Mr. Speaker, for the last two and one-half years the Department of Human Resources Development has been operating without a mandate and some would say without any direction or agenda.
Back in January 1994 amid the fanfare of the speech from the throne, Canadians were promised social program reform. One would have thought the government would have quickly given this department a mandate to operate and then tackled the task of bringing Canada's outdated social programs into the 21st century.
The fact that it has taken the government two years and two ministers to get this far is further evidence that real reform will not happen before the next election. No doubt social program reform will turn up as an election promise in the 1997 version of the Liberal red book of broken promises.
One of the most intriguing parts of the bill was the appointment of the Minister of Labour and the deputy minister. When the old department of labour was amalgamated with the new superministry of human resources development, the whole idea behind it was incorporation. At last, we thought, here was a department whose function would be transferred to the provinces and to the private sector. What a step forward for labour relations in Canada. Then along came the Quebec referendum and suddenly we needed a labour minister. At the last minute, to accommodate the member for Saint-Henri-Westmount, this strange reporting structure was included in what was then Bill C-96.
According to Bill C-11 the Minister of Labour may be appointed but if there is no labour minister, the duties fall to the human resources development minister. The question has to be asked: Do we need a full time labour minister, a secretary of state for labour, or just a parliamentary secretary? Maybe the minister was included so there would be no question about the need for a deputy minister.
If labour requires a full minister, should such a position not be designated by statute rather than just simply an optional position? If labour requires a minister other than a junior minister, will it ultimately break away from human resources development and
become a department unto itself? This bill raises a lot more questions than it answers. These are things that have not been debated fully and should have been considered by the author ofthe bill.
By bringing the labour department under the human resources umbrella and its superminister, perhaps the government hoped to get the unions onside and perhaps take advantage of the decline in popularity of the faltering New Democrats.
If the government was really concerned about labour relations, it would not have allowed things to deteriorate to the point where in two years time it would have to legislate grain handlers and railway workers back to work three times. Three times in two years the system did not work properly. If the government was truly concerned about workers in Canada and management, it would have amended the Canada Labour Code or at least looked at amending the Canada Labour Code to include final offer arbitration as a mechanism for solving labour disputes.
The government would be introducing more legislation like Bill C-3. Bill C-3 brings all workers in nuclear facilities under provincial jurisdiction and certainly is a step in the right direction. The labour component of the department of HRD would cease to exist and would not require the services of a minister or of a deputy minister.
If the government had allowed passage of Motion No. 2 as presented by my colleague for Mission-Coquitlam, it would not be presented with the problem of court rulings over who has jurisdiction in overlapping industrial sectors as was the case which necessitated the drafting of Bill C-3.
It is time to move forward with the devolution of federal control in labour matters to the provinces. Certainly there is much support for that on this side of the House. I would encourage members opposite to come to like thinking.
Part I of the Canada Labour Code is currently under review and would be an appropriate starting point for the minister who is anxious to do away with duplication of services.
I would like to remind members that Canada has a $580 billion debt. The minister opposite and certainly the finance minister are very cognizant of that. They are looking for ways in which to whittle down that debt.
The Minister of Labour could contribute to this reduction if he initiates measures to do away with overburdensome bureaucracy and duplication by giving the provinces control over labour standards, labour relations and occupational health and safety. I suggest that he would find that workers and management alike would support his action because both sides want and deserve a level playing field.
Labour and management have the common goal of maintaining a productive workplace. As legislators, we should do all we can to advance that goal. We can facilitate this by relinquishing control over the bureaucratic regulations that stand in the way of sound labour relations.
Reflecting back to Bill C-3, I again say that it is a step in the right direction. Bill C-11 would be worthy of support had it followed along the same path.