George Proud

[Canada Labour Code, April 24th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I will attempt to assure the hon. member that I am not totally opposed to his bill. However, I have some things I want to say tonight. I congratulate him for bringing forward this bill.

So that all hon. members are clear on what this legislation proposes, I will begin by expressing my understanding of this bill. In essence, the hon. member is asking that the House of Commons amend the Canada Labour Code to provide employees, who at the time they are laid off from their job and are entitled to a pension under a duly registered pension plan, would have the right to severance pay.

This request seems reasonable enough. However, as with many other things in life, the member's proposal is not as simple as it would appear.

To begin with, passage and implementation of the bill would alter the legal notion of severance pay by introducing elements of a deferred wage. It is not advisable to undertake the changes of this nature without full consultation with those who are affected.

For clarification, the hon. member is asking that the House replace section 235(2) of the Canada Labour Code with the following:

For the purposes of this division, except where otherwise provided by regulation, an employer shall be deemed to have terminated the employment of a employee, when the employer lays off that employee.

Section 235(2)(b) of the code already contains a similar provision that considers employees who are entitled to a pension when they are laid off not to have been terminated.

As well, section 236 of the code deals with the power of the governor in council to make regulations with regard to severance pay. The hon. member is requesting that the House amend section 236. Besides replacing a portion of the section, he is asking the House to add a subsection that would read: "Notwithstanding paragraph 1(a), where an employer lays off an employee who immediately, on being laid off, or before that time is entitled to a pension under a pension plan, contributed to by the employer that is registered pursuant to" and then the section names the various plans. It concludes with: "The entitlement to such a pension shall not be prescribed under paragraph (1)(a) as circumstances in which the layoff of the employee shall not be deemed to be a termination of the employee's employment by the employee's employer".

I have explained in detail the amendment proposed by the member because I think it important that my colleagues in the House understand fully the consequences.

The problem is that including this provision in this section does not make sense. The reason is it would result in confusion as to whether or not the provision constitutes an exception per se or whether or not it provides the enabling power to adopt the regulation to make that exception.

At present under the Canada Labour Code, severance pay is considered to be compensation for long and loyal service by an employee. It becomes payable to the employee if termination is initiated by the employer and is due to reasons other than just cause.

Furthermore there is nothing in the way this concept is currently presented in the code that could be construed to mean that severance pay is tantamount to a deferred wage. In fact, the main purpose of having a provision requiring an employer to pay severance to an employee is to ensure that employers share in the social costs of labour adjustment. There are numerous circumstances where this provision is of great assistance. It can go a long way in helping the employer's former employees when it comes to financially bridging the gap between jobs.

I am not questioning in any way the hon. member's good intentions in presenting this legislation to the House. I am positive the hon. member perceives an injustice and believes that elected officials of the Parliament of Canada should address it. However, as I have attempted to explain, the matter is more complex than it might appear on the surface.

Labour standards and labour relations have many facets and must always be looked at as part of the whole picture. For anyone who thinks otherwise, I would suggest that they read "Seeking a Balance", the recently published review of part I of the Canada Labour Code. To illustrate my point I would like to quote from the report of the task force which carried out the review. Of course part I of the code is concerned with labour relations. While not specific

to the proposal in the hon. member's bill, the concerns are similar and most certainly related.

Under the heading "The Limits of Legislative Reform" the task force said: "Legislation cannot fix every problem. Neither the Canada Labour Code nor the Canada Labour Relations Board can solve every labour-management situation. The parties themselves must do that. The Canada Labour Code leaves the parties, employers and employees acting through their unions, responsible for the quality and much of the content of their day to day working relationships. They can act co-operatively to solve problems or they can be confrontational. They can ignore their position in the economy or they can work together to meet their competition and thrive. They can pay attention to social issues that are important to workers or they can suffer the long term consequences of avoiding them".

In conclusion, the hon. member's bill has merit but the issue should be looked at in consultation with the affected employer and employee organizations. It should be examined in a comprehensive fashion, taking into account the broader issues associated with the right to severance pay.

The labour program of Human Resources Development Canada is currently reviewing part III of the Canada Labour Code, the part that deals with severance pay. I assure the hon. member that the matter he raises in his bill will be examined along with other issues concerning termination and entitlement to severance pay.

I thank the hon. member for putting forth this bill, but I must ask him to be patient. In the light of the current review of the Canada Labour Code, it is inappropriate at this time to support this bill. Consequently I urge all hon. members not to support the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-11.

As hon. members know, the legislation deals essentially with administrative matters regarding the formation of Human Resources Development Canada, better known as HRDC.

The government is surprised that the Bloc Quebecois suddenly decided to attack this legislation. There is certainly nothing sinister about it. It contains no new powers and simply reiterates HRDC's existing mandate.

I understand that members opposite are especially concerned about clauses 6, 20 and 21 of the bill. I will begin by dealing with clause 6.

This clause addresses strictly the department's mandate. Apparently there is a misunderstanding that clause 6 would enable the Government of Canada to intrude in provincial jurisdiction. This is definitely not the case.

The hon. members who comprise Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition are reading things into this legislation which are just not there. If members opposite will read the bill carefully they will see it limits the minister's powers to "matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction". That seems clear enough to me. The provision does not give the minister jurisdiction over provincial matters; it does just the opposite.

There is nothing in clause 6 that does not relate to existing programs. It simply combines the existing program mandates from the four former departments which constitute HRDC. There is no subterfuge designed to undermine provincial legislation at all.

The government does not think it necessary to waste Parliament's valuable time spelling out in the bill every detail of every program HRDC is responsible for. Even if we did, something tells me members opposite still would not be satisfied.

Clause 6 of the bill before us sets out the basic objectives of the department: enhancing employment, encouraging equality and promoting social security. These objectives are clearly within the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada.

Members opposite have also raised concerns regarding clause 20 of Bill C-11. This clause allows the minister to enter into agreements with the provinces or with financial institutions or other such bodies. Clause 20 is adapted from section 7 of the employment and immigration department and commission act, from section 6 of the heritage act and from section 5 of the labour act. Under the legislation before the House clause 20 will allow the minister to enter only into agreements similar to those in the past.

For example, in 1991 the minister of employment signed an agreement with the Government of Quebec. That agreement recognized Quebec's Société québécois du développement de la main d'oeuvre, SQDM, and its vital role in labour force training in that province.

Nevertheless, apparently members opposite still think clause 20 gives the minister too much discretionary power; that is, too much power to reach agreements they think will intrude on all areas of provincial jurisdiction. That is definitely not the case.

Let us look at the wording of clause 20. It states clearly that these agreements are for the purpose of facilitating programs related to "the powers, duties and functions referred to in section 6". This clause sets out the minister's mandate. There is nothing new in it, nor does it create any new powers.

Surely the members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition can see the minister's discretionary powers are limited by the department's mandate.

The bill clearly states the limitation is to matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction. Therefore there is no way clause 20 authorizes the minister to encroach on provincial jurisdiction.

Clause 20 allows HRDC to sign contracts with other organizations. The department could not function without that authority. The minister has signed thousands of contracts and agreements with numerous organizations, including the example I have already given, and organizations in the province of Quebec. Not only that, HRD has signed agreements with the Government of Quebec to help unemployed Quebecers return to the labour force.

In fiscal 1994-95 we signed more than 50,000 labour market contracts in the province of Quebec. Through those contracts we invested a total of $695 million in program funding and income support. That was done under existing legislation. Bill C-11 simply carries forward these arrangements.

As I emphasized, clause 20 will not be used to bypass the authority of provincial governments or to intrude on their areas of jurisdiction.

The third clause apparently keeping members opposite awake at nights is clause 21. I do not know why, because all clause 21 states is that the minister may delegate his authority, especially to the Minister of Labour. This section also enables the minister to delegate authority in order to support single window delivery, a key component in Human Resources Development Canada's services delivery network.

The ultimate aim is to provide Canadians with a simplified, faster and more accessible gateway to HRDC's programs and services. Single window delivery is a more flexible and a more efficient means of reaching that goal.

As I speak, in Alma, the home town of the premier of Quebec, HRDC, SQDM, local municipalities and local clubs are working in partnership in a single window delivery system. This is one of a number of similar projects we have with the Government of Quebec. If the Government of Quebec is willing to work with us, and we are glad it is, I fail to understand why members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition are upset about these arrangements.

Another consideration is part II of the government's employment insurance legislation. It contains active measures to help unemployed Canadians get back to work quickly. This is part of our comprehensive response to addressing the underlying causes of unemployment.

To that end, the minister is currently discussing new arrangements with the provinces. However, these agreements will not infringe on provincial jurisdiction. On the contrary, the minister has made it abundantly clear that the Government of Canada will withdraw fully from labour market training in recognition of provincial responsibility in this area. We will do this over three years or less as we work out the details with each province.

The federal government would provide financial assistance to skills development but only with provincial agreement. In addition, the Government of Canada will work in concert with the governments of each province to put in place new customized labour market arrangements which will meet the different needs and circumstances of each province.

The Government of Canada will live up to its constitutional responsibility. We will retain jurisdiction over the national employment insurance system and the national dimension of our labour markets.

If that is not enough assurance for the party opposite, during the debate and the speech from the throne the Prime Minister stated: "The federal government is also prepared to withdraw from its functions in such areas as labour market training, forestry, mining and recreation. That in the 21st century will be more appropriately the responsibility of others, provinces, municipalities or the private sector".

In conclusion, I say to members opposite that there is nothing in Bill C-11 to suggest that the Government of Canada is centralizing national programs. This legislation deals strictly with administration. I urge the House to pass this bill so that we can move on to more urgent matters which I am sure all Canadians, including the people of Quebec, would prefer.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, March 28th, 1996]

That is on a different issue.

It is ridiculous that a party in this House would stand up and say that 750,000 workers in this country should not have a minister designated to administer the act that they come under. This has always been the case. In recent times we did not have a minister but I cannot understand anybody getting up in this House and saying that these people do not deserve to have a minister to represent them.

The Ministry of Labour has existed for a long time. It has now been rolled in with Human Resources Development Canada. We have other organizations in this country that have ministers and departments responsible for them.

The reason for the minister is that the department was one of the four founding departments which helped create human resources development in 1993. Until the first minister, the member for Saint-Henri-Westmount, assumed the office, the human resources development minister acted in that capacity.

I believe that under the Canada Labour Code, which has been reviewed just recently and to which changes are imminent, a minister of labour must be on the scene to look after things. Situations also arise from time to time in the stevedoring industry, the rail industry and the airline industry that are best handled by individuals dealing directly with those situations as they arise.

I find it hard to believe that people would suggest that this is a waste of money. I do not believe it is. The matters being dealt with in this specific case under the Canada Labour Code are working conditions, safety and health and the jurisdiction of labour negotiations. With a such large group of Canadians, it is really irresponsible for parties to recommend that this ministry should not exist.

With the proposals that will be coming forward dealing with amendments to parts I, II and III of the Canada Labour Code, the ministry will be very busy over the next number of weeks and months. As well, other situations might arise.

If one looks today at the number of contracts that are expiring and the negotiations that are going on in various industries which fall under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour, one would find that some problems will exist before the year is out where the services of the department will be needed. It is very important when there are situations like this that the leaders of both sides can sit down with a minister designated for that specific department.

This is very necessary. I do not know the full reason behind what the members of the Reform Party are saying. It appears that they are seeking to eliminate the post but the rationale for it seems somewhat unclear. The member who just spoke a moment ago was referring to our ability to create good labour relations. The Liberal Party has been in power for many years over the last century and labour relations in this country have not suffered greatly because of that.

I do not think I need to take any lessons from the party across the way on how to administer labour legislation. I am sure that any time any of the labour unions in Canada want to hear my voice on any of the issues that are before it I have never ever failed to speak to it and I will never do that as long as I am in public life.

I have served in government for the last number of years and have never been anti-labour. I have certainly helped to bring people together in whatever capacity I was in. I served in another jurisdiction as minister of labour. I happen to believe that by continuing to work with these parties, situations can be brought to final solutions. It probably would not happen if it was a huge department and the minister had many other areas to look after.

Therefore, I think a very necessary thing came about when the Prime Minister appointed a Minister of Labour last year. We have to continue to keep that and build on it. Probably some days I would argue for a specific department. However, with the situation the way it is now with the amalgamation of the four departments into one, I am still quite confident that we can go forward with the ministries in place and the people, the assistants, the deputy ministers and the staff to make this a very workable and great administration for the Canada Labour Code. To me the Canada Labour Code is very important legislation.

The Sims report was recently given to the minister and there will be consultations across the land in the not too distant future on what parties believe needs to be changed or if any changes need to be made. When things have been around for a long time some think they should be changed. Sometimes they have worked so well that it may not be necessary to make any major changes.

It is necessary to have a minister of labour. That has been proven in the past number of days with the legislation put through the House. It was a good effort on the part of the three parties involved in it. That was brought forward by the minister. This must continue. The people under this legislation need an individual, whomever he or she may be, to see to air their problems, their situations and their suggestions as we move forward.

Labour management at the best of times is mostly confrontational. That is the way it is. There is no other way to put it. We all talk of ways to change it to make it more compatible. Usually when it comes down to the nuts and bolts of a contract or a dispute of whatever magnitude, it does become very confrontational. These are the reasons for ministers, these are the reasons for conciliation officers who are responsible to that minister.

I have said enough on this issue. For the life of me I cannot see why any party in the House would say at this time that this ministry is not needed. It is a very important ministry which should be continued and built upon.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, March 28th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I want to set the record straight on an issue that was raised a moment ago by the hon. member across the way that the Minister of Labour will not meet with the president of the Canadian Labour Congress. The Minister of Labour has met on many occasions with the president of the Canadian Labour Congress. In fact this morning they met at 8 a.m.

[Taxation, March 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, employment insurance reform was designed to minimize the number of people who will not be eligible for income benefits. In fact, the new hours based entrance system opens up eligibility to people who were previously not covered by unemployment insurance.

In addition, while some individuals receive benefits for shorter periods, more individuals will have increased duration. This will have a net positive impact on social assistance.

The family supplement means benefits will increase by 7 per cent on average for claimants in low income families with children. By protecting those most in need, impacts of the reform on social assistance will also be lessened.

HRD has estimated the impact of employment insurance reforms on social assistance across the country will be in the order of $75 million by the year 2000. However, this impact will be offset by both the $300 million jobs transition fund and the $800 million reinvestment in direct re-employment assistance. About 45 per cent of current social assistance clients will meet the new eligibility requirements for these measures.

I would like to remind the hon. member that these employment benefits will give people meaningful employment and keep it. By doing that, the reforms will again reduce, not increase, the burden to provincial social assistance.

Further, the government realizes the interaction between employment insurance and social assistance clientele is a complex one. Departmental officials are now in the process of talking to the provinces in order to get their feedback on this impact analysis. They have now met with five provinces and will meet with the remaining five over the next two weeks. A key purpose of this reform is to create needed jobs and help people increase their employability.

Another issue that the legislation addresses is that of a business environment that is conducive to job creation. Lowering premiums for employers and employees is a step in that direction. That, when considered with the job and growth agenda, will help create more jobs and this will further reduce social assistance rolls.

Over all, many elements of the new employment insurance legislation benefit low income Canadians. Therefore, I urge the hon. member who professes to be concerned about the fate of this group to support the legislation and thereby be of real help to Canadians most in need.

[Points Of Order, March 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this took a little while in arriving. We had a little juggling to do in the exchange of some different points of view. Finally we have agreed to end the day before 5.30 p.m., closing the debate on Bill C-3.

My remarks will be short. During the debate on Bill C-3 one aspect all hon. members will agree on is the desirability to administer labour law in Canada as efficiently as possible.

The government is committed to providing Canadian employers and workers with a stable environment in which to conduct labour relations. These goals are in essence the reason we have the legislation before us today.

Flexible federalism allows us to smooth out the rough edges where administrative difficulties arise. Ontario Hydro is a publicly held corporation constituted under the Ontario Power Corporations Act. It is the division of the enterprise responsible for the construction and operation of nuclear facilities in the province.

Currently this division includes Darlington, Pickering and Bruce generating stations and a number of other facilities.

This division groups together the three main power stations of Darlington, Pickering and Bruce and a number of other facilities.

Before the Supreme Court ruling in 1993, it had always been believed that the employees of Hydro Ontario nuclear power stations were governed by provincial labour standards.

Before the 1993 Supreme Court decision it was always believed that employees of nuclear facilities of Ontario Hydro were subject to provincial labour laws. This was not the case. Consequently the province and employees of the nuclear facilities found themselves in a complicated situation.

In effect 42 per cent of Ontario employees are subject to federal labour law while the remainder are subject to the labour laws of Ontario. As members of the House we are in a position today to enable both federal and provincial governments to untangle and to dispense with this dilemma.

At the same time it is certainly reasonable for hon. members to want a clear understanding of the effects these amendments will have. In 1993 the Supreme Court found that part I of the Canada Labour Code which governs industrial relations is applicable to employees of Ontario Hydro's nuclear facilities.

As a result of the decision it became clear that parts II and III of the Code and the Non-Smokers' Health Act also applied to these workers. Part II of the Code addressed occupational safety and health and Part III deals with labour standards, hours of work and such like.

The Supreme Court decision created a complicated and exceptional situation as employees, the company and unions must conform to two comparable but slightly different labour relation regimes. For example, Ontario Hydro and the unions must deal with two conciliation processes during the negotiation of collective agreements. In addition, they must conform with slightly different occupational safety and health regulations which provide essentially the same protection for workers. The provisions of the bill demonstrate the government's commitment to provide the parties with a stable labour relations environment.

Here is how the bill eliminates the problem of a split jurisdiction at Ontario Hydro. First, the company is exempted from having to comply with the Canada Labour Code. At the same time, the company is made subject to provincial labour laws which are incorporated by reference through federal regulation.

The mechanism may be triggered by passing regulations dealing with industrial relations, including ad hoc or emergency legislation, occupational health and safety matters, labour standards or workplace smoking rules and regulations. Once the regulations are in place, provincial laws can be applied to nuclear facilities.

In the case of collective bargaining, any bargaining agent that was recognized under part I of the Canada Labour Code would remain the bargaining agent under the provisions of the bill. This was a question that we were asked by the power workers of Ontario: would we guarantee that this would be the case? We said we could guarantee that it would be the case during the transition period and during the life of the agreement. That is all we can do. In fact, that is all anybody can do. It ensures successor rights to the bargaining agent and it prohibits other unions or associations from applying to represent that bargaining unit outside of regular procedures.

As I said, any collective agreement concluded under part I of the Canada Labour Code will continue in force until the life of the contract expires. That ensures that the rights, the privileges and the duties of both parties to the collective agreement remain intact. The solution is clear and it makes sense.

It is the desire of the government and the Government of Ontario to have all provincial labour laws apply to the province's nuclear facilities. Both governments agree that from a practical standpoint it is logical to have all legislation related to labour law at Ontario Hydro under one roof.

Since early 1994 both levels of government have been examining various ways of accomplishing this. Much discussion led to the development of Bill C-3.

However, the story does not end here. Nuclear generating stations in the provinces of New Brunswick and Quebec were also affected by the Supreme Court decision. The Point Lepreau generating station in New Brunswick and Quebec's Gentilly 2 appear to be in a legislative void for the purposes of labour law.

After crown immunity is lifted, the provisions of Bill C-3 can be applied to these nuclear facilities, thus eliminating the legislative void and providing a mechanism whereby provincial labour law may apply.

In addition, the mechanism may be applied to uranium mines in Saskatchewan which are also regulated by the Atomic Energy Control Act. The province of Saskatchewan has for many years been delivering its occupational safety and health programs to uranium mines in Saskatchewan. Strictly speaking, these mines are subject to the Canada Labour Code. There is no formal agreement between the two levels of government concerning the situation and the federal government would like to formalize the arrangement.

The way to do that would be to follow a similar route to that which is being done with Ontario Hydro, namely: to exempt these mines from application to part II of the Canada Labour Code; to incorporate Saskatchewan occupational safety and health laws into federal regulations; and to contract with the province of Saskatchewan to deliver its programs to these mines. There is a mechanism in part II of the code which could be used to achieve this, but only with respect to the occupational health and safety laws.

I want to stress that the passage of this bill will have no effect on the mandate of the Atomic Energy Control Board. The board has sole authority to ensure that the use of nuclear energy in Canada poses no undue risk to health, safety, security or to the environment.

For these reasons I ask all here today to support the bill. I know they will.

Before I sit down, I would like to thank all those who took part in the process. I thank members of the Bloc and the Reform Party who worked on the bill in the subcommittee. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee and other members, the clerk and the people from the department and the witnesses who appeared before us.

This bill simplifies the process. There is no need to have two or three jurisdictions looking after basically the same legislation. I thank all those who were so co-operative in helping me get passage of this bill.

[The Budget, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that the best thing for security is full time permanent jobs. The debt is astronomical and we all realize that. The government has started to get the deficit under control. It has offered some enhancement for the future. The economy is going well and jobs will be created if the climate is there. I believe the budget has done that. Reports from the media state that this is what people in the business community think. It is not perfect. I will be the first to admit that. It is probably not in total what I would like to see, but it is a lot better than it was when we came here. I can guarantee it will continue to get better.

[The Budget, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, we have worked on deficit reduction. We will continue to do so until the books are balanced. I will certainly not give him a date as to when that might be, but I can tell him that we are much better prepared to do it now than we were over the last number of years. It certainly will take place in the distant future.

[The Budget, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for a very fine budget address.

I start my budget address, as I know all members do, by congratulating the Minister of Finance for yet another successful budget. Like the two previous budgets, the needs and wants of Canadians have been addressed. It will result in the creation of jobs and promote economic growth by further reducing the deficit. To the minister I say a good job, well done.

The government is continuing the processes that began with the 1994-95 budget. The comprehensive strategy for federal finances determined is measured and responsible. The government is determined because we are not letting up our fight to reduce the deficit. The books will be balanced. The debt to GDP ratio will be on a constant downward track year after year.

It is measured because our fiscal action is not indiscriminate and mindless but is structured to a pace conducive to efficient adaptation. It is designed not as a quick fix but to achieve long term, permanent progress.

There are those in the House who would want us to believe that a quick trashing of the government books would be the cure all of the national debt. The government knows that deficit reduction must be measured in order for it to be sustainable.

Our approach is responsible because it is a strategy that involves carefully weighing the needs of our economy and our society and equally carefully designing the policy options to meet those needs. Just as important, we are striking the balance necessary to keep Canadians on side for our deficit reduction efforts.

Again, referring to the slash and burn tactics of some people in the House, their approach would result in a revolt so massive it would make the Ontario strike look like a walk in the park.

We all know the reasons behind reducing the deficit but I feel they must be reiterated. The lethal combination of high interest rates and deficit borrowing also means a growing share of government resources must go to interest payments on a growing debt.

That is why we have acted, not because tackling Canada's fiscal problem is not a goal in and of itself but because it is a fundamental component for our natural growth, new jobs and economic security.

We have maintained our focus on reducing program spending because the debt is a problem created by government and the

solution should focus on cutting in our own back yard. Therefore there are no tax increases in the 1996 budget; no personal taxes, no corporate taxes, no excise taxes. This is good news to people in my riding and to all Canadians.

The federal government has fought quite hard to reduce the deficit since taking office. However, what is equally important is that the provinces and territories are doing the same. The provincial and territorial governments are well on their way to balancing their budgets. The combined provincial-territorial deficit has been cut to $12.6 billion in 1995-96 from its peak of $25 billion in 1992-93. This is a drop of 3.6 per cent of GDP to 1.6 per cent.

I am pleased to say the P.E.I. provincial government had a balanced budget in 1995 and it did so without major tax increases. Even more impressive is the $3.4 million surplus for the 1996-97 fiscal year presented last week in the provincial legislature by the provincial treasurer, the hon. Wayne Cheverie.

As a result, Canada's total government sector deficit is projected to improve sharply relative to other G-7 countries. This is very important for an open country like Canada.

Since over 30 per cent of our national income is generated by our exports, it is important that we remain competitive. All levels of government are helping to do that by getting their fiscal houses in order. For its part, the federal government is reforming the way it conducts its affairs. This and the past two budgets are reducing waste and inefficiency and redefining the government's programs and activities. These actions will ensure that program spending continues to fall through 1998-99 delivering major fiscal savings into the future.

The federal government will further clarify its core program responsibilities in the economy. The government will make these programs more efficient and effective in order to deliver better quality services at a lower cost to the taxpayer.

The program review which was initiated in the 1994 budget is continuing. We are still exploring new ways to improve the delivery of service and reduce costs. The essence of these changes is to give service delivery organizations greater autonomy to provide their services in ways that are more responsive to the needs of their clients and more cost effective.

This will reduce overlap and duplication. Through co-operation and partnerships with the provinces and territories, these goals can easily be achieved. We are working with the provinces on a continuous basis to improve services to Canadians.

I have spoken long enough on our deficit reduction agenda. For the benefit of hon. members on the other side of the House I would now like to talk about some of the benefits of our efforts.

Last year the Minister of Finance and cabinet announced the implementation of the Canada health and social transfer. As a result of the efforts, this transfer will be stabilized and will even begin to grow. That is right, it will grow. The CHST will be stabilized at $25.1 billion from 1997-98 to the turn of the century. After that this transfer will actually grow according to a formula tied to economic growth.

To the residents of my province of Prince Edward Island this means that the 1997-98 CHST will amount to $114 million and by the year 2003 it will be up to $122 million. That is good news for our provincial government and for Islanders as a whole.

Further good news is the guarantee of the cash portion of the transfer. The cash floor within the transfer will be guaranteed by legislation. This is quite different from the old direction of the transfer that would see the cash portion totally disappear within a decade. The stability of this transfer is very important to the provinces. This will provide greater clarity for their own budget forecasts.

The groundwork of our deficit reduction was laid out in the first half of our mandate. The savings accrued from those hard decisions now allow us to turn our attention to other items of concern to Canadians. It is through our efforts that our social programs will be saved.

I for one am glad that when I go back to my riding on the weekends I can tell my constituents that the Prime Minister's promise to seniors has been kept. The changes announced in this year's budget do not affect today's seniors. The pension of every Canadian who is 60 and over as of December 31, 1995, and their spouses regardless of age, will be fully protected.

When the new seniors benefit is implemented in 2001 these seniors may choose whichever system is more advantageous, either moving to the new system or maintaining their OAS/GIS payments. It should be emphasized that savings will come from slowing the rate of growth in program costs, not at the expense of those in need. While the savings at first will be small, they will build year by year to about 11 per cent of program costs by the year 2030.

Legislation will be tabled later this year and we will be inviting public submissions on the proposal to be followed by consultations through parliamentary committee hearings. The response should be positive because the seniors benefit meets these key public goals: reducing the long term costs will make the public pension system more sustainable; targeting help to those who need it most is the fairest way to reduce costs; and with the new seniors benefit all Canadians, particularly the young, can be assured the public pension system will be there for them now and in the future.

Another item of concern to Canadians that has been addressed by this budget is reform of child support as was mentioned by my colleague a few moments ago. A more equitable treatment of support payments will be implemented. As of May 1, 1997 the

system will move to a no deduction, no inclusion format. The payers of the support payments will no longer deduct them from their taxable income and the custodial parents will not include them in their taxable income.

There will also be guidelines for the payment of child support and greater measures for the enforcement of those payments. The approach will address the first priority: our children. These children are our future. We must provide for them as much as we can.

That brings me to our next point: investing in our future. The government is taking durable, meaningful steps forward rather than relying on short term direct spending programs which only result in a step back when we look at the long term effect. It emphasizes collaboration with partners and strategic investments to steer the forces of the economic change toward greater employment, employment that is sustainable.

But first things first. For the sustained economic growth needed to deliver new jobs, we must start by securing Canada's economic fundamentals which as I have said earlier means getting the deficit down and keeping it down. High persisting deficits go hand in hand with high interest rates. High interest rates as we all know discourage investment, borrowing and consumer spending. Ultimately they discriminate against jobs.

We have a plan. We will focus on getting our youth on the job. The first job is very important. Giving our youth a better chance at their first job will improve their confidence and ability to get the equally important second job. Our youth programs will accomplish this task. Coupled with our learning package these measures will provide the means for young Canadians to get the education and experience to obtain the challenging and rewarding career for which they strive.

However, government cannot do it alone and more important, as has been said, it is not supposed to. The role of government is to create the economic environment which will allow the private sector to create the jobs that are needed to get Canadians back to work.

It is through partnerships with the private sector that our role can be fulfilled. One way the government can do this is to target its investment in the key areas of our economy.

The budget also increases investment in technology and innovation through a number of actions over the next three years funded by the reallocation of $270 million from budget savings. For example, Technology Partnerships Canada will be established to encourage risk sharing with the private sector and to leverage investment in the development and commercialization of high technology projects and processes. Funding will grow from about $150 million in 1996-97 to about $250 million by the year 1998-99.

I believe this is important for all Canadians and I believe it is important for my province of Prince Edward Island. We have the capabilities to succeed in the high technology world. All we need is help to tap into it. Islanders welcome the possibilities that come with the focus on high growth sectors of the Canadian economy.

I urge Prince Edward Islanders to take full advantage of this focus. We have little to lose and so much to gain. It is possible to create year round employment on the island and it is up to the private sector to create those jobs.

[Canada Labour Code, March 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, prior to question period when I was speaking on Bill C-3, I talked about the concerns some members have regarding the possible discrepancies between federal and provincial employment standards. As I said, this is not so.

Although the standards are not identical under federal and provincial laws, they are comparable. Of course these are minimum standards only. Collective agreements and company policies often exceed these minimums.

Consider the case of the collective agreement that applies to the power workers in Ontario for the most part. Its provisions exceed the labour standards of both the Canada Labour Code and the Ontario Employment Standards Act. By way of example, the Canada Labour Code provides for nine holidays with pay, the Ontario law for eight. The collective agreement at Ontario Hydro exceeds these levels with 10 holidays.

I will give the House another example of labour standards. Let us take the example of hours of work. An employee's hours of work are limited in two ways.

First, payment of overtime at a rate of one and one-half times the regular rate is required after eight hours in a day and 40 hours in a week under the Canada Labour Code, and after 44 hours in a week under the Ontario Employment Standards Act. Second, there exists a maximum limit on hours of work, which is 48 hours under the Canada Labour Code, and eight hours in a day and 48 hours under the Ontario law.

At the same time flexibility is essential to a well managed operation, so both federal and Ontario law allows for employees to work in excess of the legislated maximums in the case of an emergency or by a permit. Where a permit has been issued under Ontario law, such work requires the consent of the employees' representatives.

The collective agreement between Ontario Hydro and the Power Workers Union meets or exceeds these standards. I could go on with further examples but hon. members can see that having all provincial labour laws apply to Ontario Hydro's nuclear workers is the best guarantee for stability at Ontario Hydro.

For that reason I ask that all hon. members support the passage of Bill C-3. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill today and I look forward to its early passage.