Motion No. 12

That Bill C-66, in Clause 24, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 15 on page 19 with the following:

"longer in force, a ) provided pre-board security screening services to another employer, or to a person acting on behalf of that other employer, in an industry referred to in paragraph ( e ) of the definition ``federal work, undertaking or business'' in section 2; or b ) provided any other service that may be designated by regulation of the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister, to another employer or a person acting on behalf of that other employer in any industry that may be designated by regulation of the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister.''

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Reform

Dale Johnston Reform Wetaskiwin, AB

moved:

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-66, in Clause 45, be amended by a ) replacing line 34 on page 34 with the following:

"tion 24(4) or 34(6), section 37, 50 or 69," b ) replacing line 41 on page 34 with the following:

"subsection 24(4), paragraph"

Motion No. 51

That Bill C-66 be amended by deleting Clause 72.

Mr. Speaker, members of Reform believe Motion No. 11 in Group No. 4 will have a beneficial effect on this legislation.

Let us look back at what the minister had hoped to accomplish. His aim was to seek a balance. The more we see of the legislation, as he outlined it, the more we see that there needs to be a balance, yet he has not attained that.

In the area of successor rights, we have suggested that section 47.3 of the bill, which relates specifically to airline industries, should be deleted. That is pretty self-explanatory. The Sims report does not mention successor rights. This whole bill seems to have been drafted after the recommendations in the Sims report and yet there was no reference to successor rights in the Sims report. I wonder where the minister came up with this idea.

The successor rights package is a wide ranging provision. It goes all the way down to baggage handling, telephone services and would interfere with existing collective agreements. For those reasons, Reform supports the deletion of section 47.3.

The people who provide the ground services to the airlines, for example, can have contracts with a number of carriers. That might mean that a truck driver who was supplying services to one, two, three or as many as seven different employers could have as many rates of pay. It is an untenable situation to put any employee in. They would spend more time in the day keeping track of who they worked for and what the pay rate was than they would accomplish in doing what they were really there to do in the first place.

Reform amendments 41 and 51 are consequential amendments necessitated by the foregoing motions.

I think it is extremely important that there is a balance set up between management and labour. If the scales are tipped too far in either direction there is going to be acrimony. We certainly are not in favour of one side having a huge advantage over the other.

I commend the minister for what he has set out to do. His goal is to seek a balance. What the Reform Party has suggested in its amendments would do exactly that.

The minister will say that the motion which the Reform Party has put would specifically apply to the pre-board security screening service. That is not important. It is not necessary because of the arrangements which are in place between the airports and Transport Canada. The second part of the amendment gives cabinet the authority to make regulations designating any other service or any industry which would have to comply with same successor rights provisions.

We have noticed in this legislation, as in any legislation which has been brought in by the government, that the governor in council has been given sweeping powers. We realize the governor in council has to have some latitude. Not every little thing should be brought back to Parliament for ratification or discussion. We recognize this is an accepted way of doing business in any legislature in Canada-

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

The Speaker

My colleague, you still have about four and a half minutes remaining, but I wonder if you would give way so that we can have Statements by Members. When we resume Government Orders you will have the floor, if you wish to continue.

It being about 2 p.m., we will proceed to Statements by Members.

Montfort HospitalStatements By Members

1:55 p.m.

Liberal

Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON

Mr. Speaker, I feel I must share with all of my colleagues in this House the concern felt by the francophone community of eastern Ontario at the Health Services Restructuring Commission's recommendation to close Montfort Hospital.

I cannot help but be pleased to see that the Prime Minister has made representations to the Premier of Ontario, encouraging him to consider the importance of properly serving not just the francophone minority but all of the population in the eastern part of this province.

The commission has demonstrated its lack of sensitivity and understanding of the reality of the French speaking population of eastern Ontario. This was more than apparent in its ineptitude in not producing a French version of its report on release of the English version and the inability of its members to respond to questions in French at the recent press conference.

The community has three weeks left to express its opinion and it will be very vocal in doing so.

Francophone CommunitiesStatements By Members

1:55 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Paul Marchand Bloc Québec-Est, QC

Mr. Speaker, last summer, the Prime Minister did not hesitate to support Howard Galganov in the Quebec signage matter. He has, however, always been in less of a hurry to defend the interests of francophones in English Canada.

His first reaction to the announced closing of the only French language hospital in Ontario was to refuse to support the francophones. In so doing, the Prime Minister clearly demonstrated what Canada is: a country which rushes to the defence of the slightest complaint by English Quebecers, but barely reacts to the conditions in which francophones in English Canada find themselves, particularly when those conditions favour their assimilation.

The Prime Minister finally gave in to public pressure and spoke to the Premier of Ontario. He must, however, do more than that; he must also speak out against all of the other English speaking provinces which, like Ontario, offer neither health services, social services or cultural services in French, thus making it clear that the only language in use in Canada-