Dale Johnston

[Sergeant Robert Guthrie, May 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, at this hour, His Excellency the Governor General of Canada is awarding the Medal of Bravery to my constituent RCMP Sergeant Robert Guthrie of Leduc, Alberta.

While off duty on May 17, 1992, Sergeant Guthrie came upon a serious traffic accident near the town of Millet. With the help of Darrell Paul Robertson, he attempted to save three people trapped in a burning car. As an explosion rocked the vehicle and engulfed it in flames, they managed to bend the window frame and extricate the dazed driver.

Heroism is often depicted in movies and on television by famous actors portraying fictitious characters in unrealistic setting. Real heroes are everyday people like Robert Guthrie who disregard the threat to their own safety and risk life and limb in the face of imminent danger to extend a hand to their fellow man.

I add my personal congratulations to Sergeant Guthrie for his part in this valiant rescue. I know members of the House join me in saying thanks for your courageous act.

[Merit, May 2nd, 1996]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should support the rights of all job applicants to be evaluated solely on the basis of merit.

The way this motion piggybacks on to my colleague's previous motion it would appear we had it orchestrated that way, but I assure members it is simply the luck of the draw that it turned out that way.

Reformers are quite up front about where we stand on issues. Sometimes we are accused of not being politically correct, but we represent the interests of the grassroots, not the political elites.

While this motion stands in my name, it comes right from Reform Party policies. Our policies are the culmination of the grassroots process that starts in small communities within our ridings, then moves to the constituency level and then to the national assembly.

When election time rolls around Reform Party policies are ready. There will not be any surprises for Reform Party supporters or candidates thanks to the democratic process we follow. Liberals should follow our example instead of allowing a few advisors to publish another red book that will be tossed aside as soon as the votes are counted anyway.

Reformers believe that all Canadians are equal by virtue of their shared humanity but are not equal in terms of ability, preference and discipline. Canadians who wish to pursue a certain vocation should not face barriers of discrimination, and those with ability and discipline deserve the rewards of hard work.

Under the charter of rights and freedoms 1982, which has been quoted extensively tonight, every individual is equal before and under the law and has a right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.

Without a doubt this is the most important part of the charter. The authors, however, nullified this section by adding section 15.2, giving the government the right to pass affirmative action programs. Despite this contradictory clause and despite the fact that employment equity is deemed to be politically correct, it carries a stigma and a presumption of racial or gender inferiority. The reality is equity programs do not remove sex and racial bias from the workplace. They institutionalize them.

There was a time when the abilities of women and minorities were not recognized, but times have changed; this is not 1929. Employment barriers for women, minorities and the disabled have outlived their usefulness and are now in danger of creating new forms of discrimination. This government was so concerned about appearing more politically correct than its predecessors and capturing the hearts and votes of special interest groups that it introduced Bill C-64 in December 1994.

The government hoped it would divert attention away from the real problems of Canada, namely the $580 billion national debt.

Bill C-64 extended and superseded the 1986 Employment Equity Act. It now covers the public service, crown corporations and federally regulated private sector employees working in banks, airlines, railways and telecommunication companies. In a really invasive move it was extended to all businesses with over 100 employees that receive federal contracts.

While Bill C-64 does not apply specific quotas, the inspectors, auditors and those administering the legislation can make compa-

nies comply with numerical goals. What are numerical goals? Numerical goals are really quotas in disguise.

The government ignores polls showing employment equity has lost support among Canadians. It ignored evidence presented to the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Persons with Disabilities by credible witnesses.

For example, here is what Mark Pickup, a victim of multiple sclerosis, had to say when he appeared before the standing committee: "You cannot legislate someone to accept me because I happen to be disabled any more than you can legislate someone to love me. That achieves nothing. To try to legislate such things achieves condescension at best and hostility at worst. I do not need more of either. I need less of both".

Did the government listen to what he had to say? It ignored Mark Pickup, as it ignored thousands of other disabled and aboriginal people who told the committee the old act did not serve them well.

Last June during the Ontario election campaign even the provincial Liberal leader promised to scale back the provincial affirmative action law, calling it adversarial, bureaucratic and expensive to administer. Ontario voters subsequently elected Mike Harris who promised to do away with employment equity laws. He kept his promise; but then, he did not have a red book of broken promises like my friends across the way.

In October 1995 the European Court of Justice ruled that quota schemes for jobs and promotions violate European equal opportunity laws. In the United States three decades of affirmative action programs are being scrapped.

The government employment equity law is an insult to women, to minorities and to the disabled. In the government's attempt to atone for the past, it is trampling on the present and compromising the future.

A Reform government would treat people equally and would not punish today's generation for the wrongs of previous generations. Managing diversity goes beyond the narrow confines of employment equity. We have to create a fair work environment that recognizes and attempts to meet the needs of all employees.

The role of government is not to set terms and conditions under which private companies hire employees. It is time to let common sense prevail. A diverse workforce is a plus for any businesses. The market will dictate the diversity of the staff. They will do it on their own and they certainly do not need the hassle of excessive government red tape.

For some reason the Liberal government assumes that anyone in the four designated groups is disadvantaged. That presumption is patronizing, unfair and unrealistic.

Why does the government presume it has to legislate fairness? Does the government have the corner on morality? On March 21 the president of treasury board said that in one year the participation of women in the public service rose to 47.4 per cent from 44 per cent, that almost two-thirds of the 14,000 employees hired were women, and that 56 per cent of the employees promoted were women. That is a reflection of changing attitudes and a new reality.

I want to believe they were hired or promoted on the value of the work they performed and not on the basis of artificial quotas. The public service is staffed by skilled, competent women who deserve to be rewarded for their excellence, not for their gender. They deserve better from their employer than patronizing tokenism.

With promotion becoming the next logical step in the equity quest, we have to ensure we do not find a new way of perpetuating the Peter principle. Long ago the philosophy behind employment equity was to raise awareness. That has happened. Now we have to let the competitive forces of the workplace take over.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development. For the last two years we have been examining employment insurance. We hear about the need for programs to help people who have given up looking for work and that the job market is bleak. It is bleak enough without adding the unfair burden of numerical quotas.

The government created a new category of disadvantaged, young white males. My colleague has referred to the quotas imposed on the RCMP. During a career fair in the high school in my home town recently there were some young males who had expressed an interest in joining the RCMP. They were told they had better seek another line of employment.

Unemployment for young males aged 15 to 24 in March was 17.4 per cent. The rate for young females at the same time was 13.1 per cent, a difference of some 4.3 per cent. There is no question there are too many unemployed youth. The best way for the government to help unemployed Canadians is not through harmful equity programs but by balancing the budget, reducing the billions of dollars of debt and lowering taxes.

Special concessions undermine morale and respect. Somewhere along the way the notion of fair play vanished.

Immigrants who arrived in Canada over the centuries, our ancestors, came here because they saw this as a land of freedom and opportunity. The time has come to move into the age where all Canadians are considered equal.

[Grain Handling, May 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, task forces, inquiries and consultations can only be effective if the government is willing to act on their recommendations. Over the last two years the government has commissioned no less than three studies into the movement of grain through west coast ports, but nothing has changed as a result of all this work.

Workers, farmers, producers, shippers and manufacturers are worried. Work stoppages cost millions of dollars. Markets are lost and reputations are damaged. The clock is ticking. Is the government willing to stand by and wait until there is another labour disruption requiring back to work legislation for the umpteenth time?

There is an option. The west coast ports inquiry recommended final offer selection arbitration as a tool for settling labour-management disputes.

I suggest that the time has come for the government to relinquish control. Give labour and management the mechanism to solve their disputes and meaningful settlement will result.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 2nd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, here we are again discussing Bill C-12, a bill which in committee was subjected to time allocation, or at least limited debate. I would not be very surprised if we came up with another time allocation motion some time today to speed this bill along.

The name has changed. I suppose that was thrown in as a sort of an appeasement to the Reform Party. We kept saying unemployment insurance should be more like employment insurance. It should be more like insurance.

The Liberals said "maybe we will just change the name and that will give the illusion that we have actually made an insurance policy out of this, that the emphasis now will be on employment rather than on unemployment".

Insurance means insurance whether it is called unemployment or employment insurance. That is perhaps the reason the bill should go back to the drawing board. Maybe we can get it right. In its present form it does not really resemble insurance in any way.

Let us talk about insurance in the manner with which most Canadians are familiar. If you operate a motor vehicle, for instance, provincial law requires automobile insurance be purchased and maintained. If you have accidents regularly or if your car is stolen and you have to utilize insurance, you will find your rates will be increased according to the compensation paid by the insurance company.

If it were a true insurance policy, why would it include training programs and make work programs that really are not make work programs at all? Anybody who benefits from the make work programs as they stand now are the bureaucracies.

As far as training, we have heard from our colleagues in the Bloc they are most anxious to take over the manpower training provincially. If the government were to seek this, it would find the provinces agree that job training would be an area in which all provinces would be interested.

When I asked the minister of HRD last December about changes to the delivery of the training programs, he said we really should be transferring resources to the people, to the private sector, to communities.

If the minister agrees with that philosophy, if the provinces are willing to take on the training, if the private sector is willing to get involved, what is the stumbling block? The opposition certainly is not holding the government up on this. Why does it not go ahead and transfer these properties to the provinces where they would readily be accepted?

How does the minister reconcile the department's continued involvement in training programs when the Prime Minister announced that labour training programs would be the sole responsibility of the provinces? This is very difficult for me to understand.

A group of people in the fast food industry in my constituency wrote to me. They were very concerned about some of the provisions in this bill. One constituent basically said his costs will increase significantly if Bill C-12 becomes law. It is well on its way to becoming law.

This operator employs around 90 people, many of whom are students, part time workers. They are still going to school. Part of the idea is that they earn enough money to defray part of their university tuition. He said: "My customers are very price sensitive. I will have no choice but to cut back on employee hours and reduce the number of new hires in my business". He went on to say that implementing this payroll tax runs counter to the government's job creation objectives and is inconsistent with its position that payroll taxes kill jobs. As a matter of fact the government's position is that by reducing the premiums by five cents per $100 of wages earned that thousands of jobs would be created.

In light of the fact that the fund is predicted to increase to an $8 billion surplus this year, why will the government not reduce the premiums by $1 per $100 and create millions of jobs? I am using the government's map here. If one reduction of five cents per $100 will create so many jobs, why not create 20 times as many jobs? Why not go that route?

The Minister of Finance and other members of the government have admitted that the real killer of jobs is high taxes. Taxation is the killer of jobs. This gentleman who runs a fast food business in my constituency agrees with that statement but he cannot understand why the minister, the committee and the government does not see fit to reduce payroll taxes even more, bearing in mind that there will a huge surplus in this fund.

What possible reason could the government have to maintain such a high surplus? It says that times are not going to stay as good as they are. Perhaps the government is just creating a cushion for the downturn in the economy and the resulting jobs that may be lost. I do not know about that. Perhaps some creative bookkeeping is going on there. It seems to me that there never is a time when there is a surplus that one can actually put one's finger on. These surpluses seem to flow back and forth, and mostly forth into general revenue.

We are confronted today with over 200 amendments. If we debate those amendments one at a time, it is certainly going to take a lot of time. However, it will be time well spent. We should be able to debate this bill so that we actually dissect it. Eventually we will wind up putting it back together in a form that will be acceptable to Canadians, not only to the people who have to use UI from time to time but to those people who are employing the workforce of Canada.

[National Day Of Mourning, April 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the motion before us today calls for the flag on Parliament Hill to be

lowered to half mast on April 28 of each year the commemorate a national day of mourning for people killed in the workplace.

I am pleased to speak in support of this initiative. I commend the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake for bringing it forth today.

There probably is not anyone in the House who has not known someone who has been killed on the job. While driving through my constituency a few weeks back I came across a procession of people who had gathered at the site of where a friend of theirs, a taxi driver, had been killed. While on a call he was struck by another vehicle. The road conditions were icy at the time. Those people put up a large cross at the site of the accident. They covered the cross with flowers and left it there. As far as I know it is still there.

I suppose they did this for various reasons. One was to commemorate this person who was simply doing his job and who met with a very untimely and costly accident. Another reason would be to remind other motorists who travel along that route that they have to be ever vigilant.

I am sure that is what the member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake is trying to accomplish today. I commend him for that.

Before being elected to the House in 1993 I was a farmer. As a matter of fact, I still am. Generally I suppose people would assume farming is a very placid way of life, a laid back lifestyle with not much danger involved. However, farming is the most hazardous occupation in Canada.

From information provided to me by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture based on a survey done by the United States and adjusted to the Canadian agricultural population, the average death rate among industries is something like 11 per 100,000, but the farm death rate is five times higher. It is 55 deaths per 100,000. That surpasses mining with around 50 deaths per 100,000. Construction is in the neighbourhood of 37 per 100,000.

Between 1990 and 1994 in my home province of Alberta there were 82 farm fatalities. Farming also has the dubious honour of topping the list with the highest incidence of disabling injuries of all industries in Canada with 58 per 100,000.

In my youth I spent some years trucking. It may not be well known, but truckers will take evasive action to avoid collision with other vehicles to the point that they put life and limb on the line, so to speak, to avoid collision with other vehicles. In so doing, truckers have often avoided a vehicle full of people but they have paid very dearly. They have driven off the road, upset their vehicles or collided with approaching vehicles and paid with their lives.

When we are asked to reflect on the loss of life in the workplace we automatically think back about four years to May 9, 1992 when Canadians from coast to coast watched heroic attempts to rescue 26 trapped coal miners from the Westray mine in Plymouth, Nova Scotia. Twenty-six Canadians lost their lives in one of the worst workplace disasters in recent memory.

The conditions at the Westray mine that led to the explosion are currently the subject of an inquiry. One of the questions being asked is whether or not health and safety laws had been enforced.

I take exception to my colleague from The Battlefords-Meadow Lake who suggests that private enterprise makes conditions unfavourable or unsafe for workers. If we look at the more socialized countries, their workplace death rates are nothing to brag about either. While I agree with the general thrust of the member's bill, I admonish him for dragging that kind of politics into it.

The federal government is on the right track in some areas. It has put these jurisdictions under provincial control. I believe that is a move in the right direction. There is probably unnecessary duplication and overlap by provincial and federal jurisdictions. I would encourage this government to divest itself of areas in which it is not needed and to turn these areas over to the provinces where they may be administered better than they are now.

Workers in federally regulated industries are bound by the provisions of Part III of the labour code. Provinces have their own laws for occupational health and safety which differ from place to place. As I said, the federal government should take the initiative and divest itself of those areas.

The Canada Gazette of April 17, 1996 outlines the government's plan to extricate itself from setting the minimum wage rate which is a step in the right direction. More effort is needed to harmonize federal-provincial labour regulations.

For the past year a review of Part I of the labour code has been under way and amendments are expected this fall. I hope a review of Part II and Part III will soon follow. Yesterday we debated the possibility of severance pay for older workers, an issue brought forward by my colleague from the Reform Party. The debate indicated that Part III could use some review. As a result of my colleague's efforts, the subject matter has been referred to a committee. I am sure we will make some headway in that area.

Preliminary statistics for 1994, which is the last year available, show that there were 709 workplace related fatalities in that year. Seventy-four of those occurred in my province of Alberta. Whether workplace fatalities claim one life or twenty-six, they are devastating not only to family and friends of the deceased but to their co-workers and employers as well.

Workers make this country productive. We have to do our utmost to ensure that workplace health and safety standards are not compromised. Lowering the flag is not only a symbolic gesture. I am sure, as I said at the beginning, that what the hon. member intends to accomplish is to provoke thought and to bring about prevention.

[National Organ Donor Day Act, April 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-202 which seeks to designate every April 21 as national organ donation day.

Oftentimes we are reminded there are only two certainties in this life, death and taxes. We can count on this government to ensure that we pay more than our fair share of taxes and at the same time we have learned that we can postpone death. While we cannot put it off indefinitely, it is possible to postpone it.

Advances in medical technology have allowed some people to do just exactly that through organ transplant surgery. It has given Canadians from all walks of life from all across the country a second chance at life.

Organ donation operations are no longer an experimental procedure. They have become so successful that the number of people on waiting lists in Canada far exceeds the supply of available organs. I commend my friend from Ontario for introducing this bill. It increases the awareness of this problem in Canada. As has been pointed out by my colleague from the Bloc, it is to give the gift of life even though the person is no longer there to see that gift being given.

Since organ transplants began in Canada, some 18,000 operations have been performed. In 1984 there were 500 transplant operations while 10 years later in 1994 over 1,400 such operations took place. That is the good news. The not so good news is that in 1992 there were over 2,000 people on lists waiting to receive organs and by 1995 the number had grown to 2,600.

As members of Parliament we should take the initiative to promote the benefits of organ donation. There are common misconceptions with regard to organ donation which I think we have a duty to dispel.

For instance, there are those who believe it does little to save lives and restore health but the facts indicate the contrary. Organ donation is a proven life saver with success rates ranging from 85 to 95 per cent. That is a pretty good gamble for somebody who requires a kidney. It is not what one would call routine surgery but it is certainly not experimental either.

Another common misconception is that organ donations and transplants are a financial burden on health care, that they are costly. Organ donations and transplant operations not only save lives but they save dollars as well. The issue of health care dollars, as was evidenced by our previous debate, certainly is a timely topic

at the moment. Health care dollars are becoming more and more scarce all the time.

As an example, for those suffering from kidney disease, a transplant operation would cost in the neighbourhood of $20,000 plus about $5,000 a year for follow-up treatment, whereas renal or kidney dialysis for the same person would cost around $50,000 a year. Coupled with that, if the person has a functioning kidney their quality of life and their productivity is certainly a lot better than it would be if they had to rely on a kidney dialysis machine.

Another reason I encourage members to support this bill is that it will increase public awareness. The government will have to get the public thinking about organ donation if the gap between availability and demand is to be filled.

One of the biggest obstacles is the lack of communication between family members. Not that I want to do a commercial for Mutual Life Assurance Company of Canada but it did conduct a survey which found that only about half of Canadian families have ever discussed the issue and the circumstances surrounding organ donation. That is to say that only about half of them even discussed the matter and very few of those actually took the action of filling out a donor card, which is the first step.

Even though an individual may have signed the donor card, the family of a person who has just expired may express concerns and objections about the donation of a loved one's organs. As a matter of professional practice, the doctor will defer to the family's expressed concern. The result is that the organs will not be donated. They will not be used to benefit a waiting recipient.

One solution to this quandary is to have both spouses, the guardians or people who are indicated as next of kin in the event of death sign the organ donation card so that there will be agreement on whether or not the organs are to be donated. This will increase the timeliness and of course with organ donations timeliness is very important.

Perhaps there is a need for a national registry of potential organ donors. In case of fatal traffic accidents for instance, the personal effects including the driver's licence may be separated from the victim. If a person has filled out the organ donor card on the back of their licence, it does not really solve the problem if the driver's licence is in one place and the body is in another. Often too much time elapses before this is realized and by that time the organs may not be suitable for donation.

Another option is to have prospective organ donors registered with the Canadian Police Information Centre. There is access to the Canadian Police Information Centre all day every day. It is registered across the country. All that is needed is the authorization of the solicitor general and the police authorities in order to carry out this step.

Such measures would address waiting lists which continue to grow and lives that are needlessly lost as a result. In 1995 alone 1,114 Canadians died because they had not received a suitable organ for transplantation, an organ that would have restored their health.

I was astonished to learn that Canada has one of the lowest organ donation rates in the world. In Canada there are only 14 donors per million whereas in other countries the average ratio is between 20 and 30 donors per million. There is a lot of work to be done. As I have said before, that is the goal of my colleague from Ontario who would like to raise awareness of this problem and increase those numbers to make available more and more organs for donation.

Earlier I mentioned new initiatives the government should consider. In the interim Canadians should be made aware that they can do more than sign their driver's licences and register as donors.

Mutual Life Assurance Company of Canada sponsored an organ donation campaign called "By Mutual Consent: Breaking Barriers to Organ Donation". A number of non-profit organizations such as the British Columbia Transplant Society, the Kidney Foundation of Canada, the Canadian Transplant Society, Organ Donors Canada in Alberta and the Canadian Association of Transplantation are active in promoting and co-ordinating organ donation efforts.

Bill C-202 is an example of an effort to do more. It is a reasonable and worthy initiative which could complement other efforts designed to motivate people to give the gift of life. Along with national donor week which we celebrate at this time each year, which apparently is not exactly a national donor week but an Ontario donor week, the member for Ontario's initiative would promote and encourage discussion on the issue surrounding organ donation.

Reformers are pleased to support this bill as it would contribute to efforts to address this need proactively. In doing so it would save lives and improve the health and the quality of life of many Canadians. It would conserve precious health care dollars and encourage the public's awareness and discussion. I urge all members to support the bill, consider the issue themselves and discuss it in their constituencies.

After all, healthy Canadians are more productive Canadians. We are very concerned about the quality of life in Canada. If we as individuals or as a group want to ensure people will not be on waiting lists for organ donation transplants, we should be proactive in our approach.

[Department Of Health Act, April 19th, 1996]

Like the Liberal whip.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, April 18th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, my Bloc colleague suggests that the Minister of Labour is needed because he adjudicates or solves problems that arise between labour and management. I submit to him that I have never seen a labour minister, provincial or federal, who has solved a labour problem.

I would like to cite the three instances in the two and a half years that I have been here when the House voted to force workers back to work, whether they were locked out or on strike, in order for grain transportation to continue. That is not ministerial intervention. That is intervention by the entire House of Commons. The minister does not solve those problems. If he really wanted to do something to solve those problems he would look at implementing final offer arbitration selection so that both groups, management and labour, would have the tools to resolve their problems without involving either the minister or the House of Commons.

All due respect to my friend, just because we have had a minister of labour for years and years is no justification for us to continue with that position.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, April 18th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

My Reform colleague spoke to the bill this morning. Although she touched on some labour issues, she had broader criticisms of the bill.

I would like to address an issue that my Bloc colleague has raised. It is the overlap in provincial and federal jurisdiction. The position of our party is that jurisdiction should be given to the level of government which is closest to the people. Less government is the best government. To decrease the bureaucracy would be of benefit to all Canadians. The bureaucracy would be closer to the people it serves.

As is sometimes the case now with the federal government, there would not be a nameless, faceless entity. Canada is a huge place and the capital cannot be everywhere. For the vast majority of Canadians the capital is a long way from home.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, April 18th, 1996]

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.