George Proud

[Canada Labour Code, March 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, under the current provisions of the code, the terms and conditions of an expired collective agreement

must be maintained during the negotiation process or until the right to strike or lockout is acquired.

[Canada Labour Code, March 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, to get back to the topic, the official opposition put forward Motion No. 13, as we heard earlier, in order to amend the process provided in the code for dealing with technological changes introduced while a collective agreement is in force.

One of the amendments proposed would prohibit the employer from implementing the technological changes until an agreement is reached with the union. The process currently provided in the Canada Labour Code applies only when the parties have not included in their collective agreement their own process for dealing with the impact of technological changes on the job security of bargaining unit employees.

Under the statutory process, if the employer and the trade union are unable to agree on the implementation of the proposed changes, the union may ask the board for authorization to serve notice to bargain for the purpose of revising relevant provisions of the collective agreement.

Where such an application is made to the board, the employer may not implement the changes until the board either rejects the application, or an agreement is reached through the collective bargaining process, or the right to strike, or the right to lockout is acquired.

The collective bargaining context has changed since the technological change provisions were first introduced in 1973. At the time, few if any collective agreements included mechanisms to address the impact of technological changes on job security. Today unions and employers routinely include their own mechanisms in their collective agreements designed to address significant changes in the workplace which impact on the job security of bargaining unit employees.

This underlines the party's preference to deal with such changes through processes they design themselves. This also explains why the Sims task force, in reviewing the current technological change provisions in the code, concluded that no statutory changes were needed.

Motion No. 14, the freeze on terms and conditions, put forward by the official opposition, would basically prohibit the employer from changing the terms and conditions of an expired collective agreement after the right to strike and lockout had been acquired so that the terms and conditions would continue to apply until a new agreement was entered into.

Under the provisions of the code, the terms and conditions of an expired collective agreement must be maintained during the negotiation process until the right to strike or a lockout is acquired. After that point in the bargaining cycle, an employer, subject to the continuing duty to bargain in good faith, may change terms and conditions while the employees are entitled to initiate strike action.

The Simms task force carefully examined the issue of what is commonly referred as the freeze period and concluded that an extension of the statutory freeze was not needed. The task force noted that the parties are free to include a bridging provision in their collective agreement providing for a continuation of terms

and conditions of employment beyond the date strike and lockout rights are acquired. However, such bridging clauses cannot be used by an employer to prevent a union from exercising legally acquired strike rights or by a union to prevent an employer from exercising legally acquired lockout rights.

Other changes in the bill will maintain terms and conditions for those employees who will be required to continue working during a work stoppage in order to maintain those activities that are necessary to protect public health and safety or to provide services to grain vessels.

Given the other provisions included in Bill C-66 that will protect the basic rights of employees on strike or locked out to continue group insurance coverage and give them access to arbitration for cases of dismissal or discipline, the extension of the freeze period up to the date of the conclusion of the new collective agreement would not represent a fair balance of the competing rights involved.

The official opposition has submitted Motion No. 36 that would prohibit employers from expressing their views during the period when representation rights are being determined by the board. According to the new paragraph 94(2)(c) which implements the recommendation of the task force, an employer will be deemed not to commit an unfair labour practice by expressing its views so long as the employer does not use coercion, intimidation, threats, promises or undue influence.

Several provincial labour laws already recognize explicitly the employers' right to express their views subject to similar limitations.

Under the current section 94 of the code, it is an unfair labour practice for an employer to interfere with the formation or administration of a trade union or the representation of employees by a trade union. Section 94(2) describes certain permitted employer actions.

Although section 94(2) provides no explicit exception for non-coercive employer speech, the law has never been that employers must remain absolutely silent. Accordingly, the Canada Labour Relations Board, in interpreting the general prohibition of employer interference, has implied the concept of free speech and placed similar restrictions as its provincial counterparts.

Bill C-66 will therefore confirm the Canada Industrial Relations Board's responsibility to balance the employer's freedom of speech with the competing employee's freedom of association which are both guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We believe that the board is in the best position to define the parameters of employer free speech and the appropriate standard, taking into account the context in which the speech issue arises and the nature of the collective bargaining relationship.

We are confident that this new provision will in no way diminish the union's exclusive right to represent employees and we therefore ask the members of the House to support it.

[Canada Labour Code, March 3rd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, did you call Motion No. 12?

[Canada Labour Code, March 3rd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, clause 24 of Bill C-66 adds a provision to the Canada Labour Code which would require an employer succeeding another as the provider of certain services to the air transport industry to pay employees remuneration not less than that which the employees of the previous contract were entitled to receive under the terms of a collective agreement. On the recommendation of the Minister of Labour the governor in council can extend the application of this provision to other industries.

The Reform Party has put forward Motion No. 11 to remove this requirement from Bill C-66. This provision has been included in the bill to address important labour relations matters which not only affect workers in this sector but also impact on the safety of the flying public.

Rather than remove the provision, we are proposing MotionNo. 12 to amend it to address some legitimate concerns which have been raised by representatives in the air transportation sector with respect to its current scope. The amendment we wish to make to clause 24 would limit the immediate application of this provision to employers providing airport security screening services.

We ask members of the House to approve this amendment as it will promote competition based on efficiency gains and enable contractors with unionized employees to answer tender calls; reduce staff turnover and ensure that the personnel assigned to the protection of the flying public have the proper training experience; protect the remuneration of unionized workers who can be penalized when their employer loses a service contract.

What this provision does not do is limit the right of employers in the air transportation sector or any other sector to contract for services. As is presently case the right to contract out services would remain subject to the terms of any collective agreement to which the employer is party. The requirement to maintain remuneration levels would only apply to successor contractors.

At present when a business subject to the Canada Labour Code decides to change contractors at the expiration of a service contract there is nothing in the code that protects the employees of that contractor. Consequently, if those employees were unionized and it succeeded in entering into a collective agreement they often lose the monetary benefits they have negotiated and in some cases they lose their jobs. As well, the employees of the employer that wins the service contract often have poor wage conditions.

We recognize that the air transport industry has a legitimate interest in containing costs and staying competitive. Still, the Canadian air transport industry has itself recognized that the turnover of employees assigned to security service contracts has a negative impact on its ability to maintain a skilled experienced work force. Because of problems caused by the practice of awarding successive contracts for services for security services in the air transport sector, the Department of Transport in its capacity as administrator of major airports reached an agreement with the Canadian airlines in 1988. Under the terms of the agreement the airlines were required to include in contracts for preboard security screening services a clause guaranteeing the employees wages and benefits would be maintained if the level provided for in the contract had existed before the call of tenders.

This agreement which was revised in 1992 resulted in a reduced turnover rate for security personnel, improved working conditions and a better security screening system. It is this policy which the bill now seeks to codify. The Standing Committee on Human Resources Development heard the submissions made by the Air Transport Association of Canada which raised concerns about the

new obligations included in the bill. In the association's view since the agreement entered into with the Department of Transport in 1988 solved the problems associated with tender calls for security services, it would be pointless and unwarranted to formalize the agreement as proposed in section 47(3).

Although we commend the airlines for their co-operation in honouring the agreement of the Department of Transport since 1988, we must not lose sight of the fact that some airports have not been administered by the Department of Transport for a few years now. Their numbers are growing.

As a result, Transport Canada has less direct influence to ensure that this policy is respected. With the proposed amendment to clause 24, the provision will apply in the immediate term only to security screening services.

This will codify the contractual obligations that air transport employers have been honouring for eight years and have been recognized as a reasonable method of correcting the problems associated with contract free tendering for security services.

The proposed amendment addresses the concerns raised by the TAC about the advisability of applying this provision to other services contracted out by its members such as fuelling and ground services.

In the association's view, applying this provision to such services could cause more labour relations problems than it would solve. It is usually the airlines that provide these services with the help of unionized personnel.

In view of the submissions made to the committee and the objectives of this provision we are proposing to limit its application to security screening services.

However, the governor in council will retain authority to extend the application of this section to other services and other industries under federal jurisdiction on the recommendation of the Minister of Labour if problems similar to those which arose as a result of changes of contractors providing preboard security screening services in the airport sector occur.

I urge members to support the government motion and retain the requirement in clause 24 of the bill but with a restricted application. This will ensure that workers in the security screening sector are treated with equity. With respect to the remuneration, it will also contribute to ensuring the safety of the flying public.

In addition, there will be a mechanism available to address problems should they arise in other sectors.

[Tourism, March 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the summer tourism season is fast approaching. On Prince Edward Island our tourism industry is quickly preparing for a record breaking year. This is the year we open the Confederation Bridge between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick.

There are plenty of other reasons to visit Charlottetown. In particular, on Canada Day weekend we have the Festival of the Lights. On Labour Day weekend we have the Festival of the Fathers. At Province House, the provincial legislature and site of the 1864 Charlottetown conference, an audio-visual program is run by Parks Canada.

Throughout the summer we have the Confederation Centre of Arts including the Charlottetown Festival Young Company. Besides showing the famous Anne of Green Gables play there are number of heritage events such as a film series, speakers series and a summer lecture series.

These are just some of the highlights of our summer season. I encourage all Canadians and all visitors to visit this summer the birthplace of Confederation.

[Canada Labour Code, March 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition has put forward motions that would give the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development a role in the remuneration of board members, the establishment of regional board offices and the tabling of the annual report with respect to the information obtained under the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act.

Bill C-66 reflects the consensus of the labour management working group and the recommendations of the Sims task force with respect to the establishment of a new representational Canada Industrial Labour Relations Board.

The new board is structured to ensure effective and efficient administration of the code and to better reflect the labour and management communities it serves across the country. With respect to the remuneration of board members, as is the case with other governor in council appointees, remuneration and fees will be set by the governor in council.

GIC positions are evaluated using a position classification plan which ensures that appropriate relativities are maintained between different levels of responsibility not only within a given organization but between organizations. It allows for outside and inside compensation relativity comparisons and application of the principle of salary equity. Such factors could not be ensured if the remuneration of the board members were to be determined through a different process from other governor in council appointees.

Bill C-66 as drafted authorizes the board to establish regional offices that the chairperson considers necessary for the proper performance of the board's mandate. I fail to see any rationale for giving a standing committee of the House a role in determining what is strictly an operational issue.

Motion No. 50, the filing of the CALURA report with respect to the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act. There is a requirement in the act for the minister responsible to table a report in Parliament. Standing Order 32(5) already provides that where a report is provided to Parliament pursuant to a statutory obligation it is deemed to have been referred to the appropriate committee.

Motion No. 6, expenses of part time members. My colleague in the Reform Party seeks to introduce in the code the cost recovery concept, but only with respect to expenses incurred by the part time representative members of the board. To require the parties to reimburse the expenses of the part time representative members would impose a financial burden on small employers as well as on individual employees who wish to exercise their fundamental rights or seek redress of unfair labour practices. Such financial barriers would limit the benefits of this new representational structure of the board to those parties who can afford it.

Motion No. 9, revocation of employer representative. The official opposition is also asking to modify the provision in Bill C-66 which would allow the board at the request of one or more employers to revoke the designation of an employer representative in the longshoring industry if the board is satisfied that the employer representative is no longer qualified to act in that capacity.

This provision was included in Bill C-66 in order to address the current lack of explicit statutory authority to change employer representatives, an issue which was brought to the attention of the task force by the employers active in the longshoring industry in St. Lawrence River ports. No views or positions were put forward by the unions involved in the geographical certification regime in those ports with respect to this provision. Quite frankly, we fail to understand the rationale for this motion.

Motion No. 45, certification as remedy. With respect to the motion by my colleague from the Reform Party to delete clause 46 of Bill C-66 which authorizes the Canada Industrial Relations Board to issue a certification order as remedy for employer unfair labour practices, I would like to underline once again that this is a recommendation of the task force. While in the majority of cases existing remedies in the code for unfair labour practices are sufficient to discourage violations or to redress illegitimate actions, in some cases employee efforts to unionize are met with vigorous employer opposition tactics such as firing of known union supporters.

Such illegitimate acts may not only put a chill on organizing efforts, they may make it impossible to measure union support because of workers' fears of retaliation. With the exception of the Alberta board, labour boards in Canada have the statutory discretion to certify an applicant trade union when employer tactics are such that the true wishes of the employee cannot be determined by holding a representation vote. Labour boards exercise this discretion cautiously and use certification to remedy only the most egregious cases of employer misconduct.

The board will retain the discretion to hold a representation vote in any application. However, it will have the means to remedy these exceptional cases where employer misconduct has made it impossible to determine the true wishes of the employees by holding a representation vote.

On a related issue, we have heard the view expressed that the Canada Labour Code should provide for a mandatory representation vote. I would like to point out that the Sims task force studied this issue in detail. The task force was not persuaded that the card base system is an ineffective way of gauging employee wishes with respect to certification applications. The task force found that

timeliness is important in dealing with certification applications and noted that the practical impediments to timely votes in the geographically extended federal jurisdiction and the cost of such votes cannot be ignored and concluded that no legislative amendment was warranted.

Motion No. 49 is with respect to off site workers. The Reform Party is also seeking to require the board to obtain the consent of individual off site workers prior to providing their names and addresses to an applicant trade union. This provision of the bill has been the subject of some controversy which has been fuelled primarily by a poor understanding of its purpose and scope.

Contrary to what some of it intimated, this provision is in no way intended to give trade unions physical access to the private homes of off site workers which without the workers' consent would clearly violate their rights to privacy.

As recommended by the task force, under this new provision the board will be responsible for determining under what circumstances the names and addresses of off site workers will be provided in order that the union may communicate with them by mail, by telephone or by electronic means. The board must specify in the order the conditions to be met by the trade union to ensure the protection of privacy and the safety of the employees concerned.

We ask the members to support clause 50 of Bill C-66. As drafted it strikes a fair balance between the rights of the off site workers to exercise their freedom of association and their rights to privacy and safety.

Motion No. 54 is with respect to transfer of appropriations. The Minister of Labour has put forward an amendment with respect to a transitional matter. Adoption of Motion No. 54 will allow unexpended appropriations for the current Canada Labour Relations Board to be transferred to the new board when it is established. This will permit the new board to be established without undue delay and ensure there is no interruption in the administration of part I of the Canada Labour Code.

[Canada Labour Code, March 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition has submitted two related motions to make part I of the Canada Labour Code applicable to the Professional Institute of the Public Service, its members and the employers of those members, and the Public Service Alliance of Canada, its members and the employers of those members.

At the outset let me say that we have some difficulty understanding the purpose of the motions. It would appear that the purpose is to repeal the Public Service Staff Relations Act or, at the very least, significantly reduce the numbers of federal public service employees subject to the act. If that is the case-and let me say that such a proposal is unacceptable to the government-in essence these motions would bring 80 per cent of the public servants currently covered by the Public Service Staff Relations Act under part I of the code, leaving 20 per cent of the public service represented by the 14 other unions under the public service collective bargaining regime.

Quite frankly we fail to see the rationale behind these motions which would effectively split public servants into two groups: one covered by the private sector labour relations regime and the other covered by the public sector labour relations regime. The basis for such distinction escapes us.

While the task force established to review part I of the code did not address the issue of applying this statute to the federal public sector, it did note the potential for achieving benefits by consolidating the Public Service Staff Relations Board and the Canada Labour Relations Board. Although a merger of these two tribunals is not being proposed at this time, value and efficiencies could be realized in an administrative consolidation of the private and public sector boards.

Among the benefits that could be achieved through such rationalization we could easily identify cost savings for the boards, savings to the parties who would benefit from a single source, and harmonization of procedures which would eliminate unnecessary diversity in dealing with essentially similar topics and broader based coverage.

Although collective bargaining in the private sector and in the public sector have much in common, there are important distinctions which would require careful consideration before any decision to harmonize the two regimes is made.

In the private sector labour legislation is designed to regulate the relationship between private parties with economic power being the main disciplining mechanism. In the public sector the legislation is largely designed to take into account the government's role in protecting the public interest. Such fundamental differences have resulted in the application of separate labour relations regimes to govern employees in most Canadian jurisdictions.

The public service has been through some significant changes in the past 10 years as many of its activities have been removed to new forms of agencies outside the traditional public service or have been simply transferred to private or crown corporations. In those two last situations the collective bargaining of employees affected by such transfers is currently being governed by part I of the code.

Some would argue that these changes in the nature of the public service are the most persuasive reasons for revisiting the rationale for the creation and maintenance of the two separate legislative regimes. However we have to be careful before rushing into harmonization. Such an exercise would require extensive consultations of all the interested parties.

The minister has already expressed his intention to pursue further the analysis of the amalgamation and harmonization concepts with interested colleagues and parties.

For the reasons just outlined we ask the members of the House to reject both Motions Nos. 2 and 3 as they raise complex issues that were obviously overlooked by the official opposition and would require further study.

[Canada Labour Code, March 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, before I address the motion put forward by the official opposition in Group No. 1, I will say a few words about the purpose of Bill C-66 and about the consultation process that preceded its introduction.

Bill C-66 is the result of extensive consultations with representatives of labour and management and other interested parties in the context of a review of Part I of the Canada Labour Code which began over two years ago. An independent task force of industrial relations experts was established to review the current code and to recommend legislative changes.

Following the release of the task force report entitled "Seeking a Balance" in February 1996, the Minister of Labour held cross-country consultations. These extensive consultations have resulted in a bill that is fair and balanced. Its provisions reflect the labour and management support for a legislative framework that allows them to develop their own solutions to industrial relations problems without the need for government intervention or imposed third party solutions.

There is a clear relationship between a positive labour relations environment and a productive viable economy. A stable positive labour relations climate is essential if Canada is to meet the competitive challenges of the new global economy. Collective bargaining legislation should encourage and facilitate co-operative labour-management relationships and the adoption of innovative workplace practices. We believe Bill C-66 succeeds in meeting these goals.

With respect to Motion No. 1, the official opposition is seeking to exclude flour mills or other undertakings for the milling of grain from the application of the Canada Labour Code. As the hon. member who has proposed this amendment is aware, the grain industry has been declared by Parliament to be, as my colleague from Wetaskiwin said, for the general advantage of Canada. As such, the industry lies within the federal jurisdiction.

I understand there are two declarations by Parliament that affect the grain industry in Canada. One is found in the Canada Grain Act which establishes the Canadian Grain Commission, and the other is found in the Canadian Wheat Board Act. The designation of flour mills as works for the general advantage of Canada is found in the Canadian Wheat Board Act.

Industries declared to be for the general advantage of Canada-uranium mining and processing is another one such industry-are subject to federal labour jurisdiction even if they are situated wholly within one province. Section 2(h) of the Canada Labour Code confirms this jurisdictional fact.

I believe the hon. member had a specific undertaking and a single province in mind when he proposed this amendment. However, the grain industry and its related activities extend across this vast country and touch every region. The amendment would cover all three parts of the code: minimum standards in safety and health, the labour relations provisions dealt with, and the part we are addressing today.

To exclude the grain industry from the application of the code at the stroke of a pen, as is proposed, would create chaos and is not acceptable. Furthermore, removing the industry from the application of the code would not remove it from federal jurisdiction. The declarations in the two statutes I cited previously would remain.

Declarations for the general advantage of Canada cannot be partial. Consequently, the amendment would create a vacuum with no labour legislation legally applying to the industry. I am sure that is not what the hon. member intends. In short, I cannot support this proposed amendment.

[Nuclear Liability Act, February 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House on Bill C-249. I thank my colleague, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, for bringing this important matter before the House.

The hon. member has a long and distinguished history of service to Canadians. I commend him on his commitment to issues of public safety and well-being. This member is well known across the country for the good work he has done. He is especially well known in my part of the country.

This proposed legislation is another example of my colleague's concern for Canadians and it deserves the careful attention of this House. As I understand it, Bill C-249 would achieve three objectives. First, it would increase the maximum level of a nuclear operator's liability for third party damage in the event of a nuclear accident. The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce is proposing that nuclear operators be required to carry $500 million worth of liability insurance compared to the current requirement of $75 million.

By extension, Bill C-249 would increase the threshold at which the Nuclear Damage Claims Commission would be established and claims would be moved from the court system to the commission.

Finally, the bill would require the minister to make liability payments once an order is issued by the commission. This addresses what some have criticized as unwarranted discretion on the part of the minister.

I want to make it very clear that the government supports in principle the objective of increasing operator liability under the Nuclear Liability Act. We support a strengthened commitment to compensate victims of nuclear accidents. At the same time, we recognize that a number of other important changes need to be made to the act. I would like to take a few moments to explain why.

The Nuclear Liability Act, as the hon. member said, was proclaimed in 1976. It establishes a comprehensive scheme for

compensating victims of injury and damage arising from nuclear accidents. Twenty years after its proclamation, the act continues to uphold the principles that are important to a nuclear liability regime.

It is important to note that in those 20 years the Nuclear Liability Act has not changed substantially. A full six years before it was proclaimed, the act was actually passed by Parliament in 1970. It is a quarter of a century old and in that time the nuclear industry has evolved dramatically. While there is clearly a need to increase liability levels in the act, this is only one of several modernizations that need to be made for the benefit of potential victims of a nuclear accident.

In other words, the time has come for a comprehensive review of this act. Recent litigation that challenged the constitutionality of the act also highlighted the need for a comprehensive review. Although the Ontario Court, General Division, ruled in 1994 that the act is valid federal legislation, in 1996 an appeal of that decision was discontinued.

We need to update and modernize the act to more fully meet our present domestic needs and also to reflect changes in the area of international nuclear liability. In addition to revising the compensation regime, we need to correct several technical problems that have been identified within the act.

I am pleased to inform the House that such a comprehensive review is currently under way. A federal interdepartmental review committee has already developed a number of proposals to amend the act, and these proposals have been presented to key stakeholders, including operators of nuclear facilities, representatives of provincial ministries with responsibility for energy and emergency planning, and the Nuclear Insurance Association of Canada. Based on the feedback received during these preliminary discussions and on subsequent consultations, the review committee will recommend how to proceed.

Hon. members should know that the stakeholders involved in these discussions have expressed strong support for a comprehensive review of the Nuclear Liability Act, one that will encompass all of the issues that need to be addressed. The outcome will be a package of amendments that will update, modernize and clarify the entire act.

I want to assure the House that the improvements to the compensation regime as proposed in Bill C-249 are a key element of the review. This is the most important objective of the revision process. I agree with the hon. member that we need to review the current liability limit of $75 million. We must arrive at a liability level that reflects current realities. I think the limits should be raised, but I do not know whether that amount should be $500 million or some other amount. We should approach the matter in a thoughtful way, assessing what funds might be available from whom, and in what form.

The interdepartmental review committee is currently exploring options for securing higher levels of insurance from private insurers. This would increase funding for victims. The review committee is prepared to consider other forms of security, such as self-insurance, pooling arrangements and government compensation. If we examine all these sources, we may well come up with a $500 million fund. However, I am told that this is not an easy matter and certainly it is not clear that the private insurers can come up with these funds.

Another issue we need to consider is the impact Bill C-249 will have on the federal government's liability under the reinsurance agreement that was signed with the Nuclear Insurance Association of Canada in 1976. Reinsurance enables insurance companies to undertake business that their limited capacity would not normally allow them to touch.

This arrangement between the federal government and the NIAC provides for both additional insurance capacity and additional types of risk. Basically it ensures that the federal government will provide coverage for all the risks contemplated in the Nuclear Liability Act that are not covered by the operator's insurance up to that limit of $75 million.

For example, some small reactors may be required by the Atomic Energy Control Board to carry only $500,000 in liability insurance. In that case, the remaining $74.5 million is guaranteed by the federal government through the reinsurance agreement. Increasing the maximum liability to $500 million would mean that the federal government could become liable for as much as $499.5 million under this scenario. Any amendment to the liability limit clearly should be accompanied by changes to the reinsurance agreement.

The interdepartmental review committee is addressing another issue, the limitation periods for claims arising from nuclear accidents. Under the current act, claims must be brought within 10 years of the accident. However, some arguments favour extending the limitation period for claims related to personal injury or death.

Other arguments favour relying more heavily on administrative systems, rather than the courts to deal with compensation. This could be achieved by amending the act to explicitly lower the threshold at which the Nuclear Damage Claims Commission is established. The result would be a more effective compensation scheme that minimizes hardships for victims of nuclear accidents.

A number of other provisions of the Nuclear Liability Act need to be clarified or updated. For example, the definition of compensable nuclear damages should be reviewed. The current definition does not make explicit reference to environmental damage, preventive measures or economic losses. This is not consistent with evolving international trends, nor with the growing public concern for the environment or with principles of fairness. The review will

address the need to revise the definition of nuclear damage to reflect these matters.

As well, the rules and regulations governing the Nuclear Damage Claims Commission need to be elaborated. The criteria for the commission's membership could be broadened to permit people with a range of experience to participate.

Another concern is that under the current act, the rules governing the commission's procedures can only be developed after the commission is established. It would seem to make sense to have this operating framework in place before an accident occurs, rather than after an accident when the development process may be rushed and may not be well thought out.

As mentioned earlier, there are also a number of technical problems with the act. For example, the act lacks a preamble that would explain its purpose and objectives and describe a constitutional basis for the legislation. It has also been suggested that compensation amounts be included in regulations rather than in the act itself, since it is easier to amend regulations to take account of inflation or increased insurance capacity than it is to amend the act.

There is also a perceived need to clarify and strengthen the relationship between the federal government and the Nuclear Insurance Association of Canada.

In conclusion, I can offer my qualified support for Bill C-249. I acknowledge and agree with the objective of increasing liability limits under the Nuclear Liability Act. However, we need to establish a solid rationale for a new liability limit. As well, we need to identify where these funds come from and how this proposed change will affect the federal government's liability.

[Petitions, February 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present to the House today a petition signed by 200 of my constituents who strongly support the community action program for children.

The petitioners stress that health promotion preventive programs like CAPC are a cost effective way to spend health dollars. They also point out that local and regional evaluation studies of P.E.I. CAPC projects indicate a high level of success.

With this in mind these petitioners call upon government to maintain the CAPC with its present mandate and with its present resources.