George Proud

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

I just came in to see you.

[Canadian Broadcasting Company, May 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, late last week a tragedy was narrowly averted. It would have affected each and every Canadian from coast to coast. I am not talking about a natural disaster or a horrific accident, but to some the effects would have been far worse.

Such a tragedy would have meant no televised hockey playoffs and likely no televised summer Olympics. To sports fans nationwide it would have been devastating. Thanks to the courage and goodwill of everyone involved a strike at the CBC was avoided.

To hon. members of the House I suggest we stand to thank the negotiators of the CBC, the three unions involved, the Canadian Media Guild, the National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians, the Canadian Broadcasting Employees Union, and finally, lest we forget, the ever important and unrelenting efforts by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, especially its director, Warren Edmondson, for providing the bridge between the CBC and its unions.

Well done, folks.

[Criminal Code, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the government will be vigilant to minimize the effects of downsizing on the affected employees during the remainder of the program review implementation.

The government stated at the very beginning of this process that it was its intention to be fair to its employees.

It introduced the early retirement incentive and the early departure incentive programs in order to facilitate the transition of employees to retirement or to other employment outside the public service. These programs have been successful in achieving these ends.

As can be seen in the quarterly reports on downsizing, 4,715 employees had taken the ERI and 4,323 had taken either the EDI or its equivalent, the civilian reduction program in the Department of National Defence, up to the end of December of last year.

The early retirement incentive program will be available until March 31, 1998. The EDI program will be available until June 22, 1998.

We also introduced a program which allows employees who wish to leave the public service to switch with employees who wish to stay. This program has been a big success in my view, since it has permitted almost 2,000 employees to participate in such exchanges between March 24 of last year when the program was first introduced.

I am confident this tool will continue to be effective in accommodating departments, managers and employee needs and that management will strive to use this and other tools available to ease the transition of all those who will be affected.

[Criminal Code, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, Bill C-64, an act respecting employment equity, was adopted by this Parliament and given royal assent at the end of the last session. The new act clarifies existing employers' obligations and actually reduces their administrative burden.

Employers under the act must identify and remove employment barriers that prevent women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities from progressing in the workplace.

I would like to assure the hon. member that the Minister of Labour and his officials have been working in close consultation with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission to ensure that the Employment Equity Act can be put into force in the shortest timeframe possible.

However, since the new act leaves a number of details to regulation, we want to ensure that employers under the act have a clear understanding of the regulatory requirements and have ample lead time to make any changes that may be required to comply with these regulations.

In pursuit of this commitment, HRDC officials are holding consultations with employers, joint employer and labour organizations and designated group representatives and associations throughout the month of May.

Given the requirements of the regulatory process, we expect that the Employment Equity Act will come into force in mid-fall of this year.

[Child Labour, May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the speakers this evening in this debate I can say this is one of the rarer moments in this place where I have no doubt there is unanimous agreement about the spirit of the motion among all members here.

The economic exploitation of children is a violation of basic human rights. It is a violation that certainly outrages the sense of fairness and decency shared by virtually all Canadians.

I know very well that if we held a vote calling on nations to abolish child labour, all members of this assembly, regardless of their political affiliation, would be on their feet to support such a motion.

The hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona, who brought this motion forward, believes its passage would be a significant step by Canada in that direction. Regrettably it is rather more complex than that. Sweeping condemnation of all child labour assumes all children who work are being exploited. However, in many countries, including Canada, part time work is a fact of life for many children and it is neither exploitative nor detrimental to a child's development. It can help young people acquire skills and build confidence.

I know the hon. member will say he is not addressing part time jobs of people working at restaurants, McDonald's or delivering newspapers after school, and I understand that. However, to effectively combat exploitive child labour we must distinguish between work that helps a child grow into a responsible adult and work that is clearly detrimental to their well-being. That is the approach of the Government of Canada.

Oppressive child labour is rooted in poverty but it is also influenced by culture and traditional social values. Its eradication will not be easy. Simply putting children out of work is not the

answer. We need alternatives that ensure their education, their care and, equally important, substantial incomes for their families.

With reference to the hon. member's call for the government to prohibit imported goods made by child labour, as defined under the International Labour Organization conventions, let me point out that Canada is a member of the governing body of the ILO secretariat. We are represented by officials of labour programs from Human Resources Development Canada.

That enables us to play a proactive role within the ILO. I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg-Transcona is aware the ILO has taken a number of initiatives regarding child labour. An agency of the United Nations with 173 member states in 1973, it adopted convention 138 which addresses the minimum age for admission to employment.

There is considerable compliance in Canada with the underlying principles of convention 138. For instance, all jurisdictions in Canada have protective legislation specifying conditions under which children under the school leaving age can be employed. The employment of children under the school leaving age is generally prohibited during school hours. In terms of work outside school hours, jurisdictions generally prohibit work for young people under specified ages in specific occupations and situations which are likely to be injurious to their life, health, education or welfare.

Nevertheless, there are some divergences between the convention's requirement and the Canadian situation. No jurisdiction in Canada prohibits all work, including light work, for children under age 13. The general approach in Canada is that light work outside school hours can be a valuable a learning and socializing experience.

For these reasons, ratification of convention 138 is still under consideration. The agreement of all jurisdictions would be necessary to both ratification and implementation of the convention.

Canada is also supporting the global effort by the ILO to eliminate child poverty through the international program for the elimination of child labour, commonly known as IPEC. Last February the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in co-operation with the Minister for International Co-operation and the Minister of Labour, announced that Canada is contributing some $700,000 to assist in this program

Canada's contribution to the IPEC will enable the program to carry out its work, an endeavour that encourages governments to conform to international minimum age requirements for workers. This investment will help move us closer to the ending of the exploitation of nearly 200 million child workers around the world.

The hon. member is no doubt aware that the ILO is holding its annual conference in June. Child labour is expected to be on the agenda of the formal tripartite meeting at the ministerial level. The Minister of Labour will head the Canadian delegation which will seek the support of other delegations to have the ILO member states address the most abusive forms of child labour.

Besides the measures I have mentioned, in 1991 the Government of Canada ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The convention required signatories to protect children from economic exploitation and to protect them from work likely to interfere with their education or cause harm to their health or well-being.

Support for children is an important aspect of Canada's development aid program. My colleague from Dartmouth said a few minutes ago that about a million dollars a day from CIDA's budget is devoted to programs that address the needs of children.

As a member of NAFTA, Canada is a partner in the North American agreement on labour co-operation which also includes the principle of labour protection for children and youth.

Furthermore, we are not relying solely on measures now in place. The government is currently working with the ILO to build an international consensus. This consensus, which will be discussed at the 1998 ILO conference, will explore the establishment of a new legal instrument to strengthen international action against the worst forms of child labour. We believe our principal focus should address the main abuses suffered by working children.

The hon. member's motion calls for the government to take unilateral action to prohibit the import of goods made by child labour. My colleague from Dartmouth has already spoken on that matter. There is also a risk of driving the problem underground which would force working children into even more dangerous situations.

It is important to stress the government's unequivocal position that trade and human rights objectives are not in competition with each other. They are mutually reinforcing. They enable us to express our basic values. They enable us to work for clear and open rules to govern trade. In this way we reinforce our values and move closer to achieving our trade and human rights objectives. Besides working with the business community, the government is prepared to consult with trade unions, anti-poverty and child advocacy NGOs in the academic community.

In closing, I say to the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona that I share his frustration. I share his anger that exploitative child labour exists. However, I honestly believe the government has a more effective approach which will contribute to long term solutions. For that reason I regret that I am unable to support the hon. member's request for unanimous consent to have this motion made votable.

[Equality In The Workplace, May 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise tonight to speak in reply to private member's motion No. 141.

In his motion the member for Vancouver North asks that the government support the elimination of section 15(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is the section of the charter which allows for actions to balance the inequality in Canadian society, including the promotion of equality of opportunity in the labour marketplace.

The member states that section 15(2) of the charter derogates from the principle of equality that is enunciated in section 15(1) of the charter. The dictionary states that the word "derogate" means to stray from. Therefore, the member seems to be concerned that section 15(2) of the charter strays from the intent of section 15(1). Just for the record, 15(1) is the section of the charter which ensures all Canadians equality before and under the law and equal protec-

tion and benefit of the law without discrimination. It is one of the fundamental principles on which the charter is based.

To address the member's motion, as far as this government is concerned there is absolutely no contradiction in wanting to ensure equality for all Canadians, as section 15(1) does, while at the same time having the capacity to act in cases where there is a need to correct inequality of opportunity for which section 15(2) provides.

It is exactly by being able to implement measures in support of disadvantaged groups that we do guarantee equality in Canadian society. This is the kind of equality that section 15(1) of the charter of rights and freedoms calls for and the kind of equality that makes Canada one of the best places in the world in which to live.

Over the years this government and other governments before it have been willing to act when it was necessary to improve conditions for certain disadvantaged groups or individuals. This is a very legitimate function of responsible government.

We are proud of our performance and of our support of the Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms, including the traditions that it reflects. We particularly support the provisions of the charter that advocate equal opportunities for all Canadians.

Because we believe that section 15(2) is a necessary part of the charter in support of equality, we are not in favour of seeing it eliminated.

The member's motion also calls on the government to end discriminatory hiring programs that result from affirmative action. Once again, those of us on this side of the aisle would remind our colleagues in the third party that promoting equality of opportunity does not mean discrimination for or against anyone in the workplace. It does mean however acting in a manner to ensure that there are no barriers in place which might deny some individuals or groups from having full and equal access to the same job opportunities as others in the same society.

Hon. members will recall the work we did last fall to introduce and to pass Bill C-64, an act respecting employment equity. Perhaps this is the sort of affirmative action the member from North Vancouver is referring to in his motion.

The purpose of Bill C-64 is not to promote discriminatory hiring. The purpose is quite simple and quite clear. It is to remove the systematic barriers that prevent qualified people from working, the kind of barriers that have nothing to do with merit or personal capability but have come about because of informal practices and rules that have developed over the years and can impede open access to job opportunities.

The purpose of Bill C-64 was not and is not to impose any kind of discriminatory hiring program or quotas, nor does it require employers to hire anyone who is not qualified to do a particular job. The bill specifically excludes hiring quotas or arbitrary numerical employment goals as being unreasonable.

There are no quotas, there is no hidden agenda, there is no reverse discrimination in our approach to employment equity. Merit remains the basic principle for hiring and there is no question about that. Anyone who reads the bill will see it.

It is also important to note that Bill C-64 was supported by a clear majority of members of this House, including the official opposition. Its advantages were carefully considered and recognized on the floor of the House, during committee hearings and more broadly by many Canadians.

It was during committee hearings that we heard some of the strongest endorsements of the principles of employment equity and of the value of equality in the workplace. Many of these comments came from the business community, including the business community in the member's home province. The business community understands that the world in which Canada does business is changing, that Canada has to be enlightened and forward thinking, that we need to be well positioned to attract and to employ the best and brightest people we can.

It is not just employers who support the principles of employment equity. Labour representatives have spoken in support of the direction we are following with employment equity in Canada.

The market is not always fair and equitable. It does need some guidelines and direction from time to time. We feel it is the responsibility of government to recognize when that time is and to show the appropriate leadership. This government has done that.

On balance, there appears a strong consensus across the country in support of what we have done. Business, labour and others support our approach to employment equity and the equality of opportunity in the workplace that it represents. There is a strong consensus, except from the party opposite.

There are still those who choose to ignore the evidence, including positive comments from the business community, from labour

representatives as well as from many others who have gone on record as supporting the principles of employment equity.

For those of us living in the real world, the very competitive real world of the 1990s, we know there are significant advantages to be gained from diversity in the workplace and by an enlightened approach to employment equity.

I invite my hon. friend opposite to consider the advantages. I also remind him that the government remains committed to its jobs and growth agenda. The underlying goal is still to get Canadians back to work. As the economic program continues to contribute to this goal there will be more jobs available.

Employers will continue to seek out the most qualified candidates for these jobs. Merit will remain the central qualification for hiring. The member for North Vancouver and his constituents should be reassured that the government is not doing anything to change that.

We do not need to abolish section 15(2) of the charter, as the member for North Vancouver has asked us to do. We need to get on with creating the kinds of partnerships that will increase the job opportunities for everyone.

Eliminating section 15(2) of the charter of rights and freedoms will not contribute to achieving the goal of this member. I do not support the motion to this effect.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to take part in this report stage debate on the employment insurance bill, Bill C-12. It is something I have great feelings about.

We have talked about this bill for many months, some people longer than I have. Many people on both sides of the aisle have spent many long days, weeks and months getting this piece of legislation to where it is today.

The government believes the object of the exercise is to make all aspects of the new employment insurance system fair and balanced. We have listened to the concerns raised in hearings by the parliamentary committee on Bill C-12 and we have responded by fine tuning the legislation to better respond to the reality of different job markets.

Over the last number of months one of the very important issues that has arisen is how to deal with individuals who have gaps or breaks in their employment. For example, there are individuals whose work patterns consist of some steady weeks of work interrupted by some weeks of not working, and then more weeks of work. For these individuals setting a relatively short consecutive period of weeks worked on which to calculate possible benefits could mean very low benefits.

The number of people affected is not very small. Approximately 35 per cent of all claimants who apply for income each year are affected by these gaps. That means some 850,000 Canadians with irregular work patterns who deserve access to the same protection against job loss as do those in regular jobs fell into this category.

Ten per cent of all claimants have gaps of four weeks or more. The average gap ranges from 2.9 weeks in New Brunswick to 4.8 weeks in Manitoba. We feel it is not fair to those who, through no fault of their own, have not had that steady work prior to becoming unemployed. That is why the employment benefit will be calculated in a new way. It will allow all individuals to count back 26 weeks to find their required weeks of work when calculating average income for employment insurance benefits.

This will enable individuals to have gaps of between four and 12 weeks without affecting their benefit levels. However, benefits will still be based on how much they earn in the 26 week period. This compromise of maintaining a fixed period of 26 weeks will maintain one of the central objectives of the new legislation, which is to increase work incentives while at the same time ensuring a better relationship between benefits paid and the normal pattern of earnings.

The 26 week period helps workers with irregular work patterns in every region of the country and in all industries from construction to the service sector. We feel that this is very important. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians in all industries suffer this problem of gaps in their employment income. They work several weeks and then are off for several weeks. The government believes that individuals should not be unfairly penalized because of this. In seeking a solution the government has had to find a balance between these two objectives.

First, a change had to be made to the old system so that there would be an incentive to work additional weeks if the work was available. In too many cases following the minimum weeks worked, an unemployment insurance claim was the first step toward finding replacement income rather than the last.

Second, many individuals in very high areas of unemployment who work in seasonal industries simply do not have the employment opportunities which would provide them with the steady work necessary to claim an adequate benefit.

It is doubly unfair in some cases. Many individuals who can only find the minimum number of weeks to qualify also have gaps due to the nature of their work, be it construction, the fishery, et cetera. Therefore, while all their hours worked would be counted in qualifying for benefits, some of their earnings would not be counted in determining the size of their weekly cheque.

Bill C-12 will allow individuals to count every dollar they have earned over the last 26 weeks prior to their claim to determine their benefit. The amounts of their employment insurance cheques will be calculated by averaging the amount earned over this period.

For instance, individuals in high unemployment areas will need 420 hours, or the equivalent of 12 weeks at 35 hours a week over the past year, to qualify. To maximize their benefits they will require two more weeks of work to get the full 55 per cent of their weekly wage. An individual in a low unemployment area will need 700 hours of work, or the equivalent of 20 weeks at 35 hours a week over the past year. To maximize their cheque they will require 22 weeks of earnings over the 26 week period.

The government believes this is a fair and balanced approach which strengthens the incentive to work while at the same time providing equal treatment for those workers with gaps in their income. It also recognizes that individuals in low unemployment areas have more opportunities to fill the gaps with alternative work.

In moving to the hours based system of calculating eligibility and benefits for unemployed Canadians, the government wants to ensure that every hour of work counts and that it pays more to work longer where the work is available. That is very, very important.

The new system is much fairer for those who work part time and in seasonal industries. For example, those who work less than 15 hours per week will now have their work insured. Under employment insurance, 90,000 workers in part time and seasonal jobs will now be eligible for benefits. Many will qualify sooner, for longer periods and will be able to insure more of their income than before. We think this is a great improvement.

Entitlement for benefit and duration of the unemployment benefit payable will be based on the number of hours worked in the last 52 weeks. Those in areas of high unemployment require 420 hours as I have said. About 270,000 workers will qualify for an additional three weeks of benefits because they will be given full credit for all the hours they worked.

Many people still have the problem of gaps in their employment. They work a few weeks, are off a few weeks and are back at work again. Addressing the issue of these gaps was one of the most important areas we dealt with and was a major concern of the committee and the government. The solution in the amended Bill C-12 is to allow all claimants to count back a full 26 weeks to find the required weeks of earnings.

In closing I feel, as I know my colleagues do on all sides of the House, that we have come a long way and we have made many great improvements. Many people appeared before the committee. Even though many were opposed to the bill in general, I believe that after listening, talking, and participating in open-line shows they have seen we have done a great justice especially to the seasonal workers in bringing these amendments forward.

I salute the people who brought the amendments forward. I thank the committee for all of its work. I look forward to the bill becoming law and to getting on with the process for the people who through no fault of their own have to use unemployment insurance.

[Workplace Safety And Health, April 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on April 28 we will commemorate the National Day of Mourning. I urge all hon. members to reflect on the horrendous tragedy of accidental death and serious injury of Canadian workers on the job. Our most recent statistics are for 1994 when over 700 workers were killed while performing their jobs. On the National Day of Mourning we are also renewing our determination to reduce and prevent accidental deaths and injuries in the workplace.

The federal approach to occupational health and safety dealt with in part II of the Canada Labour Code is based upon the internal responsibility system. This system recognizes that an employer has the right to manage its enterprise in an effective manner and at the same time the employer has a responsibility to protect the safety and health of its workers.

Governments, workers and employers must continue to strive toward greater improvement in workplace safety and health.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to take part in the debate on the hon. member's motion calling on the government to lower the flag to half mast on April 28 each year to commemorate the national day of mourning for those killed in the workplace. I say to the hon. member that the Government of Canada very much respects his views on this matter and fully acknowledges that workplace deaths and injuries are a senseless tragedy. I personally congratulate the hon. member for bringing this matter to the attention of the House.

Having said that, the government shows considerable compassion and concern for the health and safety of Canadian workers. There is considerable evidence to that effect. Our federal occupational safety and health regulations and those of our provincial and territorial colleagues are among some of the very best in the world.

Because of those regulations, Canada is highly regarded in the international community. Other nations have drawn on our expertise to develop their own safety and health regimes. We can attribute a good deal of this success to our approach, which is based upon the internal responsibility system. It is a regulatory framework similar to provisions contained in the International Labour Organization convention 155 which deals with OSH regulations.

This system recognizes that an employer has the right to manage his or her enterprise in an effective manner. At the same the employer has the responsibility to protect the safety and health of his or her workers. The internal responsibility system also recognizes three fundamental rights of workers. They are the right to participate, the right to know, and the right to refuse dangerous work. These longstanding concepts are the foundation upon which the occupational safety and health system is built.

It is not only the employers who have the responsibilities. Under the internal responsibility system Canadian employees have a responsibility. The responsibility is to follow safe work practices, to use personal protective equipment when required, and to report unsafe working conditions to their employers.

At the same time, the foundation upon which the system functions can be seen in the roles of federal, provincial and territorial authorities. It is their responsibility to help ensure compliance, to monitor and to audit how both parties fulfil their responsibilities and to address matters of non-compliance. In other words our occupational safety and health system has three partners: employers, employees and government. All three have rights as well as legal responsibilities to ensure a safe and healthy work environment.

Here is one fine example of what can be achieved when partners with a vested interest work together. Hon. members are likely familiar with the workplace hazardous materials information system, more commonly known as WHMIS. WHMIS is the result of collaboration between federal, provincial and territorial governments. It is the result of these governments consulting over several years with industry and labour and what a result it is.

I mentioned a moment ago that we are world leaders in occupational health and safety. WHMIS is the most advanced information system of its kind in the world. WHMIS has enabled us to establish a uniform identification system for dangerous ingredients in the workplace. It ensures that hazardous materials are adequately labelled by suppliers who must use standard criteria. That is not all. Through the communications component of WHMIS, workers learn how to handle hazardous materials safely and employers are given the information they need to train their workers in the proper use of hazardous materials.

For employees to participate effectively in developing clean and safe work environments, they must recognize what is going on, understand changes that occur and grasp a plethora of information. WHMIS plays an important role in achieving these objectives. It is an information system Canadians should be very proud of.

Nevertheless, just because we have developed a dependable occupational safety and health system, that does not mean we are resting on our laurels. Not at all. In its own way the government is fully supporting the noble intent of this worthy motion brought forward by the hon. member from The Battlefords-Meadow Lake.

We are currently reviewing the Canada Labour Code including part II which contains the federal occupational safety and health requirements. This comprehensive review began in 1993. A tripartite committee comprised of knowledgeable individuals from labour, management and government is considering more than 200 proposed changes brought forward by representatives from these three groups.

The overall aim of the review is to modernize the code and ensure its continuing efficiency. The context in which the review has been carried out reflects the changing role of government, that is, less intervention and more emphasis on the responsibility of employers and employees to manage safety and health measures in the workplace.

Again, the theme of productive partnerships runs through the review. Proposed changes will facilitate greater co-operation among partners in the workplace to resolve occupational safety and health issues. I am pleased to inform hon. members that the review is proceeding on schedule.

In summing up, I would like to outline for my hon. colleagues the strategic directions in which the federal government is now embarking with regard to occupational safety and health.

We are striving for greater co-operation among federal, provincial and territorial governments with regard to occupational safety and health.

On compliance, we are strengthening the internal responsibility system by promoting greater employer responsibility for occupational safety and health and ensuring that workers and their representatives are able to become more actively involved in protecting their safety and health.

On information, sound decisions can only be based on a clear understanding of the issues. We are supporting effective ways of providing OSH information, education and training to employers and employees. We are promoting greater awareness of occupational safety and health across the country.

It is important to monitor effectiveness so we are developing performance indicators to assess the outcome of implementing occupational safety and health standards nationwide. We are actively participating in improving the standardized framework to collect, to code and to classify information on workplace injuries and illnesses.

On partnerships, productive collaboration is the key to sound results. To that end we are striving to maximize the effective involvement of everyone concerned with occupational safety and health decision making. That includes the most efficient use of limited resources and valuable expertise.

I empathize completely with the tragedy of workers who have been killed or injured on the job. I commend the hon. member for bringing safety and health concerns to the attention of the House and the general public. I can think of no issue that rates greater concern than the safety and health of Canadian workers.

The federal government is committed to preventing occupational accidents and injuries and to strengthening internal responsibility within workplaces. I assure the hon. member that the federal government will continue to move in that direction.

[Canada Labour Code, April 24th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I would certainly welcome this. As we review the Canada Labour Code we certainly will take a look at this very worthwhile subject matter.