George Proud

[The Budget, March 18th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Bourassa for his question. No doubt it could be said that nothing is ever enough.

We put $600 million in the budget to fight child poverty. Probably it is not enough but it is all we could do this time. A lot of poor children belong to families where there are single parents. This is a terrible tragedy of our society. We have to make things better for these people.

If the hon. member goes through the budget and sees the programs in it, the money that has been put in there, probably it is not enough. However, it is a lot better than it was last year.

[The Budget, March 18th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from North Vancouver for his question.

Obviously the individual he is talking about is in a very high tax bracket. As I said throughout my speech, as a result of this budget people are better off today than they were four years ago. I say that without any fear of contradiction. We have lowered the payments to unemployment insurance. We have done all these things. We have lowered interest rates. People have more money after they pay on their mortgages and their loans. Things are much better.

The government could give an across the board tax cut, but this is not the time to do it. The government does not think it is the time to do it. However, eventually the time will come. If we give an across the board tax decrease right now, then the deficit would go up. We cannot afford to do that. We have to get our financial House in order. When that day comes we will certainly have even a better budget than we have today.

[The Budget, March 18th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. distinguished member for Burin-St. George's.

It is a distinct pleasure for me to participate in this debate with regard to this budget. I would like to congratulate the government, the Minister of Finance and of course the whole Liberal caucus. I want to single out the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, the hon. member for St. Paul's, who is my seatmate. He has done a tremendous amount of work in the preparation of this budget and of course lining up the debate which is going on the House right now. I congratulate him. I am sorry that he has decided not to run in the next election and I wish him well as he goes down the road and continues his work as a great Canadian.

Our teamwork has resulted in a budget that will benefit not only the people of my riding of Hillsborough but all Canadians. Since the minister made his speech we have heard a lot of commentary. Some special interest groups say it is not enough, other groups say that it is too much but, more important, we have heard from a few Canadians who, I believe, represent most of the people who say it is just right.

I am one of those people. I am one of the many in this House and I am one of the millions of Canadians across the country who agree that the government as a whole has done the right thing. I agree with the budget approach, the extent of the measures and I agree with the timing of these measures. I would like to elaborate by explaining why my opinions are so positive toward this budget.

When we entered office in the fall of 1993 the federal government was deep in debt and it was falling ever deeper very rapidly. After just four budgets we can now see the light at the end of the tunnel. The deficit has been reduced by over half, a reduction of $23 billion, and if we look at the cumulative effect of those cuts we have lowered the net debt by $89 billion from what it otherwise would have been. For this we and all Canadians have been rewarded by the financial markets with lower interest rates.

We have heard many calls for cuts to payroll taxes, income taxes, sales taxes and every other tax that has been the flavour of the day. I would like to provide my hon. colleagues in the House examples of what our actions have meant to Canadians.

First, let us assume that you, Madam Speaker, have a $100,000 mortgage which is to be amortized over 25 years. If we compare the rates that were available in January 1995 and the rates available right now, by refinancing you could save roughly $230 a month on a five-year mortgage. Instead, if you took a one-year mortgage you could save over $300 a month. That is a lot of money.

But there is more. Let us assume that a small business person started a business and took out a $1 million loan amortized over 10 years. If we compare the interest rates that were available in April 1995 with the interests rates that are available now, by refinancing that loan, that person could save $33,000 annually.

If I went out tomorrow to buy a car and I borrowed $15,000 and amortized it over four years I would save $480 a year because of the lower interest rates.

These examples are not fiction. These are examples in the real lives of real Canadians. I have people in my riding, as I am sure in other ridings as well, who will save thousands of dollars because of our actions which have resulted in these lower interest rates.

To make my point even clearer, perhaps we should compare a cut in payroll deductions with one of the examples I have just given. What would happen if a payroll deduction was cut 25 cents per $100 in earnings? We have heard calls for this in the House and across the country. The Canadian who makes $39,000 a year would save, now hold on to your hats, a whopping $97.50 per year, not per month but per year. What is more, this meagre cut would cost the government $1.8 billion. Lower interest rates save money, not cost the government money.

Given the choice of a payroll deduction cut of $100 a year or interest savings of $480 on a consumer loan or $2,000 to $3,000 on a mortgage, what would members choose? I know what I would choose and let me tell the House it would be worth more than $100.

I would like to put the budget into perspective. The deficit is still falling. We are doing well on that front, so well in fact that the government was able to invest in health care as recommended by the National Forum on Health. It was able to invest in education by assisting students and their parents. It was able to relieve some of the burden on low income Canadians, and it was able to provide assistance to Canadians with disabilities as suggested by the federal task force on disability issues.

All this goes hand in hand with recent announcements and other budget items such as the funding for the extension to the community action plan for children and the Canadian prenatal nutrition plan. I applaud these extensions. I and my constituents are happy to see these important programs being maintained.

The government chose the right path. It chose a balanced approach by staying the course while providing some relief to Canadians. It has been a hard fight for everybody, but we must continue to reduce the deficit if we are ever going to be able to achieve our goals.

One of our primary goals is job creation. A lot of attention has been given to small business. Yet again, there are initiatives in the budget that benefit small business.

The Canadian Tourism Commission is a partnership of both the private and public sectors which designs and implements effective marketing strategies and programs to increase tourism revenues in Canada. The commission also provides services to the tourism industry to help it remain internationally competitive.

Tourism is a large part of the local economy in my riding, indeed in my province. The increase in funding to the CTC will boost the promotion abroad of Canada and thus boost our tourist industry on Prince Edward Island. This is particularly important to us now that the Confederation Bridge is opening in just a couple of months. Islanders are expecting a million tourists this year. This is a jump of some 200,000 tourists over last year, the largest factor for the increase of course is the bridge. This is twofold.

First the bridge will alleviate many of the travel problems associated with the ferry service. Second, the bridge is more than just mode of transportation. The bridge itself will be a tourist attraction because Confederation Bridge is the largest of its kind. When it was built a special crane had to be brought in, a 9,000 ton crane, to install the 8,200 ton girders. In fact, tours were given throughout construction just to see this operation.

Another boost to the tourism industry is the additional funding to the Business Development Bank of Canada. The $50 million will translate into $250 million in loans to small business and tourism. This means more opportunities for Islanders and for all Canadians. This increase in tourism will not only enhance the peak summer season in Prince Edward Island and Atlantic Canada, but it will also strengthen the shoulder season periods of spring and fall.

This will mean jobs. More help will be needed during the peak season and the shoulder seasons and that will mean more hours. In short, more people will stay on the job longer.

Boosting the tourism industry is good but what Islanders also need are full time, year round jobs. To assist in that area, the government is investing upfront $800 million in the new Canada Foundation for Innovation. This foundation will help strengthen the research and development infrastructure at universities, colleges, research hospitals and not for profit research institutions and organizations in the area of health, environment, science and engineering.

I have both a university and a college in my riding. These two institutions are eligible for financial support from the foundation to modernize their research infrastructure. The foundation will be an arm's length organization. It will seek partnerships to support these investments. Together with their partners, it will be able to fund up to $2 billion in infrastructure improvements.

I am sure that all hon. members are interested to hear what the president of the University of Prince Edward Island had to say about the foundation. Dr. Elizabeth Epperly said: "It sounds wonderful and you can be certain that we will take advantage of it". Those are words of encouragement from a key player in the field.

In fact, innovation is becoming increasingly important for international competitiveness and that is even more important in an open country like Canada. In light of this, the government continues to make every effort to improve competitiveness.

I am pleased with the budget. I know Canadians are pleased with it. It shows that the hard work that we have done over the last three years is paying off. I encourage all people in this House to support it.

[Canada Labour Code, March 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment briefly on my colleague's speech regarding the man who wrote him a letter dealing with the longshoring industry. He can assure the gentleman that the bill resolves the question he was asking.

For years longshoremen said they would look after longshoring activities while the grain handlers loaded the vessels and BCMEA or whatever the company was would not allow them to do it. That now is part of the process of the bill. The bill allows that to happen. They have to look after the grain vessels.

I have heard a lot of talk today from my colleague from Wetaskiwin and others on the final offer selection. People in labour and management call this the one armed bandit of labour-management relations. However the bill does not impose conventional or final offer selection. It expressly recognize the right of the parties to agree if they want to. If they want to agree to it, it is there for them. If it is as good a way of resolving the situation as I hear expressed across the way, certainly they can agree to do it.

This resolves the question of the man who wrote the letter as far as longshoremen doing the work. Now they will be able to do that.

[Canada Labour Code, March 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise this morning to speak again to Bill C-66, an act to amend part I of the Canada Labour Code which was introduced by the Minister of Labour.

I know there will be many more speakers today but I want to congratulate the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve and the hon. member for Wetaskiwin for putting forward their comments, concerns, suggestions and fears for some of the things that are or are not in this bill. We think this is a very well balanced bill. Although it will not go all the way in doing the things we need to do for the workers and the employers under federal jurisdiction, it will still go a long way.

The legislation has a couple of very important objectives. The first objective is to update the provisions related to the collective bargaining process so it can function more effectively. The second objective is to improve the efficiency with which federal labour law is administered.

I strongly support the bill because I am a firm believer in the collective bargaining process. In my view the bill deserves the enthusiastic support of the House because it is good for workers, it is good for employers and it is good for the Canadian economy.

Members may recall that in November 1994 the federal government issued a document entitled "Building a More Innovative Economy". In this paper the government acknowledged that workplace organization and labour-management co-operation were among the key factors contributing to both employment growth and productivity growth. It states: "Well-trained workers, adaptable work organizations, effective labour-management relations, employment-employee involvement in the enterprise and safe and healthy workplaces all contribute directly to a firm's economic performance and the well-being of individual workers".

In other words, the federal government recognizes that economic betterment and human development depend not only on technological hardware and scientific virtuosity but also on our social relations and our social processes.

The mechanisms set up to deal with political, economic and social conflict are as important to national well-being as the structures built to manufacture robots, produce new software and transport resources. The collective bargaining process has generally worked very well in Canada. Indeed, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce has written: "The fact of the matter is that the existing collective bargaining system, imperfect as it might be, has served Canada well in these turbulent times which are dominated by global economic competition and massive restructuring".

In its brief to the Sims task force the Canadian Labour Congress noted that despite complaints and suggestions for improvement, the code's constituents accept the code.

I am sure members have heard many times that the vast majority of collective bargaining settlements are arrived at without a work stoppage. I believe the proportion is over 95 per cent. However, when impasses do occur, the parties have available to them highly skilled, well respected and successful mediators in both the private and public sectors. The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service has been particularly effective in preventing and in helping to resolve labour-management disputes.

The amendments presented to us by the Minister of Labour are an important investment in the country's social capital. They modernize the federal labour law without altering its basic structure that has the overall support of both labour and management. They will produce a greater efficiency in the administration of law and in so doing will enhance legitimacy of the collective bargaining process.

I will dwell for a few minutes with the code amendments pertaining to bargaining rights. The amendments improve the way employees obtain union representation. An important and timely amendment in this section provides that when an undertaking moves from provincial to federal jurisdiction, say because of a sale, both bargaining rights and the collective agreement will continue.

At the present time the code permits the continuation of bargaining rights in the collective agreement only if the seller and buyer are both in the federal jurisdiction. This change is welcome because of the speed with which capital can move these days.

As the Sims task force report stated "successful businesses rarely remain static". Reorganizations, mergers, acquisitions, divestitures and transfers in leasings in whole or in part of enterprises have become common place. Changes in ownership can occur very quickly and very frequently resulting in changes in jurisdiction.

Members of the task force reported hearing of the use of deliberate steps by some enterprises to change jurisdictions to avoid their bargaining obligations. This kind of behaviour is unacceptable. It is one thing for a firm's employees to vote not to have a union. It is quite another for a firm to engage in various tricks to evade its bargaining obligations. For this reason I support the amendment.

The second amendment under the general category of bargaining rights has to do with successive contractors. The minister is proposing that an employer succeeding another as provider of preboard security screening services to the air transportation industry be required to pay employees who perform these services the same remuneration the employees of the previous contractor received.

The amendment has been advanced because in the past changes of contractors in this sector have resulted in loss of remuneration and employment at the end of each contract period for workers, many of whom are women and immigrants.

The minister's proposal will deter competition based on who can pay the lowest wage. It will create an even playing field for contractors whose employees are unionized. It will help to reduce turnover rates, an important security consideration in the air transport industry.

The amendment is intended to apply only to security screening the air transportation industry. However on the recommendation of the Minister of Labour the government would be able to extend the application should similar circumstances arise in other federally regulated industries.

Finally, an amendment to the code would allow the Canadian Industrial Relations Board to grant an authorized representative of a trade union a list of the names and addresses of employee that normally work in locations other than the employer's premises.

The board will also be able to authorize a trade union to communicate with those off site employees in whatever is practicable. However, such an access order will have to spell out the necessary conditions under which communications with the employees could take place so that the privacy and the security of the off site workers can be protected.

The amendment is a timely one given the rapid growth of non-standard employment, especially home based employment. It will give workers in the federal jurisdiction a choice. If as a result of the amendment the board grants a labour union access to off site workers, the workers will be able to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to be represented at the collective bargaining table. Right now they are without that choice.

Those are the major legislative proposals regarding workers' bargaining rights. They are fair and reasonable. They deal appropriately with some of the workplace realities of the 1990s. They

will do what they are designed to do, namely to improve the collective bargaining process for all concerned.

I do not think any employer in the federal jurisdiction could in all honesty describe them as onerous. Both workers and employers coming under the Canada Labour Code ought to be pleased with the balance of the amendments brought before the House by the Minister of Labour.

[Questions On The Order Paper, March 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Canada Labour Code, March 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the series of motions put forward with a view to repealing a number of current provisions of the Canada Labour Code. These include, as has been

mentioned, sections 107, 108 and 108.1 of the code, as well as section 90.1 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act.

Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code authorizes the Minister of Labour to do things which seem likely to maintain or secure industrial peace and to promote conditions favourable to the settlement of industrial disputes. For those purposes, the minister may refer questions to the Canada Labour Relations Board or direct the board to take necessary actions.

During the task force review of Part I of the code, which included extensive consultations, there were no representations from either labour or management with respect to section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. When the Minister of Labour held consultations, meetings across the country, this section was not raised.

In November of 1996 the Minister of Labour directed the Canada Labour Relations Board to conduct a vote among the employees of Canadian Airlines International, who were represented by the Canadian auto workers, to determine whether or not they would accept the restructuring proposals of their employer. The minister's ability to act last November assisted in the resolution of a serious situation which threatened the jobs of thousands of workers and the future of Canadian air carriers.

I believe members would agree that section 107 is a potentially powerful tool and should be used sparingly when there is no other apparent avenue to follow. It would, however, be folly to remove such an option which may offer a solution to those tricky labour relations problems that occur when the parties find themselves in a hole and do not know how to stop digging.

The Bloc has also put forward an amendment to repeal section 108 of the Canada Labour Code. This section authorizes the Minister of Labour to establish an industrial inquiry commission with the appropriate powers to investigate industrial relations matters.

I am a little puzzled as to the Bloc's motivation for seeking a repeal of this provision, as the issue was not raised during the extensive consultations leading up to the introduction of this bill.

Industrial inquiry commissions have been appointed by ministers of labour over the years to examine important labour relations issues and make recommendations. In some cases, commissions have been instrumental in assisting parties to resolve difficult issues and conclude collective agreements.

In other cases, commission recommendations have formed the basis for new industrial relations policy. I fail to see any legitimate reasons for removing from the code the provision that allows the Minister of Labour to appoint a commission to inquire into significant industrial relation issues within federal jurisdiction.

Finally, amendments have been put forward for the repeal of current provisions in the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act with respect to final offer votes.

Section 108.1 of the Canada Labour Code allows the Minister of Labour to direct that an employer's last offer be put to the employees of the bargaining unit for a vote if the minister believes it is in the public interest to do so.

There is an equivalent provision in section 90.1 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, the legislation regulating collective bargaining in the federal public service.

As these provisions have never been used federally, there is no reasonable basis for seeking their appeal due to misuse. The key reason invoked by unions in support of repealing this provision was that they were adopted in 1993 without prior consultations with the parties.

This is no longer the case. The question of last offer votes was raised during the extensive consultations with labour, management and other interested parties prior to the introduction of Bill C-66.

The Sims task force thoroughly examined whether the last offer vote provision in the code should be modified or repealed. Unions unanimously sought its repeal while employers asked that the provision be modified to require a last offer vote in any dispute at the employer's request, as is the case in a number of jurisdictions.

While the task force reported that it found no convincing evidence supporting expanding the provision to allow unfettered employer requests for last offer votes, it also recommended against repeal of the current provision.

In its view the power of the minister to direct last offer votes should be retained to be used when there are genuine grounds to exercise the option in the public interest.

The overall package of recommendations of the Sims task force was endorsed by both labour and management as balanced. Bill C-66 respects that balance. The repeal of section 108.1 of the code was not included in that package and should not be added to this bill now.

With respect to the equivalent provisions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, the task force mandate did not include a review of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. Bill C-66 does not include any substantive amendments to that act.

To close now, I would like to add my thanks to the people who took part in the debate today, report stage of Bill C-66.

[Canada Labour Code, March 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, you listened over the last while to the speeches of members from all sides. You will understand that one of the most sensitive issues we had to look at as we drafted amendments to the code was without a doubt the issue of replacement workers. As has been said by almost everyone, not only did it divide labour and management but the members of the task force were unable to reach a consensus on it.

Bill C-66 will not impose a general ban on the use of replacement workers as requested by the Bloc in its Motion No. 40 and by the NDP in its Motion No. 38. Nevertheless, the code will not be silent on this matter as the Reform Party proposes in its MotionNo. 37.

It is important to mention that the unions and employers subject to the Canada Labour Code, although deeply divided on the regulation of the use of replacement workers, recognized in their submissions to the task force that the use of replacement workers was not a legitimate practice if its purpose was to get rid of union representation or undermine the role of the union rather than to achieve an acceptable collective agreement.

When asked to comment on the task force's recommendations, management and labour while maintaining their opposing positions on the issue of replacement workers recognized nonetheless that the majority recommendation of the task force was an acceptable compromise.

Therefore, under the proposed subsection 94(2.1) of the Canada Labour Code, if it is demonstrated that the employer is using replacement workers to undermine the union's representational capacity, the employer's conduct will constitute an unfair labour practice. The Canada Industrial Relations Board will be given a discretionary power to require the employer to stop using replacement workers for the duration of the dispute.

Some claim that the use of replacement workers could in itself constitute proof of the employer's intention to undermine the union's representational capacity. If this was the result the government had sought, the bill would have been worded to prohibit the use of replacement workers without making reference to the employer's purpose in doing so.

A number of parties that appeared before the standing committee claimed that the terminology used to describe this new, unfair labour practice did not reflect the spirit of the task force majority recommendation. Specifically, some employers claimed that the phrase "undermining a trade union's representational capacity" was too broad and could be interpreted as prohibiting the use of replacement workers under any circumstances, regardless of the employer's purpose in doing so.

They therefore asked that the wording of the bill reflect the task force majority recommendation and stipulate that employers can legitimately use replacement workers in pursuit of legitimate bargaining objectives. The committee did not act on these requests for good reason. This new prohibition is worded in the same way as the other prohibitions in the code referring to improper motivation. However, the union will have the burden of proving that the employer's intention in using replacement workers is to undermine the union's representational capacity and it will not benefit from the reversal of the burden of proof.

We are confident that the new Canada Industrial Relations Board, which will draw its membership from management and labour, will have the necessary expertise to develop criteria for providing and applying this new provision.

Finally, Motion No. 27 which was put forward by the Bloc prohibiting the use of replacement workers with bargaining unit employees has to maintain services necessary to protect the safety and health of the public. We believe that such prohibition would only generate unnecessary litigation.

What the proposed amendment envisages is a somewhat bizarre situation in which an employer not only seeks to have services maintained by bargaining unit employees, but also to recruit replacements to work alongside them. Add to this unusual circumstance a trade union ready to negotiate the maintenance of services by its members and to accept that they will be working with replacements doing bargaining unit work. In all an eventuality which is to say the least unlikely.

If the parties do not agree on the maintenance of services issue, it will be up to the board to resolve the matters and to decide on a case by case basis just what services should be maintained, who should perform them and finally to devise and an order which makes industrial relation sense.

We therefore ask the members of the House as a fourth replacement workers provision of Bill C-66 as drafted-as it represents a fair balance between the parties opposing but legitimate interests-

the employees right to be represented by a union and negotiate their working conditions collectively and the employer's right to keep their business viable during a work stoppage.

[Canada Labour Code, March 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-66 introduces for the first time in the Canada Labour Code provisions which will require the maintenance of activities necessary to prevent immediate and serious danger to public health and safety during work stoppages.

My colleagues in the Reform Party are proposing by Motions Nos. 24 and 25 to extend the application of these provisions to a much broader range of activities by making economic hardship to the national economy a criterion for requiring parties to maintain services during a work stoppage. Bill C-66 also introduces a requirement for employers and employees in the ports to continue to provide services to grain vessels in the event of a work stoppage.

The aim of this proposal is twofold: to ensure the continued movement of grain exports and to reduce reliance on legislative interventions to terminate and resolve port-labour management disputes. The Reform Party is seeking to extend the application of this provision to all commodities exported through the ports. These changes to Bill C-66 would effectively remove strike and lockout rights from large numbers of employers and employees subject to the code.

Let us recognize this approach for what it really is: a denial of free collective bargaining rights for large numbers of workers and employers in the federal labour jurisdiction, an approach more commonly associated with less democratic societies. We all know how successful such states have been in solving their economic and social problems.

Representatives of both labour and business told the Sims task force that they want to be able to frame their own agreements rather than have third party solutions imposed upon them. In their view third party solutions have had a history of failure, particularly when the issues in dispute involve significant changes to traditional practices.

The Sims task force examined the issue of maintenance of activities and concluded that the right to strike or lockout should not be removed from any group of workers or any employer subject to the code. The task force recommended that the code include specific provisions for the protection of public health and safety during work stoppages. With respect to the appropriate criteria for

determining which activity should be maintained, both labour and management support protection of public health and safety as a criterion.

The maintenance of activities provisions in Bill C-66 balance the collective bargaining rights of employees and employers subject to the code with the public's right to protection of health and safety. They represent a fair and equitable approach which has the support of both the labour and management parties.

I will now turn to the grain provision. Grain has been declared for the general advantage of Canada. It is a multi-billion dollar industry which exports to over 70 countries worldwide. The livelihood of 130,000 farmers and their families depends on Canada maintaining its reputation as a reliable exporter. These interests must however be balanced with the rights of labour and management to determine fair terms and conditions of employment through collective bargaining.

Since 1972 there have been 12 work stoppages in west coast ports which have disrupted grain exports. Nine of these work stoppages have involved longshoremen and their employers. Only three have involved grain handlers. One of these was limited to Prince Rupert and as such did not affect major terminal elevators in Vancouver.

Requiring the continuation of port services to grain vessels will therefore eliminate the major source of disruptions to our grain exports due to work stoppages in ports. However, as it is limited to services to grain vessels in the ports, it will not remove the right to strike or lockout from any group of employees or employers.

When grain exports are interrupted due to work stoppages pressures are immediately brought to bear on Parliament to adopt emergency legislation. In the past Parliament has intervened quickly to end and resolve disputes in the ports which have affected grain exports. This does not contribute to sound labour-management relations in the ports. The parties have come to expect Parliament to intervene. They have developed negotiation strategies around this assumption. This removes responsibility from the parties engaged in a collective bargaining dispute to resolve their own problems. It enables the parties to blame the government and ultimately Parliament for any consequences of an imposed settlement they perceive as adverse to their interests.

The proposal in Bill C-66 preserves the right of workers and employers in all sectors to engage in collective bargaining while providing protections to Canada's grain industry. It is the equitable approach suggested by the Sims task force and widely supported by the grain producers.

As the Minister of Labour indicated when he introduced the bill and repeated before the standing committee, the provision with respect to services to grain vessels will be subject to review in 1999, at which time stronger measures could be considered if necessary. The parties should therefore take the opportunity to make these provisions work.

The amendment adopted by members of the standing committee would require the continuation of ferry services between Port aux Basques, Newfoundland and North Sydney, Nova Scotia, in the event of a collective bargaining dispute. The government has introduced a motion to remove this requirement. I would like to explain why the provision is inadvisable from an industrial relations point of view.

While committee members heard from a number of groups with interests in tourism and economic development in Newfoundland, they did not have an opportunity to hear from labour and management on this issue or to examine the industrial relations implications of the provision.

First, it is important to note there has not been a legal strike or lockout involving employees providing ferry service between Port aux Basques, Newfoundland and North Sydney, Nova Scotia and their employer, Marine Atlantic, since the corporation began operating the service over 23 years ago. Marine Atlantic and the union representing the employees have always been able to reach an agreement on terms and conditions of employment without resorting to work stoppages.

Second, this issue did not surface during the lengthy process of the review of part I of the Canada Labour Code which included cross-country consultations by an independent task force and subsequently by the Minister of Labour. This is unfortunate since there would have been an opportunity for a more careful examination of a serious issue, that is the removal of strike and lockout rights for a group of employees and their employer. At first glance one might think the impact of this provision would be the same as the requirement in Bill C-66 for port services to grain vessels to be continued in the event of work stoppages. However that is not the case.

The requirement with respect to port services to grain vessels does not remove the strike and lockout rights of any bargaining unit of employees or any employer. Only port work related to grain vessels would have to be continued in the event of a work stoppage. This would affect a small portion of workers in any bargaining unit in the ports. The employer and the union would still be able to exert economic pressures throughout the strike or lockout action.

However, in the case of ferry services by May of this year when ferry service between Prince Edward Island and the mainland will cease the only year-round ferry service run by the current employer, Marine Atlantic, will be that between Port aux Basques and North Sydney. If the requirement to maintain this service is not revoked, employers and employees will not be able to exert economic pressure to resolve a collective bargaining dispute.

There are other changes in Bill C-66 which adequately address concerns raised before the standing committee without removing the rights of parties. The parties operating ferry services would be required to maintain services necessary to prevent immediate and serious danger to public health and safety. The new time limited one stage conciliation process will reduce the length of bargaining and encourage earlier settlements. In addition, the new requirement for a 72-hour advance notice of a strike or lockout action will prevent unexpected disruptions to service.

It seems to me to be somewhat heavy-handed to remove legitimate rights from a group of workers and their employer in anticipation of the possibility that a situation which has not occurred in over 23 years could happen. The removal of strike and lockout rights may have the undesirable effect of undermining the positive labour-management relations which have enabled the union and the employer to resolve collective bargaining disputes without resorting to work stoppages. Poor labour-management relations can negatively impact on the quality and reliability of the services.

I urge members to support the government motion to delete the provision with respect to the maintenance of ferry services. I am confident that the other changes to the bargaining process in Bill C-66 are sufficient to address any perceived problems with respect to ferry services between Newfoundland and Nova Scotia without removing the collective bargaining rights of the parties.

[Canada Labour Code, March 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition has put forward a series of motions that would remove the compulsory conciliation stage in the new requirements for the acquisition of the right to strike and lockout, abolition of the conciliation process, Motion No. 34.

However, before addressing this motion which would allow the parties to acquire the right to strike and lockout at the date of expiration of the collective agreement without having to file a notice of dispute with the minister or to complete the conciliation process, it is important to stress the role of conciliation in the collective bargaining cycle under the Canada Labour Code.

During the extensive consultation process leading up to the introduction of Bill C-66, representatives of labour and management organizations subject to Part I of the code, while critical of lengthy delays in the current conciliation process, found conciliation itself valuable and praised the services offered by the federal mediation and conciliation service.

The labour-management working group did not recommend that compulsory conciliation be abolished as proposed by the official opposition. It requested that the two stage process be replaced by a shorter one stage process which could take various forms. The official opposition is asking us to ignore the labour management consensus which is reflected in the changes included in Bill C-66.

Extending the cooling off period, government Motion No. 35. While the new conciliation process has received general support by labour and management, some parties have expressed concerns with respect to the duration of the cooling off period that the bill will extend from its current 7 days to 14 days. Finding some merit to these concerns, the government proposes to amend Bill C-66 to increase the duration of that period to 21 days. This is the purpose of Motion No. 35.

The cooling off period is designed to give the parties time to evaluate their respective positions and weigh the consequences of a decision to resort to economic sanctions. During this period pressure on both sides is at its peak and there are high expectations of the mediation that may take place.

Given the changes made to the conciliation process and given the fact that some federal businesses are active over a large geographic area and have nationwide bargaining units that can make the logistics of mediation meetings difficult, some have expressed doubts as to whether the 14 day cooling off period as provided for in the bill will be sufficient to give the parties a serious opportunity to settle their dispute and to have a positive impact on the work of the mediator. This amendment will provide a more realistic timeframe for the mediator to discharge his or her mandate.

Motions Nos. 15, 16 and 17, strike and lockout notice. Under Bill C-66 the right to strike and lockout will be required 21 days after the conciliation is completed, subject to the parties meeting

new requirements regarding the holding of a secret ballot vote within the previous 60 days and giving a 72 hour advance notice.

The official opposition has put forward Motions Nos. 15, 16 and 17 which would delete the reference to the 72 hour notice requirement and the obligation to send a new notice if no strike or lockout occurs at the end of the notice period.

The purpose of the new 72 hour notice provision which implements a recommendation of the tax force is twofold. First, it will allow for an orderly shut down or reduction of operations and alleviate the problems of perishables. Second, it will further focus the parties on serious negotiations and should encourage settlement of disputes.

To those unions which have expressed concern that this new requirement will frustrate their right to strike, we want to point out that Bill C-66 will not require that a new notice be given once a strike or lockout action has commenced, even if it is temporarily suspended. Furthermore, when the other sides begins first with a strike or lockout action the requirement will not apply to the other party.

Some other unions, mostly longshore unions, expressed the view that the 72 hour notice will allow an unfair advantage to the shipping companies and agents in the negotiation process, as it will remove the prospect of ships being held captive during a port work stoppage. This position is echoed by the official opposition.

The major economic impact of a port work stoppage is that the port is closed and the fixed capital remains idle. Such a major impact on important investments is a significant pressure point and a reasonable offset for the loss of income employees must incur during a work stoppage.

We believe that the 72 hours notice requirement will provide an appropriate balance between these two competing interests.

Motions Nos. 18 and 23, strikes and lockout votes. The official opposition is proposing two sets of motions relating to the strike and lockout vote requirement. With Motion No. 18 the vote requirement would simply be removed from the bill, whereas with Motions Nos. 20 to 23 the statute would require a vote but include no conditions for its conduct and no means for voters to challenge its validity.

It is important to stress that with the exception of the current Canada Labour Code secret ballot strike votes are mandatory in all Canadian jurisdictions as a prerequisite for legal strike action.

Although the vast majority of unions subject to the code already hold secret ballot votes before declaring a strike in the absence of a statutory requirement, employees in the bargaining unit who are not union members may be excluded from participating in a major decision which directly affects them.

Second, strike votes are not always held in a timely fashion. In some cases a strike mandate is acquired early in the bargaining process as a means of demonstrating solid employee support for union demands but which may not be a true reflection of support for a work stoppage.

The conditions for a valid vote specified in Bill C-66 reflect the recommendations of the Sims task force. They are similar to provisions found in a number of provincial statutes and they are not onerous.

The vote must be held by secret ballot among all employees in the bargaining unit or among all employers in the association within 60 days prior to strike or lockout action. Eligible voters must be given reasonable opportunity to participate in the vote.

Finally, the union or employer's association must obtain majority support among the employees or employers who participate in the vote.

It is hard to imagine that any democratically held vote would fail to meet these basic requirements. These conditions will simply ensure that such votes are timely, fairly conducted and are based on the entire workplace involved in this dispute.

Government Motion No. 19, extension of the 60 day vote period. Concerns have been raised that the 60 day period for holding a strike vote may cause difficulties in some cases, particularly where employees in the bargaining unit are dispersed across the country or do not work at a specific location.

To address these legitimate concerns, the government has introduced a motion to allow the 60 day validity period for a strike or lockout vote to be extended by written agreement of the parties.

This amendment is consistent with the general approach in Bill C-66 supported by labour and management that legislation should be flexible enough to meet the specific needs of the parties.

Government Motion No. 33, no strike or lockout during the term of the collective agreement. Another amendment that would further improve Bill C-66 is Motion No. 33 which will clarify the scope of the prohibition set out in the new section 88.1.

The only exception to the prohibition on strikes and lockout during the term of the collective agreement under section 88.1 as currently drafted is where a notice to bargain has been served pursuant to a reopener provision in the party's collective agreement.

However, there are other situations contemplated by the code that allow for notice to bargain and therefore full negotiations to take place before the expiry of a collective agreement.

There are also some instances in the current code and in what will be the amended code when the board has discretion to authorize a party to give notice to bargain other than during the last four months of a collective agreement.

This motion adjusts the language of section 88.1 to ensure that where notice to bargain is authorized to be served during the term of an agreement, the parties may acquire the right to strike or lockout once they have completed a conciliation process and met the other statutory prerequisite.

I would ask members to support this motion as well as Motions No. 19 and 35.