Roy Cullen

[Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1997, October 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join the debate of Bill C-10.

This bill will benefit all Canadians by amending double taxation treaties between Canada and a number of countries. These nations are the United States, Sweden, Lithuania, Kazakhstan, Iceland, Denmark and the Netherlands.

I am particularly pleased to see the amendments to the tax treaty with the United States. We often hear, sometimes in a not very complimentary way, about the role of backbenchers in the government caucus. This agreement responds to the concerns of many members of Parliament who were concerned that many of their residents were paying double taxation on U.S. social security benefits.

Many people in Canada live near the border with the United States and many of these individuals have lived and worked in the United States and then retired in Canada. Many of them are in my riding of Etobicoke North. Over the last while I have had a number of constituents complain that they were being taxed doubly on their social security benefits.

A number of my colleagues and I went to the Minister of Finance. We stated, in a very strong way, that this was not fair. People should not be taxed doubly, particularly low income seniors who were being jeopardized as a result. The finance minister listened. It is because of that we have the amendments to the taxation agreement with the United States.

This area can be a very dry topic. I would like, for the record, to present what the bill does from the government's side. It is important for Canadians who are watching this debate to appreciate what the legislation does and what it does not do. Paying taxes twice on the same income or gain is not very fair. That is why these initiatives will avoid double taxation.

The treaties essentially reduce the rates of withholding taxes applicable to dividends, interest and royalties, and eliminate double taxation by allocating taxation rights between the country in which a taxpayer is resident and the source country of the income or gain. For example, where income or gains remain taxable in both states a convention would normally provide that the state of residence will give credit for the tax paid in the other country.

Other ways to eliminate double taxation would consist of ensuring that the income or gain is taxed only in the source country or the country of residence. This serves to promote trade and investment which, in the absence of a treaty, could be discouraged by the possibility that returns would be taxed twice.

As well the conventions generally include provisions for the exchange of information between revenue authorities to prevent tax avoidance or tax evasion.

Canada now has double taxation conventions in force with 61 countries. While the provisions of each treaty necessarily vary from one country to another, their common denominator is that they benefit Canadian taxpayers.

The Canada-United States double taxation agreement is a case in point. This is the fourth protocol to the convention between Canada and the U.S. with respect to taxes on income and on capital, commonly known as the Canada-U.S. tax treaty.

With the approval of parliament and the ratification of the United States senate the protocol to the convention will deliver significant tax relief to thousands of lower income Canadians who receive U.S. social security benefits which are subject to U.S. tax rates.

Most Canadians and many Americans reside within 80 miles of the 49th parallel. Many have worked in one country and as I said retired in the other. Consequently both Canada and the United States pay social security benefits to large numbers of people in the other country.

To avoid double taxation the Canada-United States tax treaty sets out which country can tax these benefits. Currently the country that pays the benefit can tax all of it while a country where the recipient lives can tax none of it. This results in hardship for many lower income Canadians who receive U.S. social security benefits because the United States taxes outbound social security benefits at a flat withholding rate of 25.5%. This is what constituents came to me and spoke about, this withholding tax of 25.5% which was very high and very unjust.

Conversely outbound Canada and Quebec pension plans and old age security benefits are taxed at a rate of 25%. While the old age security recovery rate applies, any non-resident pensioner can file a Canadian tax return at ordinary Canadian tax. As a result many low income U.S. recipients pay little or no Canadian tax on their Canadian benefits. I would add that other than U.S. citizens and resident aliens the U.S. does not allow non-resident pensioners to file tax returns.

The protocol proposes that the country of residence have the exclusive right to tax social security benefits. That means several thousand low income Canadians will no longer pay any income tax at all. Thousands more will pay less tax than they do now, particularly in light of special rules exempting from tax 15% of U.S. benefits paid to residents of Canada. For U.S. recipients of Canadian benefits, Canadian benefits that are exempt from tax in Canada will also be exempt in the United States.

Prior to 1996 the country that paid a benefit to a resident of the other country could not tax the benefits at all. The country where the recipient lived could include only one-half the benefit in the recipient's taxable income. That meant that one-half of the benefits were tax free. It also meant that those rules did not stand the test of tax equity with neighbours receiving similar levels of benefits but paying vastly different levels of taxes on those benefits.

Under this agreement with the United States the new rule would apply as of January 1, 1996, the date the current rule came into effect. Excess tax collected since then would be refunded to social security recipients in both countries. However there will be no retroactive tax increases for that period.

The government will limit applicable 1996 and 1997 taxes for Canadian residents to ensure that they do not exceed the tax the U.S. collected. For 1998 and beyond the Canadian tax that recipients pay will reflect their total incomes. After ratification both nations will work together to ensure that refunds can be paid out as quickly and efficiently as possible.

A second proposed amendment to the Canada-U.S. tax treaty pertains to the taxation of capital gains. In 1995 Canada proposed to amend the Income Tax Act to tax the gains of non-residents on shares of non-resident corporations and interest in non-resident trusts where most of the value of the shares or interest is attributable to Canadian real estate or resource property. Although it has not yet done so, the United States could under current tax treaty rules impose a comparable tax on residents of Canada.

In a classic quid pro quo the protocol will apply the proposed tax change to United States residents in exchange for United States agreement that its real property interest laws will not for residents of Canada include shares of corporations that are not resident in the United States.

This change which will apply as of April 26, 1995 means that Canadians who invest in U.S. real estate through Canadian companies will continue to pay Canadian tax rather than any possible future U.S. tax when they sell their shares. U.S. investors and U.S. companies that hold property in Canada will still pay U.S. tax when they sell their shares rather than Canadian tax.

Turning to the Canada-Sweden tax treaty, in the bill we propose a small number of amendments to the double taxation and the convention that has existed between Canada and that country since 1984. However while the number of amendments is small the benefits are very real. Taxpayers will pay less taxes as a result of reduced tax rates, which will also result in increased trade and investment between our two countries. The revised convention will enter into force when both Canada and Sweden have approved the amendments and exchanged instruments of ratification. The provisions would then apply on the first day of January subsequent to the exchange.

With respect to Lithuania, Bill C-10 seeks parliament's approval to enter into a tax treaty with that country. As there is currently no double taxation convention in force between Canada and Lithuania, there are a number of double taxation problems for which the proposed convention provides needed and equitable solutions.

The proposed convention does not reinvent the wheel. Rather it generally follows the language and the pattern of other tax treaties Canada has concluded. It also largely reflects the format and language of the model convention prepared by the OECD.

Of more interest than structure are results. In that regard the provisions of the convention will produce results, reduced tax rates leading to increased trade and investment that will mirror those of other concluded conventions and will help to promote economic development in both nations, in particular in Lithuania.

Concerning Kazakhstan, tax relations between Canada and that nation had been governed by the 1986 tax treaty between Canada and the U.S.S.R. However, as of January 1, 1996 Kazakhstan ceased to apply that treaty. Accordingly Bill C-10 seeks parliamentary approval to enter into a tax treaty with Kazakhstan. Again the proposed treaty generally follows the language and pattern of tax treaties already concluded by Canada.

Trade and investment between Canada and Kazakhstan are expected to increase upon the conclusion of the convention which will enter into force on the date of the exchange of the instruments of ratification. Its provisions will apply on or after the first day of January 1996.

The proposed double taxation convention between Canada and Iceland is also a new tax treaty but contains somewhat similar provisions to those I have addressed. For example, it provides for a reduced withholding tax of 5% applicable to dividends paid to a company that controls at least 10% of the voting power in the company paying the dividends and a rate of 15% in all other cases. The rate of the branch tax will also be reduced to 5%.

Entry into force will entail each country first notifying the other that the procedure required to bring the convention into force, the attainment of royal assent in Canada, has been completed. The convention will then enter into force 30 days after the date of the latter of these notifications. The provisions will apply on or after the first day of January subsequent to the entry into force.

The penultimate country included in the legislation is Denmark. A double taxation convention is currently in force between Canada and Denmark. First signed in 1955 and amended in 1964, it is now appropriate the convention referred to as the 1955 convention be amended further to increase trade and investment opportunities between Canada and Denmark. To those ends the current withholding tax rate of 15% on dividends, interest and royalties will be reduced to 5% on direct dividends and to 10% on interest and on royalties. The rate of the branch tax will also be reduced from the existing 15% to 5%. The revised convention also provides for a number of exemptions at source, which I will not go into today.

With respect to pensions, currently all pensions are taxable only in the country of residence of the recipient. The revised convention provides for the opposite. Specifically all pensions including social security pensions will be taxable only in the source country. Moreover, the two year exemption provided under the existing convention for visiting teachers will be eliminated.

The 1955 convention also does not contain any rules for the taxation of capital gains. As a result they are taxable in accordance with each country's respective legislation. Accordingly and in line with rules found in other tax treaties concluded by Canada, the revised convention includes rules for the taxation of capital gains.

With respect to Canada and the Netherlands, which is the last country but certainly not the least that I will be speaking on today, the legislation proposes amendments to the existing convention between Canada and the Netherlands.

The 1993 budget announced Canada's willingness to eliminate on a bilateral basis its withholding tax on royalties on computer software and patent and information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience.

Consistent with that statement, the protocol provides that the rate of 10% withholding tax on such royalties in the country of source will be eliminated or remain at zero in the case of computer software, which was already covered in the protocol signed in 1993.

The protocol also introduces a new article in the convention providing for mutual assistance in the collection of taxes in each country. Patterned on the corresponding article found in the Canada-United States tax treaty, it differs only in that it applies regardless of the nationality of the person concerned.

There are other modifications to the convention as well. This protocol will enter into force 30 days after the date on which the governments notify each other that ratification has been completed. Its provisions will then apply in Canada from the date of entry into force of the protocol.

As I have spoken for some time I will keep my concluding remarks brief. I appreciate that for some the matter of international tax treaties may seem arcane, complex and dry. However, that being said, they are extremely important and they have real and direct financial impacts on Canadian taxpayers. I know the legislation will positively affect the taxpayers of my riding.

Clearly my address articulated that in the instance of Bill C-10 its impact on Canadian taxpayers will be overwhelmingly beneficial. As such, I very much urge members of the House to accord speedy passage of the legislation so that those benefits may be realized sooner rather than later.

[Supply, October 9th, 1997]

How much did labour give to the NDP?

[The Environment, October 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

As we get closer to the Kyoto conference this December, more and more public attention is being directed at the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. On the one hand, some people think we can carry on as before. On the other hand, some people would have us believe the sky is falling.

How will the minister ensure that Canada takes a balanced position going into the Kyoto conference? Does he believe that voluntary measures will help Canada meet its emission reduction goals?

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, October 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast on his maiden speech in this House after an absence of 25 years. Perhaps there was a good reason for his return to debate the retirement system of Canada. I know the member opposite has a distinguished career in public service in British Columbia and I welcome his return to the House.

I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-2, an act to establish the Canada pension plan investment board and to amend the Canada pension plan. This bill is a very important piece of legislation.

We cannot let our seniors down and we have to ensure that all Canadians have a sound pension plan for the future.

We realized some time ago that the Canada pension plan was not on very sound footing. We also understand that Canadians look to the federal government for leadership when it comes to the retirement income systems of Canada. We realized that the Canada pension plan is not unlike many pension plans around the world, whether they be private or public pension plans.

We knew we had to put the plan on a sound financial footing. There are many pension plans facing the same challenges. With changing demographics, changes in the birth rates and increasing life expectancy many pension plans in the public sector and in the private sector are facing challenges. It is not uncommon in the private sector to have unfunded pension plans, which only recently companies are beginning to address.

While the situation we found ourselves in with respect to the Canada pension plan was nothing that we are particularly proud of, it is not unlike many situations in many countries and in many private pension plans. Our government is taking the lead by making amendments to the act and by putting the Canada pension plan on a sound footing.

We realized that we had to make the plan fiscally sound, so we began consultations across Canada. We spoke to all Canadians. Canadians told us that they wanted the federal government to play a leadership role.

We worked with the provinces and basically we began to look at three different scenarios. One scenario was that we increase the contributions to the Canada pension plan. The second alternative was that we decrease the benefits under the Canada pension plan. The third scenario was that we look at some combination of the two.

We sat down with Canadians, we sat down with the provinces and we came up with a solution that I think is the fairest and most reasonable solution. In doing so we have avoided radical changes to benefits.

With respect to contributions, the rates will rise over the next six years to 9.9% of contributing earnings. That is 4.95% for each employee and employer. We avoided the increase of 14.2% that was actually estimated by the chief actuary.

Bill C-2 will establish the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board which will allow the invested funds to be put to uses that typically most pension funds have the capacity to invest in. They will not be restricted to debt instruments. They will have the capacity to look at equity and in so doing, they will be able to earn a greater return from the pension plan funds that are invested. This legislation will allow that to happen. Notwithstanding the fact that the Canada pension plan until this point in time has not had the flexibility that other pension plans would be permitted, the pension plan has still yielded an average of about 10% which is not good enough.

But when the opposition parties rant and rave about this hopelessly inadequate Canada pension plan I think they should sharpen their pencils. They talk about a real rate of return of 6%. A real rate of return is the nominal rate of return minus inflation. They say their self-directed super RRSP given that kind of return will put the Canada pension plan system on a sound footing.

First, Canadians are saying that they want a public pension system. Canadians are saying they want the federal government and the provinces involved. If Reform members say they want a real rate of return of 6%, then a lot of pension plans would be doing very well with a real rate of return of 6%.

We also have to look at the experience of other countries. There are some small countries that have experimented with the proposal that Reform discusses. What we have determined is that the administration costs for these super directed RRSPs or private plans are approaching 10% even though we do not have a lot of experience with them. There are only a few years of experience. Compare that with the administration burden of the Canada pension plan at 2%.

The proposal by the Reform Party would certainly make a lot of stockbrokers, investment advisers and retirement planners very rich and wealthy, but I am wondering what it would do for Canadians. In a self-directed RRSP would the average Canadian citizen have to sit there at night and work over all the numbers or hire some investment counsellor? What about the Canadian public not all of whom have the sophistication of the investors sitting opposite? How are they going to deal with securing their retirement future?

I guess it would do very well for all the friends of the Reform Party, their investment brokers and counsellors. Perhaps that is where they have been getting these suggestions from. Have they actually been listening to Canadians? I doubt it very much.

Another irony is that with the Reform proposal even though Reformers will not put it out very publicly, contributions will go to 14% whereas our contribution rate maxes out at about 9.9%. It will do very well for all the investment advisers and stockbrokers in the Reform Party's constituencies, but what about the average Canadian?

The private plan Reformers are proposing does not have the features of a public pension plan. For example, what about people who become disabled? Is that part of their plan as well? Will they look after them? What about survivor benefits? Does their proposal contemplate that scenario?

Our legislation on which we have a consensus of the vast majority of the provinces does not affect people who are disabled. It treats them in a fair and equitable manner. It contemplates survivor benefits. And it does not affect anybody over 65 years of age as of December 31, 1997. The benefits will remain fully indexed to inflation and all the current retirement ages remain the same.

I think we have struck a very reasonable balance. In fact if we look at the ratio of the changes we made to the benefits as opposed to the contributions, 25% can be attributed to the changes in retirement benefits and 75% can be attributed to changes in the contribution rate and also the actuarial estimates of the income that will come from this more advantageously managed fund.

Those who say that the CPP is a tax grab either do not understand economics or they do not understand tax. The contributions to the Canada pension plan go into a separately administered fund. They never hit consolidated revenue ever, ever, ever. Members should read the estimates and they will discover that the Canada pension plan is a separately administered pension plan. It goes nowhere near the revenues of the government. If that is not political hyperbole to say it is a tax grab, I don't know what is.

In conclusion, this plan is going to secure the future for all Canadians. It is going to make sure that we look after our current seniors. I am hoping that all members of this House will support this very important bill.

[Speech From The Throne, October 3rd, 1997]

That was the essence of what he said. Then we are wrong footed. We have to increase the size of the pie before we can decide how to divide it up.

[Speech From The Throne, October 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on his maiden speech.

While many of us on this side of the House respect the passion with which he speaks, I would state that his thinking is really a factor of the flat earth society of social democratic thinking that we keep hearing over and over again. It is that business is bad and anything that business does is bad and instead of thinking of how we can increase the pie we have to think about how we can divide up the pie.

Businesses in Canada are beginning to increasingly recognize that they have multi-stakeholder responsibilities. Only recently Mr. Courtney Pratt, president of Noranda, talked about the need for corporations to take an inclusive approach, to invest in people, to be conscious about the environment and to take responsibilities with respect to the community.

We are seeing this kind of thinking coming back into the social responsibilities of business. If we keep saying that business is bad and everyone else is good—

[Speech From The Throne, October 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, to the member for Calgary Southeast, I thank him for the promotion which I have taken note of.

In terms of tax relief, let us look at the United States. I was down there recently at a conference on employee share ownership. The United States is probably the market economy of the world and employee share ownership plans are absolutely taking off. It is a huge movement. What it is saying is that the workers and people in all levels of management have a piece of the action. The result is there is better productivity and greater profits. More profits mean more growth and more growth means more jobs. Therefore with a tiny tweak in terms of a tax incentive which would have very minimal cost to the treasury, we could actually accomplish some great things and get a lot more Canadians back to work.

[Speech From The Throne, October 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the good fortune in my experience in life to have visited and worked in the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and other parts of Canada. I have developed a great respect for our native peoples and the contribution they make to the overall culture of our country.

While I am not familiar with the specifics of the case in his riding, I think he probably heard the comments earlier by our Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. If it was like the reaction of my own, I was moved by the compassion and willingness to develop models and solutions that will be workable into the next millennium. I know that will involve working very closely and getting the co-operation of the provinces and territories and other stakeholder groups to make that happen.

[Speech From The Throne, October 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate you on your appointment as Acting Speaker. I look forward to working within the rules of this House and supporting you in your role.

It is an honour and a pleasure for me to be able to comment on the recent throne speech. For the second time in fourteen months, the people of Etobicoke North have given me the opportunity to represent them in the House of Commons. I thank them for their strong vote of confidence and I promise to do everything I can to perform my duties with honesty during this 36th Parliament of Canada.

The throne speech sets the government's directional course and lays out the priorities for this Parliament. I believe it has done this very well. It has responded to the needs of Canadians and to the needs of the constituents in Etobicoke North.

People in my riding frequently refer to three major concerns and priorities: first, the need for the economy to generate more jobs so that more Canadians, in particular young Canadians, can re-enter the workforce; second, the need to resolve our national unity problem so that we can move forward and remove the last major impediment to economic growth in Ontario, Quebec and the rest of Canada; and third, the need to restore confidence in our health care system.

The throne speech addresses these key issues very completely but before I expand on that, I would like to comment on the overall context of the throne speech. That is where we are today and where we have come from. When charting a course for the future, we really need to know where we are today and where we have been.

Our journey to fiscal responsibility and economic renewal has been a very difficult one. The road was rough and winding. We had to make difficult choices about which way to go but I am proud to say that our destination is in sight. If we stay on this road, our children's future and Canada's future will be secure.

We are seeing the very positive results today. Canadian interest rates are at their lowest in decades. Inflation has been beaten down and is firmly under control. We are more competitive as a nation. Consumer spending is up and so is business investment. Make no mistake, good jobs are here and more are coming. In summary, the hard work of all Canadians is beginning to pay off, but our job is not yet complete.

In my riding and in other regions of Canada, there are business representatives that tell me they are unable to recruit people with the necessary skills for new positions. The tragic irony of all this is that this is happening at a time when many Canadians, and particularly young Canadians, are unable to find quality jobs.

I was delighted therefore to note that our throne speech committed our government “to work with the provinces, universities and colleges, the high tech industry and other rapidly growing sectors of the economy to better forecast the number and types of jobs that will be available and to develop a plan for ensuring that young people are appropriately educated to fill them”.

I was particularly pleased to see the reference to colleges. I believe that there are many opportunities available for technicians and people with trades in a number of our industrial sectors.

That is why I am supporting the establishment of a telecommunications learning institute in Etobicoke in association with Humber College. Such an institute will focus on research and training so that our workforce skills are leading edge and we are prepared for the latest advancements in communications technology.

While our colleges have a major role to play, clearly our universities do as well. The jobs of the future will increasingly be knowledge based jobs and our ability as a nation to foster a culture of innovation through research, development and entrepreneurship will determine our future economic growth.

That is why the formation of the $800 million Canada Foundation for Innovation that our government established in the last budget is so important. So too is the recent announcement in our government's throne speech to establish a Canada millennium scholarship endowment fund. These scholarships will make post-secondary education more accessible and affordable and will help young Canadians prepare for the knowledge based society of the next century.

There is another serious issue that in my view is still a threat when it comes to job creation and unemployment. I refer to it as structural unemployment.

Gone are the days when the Canadian economy was expanding and thousands of jobs were created automatically. Sure, our economy is currently vibrant and it creates many jobs. However, the country and the government are facing the challenge of bringing unemployment back to the lowest possible level.

Perhaps we can never achieve an unemployment rate of 5 percent but perhaps we can. We should look very carefully at those countries that have achieved very low rates of unemployment without triggering unwanted inflation, countries like the United States, Holland, Great Britain and others. To be sure, because of our unique Canadian society we cannot transplant these solutions here but surely we can learn something from their experiences.

Changes in the global economy and changes in the workplace are at the root of structural unemployment. Countries that understand these developments are best positioned to create the public policy environment to deal with them. There are certainly many changes occurring.

Automation is replacing people with technology. We see it every day of our lives whether it is at the supermarket, or when we do computerized banking or whether it is robotics in the manufacturing sector. Organizations throughout the western world are making their organizations flatter by eliminating levels of management and by redesigning, re-engineering and rightsizing, as the term is used, their structure. There are changes occurring in the workplace such as the use of overtime hours, the use of part time versus full time workers, more contract employees and there are many other trends.

Many of these changes are characterized as necessary because of the increasingly competitive global economy. At the same time however it is interesting to note that stock markets in Canada and the United States and industry analysts are discounting the positive impacts of downsizing initiatives. In fact the evidence seems to point to the fact that companies that are focused more on growing their business and not so much on cost cutting have experienced better profitability performance over the last few years.

I applaud Canadian business leaders like Courtney Pratt, the president of Noranda, when they speak about business' multi-stakeholder responsibilities and the need for business to invest in people.

We know that in Europe, the exceptionally high unemployment rates in countries such as Germany and France are due to what economists call, and this is an understatement, the labour market's lack of flexibility. The expression refers to social benefits, manpower mobility, the ability to cope with flexible work patterns, etc.

We should learn something from these experiences.

There are a number of other initiatives that I believe would spur employment in this country. For example in Canada we could introduce tax incentives at minimal cost to the federal treasury to encourage employees to own shares in their own company. In the United States and elsewhere these schemes are referred to as employee share ownership plans or ESOPs. There is a very aggressive and well developed tax incentive program for ESOPs in the United States and in the United Kingdom. In Canada at this point in time we have no similar regime.

Studies in the United States and Canada comparing ESOP versus non-ESOP companies have consistently shown ESOP companies to be superior performers in profitability and job growth. ESOPs if properly implemented across Canada would make good public policy and would inspire and encourage Canadians to build a better and more compassionate Canada for all Canadians. The results would be both immediate and long term.

To conclude I must say that at the same time that we move aggressively on the economic front we must work very hard on the political front to ensure that we remain a united country from sea to sea. Constituents in my riding are tired of this continuing debate and they want to put the national unity issue to rest. They see how the uncertainty about Quebec's future in Canada is having a negative impact on the economic prospects in Ontario, in Quebec and in the rest of Canada.

At a public meeting I called in my riding a number of months ago to coincide with the release of the health forum report, I was made very aware of the concerns many Canadians have about the responsiveness and the accessibility of our health care system. Medicare is uniquely Canadian and very worthy of our support and attention. We must initiate public policies to restore the confidence of Canadians in our health care system and I pledge to do my utmost to achieve that end.

Mr. Speaker, I have exhausted my time and I thank you and this House for this opportunity.

[Speech From The Throne, October 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I was quite intrigued by the comments of the member opposite on the approach of final offer selection arbitration.

I wonder if the member opposite has any data on the results of final offer arbitration or arbitration awards generally. Do they generally tilt in favour of the union or do they generally tilt in favour of management?

The data that I have seen most recently indicated that arbitration tends to tilt in favour of labour. That may be a very good thing, but if one is looking at cost, if one is concerned about the fiscal ramifications, I wonder if the hon. member has any information which would indicate that arbitration tends to tilt one way or the other.