Alex Shepherd

[Supply, May 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great intent to the member for Medicine Hat.

I would question a number of premises that he put forward in his speech. The member's first premise is that we somehow have to belong to a club to have an opinion on the whole issue of a national missile defence system. In fact, the member stated that if the Americans want to engage in the weaponization of space we have no influence over that, and that the only presumed way we can get influence is to join the club, the club to pursue the weaponization of space.

This all seems very absurd to me. It assumes that there is only a one track system for influencing the United States and that is by joining organizations which it purports to use to pursue its foreign policy.

I believe there are many other fora out there to which Canada belongs where we could influence the United States, rather than joining clubs which purport to support its theory and foreign policy. Indeed, this argument that by joining this missile defence system we would get a seat at the table, seems absurd to me.

The reality is that even if we were to have a seat at the table I do not think we would have very much to say. We are sort of going into it on a premise. In fact, the member stated that we did not have any influence over the United States if it wants to pursue the weaponization of space. What is the purpose of having a seat at the table if that is the orientation? It makes no sense to me.

The member's premise is that the world is a dangerous place. I agree with him. The real question is: Will a national missile defence system make it a less dangerous place or a more dangerous place?

The member went on to talk about North Korea. There is a tremendous parallel here. The United States did not invade North Korea, it invaded Iraq. It invaded Iraq because Iraq did not have nuclear weapons. It will not invade North Korea because it has nuclear weapons.

It would seem to me that there is a certain reward system for those countries that pursue a nuclearization policy. Yes, there has been a failure in curtailing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Yes, we have to work more diligently in these areas.

On the strategic side of this issue, how can the member say that we would be protecting the security of Canadians if a warhead with biological weapons targeted for the United States were shot down over Canadian territory? Could the member tell me how that would improve the security of everyday Canadians?

[Natural Resources, May 27th, 2003]

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

The ITER project is an opportunity to bring world class energy science to Canada. Over $12 billion worth of investment, much of it foreign, would bring significant opportunities for Canada and Clarington in my riding. We have many ITER supporters with us here today.

Can the minister update the House on how the government is proceeding with this very crucial science project?

[International Transfer of Offenders Act, May 7th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I do not think any of us would promote people committing crimes in other countries regardless of their justice system.

We are talking about those people who fall through the cracks, those people who, for whatever reason, commit a crime. We do not promote them to commit crimes. We tell them that if they are in a foreign country they must respect its laws. There is no question about that. However from time to time somebody does commit a crime, even innocuously, like having a drink in Saudi Arabia. My goodness, I forgot about that being a crime. Those members opposite would incarcerate those people. We do not believe in that. We are saying that there is some kind of system here that will give Canadian citizens some kind of justice.

[International Transfer of Offenders Act, May 7th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I must say that I think the member's hypothesis and his arguments are quite ludicrous. We heard that because of legislation in Canada, people will commit crimes abroad. I really have a lot of problem with that causal relationship.

Looking around the world there are some jurisdictions where the drinking of alcohol is an illegal act and subject to incarceration. As I mentioned in my speech, in some jurisdictions adultery is considered a punishable offence subject to incarceration or worse, as we have seen in Nigeria and other countries.

I would like to assure the member and his party that in those jurisdictions in the United States that have capital punishment, and I am sure they are very in favour of capital punishment, there is no correlation between capital punishment and the reduction in crime. As a matter of fact, I can well remember sitting outside a jail in Houston, Texas, where a Canadian was incarcerated. In fact Mr. Bush finally hung that Canadian, so that person did not have the right to return to Canada.

The reality is that Canada's crime rate is one of the lowest in the world. The reason we have these laws is that we believe people can be rehabilitated. The most important part of the legislation deals with young offenders. Some young offenders in foreign countries have very harsh incarceration and almost torturous penalties for smoking marijuana, or whatever the case may be. That does not mean it is okay. If people break the law they are subject to penalty.

However we in Canada know we can put those people in some kind of rehabilitation program and then, statistically speaking, in spite of that party's constant talk about reoffending, the reoffending rate is actually quite low. The reality is that these programs have been successful. I believe it shows the way we should deal with offenders.

It is not about being soft on crime and it is not about forgetting about the victims of crime.

However, if these people are going to be reintroduced into the community at some point in time, it is important that it be a gradual introduction, that there be a monitoring system and a parole system where people can monitor their activities. I know the member will point out the odd cases where it has failed. There have been failures, there is no question about that, but generally most of the system works.

I disagree with the member's premise. I think this is good legislation. No, it does not promote criminality around the world, as the extreme position that his party would suggest.

[International Transfer of Offenders Act, May 7th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to enter the debate on Bill C-33, the international transfer of offenders act.

The founding purpose of the Transfer of Offenders Act , or TOA, is essentially humanitarian. It authorizes Canada to implement treaties with other nations for the return of offenders to their countries of citizenship while still under a sentence for a conviction in a foreign state.

The TOA allows Canada to enforce foreign sentences of Canadian offenders transferred to Canada. This is particularly important where foreign standards of justice and conditions of confinement impose severe hardships on Canadians.

The Transfer of Offenders Act came into force in 1978 following a United Nations meeting at which member states agreed that international transfers were desirable in light of increasing global mobility of individuals and the need for countries to cooperate on criminal justice matters.

The act is based on the humanitarian principle of returning foreign offenders to their home countries to serve their sentences. It authorizes the implementation of international transfer treaties for this purpose.

Since the act's proclamation, Canada has ratified bilateral treaties with countries such as the United States in 1978, Mexico in 1979, Peru in 1980, France in 1984, Bolivia in 1985, Thailand in 1988, Venezuela in 1996, Morocco in 1998, Brazil in 1998 and Egypt in 2000. Negotiations are ongoing to enact treaties with many other countries.

Under the act Canada is also a party to three multilateral conventions, the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, 1983, the Scheme for the Transfer of Convicted Offenders within the Commonwealth, 1990, and the Inter-American Convention on Serving Criminal Sentences Abroad, 1993, which allow for transfers between Canada and over 40 countries.

Canadians incarcerated in foreign countries often find themselves facing serious problems coping with local conditions. Cultures are different. There are language barriers. Diets may be poor and there can be inadequate medical care and rampant disease in prisons.

In some countries it is even common practice for the family to be responsible for providing food, clothing and items for personal hygiene. A Canadian serving a sentence under such conditions would be doubly punished by not having access to the basic necessities of life.

Consular officials provide all the assistance they can, but their ability to help is often limited to ensuring that the offender's rights under local laws are protected. Clearly, some of these jurisdictions in some of these places are rural and there may not necessarily always be consular officials close at hand. That is another reason people would find themselves very much isolated in a foreign country.

In addition, offenders imprisoned far from home are isolated from their families and access to the communities to which they will one day return.

The legislation before us today updates the 1978 legislation. It brings it in line with established treaty principles and recognizes current international conditions. In the years since the legislation was passed, only minor technical amendments have been made. But as we all know, the world has changed and we have obligations to ensure that our laws keep pace with the new realities.

At the same time, these proposals will ensure that Canadians who are transferred under the TOA and related instruments will be treated fairly and equitably, according to Canadian values and legal principles, while not being allowed to escape accountability for their offences committed on foreign soil.

To this end, principles that are now expressed only in treaties will be captured in the international transfer of offenders act to ensure that they are respected in future treaties and in individual cases.

One of these principles is the non-aggravation of a sentence. A transfer cannot be used to increase the punishment that has been handed down by a foreign court. Treaties generally provide that the receiving state shall not interfere with a finding of guilt and sentence imposed by the sentencing state. Where modifications in sentence administration need to be made in order to comply with domestic legislation, on no account must the transfer result in aggravation of the length of a sentence. This legislation will reflect this important obligation.

Another important principle is dual criminality. That means an offender can only be transferred if the act for which he or she is sentenced is considered to be criminal both in the country where he or she is convicted and in Canada. We do not incarcerate people in Canada for certain things that are considered illegal in other countries. One example would be adultery. While hardly admirable behaviour, we in Canada do not imprison people for adultery. We would therefore not imprison someone who was found guilty of adultery in another country.

This legislation also clarifies issues related to consent. All parties to an international transfer must consent. The country where the person was sentenced has the right to be aware of how the sentence will be served. The receiving country must of course consent to take over the administration of a sentence. In Canada this also means that where a sentence is to be administered by provincial authorities, they must consent as well. The offender has the right to consent to be transferred to his home country knowing how that sentence will be administered.

This brings to mind another critical element, which is ensuring that offenders are aware of their right to access a transfer. Foreign citizens must be informed of the existence of an international transfer treaty between Canada and their country of origin. This legislation will require that correctional authorities inform foreign national offenders of their rights under any treaty.

This legislation serves two purposes. It is humanitarian and it also helps to protect the public. Being humane to offenders is not universally accepted. But I would remind everyone of the outcry that takes place when we realize that Canadians are being ill treated due to harsh conditions in the prisons in many countries not as enlightened or as fortunate as we are in Canada.

To enhance its humanitarian nature, the legislation will extend the scope of possible transfers to include young offenders serving community sentences. The current act allows for the transfer of young offenders in custody, but not ones serving community sentences, whereas adult offenders serving both types of sentences may be transferred. This is an anomaly which will be addressed by this legislation.

In addition, the proposal will allow for transfer of children under the age of 12. In many countries children can be held criminally responsible at very young ages. This legislation will allow a child to be returned to Canada but, in keeping with Canadian values and standards, such a child would not be imprisoned.

A further expansion will allow for the transfer of mentally disordered offenders. In this case they could be returned to Canada and dealt with by the mental health system.

These categories of offenders are not currently covered, but we need to ensure that our most vulnerable citizens have the opportunity to be repatriated to Canada.

Recognizing the role of the provinces in dealing with these categories of offenders, the legislation ensures that they have the right to consent to such transfers. Consultations took place with all provinces and they agree with the amendments that are being proposed in this legislation.

An important aspect of the proposals is the recognition that people may be incarcerated in areas where treaties do not currently exist. This legislation will allow the transfer of offenders on an ad hoc basis.

This is important as the negotiation of a treaty may take years and we do not want our citizens languishing in harsh conditions of confinement far from their homes and families while a treaty is being negotiated. To deal with these situations, the international transfer of offenders act will permit the negotiation of an ad hoc arrangement on a case by case basis with a foreign state to allow transfers to take place.

This legislation will allow for transfers to take place with countries or regions that are not recognized as states, such as Taiwan and Hong Kong. The dissolution of the USSR and Yugoslavia highlight the problems in dealing with territories or jurisdictions not yet recognized as foreign states. Several years may pass before the jurisdictions are firmly recognized as foreign states. In the interim, Canada cannot enter into a treaty with them. Canadians incarcerated in these jurisdictions and vice versa are not eligible to apply for an international transfer.

I mentioned earlier that the purpose of the act included public safety. I would like to speak to that issue for a moment.

By allowing offenders to serve their sentences in Canada, they can be gradually released into the community under supervision and control with appropriate assistance and support. Otherwise these offenders would simply be deported at the end of their sentences and arrive in Canada without our having any authority to monitor or control their behaviour.

What happens if the transfer treaty is not used is that the foreign state will often deport the offender back to their country of origin, in that case Canada, at some point. The offender will arrive in Canada and there is no record of his or her conviction nor any legal means of ensuring that he or she is required to serve the balance of the sentence either in an institution or in the community.

By using a transfer, the offender returns to Canada to serve the sentence here. Correctional authorities will have the ability to carry out the foreign sentence in accordance with the way all other sentences are administered here. It also allows us to ensure the safe reintegration of the offender back into the community under supervision.

A Canadian offender returned to Canada will be subject to the same conditions as all other offenders, including having access to treatment programs that will reduce the risk of future reoffending and thus protect our citizens. Canada is well respected for its treatment programs in federal institutions, many of which are accredited by an international panel. This is surely preferable to having someone dumped back in the country with no resources to assist their adjustment back into society.

As I noted, Canada has concluded a number of bilateral treaties and multilateral conventions on the transfer of offenders. In the United States, in addition to the federal authorities, 45 states accede to transfer of offender treaties with Canada. These proposals will enhance Canada's ability to cooperate internationally in the area of criminal justice, particularly with regard to sentence enforcement.

This is not a one way street. Just as Canadian offenders can return to this country to serve their sentences, foreign nationals can also be returned to their countries to serve their sentences. Again, this will allow them to serve their sentences in a place that is culturally appropriate to them and to have access to their families and communities.

This is good legislation that meets important needs. It will bring the existing legislation up to date and reflect important principles of transfer treaties. It will allow Canada to respond to the needs of its citizens who are convicted in other countries and must serve sentences in sometimes extremely harsh conditions.

As I mentioned, while the legislation is predominantly humanitarian, it also serves an important public safety role by requiring offenders to serve out their sentences ordered by a foreign court within Canada.

It is very important that the parole system and those kinds of extensions of the correctional service system are utilized. The statistics are very clear in Canada that offenders who do not go through that process escape monitoring, which sometimes leads to serious consequences for some of our citizens. I think it is important for that to be the foundation of the legislation.

I also ask members to think of the families of those who are incarcerated outside of Canada. The hardship faced by offenders serving sentences in foreign countries is only surpassed by the hardship faced by the families who must worry about their survival.

I urge the speedy passage of the legislation.

[Petitions, May 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from my constituents concerning child pornography. They call upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed.

[Supply, May 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I think it goes back to my old days. We can do a lot of things with figures. I would have to examine the figures that the member has given me, but what he did not talk about is the total number of days per capita lost through work stoppages in his province compared to any other province in Canada. The last time I looked it was one of the highest in Canada. He can look at individual wage stoppages and say the stoppages relative to each individual stoppage were for so many days, but what he does not tell us are the total stoppages in the whole of the provinces all of the time. In other words, there are more stoppages as a general feature. I believe that is true. The last time I looked, it was one of the highest in Canada.

[Supply, May 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the member uses the concept of scab labour. I have never seen that happen. It does not make for good industrial relations. That is the pure reality of it. We want to talk about the disasters that can happen within labour negotiations, but the fact of the matter is that we have had fairly peaceful labour negotiations in Oshawa and we are all happy for it.

Getting back to the Canada Labour Code, the concept is that there is a balance there. When the member talked about scab labour he was talking about replacement workers who do the jobs of on line workers. That is not what is being addressed here. We are talking about the ability to hire some replacement workers to keep some modicum of operations in the plant but clearly not to undermine the union's bargaining position. It seems pretty clear to me that we are not going to replace the workers for the prime purpose of taking away their advantage of a strike.

[Supply, May 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as I understand the decorum of the House, each individual is entitled to his own opinions on legislation. It is not necessarily directed by some other magical force.

I listened to the hon. member speak, saying that I somehow said that workers had no rights whatsoever. Nothing could be further from the truth. I talked about the importance of the labour movement. In fact, the first thing I said was about the important gains that have been made over the years.

We are not talking about one's right to strike. Clearly one does have the right to strike. We are talking about a small section of that: replacement workers during a strike. We talked about the exemptions in which an employer could use replacement workers during a strike, which is a very tempered thing. Workers cannot be employed when the prime purpose of that is to undermine the bargaining position of the union. It is very respectful of the union and very respectful of the orientation to try to resolve strikes, but the adversarial attitude that the member has hearkens back to that kind of conflict that was prevalent in the 1960s and 1970s.

I have my own kids who are out in the labour force. I can say that they do not think about the aspects of strikes. They talk about employer-employee communication systems and about human resources programs where they sit down and iron out their conflicts in a sensible fashion.

That is really where we have to go as a nation, because the reductions in productivity that are caused by work stoppages affect all of us, not just the workers and the employers but everybody in the country. They reduce our wealth and our access to consumer goods, et cetera. We have to find better ways and tools and I think what is here is a compromise between two absolutes: an employer having the right to replace all the workers and the strikers having the ability to totally close the plant down and make it not operate. We have to get beyond this.

I think the whole debate that the Bloc is bringing here today is really quite moot. It is that quite old labour negotiation talk. We have to move beyond that and get into something more modernistic and more effective for the people of Canada.

[Supply, May 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to enter the debate on the opposition day motion on changes to the Canada Labour Code.

It was interesting to listen to the previous speaker. She spoke with a great deal of passion about the strikes and so forth that have happened in her riding. It was interesting to hear her say that when members get here they no longer seem to represent the interests of the people in their riding. At the same time she talked about her agenda of sovereignty. If I recall the last polls and the last provincial election in the province of Quebec, the people of Quebec said they do not want to talk about sovereignty. I guess she is an example of that sort of thing.

There is no question that organized labour has made great gains for the working people of this country. My riding has a plethora of auto workers. General Motors is a big manufacturer in Oshawa and Durham. Many of these workers have told me about the hard times they have had in order to gain the great benefits they currently enjoy. With that consistency they are very happy and very proud of the automobiles they manufacture in Oshawa, of which 80% are exported to the United States. They make a fine product and are very proud of their jobs. I thought I would mention them today to say that I understand some of the labour problems because I have seen some of the strikes that have happened.

A strike in and of itself is a conflict. It does not surprise me that the Bloc would bring forward this motion today. Sadly, looking at some of the labour statistics in that province, Quebec has had one of the highest percentages of work stoppages in Canada.

We are trying to compete in a global environment. That means we need a productive labour force. We have to be able to consistently deliver products to our customers, but that does not mean it is at the expense of labour or at the expense of their benefits or protection they have received and other things that are very important.

However, this mode of gaining benefits or recognition of problems that occur on the work site is probably the worst solution. A strike to me is a definition of failure in labour negotiations. I do not think either employers or employees ultimately want work stoppages. We have to find a better way. There have been a number of other models that seem to have worked more effectively. A lot of us will recall some of the Japanese models and others.

I talked about General Motors being organized. At the same time it has a concern that some Japanese labour plants which are operating effectively and efficiently in Canada are not part of organized labour, yet their wage rates and benefit packages are equally as high. This is not to denigrate the union movement and all the wonderful things it has gained, but the question is whether there are more effective ways to resolve disputes.

It goes back to some of our basic teachings in economics. I remember when I was learning economics people were talking about the alienation of workers from the means of production. That is sort of the basic philosophy of a lot of the conflict that has occurred within labour and its tremendous struggle to gain benefits which it so rightly deserves. That alienation basically meant that since the worker did not own or control the actual means of production, he or she therefore had a natural alienation from the employer and by definition they were in conflict.

That is the old school of labour negotiations. In some ways this whole debate hearkens back to the sixties and seventies where this was a prevalent school of thought. This whole concept of whether we need anti-strikebreaking legislation and so forth seems to me an add on to that.

As I understand it, this motion centres on how much latitude employers should possess to keep their businesses operational in the case of a strike. Clearly, the motion reflects the view of labour unions which contends that replacement workers ought not to be allowed in any case and that business operations should be restricted as much as possible during work stoppage. In other words, we should essentially grind the business to a halt.

From time to time we will talk about essential services. Most people will say that if it is an essential service, possibly they do not have the right to strike, and indeed we removed the right to strike in many sectors of our economy. Disruptions occur even in the private sector, whether it is an automobile plant, a telephone company, or freight trains. I recall coming into the House a number of summers ago to legislate the railway workers back to work. They had entered into a strike that would have brought the whole transportation system of our country to a standstill. I do not like that either. The whole idea of a legislative solution is just one more further nail in the coffin of the organized labour movement because it is saying that the whole negotiation process between the employer and employee has failed. This proposed amendment seems to even go further in ensuring that an employer would have to cease operations.

I understand the importance of a strike. When we come to a strike, it should have some meaningful effect. Clearly, employers should not be going out replacing all of their employees with non-union employees just for the purpose of breaking a strike. However, there must be some kind of a balance between that philosophy and one which simply tries to hold up the employer's business basically to ransom.

I recall dealing with grain shipments out of the port of Vancouver and also out of the port of Montreal, and negotiating grain sale agreements with China. I was surprised that the first thing China said was that it wanted a guaranteed delivery date because historically in agreements with Canada we have not been able to meet our delivery dates simply because we have a plethora of labour problems in our country. It was a seemingly odd thing for a communist country to say, but China did not believe we would deliver in time because it did not believe our workers were capable of doing that. I thought that was a terrible slight on Canada and its ability to earn the respect of carrying on productive business throughout the world.

This motion rejects the view held by employer organizations who believe that businesses have the right to continue operations as best they can during a strike. Once again, I do not mean that they will be in full production. Most of us know that they have the right to reallocate labour within their business units. We do not expect them to be able to completely replace the labour. Indeed, within the Canada Labour Code it restricts the ability to replace workers where the purpose of which is simply to undermine the workers themselves. In other words, to replace worker A with worker B. However, it is clear that if an absolute stoppage occurs that there may well be some areas where an employer needs other people just to maintain the site. I know it is almost impossible for General Motors to stop the production line because to get the line up and physically going again takes weeks sometimes.

That one-sided approach is not in keeping with the way the Canada Labour Code has evolved in recent years. It is not in keeping with the approach our government has encouraged and helped to succeed. Our government has taken the view that labour unions and employers must build an industrial relations system that creates a climate within which both can work. Yes, there will be profound differences, but the goal is to create a framework that enables employers and workers to resolve their workplace issues to the greatest extent possible on their own.

The process in recent years to explore each part of the Canada Labour Code has demonstrated how that commitment has been put into practice in reviewing this key legislation. The government started the process. When I look at the Canada Labour Code and listen to the request for amendments, I see that the Canada Labour Code has been revised as recently as 1999. These issues about replacement labour have been discussed at length with organized labour and with employers, et cetera.

Did they come to some kind of an agreement? I do not think they came to an agreement where either one of them were particularly happy, but the point is that they could both live with this agreement. It seems to me that the motion being put forward by the member for Laurentides today tips the balance the other way, so that in fact there would be a group of people who probably could not live with these amendments.

The government started this process by consulting workers, unions, employers, business organizations, industrial relations and human resources experts, as well as many others. The objective was to identify priorities for the revision of part I of the code. The government also created an independent task force to take a look at part I and return with its own recommendations for action, once again based upon an attempt to reach consensus wherever possible.

While the question of replacement workers was a point of deep division, there was consensus on many other issues. The government moved forward on a common ground that led to legislation that Parliament debated and passed, and has been law since the current labour code came into force in January 1999. So, this is a fairly recent revision to the act.

Did that mean that there was no movement at all on the issue of replacement workers? To hear some of the points that the members from the Bloc are making, one would conclude just that. Yet Parliament did agree with the government on five important restrictions on the use of replacement workers. This is important because as we listen to the debate today it would appear that there are no restrictions on the use of replacement workers, and that just is not the case. Once again, it is trying to find that healthy balance between employers and employees to ensure that the element of strike is still available to employees, but that it is not such a disastrous thing that it totally shuts down and in fact may cause costs that are irreparable, both to employers and employees.

First, an employer cannot bring in new people if it is simply to undermine the union's legitimate bargaining objectives. Doing that would be an unfair labour practice under the code. In other words, we have unfair labour practices under the code that prohibit the actual use of replacement workers, the prime purpose of which is to undermine the bargaining position of the union.

Members can see that these are tempered measures that are already in the legislation. It would be an action that the union could take to the Canada Industrial Relations Board for review and a decision. It is worth noting that there have been 11 such complaints since the amended code came into effect in 1999. In eight of these cases the complaint was eventually withdrawn while three are still before the board awaiting decision.

I want to remind my hon. colleagues that the Canada Industrial Relations Board is an independent third party. It is outside of the labour employer relationship and outside of the Canada Labour Code in a sense. The board has an equal number of members who come from employer and employee groups so that they are represented on the industrial labour relations board by individuals who have an expertise in industrial relations. This is important because this is the way to solve these disputes. They are fairly heavy on work stoppage and they are essentially looking for a solution to the work stoppage. We must have mechanisms in place that bring that about. The board is headed by an independent chairperson.

Second, it is now clear in law that replacement workers are excluded from the status of employees in the bargaining unit. A replacement worker cannot take part in a vote to replace or renew a union or a vote related to collective bargaining. In other words, employers cannot bring in replacement workers, the purpose of which is to deregister a union by saying they are part of the bargaining unit and therefore there will be a vote and therefore the union will be deregistered. This would be another way that it would be unfair to workers and their collective bargaining units.

Third, the code explicitly recognizes that employees in the bargaining unit have a right to return to their jobs at the end of the work stoppage ahead of any replacement worker. It acknowledges the importance of seniority. In other words, even though somebody had to replace somebody for some specific reason, a specific reason which is not deemed to undermine the collective bargaining position, if the work resumed, say a year after the fact, any such persons who were hired would basically be subordinated to the existing people who were on strike.

Fourth, any applications under the code to change or decertify a union during a prolonged work stoppage require the consent of the Canadian Industrial Relations Board. This is a change from the old provisions that enabled an employer to apply to decertify a union after six months of work stoppage. This is another way in which bargaining units have been protected, yet employees who are fired or disciplined during a work stoppage can go to a grievance arbitration. None of these measures interfere with the employers trying to keep the business operational during a strike. However, they do make it more likely that the use of replacement workers will be aimed specifically at continuing those operations and not for the purposes that run counter to the Canada Labour Code.

It would appear in the studies that have been undertaken that this kind of provision actually seeks to limit the terms of strikes. In fact, if we look over the history we see that measures of this nature, as opposed to measures that the member wants to bring in, has actually reduced the number of days that employers are strikebound. It is in the interest of everyone to ensure that the business gets back to work, that employers are happy and that employees are back in their work setting. That is a reasonable balance. It may not be what the labour unions want or what the employer organizations want. That is crucial because of the fact that we have disagreement on both sides, but the important thing is that both parties can work with this or they can live with this.

Despite some of the claims that we hear from the Bloc, it is far too early for anyone to decide that the replacement workers provision in the code is not working. It is far too early to decide that we need to override this commitment to a consensus driven approach to resolving these issues. It is time for Parliament to allow workers and employers to develop the experience necessary so that they can determine how well these provisions work.

Finally, it is worth putting all of this in perspective. Looking at the departmental performance before 2001-02 for human resource development, we find that 93.7% of collective bargaining disputes under the current Canada Labour Code were settled without any work stoppage whatsoever. We are talking about a small dispute area. We find that the labour program enjoys strong and effective federal mediation and conciliation so that it can step into work with employers and unions in many of Canada's collective bargaining disputes within the federal and private sector.

Furthermore, we find an increase in the use of preventive mediation tools to resolve issues before they reach a difficult stage.

While there will always be high profile collective bargaining disputes, workplaces under federal jurisdiction have a positive environment in which to resolve the issues that matter to workers and employers.

For these reasons I am opposed to this motion.