Mr. Raymond Skelly (North Island-Powell River) moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should urgently consider amending the Criminal Code to permit physician assisted suicide when:

(a) it is requested by the patient;

(b) the patient is terminally ill and will experience a painful death;

(c) two independent physicians certify that the patient's condition is terminal; and

(d) the office of the Attorney General for the province has reviewed the case.

He said: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us today is a variation on a number of motions that have been put forward in this House. The member for Fraser Valley West managed to put forward a motion, convince the House to support it on second reading and carry it through to a very useful committee study which dealt with the issue in great depth.

Today is the last opportunity for the House to consider this matter. The matter is also before the Supreme Court of Canada. It has been brought there by a very courageous woman, Sue Rodriguez, who suffers from the disease commonly known as Lou Gehrig's disease.

This disease is fatal. As she describes it in The Globe and Mail of May 21, 1993 the reason she has brought this forward is, in her words, because: "I simply do not want to die a gruesome death". It is with a great deal of personal courage and a commitment to others who will

find themselves in the same circumstances that this matter has been brought to the Supreme Court of Canada.

I would also like to thank Nicki Segal, an intern who has done a great deal of work on the research and presentation of the material that we are going to be considering in the House today.

The issue that Sue Rodriguez raises in the Supreme Court of Canada, and which she has taken through every level in the court system, is essentially physician assisted suicide. She is asking that she be given the right to have her physician assist her in committing suicide rather than face the gruesome death this disease will inflict upon her.

Suicide is not illegal. There are those who have sought suicide in order to avoid a degrading and painful death. They have sought to have their physicians assist them with this action.

The other day I came across the case of a woman who had a friend who spent virtually every day in the hospital with her as the woman suffered from the same disease. The patient's physical condition had deteriorated to such a degree that only this friend could communicate with her. Every single day she asked to die. It is an important issue for this House.

Right now the Criminal Code prevents someone from assisting another in a suicide. Apparently the law goes back 101 years. It does not contemplate the realities of our society today where about 75 per cent of deaths are attributable to chronic degenerative diseases such as cancer, AIDS and a variety of other diseases. As we have been more and more successful in preventing certain kinds of diseases, these diseases are forming a major part of the health spectrum. They are characterized by a complete loss of control and quite often by a very serious and painful death.

In some cases, where an individual specifically requests it, people find themselves in a situation in which determining the time at which life ends can improve the quality of life. It can prevent death in great pain and degradation because of the complete loss of control

June 7, 1993

Private Members' Business

when the individual does not have the ability to control even the simplest of life's functions.

The proposal before us is that one more time we ask the government to bring forward an amendment to the Criminal Code. It would probably take section 241(b), which says that no one may assist another to commit suicide, and simply add a number of clauses to it. Those clauses would say that no one could assist someone to commit suicide unless it was a physician assisting a patient.

The physician could assist the patient in committing suicide if the patient were terminally ill, if the patient were mentally competent, if the patient repeatedly asked to be assisted in committing suicide by his or her physician, if the facts were certified by an independent physician, and if the case were reviewed by the office of the Attorney General, and that could be the local coroner, the Crown counsel or whomever.

If we ask this House, ask the government, to pass that motion, it could be put forward quickly. It could resolve the matter raised by Sue Rodriguez and others who ask to be assisted by a physician in committing suicide in order to avoid a degrading and painful death.

This is not an issue for the courts. At every stage the courts have asked Parliament to relieve them from a responsibility which is not truly theirs. In the initial instance through the Supreme Court of B.C. and even before the Supreme Court of Canada, the indication has been that this issue is not the responsibility of the courts.

They ask that Parliament fulfil a responsibility to these people to allow them to undertake an act which should not be illegal. We should not be bound by an antiquated law that does not recognize the changes in our society.

This is probably the last opportunity this Parliament will have to discuss this matter. It is not an issue for the courts. It is an issue for Parliament. It is unfortunate that the government has not put a bill before the House. It would have been extremely useful, on the heels of the motion put by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West, for the government to lay before the House a proposal for the consideration of Parliament and for the consideration of the people of Canada. It is now time that the government respond to this appeal. It appears that about 80 per cent of Canadians want something done.

I undertook a survey of the community of Powell River in my riding and the returns from that survey were many. About 75 per cent wanted something to resolve this matter. They are cautious about it. They want stringent controls but they do want to see us aid people who are suffering from a chronic terminal illness that is painful and degrading.

Many of them have seen their loved ones go through this process and they are asking that this Parliament do something. The courts are asking that we do something. Some of the people who are suffering from these illnesses are asking that they be given an opportunity to relieve this suffering.

It is my hope that the court will resolve the problem of Sue Rodriguez. In fact it is my hope that the Supreme Court of Canada will resolve the problem for all Canadians in this very narrow sphere and say that where it has been certified that the person is clearly terminally ill and where the person repeatedly asks, then after an appropriate review the court would permit those physician assisted suicides to occur.

There is an argument for the court to consider. That argument is that Parliament has a responsibility to grant somebody, through a change in legislation, a chance to exercise their rights. I am hoping that it will consider this approach.

The question becomes: Does an individual have this right? Does Sue Rodriguez have the right to ask her physician to assist her in a suicide? Let us look at some of the arguments. There certainly will be arguments put for and against it. We have to consider the fact that a very large number of Canadians would like to see something done by the government in this area.

There is the argument that this is a guarantee of liberty. The charter in section 7 guarantees that the individual has the right of self-determination. If a person does not have the right of self-determination to control their body, to refuse medication and medical treatment then it makes a mockery of the right to self-determination.

There was a recent article in the May 31 issue of Time magazine about Dr. Kevorkian in the United States. Dr. Kevorkian is operating virtually as a free agent, without control. The state of Michigan attempted to put a law in place to curtail his activity. The court has now overturned that and said that it is a denial of a person's right

to self-determination to commit suicide. That was the end of it.

That law has now been overturned and it looks as if Kevorkian can continue his practice, without any control whatsoever, over the kinds of activities in which he has been involved. This is unacceptable and really not a solution at all.

The argument is that this is a guarantee of liberty, that this legislation, if the government would accept it, would give Sue Rodriguez and a host of other Canadians who wish to pursue a physician assisted suicide the opportunity to be relieved from future pain and degradation and to have the right to control one's body. It is the right to avoid pain and suffering, and it is of course the right to avoid the indignity of a complete loss of ability to control any function of life.

When my colleague asks what right do they have, they do have rights. There is a right to liberty. There is a right to self-determination. There is a right to control one's body. There is a right to avoid pain and suffering. There is a right to avoid loss of dignity and there is even a right to commit suicide. The latter is not illegal. If a person wants another to assist them to commit suicide, we must consider this.

I would like to put forward another argument. The court originally dismissed this but it is certainly worthy of consideration. It is discriminatory, if there is an individual who is handicapped and one who is not, if the one individual who is handicapped by a chronic debilitating disease wishes to commit suicide, they may be impaired and unable to carry out that function without the assistance of a physician or someone else, preferably a physician.

There is a solid argument that one class of citizen because they are not disabled can in fact carry this out and another class of citizen who because of their disability may be competent mentally but unfortunately physically are unable to carry out the task competently. We wind up with a situation where we have created two classes of people by a law which essentially discriminates.

I would like the House to consider this legislation as empowerment, the ability of individuals to exert their

Private Members' Business

own self-determination over their lives. These people are going to die, there is no question about it. They are going to die a painful and degrading death and they have made a decision that they wish to determine the time their life will end. Unfortunately, we remove that empowerment from them. We say that we know best. In this day and age I really think we must reconsider the current law.

We need to examine this issue, especially this narrow issue put in front of us by Sue Rodriguez. We must empower an individual who is in a very terrible set of circumstances. We must give them the power to exert some control over their lives, even if it is to relieve themselves of suffering and degradation. We must give that empowerment to them.

The ironic thing with Sue Rodriguez is that the progress of her disease will render her completely incapacitated. She will not be able to commit suicide and she will not be able to communicate. She will still be conscious but unfortunately unable to do anything.

If we were to pass a law that permitted physician assisted suicide and Sue Rodriguez and her physician agreed on the circumstances when the suicide would be carried out, Sue Rodriguez's life would be longer. She would be able to live longer. It is an irony. If she is going to commit suicide she will have to do it sooner, when she is capable of controlling the circumstances and doing it effectively, which means her life will be shorter unless she can use the assistance of a physician. It is not just Sue Rodriguez, it is all other Canadians who find themselves in this circumstance and who wish to end their lives in order to prevent that pain and suffering.

We could be in a position to extend their lives by amending that legislation.

I would also like to cite the case of Dr. Kevorkian in the United States.

Sue Rodriguez has a commitment from a physician regardless of the outcome. Whether Parliament or the government puts forward legislation in this House, whether the Supreme Court gives her the right, a physician has said that he will assist her to commit suicide. Ultimately this is a humanitarian act.

Private Members' Business

We have created a situation because the law is no longer relevant. This law is not relevant. The needs of society and the needs of people will begin to find ways to circumvent it to meet a very basic need.

We will lose control because we do not have any guidelines, for instance, in the arrangement between Sue Rodriguez and her physician or with the next case or the next one. There are no controls over Kevorkian types.

However we could set some very stringent controls; that you need to be terminally ill, that you need to be mentally competent, and you need to ask repeatedly to be assisted in committing suicide so that you can extend your life. Ultimately you would need to have it reviewed by an independent physician and by the Attorney General. Then some controls are placed over this type of situation.

I do not think we can create a situation where we provide disrespect for the law, where we are unable to enforce it. Physicians are not charged and convicted in Canada for carrying out this kind of activity. Therefore the law is already held in disrepute. It does not meet the needs of the people.

Sue Rodriguez has gone a step further and says: "I have made the arrangements if the court and Parliament are not able to meet our needs". We must do something about this. I am sure it would pass this House in short order if the government could bring forward a piece of legislation that would meet the needs of people.

The arguments against it are interesting. They fall into five categories. Murder is still murder. The issue of murder is still murder if you look at the definition. I guess the five basic points that the critics of it bring out is that murder is still murder. In this case that is not it and I will deal with that at length at a later date.

Another point is that Nazi Germany ran an euthanasia program and that we are heading in that direction. Nothing could be more false and misleading. This is a democracy. It is one of the most sensitive and successful democracies in the world.

The kind of activity we are looking at is not destroying people's lives because they do not meet the social agenda. We are responding to the requests to be able to be assisted with a suicide. We want to empower those people to control their lives.

We cannot argue against a religious conviction that says that no matter what, God created life and God has the ultimate choice as to when it will end. If a person holds those convictions you cannot deal with the issue if you totally ignore the situation that when a person's life is going to end anyway, and it is going to end with pain and degradation, we do have an opportunity to control it.

They say this is the slippery slope. This is the fourth argument. Opponents say that if we do this then we will end up lining up the elderly and finishing them off because it will be cheaper for our health care system. The argument is that we will move from there to other forms of incapacity. We cannot argue that. These are individuals asking for a right and asking to be able to time their lives.

The fifth argument is one of the most interesting ones and it comes from Dr. John Scott at the Elizabeth Bruyere Hospital. I guess one of the key points in his debate against it is this. He says: "If we put in a euthanasia system, even doctor assisted suicide, we will get into a situation where the Netherlands provide no money to hospice care and Great Britain which does not permit physician assisted suicide or euthanasia does provide money for hospice care".

This argument is completely false. Ultimately this caring society is concerned about health care. It is concerned about properly funding hospices for the same reason it would give Sue Rodriguez empowerment and the right to self-determination.

If an individual wishes to end his or her life in a hospice situation we have an obligation and a responsibility to make sure that health care spending provides the opportunity to do that.

This is the last chance. Eighty per cent of Canadians want to see something done about this. Sue Rodriguez and her physician will do something about it, whether we permit it or not. I think respect for the law is critical and respect for the rights of other human beings is critical in this issue.

Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):

Mr. Speaker, this motion of the member for North Island-Powell River on legislation to allow physician assisted suicide raises the issue of euthanasia on request where the

m

June 7, 1993

patient is no longer able to act, or should there be a distinction.

I am not aware that the medical profession in Canada has asked the government to decriminalize either physician assisted suicide or euthanasia. The reason may very well be that it does not recognize these practices as constituting the practice of medicine. The proper concern of medicine is with treatment, including palliative treatment to relieve pain.

There is a great deal of confusion on whether there is a need for decriminalization and on whether it commands general support. This is complicated by the fact that the media has not always distinguished between euthanasia on request and plain murder.

Moreover palliative treatment to relieve pain which has the effect of hastening death has often also been included in the euthanasia debate, even though courts have indicated that this is not a crime. That is because in such circumstances the disease, rather than the treatment, is considered to be the legal cause of death.

In the face of all this confusion it is not surprising that opinion polls report a majority in favour of something or another. However when one asks what the respondent understands when opinion polls present the question, it is obvious that not only the respondent but also the pollster has failed to appreciate the wide range of very different situations that could be included in the general type of questions favoured by those conducting the polls on this very hotly contested issue.

Once this is understood we may find there is no need and little demand for decriminalization of physician assisted suicide and euthanasia. Once a person is assured of effective palliative treatment to relieve pain he or she is much less likely to demand that these practices be made available.

As a practical matter, court decisions have made it clear that not only is palliative treatment which hastens death not a crime, but neither is removing a respirator at the request of a patient. Similarly, withdrawing food and drugs from patients in a persistent vegetative state at the request of the patient's family has been recognized as an extension of the patient's own right to refuse treatment.

Doctors are aware that in all these situations treatment has not been successful and since they cannot offer

Private Members' Business

any further useful treatment, they are willing to accept the decision of the patient or his family to cease treatment.

The medical profession remains by and large opposed to physician assisted suicide and euthanasia. They are aware of the implications of decriminalization. Just as there are specialties in medicine, so we have seen there are doctors who are prepared to bring their death machines to assist people to commit suicide. No doubt a specialty in assisted suicide and euthanasia would develop if the practices cease to be prohibited by the criminal law.

What is absent from the arguments of those promoting these practices is consideration of how decriminalization would affect the plight of children or other persons who are incapable of requesting assisted suicide or euthanasia. Once these facts are available to those who can consent to them they may well be extended to those who are not in a position to request them.

These acts would go beyond withdrawal of treatment that has proven unsuccessful. They would reverse the ancient medical injunction to do no harm and would involve the doctor in deliberately doing harm. They would foist on the medical profession a philosophical position that says killing is better than allowing suffering. In those processes the alternate to accept the challenge to develop the art of palliative treatment to a point where no one need suffer and no one need be killed to avoid suffering may all be ignored.

What is even worse and equally incompatible with our principles of criminal law and our principles of human rights is the fact that euthanasia could eventually be administered to those who are incapable of either consenting or refusing. The only basis for administering euthanasia to these people would be their chronic or terminal illnesses.

There have been prosecutions of doctors in England for acts which in the Netherlands would be prosecuted as euthanasia. Some have failed for lack of evidence.

A doctor was recently convicted of attempted murder and was subsequently found guilty of unprofessional conduct by the general medical council. They found that the criminal conviction was sufficient punishment and declined to remove his licence to practice. However, the

Private Members' Business

regional medical council put very strict conditions on his future work.

Some doctors resented the verdict of the court because euthanasia had been requested by the patient and her family. However it was clear that the doctor did not administer a drug aimed at relieving pain but rather a drug aimed only at killing the patient.

This case emphasizes the fact that the criminal law prohibition against euthanasia as murder plays a very necessary role in helping the medical profession regulate itself. It educates the profession in what the law, which reflects social values, regards as permissible and what goes beyond the boundaries of societal acceptance.

Had the doctor administered a drug aimed at relieving pain and the patient died as a secondary effect, provided he did not act in a negligent manner, he would not have been prosecuted.

It was made clear in a jury direction many years ago and was recently confirmed in this decision in the English Court of Appeal that such a case of the law regards the death to be from the disease and not from the attempt to alleviate the pain.

The consequence of this educational and regulatory effect of the criminal law is that members of the medical profession are encouraged to improve their ability to provide effective palliative care, to secure the knowledge they are not going to be in conflict with the law. In contrast, medical practitioners in the Netherlands are really not encouraged to improve their ability to provide effective palliative care because in appropriate circumstances, they may act directly to kill the patient.

I personally think the way to go is to improve our palliative care methods. There is a great deal more we can do in society within the medical profession to alleviate the pain of those suffering. I cannot and do not support the member's motion.

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):

Mr. Speaker, as I begin my remarks I notice some of the members presently in the House. I see at least two members who are medical graduates. I see a former teacher of nursing. I see former clergymen and a number of others. All I am sure are interested in this topic.

I want to take a moment to talk about this issue of euthanasia. It is an issue about which I have very profound feelings. Euthanasia is so-called mercy killing. Presumably under certain conditions it would be seen as being merciful. It also means a good death.

By definition, that kind of a death must then be potentially good. Those who are in favour of it are in favour of merciful killing and good death. Obviously those of us who are against it presumably do not want all these good and merciful things. One can see how quickly one can fall into that trap, particularly when all of this only rests on the abuse of a few words in the dictionary.

Until recently euthanasia was not even legal in a country such as Holland. We all know that Holland practises more euthanasia than any other country on the face of the earth. It has one-quarter of Canada's population and up to 12,000 people per year are sent to premature death in that country.

On February 9, 1993 the Dutch parliament formally adopted so-called voluntary euthanasia. A week later a Dutch justice department spokesperson, Liesbeth Rens-man, told the Associated Press that legislators would be studying the effect of this voluntary euthanasia law for three months. This would be done to "see what happens and how careful physicians are, then perhaps there could be regulation for killing without request". If you do not think we are on a slippery slope when we discuss this issue, think again.

I want to speak about the medical profession in all of this. First it is important to remind everyone that we are not talking about patients who refuse medical treatment. In fact that is already protected by section 265 of the Criminal Code and a colleague who invoked that as a reason for euthanasia was obviously wrong. That is already covered in the Criminal Code. We are talking about giving physicians the right to kill, pure and simple, albeit under certain conditions.

In the sixth century BC, the Greek philosopher Hippocrates wrote a note to which physicians are still bound today. It states in part: "I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest such counsel". In modem times, that particular Hippocratic oath has been rewritten as the declaration of Geneva. The declaration of Geneva repeats the same idea in different words.

Physicians have operated under these oaths for 2,500 years. These oaths are there because patients need the assurance that a doctor's only raison d'etre is to make them better, never to make them worse. Doctors operate under the motto: First do no harm. What would euthanasia do to all that? What would it do to the trust that exists between a patient and a doctor?

I never question my doctor's intention, none of us do. If we did for just the slightest moment, obviously we would change physicians. Most of us never change physicians. We have the same physician for years and years. Why do we do that? Because we trust physicians. We sometimes agree or disagree with a particular treatment they might have given us. We have never ever asked ourselves: Is my physician there to do me good or harm? We take it as a given that the physician's role will always be to make it better. I do not want to see that eroded.

I want to talk a bit about the slippery slope. Dr. Robert Conot, the author of Justice at Nuremberg, has reminded us of what can happen when a society allows itself to be guided by strictly utilitarian rather than humanitarian principles.

In Weimar, Germany, not Nazi Germany, the mentally and physically ill were entitled to the so-called favour of painless death. This principle was subsequently extended to other useless eaters, including residents of homes for the aged. The Nazis then extended the concept afterward to include Jews, Slavs and others who they felt were not useful to the party in power. That is how it began in that particular country.

How did that society slide that way? To quote Dr. Conot: "Theirs"-the Nazis-"was no plunge to damnation from conscious decision but a step-by-step descent into darkness, each step marking a small erosion of ethics and morality". That is how they slid into that.

Some members in this House might disagree with me about the slippery slope, but then what? I believe that euthanasia would still be wrong because it cheapens human life.

Only a few days ago we learned through the media that a Dutch psychiatrist was acquitted after injecting a depressed patient with a lethal substance. How could we tell our fellow citizens that murder is wrong if we were to

Private Members' Business

permit doctors to do it? How could we tell our young and emotionally fragile citizens that suicide is wrong and that life is precious if we allow life to be destroyed in this kind of a cavalier manner?

The Criminal Code of Canada forbids aiding, counselling or assisting a suicide. I believe it does so because the absence of such rules would erode the patient-doctor trust, as I said previously, but it does so as well because killing is wrong.

There is even a third reason. I want to quote from a reference made in report No. 58 of the Law Reform Commission which states: "The law does not exist for the sole or primary purpose of punishing illicit acts. It exists as an expression in a broad sense of the kind of people that we are. It does not merely regulate our behaviour; it articulates and symbolizes our values and our beliefs". That is why there is that prohibition in the Criminal Code.

Even if members disagree with me as to the other reasons, even if they do not think there is a slippery slope in spite of the evidence to the contrary, even if they do not believe that Holland exists as a nation with its experience in spite of evidence to the contrary, then I hope that all of us could surely agree that the reason the law is there is to state those things we think are valuable.

Some will say: "It is easy for you, Boudria. Maybe you have not lived with this very much". Actually about a year and a week ago my wife lost her mother to terminal cancer. A year almost to the day before, I lost my father as a result of a malignant brain tumour. That certainly was not easy, but that does not mean I now favour euthanasia. It means quite the opposite. It means that I understand even better how precious and fragile life is.

Collectively and individually we must make statements in this House about the value and dignity of human life. We must not say things to cheapen it any more than it has been already.

Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the more important issues that has come before the House of Commons. That the discussion has begun in this session of Parliament for the first time is important. If not in this Parliament certainly by the next Parliament it will lead to changes before the law. It is inevitable because the majority of people, the nature of medical technology and many other factors are driving us in a direction that calls for discussion, reason and

Private Members' Business

resolution. Therefore I have no doubt the law will be changed.

All points of view are important in the ideas we put forward today. To me this is about freedom, self-determination and very much about fear. I appreciated the comments of the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. I appreciated that he personalized them. This is an issue that needs to be personalized because it affects every one of us. As an issue which affects every one of us, we need to consider it in our own context.

I can appreciate the choices that the hon. member for Calgary and the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell may have made for themselves and their families. Those choices may have been that when they face terminal illness, they want to prolong life as long as medical science can do so, even if it is prolonging life through and into intense suffering.

That is their choice for them and their families. I do not agree with that choice for me or my family. I believe that God gave us medical science and technology to improve the quality of our life, to nurture, protect and prolong to the point where we say: "That is enough, let me go, let me withdraw from treatment and leave it between my God and myself to make that decision".

We seem to have moved somewhat since we started this debate on my Bill C-203. Everyone seems to recognize fully that there should be the right to withdraw from treatment in the law to the point that we are claiming that it exists. The court cases demonstrate that it does not necessarily exist and needs clarification. The courts have called upon Parliament to clarify the law. The first result of the Rodriguez hearing told us that this is a decision for the Parliament of Canada, not a decision for the medical profession or the courts.

Let us look at what we agree to under the law. We agree, I think almost unanimously, that anyone who becomes terminally ill, that means you and I, has the right to withdraw from treatment. But we do not have the right to withdraw from suffering. In other words, technically one can withdraw from treatment if one wants to suffer to the point of death.

Mrs. Stewart:

That is ridiculous.

Mr. Wenman:

I am not finished yet. You are right. That is not the whole side. The practice of most caring medical professional people is that they will err on the side of relieving suffering and in so doing, on occasion or even often, will allow that life to go at the point when suffering becomes excessive.

I would like to see the practice made legal so that the choice is for everyone to make. If I were to become terminally ill I would want my life preserved as long as possible. I would use all the medical technology I could to extend my life. But I believe there is a point in suffering where I would want to be able to say as a mature, responsible adult: "That is enough, let me go. Help me go". I would want to use the technology available to us through medical science to let me choose to say that is enough and let me go.

It is unfortunate that this is a decision question. Who will make the decision? Will it be your doctor, will it be your family, will it be yourself or will it be God? What is the combination?

One of the problems right now is that everybody sits around the deathbed arguing about who should make the decision, or saying nothing because that is easier than arguing. It goes on and on and on. People feel great pity and empathy. They feel sad but they cannot make a decision. That is why there should be the right of the individual to make a rational, logical choice through access to medical technology which will allow us to terminate our own life when there is no further hope.

This is not just what I think, it is what the court has declared. The court has declared that it needs direction. From where? From Parliament, from here, from us. We have to overcome our fear of this subject and deal with it, and we all have that fear in varying degrees.

Some people compare it to the abortion issue. Tie it in. It has nothing to do with the abortion issue. In the case of abortion we are talking about two people's lives, the life of the child and the life of the mother. In that case it is easy for me. It is a matter of nurturing, preserving and protecting that life.

June 7, 1993

However, when we are talking about the end of our lives as mature responsible adults in the face of medical technology, I want to be protected by and for and against that technology, technology that wants to overly prolong my suffering and which will not allow me to make the decision in an appropriate manner through law.

Why do we not then put that decision back into the hands of the doctors? Do we put it in the hands of the individual? Why not decriminalize it and let each doctor, each individual make his or her own choice? Am I not responsible or intelligent enough to make that choice? I think I am. And I resent that any government or other parliamentarians would deny me that right of choice.

Death for many is not death; it is a release to eternal life. Why would any Christian try to prevent that release to eternal life?

I have made a great many arguments but am out of time to make those again in Bill C-203. But they will be made, if not by this Parliament then by the next Parliament, because the people of Canada demand that we make the change.

Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):

Mr. Speaker, I see by the clock that I only have a minute left in the debate. I would like to use that minute in putting on record a letter I received from two constituents, Helen and Mary Bumie. They say:

Dear Mr. Flis:

Thank you for helping to defeat Waddell's death bill. We have become so obsessed with death that we no longer see the beauty of life.

I am a terminally ill person and I want to live my full life allotted to me by God. May God bless you.

The hon. member says that the courts are seeking direction from Parliament. My constituents are giving the courts direction through this Parliament and through me as their representative.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the item is dropped from the Order Paper.

Government Orders

Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of Labour) moved

that Bill C-101, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act, be read the third time and passed.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Commons committee on its excellent work in examining Bill C-101, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act.

I would also thank all members of the House as well as representatives of labour, business and government organizations who have made a substantial number of presentations to the committee.

A great deal of discussion has taken place during the preparation of the bill presented to the House today which I believe is a balanced package of amendments to the Canada Labour Code. These amendments when implemented should help Canadian business compete in world markets by reducing red tape while offering workers improved protection in the area of labour standards and greater uniformity of treatment and benefits across the country.

These amendments are a balanced package from which employers, employees and the government will benefit and which will protect the public interest. I am convinced that passing this bill will give workers the security and confidence they need to work more productively, while striking a balance between their responsibilities at work and at home.

This bill will help employers by streamlining and simplifying the administrative procedures under the Canada Labour Code and will thus make them more competitive. It will enhance compatibility of federal and provincial legislation, so that employees across the land will receive similar treatment and benefits. Finally, this bill will protect the public interest by offering another mechanism to facilitate the settlement of collective bargaining conflicts in federal jurisdiction.

June 7, 1993

Government Orders

The majority of the amendments relate to part III, the labour standards section of the Canada Labour Code. These proposals were developed over two years of consultation with federally regulated employer and employee representatives, the very parties affected by the changes.

Some 700,000 working Canadians will benefit from these changes to federal labour standards. The bill will streamline procedures for modifications to labour standards such as provide for the substitution of a general holiday, clarify the relationship between the minimum labour standards and collective agreements, provide for more effective collection of unpaid wages, provide wage and employment protection for workers injured on the job, allow greater flexibility in the timing of parental leave, and support a pregnant worker's right to remain at work by requiring employers to make every reasonable effort to modify the job or reassign the employee when her temporary health needs so require.

I would like to give further information on the last two points. Provisions that provide for protective reassignment for pregnant and nursing workers and those that allow greater flexibility in the scheduling of parental leave are especially important.

The amendments concerning the scheduling of parental leave address the difficulties that working families face in balancing their responsibilities at home with those in the work place. Under the provisions of Bill C-101 either parent within the federal jurisdiction will be able to take the parental leave to which he or she is entitled at any time within a year after the child's birth or after the child comes into the employee's care.

The amendment acknowledges that the circumstances and needs of parents differ. It is only equitable to offer some flexibility in the way that parental leave may be taken.

The amendments concerning maternity-related reassignment will protect women's right to continue working. An employer will no longer be able to force a woman employee to take maternity leave simply because she is

pregnant. Under the new provisions, employers must, as much as possible, change the duties of the pregnant woman or reassign her if her doctor considers that essential.

Forty per cent of federally regulated employees are women and, every year, about 6,700 of them take maternity leave. The amendments proposed in Bill C-101 will have a positive impact on many of these women by enabling them to continue to earn a living. By keeping qualified and experienced employees at work, the whole Canadian economy will benefit.

The amendments to the industrial relations provisions of the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act will serve the public interest by providing an additional mechanism which could assist in the settlement of collective bargaining disputes. The provisions would be invoked only when the action is likely to result in the resolution of a collective bargaining dispute where the public interest is affected.

Each component of Bill C-101 received a full discussion in the committee hearings. We had excellent representation from many members of both the government and opposition sides of the House, the Canadian Labour Congress, la Confederation des syndicats nationaux, a number of public sector unions, the chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board, and business organizations such as the Canadian Bankers' Association and FETCO which represents the federally regulated employers in the transportation and communications industries.

These were lively and fruitful discussions conducted in a spirit of co-operation that I found very encouraging. Some thoughtful suggestions were put forward by a number of representatives who appeared before us. We listened carefully and considered all of them.

I urge the House to support the bill. As a whole these amendments will be contributing to the efficiency of Canadian work places while promoting great co-operation between employers and employees. The changes will help Canada achieve a more progressive labour-management climate and will promote a more equitable and harmonious work place. This should have a benefi-

June 7, 1993

cial impact on the competitiveness of Canadian industry and the prosperity of Canadian workers.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank members of the committee who worked in a very harmonious way. With the support of members of the House and the other place I hope we can get this legislation into place very soon.

Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):

Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill. As the minister has said, in large measure it is the result of good consultation among the government, the employers and the unions representing employees in the federal sector.

As far as it goes in that direction it is an example of the importance of good management-labour relations, both in the interest of Canada remaining competitive, having a stable work environment and being able to deliver on its commitments internationally, and in the interest of what the government likes to call a partnership relationship between employers and employees that leads to more productive and more efficient work places. The government seems to understand this intellectually but continues to have a problem with fully committing to implementing the development of better management-labour relationships in Canada.

As they get down to the wire on actually doing something positive in this area, the devil inside that says all labour unions are bad seems to get in the way. It causes them to do that bit extra that again creates an atmosphere of confrontation and undermines the progress that has been made toward more productive partnerships.

Let me make it clear what I am speaking about. The bill contains two essential elements. As the minister has said, one is provisions that were negotiated and were the subject of lengthy discussions and very productive consultations between employee representatives and employer representatives in the federally regulated sector.

These are the provisions that relate to conditions of work, occupational health and safety issues relating to pregnant or nursing women, to employees who have become injured or disabled, parental leave and so on. Where the partnership model was followed and the

Government Orders

consultation was carried through there was consensus, agreement and a large measure of support for the bill.

Regrettably the government found it necessary to abandon that consultative process entirely and introduce an entirely new element into the bill before bringing it into the House, that is the provision of a forced vote among the membership of the union on a last offer. I do not know why the government chose to undermine the consultative process, the very positive atmosphere that had developed among government, labour, management and employers on this issue, by dropping this element into the bill at the last minute. Nonetheless it did.

It is on the basis of the negative effect we think the provision will have on the continued development of a positive climate of management-labour-govemment relationships that we will be voting against the bill.

Let me go back to the first package of amendments that we certainly support. The fact they have wide support is a tribute to the consultative process and to all those who participated in it. It provides for work place redeployment of women who are pregnant or nursing in the interest of their health and the health of either their bom or unborn child. It also provides similar measures for workers injured or disabled as a result of their employment.

The positive result is the likelihood of keeping workers employed, adapting the work place so that they can continue to be employed and self-sufficient, rather than take advantage of various disability programs that are seldom satisfactory to either party.

We entirely support these provisions. We entirely support the greater flexibility of parental leave. If we want to keep a productive skilled work force, we know that increasingly the work place, public sector or private sector has to make accommodation for a better balance among personal, family and work responsibilities.

However we fail to understand why the government does not recognize that those are equally valuable provisions for approximately one-third of the 700,000 federally regulated employees it talked about, the third who are employees of the government, the Public Service of Canada.

We fail to understand why the government would not have accepted an amendment put forward by Liberal

June 7, 1993

Government Orders

members of the legislative committee to apply those same positions to employees in the Public Service.

We think nursing and pregnant women in the Public Service deserve the same entitlement and rights as nursing and pregnant women in the private sector. We think that parents or those who are about to be parents deserve the same conditions of work in the Public Service as those about to be parents or parents in the private sector.

These are provisions which private sector employees have accepted. These are provisions which they are now legally obliged to adhere to. Yet these are provisions the federal government is not prepared to apply to itself as an employer.

It is this kind of double standard that has increasingly raised the ire of business and employer organizations. They see the government imposing requirements on the private sector as employer that it has failed to take unto itself.

We were surprised by the government refusing this amendment because the government at least in words has said it is interested in getting rid of regulations. These kinds of conditions for the Public Service are covered in volumes of policies and programs at least 10 feet high. This would have been a great opportunity to get rid of that kind of policy regulation regime and put people's entitlements very clearly into legislation.

We are really surprised in the deregulating atmosphere that the government seems to be promoting that it still wants to maintain these volumes and volumes of policy manuals and regulation that have to be cross-referenced time and time again with respect to its own employees.

I want to speak now about the second major provision of the bill which is the right of the Minister of Labour to refer a last offer to a vote of the employees. I want to make quite clear that this provision was dropped into the legislation at the last moment with no consultation whatsoever. I think the minister concedes that.

The minister was asked during the course of the legislative committee why this came up after the consultations were over on this piece of legislation and why he felt he needed this kind of tool. The best answer that he could come up with was he had seen how useful it was to Premier Rae in ending the TTC strike in Toronto. He

thought it might be a useful tool to have in the government's arsenal.

What it is in fact is an undue undermining of the whole rules of the game of collective bargaining. Collective bargaining works when there is a reasonable balance of interest and of clout between the employer and the union representing the employees.

When the rules of the game are clear you sit down and you bargain. That is the way you reach a collective agreement. Instead the government now wants to be able to intervene at any time and say the process is not working, which gives either side an out. It takes off the pressure to sit down, negotiate and come to a mutually acceptable conclusion.

We were particularly concerned about the application of this rule to the Public Service because the government already has such substantial clout over its own employees that it enjoys an undue power to undermine the collective bargaining process and to resolve issues and disputes by mutual consent. It enjoys the power to exclude any of its employees from the bargaining unit in the public interest, in the interest of public health and safety.

It does so most generously to ensure that at times of labour or management disruption there are continuing public services. It enjoys the right at any time by legislation to send employees back to work, to dictate the terms of their employment, as this government has done a minimum of three times in this session of Parliament.

We fail to see why it needs this additional power to send an offer to a vote of the employees directly and bypass a negotiating process with the unions when it already enjoys such tremendous power. The only reason can possibly be to avoid public debate in this House on the usefulness and the propriety of its actions when it does want to order people back to work. It now has another mechanism that it can use without ever coming to this House and allowing this House to debate what is in the public interest.

The second element that makes this a different issue in the Public Service is that the government is the employer. Therefore, it should not have the right under any proper concept of collective bargaining as one party to the negotiations to determine how those negotiations will proceed.

June 7, 1993

A minister of the Crown is in the position that I am sure the president of General Motors or any other major corporate head would love to be in of being able to decide to bypass the union completely and go directly to the members. But that is not the way collective bargaining works. It is undermining the role of unions in the collective bargaining process and that fits with the ideology of the government.

What it does not do is serve the public interest well in the long run. Nor does it serve the employees who belong to a democratic organization and who are responsible themselves for determining whether their union is or is not representing them well. That is not up to the employer, the other side of the table, to determine.

We did hear some excellent representations before the legislative committee. I regret first that the government felt obliged to introduce an unpopular, unwelcome, undiscussed measure into this bill at the last moment and then refused to remove those provisions.

Second, I regret very much that despite the excellent representations before the committee, it has chosen not to apply the same working conditions to its own employees as it forces private sector employers to provide.

Third, I regret that it has saddled the future government with a system that is unworkable and simply will not be helpful to the collective bargaining process.

That is because it is leaving office.

Mrs. Catterall:

It is a system that undermines the commitment that both employer and workers must have to the bargaining table as the place to resolve issues, to that process as the way of maintaining stability in both public and private sector employment and to that process as the foundation of developing a more co-operative partnership among employers, workers and government, if this country is going to remain competitive, increase productivity and be ready to be able to face the challenges of the future.

Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to once again discuss Bill C-101. As you know, this bill was introduced in December of last year. Today we are discussing third reading of the bill.

The amendments to the Canada Labour Code, parts II and III, were the result of over two years of consultation, as you heard the minister say, with employer groups and

Government Orders

unions. Neither side in this discussion got everything they wanted but a consensus was reached.

For the most part, we have here needed improvements to the Canada Labour Code. We have improvements in the protection for pregnant and nursing women in the work place. We have improvements in parental leave provisions. We have improvements in protection for injured workers. We have improvements in the administration of the code to speed up the determination of workers' rights and we have improvements in wage protection for workers.

As stated here and in the committee hearings, we also have the regressive step of a ministerial ordered vote on the employer's last offer. This measure which applies to both private and public sector workers came about without consultation, without consensus and most obviously without any stated need from either the private sector employers or the unions.

Its inclusion in this bill will not improve labour relations in federal jurisdiction. The reason it is there has nothing to do with labour relations in federal jurisdiction. It is there to simply advance an ideological position that holds that the employer must have more rights than the workers in the collective bargaining process.

In the legislative committee we heard from the Minister of Labour and the minister responsible for Canada Post. We heard from 10 witnesses, 7 from labour, 2 from the employers, as well as the chair of the Public Service Staff Relations Board. With the exception of the two ministers, we did not hear from one person who supported the directed vote amendments to the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act.

A recent ruling by the Canada Labour Relations Board points to one of the difficulties in holding these types of votes. The Canada Labour Code does not prohibit the use of scabs. The directed vote provision of this bill does not define who is in the bargaining unit and who is not.

In hearing a certification application by a company union, the CLRB considered scabs to be part of the existing bargaining unit. This opens the way for the company to lock out its workers, hire scabs, await the call of the vote by the minister and be assured of effectively decertifying the bargaining agent by stacking the vote

June 7, 1993

Government Orders

with scabs or, as the government prefers to call them, replacement workers.

This is not some sort of a curiosity when the CLRB has said that there exists a community of interest between the scabs and those who are on strike. The CLRB has said that scabs are members of a bargaining unit. In effect the CLRB has said that it is okay for the employer to attempt to break the certified union by hiring scabs. Taking this decision at face value and applying it to the directed vote provisions of this bill, we can see a reactionary shift in the direction of labour relations in Canada.

The CLRB is saying that the employer can hire scabs with impunity and that they become part of the bargaining unit. The government is saying that it can direct a vote on the employer's last offer to be taken by the bargaining unit. What is apparent therefore is that the collective bargaining relationship is being stacked in favour of the employer. The CLRB is redefining the bargaining unit; the government is defining what the offer is going to be.

Implicit in the government initiated amendments to part I of the code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act is the belief on the part of the government that the union or bargaining team does not represent the interests or the will of the membership. This directed vote is saying that the government or the minister knows better than the elected and accountable union executive or bargaining team what is in the best interest of the union membership at the bargaining table.

Such an anti-democratic inference should have no place in legislation enacted by the House of Commons. To suppose an arbitrary decision by the Minister of Labour is a superior process to those democratic structures of trade unions is offensive and calls into question the sincerity of this government's commitment to the collective bargaining process. It calls into question the commitment of the government to upholding the rights of the worker-controlled, democratic work place institutions and trade unions.

The existence of this provision in the code also poses a severe threat to the fundamental right of workers to withdraw their labour. By giving the minister the right to intervene at any time-it is important to note that is at

any time-after notice to collective bargaining has been given, it effectively allows the minister to circumvent the free collective bargaining process as well as the right to strike.

From a strictly pragmatic perspective the problem of carrying out a vote within a large bargaining unit such as the Canadian Union of Postal Workers is absolutely immense. There will be the problem of determining who is an eligible worker, finding the correct addresses, dealing with appeals by both the employer and the union as to who should be included and who should not and most important, how such a process is to be carried out if it is Canada Post that is behind a picket line.

Is the government going to order the workers back to work so that ballots can be delivered, so that workers can vote to reject the employer's last offer and so that they can go back to the picket line? As an example, in the CUPW certification vote a number of years ago it took over five months just to prepare the list of eligible voters. Is a five-month delay going to enhance the collective bargaining process or help find a resolution? I think not.

Yet another problem arises when one has to determine just what is the employer's last offer. Is it the last complete offer? Is it an amalgamation of offers? Will it include what is still outstanding as well as what has been agreed upon? Who is to determine what the last offer is? In collective bargaining there is always much posturing on one side or the other in terms of what was the last offer.

In the last round of CUPW/Canada Post bargaining there were at least three offers put on the table that the employer claimed was its final offer. The bill calls for a vote to include all matters remaining in dispute, but often in collective bargaining the less contentious issues are dealt with first and the more difficult ones are set aside. In most cases this means that wage offers are the last to be determined.

What this bill does is to allow the employer to agree to non-monetary issues and then throw out a wage offer that is non-negotiable claiming it to be the last offer. Intimidation will become part of the process. Will employers have the right to put out advertisements which purport to be the last offer? Will spouses of workers be contacted directly as in the past in the hope that they will influence their partner into accepting the

June 7, 1993

Government Orders

employer's last offer? The employer's message will be simply: "Ratify or else".

This is not collective bargaining. It is intimidation and coercion. The government claims there is nothing sinister here. It claims that this is simply another tool to assist the collective bargaining process. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In committee we had the pleasure of hearing not only the Minister of Labour but also the minister responsible for Canada Post who was very gleeful about the fact that these two clauses, 2 and 42, were his idea and his babies. It was clear from any reading of the transcripts that the real target of the government with this bill was the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and with the amendment to the Public Service Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Alliance of Canada and the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada.

It is indeed disheartening to see public policy developed in this country that serves no purpose other than to satisfy the vindictiveness of a particular member of cabinet. In this instance it was the minister responsible for Canada Post who, as I said, was quite clear about why he introduced the amendments.

It is difficult to forget given the number of times it has been used but it has to be remembered that the government still retains the right to legislate workers and employers back to work.

In the case of public sector workers the government already has extensive powers to ensure essential services. Unlike provincial jurisdictions the bargaining units covered by part I of the Canada Labour Code are quite large. There is CUPW at Canada Post. There are the bargaining units in the railways and airlines. There are the units in telecommunications.

In the case of a serious threat to the public welfare the government can and has ordered the resumption of the enterprise and the involvement of a mediator and/or arbitrator. This is done quickly. Necessary services are restored and the collective bargaining process is either ended with an imposed settlement or the parties are placed into an arbitration process that will result in a collective agreement.

With this directed vote provision there is no speed to the resolution process and there is no involvement of a mediator. The collective bargaining process is simply stalled to the detriment of all.

One must ask just what the point is when all the evidence we have heard demonstrates that from a collective bargaining perspective the directed vote is an unwarranted intrusion. From a strictly practical perspective its use is simply unworkable and extraordinarily expensive.

What is clear is that this provision is politically motivated and is not another mechanism to assist in the collective bargaining process.

If the government was sincere in wanting to enhance the collective bargaining process it would have put all of part I of the Canada Labour Code on the table during the consultative process. It would have followed the lead of B.C. and Ontario and banned the use of scabs. As we saw during the lengthy Nationair dispute and as we continue to witness in the ongoing dispute in Yellowknife, the use of scabs has not only lengthened the dispute but it has also strengthened the resolve of employers bent on breaking a union.

With regard to the directed vote amendment in the Public Service Staff Relations Act one has to question where the employer, in this instance the government, goes with public sector bargaining if it is required to vote on the last offer and the workers say no. Where does the government go? The chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board told the legislative committee that this clause is totally unworkable and that if implemented it would cost $2 million to $3 million to undertake the vote. The government has chosen to ignore that expert information and we are still faced with those clauses in this legislation.

I want to address some of the amendments that were made in committee. It should be noted that improvements to this bill were made in committee in large part due to the witnesses from organized labour whom we heard. They suggested amendments. At this point I would like to thank the Minister of Labour for agreeing to those amendments.

June 7, 1993

Government Orders

Clause 30 of Bill C-101 as originally drafted was intended to remedy the situation where pregnant women, being denied illness benefits while on maternity leave, were protected. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the case of Brooks v. Canada Safeway that an employee benefit plan which denied illness benefits was discriminatory and therefore in contradiction of Canadian human rights law.

We found that while the Department of Labour recognized that such insurance plans were discriminatory, the wording of the bill did not make it as clear as it might have that those plans which continue this discriminatory action were illegal.

I then proposed new wording which was adopted by the legislative committee which clarifies the intent of this change to the Canada Labour Code. Again the minister agreed to the wording. It is now very clear that employee-employer insurance plans cannot discriminate against pregnant women.

One other clause of this bill was changed by the committee and that was clause 40.1 proposed an amendment to make it clear that regulations can be made to regulate those deductions an employer is permitted to make from a worker's pay cheque.

My concern here was about the case of overpayments made to an employee or losses that an employee is solely responsible for. Take, for example, shortage of cash in a bank teller's cash drawer if he or she had sole control over that cash drawer. Regulations could be drafted to ensure that any recovery of these moneys not be done all at once.

These regulations that are now permissible under the legislation will protect workers and ensure that they continue to receive an appropriate wage during the period of repayment. Hopefully the guidelines will be something like 10 per cent per pay period.

We are however disappointed that the government did not agree with the second reading amendment of the member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie. That amendment essentially outlined that if there is better protection, particularly for pregnant women, in provincial jurisdiction then the provincial jurisdiction would apply. This is the case in Quebec.

Despite the many gains we find in this bill achieved through consultation and through working together, the New Democrats cannot support it. We cannot support it

because we believe that it was underhanded, unwarranted and unnecessary to create and have the addition of the directed vote provisions to the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act.

They were introduced without consultation or provocation. They were introduced in fact without the support of any of the parties who were involved in the consultation process.

Because we believe legislation enacted in this House should uphold and reflect the general public interest, we cannot support this legislation. The laws we enact should be used to expand and protect the rights of Canadians. They should not, as we see in clauses 2 and 42 in this bill, expand the arbitrary powers of the cabinet.

The consultative process that resulted in most of what we see in BUI C-101 is testimony to an effective, if not somewhat lengthy, legislative process. Client groups working with departmental officials can produce consensual law that fits the needs of those workers covered by the Canada Labour Code. Those who wUl benefit most from the Canada Labour Code are those workers not covered by collective agreements and those who depend on the code to protect their rights as workers.

It remains however very disheartening that these benefits are tainted by the government's last minute decision to take one more shot at those unions in the public and private sector who have stood up to the government in defence of the rights of their members.

It is disappointing that the consultative portion of this bUl must be voted against in order for us to give a clear message to this government that the imposition of amendments that constitute clauses 2 and 42 are repugnant to New Democrats, to my caucus and also to working Canadians.

Mr. Raymond Skelly (North Island-Powell River):

Mr. Speaker, I share the concerns expressed by my colleague from Mission-Coquitlam about the inadequacies of the legislation. I would like to ask her if she could respond to this particular problem which is a general difficulty with the Canada Labour Code.

There is a long-term employee at the Port Hardy airport who has been there since 1975, a gentleman by the name of Joe Davey. As time goes on, he is at an age where we all begin to slow down. He was ordered to take on fire-fighting duties apart from his normal job as machine operator. It was not in his job description. They

June 7, 1993

Government Orders

then decided he was not fit to do that and arbitrarily placed him on medical leave.

Joe Davey wound up on welfare, could not get back into the job and was off for about a year. Then they got rid of that fire-fighting requirement. He came back to work. He has a degenerative disc problem in his back. Physicians have said that he can go back to work but he cannot spend eight hours a day digging in a ditch-he is a machine operator-as his back will not handle it. He is off again. The manager has said he is on leave.

The personnel services are looking at this and they refuse to deal with it. He is a long-term employee who can go back to work, yet they have placed him in this tenuous situation. The occupational health and safety people have taken a much broader look at it and have said that there is lots of room for him in there. In fact they are putting people into lighter duties who have lower seniority and are less qualified than he is.

However, the two arms of Transport Canada do not deal with each other. It looks as if this individual is going to spend a minimum of two years out of work, probably on social assistance before he gets his job back, if ever.

Maybe the Minister of Labour might consider responding to this as well. What can be done when an organization such as the Government of Canada treats its employees with such contempt? It has farmed the whole problem back to the airport manager who says: "I am just going to get rid of the guy. He is on medical leave of absence until he quits". Each time he has come back.

What kind of relief can be obtained for an individual like Joe Davey who has been absolutely shafted by an employer who seems to hold him in complete contempt? He is the victim of nepotism at the local airport level. The top level of the system would just as soon be rid of him because aging employees are not desired in the organization. They have no intent to show this as an example of what good employee-employer relations are. They would rather treat them with contempt.

Are there any suggestions as to what might be done regarding the possibilities or what the Minister of Labour might do to help Joe Davey and others in that spot?

Ms. Langan:

Mr. Speaker, I think Joe Davey is the kind of example that this caucus, the New Democrats, tried to address last year when we were addressing the amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act.

We were hearing from the government side and the bureaucrats from Treasury Board that the federal government is a very fair, very kind and very caring employer. However there are examples like the one that has just been outlined with regard to Joe Davey, a worker in the last years of his work in the work place who now appears to be finding himself in a situation of being forced off the job and not protected in the long term.

I would suggest to the hon. member who has raised the issue that the first line of defence for Joe Davey is the Public Service Alliance of Canada, his union, and going through the grievance and arbitration process. Failing that I think it would make good sense for the hon. member and myself to document the case and introduce a private member's bill to address this kind of issue. At the same time we can certainly work very hard to make sure that Joe Davey is able to receive a disability pension.

The Minister of Labour is in the House and I am sure he is interested in this kind of case. He is nodding his head so I would assume that he too will take this under advisement to ensure that these kinds of situations do not occur for people who work for the Public Service of Canada.

Mr. Skelly (North Island-Powell River):

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask one more question. Another enormous difficulty that Joe Davey faces is that once he is put off on medical leave he winds up having to wait a year for it to go through the process. It is so slow. It is almost deliberately held up.

Of course the Public Service Alliance has dealt with this. It has looked at the human rights commission and a variety of other things. It feels he would actually be successful there, but it will take forever to do. In the meantime he has been seriously harmed. He has children and he has a family to take care of. Enormous damage is inflicted on them.

Government Orders

This is not a matter of disability insurance. This man has been told by his doctors and by specialists in the areas that he can go back to work. The positions that he is entitled to have by seniority and whatnot have been assigned to other people with less skill and less seniority than he has. It almost looks like this is a deliberate attempt to harm his health even further by having him digging in a ditch with a bad back and other problems.

He is entitled to work as a machine operator. Yet the employer has exerted tremendous discrimination. The terrible problem is the extended period of time that they are hung up.

I know the hon. member has worked very hard to try to make the system fair. Hopefully when we send the material over to the Minister of Labour he will take some time to have a look at this very important case as an example of what is happening in the Public Service and in the federal jurisdiction to employees who are under the purview of the minister.