Lorne Nystrom

[Agriculture, June 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

On the farm question, George Bush has put up 100% of the money for American farmers, not the states of Montana and North Dakota.

Our Liberal government wants to put up 60% of the money and the provinces the rest, which discriminates again some of the smaller provinces that do not have the same fiscal capacity as some of the larger ones.

Our federal government is sitting on an $8 billion surplus today. International trade is under federal jurisdiction. Because of those facts, will the Prime Minister now do the right thing and make sure the federal government pays 100% of the cost to the farmers of this country?

[Canada Pension Plan, June 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very tough and direct question. Of course I have concerns about the fancy bookkeeping of the federal government. It happens time and time again. I share some of the concerns that the member has mentioned.

I want to mention another one that makes me very angry. It is the use of the EI fund. Workers pay into the EI fund as do employers pay into the EI fund. The accumulated surplus in the EI fund is some $42 billion. The federal government sees that going into the consolidated revenue fund, which is the general fund of the government.

The previous minister of finance viewed using the funds of the workers and employers to eliminate the deficit and pay down the debt. That is a very fancy way of making sure there is a balanced budget. It is not fair because the ordinary working people are paying that money. It is a theft of the money of the working people. It is just not the way to view public finances.

The EI fund should be separate. It is an insurance fund. It provides insurance and benefits for people who lose their jobs.

Time and time again there is creative bookkeeping used in terms of the EI fund and in terms of pension funds. Funds move back and forth between the consolidated revenue fund and crown corporations. More transparency and more accountability is needed. That is why a fixed budget date is needed, so that we have a more democratic parliamentary system.

I could go on at length about this issue but I see that I have run out of time.

[Canada Pension Plan, June 21st, 2002]

Workers, labour and trade unions are all the same. Let us have some trade union representation on the board. Trade unions represent workers. Trade unions represent the people who work in this country. There should be some trade union representation on the board. I moved an amendment during the debate on this legislation a few years ago in the finance committee.

I said that the pensioners should have some kind of a voice as well. There are 12 people on the board of directors. Why could there not be labour and pensioner representation, current pensioners and future pensioners? It makes sense. We have that kind of representations on other boards as well. We have boards that have stakeholders on them.

It is not prohibitive, but it is up to the judgment of the Minister of Finance and the recommendations of provincial ministers of finance. The provincial ministers of finance do not appoint somebody to the board; they make recommendations. If the provincial minister of finance in New Brunswick recommends someone, that person is only on the board through the grace of the federal Minister of Finance. Again, it centralizes so much power in the hands of the Minister of Finance.

Let us open it up and be a little more democratic. There are all kinds of precedents for representation on boards. The new crown corporation for air security has on its board representation from the stakeholders, from the airport authorities and the airlines.

The finance committee accepted my amendment to have representation of the trade unions to represent the workers on the board. That was overturned by the House of Commons on a recommendation coming from the Prime Minister's office.

It is not a radical idea. It is just a matter of opening it up and making it more democratic and more accountable for the Canadian people. What is wrong with having pensioners sit on the board? What is wrong with having workers sit on the board? They would provide valuable input for the people who are making the decisions as to where those investments go.

The last point is the ethical screen. Why would there not be an ethical screen that would disallow investment in tobacco, for example? The federal government is spending all kinds of money on an advertising campaign saying that people, in particular children, should not get hooked on cigarettes. On one hand the government says not to get hooked on cigarettes and let us get away from tobacco. On the other hand, the CPP Investment Board can invest in Phillip Morris and other tobacco companies. It does not make any sense. I am surprised how conservative the member across the way is.

[Canada Pension Plan, June 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the member across the way would say what he said.

I said that the plan that was instituted back in the 1960s had a pay as you go philosophy. That is exactly how it was set up. I know it was kick-started and pensioners qualified right away. My father got a small CPP payout fairly early from the plan, as did other people of his generation. The whole philosophy was pay as you go.

It was changed by the amendments in 1997 when it started to move away from a pay as you go pension plan to having some of the money set aside for an investment fund that would be directed by the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. There was a change in philosophy and we debated that in the finance committee at the time.

The Alliance Party, which was called the Reform Party in those days, wanted to go even further. In essence it wanted to privatize the Canada pension plan fund and set up huge RRSP type funds. It would be taken out of the public sector altogether and everybody would have their own private pension fund or private pension plan that was totally in the private market. That was the debate in the finance committee at the time.

The Liberal government came up with changes which were a bit of a compromise, where more money is going into the investment board to be managed. Now it wants more and more money, some 30%, to go into the foreign markets. There is a change from the pay as you go philosophy which was there in the beginning by the people who originated the Canada pension plan in the days of Lester Pearson and Tommy Douglas.

When I talk about stakeholders I only mentioned two stakeholders. The member said how many stakeholders do I want on the board? I mentioned the workers and the retirees.

[Canada Pension Plan, June 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-58, follows the 1997 government policy of moving away from a “pay as you go” pension system, with a system of a two year reserve fund, to a more fully funded pension system with a five year reserve fund managed by an arm's length investment board. We have had the “pay as you go” pension system since the days of Lester Pearson,

The CPP Investment Board, a crown corporation, was created by an act of parliament in 1997, one of the first acts that we passed in the House of Commons after the election. It has a mandate to focus strictly on the prudent rate of return. The CPPIB, which is the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board, is expected to cover 25% of liabilities by the year 2012. The total amount of funds managed by the board at that time will be in the range of $120 billion to $150 billion, which would make it by far the largest investment fund in the country.

The investment board will implement a market oriented approach as controlled by a 12 member board of directors appointed by the Minister of Finance with input from the provincial ministers of finance. The members of the board are largely representative of the financial community and the board has some 40 employees who co-ordinate the investment board with large financial institutions.

Bill C-58 is an amendment to the Canada pension plan and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act. Essentially what it would do is transfer the control of CPP reserve funds to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board over a three year period. The board also implements the Liberal policy of allowing the CPP Investment Board to hold 30% of its investments in foreign property, in line with the budget of December 2001.

The government contends that the transfer of CPP funds would increase the strength of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board by allowing for a higher rate of return on investments. The argument in support of a better rate of return rests on the historical performance of financial markets that generally outperform the rate of return of government securities. Moreover the Liberal government across the way contends that increasing the limit on foreign investment would also improve the rate of return. Currently the Canada pension plan holds investments worth some $53.6 billion, which as I said before is expected to increase to $120 billion to $150 billion by the year 2012, really a very large investment fund.

The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board should represent all stakeholders, not just the financial community. Right now the CPPIB does not represent all the stakeholders. Labour for example is not represented. The trade union movement, which represents millions of workers in the country, is not represented. Pensioners are not represented, yet they are very much at the heart of being important stakeholders in Canada pension plan.

However the banks and the brokerage firms, with the short term goal of increasing their profits, manage the board. The CPPIB invests on behalf of some 16 million Canadians but is only required to hold public meetings once every two years. The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board should be committed to a balanced representation so that pensioners as well as investors can have a say in the management of the fund. More transparency and more accountability is important in any open, free and democratic society.

Funds that are generated at taxpayer expense in my opinion should not be invested in foreign markets. We are not, and I certainly am not, against foreign investment for private investment groups but the dollars from a pension plan fund that is funded by taxpayers should be invested in Canadian companies and in Canadian securities. In other words, let us use the Canadian public pension fund to invest in the Canadian economy, strengthening our economy and creating jobs for future generations.

Investing government securities will help the economy by channeling money to the provinces and municipalities where it will fund improved infrastructure, housing initiatives and other projects, which are sorely needed as the infrastructure in this country has deteriorated in many ways right across Canada. I think of housing. I think of the water system and the water treatment system. I think of roads and transportation. I think of railways and many other public investments that could be much helped by CPP investment money.

Investment in Canadian businesses, especially new businesses, is important for the economy. In the United States, pension funds provide nearly 50% of venture capital. Canadian entrepreneurs should have access to such venture capital through the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. The returns on investments in government securities and Canadian businesses may be less initially, but the new jobs created by reinvesting in the Canadian economy will create new pensions for new pensioners and increase the funds of the Canada pension plan.

The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board should implement the use of ethical screening for investment. This is something I have raised in the House of Commons on more than one occasion and also at the finance committee with the Minister of Finance. Why not use an ethical screen to make sure that the investments made by the board are made on an ethical basis?

The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board must have ethical screening to prevent investment in companies with poor environmental standards, for example, or with poor child labour standards or sweatshops, and to prevent investment in tobacco companies and other companies that harm people. Currently the CPPIB does not have an ethical screen for its investments. It has been shown that ethical screening does not reduce the rate of return. In fact, if one looks at many ethical funds in the country, one sees that their rate of return is not reduced but is in some cases higher than that of the funds that do not have an ethical screen. I think of the ethical funds in the credit union movement, for example, which have a very good track record in Canada.

It is interesting to note as we debate the Canada pension plan and look at the review of the CPP that the CPPIB now plans to invest some $350 million in foreign companies over the next five years. Companies involved in leveraged buyouts will receive a good deal of this. As of March 31, 2002, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board has a realized a cumulative loss of $64.8 million, despite reporting portfolio gains in recent years of up to 40.1%. Since its inception the board has had a healthy return in Canadian equity investments, annualized at the rate of 13.8%, and has had a consistent loss on foreign investment, at an annualized rate of -0.3%.

Until 1997, provinces borrowed funds in 20 year loans from the CPP at a preferred rate, the cost to the government to lend these funds. They were lent to provincial governments at cost. Now they borrow the money at market rates set by the Minister of Finance. Of course that becomes more expensive to the provinces over the long run than it was under the previous rules and regulations of the Canada pension plan.

The market value of the CPP Investment Board is $14.2 billion in terms of what is currently invested in equity, with 70% of investment in Canada and Canadian companies, 15% in the United States and American companies, and 15% in other nations and other companies. As a matter of fact there was an article this morning in the Ottawa Citizen in which the headline stated “CPP [Canada Pension Plan] puts $500M [million] into risky business”. The sub-headline stated “It plunges into angel funds and venture capital” funds. The article is raising some concern about the risk for the Canadian pensioner who contributes to the Canada pension fund. The article also states that some $2 billion Canadian will be going into the American private equity funds over the next few years and some $537 million Canadian into European buyout funds over the next few years.

There is this move to invest more and more of Canadian taxpayers' money and pension money into foreign funds, foreign equities and buyout funds, to invest in certain equity funds that are highly risky on behalf of the people who are the owners of the Canada pension plan.

According to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, concerning the issue of ethical screening its position is the following:

Our legislation specifically prohibits us from engaging in any investment activities other than maximizing investment returns...The policy fully states that we will not accept or reject investments on non-investment criteria.

That is the position of the board when it comes to ethical investments and I am saying that we should look at an amendment to make sure that we have an ethical screen.

Tobacco is a very good example of that. Tobacco and cigarette smoking are very harmful and very costly in terms of the health of Canadians and the funds of our country. I do not think we should be investing the Canada pension plan money in Philip Morris or any other tobacco companies. We do not want to send a signal that smoking is a good thing for the people of this country, yet the government across the way so far has not agreed to look at an ethical screen. I know that some members across the way would support the idea of an ethical screen on tobacco. I have heard them speak out against tobacco and talk about a national campaign to stop cigarette smoking in the country.

So on the one hand we have the government advertising to young people and others that they should stop smoking and we have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years in campaigns to stop smoking, but on the other hand we have the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board investing in tobacco companies. It is doing the exact opposite of a policy that the Government of Canada is advocating. Here we have a conflict in policy and a contradiction between the left hand and the right hand of the government.

The rates of return for the 2001 fiscal year, which ended in March 2002, were a modest 3.4% for equity. This is lower than the return on government bonds, which I think was 5% for the same period of time. Investment outside of government securities involves risk. For an entity mandated to reduce the risks as well as to realize a profit, government securities are a lot stronger investment. Certainly the facts on that in the last year or two speak for themselves.

In 2001, Canada Pension Plan Investment Board investments in private firms suffered a loss while government securities remained stable. I think a lot of people in this country, including the member for Davenport, would appreciate a stable, guaranteed rate of return for our nation's public pension fund, which is the foundation on which to build retirement income for each and every single Canadian.

The real rate of return for the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board is about 7%. The change in government securities returning 1% or 2% less would be worth the growth in the economy from the investment and the low risk, because we would be investing in our own country, investing in our own businesses and investing in our own infrastructure. We would be investing in public programs of value to Canadian people. We would be growing the economy and having all the spinoffs from a growing economy with fewer people unemployed and so on.

The total assets of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board come to $53.6 billion. This includes the two year fund of $40 billion that was initially transferred from the Canada pension plan. Government bonds total nearly $32.6 billion. Some $13.8 billion is invested in publicly traded companies. Nearly $400 million is currently invested in venture capital and buyout funds. The fund is meant to represent 25% of the liabilities, leaving the system largely pay as you go. When the Canada pension plan was first established in the 1960s it was a pay as you go plan and remained one until the amendments of recent years by the Liberal government.

As we look at what is before us today, I would recommend that we oppose the bill unless changes are made that provide the CPPIB with a mandate to put an ethical screen in place. I also would like to see the bill's provision for investment in foreign markets eliminated, because I think we should put the money from Canada's large pension fund into Canada.

Investing in private equities is a way of improving the rate of return for CPP funds. It makes sense if they are in Canada, but having no ethical screen for those investments is bad policy. Canadians are forced to pay their CPP premiums into an investment fund that has no rules against investing in tobacco or companies that make use of child labour or companies that have very poor environmental standards. The government must develop an ethical screen for the CPP investment fund through public hearings and consultations with those who have developed ethical screens in the private and co-operative sectors. In that regard I would mention the credit union movement, which has seven, eight or nine different ethical investment funds for the credit union movement in the country. Improvements to pension legislation should also give employees the opportunity to decide if they want an ethical screen to be part of the investment decision in their pension fund.

Finally, at this time we should also bring in an amendment to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board legislation that would provide for representation of other stakeholders on the board of directors. Here I am thinking of the pensioners themselves who should be represented on the board. Here I am thinking of the trade union movement, which represents the workers who will be future pensioners. They too should have representation on the board of directors.

If we do these things, if we have the ethical screen and representation on the board for the working people and retirees, and if we roll back the amount of money going into foreign markets with more money going into the Canadian markets such as the provinces and municipalities at low interest rates at cost to the federal government, with those three things, I think we would have a Canada pension fund that would reflect what the Canadian people want.

When I go across the country people tell me they are concerned about their security in terms of the Canada pension fund. They are worried about the future of the Canada pension fund. I believe there is no need in a country as wealthy as ours to worry about the future security of our major pension fund, but if more of it were invested in Canada, in provincial bonds and bonds to municipalities, schools and hospitals, it would strengthen the economy and the pension fund itself would be that much more secure.

I hope we can have a real debate on this in committee and come out of it making some amendments in those areas to make the Canada pension fund, which is the foundation for retirement income in the country, an even better fund for the Canadian people in the years that lie ahead.

[Agriculture, June 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in that case why does the federal government not cost share health on a 60:40 basis as well. That is only fair. Saskatchewan and Manitoba are shouldering 40% and the federal government 60%. It is that way for agriculture but how about for health as well.

Saskatchewan and Manitoba are shouldering the greatest burden of American farm subsidies. That burden has now been compounded with this package where the province has to share 40% of the cost. It is unfair for Saskatchewan taxpayers to pay 10 times as much as Ontario taxpayers.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister now admit this is unfair and treat Saskatchewan and Manitoba fairly by changing this package and changing it today?

[Agriculture, June 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. In the United States George Bush has put up 100% of the cost, the whole shot, of farm subsidies to American farmers. He did not ask the state of Montana or North Dakota to put up any money.

International trade is clearly under federal jurisdiction, yet this government is putting up only 60% of the cost. Why is the federal government evading its responsibility when international trade is under federal jurisdiction? It should put up all the costs of helping our farmers.

[Referendum Act, June 17th, 2002]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-478, an act to amend the Referendum Act.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to amend the Referendum Act to allow a referendum in this country on any change of the electoral system. I am thinking primarily of the move in this country now by a lot of people to bring in a measure of proportional representation so that people have a parliament that reflects how they vote right across the country.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Canada Labour Code, June 17th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank people for participating in this debate today. This issue of increasing the vacation pay from two weeks to three and three weeks to four after six years with one single employer is an idea we should have been discussing a long time ago in the House of Commons. I am glad to have some support for the motion in the House of Commons from the Bloc Quebecois and the Progressive Conservative Party. I am very disappointed in the Liberal Party across the way, which did not take a stand one way or the other but talked about the need for consultation. Of course there is a need for consultation and I did a lot of consultation before I presented this motion.

I said in my remarks that I hoped the idea behind the motion would be picked up by the government and parliament itself and referred to the relevant committee. We can change the law in the fall or next spring after hearings by the relevant committee of the House of Commons. We are not against consultation. The Liberals are hiding behind a smokescreen when they talk about consultation.

Also, this is not very complicated. We would be amending the federal Canada Labour Code and providing some leadership to the provinces. I do not think any province is really going to object to this. Some of them already have moved in this direction. Saskatchewan and Quebec are two good examples of this, where there is a minimum of three weeks of holidays, moving to four weeks after a certain number of years. Other provinces like Ontario should be given a push. They should be prodded into changing their labour codes. This is a simple thing to do. It is the proper thing to do.

I am sure there is going to be some opposition from the far right in the country. Some members of the Alliance Party might object to this because they do not seem to be very interested in anything but the bottom line, but I can tell members that quality of life is extremely important. The bottom line is not as important as quality of life. We will find that when quality of life improves productivity is going to improve in this country as well. It has already happened in Europe. When we have improved productivity and a better quality of life the bottom line is going to be just fine as well.

The member for Winnipeg North Centre also mentioned the increase in economic activity when people have a longer vacation period and a shorter workday or workweek. This would also create more jobs for other people who are currently unemployed. I mentioned the example of greater economic activity in France, where people travel on vacation, stay in hotels, tour, visit restaurants and stimulate the economy because they have time to do that. Money keeps circulating throughout French society.

This is something that provides a boost to the economy. It increases the quality of life. It is a good, civil, progressive thing to do. It is going to be a productive thing to do. We would be in sync, then, with more of the developing countries of the world. This is the kind of direction in which we should be going. It applies to 1.2 million Canadians under the Canada Labour Code. It provides a good example and a good stimulus to many of the other provinces around the country. This is where we should go.

The trade union movement has done a great job of negotiating long holidays for workers right across the country, but only 30% of Canadian workers are represented by the trade union movement. We have a lot of workers who fall between the cracks. The banking industry, the financial sector industry, is the best example of that. People work long hours at relatively low pay for huge institutions that make an awful lot of money. In fact many of the banks are still making billions of dollars and have been paying very little in taxes over the sweep of the last four or five years, yet the bank teller who works in those banks pays more than her or his fair share of taxes. These people have no guarantee of anything more than a two week or three week holiday after six years. There is no union. The benefits sometimes are very shabby and the protection is not there. The least we can do is amend the Canada Labour Code to provide some of those benefits.

I once again appeal to the members across the way to pick up this idea and refer it to a parliamentary committee. If they want consultation to be more thorough, let us have our consultation. We can consult with the provinces, trade unions, employers, employees and the people of the country and come back in the fall with a report recommending changes to the Canada Labour Code that would be good for the country and good for the people of Canada. That is what parliament is supposed to do. That is what this place is supposed to do. We are supposed to stimulate debate in the House, provide and promote new ideas and, through the parliamentary committees and the House of Commons itself, change legislation for the Canadian people.

[Canada Labour Code, June 17th, 2002]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should increase by one week the basic employee vacation entitlement granted by Section 184 of the Canada Labour Code, to at least three weeks with vacation pay and, after six consecutive years of employment with the same employer, at least four weeks with vacation pay.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words about my motion to amend the Canada Labour Code.

The Canada Labour Code states that every Canadian who works in a company that falls under federal jurisdiction receives at least two weeks holidays and that after six years with the same employer the two weeks is increased to three weeks.

My motion would amend the Canada Labour Code to make sure everyone under federal jurisdiction receives three weeks holidays and after six years with the same employer they receive four weeks holidays.

This is something we should be debating in the House. I cannot recall a debate in the House on this for quite a while. It is something that would be very helpful to the Canadian population and to workers in general.

In a recent poll some 76% of the Canadian workforce agreed that we should have a four week holiday .

The motion today is to provoke a debate that we go from two weeks to three weeks and from three weeks to four weeks after six years with the same employer.

The Canada Labour Code covers some 1.2 million workers. The 1.2 million workers actually fall into a number of different areas. I want to mention some of the major areas that the Canada Labour Code covers in terms of workers: the air transport industry; banks; crown corporations; the federal public service; first nations people; the postal service, with some 62,000 or 63,000 employees; the broadcasting industry; railways; the trucking industry; water transport; shipping and communications; as well as a number of other areas. They fall under the Canada Labour Code in terms of holidays and would be covered by any kind of change or amendment as suggested by the motion.

When we look at other developed nations around the world, we find that most of them have more paid holidays than we do. In the European Union just recently there was an amendment to the regulations. In every country in the European Union the minimum vacation is now four weeks. If we look at the union itself, we find that the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands have four weeks. Other countries, such as France, Sweden, Spain and Denmark, have a mandatory five week holiday. Austria has five weeks. Japan, which has become an economically developed country over the last 20 years or so, has a five week holiday.

This is different from Canada, where people get only two or three weeks. There is also a difference between us and a number of other developed countries in the European community, where there is a minimum of four or even five weeks. The latter is the case for France, Spain and other countries such as Japan.

It is interesting that when we do the research on this particular issue we find that in the United States, for example, there is no mandated minimum holiday period. The American workers have no right whatsoever to any kind of holiday except what they receive from their employers or what they get through a negotiated union contract. This is how we compare with the rest of the world. Moving from two weeks to three and from three weeks to four would put us more in step with much of the developed world in terms of what is happening around us.

I really believe that if workers had more time off it would be better and more productive for the economy. Workers are more productive when there is less fatigue and boredom. I believe it would be more competitive because workers in this country would be on a level playing field with workers in many other countries around the world.

I also believe that economic activity would increase. A good example of that is France. In France where workers have five weeks off we will find that many of them will be holidaying, travelling, touring, sightseeing, spending money in hotels, auberges, restaurants and tourist resorts. It is a stimulus to the economy in a place like France and many other countries around the world.

I also look at this from a health point of view with regard to stress. I realized when we started doing research on this that millions and millions of dollars were spent every year in this country and around the world because of stress. A longer vacation would take some of the stress off working people and families in this country. A study done recently showed that people who had annual vacations had 30% less heart disease than people who did not take annual vacations. Therefore, the quality of life would increase.

In 1999 there was a study done by Health Canada on work/life conflicts of the Canadian people. It was discovered work/life conflicts cost the health care system some $425.8 million per year. That is a lot of money each and every year.

How do we compare to the provinces in terms of the Canada Labour Code? The Canada Labour Code covers 1.2 million people. All other people who work in this country are covered by the various provincial labour codes. There are some variances between the provinces.

I am proud to say that my province of Saskatchewan is the only province that provides a minimum three week holiday for a worker covered by the Saskatchewan labour code. After 10 years in Saskatchewan people get a four week holiday if they still work for the same employer. There may have been a change in Quebec. Recently Quebec employees received a two week holiday and then three weeks after five years.

There may have been a recent change in Quebec, where the situation is now the same as in the province of Saskatchewan. In all provinces other than Saskatchewan and Quebec, workers get a minimum of two weeks holiday.

In British Columbia, Alberta and Manitoba, they get three weeks after five years service. In New Brunswick, all workers get three weeks after eight years. In Newfoundland, it is three weeks after 15 years with the same employer. Fifteen years is a long time, but after that they get three weeks. In Nova Scotia, Ontario and P.E.I. workers get only two weeks. After 5, 6, 10 or 15 years of service, Ontario workers still get only two weeks.

I am surprised in particular by Ontario, an industrialized province that prides itself on being relatively progressive and avant garde and yet allows for only two weeks of holidays. According to the labour code in Ontario an employee could work at a job like Ontario Hydro for 10, 15, 20 or 25 years and get only two weeks of holidays per year. Of course because of collective bargaining and the power and influence of the trade union movement in Ontario, Ontario Hydro's workers have much more than two weeks of holidays. However the government is laggard and way behind in terms of additional holiday pay.

It is about time we looked at amending the Canada Labour Code to raise the minimum vacation pay from two weeks to three weeks. After six years the minimum could be raised from three to four weeks. This would put the Canadian people on a more level playing field with other countries around the world. It would alleviate a great deal of stress. It would be easier on the health care system which is costing an awful lot of money, partly because of the stress of the modern day workplace.

Vacation pay is defined as 4% of annual wages or 6% after 6 consecutive years of employment with the same employer. We could afford it. It would stimulate the economy and make it more productive. It would make the Canadian people happier. It would create a less stressful and more healthy workplace and nation. All these things are positive.

Through my talks with the trade union movement around the country and with Canadians both inside and outside the trade union movement I know the time has come to launch this progressive movement. It has already happened in many countries around the world.

Let us imagine this. French workers have five weeks of holidays. Many countries around the world have a shorter work week. We should be moving toward a shorter work week with no reduction in pay. We have technology, automation and computers. We have all these things which are supposed to lessen the work burden of the Canadian people and provide them with more quality and leisure time to spend with their families and friends or pursue hobbies and other interests. However it seems a lot of the technology has added to the work time of the Canadian people and made life more stressful and difficult for many.

I hope parliament will take this idea, refer it to the labour committee or whatever relevant committee of the House, and pursue it in legislation so that when we come back in the fall we can amend the Canada Labour Code in a way that is positive for each and every Canadian worker who falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government. If the federal government did this it would provide an example to all the provinces to change their own labour codes so we could give Canadian workers the break they deserve for building the country and making it the great nation it is today.

I look for the support of all members of parliament from all parties for the idea. If we could pursue it in the fall and make changes to the labour code I am sure the Canadian people would be happy parliament had become more productive and was doing something on their behalf.