in conditions hazardous to herself or to her unborn child should be either reassigned or allowed to go on leave for the remainder of her pregnancy.

So far, the federal government has refused to bring down anti-strikebreaking legislation. Quebec and British Columbia both have such legislation. Ontario's legislation was just repealed, but the fact remains that this kind of legislation improves labour relations and helps create a social climate conducive to economic development.

I find that democracy has progressed in our society, but not in the workplace, in businesses and in corporations, where labour relations in certain areas are still dictated in an authoritarian way, as in the case of the RCMP. The commissioner of the RCMP has unlimited rights, while the members of this police force have very limited rights.

This government has not done very much to improve the working conditions and life of workers in Canada and in Quebec. On the contrary, when faced with a legitimate strike of rail workers, it thought it wise to bring in back-to-work legislation in this sector, instead of allowing collective bargaining to operate.

The Liberals' labour relations record is very poor. They have demonstrated a favourable bias for big business, but have not shown much concern for the average worker. Instead of helping workers, there are ministers, including the Minister of Human Resources Development, who attack the Canadian Labour Congress and who have made disparaging remarks about its president, Robert White, as well as myself, but for different reasons.

This government claims to occupy the centre, but we can see that it is moving with ever increasing speed to the right, the former Liberal or neo-Conservative right, and that it has done nothing for the working class as a whole, for the workers of Canada and of Quebec.

Last Saturday, a women's march ended its journey here in Ottawa. These women had very legitimate concerns. For example, they were calling for a job creation program designed specifically for women. They were also calling for increases in the minimum wage, day care funding, and grants for women's shelters. All the government comes up with is ``niet'', there is no money. That is

really a shame because I think the patience of Canadians and Quebecers is running out.

What will it take for the government to act? Does it want a revolt? Does it want people to come and demonstrate daily in order to be granted their legitimate rights, rights which are recognized in other democracies, particularly in Europe? Here, they are destroying the social safety net, eliminating social programs. Where is Canadian society headed with this Liberal government?

(1550)

My time is nearly up and I will conclude by saying that I am very vigorously opposed to Bill C-30.

[English]

Colleagues, I am asking to resume debate. I just want to make sure we understand clearly that we are on report stage of Bill C-30.

Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): 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.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question is on Group No. 2.

(1555)

[Translation]

The division is on Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Yes.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

[English]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of the bill.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The vote will take place at 5.30 this evening.

* * *

JUDGES ACT

Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House on Bill C-42, an act to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to another act.

Hon. members are aware that crimes of indescribable brutality have been perpetrated on tens of thousands of people in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. A Canadian judge, Madam Justice Louise Arbour of the Ontario Court of Appeal has been requested by the Secretary-General of the United Nations to serve as chief prosecutor of the UN International Commission on War Crimes for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

The appointment of Madam Justice Arbour to this very important and prestigious international position is without doubt a great honour to Canada. A necessary condition imposed by the United Nations for Madam Justice Arbour to take up this appointment is that her salary and expenses are to be paid by the United Nations during the period in which she will be serving as the chief prosecutor. This requirement relates to the UN's own requirements for the independence of its chief prosecutor and it would require Madam Justice Arbour to take leave without pay from the Ontario Court of Appeal and to receive a salary from the United Nations.

There is no provision in the Judges Act as it is currently constituted for a federally appointed judge to be granted leave of absence without pay to work for an international organization such as the United Nations. Nor does the act permit the salary and expenses of a judge during the period of leave to be paid by any organization or entity other than the Government of Canada. The amendments contained in Bill C-42, which have the full support of the Canadian Judicial Council, would permit this type of arrangement to be entered into by Madam Justice Arbour, and should another appropriate occasion arise, by other Canadian judges.

This bill makes other minor amendments. The bill transfers from cabinet to chief justices the authority to approve judicial leaves of absence of up to six months. This recommendation was made by the 1992 Triennial Commission on Judges' Salaries and Benefits and is endorsed by the Canadian Judicial Council. It allows a judge to request maternity or parental leave without having to seek cabinet approval.

(1600 )

Bill C-42 also recognizes the importance of the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada by including the chief justice of that court on the membership of the Canadian Judicial Council. The requirements of the chief justice of the Court Martial Appeal Court arising out of the representational duties and functions that are inherent to that officer are also reflected in the bill which authorizes the payment of a modest representational allowance of up to $5,000 per year to the head of that court. The chief justices of the Courts of Appeal of the Yukon and Northwest Territories are being granted similar representational allowances.

Bill C-42 would also permit the appointment of up to three judges Canada wide to the provincial courts of appeal which have been experiencing increasing workloads and backlogs over the past number of years.

Finally, the bill corrects some technical errors and clarifies some ambiguous language in the Judges Act.

Bill C-42 is a modest legislative measure but at the same time a significant one because it will permit a Canadian judge to respond to a request by the Secretary-General of the United Nations to take on an international assignment of the utmost importance to the world at large.

I would respectfully urge all hon. members to approve the quick passage of amendments to the Judges Act.

[Translation]

Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Judges Act we are being urged to amend through Bill C-42 is based on sections 96 and 100 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which provided that the Canadian Parliament could create a general court of appeal for Canada, as well as appoint and pay superior court judges in every province.

This law sets out the working conditions applying to the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court, the Tax Court of Canada, the appeal courts and the superior courts in each of the provinces. This law is like a collective agreement for federally appointed judges. It also establishes the Canadian Judicial Council, whose mandate is to make superior jurisdictions and the Canadian tax commission work better.

Through this law, the legislative power exerts obvious control over the judiciary. It is the legislative power that decides how much judges should be paid, what pension and other benefits they should receive, how much leave they can take, and what activities they can participate in.

We are being called on today to review some of the working conditions of federally appointed judges.

Of course, this does not give the government any right to interfere in the judicial process as it has recently, unfortunately, by threatening the Chief Justice of the Federal Court himself to take away all files relating to war criminals and handing them over to the Supreme Court of Canada if the proceedings were not conducted more expeditiously.

Judges appointed by the federal government must be able to perform their duties as their conscience dictates. In order to be independent, they need working relations where the executive branch does not have them over the barrel.

Let us take a look at the main amendments. The existing legislation allows the provinces to create seven positions as judges in addition to the number prescribed by law for each province as well as for the Yukon and the territories. The proposed change to the applicable provision would introduce a degree of flexibility by giving the provinces the power to appoint more judges.

The purpose of the bill is to increase the number of additional judges from seven to ten. The provinces will be able to avail themselves of this provision as required. It seems reasonable to us,

given that how fast cases go to trial and how much work each judge has to do is dependent on the number of judges.

Several amendments are simply designed to clarify the wording of certain sections without changing the scope of the legislation. Let me give you an example. Subsection 27(2) of the existing legislation states that each judge of the Yukon Territory and of the Northwest Territories ``who is in receipt of a salary under section 22'' shall be paid an allowance, while in the amendment, reference is made to the act instead of to section 22 specifically.

(1605)

This amendment was necessary because additional judges are not paid under section 22, but under sections 28 and 29. As you can see, we are really talking about technical details. However, it was clearly not the legislator's intention to deprive additional judges of this isolation allowance.

A new paragraph provides that, from now on, only a leave of absence of more than six months will require the approval of the governor in council. Currently, a leave of absence of more than one month requires the authorization of the government. This provision gives more independence to the courts vis-à-vis the executive power.

In light of the fact that an assistant deputy minister recently interfered with the judicial process by contacting the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, we understand the need to ensure greater administrative autonomy to the judiciary. We must make sure judges do not have to beg as regards their working conditions, so that they do not feel at the mercy of the executive. We support this measure.

The most innovative provision in this bill is undoubtedly the possibility for judges to now participate, with the authorization of the government, in international activities.

Until now, judges had to devote themselves exclusively to their judicial duties. Indeed, section 56 of the Judges Act provides that: ``No judge shall, either directly or indirectly, for himself or others, engage in any occupation or business other than his judicial duties, but every judge shall devote himself exclusively to those judicial duties''.

There exists, furthermore, a tradition requiring judges to avoid involvement in situations that could oblige them to take a stand in public.

It is therefore a departure from our legal tradition to allow judges to take part in international activities. They should, however, obtain prior approval for leave of absence without pay, but they may receive remuneration from an international organization.

We believe that this new avenue will be of benefit to the international community. It will give Canada an opportunity to share its savoir-faire, to demonstrate its abilities to an international audience, without detracting from the impartiality of our courts.

For judges, this bill increases the possibility of an international career in the context of international co-operation projects, and in the creation and operation of international tribunals. Justice is called upon to cross borders. Many crimes cannot be effectively combatted except through international bodies and co-operation between countries.

If our judges cannot participate in projects involving more than one country, Canada may find itself left out of certain debates, in particular those affecting the development of international law and the creation of international law tribunals. It is also an opportunity for our judges to acquire in other countries knowledge and abilities that could enrich our own institutions.

We are in favour of this bill primarily because it will increase the independence of judges and their exposure to the international context.

[English]

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of Bill C-42 which amends the Judges Act.

Bill C-42 sets out the terms on which Canadian judges can participate in international activities, international technical assistance programs and/or the work of international organizations.

Although the bill does not specifically say so, it would appear that these amendments to the Judges Act are to assist Madam Justice Louise Arbour. Madam Justice Louise Arbour is to take up her appointment to the United Nations team prosecuting war crimes in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda.

Chief justices are granted the authority to extend leaves of absence to their judges for periods of up to six months. In situations such as Judge Arbour's, the governor in council's approval is necessary as her appointment will be for longer than six months. Bill C-42 will simply ensure that Madam Justice Arbour, and similar appointments for longer than six months, will not require governor in council approval.

(1610 )

The Judges Act does not clearly stipulate who is responsible for the remuneration of UN appointed judges. Bill C-42 does clearly designate the UN as the payer of Judge Arbour's salary and similarly appointed judges' salaries during the time of their UN appointments.

I am confident most Canadians would agree that it should be the responsibility of the UN to pay such salaries. Canadians, in my opinion, would be agreeable to providing legal expertise to the UN but not additional financial support. Therefore they would be

opposed to paying the moving expenses and other reasonable travel expenses of UN appointed judges as outlined in Bill C-42.

The UN or other international bodies which second Canadian justices should be fully responsible for all moving and travel costs associated with the appointment. We will be introducing an amendment during report stage of Bill C-42 in this regard.

On March 6 of this year the Liberal government amended the Judges Act through Bill C-2. Madam Justice Arbour's appointment by the United Nations occurred in February 1996. Bill C-2 was introduced and passed therefore subsequent to Arbour's appointment. I question why the government did not incorporate the Bill C-42 changes into Bill C-2. Another bill, Bill C-48, is soon to be before the House and proposes additional changes to the Judges Act.

Bills C-2, C-42 and C-48 may streamline administrative matters pertaining to judges, alleviating some judges' preoccupation with bureaucratic concerns and allowing them to get on with the real task at hand: ensuring that justice is served; ensuring that convicted criminals serve time which is proportionate to the severity of their crimes. These bills, really nebulous and inconsequential pieces of legislation, will be of little real significance to Canadians.

Canadians do not really applaud the minister's initiatives in this regard. Canadians' primary concerns are not with these administrative justice matters. What Canadians really care about is their personal security and that of their families. These administrative changes we are spending our time debating today will do nothing to protect Canadians from the murderers, rapists and other sadistic criminals who roam our streets and enter our homes.

Canadians want substantive change within the justice system. They want pieces of legislation that do something to enhance public safety. They want a bill which repeals section 745 of the Criminal Code, not legislation which merely tinkers with that betraying section of the Criminal Code which allows convicted first degree murderers the opportunity for early release.

Canadians want first degree murderers' right to a parole eligibility hearing after serving only 15 years of their 25 year sentence to be completely abolished. Canadians do not want the minister giving killers even a faint glimmer of hope. They want killers behind bars and they want them there for at least 25 years, not 15 years, not 20 years. Canadians overwhelmingly want murderers behind bars for the full length of their life sentence.

Canadians also want dangerous offender legislation brought in by the Minister of Justice and they want the minister to end statutory release. The minister has promised to bring in an omnibus bill which would encompass these two initiatives, an initiative which would significantly enhance public safety. We have yet to see such a bill. Instead we have these three insignificant administrative bills.

The Liberal government's failure to make our homes and streets safer is evident in its lenient justice legislation which has done more to threaten public safety than it has to enhance it. Bill C-37, amendments to the Young Offenders Act, is a prime example of this failure. The government failed to amend the act in accordance with Canadians' frustration with youth violence and frustration with Liberal justice leniency.

Reform believes the age limits covered by the YOA should be changed. We recommend lowering the YOA age definition of a young person to 10 to 15 years of age from 12 to 17. This is in recognition of the fact that there are offenders under 12 years of age who currently slip through the system and go on to be full-fledged youth criminals because the justice system cannot deal with them. This was very evident a few weeks ago in Toronto. An 11-year old boy with accomplices aged 10, 13 and 15 abducted and raped a 13-year old girl. This young offender was well known to the police who had on more than one occasion picked him up. This well known juvenile criminal taunted police with the fact that they could not charge him.

(1615)

The Liberals believe that 10 and 11-year-olds should not be held accountable for their criminal actions. If the Liberal government had heeded our well-founded advice and amended the YOA under Bill C-37 to include 10 and 11-year-olds, there may well have been one less rape victim in the city of Toronto. One more young person may not have been so brutally traumatized.

Our amendment to the YOA to include 10 and 11-year-olds is supported by the Canadian Police Association and Victims of Violence.

The Liberal government does not believe that 16 and 17-year-olds are mature enough to accept full responsibility for their criminal actions. We believe that youths aged 16 and 17 are old enough to assume full responsibility for their crimes and therefore in all cases of violent crime they should be tried in adult court.

The reverse onus provisions contained in Bill C-37 place the onus on the young offender to demonstrate why he or she should not be tried in adult court. The court will have the discretion to accept or reject the application, all at a tremendous cost financially and resource-wise to the Canadian taxpayer.

Even if the 16 or 17-year old is tried in adult court, they will not receive an adult sentence. Anyone under the age of 18 convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life can be paroled in between five and ten years. Anyone under the age of 18 convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life can be paroled after only a maximum of seven years.

This Liberal government, which professes to be making our streets and homes safer and to be improving our justice system, is responsible for the reduction in the parole eligibility of second degree murderers under the age of 18 from a maximum of 10 to only 7 years.

The Liberals believe that the publishing of young offenders' names must be prevented by law. Their priority is the protection of the offender. Reformers believe that the only way to truly make our streets safer is by removing the extra privacy and secrecy provisions of the YOA. YOA records should be accessible and the names of violent young offenders should be published. Our priority is the protection of society, not the protection of criminals.

The Liberal government has continually placed the rights of the offender ahead of the rights of the victim. Under Bill C-37 it continues to emphasize rehabilitation, not victim compensation.

We believe that the sentencing of young offenders must emphasize victim compensation, community service, skills training, education and deterrence to others. Opportunities for rehabilitation must be emphasized in a disciplined environment.

We believe that parents of young offenders should be held legally and financially responsible for the criminal actions of their children if evidence clearly shows that they have not made a reasonable effort to exercise parental control. Despite overwhelming support for this amendment to the YOA, the Liberal government maintains Canadian parents should not be held responsible.

Bill C-41 is another example of the government's failure to make our streets and homes safer. In Bill C-41 the Liberal government introduced alternative measures, which is its answer to the overcrowding in Canadian prisons. Although in some cases alternatives to prison may be acceptable, we are opposed to the system outlined in Bill C-41, as is the Canadian Police Association, because it does not stipulate what offences are to be part of the alternative measures program.

Nowhere in the bill did the Liberal government define alternative measures, nor did it stipulate the limitations to be imposed on the use of alternative measures. This leaves far too much discretion to the courts to interpret what is meant by this portion of Bill C-41. This could lead to an abusive use of alternatives to prison, particularly in areas of the country where prisons are overcrowded or there are backlogs in the courts. Potentially, violent offenders could walk. Does this provide safer communities and safer streets? I do not think so.

(1620 )

Bill C-45 is another example of Liberal leniency. Under this bill the Liberal government, despite our strong opposition, chose to continue allowing violent offenders back on the streets before serving their full sentences. We propose that all violent criminals must receive full term sentences. Statutory release, conditional release or parole must not be given to violent offenders.

We also proposed that offenders who commit another offence while on parole must serve the remaining time of the original sentence and then full term for the second offence. The Liberals defeated our amendment. The government defeated a safer measure despite its claim it is making our streets and homes safer.

We also proposed that when the parole board grants parole to violent offenders and that offender commits another violent crime while on parole, an inquiry be held into the original decision of the board to release the offender. The Liberals defeated our amendment. The Liberal government defeated a proposal aimed solely at protecting the Canadian public.

The justice legislation introduced by the Liberal government today clearly demonstrates that it has broken its promise to make our streets and homes safer. What further demonstrates this broken promise is the absence of legislation. The government, despite demands from all across Canada, including the police and victims of violence, has failed to repeal section 745. The Liberal government has also failed to bring in dangerous offender legislation. The evidence is clear that the Liberal government has failed to make Canadian streets and homes safe.

We support Bill C-42 but we do not support the Liberal government's preoccupation with accommodating the growing justice industry while failing to more vigorously protect innocent victims and law-abiding Canadians.

Mr. Kirkby: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if we could have unanimous consent to take all steps necessary to have this bill passed in all stages today.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the request for unanimous consent to proceed with all stages of this legislation. Does the House give its consent?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Kilger in the chair.)

(1625 )

The Deputy Chairman: Order. House in committee of the whole on Bill C-42, an act to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to another act.

[Translation]

Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a question on clause 1 and, in fact, on the entire bill, as I do not want to go back to every paragraph to ask the same question.

What I would like to know is the total cost of this bill. Could the government tell us how much more will have to be spent on judges as a result of this bill?

[English]

Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, a number of provisions will add cost. First, in clause 1 three judges are being added to the judges pool for the courts of appeal for the provinces, two to fill B.C. court of appeal vacancies. The amount of that expense will be $200,000 per year per judge effective when the judges are appointed.

With respect to the vacancy to be filled on the Ontario court of appeal there will be no immediate cost there until after the return of Madam Justice Arbour.

There are a number of other provisions. The chief justices of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories courts of appeal now will be entitled to representational allowances. These two individuals will receive $5,000 a year each. In addition, the chief justices of the courts of appeal and the court martial appeal court are to receive a $5,000 allowance.

An error was discovered in the legislation which at one time did not allow judges in certain instances to get their expenses. This has been cleaned up, but that will not be an additional cost to the government.

I think that is the bulk of the expense with respect to this legislation.

The Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 1 carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Clause agreed to.)

(Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to.)

On Clause 5:

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned in my intervention on this bill, there is some concern that the bill does not clarify that the international bodies seconding our judges will be fully responsible for all reasonable moving and travel costs associated with the appointments.

Therefore, to ensure that international bodies will be responsible for these costs, I would like to propose an amendment to clause 5. I move:

That Bill C-42 in clause 5 be amended by replacing lines 20 and 21 on page 4 with the following: ``reasonable travel and other expenses from an international''

The Deputy Chairman: Before I give the floor to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, I am of the view that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North is in order. I ask the parliamentary secretary to make his remarks and intervention respecting the amendment.

Let me just verify a point with the Table once more. I should like to hear what the hon. parliamentary secretary might add to the debate.

Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, with respect to the amendment being proposed by the hon. member, clause 5 contains within it sufficient authorization for the judge to receive payment for the reasonable expenses which are the subject of her motion.

In my view the amendment is redundant. In addition, however, it was my understanding that all parties had agreed that we would take all necessary steps to pass the legislation today without amendment. In any event, the provision the hon. member seeks to bring forward is covered by the legislation.

Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Chairman, it would appear that the lines to be replaced in the amendment are lines 15 and 16 on page 4. I will give a copy to the hon. parliamentary secretary. I apologize to him. I did not anticipate that we would be dealing with it right now, but I will make sure he sees a copy of it.

[Translation]

Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like someone to tell me in French where to find it, because I must admit that, as far as understanding is concerned, it was a bit confusing over here.

(1635)

[English]

Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Chairman, I have now had an opportunity to discuss the amendment with the hon. parliamentary secretary and with legal counsel. I am satisfied the intent of my amendment is covered by the legislation and I am prepared to withdraw my amendment.

The Deputy Chairman: So done.

(Amendment withdrawn.)

[Translation]

(Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.)

The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 7 carry?

Some hon. members: On division.

(Clause 7 agreed to.)

The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 8 carry?

Some hon. members: On division.

(Clause 8 agreed to.)

[English]

(Title agreed to.)

(Bill reported.)

[Translation]

Hon. Martin Cauchon (for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved that Bill C-42, an act to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to another act, be concurred in at the report stage.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

[English]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Cauchon (for the Minister of Justice) moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)

* * *

FEDERAL COURT ACT

Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I address the House today on Bill C-48, an act to amend the Federal Court Act, the Judges Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act.

Under the Judges Act, judges of provincial superior courts and appellate courts may be appointed from applicants who have at least 10 years at the bar or as provincial court judges. However under the Federal Court Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act eligibility for appointment to each of these two courts is limited to persons who have 10 years at the bar or who are already federally appointed judges.

(1640)

Since the time served as a provincially appointed judge does not count toward eligibility for appointment to the federal court or the tax court as it does for appointments to the provincial, superior and appellate courts, this historic anomaly effectively disqualifies from appointment to these two courts any provincial court judge notwithstanding his or her extremely high qualifications who had practised law for less than 10 years prior to his or her appointment to the provincial court.

There is no legal or policy reason for so limiting the appointments to the federal court or the tax court in this way. Furthermore, in all three acts time spent as a provincially or federally appointed judicial officer such as a master or superior court registrar during which the applicant's membership in the bar may have been in abeyance also does not count toward the 10-year eligibility requirement for the appointment to the provincial, superior and appellate courts, the federal court and the tax court.

Bill C-48 would amend all three acts to make the appointment eligibility requirements consistent. Once these amendments are in effect, time spent either as a lawyer, a provincially or federally appointed judicial officer or a provincially or federally appointed judge would count toward the 10 years at the bar requirement for appointment to any federally appointed court, with the exception of the Supreme Court of Canada.

For the supreme court it would continue to be the case that only lawyers of 10 years standing or provincial superior court judges would be eligible for appointment.

The amendments to the Federal Court Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act are being given retrospective effect so as to place the validity of the appointment of a judge appointed in 1990 and another appointed in 1995 beyond any possible doubt regardless of how one interprets the provincial laws governing the status of those judges continuing membership in the bar while they were provincial judges.

That is all Bill C-48 does. It is a very simple bill with a very limited technical objective. I urge all hon. members to pursue quick passage.

I ask at this time for unanimous consent for the House to take all necessary steps to pass and adopt the bill expeditiously today.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The parliamentary secretary has asked for unanimous consent of the House to move the legislation forward today at all stages.

Is there unanimous consent?

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Mr. Speaker, I wish to confirm that we will in fact be giving our support, because we already indicated it to the parliamentary secretary earlier. We are therefore keeping our promise.

[English]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I still have to ask the House in its entirety. Would the hon. member for Calgary North care to comment, or can I simply ask if there is unanimous consent to proceed at all stages?

Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, we oppose the bill. However we do not oppose the process of passing it through all stages today.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House giving its unanimous consent to proceed at all stages?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Translation]

Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, quite honestly, as for having a great debate on a piece of legislation that simply changes the number of years a judge must sit before being eligible for the federal court or the tax court of Canada, I really could not bring myself to make Parliament or our electors foot the bill for such a thing.

However, I will say that I would like to add a really minor amendment, but only we study the bill in the committee of the whole.

(1645 )

[English]

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we are discussing Bill C-48, an act to amend the Federal Court Act, the Judges Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act. This is the third piece of legislation brought before the House since February of this year dealing with amendments to the Judges Act. I have to question why the government is making all of these piecemeal changes instead of bringing in one bill to satisfy all the administrative and technical changes it feels are necessary.

This bill has been brought in specifically to correct a situation where the justice minister appointed a provincial court judge from British Columbia to the Federal Court. On November 29, 1995 the justice minister appointed Douglas Campbell of the provincial court, criminal division, in Vancouver to the Federal Court of Canada. The legislation at the time permitted any judge of a superior county or district court to be appointed to the Federal Court, but Judge Campbell was a judge of the provincial court. We are therefore debating a technical amendment to the Federal Court Act to deal with this oversight.

It is a technical amendment, since the current legislation also includes provisions that a barrister or advocate who has been at the bar of a province for at least 10 years is also eligible for an appointment. Therefore, while Judge Campbell was not from the proper judge pool, he did in fact have the necessary years of experience to qualify.

At the Reform Party's national assembly, which was held in Vancouver two weekends ago, the delegates voted 75 per cent in favour of the following resolution:

Resolve that the Reform Party supports dissolving the current system of appointing federal judges and replacing it with a democratic and accountable method.

For the reasons I have mentioned, the Reform Party will not be supporting Bill C-48. We believe it is time to de-politicize the appointment process in putting men and women on the benches of the courts of our land. This cannot be achieved until the process is open and accountable.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Kilger in the chair.)

The Deputy Chairman: Order. House in committee of the whole on Bill C-48, an act to amend the Federal Court Act, the Judges Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act.

(1650)

[Translation]

Shall clause 1 carry?

on clause 1.

Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as I have just said, I did not speak on this, I did not take the time allocated to me because I simply wanted have the time to propose an amendment.

Bill C-48 has our agreement in principle, we agree that certain technical details do, of course, have to be modified, but if changes are going to be made, I feel it would be worthwhile to add my amendment. I shall speak of it now and provide you with the written copy immediately afterwards.

I move:

That clause 1, page 1, line 18, be amended by the addition of the following paragraph:

``(d) is or has been a notary of at least ten years standing as a member of the Chambre des notaires du Québec.''

This would simply make notaries eligible to become Federal Court judges, which I feel would be a matter of equity. This is something the Quebec notaries have long been calling for, and our having a Civil Code and not the Common Law is no reason we ought not to have the right to have judges from the Chambre des notaires. That is the reason I am proposing this amendment.

[English]

The Deputy Chairman: Colleagues, on a prima facie basis it would appear that this amendment is in order. I would ask the hon. parliamentary secretary who is seeking the floor for his comments.

Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the proposed amendment is out of order.

Section 98 of the Constitution requires that judges of the courts of Quebec be selected from the bar of the province. Notaries are not members of the bar of the province. Therefore it would not be possible to put forward such an amendment.

(1655)

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Mr. Speaker, in response to what the hon. parliamentary secretary just said, perhaps I should point out that the charter of rights and freedoms certainly does not encourage discriminating against notaries to favour lawyers.

I think that, if the idea is to make this a constitutional or charter issue, it is up to the hon. members to decide whether they want to do so.

[English]

The Deputy Chairman: The hon. parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Kirkby: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the indulgence of the Chair to consult.

The Deputy Chairman: If there are no other discussions, I am prepared to rule on the amendment by the hon. member for Saint-Hubert. I thank both her and the parliamentary secretary for their interventions.

I would submit to the committee that the arguments, while they were of a legal and constitutional nature, my ruling is based on procedural matters and that in fact the amendment is in order. It does not go beyond the scope of the bill and it does not add any charge. Therefore, the amendment is acceptable and I will accept debate on the amendment.

[Translation]

I am sorry, but I cannot recognize the hon. member on debate, as she is he one who introduced the amendment.

[English]

Mr. Kirkby: Mr. Chairman, I will make my point with respect to the amendment very quickly. The government will not be supporting the amendment. As I indicated before, the amendment is, in the government's view, unconstitutional.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, it seems, in looking at the merits of this amendment, that it does fly in the face of section 98 of the Constitution. Also, if the argument is that notaries are being discriminated against because they cannot be elevated to the bar, it seems one could make the same argument that engineers, nurses or housekeepers are being discriminated against because they cannot be named to the bench. This seems to be carrying discrimination to rather far-fetched extremes.

In view of the clear wording of section 98, I believe it would be in order to reject this amendment.

(1700)

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I think that, in introducing this kind of amendment, the hon. member for Saint-Hubert was trying to make it very clear that there is currently some discrimination, and the comparison made by the previous speaker between a nursing program and a medicine program is not valid, since, in one case, the program does not necessarily lead to university degree.

As for law, I think all the hon. members must realize that a bachelor's degree is required and that future lawyers all undergo the same training for three years. This means that, if each of us here picked at random and visited any law faculty, whether at l'Université de Montréal or at any other university in Quebec, we would find future notaries attending classes alongside future lawyers. The hon. member for Outremont should know, since he is himself a lawyer. The core curriculum, including securities theory and constitutional law, is the same for all three years.

I think it would be interesting if those who oppose the official opposition's amendment told us why a person with legal training, training identical to that of notaries except for the last year of the bar, should be authorized to deliver judgment from the bench or to practice law by joining the judicial branch.

I think that the hon. member for Saint-Hubert is right and I know she is sensitive to any form of discrimination. We must fight side by side. I think that the hon. member for Saint-Hubert is right to say that the government would fail miserably if it had to pass the discrimination test under the Charter, as it intends to perpetuate discrimination by rejecting this amendment.

[English]

Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am confused by the arguments being presented by the Bloc members opposite.

The reason I am confused about the hon. member's amendment is that the request that is being made is for the appointment of a judge to a tax court. Where we have to draw from the pool and the pool has to be drawn from the pool of lawyers, constitutionally it says that judges of the courts of Quebec shall be selected from the bar of that province. It behoves me to understand where the Bloc would not be siding on a rule of law that is stated in the Constitution and a rule of law that is stated in the province of Quebec where it says the judges of the courts of Quebec shall be selected from the bar of that province. Notaries are not members of the bar.

The Bloc opposition is trying to mix apples and oranges. We are not talking about a constitutional correction. We are talking about where the pool is being drawn from. The pool is being drawn from the bar of the province and notaries are not members of that bar.

Why hold us to something that is law in Quebec?

The Deputy Chairman: While committee of the whole procedures are a little different, I wonder if the member for St. Hubert wishes to respond to the member for Hamilton West. Shall I drop the matter? I would require unanimous consent.

Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Deputy Chairman: It will be a voice vote. All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Chairman: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Chairman: In my opinion the nays have it. Therefore the amendment is defeated.

(Clause 1 agreed to.)

The Deputy Chairman: Shall Clause 2 carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

An hon. member: On division.

(Clause 2 agreed to.)

The Deputy Chairman: Shall Clause 3 carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

An hon. member: On division.

(Clause 3 agreed to.)

The Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 4 carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

An hon. member: On division.

(Clause 4 agreed to.)

The Deputy Chairman: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Title agreed to.)

(1705 )

The Deputy Chairman: Shall I rise and report the bill?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Bill reported.)

Hon. Martin Cauchon (for Minister of Justice, Lib.) moved that the bill be concurred in.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

An hon. member: On division.

(Motion agreed to.)

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Hon. Martin Cauchon (for Minister of Justice, Lib.) moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

An hon. member: On division.

(Motion agreed to, bill read third time and passed.)

[Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Verchères, the Canadian Centre for Magnetic Fusion in Varennes.

* * *

RAILWAY SAFETY ACT

May 30, 1996-The Minister of Transport-Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Transport of Bill C-43, an act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act.

That Bill C-43, an act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act, be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Transport.

Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise for debate on this bill which incorporates amendments to the Railway Safety Act. We on this side of the House believe this will be a very useful piece of legislation and we propose that the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport before second reading.

The Railway Safety Act is a relatively new piece of legislation which came into effect in January 1988. As is often the case with new legislation, the act required that a statutory review of its provisions be undertaken five years after coming into force. Such a review was carried out in 1994. The report of the committee that reviewed the Railway Safety Act was tabled in this House on February 15, 1995 and the government moved very quickly with a response which was tabled on June 8, 1995.

I am happy to say that the review found Canadian railways to have a good safety record when compared with other modes of transportation and when compared with other countries. On page 16 of its final report, the committee concluded that ``railways in Canada operate safely. On the basis of numerous evaluative measurements and comparisons with other nations and modes of transportation, the railway mode is an extremely safe means of moving freight and people in this country''. The committee also indicated in its report that the ``work related safety of railways and the manner in which their operations are carried out have clearly shown improvement''.

(1710)

The committee looked at the statutory structure and emphasized that the underlying principles of the Railway Safety Act remain valid and these key principles can be summarized as: one, the government sets the standards; two, railway companies decide how to meet these standards; and three, government monitors for compliance and enforces where necessary.

The changes made with the passage of the Railway Safety Act in 1988 were significant in that they marked a deviation from the old command and control approach to railway regulation that had been the norm until that time. I am pleased that the review committee confirmed that this enlightened approach to regulation is very appropriate.

The committee made a number of recommendations for improving the railway safety regime in Canada. The amendments before the House represent the legislative changes that are required to implement many of those recommendations.

Let us address the consultative process. Last summer Transport Canada carried out extensive consultations on the form of the legislative amendments. An industry group was established with representation from the railways, railway labour, the Canada Safety Council and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to review the various proposals.

I am pleased to say that the parties worked diligently and achieved consensus. There was a high degree of unanimity on safety matters and the various views expressed are reflected in these particular amendments. Of course there was not complete unanimity, but this was an excellent opportunity for all points of view to be aired and to resolve many, many of the differences.

Our government has also discussed these amendments with provincial representatives who made a number of suggestions. These suggestions have been incorporated into the amendments.

The amendments to the Railway Safety Act that are being proposed cover the majority of the recommendations put forward by the review committee. One of the key amendments relates to the problem of train whistling in communities. The whistle is an important safety feature but it can be very disruptive for people who live close to a railway line. We are probably all familiar with some of our constituents who have approached us on this issue.

The government's proposal, which was endorsed by municipal representatives from across the country, is as follows: Where a municipality has passed a motion and where the location meets Transport Canada conditions for whistling cessation, the trains would be required to cease whistling. I believe this is a workable solution to what has been a very difficult problem.

Railway highway crossings contribute to the greatest number of rail related accidents, deaths and injuries. The review recommended that Transport Canada prepare a plan aimed at reducing the number of crossing accidents by 50 per cent within 10 years.

There are a number of items that will require additional legislative powers and these are included in the proposed amendments. They include measures to promote crossing closures as well as to control the way in which key crossings are used.

A number of the more technical amendments will streamline the regulatory process and reduce bureaucratic burden. They will reduce government involvement in unproductive areas but will allow government to continue to cover the essential items.

It should be noted that some of the recommendations, such as those relating to branch line abandonment, have already been covered through the Canada Transportation Act, Bill C-14.

A number of the recommendations, particularly those relating to co-ordination with provinces, grade crossing improvements and studying the effects of train whistle cessation at crossings do not require legislation and Transport Canada is already working to find a solution to these.

The Railway Safety Act has fostered consultation between all parties that have an interest in safety. A number of other legislative changes will streamline the regulatory process and provide even greater involvement of railway labour in the development of new rules.

The review committee recommended that the statutory framework be changed so that the railways could propose performance standards and a comprehensive safety plan, both of which would be approved by Transport Canada. Once again these proposals will permit this to take place.

(1715 )

We are also taking this opportunity to revise and update railway security provisions. Problems can arise from terrorist acts and occurrences such as bomb threats. We do not see these as significant threats to the railway system at present. This therefore is the time when we should take care to ensure that we have the right statutory underpinning should such powers be necessary in the future.

The security provisions in the legislation have been recast using our model, the Marine Transportation Security Act, a most recent piece of security legislation. We hope these provisions will not be necessary, but we are happy we will have them in place as a good basic foundation should such measures become necessary in the future.

Finally let us examine the broader aspects of the legislation. The review of railway safety concluded that our railways have a good safety record and that we have reason for confidence in the regulatory regime. When dealing with a topic such as safety, however, we must be diligent. We must continually be seeking better ways to do things. We should always strive to improve our record.

The government has taken a number of steps to revitalize Canada's rail sector, such as the privatization of the Canadian National last year. These initiatives will go a long way toward strengthening Canada's transportation infrastructure and establishing a sound base to carry our railways well into the next century.

However and in spite of these changes the government will continue to place emphasis on the most important aspect of all: safety. We will continue to be diligent where safety is concerned. The proposed changes before the House today will streamline and improve the legislative base for railway safety in the years to come.

I therefore urge all my hon. colleagues in this place to support the legislation and agree to refer the bill to committee.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-43, an act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

I would love to share the optimism of the parliamentary secretary. Unfortunately, certain statistics tell me that, while this bill seeks to correct certain significant technical flaws and while the official opposition may help improve it during the review by the committee, some major issues linger with regard to railway safety in Canada.

Let me give you a few figures. In 1994, a total of 1,189 accidents were reported to the Transportation Safety Board of Canada. That was 17 per cent more than in 1993. There was a net increase of 8 per cent in the accident rate, which climbed to 14,4 accidents per million of train-miles travelled.

Then there is the fact that most accidents on main lines occur at level crossings. This suggests that improvements could be made, and that human or technical errors are often to blame.

It is also reported that, each year, some 300 accidents involve transporter cars. Worse still is the fact that, in 1994, 114 people died in train accidents. These figures make us realize that the situation is much more worrying than the government would lead us to believe.

Some of the objectives of the bill are to: ``provide for greater involvement by interested organizations in making rules about railway operations; provide for the regulation of the use of train whistles in municipalities; strengthen and clarify provisions dealing with railway security''. No major initiatives are taken to correct existing problems.

The government's good intention to tackle the issue should be reflected in amendments to the bill that would give it more substance and to face the real issues relating to railway safety.

The bill is silent on a very real problem, particularly in Quebec. They say there are 3 to 10 times as many defects in the tracks located in Quebec, because they are older and less well maintained, a result of the available resources and the fact that rail has long been considered a sort of homespun way of travel and not given the chance to become a tool of development. Today, we are paying the price for this.

(1720)

To add insult to injury, it has just been announced that the Charny maintenance shop, in the riding of my colleague from Lévis, is to be closed. The job loss is regrettable. True, 90 jobs in such a region is not all that significant, but on top of that there is the significant impact on safety, since now the only track maintenance shop for the whole of eastern Canada will be located in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Imagine, then, that on the CN lines in Quebec there are 51 defects per 65 miles, or 100 km of track, and on the CP lines 31 for the same 65 miles or 100 kilometres. Yet these figures are not

likely to improve in future because, as well as not having maintained the track properly, now they are moving the people with responsibility for maintenance further away, and their territory is being increased still further. This is tantamount to abdicating from any responsibility for safety.

The federal government must be judged clearly by the public on this. Yes, it is entitled to want to propose choices, to privatize companies. It is entitled to make those choices. We are entitled to judge the choices, or the way they were made, as the right ones or not, but there is one thing that must not be sloughed off: the responsibility for safety.

In this connection, Bill C-43 really contains no measures for dealing with the situation, or for improving it to any significant extent. A major debate needs to be held. There are, for example, newspaper reports stating that the Transportation Safety Board of Canada contradicts the CN on the number of accidents, yet this is the body responsible for providing a true picture of the situation and it is also less in conflict of interest than the companies operating the railways.

Questions will have to be asked in committee as to why the statistics I have just given you have not been able to be improved, and what should be done in future to remedy the situation. We are told that the number of railway accidents has been constantly on the increase for the past five years. This again comes from the Transportation Safety Board. They arrived in February 1996, when two derailments had just occurred in the Quebec City region within two weeks.

There is regularly talk about accidents, every month, as I mentioned in talking about level crossings earlier, for example. So clearly we have to look a lot deeper at the Railway Safety Act than the government is doing. At the moment, we could say it is doing nothing more than fulfilling its obligation to review the Act every five years. Review does not just mean simply making technical changes. The point of the review is to ensure that our railway system is the best it can be. If we have in fact under-used and under-maintained the rail systems in Quebec and Canada, we must ensure today, with the vision we want for our system, that we take every means possible to remedy the situation.

Railway transportation was declining 10 or 15 years ago. Today, it is on the rise with the use of containers. Furthermore, VIA Rail for one is trying to revitalize operations and must therefore break the vicious circle in which rail transportation is not used because it is inefficient and because it is inefficient less money is allocated to its operation and maintenance. The end result is poor service that fails to meet the needs of the people.

It will therefore be important, when this bill is being studied in committee-because the government has decided to go directly to committee rather than do an in-depth analysis at second reading-to study it thoroughly. There will be experts of different sorts, no

doubt employees who know something about such things. I think they should enjoy a certain impunity in committee, so that we get at the truth, can see things as they are, can propose amendments and make relevant changes.

(1725)

This way, when the law is next reviewed, perhaps in five years, we will be able to say results were achieved and the statistics, instead of increasing by 17 per cent, will be stable at least. We will have made it so that the cause of accidents will only be unexplained human error, and not the system, poor operation or an insufficient investment in prevention.

In conclusion, the official opposition intends to be very vigilant and to ensure that our rail service operates totally safely for the welfare of individuals and for an improved economy.

[English]

Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I realize there is very little time before we vote. However I think it will be quite sufficient for what I have to say today.

I listened to my colleague who just spoke. I am not in disagreement with the basic concepts he has raised. I look forward to the matter going to committee so that we can study it in depth.

I find it very interesting that major rail bills like the privatization of CN Rail, a very big and very controversial bill, was not debated in the House at second reading. Instead it was forced by the Liberal government into committee before the debate took place.

I objected to that at the time. I objected to it after the fact. All the rationales used by the government regarding why it should be rushed into committee fell by the wayside.

Today we have something that does not have the impact of something like the privatization of half of Canada's national rail system. We find ourselves debating it in the House of Commons in the last week of Parliament, in the dying hours. We are even using extended hours to debate the bill.

Why is the government trying to tie up the House of Commons and members of Parliament? House employees and staff are working overtime, costing something in the range of $50,000 an hour. That amount is charged to the taxpayers so that we can debate sending legislation to a committee before Parliament rises for the summer, and the committee the bill will go to is not meeting until next fall.

It is a horrendous waste of the taxpayers' money. Why is the government wasting the time of the House debating bills like this one instead of getting on with important bills, if it has any to bring forward? Is the government simply stalling until its absolutely

unconstitutional Bill C-28 comes once again back from the Senate? Is it just trying to find excuses to hang on until then?

There are problems with the bill that we can deal with in committee. I will recommend to our party that we give tentative support to the bill going to committee, at which time we will see what concerns are brought forward by the public, the users, the rail companies and those involved with them; what amendments are offered both by the government and by opposition; and what is done with them. Then we will make our final decision to support or not support the bill when it comes back to the House and will have a purpose for being before the House.

I hope the government will move on if it has something substantial. If it is worth paying $50,000 an hour in taxpayers' money to keep the House running in overtime, the government should bring it forward. If it does not have anything it should have the decency to say so and to adjourn the House.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There is every indication there are other members who wish to participate in the debate. I am somewhat reluctant to give the floor to someone to speak for all of one minute.

Therefore I ask the House for unanimous consent to call it 5.30 p.m. and we will resume debate following the votes and private members' hour. Does the House give its consent to calling it 5.30 p.m.?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

* * *

REGULATIONS ACT

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-25.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

(Division No. 111)

YEAS

Members

Bertrand
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dion
Discepola
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-140

NAYS

Members

Cummins
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Stinson
St-Laurent
Strahl
Taylor
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -92

PAIRED MEMBERS

(1800 )

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I think you would find unanimous consent that the House now proceed with the other bills which have been deferred and that we deal with the two private members ballot items, M-166 and M-116, after we terminate voting on the government bills.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division at second reading of Bill C-45.

CRIMINAL CODE

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous consent to record the members who have voted on the previous motion as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.

Mr. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, on this bill I want to be recorded as voting against.

Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, on this bill I also wish to be recorded as voting against.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois will be voting in favour of this bill.

[English]

Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will be voting no, unless instructed by their constituents to do otherwise.

Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats present this evening will vote yes on this matter.

Mr. Peric: Mr. Speaker, I wish to be recorded as voting against this bill.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

(Division No. 112)

YEAS

Members

Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)

NAYS

Members

Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Peric
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -46

PAIRED MEMBERS

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading of Bill C-36.

* * *

INCOME TAX BUDGET AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous consent to apply the results of the main motion for second reading of Bill C-25 to the motion now before the House.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 111.]

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-30.

* * *

PUBLIC SERVICE STAFF RELATIONS ACT

(1805 )

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2 and 3.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous consent that the members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House except for the hon. member for Ottawa Centre who I understand had to leave. Liberal members will be voting nay.

I believe you would find unanimous consent to apply that result to report stage Motion No. 4 as well.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois will be voting yes.

[English]

Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will agree with applying, and members present will be voting no unless instructed otherwise by their constituents.

Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats present this evening will be voting yes on both motions.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

(Division No. 113)

YEAS

Members

NAYS

Members

Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Benoit
Bertrand
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
DeVillers
Dion
Discepola
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi

Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-182

PAIRED MEMBERS

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 1 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 2 and 3 defeated.

(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 113]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 4 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 5.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois will be voting yes.

[English]

Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, this is a good motion. The Reform Party members will be voting yes unless instructed by their constituents to do otherwise.

Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP on this motion vote no.

Mr. Harb: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting with the government.

(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was negatived on the following division:)

(Division No. 114)

YEAS

Members

Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
St-Laurent
Strahl
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -88

NAYS

Members

McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Solomon
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-144

PAIRED MEMBERS

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 5 defeated.

Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) moved that the bill be concurred in.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[Translation]

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to request it, I believe you would find unanimous consent that the members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, and the Liberal members will be voting yes.

Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois will be voting nay.

[English]

Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members will be voting no unless instructed by their constituents to do otherwise.

(1810)

Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats present this evening will be voting no on this matter.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 111.]

(Motion agreed to.)

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion No. 166.

_____________________________________________