Debates of March 2nd, 1995

Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96

[Audrey McLaughlin, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the debate and have come to one conclusion, that Liberals are the only Tories left in Canada.

This budget represents a profound change in Canada's basic structures and a total break with the principles that built this country. At issue here is much more than just a simple budget. This is about the kind of country we want to leave to our children. It is about the very essence of our national identity. The Liberal government has just set the parameters of policies that will take us into the 21st century, not as a strong and united Canada but as a fragmented Canada.

The Liberals maintain that we have no choice and that there is only one way to reduce the deficit. The New Democratic Party agrees that debts and deficits are unacceptable and that we cannot continue to live on credit, but we absolutely disagree that this is the way to do it. The Liberals are wrong. There is an alternative.

There are two ways to reduce the deficit: one way is to make decisions collectively, and the other way is to turn the regions, social groups and interest groups in this country into rivals, all competing for the same dollar.

The budget is not straight from the heart. The budget is straight through the heart of the future of the country that I believe the majority of Canadians thought they were going to get when they voted for the government.

The minister has said that this is a tough budget. However, it is much more than that. It fundamentally breaks the social consensus that has been built up over a number of years, often through vigorous debate, to build a country based on bilingualism, multiculturalism and a sense of community that by working together we will accomplish more for each individual.

Many parts of the budget will not be felt by Canadians for one or two years down the road. There is no question that the government has turned its back on much of the Liberal tradition. In a year or two Canadians will be asking what it means to be a Canadian. We should all be concerned about whether we will be citizens of a country or simply citizens of one region or another?

As I mentioned earlier, there is no disagreement about the need to address the debt and deficit. We do not see any serious attempt to deal with the inequities in the tax system. There is some work around the fringes, but there could be much more fundamental work done in the budget.

On the day after the budget individuals earning $100,000 with a nice subsidized box at the SkyDome and who eat in expensive restaurants were happy because their lives were not touched at all. However there was great cause for concern by senior citizens, single mothers and young people.

A country is more than a bond market or more than just how the economy functions, although that is obviously important. It is about how the economy functions for the people. I want to address very briefly in the time I have several ways in which I feel the budget has made us a lesser nation.

How ironic it is that just two weeks ago we celebrated the 30th anniversary of the Canadian flag. The question people might be asking two years from now is: What kind of Canada will that flag fly over?

Several aspects of the budget have fundamentally changed the social consensus I spoke of earlier. One is the issue of globalization. Globalization is not just economic. It is about Canada's role as an international citizen. It is about the common security between other countries and ours. In many ways the budget largely turns its back on the poor of the world.

A very important part of any country is freedom. I ask my friends on the other side whether they can truly say that the budget has given more freedom to Canadians. Certainly a mother living in poverty has no freedom. An elderly person who cannot get adequate health care has no freedom. A young person who cannot attend college, university or technical school has no freedom. The budget limits freedoms and the potential of citizenship for many groups. Also the budget limits the freedom of such fundamentals as collective bargaining by breaking collective bargaining with the public servants.

The budget does not mention poverty, job creation or youth. It is important to point out that unemployment is not free. It costs the country approximately $42 billion a year in direct payouts. If the government would have set a target to reduce unemployment by 1 per cent, $5.16 billion would have been added to the tax

revenue and social spending would have been reduced by $1.24 billion. There is another way.

Turning to other areas, the government has completely abandoned child care and universality. Independence for the elderly as a principle has also been abandoned, as the previous member spoke about.

Community and regional fairness is another hallmark of what it is to be a country. The flag is not just fabric. It is what we weave together. It is how we make sure that a Canadian standard of service will be available in Newfoundland, Yukon or central Canada. There is no question that as the government has proposed block funding this is gone.

Sustainability of the environment is a very important area. Cutbacks to the environment are quite severe in the budget. I think they should be of concern to every Canadian. If we look at countries internationally, for example east bloc countries that ignored the environment to build their economies, we see that they are paying a dreadful price.

Similarly part of the social consensus of Canada has been that we are a country that respects human rights, the dignity of individuals and gender equality. It takes much more than words to achieve that.

In the abandoning of national standards and in the abandoning of a national vision the Liberal government is abandoning us to a balkanized and regionalized country, which will not stand us in good stead in international markets, as we discussed earlier.

Aspects that until now were considered essential to our society are no longer important. Children will not enjoy what we considered to be fundamental principles: they will have no national medicare, they will have no national railway linking communities across the country. Healthy and vigorous rural communities will be a thing of the past. They will not know what it is like to have good public services and a government for all Canadians.

In summary, the budget has failed the country. It is beginning to dismantle much of what was done to make the country first in the assessment of the United Nations or one of the best places in the world to live.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleague from Yukon will agree that the budget is doing something unusual by proposing cuts to special interest groups.

One such special interest group that may be subject to cuts is the Canadian Labour Congress, which we learned this past week is supporting the Quebec Federation of Labour in its campaign to support the separatist cause in Quebec. Some of the money the Quebec Federation of Labour is using is money that comes from the Canadian Labour Congress. It was about $500,000 and in turn came from Ottawa and the labour education program that pays the CLC $3 million a year.

In the past the CLC has spent $1.5 million on supporting the NDP's election campaign, the biggest donor of any political party in the country.

Does my colleague from Yukon feel that cutting special interest groups with a political agenda not in keeping with the majority of the Canadian public is a good thing or a bad thing?

[Audrey McLaughlin, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has been strongly speaking out against what he calls special interest groups. I am not clear whether the member has been equally as strong in including in special interest groups the Business Council on National Issues, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Manufacturers Association. If he has, he will have done a service.

I object to his term special interest groups. It has now become a Reform Party slogan. Often it is used to marginalize people rather than to include them.

There is a place in a thriving democracy for different points of view to be presented vigorously. As a good Liberal I am sure he would agree that it is necessary to have a functioning democracy in which every part of society has the ability to participate in helping to shape public policy not just during an election but throughout.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from November 24, 1994, consideration of the motion that Bill C-262, an act to provide for the settlement of labour disputes affecting the export of grain by arbitration and to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act in consequence thereof, be read a second time and referred to a committee.

Grain Export Protection Act

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on this bill to providing for the settlement of labour disputes affecting the export of grain by arbitration and amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act in consequence thereof.

First of all, I think it is important to ask ourselves if this bill is beneficial to Canada. Is it worthwhile? Will it improve labour relations in this industry which is vital to Western Canada's economy and that of Canada as a whole?

We, in the Bloc Quebecois, do not think so. We think that imposing arbitration will only make the conduct of collective bargaining more complicated in an industry that had bad experiences in the past. Let us bear in mind that this Parliament has already had to bring in special legislation to impose the terms of the final offer to settle labour disputes in this industry and there has been no significant change since. The climate has remained tense and continued to deteriorate for several years, precluding any compromise solution where both sides come to an agreement, which is the ultimate goal of the bargaining process.

This bill also contains ambiguous provisions. For example, clause 3 reads as follows:

-no trade union of employees shall declare or authorize a strike, and no employer of such employees shall declare or cause a lockout, if the strike or lockout would cause cessation of work by any employee whose work is essential to any stage of the progress of grain from the premises of the producer of the grain to export.

This wording is rather vague. It could be open to interpretation as to who these employees are and whether or not their work is performed at any stage of the progress of grain from the premises to export. So, in our sense, such ambiguity is dangerous and could make labour relations more difficult instead of making them easier.

The second point I want to make concerns compulsory arbitration. A typical example people hear about every day is the situation in professional sports. Police forces in Quebec have used the procedure as well. It seems that repeated use of this procedure does not improve labour relations, which tend to deteriorate. There is also a tendency to avoid putting all one's cards on the table, which one should normally do when two parties negotiate, in order to reach an acceptable settlement.

Compulsory arbitration tends to make the parties reason along the following lines: I am not going to show my hand right away, because if I do, when we go to arbitration, the arbitrator will make even more concessions to the other party and I will be the loser in this process.

Compulsory arbitration does not seem to offer any advantages for either party and does not seem to be a satisfactory way to solve these problems.

From past experience, and I speak as a former director of personnel in an educational institution, I would say that prohibiting strikes offers no guarantee that people will not walk out just the same. In this field, for a law to be successfully enforced, justice must be done and must appear to have been done.

The mere fact of imposing arbitration and prohibiting strikes will not work if there is a major stumbling block for the workers or the employer. The employer insist on imposing a lockout or a virtual lockout, or the employees may decide to walk out just the same, which puts them in an illegal position. While in a normal bargaining process they would not have that problem and it would simply be a matter of letting the market decide. We must realize that sometimes good intentions do not achieve the expected results.

We must also find ways to avoid a decline in productivity. My point is, that by prohibiting legal strikes, we may encourage behaviour that is even more damaging and that without necessarily leading to a work stoppage, will be detrimental to production and create a conflict situation in the workplace, which is tantamount to giving the parties a kind of leverage that goes well beyond what is traditionally provided in the legislation.

The last back-to-work legislation passed by Parliament, in the case of the Port of Vancouver, is a good example. Wages were the only item that remained to be settled, but the parties could not agree. When the final offer was put on the table, both parties refused to budge. In this particular case, the employer's offer was accepted, but it could have been the other way around. There have been such cases in other sectors. If the union's offer were accepted because it was reasonable, theoretically speaking, it would not necessarily suit the employer and could interfere with efficient operations, so that the result could be damaging both to the company and the employer.

So these are also things we must consider, and we should realize that, with all our good intentions about settling disputes through arbitration, we may be creating situations that are far more complex. The bill before the House today is an example of the kind of well-intentioned approach that will fail to achieve what we ultimately want, which is better relations in the workplace.

Compulsory arbitration also takes away any interest the parties may have in negotiating, in finding compromises together. A period of negotiations between an employer and a union also includes periods of exploring solutions, which are not formal bargaining sessions but rather periods of exploring how solutions may be reached. Compulsory arbitration will stymie this exploration, because both parties will refrain from putting interesting solution proposals on the table, discussions will be formalized. In the end, people will be more dissatisfied than if they had been able to take the negotiations to their conclusion.

We therefore need to create a different climate in this industry, a climate in which labour relations will lead to much more interesting results. An example of this is what happens in Canada's major ports. Labour relations there have often been difficult. In the smaller ports, however, agreements are reached because the parties talk to each other and succeed in reaching interesting conclusions.

This House must therefore reject this bill, not because of its intent, but because of the terms proposed in it, which will not improve the situation and which, before long, will require us to reconsider this sort of situation. In conclusion, I will describe the situation with the police force in Quebec, as one example. Compulsory arbitration was commonplace; decisions were made. In the end, the solutions did not permit the employer to assume its obligations satisfactorily. The reverse could have been true as well, with union members finding themselves in an unacceptable situation.

The Bloc Quebecois is therefore opposed on the principle that the parties' right to negotiate must be respected. There is also a concern for pragmatism and for reaching solutions that lead to joint agreements. When the parties have a signed collective agreement, the parties must bear in mind, during the life of the agreement, that they agreed to the solution reached by both of them. When there is compulsory arbitration, however, one of the parties wins and the other loses. Labour relations between winners and losers is not the way to the future. Rather, we must make the parties face their responsibilities squarely and really oblige them to negotiate.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of Hamilton West, I have the privilege to speak to Bill C-262, the grain export protection act introduced by the member for Lethbridge.

This bill seeks to make it illegal for anyone, employee or employer, to cause any cessation of work at any stage of the progress of grain from the premises of the producer of the grain all the way to export. It should be obvious that this bill would affect a large number of Canadians, indeed everybody who comes near grain, from the farmer who grows the grain to those on the trains and ships which carry the grain.

At this time I want to focus on one particular aspect of this bill and what it brings to the labour relations atmosphere with the government's own employees. That is the provision in this bill which would amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act by adding new criteria limiting the right to strike.

This bill seeks to add to the Public Service Staff Relations Act in section 2 and section 78(1) words which would have the effect of prohibiting employees from engaging in any strike activity in areas related to the orderly progress of grain from the premises of the producer of the grain to export.

When the Public Service Staff Relations Act was introduced almost 30 years ago, the legislators included a unique concept to labour legislation. That was the notion of designating employees as essential and denying them the right to strike. That is to say that employees whose duties included functions which were performed in the interests of the safety and/or security of the Canadian public could not engage in a strike. If one was to search the Canada Labour Code or other labour codes, one would not find many examples of such a concept.

In my opinion this is a good, reasonable and justifiable concept. Employees of the federal government and numerous other federal institutions should not be in a position to withdraw services which would cause harm to the safety or security of Canadians. This provision has stood the test of time.

When public servants engage in a strike activity a number of their colleagues continue to work and provide essential services to the public. The last public service strike provided us with many examples of this particular provision.

Both air and marine search and rescue operations continued. Ice breaking continued. Mariners' charts and maps continued to be produced and updated. The all important function of providing notices to shipping carried on. As well, fisheries patrols were maintained and employees involved in this function continued to provide a service to the public.

Air operations continued and airport facilities were maintained. Weather observations continued. Forecasts were prepared and communicated to the users and of great comfort, notification bulletins affecting aviation safety continued to be produced and disseminated.

Naturally, prison guards and correctional services are deemed as essential services and continued to perform their tasks. All those employees, including those who provide care and security for inmates, medical care, food, heating and all those functions necessary to maintain the system continued to perform their duties.

Health care was maintained by designated employees in such areas as poison control, hazardous product identification, medical support at federal hospitals, ambulance drivers, and dental and chronic care in isolated areas. Also designated were some employees who were involved in research related to health care which used laboratory animals.

Essential to Canadians, income security programs such as UI, family allowance and the Canada pension plan continued. This included the processing of new claims as well as the issuance of benefits.

Employees involved in customs and immigration control remained on the job. Included among these essential jobs were employees responsible for the primary inspection of meat and fish products imported to this country.

Not surprisingly, the provisions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act also precluded those involved with national security from striking. Included among those were the civilian federal employees who provide support to RCMP operations.

Of interest to my colleagues in this place, parliamentary operations were designated as an essential service. Hansard continued to be printed, along with committee reports and other parliamentary publications. Simultaneous translation services also continued to be offered.

These are some examples of the services considered as essential for the safety and security of the public and for which the public service employees could not withdraw services. The central theme throughout this list is: These services are essential for the safety and security of the Canadian public.

It is evident that the current provisions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act have by and large served the Canadian public well. By tinkering with these provisions and including the notion of economic hardship in the grain industry, are we trying to fix what ain't broke?

It is an unfortunate but accepted reality that strikes will cause inconvenience and maybe even economic hardship to some. However, if we are to accept that employees have the right to strike to put pressure on the employer, then we must accept the results. If it is our view that strikes should not cause hardship to anyone, then it is my suggestion that all strikes be declared illegal.

This bill starts along that road. It is headed in a direction that can only bring grief to employer-employee relations in this country. I would not argue that the movement of grain is not important to Canadians. Obviously it is, but I do not believe the production or movement of grain is essential for the safety or security of the public.

The movement of grain is, like other commercial activities, an important economic activity in this country. If we were to introduce the idea that there can be no strikes or lockouts in the grain industry, which sector would be next? Would it be the auto industry? The shipping industry? How about forestry services? In a certain section of the country, ore production is extremely important. Should we consider banning work stoppages there too?

If we are able to use economic criteria, I am confident that every member of this House could cite an enterprise worthy of consideration for a bill such as this. I would like to remind members that in many jurisdictions police services are given the opportunity to withdraw from their jobs. Medical practitioners and teachers also have this ability.

As I mentioned, if we accept that employees have the right to strike and to exert pressure on their employer, then they must be permitted to do so. The introduction of a provision in the Public Service Staff Relations Act prohibiting strikes in any one specific area, be it grain handling or some other industry, begins to erode this right. Employees either have the right to strike or they do not. The provision restricting the right to strike in the federal public service to those performing services essential for the safety and security of the public is a restriction, but I think it can be reasonably argued.

In addition, this provision has been in place for almost 30 years and still allows the public service employees to withdraw services. As we saw during the last public service strike, employees still have the ability to exert considerable pressure on the employer.

Times, they are achanging. We have to roll with change. I do not feel the way to begin a positive and co-operative renewal of labour relations is by introducing legislation which begins to erode what labour considers a basic right. If we are going to give labour the right to withdraw services in order to exert pressure in collective bargaining, then we must allow this withdrawal of service to have some effect.

I am sure the member for Lethbridge did not intend anything sinister but was simply advancing a proposal that would protect the interests of the grain industry. While the reasons for desiring protection from strikes or lockouts are noble in themselves, we must look at how we propose to do this and the results such a proposal would bring.

While I agree with the member that the grain industry is an important aspect of this country, as many other industries are, I cannot accept the notion that Parliament legislates protection at the expense of the rights of other Canadian citizens. Despite what I believe are good intentions, the results would be inappropriate and I cannot support this bill.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today and support Bill C-262. In the course of my speech I will probably deal with some of the things mentioned by the member for Hamilton West.

Going back to the speech by the Bloc Quebecois member, it seemed by the way he spoke that he misunderstood the difference between basic arbitration and being legislated back to work, and having compulsory arbitration and the concept of final offer selection arbitration.

I am surprised the member for Hamilton West so eloquently spoke against this issue, because the Liberal Party imposed this on a strike last year in the Vancouver docks. I am speaking in favour of this type of settlement, but I first want to explain where the Liberal government made two mistakes in the way it did it.

First, the government waited until there was already significant hardship being imposed, not just on a few people and a few on the sidelines who were involved in the strike, but on the whole economic well-being of Canada. Something that started in the port of Vancouver spread across to farmers on the prairies. It almost shut down mills in the interior of British Columbia that were on the edge. It affected hundreds of thousands of people. It is something we have to examine and decide whether there is a better way. As I said, the first problem was that the government took so long to do something about it.

The second mistake is that the employer and employees in that strike situation negotiated. They then took their strike option and were still considerably far apart.

If we are to impose a change of rules, we should give the people an opportunity to readjust to the new rules. The game was changed in midstream. The parties were not given the time to go back to the table to try and resolve it, to see if they could work together more closely.

That is what final offer selection arbitration is inclined to do. It is not a matter of picking and choosing a piece of this or a piece of that when arbitrating a settlement. The way this works is that the final offer is laid on the table by both sides and the arbitrator then picks either one side or the other. In labour negotiations this tends to move the two sides very close together. This is because if one makes an outlandish proposal and the other is being reasonable, the reasonable side's offer will be accepted virtually every time.

I suggest we look at this in terms of protecting the grain industry in Canada. As the member for Hamilton West said, by all means we should start looking at it in a broader sense.

For example, consider that a house is burning down. A fireman stands by on the sidewalk watching the house burn, perhaps while a young child is inside. He does so because the fire department is on strike. All of us accept that as being absolutely unthinkable. So does the fire department and it accepts this kind of responsibility.

Can we accept the concept of a police officer standing by watching someone get mugged or raped because the police department was on strike? We cannot accept this either.

However let us go to the other end of the scale to a small business with little impact on the community and no impact on the national economy. In that situation we say it is okay for it to be a battle of wills and an economic situation for the two forces at work there. We will let the employer or the employee, depending on who comes out the victor, use their position of relative unimportance to negotiate a higher wage or to force the employee to take a lower wage.

The difference between the two is the degree of importance. We are saying that if you are important, we will not let you have the same rights as people who are unimportant. Not only for the sake of the grain industry, I suggest it is time we actually started to look at the whole concept of how we settle labour negotiations in this country.

Unlike what the Bloc member said, this is not an unfair type of action that will cause the relationships between employers and employees to deteriorate. If anything, it may turn it the other way and cause them to negotiate in much better faith and try to resolve the differences between them.

Employees will not be asking for a 100 per cent raise and the employer saying he wants them to take a 50 per cent cut. They are going to try to move to the most reasonable position possible, so that if it comes down to this final offer selection arbitration they are going to have a fairly reasonable offer on the table in the hopes it will be selected. If they are unreasonable, they are likely going to lose. That is the whole concept of this.

The member for Hamilton West talked about how the Public Service Staff Relations Act works. Let me give an example of how it works.

The air traffic control system in this country is not designated as an essential service. The air traffic control system has the right to go on strike, but if it does, it shuts down the entire air industry in Canada.

The government instead said it had the right to go on strike, but in the event of a strike the government has the right to designate a number of employees to maintain the essential service within the air traffic control system. The controllers said they certainly wanted to maintain the safety of this country, hospital flights, food flights to the north, emergencies and these types of things. They would deal with these, and so they said they had no problem with this concept of designating employees.

Then the government turned around and designated every single employee in the air traffic control system and said that the essential duties were everything that they did. It went to court and the court upheld it. A wonderful system. Now the air traffic controllers can go on strike, which means their contract is no longer valid. The government can pay them anything they want to and they still have to report for duty.

We have to find another system. Without getting into the budget argument right now, we are in a very fragile situation

economically speaking and we cannot shut the industry of this country down. In the event of strikes, who loses?

The public loses. They are the number one loser. The second loser is usually labour. No matter what kind of settlement they get, if they are off work for any period of time they are likely not going to make that wage back up. The problem is they have to have some kind of hammer to use as a threat if everything else fails. The majority of the negotiations end up with settlement, but when they do not they always have to have that hammer.

We have to invent a new type of hammer, one that is fair for labour and one that is fair for management. We need some system that says you must move your negotiations very close together or chances are you are going to be the loser in this negotiation.

This is a step in the right direction, examining it in the case of the grain. We do not want to come at this all at once as a total revolutionary system for this country. This is a good place to start. This is a good place to work some of the bugs out of the system.

We do have to look for alternatives. Strikes are something that went on in the 1800s. Surely we have to evolve from something that maybe worked last century. We are about to go into the next one. Maybe we need to find new solutions for this country. This is a system that can work, that the unions will look at and I believe they will accept. The primary objector is going to be one or two people at the very top. I believe the worker in Canada will benefit rather than lose from this type of legislation.

[Judy Bethel, Liberal, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to participate in the debate on second reading of the bill proposed by the hon. member for Lethbridge.

The proposed legislation, Bill C-262, would seek to ban work stoppages involving the movement of grain from producer to export and to provide for arbitrated settlement in those cases where parties involved in the grain handling and transportation industry were unable to resolve contract differences.

On the surface one cannot argue against the general object of the bill, that is, to keep Canadian export grain flowing smoothly to overseas markets and not to be stalled or halted by labour dispute. Unfortunately, while my honourable colleague and I share a particular desire to see Canada's reputation as a reliable exporter of grain maintained, we are obviously in disagreement as to how that end is achieved.

The banning of legal strikes and/or lockouts and the imposition of arbitrated settlements are measures which only serve to exasperate labour management relations. It will do little to bring long term solutions to problems which we are attempting to address.

I would like to share with hon. members a unique initiative currently under way in the western grain storage and handling industry, one which exemplifies the type of positive and forward thinking which labour and management are capable of applying to human resource issues in the industry.

Following three significant work stoppages in the grain handling and transportation sector, in the fall of 1991 a dialogue was initiated with industry representatives to review the need for improvement in labour-management relations and to consider ways of minimizing disruptions to the movement of grain to export markets. Discussions with the parties led to the conclusion that there was little in the way of support for essential service legislation governing dispute resolution in the grain handling industry. Any system of partial designation would be cumbersome to administer and likely to lead to interminable disputes. A complete prohibition on work stoppages would involve third party determination of contract impasses and effectively remove control of the process from both sides of the industry.

There were two key problems which were identified during discussions with the parties involved in the grain handling industry. First, there was the expectation that government would intervene rapidly to terminate any work stoppages, thus enabling one or both parties to avoid its responsibilities for settlement. Second, there existed a problem of inadequate communications between the parties at appropriate times and levels during the period between bargaining rounds on the longer term issues which, if left unaddressed, might rebound negatively at the bargaining table.

Hon. members will be encouraged to hear that both labour and management expressed agreement on the utility of exploring ways to improve their dialogue and to ensure the future competitiveness of the industry in their own mutual interest, as well as in the interest of the Canadian farmers and the Canadian economy.

At a subsequent labour-management conference for officials of the western grain elevator industry agreement was reached on pursuing the possible establishment of a sectoral council on the industry. A working group with equal representation from labour and management chaired by a neutral government official was established to discuss the possible format in terms of reference for a human resources study which could eventually lead to the establishment of such a sectoral body.

The working group held a series of meetings over the course of the next year which culminated in the submission of an application to the sector studies directorate of the former Employment and Immigration Canada for assistance in carrying out a human resource issue study of the industry. Approval for the study was received and the firm of Deloitte & Touche was chosen by the working group to carry out the industry study.

Following an initial meeting between the consulting firm and a larger steering committee, representing not only management and labour interests but various agencies concerned with grain handling and transportation, the study was initiated. The process consisted of several phases ranging from employee questionnaires and focus groups through to the establishment of surveys and interviews with senior human resource personnel. The study focused on the educational and skill requirements of the industry and the training and reskilling available to meet such needs. It also looked at various methods of dealing with workforce adjustment within the industry and drew on the industry knowledge of the respondents to assist in predicting industry trends of the future.

During the course of the consultants' work there were regular meetings with the steering committee to ensure that the study was following the direction intended and that the methodology agreed to was being followed. The study has been finalized and will now be turned over to the original working group for consideration and action, including the possible establishment of a sectoral council for the grain storage and handling industry.

This initiative, involving both labour and management in the grain handling industry, is but one example of the co-operative approach which is being pursued by industry participants to meet the challenges they are facing. The fact that the two sides have met and constructively reviewed major human resource issues speaks volumes. Hon. members on both sides of the House should welcome this display of co-operation which we naturally hope will translate into improved labour relations within the industry.

Both the Ministers of Human Resources Development and Agriculture and Agri-Food should be commended for ensuring that labour has had an opportunity to play a significant role in respect of department initiatives. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has ensured that the representatives of unions involved in the grain handling and transportation system are active participants in this May 16 group which meets regularly to ensure that Canada's export grain commitments are being met and that the system is functioning well.

The Minister of Human Resources Development, in addition to the support shown for the possibility of a sectoral initiative in the western grain elevator industry, has encouraged ongoing consultation with labour unions and employers in the federal jurisdiction concerning possible amendments to the Canada Labour Code.

Earlier this year when a work stoppage involving longshoremen at the west coast ports threatened this country's reputation as a reliable exporter of grain and other commodities, the Minister of Human Resources Development introduced legislation to bring about an end to the disruption and provide for a final settlement of issues separating the two sides. While not a popular measure, the bill introduced by the minister demonstrated the government's commitment to ensuring the well-being of western Canada's agricultural economy.

In conclusion, I would simply suggest that the measures contained in the bill before us are inappropriate and do not reflect current reality in the grain handling industry. Removing the collective bargaining rights of workers and replacing them with imposed arbitration will do nothing to further the positive thrust of the initiatives mentioned earlier.

This government is a strong supporter of free collective bargaining but recognizes that there are occasions when lengthy work stoppage in the grain handling industry could pose significant economic losses for the agricultural economy, as was the case in the recent longshoring dispute. In such cases the government is prepared to intervene in disputes and ensure the resumption of operations and the settlement of the dispute. This type of commitment should preclude the need for the measures proposed in Bill C-262.

I would therefore urge all hon. members not to support the proposed legislation.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that I do support the private member's bill C-262 because I think there has come a time for real action in the labour management disputes that we have seen in the handling of grain for export markets.

To think that since 1966 the government has had to legislate these workers back to work tells us that the current system is not working. As much as the previous speaker would tell us that they do not want to deny anybody the right to collective bargaining, the point is that we want to enforce and give some motivation for management and labour to arrive at a negotiated settlement within the collective bargaining process. This whole bill is designed to give that a whole push forward. It is to say that if one does not bargain within the collective bargaining system then one may not enjoy the rules imposed by the arbitration process.

What we are talking about here is a simple dispute settlement mechanism. Right now when the two sides cannot agree they appoint an arbitrator. He then sits down, looks at the one side, looks at the other side, sees what is being offered and makes some kind of reasonable determination somewhere between these two sides. It fosters a desire by one side or both to make exorbitant demands or to deny reasonable demands. The arbitrator then has to choose and make a settlement.

If they cannot come to some conclusion within the negotiation process that is free and open, if they agree not to agree, then this bill will require that each put forth their final proposal. Whatever that is they will put forth a final proposal, free, open, entirely their own.

The arbitrator will pick one or the other with the intention that he would pick the one that is most reasonable. It is an incentive to both sides to be very reasonable in their final offer. The arbitrator will pick the one that is most reasonable. Therefore the desire to be as close as possible to reasonableness only makes simple common sense.

That is why when I hear the speeches from the other side, from the government side, the side that runs this country, saying this bill is going to deny free and open collective bargaining I am wondering if those members have even read the bill or even thought about the bill, to see that this is some direction to the arbitration process once everything has broken down and that these decisions do not fall within the parameters of the arbitrator but that he has a choice of one or the other, whichever is most reasonable. That is the incentive that this bill is going to provide.

I will split my time with the member for Wetaskiwin. I am going to stop at this time and allow him to share his views as well.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up where my colleague left off.

Witness the labour dispute at the port of Vancouver in January and February, 1994. For 11 days the grain shipping process was paralysed. Some estimates place the loss to Canada's grain industry at hundreds of millions of dollars.

It is absolutely ludicrous that such losses were allowed to occur. These losses came about as a result of a failed collective bargaining process.

We cannot allow one sector of the grain shipping process to harm everyone else in the chain. When there are disruptions in the grain marketing system individual farmers are not the only ones to suffer. Workers everywhere else along the shipping chain are affected. It has a domino effect on the whole industry.

When a strike occurs grain starts to back up in the system. The system becomes, if you will, constipated. The grain stops its otherwise perpetual flow from farm to market. This is detrimental to numerous people. Whether at the grain elevator or somewhere along the railway many people are forced to endure pain because of the actions of a few. This is not acceptable.

With many unions that are involved in the grain transportation process we are left with the never ending threat of strike action. All too often strikes do occur. When they occur they disrupt the economy.

More than just accepting the measures suggested in Bill C-262, we might also look at further legislation that would require all union contracts affecting grain handling transportation to come due at the same time. This would simplify things and perhaps put an end to the rotating type of strikes.

No one benefits from a strike. Unionized workers suffer losses of income while on strike. While they may win an increase in their pay, all too often the net result is a loss of income. Employers lose in a strike. They lose money, they lose contracts and they pay demurrage on waiting ships. Besides that, no work gets done.

In the case of grain transportation strikes there are an incredible number of people who are directly harmed: railway and all its workers, dock workers, shipping companies and their employees, and of course farmers are harmed.

This represents only the direct impact of a strike action. Countless others are harmed indirectly as well. The ultimate casualty is the whole Canadian economy. Exports represent a huge sector of our economy. Canada's balance of trade continues to tilt in our favour. We must ensure that we retain this favourable balance.

As borders become more and more meaningless Canada must be prepared to take on the entire world. That means we must achieve competitiveness to attain a dominant position in the global economy. When Canadians are unable to access the world market we all suffer. The thrust of the bill is final offer selection arbitration. I believe these measures will be fair to all sides.

Legislation such as Bill C-262 provides a reasonable answer to endless strikes in the grain transportation sector of the economy. Further it represents a reputable solution when considering legislation that could apply to other areas in the labour market.

Historically strikes affecting grain movement take place when markets are good and when prices are up. The use of binding arbitration to settle labour disputes is a good way to avoid unnecessary and crippling strikes. This would go a long way to foster good relations and co-operation between labour and management. With management and labour working hand in hand, our reputation as a reliable supplier of grains and oilseeds would improve with the possible result of increased demand, increased price and perhaps an increase in employment.

Since 1966, as my colleague has already alluded to, we have gone through this process 13 times when the federal government has had to intervene and introduce back to work legislation to keep the grain flowing to market. We need to ensure that never again are such measures necessary.

The bill provides for a dispute settlement process that I believe will be fair to all parties. This bill could not be of more immediate importance or more timely. The looming threat of a

strike on the national railways again threatens the process of grain handling.

Above all, grain must be able to continue its orderly flow to market. The principle of keeping the economy flowing should be our number one priority. We need legislation like Bill C-262 to ensure that the economy does not face unnecessary crippling work stoppages. Disruptions in the market hurt everyone.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

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.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on February 21 I asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs if Canada would support the 20:20 vision proposal and action plan to be considered at the World Summit for Social Development which will take place in Copenhagen later this month.

The goal of the summit is to attack global instability due to third world poverty and social injustice. The challenge is enormous. At this time 1.3 billion people in the world live in debilitating poverty; 550 million people end each day hungry; 1.5 billion people lack safe water and sanitation; and 800 million living in developing countries and 335 million in industrial countries are unemployed or underemployed.

As I said at that time these conditions threaten world stability and peace. It is in the interest of all countries to take action against them. The 20:20 vision proposal and action plan must be supported by Canada and all countries at the summit.

Will the minister or the parliamentary secretary state clearly that Canada will support these proposals and that the overall goals of the summit will be supported as well? I would also like to know that Canada would give the work of this summit and its goals the highest priority.

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to respond to the hon. member's comments and expansion on the question directed to the minister some days ago.

The World Summit for Social Development is to take place next week in Copenhagen. It will be the first major international event to propose a vision for social development that has taken place in the 21st century.

Over a period of 18 months the federal government has been working with provincial and territorial governments, labour, business, aboriginal organizations and non-governmental organizations to prepare the Canadian participation and make the summit a success.

Many Canadian objectives are incorporated in the summit documents. I would like to list some that Canada will be supporting: reduction of poverty through job creation; economic security for people through productive employment; respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; respecting women's equality; respecting and valuing cultural diversity; and spending less worldwide on military hardware and more on investing in people, in other words to be less concerned about the security of the state and more concerned about the economic and social security of individuals.

In this context the 20:20 formula the member referred to will be discussed in Copenhagen. It is certainly of interest to Canada. Donors would allocate 20 per cent of their official development budget to meeting the basic needs of other countries. Recipient countries would allocate 20 per cent of their national budget to programs aimed at meeting the human needs of people. However in Canada we plan to allocate 25 per cent of the CIDA budget to meeting basic human needs.

In an increasing global environment international security and stability have an important impact on Canadian people and Canadian prosperity. Actively promoting social justice, poverty alleviation, good government and human rights at home and abroad is an investment in Canada as well as assistance to those in greater need.

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House of Commons I expressed my concern and outrage over the pending loss of the Crow benefit.

As far as a great number of Saskatchewan farmers and I see it, the federal government's abandonment of its responsibilities under the terms of the Western Grain Transportation Act is the single most damaging element of this week's federal budget.

In fact the headlines in Saskatchewan newspapers this week bear this out. The Regina Leader-Post states it best with its single word headline Devastated'', followed by the subheadingBudget leaves farm leaders reeling''.

In today's newspaper the premier of Saskatchewan, Mr. Romanow, is quoted as saying:

If this goes through in the next four or five years we will see the most massive restructuring of rural Saskatchewan with respect to trading patterns, towns, villages, cities-since 1905.

We all remember it was the Liberal Party that originally began the process of getting rid of the Crow rate. The names Otto Lang and Jean-Luc Pepin still bring out emotions full of hard feelings on the prairies.

Although the Liberals failed originally to destroy the Crow, they did succeed in weakening it enough so that today just one decade later they could finish it off. This is absolutely horrible.

The loss of the Crow benefit is bad enough by itself, but the government has compounded our prairie anger in two other ways. First, it has abandoned the farm economy without any plan or structure in place to help the economy recover. Second, it has offered a one-time payout which is not only inadequate but is inappropriately targeted only to land owners.

I have already argued elsewhere that loss of the Crow benefit without a long term plan to replace it could lead to the erosion of land values, a loss of farmers and farms, a reduction in the rural tax base and therefore a reduction in the support for the maintenance of the rural infrastructure, and with this a further loss of quality of life in rural Saskatchewan.

The Crow benefit just two years ago was providing a net annual benefit to the province of Saskatchewan of $400 million. It will take a pretty hefty investment in diversification and value added production to replace that $400 million just to remain economically stationary.

The Liberals have made no provision for that investment. Our problem on the prairies has never been the Crow rate. It has been a lack of investment capital. The will has always been there for value added production but the money to make it happen has been absent.

The fight to save the Canadian Wheat Board has not been considered in all of this and if the supply of wheat is threatened then so too is the future of the board. Can we consider this in our long term equation?

I want to know if the federal Liberals have taken any time at all to properly think out the long term implications of this decision. If they have, I want to see their documented evidence and reasoned conclusions. If they have not, shame on them.

At the same time I want to note that the Liberals are preparing to pay out $1.6 billion in compensation, even though they know that $7 billion to $9 billion is required if there is to be any fairness in the system at all.

Not only has the government failed to meet this fairness test, but it has also said that the money will be paid only to land owners. Does the government not realize that about one-third of the seeded acreage is currently under lease to banks or other financial institutions including the Farm Credit Corporation?

The people who have been paying and will continue to pay the freight costs of grain sold for export and are leasing their land from a government owned corporation will not see a single cent of this payout, no matter how important it is.

The Liberals have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the prairie farm economy. With this single move in the budget I hope they are prepared to reconsider now what they have done before it is implemented and before the ultimate damage is done.

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to respond to the hon. member's comments. I only regret that it is two minutes and not twenty, because I think I could help him understand. I am sure in the end he would understand and appreciate the action we have taken.

The hon. member is suggesting that the elimination of the Crow will have a damaging effect on the prairie economy. In fact, this government is certainly committed to restoring the economy in western Canada to its full potential. The document that has been put forth for discussion purposes, and I stress that, would see approximately half or about $800 million of the $1.6 billion ex gratia capital payment going to Saskatchewan.

The share will be representative of Saskatchewan's share of prairie grain movement. Farmers will also benefit from the capital gains tax advantage.

The government's assistance however is not limited to that. There will also be a share in the $300 million adjustment fund. That will be available for some areas in Saskatchewan as well.

These initiatives are only part of this government's plan to restore the prairie economy and help make this region an integral economic force in an increasingly competitive global marketplace. Changes with respect to freight rates have the potential to encourage diversification and value added production throughout the west.

I might interject here. I just got off the phone with a friend in a riding next to mine whose company is in the livestock industry. It had three orders from pork producers in western Canada today to increase and make some changes in those operations because of what this is going to do. It is indeed going to follow up on diversification.

Only days after the announcement, and the above is a good example, that potential is being recognized. Industry groups are already talking about moving into other crops and diversifying their operations.

It is not only farmers who are adjusting. Transportation industries ranging from trucking companies to seaports are closely examining the services they offer in order to increase

their efficiencies. Some are already offering suggestions for alternate commodities based on the transportation costs of these products.

These activities, coupled with the government's assistance to help farmers adjust to the short term impact of the loss of the WGTA will inevitably lead to long term economic growth in the prairies.

I ask the hon. member not to underestimate the skills and resources of all those involved in the prairie economy. These factors along with the financial assistance being provided will ensure a rapid adjustment to changes in the WGTA and the long term economic benefits for the prairies and for all Canadians.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, March 1, I received an unsatisfactory response from the Minister of Human Resources Development.

I asked him whether the human resources investment fund infringed on the powers of the provinces and perpetuated the inefficient management of the labour force.

The minister's answer was very vague. He told me that my question had nothing to do with the fund's goal.

Since then, I acquired a copy of an information sheet for the staff of the human resources department which gave examples of some activities that could become part of the human resources investment fund. I will list them: putting more emphasis on employment development services, literacy and basic skills training, training and on-the-job training, assistance for child care and the earned-income supplement.

If the human resources investment fund will be covering these kinds of activities, how can the minister say that the fund will not infringe on the provinces' jurisdiction over manpower?

When it comes down to it, we can say that the minister made the same error during the debate on Axworthy's social program reform: the situation was properly diagnosed, they realized that the current system did not work, but they prescribed the wrong treatment.

Once again, they have decided that Ottawa must manage the fund, even though it is well known that the provinces manage areas directly related to manpower training much more efficiently.

Another possible activity is implementing a national strategy based on the job market. How can the minister suggest such an option when we all well know that, for years now, there have been 1.5 million jobs available in Canada for approximately 500,000 unemployed people, and that the breakdown in the equation lies between the job market and training.

The solutions suggested to us are the same old solutions, the federal government will come and tell the provinces how to do their job in their areas of jurisdiction. Does the minister not realize that this kind of attitude is entirely out of touch with our solutions for the future, for the 21st century, a future in which the idea that "small is beautiful" will be much more relevant than huge structures with national bureaucracies telling the local workforce should adjust?

With this fund, is the minister not going to perpetuate the same vision he has today, so that at a local level, in each community, manpower management committees will have to be devised to try to bring together again all the stakeholders and achieve what this federal system is unable to achieve, assuming of course that it can be done at a local level at least? Could the minister not take another approach, an approach to truly put manpower training back into the hands of the provinces who express such an interest, as Quebec has, where there is a consensus among unions, employers and the education sector.

All stakeholders involved in the manpower sector in Quebec have been saying for a long time that the best way to address the unemployment problem is to ensure a good fit between training, job creation measures and the unemployed who are waiting for a job. So could the minister not reconsider his decision and ensure that people at the grassroots who have the means to find solutions are allowed to do so, that is in Quebec and in the other provinces seeking the same types of responsibilities in the area of manpower training?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the question posed by the hon. member on the human resources investment fund that was recently announced in the budget.

The human resources investment fund will build on the strengths of its initial program components. Those program components include employment programs and services, social development programs in such areas as literacy and participation of disabled persons, the Canada student loans program and youth programs such as Youth Service Canada and Youth Internship.

The terms of the fund's operation will be developed in the coming months in consultation with the provinces with whom the government has already indicated its willingness to work.

The objectives of the fund may in some cases be best achieved through the direct delivery of services by the federal government. In other cases provinces or at times even local authorities may be best placed to achieve our common goals.

Based on what we have learned through the broad consultation process associated with social security reform, the new fund will establish certain principles. It will help create opportunities for people to develop skills, secure employment and adapt to change. The fund will better equip Canadians to keep their jobs in a changing world and provide the skills to find a new job quickly if it becomes necessary.

The new fund will focus on individual and local needs instead of trying to fit people into programs with rigid eligibility criteria. Programs will be tailored to meet the needs of the individual. At the same time the fund will encourage people to take charge of their own lives, establishing mutual responsibility. Individuals, employers and local communities will have as much at stake in the employment initiatives as governments.

The human resources investment fund will strengthen partnerships and create an effective division of responsibility between levels of government as well as among governments and the private sector.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 38, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.48 p.m.)