George Proud

[Canada Labour Code, March 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take part in the debate this morning dealing with Bill C-3. As the Minister of Labour has explained, Bill C-3 will promote efficient and stable labour relations at Canada's nuclear power stations.

Contrary to comments, consultations did take place with all parties. Furthermore we are not attempting to take away anyone's collective bargaining rights. I would not want to be party to that and I know the minister would not either.

Nuclear power stations are in an unusual situation with respect to federal labour law. It has always been assumed that provincial labour laws apply to nuclear power stations, but as has been said here this morning many times, a 1993 ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada determined that nuclear generating stations at Ontario Hydro were subject to the Canada Labour Code. A split jurisdiction was created at Ontario Hydro whereby the nuclear power workers

are subject to federal labour law but the other power workers in conventional generating plants are subject to provincial labour law.

Passage of this legislation will address that ruling of the Supreme Court of 1993 by resolving the question of a split jurisdiction at Ontario Hydro. Ontario and other provinces with nuclear undertakings will then have a mechanism available permitting the application of provincial labour laws. This action is designed to foster efficient and stable labour relations at nuclear facilities.

With Bill C-3, the government proposes to revert to the situation as it stood before the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada in 1993.

A corollary of this decision is in keeping with the federal government's commitment to flexible federalism. To that end the legislation before us is consistent with the clarification of roles and responsibilities between the provinces and the federal government.

Since the labour minister has dealt with health and security in his speech, I would like to speak about labour relations and employment standards.

The majority of workers in Canada's labour force, currently around 13 million, are subject to provincial statutes. These statutes govern such activities as local transportation, manufacturing, construction, the forest products industry and provincial and municipal employment. But in those activities which cross provincial or national borders, federal jurisdiction over labour laws prevail as mandated by the Constitution Act and interpreted by the courts.

Those areas of federal private sector jurisdiction include international and interprovincial transportation by land, sea or air, such as railways, airlines, shipping and specific trucking and busing operations. As well, federal jurisdiction applies to communications and broadcasting, including telecommunications, radio and television; also federally chartered banks, longshoring operations, federal crown corporations such as Canada Post and national museums; as well industries declared to be for the general advantage of Canada such as uranium mining and grain handling.

Part I of the Canada Labour Code, which covers employees engaged in these federal industries, also provides the legislative framework for conducting labour relations in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. The exceptions are employees in territorial governments.

Hon. members will know that Parliament has adopted separate legislation, namely the Public Service Staff Relations Act, to provide for collective bargaining in the public service. In all, some 700,000 employees are subject to part I of the Canada Labour Code and approximately 250,000 federal government employees come under the Public Service Staff Relations Act.

The federal government and each province have collective bargaining legislation. Independent labour relations boards which administer labour laws exist at both the federal and provincial levels. It differs slightly in Quebec, which has a labour court and equivalent administrative mechanisms.

With certain exceptions, both levels of government recognize the right of employees to join trade unions and to bargain collectively. Unions and employers have a duty to bargain in good faith. Collective bargaining agreements generally take the form of legally binding contracts.

These contracts cover such things as hours of work, wages, working conditions and job security.

Normally, those contracts cover one to three years, during which strikes and lockouts are prohibited, in all jurisdictions.

Finally, Canadian labour laws generally outline a range of unfair practices and prohibitions relating to both employers and trade unions. Labour relations boards or the labour court in Quebec hear complaints of unfair labour practices and have broad corrective powers.

I trust that this outline of industrial relations in Canada has been helpful. I believe that some members may be concerned that there are discrepancies between the federal and provincial employment standards. That is not necessarily so. Although not identical, labour standards-

[The Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Canadian government does not want to sacrifice any Canadian soldiers. As I said, over a period of years our forces have become smaller but we have participated and I believe we have to participate.

We have talked many times about the situation in the former Yugoslavia. Last year and the year before we were told we could not do what we will be able to do this time. If our soldiers find themselves in troublesome situations they can use force to get out of them.

That is what we are saying. I am not suggesting for a minute we want to sacrifice our soldiers. I believe this will be as safe a mission as it can be. There is a chance of soldiers being injured in any mission. That is life. Every man and woman who joins the Canadian forces or any other force knows that.

We are not doing this to put Canadian soldiers at risk. We are doing it to maintain the peace accord which has been signed and to stop these terrible atrocities from continuing. I believe that Canada and all Canadians will be proud to participate in such a force.

[The Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the lecture. It is tough when money is not available to do certain things but if we do not work to maintain peace in the world we will not have the luxury of social programs or anything else.

Conflict has the ability to spread throughout the world. That is why we are in the NATO alliance. That is why we are members of the United Nations. That is why we have participated actively over the last 50 years to ensure the world is a better place. Even with all the problems, Canada has played its role and should continue to pay its role. I do not believe peace has a price.

[The Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I just arrived. Certainly it is a great way to start off one's debate on this very important matter.

I heard people across the way saying that the government should make a decision on this thing. I suppose if the government had made a decision on it, then we would have been doing the wrong thing and should have had the debate in the first place. As I understood, this was the object of the exercise, to have a debate. At the end of the day, with the feelings of the House of Commons made known, the government will make a decision as to our participation in the former Yugoslavia.

It is a pleasure for me to take part in this debate today because I am one of the people who believe that Parliament should take part in these debates and decisions that are being made in this type of operation to send our troops to foreign countries. This is something we have said in this place for the seven years I have been here, that these debates should take place. By and large that is what happened since our party came into power in 1993.

I have no doubt, and I do not think many have, in what should happen to our role in the peace process in the former Yugoslavia. Peace in the region has been a long time coming, but it has finally arrived. I am glad to say that with the participation of the implementation force with Canada peace will be maintained.

Some hon. members from across the floor, as well as some other Canadians, have questioned the role we have played in the former Yugoslavia to date and have even questioned if we should be there at all.

As I have said before, I believe we were needed then and, more important, we are needed now more than ever. The conflict that ended with the agreement reached in Dayton, Ohio contained many atrocities the global community should never have witnessed and hopefully will never witness again.

To ensure this Canada must continue its tradition of peacekeeping and participate in the implementation force. We must help maintain the fragile peace that has been maintained.

International involvement is a benefit to everyone. The world is a complex community. States are interrelated in many ways, economically, politically and socially.

Conflict breeds conflict and we must do all we can to prevent conflicts from occurring and end the ones that already exist. Better relations among nations carry a benefit shared by all. Peace operations are a major part of this philosophy.

All of us know Canada has a long distinguished tradition of peacekeeping. We all like to trot out the name of the hon. Lester B. Pearson. He was the man who invented it.

Our forces are not strangers to international missions, and we all speak about that. We are all so proud of that. Only a select few such as Canada have taken a lead in peacekeeping. Since 1947 more than 100,000 Canadians have served abroad in over 30 peacekeeping and related operations.

This is unmatched by our allies. We have recently paid homage to the 103 Canadian soldiers who gave their lives in these missions. Unfortunately I doubt they will be the last, but this is a risk we must take.

We are acting for a greater goal. International peace and security do not come without a price. The end of the cold war was celebrated by many, but little did we realize that such a vacuum would bring about so many regional conflicts. The importance of joint intervention has increased tremendously over the last number of years.

As a result international organizations, primarily United Nations, have become more involved in interest state disputes, having to toil with human rights and humanitarian issues on a far greater scale than ever before.

The potential for peace is there and Canada must do its part to achieve it. Without international co-operation how can we expect world peace to become a reality? We are not magicians and we cannot pull a white dove out of a black hat. We, as a member of the industrialized world, must accept reality and participate in the fight for peace. Canada long ago accepted this fact.

Not only are we members of numerous international organizations, we have continually participated in every United Nations peacekeeping operation. It is our duty to continue to play our role in this way.

As everyone knows, the nature of peacekeeping missions has changed dramatically since they were first established. From unarmed observers of peace agreements in the early years of peacekeeping, they have since taken on stronger roles of armed enforcers of peace agreements. It was a slow transition until recently. Since the end of the cold war international missions have been given much tougher mandates. In some cases, such as Bosnia, they were not wanted, they were not respect and they were even used as human shields.

Yes, much has change since 1947. Generally we speak of peacekeeping in general terms, but peacekeeping has not always been peacekeeping in the true sense of the word. Missions have been used to contain the conflict and maintain the surrounding peace, to actually make peace or to enforce the peace once it had been reached.

The signing of the peace agreement with the formal peace accord to be signed on December 14 has stopped the fighting and the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. Peace has been made. Canadian personnel were there and will be there to assist humanitarian operations.

We were not there to keep the peace earlier because there was no peace. Now that peace has been reached as part of IFOR, we will be there to keep the peace, hence that is where peacekeeping comes from.

Although the mission will be a NATO led enforcement mission and not a peacekeeping mission in the traditional sense, to me it is still very much a peacekeeping mission. There will be peace to be kept.

Already we have heard some members focus on the specific role our men and women should play in IFOR. Before I add my views on these matters I will talk about the process of determining our role. Let us have no doubt that the Canadian government will have the final say on all rules of engagement used by Canadian forces.

To me there is little question that we should participate in IFOR, but how many, for how long and in what capacity is up for debate. The Minister of National Defence has consulted our allies on what is still needed for this force. What other countries have already committed will also determine what we will say.

There are many ways we can participate and contribute to the implementation force. There is a multitude of military tasks within the mission, all of which I will not dwell on given the amount of time I have, but I would like to mention a few.

Recently we heard the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands suggest we send an air squadron rather than land forces. All of the air power required is needed from other countries. We have always had troops on the ground to cover the front line. Our troops should be there. Our troops have much to offer in enforcing the ceasefire, enforcing the demilitarization zones to defend persons, property or areas designated as protected, and so on.

Do not get me wrong, that should not end our contribution. Besides having our infantry we should contribute in areas of logistical, medical and air support.

The parameters of the implementation force appear to be quite broad and they are not just to keep the peace but in co-operation with civilian assistance to help rebuild the region. War has devastating effects on people, their communities and countries.

The former Yugoslavia has much to rebuild. The capital city, Sarajevo, where just 10 short years ago the Olympic Games were held, is in ruin. Canada should participate in the non-military operations as well. Getting the region rebuilt quickly will diffuse many grudges held and allow countries to withdraw their forces sooner rather than later.

We all know Canada is proud of its troops, for they are among the best in the world. We should give them a symbol of that admiration. To my colleagues on all sides of the House I say yes to the implementation force, yes to sending our troops and yes to giving them the recognition they need when it is over.

[Commemoration Of The Birthplace Of Confederation Act, November 23rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is with great regret and lack of support by my Liberal colleagues that I ask you to seek unanimous consent so that I withdraw my private members' bill, Bill C-292, an act to commemorate the birthplace of Confederation.

[Interparliamentary Delegation, October 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House the ninth report of the Canadian delegation of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association from the seminar of the working group on northern security issues of the North Atlantic Assembly held in Copenhagen, Denmark, on September 25, 26 and 27, 1995.

[Small Business Loans Act, October 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to support Bill C-99, an act to amend the Small Business Loans Act. This legislation is just part of the whole Liberal approach to government.

Members may recall the current Liberal government was elected on a jobs and growth agenda as promised in the red book. Two years ago the government was given a mandate to revitalize Canada's economy. All Canadians, including the people of Quebec, are benefiting from these promises.

Our economy is still recovering from one of the worst recessions in our history. The recession was not only just a slowdown of our economy but a massive reorganization of how our economy operates. It has been a painful journey.

The previous government led us down this debt ridden path but we are getting Canada turned around and moving back toward prosperity. The Liberal government through its jobs and growth agenda is creating an economic atmosphere conducive to job creation. Over the last two years we have created approximately half a million full time jobs.

The main pillar of our approach is to reduce the deficit. By reducing the deficit the government will break the crutches that are slowing down our economy. The federal government, as we all know, is under tremendous financial strain. Some people criticize our cuts, they are not enough or they are too much. But the government is committed to a balanced and a realistic approach. In contrast, the third party proposes devastation through its plan to eliminate the deficit in three years. I am no economist but I know that such a plan is much too severe and would do more harm than good.

Our deficit reduction plan is based on credible analysis of our situation. We have instituted short term goals that have been reached. We are on the track to achieving this year's target of $32.7 billion. In next year's budget we will reach our election promise of a budget deficit of only 3 per cent of GDP.

It will not stop there. We will continue to set short term goals and before the end of the century we will see the light at the end of the tunnel.

The proposed amendments to the Small Business Loans Act follow our plan. Some may ask how. We did not call our red book "Creating Opportunity" for nothing. These amendments will create more opportunities for small and medium size businesses to access the capital they need.

More entrepreneurs will obtain loans to make their business dreams become a reality. Through these new private sector initiatives, made possible by the Small Business Loans Act and the proposed amendments in Bill C-99, new jobs will continue to be created.

As some of my colleagues have already pointed out, the Small Business Loans Act is not new. However, earlier this year we made regulatory changes to the act in order to make it more effective and accountable. Only those who truly need our assistance will receive it.

The fee structure introduced in April of this year serves to encourage those applicants who are more financially secure to seek capital loans directly from financial institutions without the federal guarantee. It will also provide an incentive for borrowers to down the road seek normal commercial financing as soon as possible.

This is consistent with the many other policies we have introduced. Our government believes that it must carefully review all government activities, to recognize areas where we can achieve our objectives more effectively.

We conducted one of the most, if not the most, extensive program reviews by any federal government. This is one of those areas and we have made some necessary changes. Due to the competitive environment of the financial sector, we believe that the new fee structure, whereby the administration fee is incorporated in the interest rate, will improve the effectiveness of the program.

A further step has been taken by the amendments contained in Bill C-99. We have already made the program more effective and accountable on the user side of it, but now our side must be streamlined. Bill C-99 addresses that matter. With the implementation of this bill, the program will be a full cost recovery program. As I mentioned earlier, we are reducing our deficit. It is through changes like these that allow us to reach our deficit targets.

We will also be improving the loan guarantee coverage for low volume lenders. This is an important aspect that should not be overlooked. Better coverage for the smaller lenders will strengthen our financial sector. These financial institutions may be small, but collectively they count for a significant portion of the loans administered by this program.

Previously these lenders in relative terms were vulnerable to a greater proportion of losses. Due to the existing regulations, these institutions were limited in the amount of losses that could be claimed to the federal government. The new provisions create a more equitable arrangement for these small lenders.

On Tuesday I heard some members from across the floor state that this bill violates the democratic process. On the contrary, extensive consultations were held to get the views of all sides of the issues. We reviewed the report of the Standing Committee on Industry. What more do they want? We listened to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. We listened to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. We listened to the Canadian Bankers Association, to name a few. Through those consultations we obtained substantial support for proposed changes.

Furthermore, some of the provisions of this bill were a direct result of the report from the industry committee. On going back to the red book, we promised to regain the confidence of Canadians. We want Canadians to be able to believe in the political process.

Over the last two years we have been reintroducing integrity into the political process. Again, someone might ask how. It is by holding consultations with Canadians, by listening to Canadians, which is more than I can say for official opposition members. They are so busy listening to themselves that they cannot hear Canadians, including Quebecers, telling them they want Quebec to stay in Canada.

The Small Business Loans Act plays an important role in my province of Prince Edward Island. In the previous fiscal year loans under this program totalled $21.8 million. This is a substantial amount of money for a small province. Our economy is seasonal by nature. Any initiatives to create business operations that can counter the seasonal aspect of our economy are very welcome. Small firms wanting to expand can do so with financing under this program. Entrepreneurs with dreams of owning a successful business are given a chance under this program.

Our economy has an abundance of small and medium size firms. The Liberal government acknowledges this reality and knows how to address the concerns of Atlantic Canadians. When it comes to small business, a loans program is not the only solution. This is just part of a larger package. We have refocused our regional development programs on small businesses, in particular I am referring to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. ACOA has been instrumental in assisting small businesses in Atlantic Canada and it has done so through many varied ways.

I would like to point out a few recent activities of ACOA. Just last week ACOA hosted a delegation of trade representatives from the Russian federation. The delegates were here to pursue joint ventures between Russian and Atlantic Canadian firms. Among the topics discussed were geomatics, aquaculture, agriculture products and current trade activities in other sectors.

This is an important step for business in Atlantic Canada. We are becoming more aggressive in pursuing world markets and the Russian federation, although poor economically in many standards, is open for investment opportunities.

In September the Atlantic Canada Home Program was held in Halifax. The program was designed to take advantage of opportunities created by the deregulation of building standards in Japan which permits a wider range of home construction. Prince Edward Island was represented there by the provincial minister of economic development and tourism.

Canada is always searching for new markets to access throughout the world. Our economy is geared toward exports. Our relations within the global economy are what is helping to drive the Canadian economy.

The government is working with the private sector and the provincial governments to open up new markets abroad, to ensure that Canadian firms have access to markets they need to grow and create more jobs. We need to do all we can to assist in that aspect and Bill C-99 in part does just that. We are improving a federal program so that it can adjust to current demands and be more flexible to meet our future demands.

Last week, on the eve of small business week, the Association of Atlantic Women Business Owners hosted a conference, trade show and an Atlantic Hall of Fame for Women Entrepreneurs, a ceremony sponsored in part by ACOA. The theme of the conference was "New Markets and Opportunities for Growth".

To me that sounds a lot like our jobs and growth agenda. Is it not funny how our approach is similar to private enterprise? I believe that would suggest that we are going about our business in the correct fashion.

Earlier in the fall also in Halifax key stakeholders in the Atlantic Canada economy discussed the business support system for young entrepreneurs. This was hosted again by ACOA. It was designed to highlight the needs and challenges facing our young entrepreneurs and establish services to meet those needs as well as to encourage young people interested in starting their own businesses. These young people are the future of the country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me the time to speak in support of this bill because I believe it will give to the small business community the impetus it needs to get up and get going.

[Petitions, October 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of submitting a petition signed by senior citizens of my home province concerning the payment of fees to enter Prince Edward Island's national parks. These petitioners feel they have contributed their share to the economy over the years and enter the parks for sightseeing only and do not use any of the other services offered by the parks.

Accordingly, the petitioners request Parliament to review the policy of charging senior citizens entrance fees to Canada's national parks.

[Oceans Act, September 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is with considerable pleasure that I rise to offer my support to the oceans act.

The legislation deals effectively with jurisdictional issues which have been under study for a long time. It also deals effectively with ocean management issues in a manner which will serve Canadians for many years to come.

For a long time Canada has worked to focus the world's attention on ocean issues. For a long time Canada has worked to establish formal jurisdiction over the ocean waters and ocean resources that border our country.

In the 1950s Canada played a leading role at the first UN conference on oceans. In the 1960s Canada played a leading role in calling for a UN convention on the law of the sea. In the same decade Canadians asserted their jurisdiction over the northwest passage by adopting the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act and declaring new fishing zones off both coasts. In the 1970s we took unilateral steps to declare a 200-mile fishing zone and a 12-mile territorial sea.

Canadians are all well aware of the recent successful efforts of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to protect the fishstocks within our 200-mile limit from overfishing outside and to lead the world in reaching agreement on the conservation of straddling fishstocks.

The oceans act when passed will formalize Canada's jurisdiction over all our oceans. The bill before Parliament is backed by international agreement. The bill declares that Canada not only has jurisdiction over our internal waters, territorial sea, fishing zones and continental shelf, but we also have jurisdiction over a new 12 nautical mile contiguous zone and 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone.

In the contiguous zone Canada will have formal jurisdiction to apply our fiscal, immigration, sanitary and customs laws. In the exclusive economic zone Canada will have formal jurisdiction for exploring and exploiting all economic resources, not only fish and for conserving and managing those resources.

In this zone covering nearly five million square kilometres of ocean, Canadians will also have jurisdiction over marine research and protection and preservation of the marine environment. If that was all this legislation accomplished it would be an important achievement. We have fought long and hard to establish Canadian ocean rights.

The bill does not stop there. It goes on to streamline and strengthen federal responsibilities for responsible ocean stewardship. It goes even further by establishing the legislative base for a new comprehensive and co-operative oceans management strategy.

The bill sets in motion a new approach to oceans policy, an approach based on the federal government working in partnership with all those who have a stake in the future of our oceans, from the provinces and territories, to the local communities, to fishermen and businesses and environmentalists. Our oceans are a wonderful shared Canadian blessing. They require a shared sense of responsibility and a shared plan for both development and environmental protection.

The bill sets out the objective of achieving sustainable development of our oceans and their resources through an integrated management strategy. The bill aims to achieve integrated planning of ocean activities, harmonized regulations and improved environmental protection based on a comprehensive ecosystems approach.

To reach those ends the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will be authorized to enter into partnership agreements with other Canadian jurisdictions and organizations and to co-ordinate a cohesive Canadian approach to sustainable ocean development.

The oceans act includes provisions for the establishment of marine protected areas, the development of ocean environmental quality guidelines and the application of Canada's current environmental legislation to the new exclusive economic zone.

When Parliament resumed this month, the Deputy Prime Minister introduced legislation to establish a commissioner of the environment and sustainable development responsible for auditing the environmental performance of all federal government departments. In doing so the Deputy Prime Minister called on all ministers to become ministers for sustainable development and all departments to develop action plans for environmental stewardship.

The oceans act takes the same message forward. It empowers the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to push ahead with an oceans strategy based on the primary principle that the economic opportunities offered by our oceans are completely and absolutely linked to the environmental well-being of those oceans.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has indicated that he will act quickly, act seriously and act effectively, as he always does. He will not however act alone. He is seeking the advice and the input of all Canadians in developing an oceans management strategy that merges national objectives with regional decision making and sets national goals based upon local wisdom, local needs and local desires.

Once the oceans act is passed, the minister will be in a position to work with all Canadians in meeting the major challenges ahead as we seek to make Canada the global leader in oceans policy for the 21st century.

Through the establishment of the Atlantic Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, the minister has already proven the new willingness of the federal government to take the advice of industry, academic and government experts on fisheries issues. We all know that several heads are better than one and the new partnership approach to fisheries conservation proves it.

The even greater opportunity now is to expand that sense of partnership into the multi-faceted spheres of ocean policy, from resource management to marine safety, from trade development to environmental management, from better knowledge of ocean sciences to stronger international action on global ocean issues.

I sincerely hope that all members of Parliament will come together to allow this legislation to move forward rapidly and become law in the near future. The bill provides parliamentarians the opportunity to come together to act in the interests of all Canadians and in the interests of our oceans environment.

The bill gives Canada important new ocean jurisdictions. The bill provides for solid and sensible federal leadership on ocean issues. The bill creates the legislative framework for the development of a modern and much needed oceans management strategy. Through those measures, the bill creates the conditions in which all Canadians can share in developing a future for our oceans of which we all can be proud.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, September 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House the eighth report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association where I represented Canada at the committee meetings of the North Atlantic Assembly held in Ottawa and Washington, D.C., June 11 to June 16, 1995.