Maurizio Bevilacqua

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, one of my most rewarding duties as a member of Parliament is to visit schools in my riding and meet with students.

Three weeks ago I participated in such a visit. As usual I found the questions asked by the students quite interesting, the Quebec referendum, unemployment insurance and the environment.

I was struck by a very distressing thought. Each of these students has a huge debt hanging over their head. Because of the size of our national debt, those young students are starting out life with a $19,000 mortgage. Unlike past generations that could build their hopes and dreams on the solid granite of public finances, these young people are building their dreams on quicksand.

I cannot accept that. I entered politics to give a voice to young Canadians too often forgotten by past governments. It is fundamentally unfair to expect young Canadians to pay a debt incurred by past generations. It is particularly irresponsible for Canadians who have lived beyond their means for so many years.

That is why I am so proud to be a member of this government. This is a moment of great importance in our history. For the first time in many years Canada has a government and a finance minister ready to do what must be done in order to control the deficit.

The minister's budget speech was nothing less than a call to arms to all Canadians. We must band together to defeat the deficit and the debt. Steadily, silently these two economic forces are robbing our government of the strength and sapping it of the vitality it needs to foster growth, care for the needy and invest in the future.

For too long governments have postponed tough decisions. For too long governments have been pretending everything was fine while borrowing another $30 billion and $40 billion from our children. Now we have finally turned the corner.

A nation that has been sleep walking toward the precipice of bankruptcy has awakened with one foot on the edge of the cliff. Our government has the will to do what is necessary. As important, it has the support of the Canadian people.

Canadians are willing to support this government because they have seen the positive results of our financial stewardship. In the first year of our mandate 433,000 new jobs were created, all of them full time. Canada's economy grew at about 4.5 per cent, the fastest of the G-7. Manufacturing output is up over 9 per cent and inflation is at its lowest rate in 30 years.

At the local level the results are as encouraging. In Toronto unemployment dropped from 12 per cent to 9 per cent between January 1994 and January 1995. In my area of York region unemployment insurance claims have dropped from 70,491 to 13,773 in the same period.

When I speak to people in my riding I sense a renewed sense of hope, a sense of confidence. Business people are investing again, Canadians are working again.

Canadians know that our recovery will be threatened unless we get our financial house in order. They realize everyone must make sacrifices. Canadians must all share the burden of debt reduction.

Our government will reduce spending but it will also rationalize its operations, targeting spending to where it can do the most good. For every $1 of new tax revenue there will be $7 worth of cuts in expenditure.

Above and beyond deficit targets, this budget is about reinventing government. It clarifies the role of government within a new socioeconomic order in which the old rules do not apply.

To improve Canada's social safety net our government will introduce a number of innovative measures. It will establish the Canada social transfer. The CST will replaced established programs financing and the Canada assistance plan. It will cut unnecessary red tape, ensuring that the provinces will have maximum flexibility to design the programs that meet their needs.

The budget also calls for the creation of a human resources investment fund. The fund would involve a broad approach to employability issues. The functioning of the Canadian labour market would be in congruence with UI reform and the consolidated transfer.

The human resources investment fund could encompass support for a wide range of employment development services including assessment, counselling, training, work experience, self-employment and community development; the development of occupational standards; national labour market information; sectoral councils; child care for working parents; a national workplace strategy; programs and services responsive to the needs of aboriginal Canadians; assistance for persons with disabilities; and assistance for students and adult learners.

The restructuring and redesigning of programs could be based on principles established by the social security reform and linked to increased flexibility in the use of the UI fund. These principles include tailored programs to individual client needs, delivery involving community partners and the private sector, the use of modern technologies, national standards and priorities.

The government intends to reform the UI system to bring it into line with the new economic realities facing the nation. A greater emphasis will be placed on helping Canadians acquire skills and find work. We will move away from traditional UI and focus on investing in people. We will replace despair, dependency and defeatism with ambition, autonomy and advancement.

The government has signalled its intention to protect senior citizens. At present old age security and the guaranteed income supplement cost Canadians over $20 billion a year. It is estimated the cost will increase by 60 per cent over the next 15 years as the population ages. Clearly Canadians would want us to do something about it.

The 1995 budget sets out the principles that will govern the reform of OAS and GIS: undiminished protection for less well off seniors, continuation of full indexation of benefits, OAS benefits to be provided with reference to family income levels, greater progressivity of benefits by income level and control of program costs. This will be a very important step toward achieving intergenerational equity.

These are all positive developments in the evolution of the nation. The budget holds the promise of a better tomorrow. It says to Canadians that the sacrifices we make today are for a greater good. Sound public finances are the bedrock of a prosperous future. Freedom from debt is the greatest legacy we can leave our children.

[Labour, March 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, following the release of the Hope report the parties were urged to resume negotiations and settle their differences through collective bargaining.

I am pleased to report that bargaining has resumed at all three railways with intensive talks being held at CP Rail in an effort to conclude an early settlement.

[Old Age Security, March 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised that the member, being a former

cabinet minister, would not know that we are duty bound to meet with the provinces every five years to review the friendship plan.

We are not only going to consult with provinces, we are going to go further, as we always have since we have formed the government, to consult with Canadians about this very important issue.

It is important that the pension plan of this country be sustainable. That is something that we are going to make sure happens.

[Old Age Security, March 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member raises an important question. It is for this reason, as he well knows, that the federal government will be meeting with provincial counterparts in the fall to discuss the issue of pensions.

It is interesting the hon. member would mention the principles but would not speak to the fact that some of the principles include undiminished protection for the less well off seniors, greater progressivity of benefits by income level and control of program costs.

Pensions are a very important part of this government's generous and compassionate approach toward social security.

[Grain Export Protection Act, March 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, for several decades industrial relations in industries under federal jurisdiction in the private sector have been governed by the Canada Labour Code, Part I.

Part I of the Canada Labour Code is a model of how industrial relations should be governed in a democratic country. It has been functioning well and has been an important element at the basis of the political and economic structure during many decades of economic prosperity.

I draw attention to the fact that the grain transportation system has been functioning very well of late. Last winter was one of the most disruptive winters imaginable. It was a winter which reduced the flow of grain from farms to the country elevators. It slowed railway operations. Limits on the availability of grain hopper cars was also a constraint. Still the grain transportation and handling system recovered from a low level of grain exports early in crop year 1993-94 and recorded a 4.7 per cent gain over the previous crop year.

Today the grain handling and transportation system is moving ahead at an impressive pace with new records being set for grain shipments. The Regina Leader Post reported early in November on the fact that Canada's grain ports are moving at a pace well above average.

Vancouver and Prince Rupert in October set a new record for the west coast which was 27 per cent that the average for October over the previous five years. Thunder Bay reached a pace not seen since 1991-92. Its handlings for October of this year were 35 per cent above the previous five-year average. This is encouraging news which should impress on us the resilience of the grain handling and transportation system and its ability to cope effectively with adverse conditions.

When the legislation that established the code was adopted by Parliament in 1972, it replaced the industrial relations and disputes investigation act of 1948. It recognized there has been a long tradition in Canada of labour legislation and policies that are designed to promote the common well-being through the encouragement of free collective bargaining and the constructive settlement of disputes.

When it passed the legislation that established the Canada Labour Code in 1972, Parliament indicated that it supported "labour and management in their efforts to develop good industrial relations and constructive collective bargaining practices" and "it deemed the development of good industrial relations to be in the best interests of Canada in ensuring a just share of the fruits of progress to all".

These principles were so fundamental to industrial relations that they were specifically mentioned in the preamble to the code. The bill before us proposes to make a very radical departure from these principles. It proposes to significantly alter industrial relation practices in the federal private sector.

Bill C-262 zeros in on the dispute settlement mechanism as it would apply to industries involved in grain handling and transportation. It would remove the right to strike or lockout and replace the present dispute settlement mechanism with a final offer selection of compulsory arbitration.

This might be an appropriate point to take a closer look at arbitration and see what the ins and outs of the process might be. Typically a hearing is conducted and is presided over by a third party neutral. The parties present their positions in an established, formal procedure. The neutral listens to the positions of the parties, weighs the evidence carefully and drafts a decision that he or she feels to be fair to both parties involved. In an arbitration proceeding the decision of the arbitrator is final and binding on both parties.

There is a certain advantage to arbitration in that it brings a sense of finality to the bargaining process. The parties may not be happy about the results that will be imposed on them but it does provide for a solution.

Some very clear weaknesses to the arbitration process should not be overlooked. First, it is not inconceivable that one party or the other could reject an arbitrator's award. It might possibly resort to strike or lockout action to vent frustration or to express rejection of the result of the process. For that matter, it is very possible that both parties may be dissatisfied with the arbitrator's ruling and not have recourse to any other dispute settlement process. The arbitration process is not perfect.

While evidence supports the perception that the use of arbitration can reduce the number of strikes, it is not likely that strikes or lockouts can be eliminated entirely.

A further disadvantage of arbitration that we are likely familiar with because it has been repeated over the years, is the fact that in adopting or having arbitration imposed on them, the parties have to give up their authority to make decisions concerning the issues in dispute.

Union leaders give up their right to seek the support of their membership on key issues and management gives up its ability to control costs as it sees fit in the course of company operations. This leads me to believe that management and labour in

the grain industry are likely to have serious reservations about their support for a bill such as the one we have before us.

A further consideration that I feel is very significant to the whole collective bargaining process is the fact that compulsory arbitration is very likely to undermine the collective bargaining process between a particular company and a union. If arbitration of final settlements is imposed on the parties, fewer and fewer items will tend to be resolved by the parties themselves before going to arbitration. The tendency is for the number of outstanding issues to build up before reaching the arbitration stage with each successive round of bargaining.

Evidence suggests that labour and management tend to use the same approach to dispute settlement with each round of bargaining. This means that the parties may tend to become addicted to arbitration and this can undermine an otherwise health collective bargaining relationship.

Another area in which arbitration takes some criticism is on the size of monetary awards. The charge is sometimes heard that wage settlements are higher in arbitrated settlements than in negotiated settlements. The evidence on this point apparently is inconclusive but I would suggest it is a point on which management in the grain handling and transportation industry is likely to object to Bill C-262.

I do not want to leave the impression that there is not a role for arbitration in our system of collective agreement dispute settlement mechanisms. The Canada Labour Code, Part I, already contains provision for the peaceful settlement of disputes during the term of collective agreements by arbitration or some other mechanism. Our system of compulsory collective agreement settlements during the term of agreements through arbitration or some other peaceful means contributes to a high degree of stability in our industrial relation system.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to section 7(1) of Bill C-262. It reads:

An arbitrator appointed under section 6 shall forthwith require the union and the employer to provide to the arbitrator, in writing, within fifteen days

(a) a list of the matters agreed upon, and a proposal in contractual language to give effect to them; and

(b) a list of the matters remaining in dispute and a final offer in contractual language in respect of the settlement of all of them.

It appears to me that there is very little, if any, room in this process for the parties to negotiate a settlement even if they wanted to. Neither does there appear to be room for the arbitrator to assist the parties to come to a negotiated settlement. In fact, there does not appear to be any room for negotiation at all, aside from the arbitrator being provided by the parties with a list of matters they agree on and a list of matters they do not agree on.

If we continue on with section 7(2), it indicates that the arbitrator has 60 days within which to determine the matters on which the trade union and the employer are in agreement, determine the matters remaining in dispute and then, according to the wording in section 7(2)(c), "decide the matters in dispute by selecting either the final offer submitted by the trade union or the final offer selected by the employer". Again there does not appear to be any room for negotiations between the parties when they appear before the arbitrator. If there is, why is it not provided for in the process?

I have to ask why the process would be structured in this way. Presumably the bill would ensure that any disruption to the flow of grain would be brought to an end by invoking the legislation if the bill were passed. That being the case, I fail to see why allowance could not be made for the parties to negotiate under the guidance of an arbitrator, acting more like a mediator early in the process, and yet retain the authority to render an award on unsettled issues. All the advantages of negotiated settlements on particular issues could be retained in the interests of the parties collective bargaining relationship. At the same time we would have the certainty of a final solution being worked out through arbitration.

We should take a further look at the form of arbitration that is proposed by the bill. Earlier we heard about some of the advantages and disadvantages of arbitration in general. Other considerations should be mentioned specifically in connection with final offer selection and this might be a good time to do so.

It seems that final offer selection was developed to deal with some of the criticism that traditional arbitration acquired over the years. For example, in conventional arbitration in which the arbitrator is free to determine the content of an award, arbitrators sometimes get accused of splitting the difference in the parties' positions. Conventional arbitration encourages the parties to stay as far apart as possible during negotiations, especially on wages and other monetary items.

It has been argued that final offer selection, in contrast, is supposed to provide encouragement to the parties to move closer together in the course of bargaining. Under final offer selection there is said to be an incentive for either party to know as much as possible about the other's bargaining goals and their real bargaining position.

It should be noted that there are several variations on the form of final offer selection that we find being practised. For example, there is a form of final offer selection in which the total package of items forms the position of either party. The arbitrator takes the package of either labour or management, in total, and cannot mix and match as he or she might consider advisable in the interests of the parties. This form of final offer selection on a package of issues may be more easily applied to a few monetary items at any one time but it is less well suited when an arbitrator has to deal with the package that includes matters of principles to either side.

For this and many more reasons I have no hesitation in recommending that the bill not be passed by the House.

[Montreal Economy, March 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I publicly thank the member for Outremont for the excellent job he did during the parliamentary committee hearings on social security review.

In the Montreal area the economy is making substantial gains. Between January 1994 and January 1995 the number of jobs in Montreal increased by 47,000. The number of unemployed workers decreased by 18,000. The unemployment rate is down by 1.3 per cent.

The red book promises are working very well in Montreal.

[Supply, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I did not really hear anything worth nothing in what the hon. member said. I think if we have to deal with reality we can look at the state of the nation. Canadians are not happy fools, as the hon. member would have us believe. They are happy because they see all the economic indicators are looking good for the Canadian people and that hope and jobs are part of the Canadian fabric once again.

I resent the fact that the hon. member would think that Canadians are fools. They are not fools. They look at the issues and examine the issues. They see the growth in the economy and they are feeling good about it.

[Supply, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member. As he probably noticed, he was answering most of his own questions. Therefore this will probably give me an opportunity to address some real issues that are the minds of Canadians.

I would like to tell the hon. member that we will continue what we have been doing up to today. I think he has seen some cuts in expenditures. We are running a more efficient government than we have had. I remember my years in opposition watching the Conservatives squander money left, right and centre. We are not doing that. We are very fiscally responsible individuals.

At the same time we are investing in people because we feel that one key role of a government is to help people get and keep their jobs, to help the most vulnerable in our society with a focus on child poverty in a very sustainable fashion.

The results to date since our election would indicate that we are on the right track. We are creating jobs. We have great growth in our economy and Canadians are generally pleased with the way the government is governing.

At the end of the day the real measuring stick of our success will be whether Canadians are happy with the way we are bringing the country forward. I would say to the hon. member that they are very happy with the Liberal government.

[Supply, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, through you to the hon. member that attended a town hall meeting in my riding. There were people in my riding that voted for the Reform Party. Approximately 15,000 voted Reform and approximately 72,000 voted for me. I understand that some people may share their opinion, but we will see if we can rectify that in the upcoming election.

I would, first of all, like to address the concern raised by the hon. member, vis-à-vis the Liberal pipe dream. This is the same pipe dream that has put the economy back on its proper footing. We have created over 450,000 jobs since taking office, in co-operation and in partnership with the private stakeholders. We have increased the number of jobs for young people. We have the fastest growth of any of the G-7 countries.

These statistics illustrate to me, as an objective viewer of what is going on in Canada, that things are getting better with a Liberal government at the helm. May I also add that my thoughts are reflected far and wide throughout Canada. I was in Alberta last week and people are generally happy with the direction which the government has taken.

In reference to the deficit, we have used what I consider a more rational approach. We have targeted 3 per cent of GDP by 1996-97. It is reasonable. It is a dual track approach. It will not hurt people as much as the Reform agenda would.

[Supply, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the pipe dream of the Liberal government. When we were elected on October 25, 1993, may I add, and I will submit to you there are some Reformers-