Bob Nault

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, November 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, since I know Reform Party members a little better than I know Bloc members, because I have to deal with them on a regular basis in my neighbourhood, I will tell the House what impresses and intrigues me the most about them. They came to the House with a particular focus and a promise they made to their constituents. I was in one of those ridings where they made that promise. They were going to be different. I frankly found that they were quite different. They were the most partisan group I have ever met in my life.

One of the questions posed to us during the last election campaign was why not become more like those Reformers, who are non-politicians, who will ask questions of substance. I will see if I can answer the question.

The member and his party have been spinning this scenario that the world is coming to an end in Canada and it is all going to fall apart unless we go as far to the right as we can, that everybody in Canada has to start paying massive user fees, including the seniors and the poor, because we cannot afford to tax anybody any more and our debt is so bad that we are going to sink under this big huge debt and some other country will have to bail us out.

We all know that is not true. I will try to explain this to the members across the way. I had the opportunity to sit on the committee that reviewed the pension plan with actuaries. Under the legislation we have to review this every five years. I spent some time looking at how we were to restructure it. During that time, with all the experts in front of us, never did one of them say this program would collapse under a particular problem of liability and having no money.

The problem with the individual across the way is he does not want to hear the truth about how the program works. These individuals across the way have no program or suggestions on how to run Canada. Their doom and gloom scenario, as with Klein and others, is to cut the government adrift, get rid of the government and let some right-wing business corporate elite look after it so they will not have to.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, November 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

In the last couple of days I have had the opportunity to listen to the Bloc on this bill. I have to admit I am saddened that members opposite have continued to make suggestions to their constituents that are factually incorrect.

If we look at what the Department of Labour is doing, it is just the opposite of what is being said by the members of the Bloc Quebecois. Let me give an example. As I mentioned in my speech, under health and safety we are going to be devolving powers and co-operating with the provinces. We have already entered into an agreement with Quebec to harmonize the way we deal with health and safety as it relates to federal and provincial jurisdictions. In essence, we have done what the Bloc is arguing we have not done, which is to decentralize to a certain extent the powers of the federal government under labour to the provinces to deal with certain areas like health and safety.

I do not know why the members opposite continue to do this. Sooner or later someone in Quebec will start paying closer attention to what is going on in the House and start picking up the bills and reading them, only to find out that they are being misrepresented by these individual members across the way.

Anyone who has been around as long as you and I have been, Mr. Speaker, will know that most people pay very close attention to what takes place in their country as it relates to the laws. These laws we are passing, which the opposition continues to suggest go in a totally opposite direction-that they are new powers and we are going to be stepping all over the provinces-sooner or later will show that we are working very hard to co-operate and do just the opposite.

I want to give the Bloc a challenge in my final comments. I would like the members to change their approach of trying to get Quebecers not to like Canada. If Quebecers are to leave they should leave for other reasons than the fact that the federal government is not trying to do a good job. Quite frankly, that is the furthest from the truth I have ever seen.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, November 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-96. I am sure members know the bill establishes the Department of Human Resources Development and amends or repeals certain related legislation.

In the time I have I will focus on the labour side of the bill and the duties the Prime Minister has entrusted with the Minister of Labour. Included in the bill are clear definitions of the direction and structures of the minister and the minister's duties. Clause 107 of the bill repeals the Department of Labour Act. Clause 4, though, authorizes the appointment of the Minister of Labour.

According to subclause 4(2), the powers, duties and functions of the Minister of Labour extend to and include all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction relating to labour not by law assigned to any other department, board or agency of the Government of Canada.

In other words, the Minister of Labour has all the powers, duties and functions related to labour matters under federal jurisdiction, except for staff relations and the federal public service.

So that my hon. colleagues in the House understand the extent of this jurisdiction, I will sketch a broad outline for them. The areas covered by the Canada Labour Code fall within the labour minister's jurisdiction. The code governs industrial relations, occupational safety and health, and labour standards in the federal sphere. The code applies to Canadians working in major industrial sectors such as interprovincial and international rail, road and pipeline transportation, shipping, longshoring, air transportation, grain handling, international and interprovincial telecommunications, broadcasting, banks and certain crown corporations. These are critical sectors of the economy.

Parts I and III of the code dealing with industrial relations and labour standards apply to over 700,000 Canadian workers. Part II also applies to the federal public sector so it affects over 1 million Canadians.

Through the Canada Labour Code and other initiatives of the labour branch of HRD Canada, stable industrial relations are facilitated and safe, healthy, fair and productive workplaces are promoted. In the industrial relations sphere the Canada Labour Code has long been recognized as a model that successfully balances the rights and responsibilities of both labour and management.

Application of the Canada Labour Code is the minister's major responsibility, but several other acts and policies fall under her jurisdiction. Among these is the Canada Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. The centre disseminates occupational health and safety information across the country and plays a key role in protecting the lives and health of workers in Canada.

Other statutes that fall in whole or in part under the labour minister's jurisdiction are the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, the Government Employees Compensation Act, the act respecting the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company, the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act, the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act, part II of the Status of the Artist Act, the Wages Liability Act, the Non-Smokers' Health Act and the Corporations and Labour Unions Liabilities Act. All these deal with matters of security, justice and equity, basic entitlements of all Canadian workers.

The only function not carried over from the old Department of Labour is the program for older worker adjustment. This is the only responsibility that will be carried out elsewhere. On the other hand, the Minister of Labour could have added responsibilities under the Employment Equity Act once Bill C-64 has received royal assent.

Given the broad scope of the labour branch, members may wonder why we want to merge into Human Resources Development. It is a logical way for the federal government to meet the challenges facing us as we enter the next century. By merging the two departments into one we want to give concrete form within a single structure to an integrated vision of all various issues relating to the work world and social security.

If the development of our human potential is to be successful it has to be seen as a continuous whole. Society has undergone great changes and we have to adapt. An integrated and unified structure will obviously allow us to do that.

We can no longer succeed in helping Canadians achieve their full potential by creating artificial bureaucratic categories for each of their needs. Nor can we respond to people's needs by losing them in the red tape of poorly co-ordinated government programs. Intelligent and careful integration is necessary but it does not preclude flexibility in procedures, enforcement or service to the Canadian public.

We need an administrative structure that allows us to deliver services in an efficient manner and at a reasonable cost, taking into account both the financial restrictions facing us and our moral obligations toward the Canadian public. By rationalizing resources under the Human Resources Development banner we can and will achieve this goal.

As well, we need a structure that fosters partnerships with the provinces, the industrial sector, the labour movement, the academic community and community groups. We have made great progress toward this and we will go even further under the new act.

The model proposed here is similar to that in several provinces. Integration has already taken place in Quebec, New Brunswick and Newfoundland. Since we are integrating departments some members might wonder why we need a labour minister at all. I will explain that rationale.

We have had labour ministers throughout most of our history. It was the previous Tory government, which did not care much for the views of working Canadians, that eliminated the post. I am concerned the Reform will get the opportunity. The government believes that labour matters deserve special attention, and rightfully so.

The labour movement, labour-management relations, workplace conditions and equity for all workers are probably more important today than they have ever been in the past. For these reasons Bill C-96 provides for the appointment of a Minister of Labour. There is no separate bureaucracy or infrastructure, just a minister who can devote her time to the concerns of working Canadians.

The minister uses the services and facilities of the human resources department. This keeps costs and duplication down without depriving the ministers of the tools needed to deal with their responsibilities.

Last February the Prime Minister appointed the current Minister of Labour. Without waiting for the bill before us to pass he wanted to assure working Canadians that we were ready to deal with urgent and pressing matters affecting Canada's labour situation.

I will outline some initiatives already undertaken by the minister since last February. In the area of industrial relations the minister continues to firmly believe in a free and open collective bargaining system which places the onus on labour and management to be responsible for resolving their own disputes.

Where they are unable to do so, assistance is provided by the federal mediation and conciliation services of the labour branch at Labour Canada. The FMCS has had an astonishing track record, one that most people probably do not realize. Over 90 per cent of disputes referred to it are resolved without work stoppage.

Throughout the world our federal system is seen as a model of balance and effective labour legislation. To have competitive and productive workplaces we need effective labour-management relations. To assist employers and unions to build effective communication channels the FMCS has developed a preventive mediation program which has been well received by its clients.

The minister has undertaken two significant initiatives to ensure that our industrial relations system continues to set standards for the rest of the world. In recent years a number of labour disputes on the west coast have required the intervention of Parliament. In May the minister appointed an industrial inquiry commission to study industrial relations in longshoring, grain handling and other federally regulated industries at west coast ports. We expect to receive the commission's report later this month.

In June the minister established the Sims task force to conduct an independent review and recommend improvements to part I of the Canada Labour Code. The task force will identify options and make recommendations for legislative change with the view to improving collective bargaining, reducing conflict and facilitating labour-management co-operation, ensuring effective and efficient administration of the code and addressing the changing workplace and employment relationships.

The task force is consulting at this moment with labour and management groups that are subject to the code and is scheduled to report to the minister by December 15 of this year.

In the area of occupational health and safety, we are working to better harmonize our legislation and regulations with the provinces and the territories. In co-operation with them, we are trying to achieve greater uniformity throughout the country with regard to this issue. This is a win-win scenario for workers and employers. We all stand to gain through increased efficiency and savings resulting from a reduction in overlap.

To further this initiative we are conducting two pilot projects. One is aimed at harmonizing the provisions of the Canada occupational safety and health regulations dealing with diving and confined spaces, while the other involves the field of ergonomics.

I have already mentioned the review of part I of the Canada Labour Code, but we also are planning to revise parts II and III. In co-operation with our various partners we are seeking to modernize the code to better reflect the requirements of today's labour environment. Consultations are under way and labour and management have approached the revision process with energy and enthusiasm.

Like all government organizations, the labour branch is reviewing all of its activities and methods. This review will help us to pinpoint more ways to increase both the quality and cost effectiveness of the programs and services we deliver to Canadians.

The labour program also has international obligations. The adoption of the North American agreement on labour co-operation led to the establishment of a relatively new component within the program. The agreement is aimed at promoting co-operation and guaranteeing effective enforcement of labour legislation by Canada, the United States and Mexico. The labour branch opened a national office to implement the agreement in Canada not too long ago. This is welcome news.

I am providing members with a sampling of the many activities currently carried out by the labour branch. These examples show that restructuring has in no way impeded the work of the branch. In fact, it has energized it. Since integration, the labour branch is vital, invigorated, and better able than ever before to make a strong contribution to the lives of working Canadians. Its integration within the Department of Human Resources Development ensures a healthy continuity and an integrated use of the resources available to promote the economic and social well-being of Canadians. In my mind, integration makes a lot of sense. It is not just some arbitrary

measure, but a decision made necessary by the times in which we live.

The work of the labour branch cannot be done in isolation from considerations involving Canadians who are on unemployment insurance and employment programs. The challenge is to harmonize and co-ordinate all of our federal programs dealing with human resources. To meet that challenge we are guided by a logical and coherent vision.

The bill before us offers the best of both worlds. It entrenches the powers and responsibilities of a full fledged Minister of Labour while at the same time placing the labour branch within a broader context, producing definite benefits for the government and for all Canadians.

Without hesitation I ask my hon. colleagues to support this important piece of legislation, which confirms what already exists: a very good and solid labour department in this country, which has done an exceptionally good job up to now as far as the rest of the world and Canada are concerned.

[Department Of Health Act, November 7th, 1995]

Come on. We know you do not believe any of that nonsense. That is Reform rhetoric.

[Take Our Kids To Work Day, November 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as members may be aware, this Wednesday is Take Our Kids to Work Day.

Sponsored in part by the federal human resources department, 150,000 grade nine students from across Ontario will spend the day at the job of a parent, relative or other adult. This program is an integral part of the grade nine program and is supported by a majority of school boards across Ontario. Through direct experience it shows young people how important skills, training and education are to their success.

Today I have a constituent, Natalie Martz, shadowing me on the job. I am pleased to participate in such a valuable program and I encourage all members who have the opportunity to do so.

[Railway Companies, November 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak to Motion No. 494 this morning. The motion is somewhat redundant, but at the same time it is important to speak to an issue that is fundamentally important to all Canadians; that is, the national transportation system and in particular what takes place when rail rationalization occurs in a country that continues to change, as it normally would in a federation. The needs of the public and the regions of the country are changing as well, so it is important to understand that transportation needs change.

Under Bill C-101 there are a number of clauses that deal with rail abandonment. In particular, the bill deals with the ability to transfer rail. This is a unique change in direction by the Government of Canada. It is a welcome change.

For those of us who have followed the transportation system and the abandonment of lines, under the NTA of 1987 the process that had to be followed for certain lines to be abandoned was that they first had to go to the NTA to prove that the particular line did not have commercial viability. Can you imagine how easy that would be to do if you first of all demarketed the line, which is what they did to start off with.

Most railway companies would not admit this, but when I had the opportunity to chair a special committee that went across the country to look at CN privatization we ran into some documentation that proved that in certain cases high ranking officials in CN sent out memos to their regional management, dictating and explaining to them how to demarket a particular branch line so they could go to the NTA and have them signify that it was not commercially viable and allow them to abandon it.

Bill C-101, and the motion presented by the member this morning suggest a different way of doing business. That is, to acknowledge that transportation companies are no different from any other business in Canada and that you cannot force them to deal with what governments are dealing with every day, and that is the public interest, when in fact transportation companies are more interested in the bottom line. If you force them to try to maintain a particular line without compensating them in a manner that would help the company to be successful, they will go about it in one fashion or another to make sure those lines do get abandoned.

Public policy and public interest are a very important portion of this bill. The critics who look at it are continuing to say that the government is getting out of the public interest business in transportation, but we are putting it where it belongs. Public interest is being taken out of the hands of every day companies in the transportation sector and put back in the hands of the politicians, to make decisions whether they want to subsidize certain lines in this country and whether for regional purposes they want to maintain certain branch lines. Those particular public interest initiatives and policies will have to be put back in the hands of cabinet and parliamentarians if we are going to have a private sector transportation system that works.

In the member's presentation to the House this morning he talked about time frames. It is important to talk about time frames because there is a perception left by the member that the government is not serious about short line railways becoming a new phenomenon in Canada, that it is just lip service and more than

likely most of these lines will be abandoned because of the time frame.

I totally disagree with the member, as is unfortunately usually the case. The time frame for sale of a line starts with the unique process in the bill of forcing the railways, through clause 141, to put forward a three-year plan that is available to anyone, including ourselves as members of Parliament. Can you believe that? They are going to let us see something for a change. In that three-year plan they will signify whether they want to continue a particular line or whether they are interested in selling it or if they cannot sell it whether they will eventually abandon it.

That three-year plan, which the governments have asked the railways to table on a regular basis and to revamp whenever necessary, will give members of Parliament and the public an opportunity to review just what lines are not in the best interest of a private corporation's business plan.

The next process is the intent of any individual municipality, any regional government, whoever is interested in owning a particular line that the other railways do not want to own. They will have 60 days to signify interest in that particular line. Within 60 days all they have to do is write a letter to CP or CN or any other corporation that owns a railway and say they would like to look at purchasing that particular piece of track. Then the 60 days will be allowed to elapse. When that elapses, they have five months after the 60 days to sit down and negotiate the sale of that line to that individual, that municipality, that provincial government.

As can be seen, 60 days is two months and after that is the five-month negotiation process, which gives seven months minimum. Of course if the negotiation is a serious one and both parties are moving along in their negotiations, I am quite sure the railways would be interested in an extension, because it is not in a railways' interest to abandon a line if they do not have to. If they can get an agreement with an individual to run a line to bring a particular shipment of goods from a particular corporation at the end of the line, which is the reason the railway is there, and get it down to the other end, certainly they would do so.

I want to emphasize this. In clauses 141 and then 143 to 145 it lays out very specifically how these rail lines would be transferred from one corporation to the next. In the final analysis, if nobody is interested, be it the Quebec government, a municipality in Quebec, or a private sector individual, why would you want to force a corporation like CP or CN to run a line that absolutely nobody else would like to run? Quite frankly, I think it would have a right to abandon that line.

I want to emphasize that the real issue is not whether a piece of track is torn up, it is what is done with the right of way. That is the real issue in the long term. One of the problems the U.S. is having with the Staggers Act and the changes in policy it made for line abandonment is that when it abandons a line it does not look after the right of way but sells it to the private sector. Depending on where that land is, it is chopped up for residential lots and things like that. That land cannot be re-acquired 20 years from now without expropriation.

One of the main issues that is going to face us as we rationalize our railway system is what do we do with that right of way when we tear the track up and pull it out there. That is all salvage value, which is fine, but if we keep that particular right of way we can always put the track back at some future date. Most people do not see the significance of that right of way.

In southern Ontario, for example, that is a major issue, because most of that land is privately owned outside of that right of way. Once the private sector gets hold of it we are never going to get it back. Governments, in particular provincial and municipal, have a very important role to play on that issue. It is not a federal government jurisdiction. I think it is a provincial jurisdiction. That is where the member should be focusing his attention. That is the mistake that was made in the Staggers Act. Some companies in the U.S. wish they had not sold the right of way but kept it for future use and land banked it.

Powers in this place rest in a number of ways and in a number of fashions. The Minister of Transport in this bill still has the power to subsidize branch lines. He still has the power to subsidize certain rail lines. I will use just one rail line as an example, which is close to my home.

There is a line that runs all the way up to Churchill. It is a very important line to northern Manitoba for regional development. The line could be abandoned tomorrow if it were dealt with in dollars and cents, because it does not make a profit. However, that line is important in the long term to the viability of northern Manitoba. I would suggest that if the people of northern Manitoba, the municipalities that exist there and the shippers on that line were really interested in regional development and if the federal government would enter into a co-operative arrangement with them, someone else who is interested in it could run that line. Maybe they can make it closer to being profitable than it is now. At the same time, it is very transparent that we are subsidizing a line that does not make money because of regional development needs.

That is where the public interest should lie, in a transparent fashion. Whether we want to subsidize a losing operation is a different story. However, forcing railways to carry losing lines is not the way to go about the business of running a corporation, whether it be private or public. I differ with many people on that argument.

I hope the member who has brought this motion forward, as has been mentioned by the Reform Party, spends less time trying to break up Canada and more time in the committee. He will realize there are some very good parts to this bill. At the same time if he supports it he will find there are some good entrepreneurs in Quebec who would love to run a railway and who could run it a lot better than CN or CP ever did.

[``On To Ottawa'' Trek, November 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, one interesting thing about being a parliamentary secretary is that you get to stay up late. So here we are. I thank the member for Regina-Qu'Appelle for keeping me up this late and bringing the motion before the House.

The motion before us calls on the federal government, on the 60th anniversary of the "On to Ottawa" trek, to apologize for its actions at the time. According to the motion, the government's reaction to the march displayed a total lack of concern for the unemployed and the government was responsible for violence, loss of life, injuries, and the questionable jailing of several participants.

In proposing the motion the member has given us a chance to consider the progress we have made in the last 60 years. I would like to reflect on where we were then and where we are now as relates to the labour movement. That is basically all we can do, because we cannot turn back the clock.

On June 3, 1935, over 1,000 unemployed men began the "On to Ottawa" trek. They were frustrated and angry about their plight and determined to tell their political leaders and the nation that they deserved better. The trekkers made stops in Calgary, Medicine Hat, Swift Current, and Moose Jaw before arriving in Regina.

At Regina a delegation of eight men was chosen and sent to Ottawa to meet with the Prime Minister. These talks failed. After attempts were made to arrest the leaders of the trek the situation deteriorated rapidly, leading to the Regina riot. By the end of it one policeman was dead, several dozen protesters, constables, and bystanders were injured, and 130 protesters were arrested. The events of July 1, 1935 were incredibly traumatic and they stand out in the pages of our history. What then did the trek accomplish? What lessons can we continue to draw from it today?

I think we can draw a number of lessons. First, it is vital that we do not put ideology ahead of people's needs. Governments should never let adherence to a particular ideology or fear of a particular ideology blind it to the real needs of the people. Some parties in the House should take that message to heart.

Another lesson of the trek is that if we as a society aspire to economic prosperity and social peace, we have to encourage the involvement of citizens. People have to take advantage of the opportunity to act through anti-poverty groups, social organizations and trade unions.

We hear a lot of union bashing by right wingers these days, but it is a simple matter of fact that free societies and free trade unions go hand in hand. Societies that do not have a vigorous union movement challenging them to examine and re-examine their policies and attitudes are sorely lacking. The sweeping economic and social policy changes that we saw in Canada after World War II came about because the people demanded change to the status quo. These demands were translated into effective policies.

Without people who agitate-and that is probably how I would classify my colleague across the way-criticize governments, challenge policies and organize their fellow citizens we would stagnate. We would not have made the progress we have in Canada.

It is because of the challenges issued by the trekkers and others that we have built up social policies that go hand in hand with economic growth and prosperity. For example, there is free universal health care. Not only is it socially enlightened but it gives Canadian businesses a competitive advantage. Medicare has reduced the cost of health care to the economy and has left more money in the pockets of individuals and businesses.

Similarly, good and balanced labour legislation that acknowledges the rights and needs of trade unions promotes stability in the workplace, improves productivity, maintains purchasing power and

results in the creation of pension funds that are then accessed for both public and private investment.

I could give other examples but I think I have made my point. Our collective experience with hard economic times, an experience that includes the "On to Ottawa" trek, has given us a certain perspective on social policy, a particular view of the meaning and purpose of social programs. In the short term the "On to Ottawa" trek probably did not accomplish much. In the bigger picture, though, it represents a shift in attitude. The work of the trekkers and other activists of the era contributed significantly to the rise of the Canadian labour movement.

The trek did not create a formal organization but it created stirrings among the unemployed and among workers. It created the conditions in which the labour movement could grow. Before a strong labour movement could take root, working people had to become conscious of their power, their value and their dignity. The "On to Ottawa" trek led to this awareness. Since then unions have become a major force in Canadian society. Unlike the United States where only 10 per cent of the workforce is organized, unions here are relatively healthy and represent about 30 per cent of workers in Canada.

Canadian society has developed in large part because of the work and prodding of trade unions. I value and appreciate the role they play in Canada. I have a significant bias as that is what I used to do for a living before I came to this place. The labour movement of today owes a lot to the "On to Ottawa" trekkers and to all other men and women who struggled to make the Canadian society more just, compassionate and democratic. With the rise of the labour movement came new labour legislation. A milestone was PC order 1003 in 1944 which put into law the right of workers to join unions and to engage in collective bargaining. That was not all that long ago.

Since then governments have adopted a number of laws involving work standards, workplace health and safety, and worker protection. I am proud our laws are much more progressive and responsive to working people than the laws in the United States.

In order that our laws continue to reflect and meet the needs of today's workforce we are in the process of a comprehensive review of the Canada Labour Code. In the spring we anticipate presenting legislation to the House for all members to consider. Our goal is to ensure a balanced system that benefits all of us.

Again I thank the member for introducing the motion. It reflects on how difficult times were for millions of Canadians 60 years ago. The changes the trekkers were trying to achieve was time well spent. It gives us an appreciation of how far we have come in working together to create conditions for social peace. This is a heritage we have to protect so that working Canadians can continue to build the country and continue to create opportunities for all.

I agree with members opposite who have spoken before me that we cannot go back in time to try to understand why people did what they did. However we can learn from our mistakes and we can advance as we have in the country. As I have mentioned, let us hope the lessons we have learned from the trekkers will be put into legislation. They will always have a place in our hearts and our history simply because they helped to start the labour movement in Canada.

[Regional Rates Of Pay, October 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the motion put forward by the hon. member for Dartmouth that in the opinion of the House the government should consider abolishing regional rates of pay. It is an important issue for the hon. member and I am glad to see it being debated in the Chamber.

As hon. members may or may not be aware, regional rates of pay have been in place in the public service since the 1950s. Under this system federal public servants performing the same jobs, with the same qualifications and the same experience, are paid different wages depending on where they live. This is clearly discriminatory.

The federal government is committed to pay equity which quite simply means equal pay for work of equal value. We rightly condemn wage discrimination based on gender, race or religion. I believe discrimination based on geography is also wrong.

In the public service we have people who are working for the same employer. Yet as of September 1994 over 23,000 federal employees were being paid lower wages than others doing the same work. In some cases the discrepancy is 25 per cent. There are two people doing the same job, with the same qualifications and seniority, but one earns 25 per cent less simply because of where he or she lives.

I will give the House an example of how different that is in the public sector from what it would be in the private sector. I come from a railway background. In the railway industry there are unions. Some are conductors, some are engineers and some are in maintenance. We negotiate a collective agreement on a year to year basis. No matter where a conductor, an engineer or a maintenance person working for CP Rail lives, they get the same pay based on a collective agreement. Quite frankly that is the way collective agreements have always been negotiated.

I do not think it takes a leap of logic or great faith to understand that we cannot go on doing this in the public sector. Over the years the number of classifications affected by regional rates of pay have been dropping steadily. We have been moving however slowly in the right direction. Now the question is when we will take the final steps to rectify a situation that should have been rectified many years ago.

Some members will be concerned about the cost of ending regional rates of pay. I agree that this is an important consideration. Treasury Board estimates the cost of removing regional rates at around $87 million per year. This would represent a 1 per cent increase in our total outlay for public service wages. While it may be difficult to argue for such an increase while we are cutting back in everything, at some point it will not be a discretionary expenditure.

Members of the Chamber often wonder why there are regional rates of pay. The reason for them is that the argument can be made that people should be paid less based on where they live instead of being paid the same amount. Everyone seems to think we are asking for people to be paid less when we are asking for people to be paid a reasonable rate of pay at the same level as someone else living in Montreal, Toronto, Sioux Lookout or Dartmouth.

I was in the House with the hon. member for Dartmouth when east coast ships crews went on strike in 1989 over discriminatory rates of pay. I recall the hon. member seizing the issue and holding the government of the day accountable. I remember Bill C-49, the back to work legislation, that was brought forward in this case. It established a conciliation board under the Public Service Staff Relations Act.

If members look at the report issued by the board they will see that it is quite enlightening. It clearly states that regional rates of pay are discriminatory. It orders the government to eliminate regional rates of pay in that classification.

We face another such situation. Logic and precedence state that the government will be forced to act. We will be forced to do the right thing. What would it say about this institution if we waited for another conciliation board report to tell us to act when we already know we have to act.

The member has put the issue before the House in very succinct terms. Either we do it as a collective in the House of Commons

because it is the right thing to do, or we will have an outside body do it for us because it is discriminatory.

As I mentioned before, in the private sector everybody in large unions gets the same rate of pay. In the House of Commons it could be argued that there is a bit of difference depending on where people live and their costs of living. The argument in northern Ontario is that the cost of food is higher and the cost of gas is higher. The cost of housing is much lower in Kenora-Rainy River than it is in Halifax, than it is in Toronto, than it is in Vancouver. It balances itself out in most cases.

The motion put by the member is a very good one and should be supported by the government and all members opposite to give people work and pay based on their abilities, their seniority and their classifications, not on where they live.

[Translation]

[British Columbia Treaty Commission, October 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise in support of Bill C-107 and in support of the comments made by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Bill C-107 creates the legal framework for the British Columbia Treaty Commission to act as an arm's length body and facilitate treaty negotiations with British Columbia's First Nations.

I support the creation of the commission and its mandate. As hon. members are aware, very few of the First Nations in B.C. have ever signed treaties with the crown. In lower Vancouver Island several First Nations signed treaties with Governor Douglas in the mid-1800s. By the end of the 19th century the Peace River district was included in treaty number 8 signed with the federal government. Obviously it is well known to people from B.C., although it may not be known by other people in Canada, that was the last one. There have been no treaties signed in this century.

In recent years the Nisga'a Tribal Council has been actively negotiating with the federal and provincial governments. When those negotiations are complete and an agreement is signed it will be the first treaty with a B.C. First Nation signed this century, and we are almost in the next century.

The people of B.C. want to enter the 21st century knowing we have completed the unfinished business of the 19th century. The land claims of B.C. First Nations have to be resolved. Some people would ask why. Resolving these issues creates an environment of certainty which means economic growth and job creation. Settling land and resource issues creates the environment needed for increased investment and local economic activity.

In recent years real progress has been made toward resolving 100-year old unfinished business. In 1990 Ottawa, B.C. and the leaders of B.C.'s First Nations established a task force to recommend a negotiation process that could accommodate the numerous First Nations in B.C. that want to negotiate settlements.

The task force presented 19 recommendations in June, 1991, all of which were all accepted by the First Nations summit and the federal and provincial governments, a major achievement in itself. One of the key recommendations was to establish the British Columbia Treaty Commission as an arm's length minder of the process. The agreement committed the three partners to establish the BCTC through federal an provincial legislation and a resolution of the First Nations summit. In the meantime commissioners have been appointed by order in council and summit resolutions. They began their work in December, 1993 and have made considerable progress.

As a member of Parliament who represents 46 First Nations communities I can tell from firsthand experience of the importance of having a process to deal with longstanding grievances and issues of specific land claims and, more important, in B.C.'s case of treaties that have never been signed. It is a major undertaking of tremendous importance, probably more important than anything the B.C. government will have done in the term of its involvement over the past number of years.

There are 47 First Nations involved in the BCTC process to date. They represent over 70 per cent of the First Nations of the province and more are likely to become involved soon. The BCTC has five commissioners. Two are nominated by the First Nations summit, one by the B.C. government and one by Ottawa. The chief commissioner is selected and appointed by consensus of all three partners.

The First Nations summit includes all B.C. First Nations that have agreed to participate in the BCTC process. It provides a forum for those First Nations to meet and discuss treaty negotiations. It worked closely with Ottawa and the provinces to develop the treaty negotiation process and to establish the BCTC. As one of the partners in the process it continues to provide direction.

In Kenora-Rainy River, no different than in B.C., we have our treaties: treaty 3, treaty 9 and treaty 5. The minister responsible for Indian and northern affairs has also undertaken some significant changes to the lives of First Nations people and has tried to improve the affairs of individual communities by getting involved and trying to deal with First Nations and specific land claims.

From firsthand experience, in order for us to get involved in what is most important, the next generation, the economics and the social well-being of First Nations for the years to come, these land claims and these processes must work.

To get into the next century with some hope and aspiration for the young First Nation people not only in my riding but across the country and in B.C. we will have to assure them the grievances of the past will be rectified in order to get on with the future.

I, like many others who represent First Nations, have had roadblocks. I have had First Nations people tell me they are frustrated and fed up. They are not willing to wait much longer. They no longer want the federal or provincial governments to sit on their hands while they wait for a miracle. They would like that process to start.

I take this opportunity to tell the House, the people of Kenora-Rainy River and the people of B.C. that they can thank the government and the minister responsible for moving an agenda which from the last term was basically stalled or going in reverse. We are now starting to see some significant improvement for all the hard work and efforts of not only the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development but the chiefs and councils of the First Nations.

B.C. will be dealing with a six stage treaty. In this negotiation process the stages something like this: a statement of intent; preparation for negotiations; negotiation of a framework agreement; negotiation of agreement in principle; treaty finalization; treaty implementation.

The commission will assess the readiness of parties to negotiate. This involves ensuring the First Nations have the resources needed to make their case and ensuring the federal and provincial governments have struck regional advisory committees so that the local non-aboriginal residents have a voice.

This brings me to a very important point and the obvious wisdom of the positions of the government and the First Nations of the involvement and the voice of non-aboriginal residents. I will use an example of a community in my riding which is over 50 per cent aboriginal. Sioux Lookout is thought by a lot of people to be a non-aboriginal community but it does have a lot of aboriginal people. It would like to participate when we get involved in specific land claim policies and negotiations with First Nations so that when the agreements are made there is a recognition that all of us, native and non-native, will be able to live with the results.

Therefore it is very important that advisory committees are set up with local non-aboriginal residents to give them a voice so we can be assured that in the end the agreements we get will be a win-win situation and not win-lose or lose-win.

I commend again the individuals who put in this process in B.C. because with it I think the results will be much longer lasting than if this process did not have non-aboriginal people in it.

These regional committees in B.C. are part of an extensive commitment to keep the public and all other affected parties informed of developments and to make sure that advice from all sectors of B.C. society are considered. Other efforts include news letters, public meetings, an 800 number, speaking engagements, information brochures, other publications and participation in trade shows.

The BCTC also allocates loans to enable First Nations to fully participate in the process. In other words, it works in partnership with all parties to ensure that the job gets done properly.

[Canada Labour Code, October 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be here tonight in my first duties as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and to speak briefly on Bill C-317.

I thank the member for Manicouagan for bringing this important bill forward. The member proposes to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act. As I read it, there are two very important objectives here.

The first objective is to ban replacement workers when there is a strike or lockout in the public service or at an employer covered under the Canada Labour Code. The second objective is to ensure that essential public services are maintained in the event of a strike or lockout in the public service or at a crown corporation.

The issues raised in the bill are difficult and complicated. It deals with peoples' pocketbooks, their livelihoods and their rights. To those involved in labour relations, it will also influence Canada's economic and social progress.

Thus the bill merits our time and consideration. Any decisions taken on these issues have to be carefully thought through. Bill C-317 proposes to change part I of the Canada Labour Code. This part of the code is meant to achieve a balance of power between labour and management.

As a former union executive I know a careful balance is needed to keep the collective bargaining process running. Therefore I do not think it is wise to isolate or grab on to certain issues without considering the effect on the big picture. That is the point I want to emphasize.

As I am sure the hon. member is aware, there has not been a comprehensive review of the industrial relations provisions of the labour code in over 20 years. The last amendments were made in 1972 and before that we have to go back to 1948.

In 1972 amendments were made involving the certification process, new provisions to require good faith bargaining, the extension of the unfair labour practices section and increasing the authority of the Canada Labour Relations Board. Most important in my mind, especially in light of today's economy, was the inclusion of a section on technological change. This meant that unless a collective agreement dealt with the issue, an employer was required to give 90 days notice of any new technology likely to impact on working conditions or job security of a significant number of employees. That notice was lengthened in 1984 to 120 days.

After such notice the union can apply to the CLRB for leave to notify the employer of its desire to reopen negotiations to discuss provisions for those workers affected by technology. Once notice is received the employer cannot make technological changes until the board denies the union application or an agreement is reached or the parties negotiate and reach a strike provision.

These changes were made only after extensive consultations with unions and employers and after two thorough studies. The Freedman study in the 1960s looked at the impact of technology at CN Rail and recommended a formula for labour and management to resolve disagreements over the consequences of new technology. As well, the Woods task force in 1968 examined just about every aspect of labour-management relations under federal jurisdiction. It commissioned a number of studies and submitted several important recommendations to the government.

I have touched on the history just to show that in Canada we do not fool around when it comes to labour-management relations. Hastily ill-conceived actions however well meaning can have serious consequences in this area.

Our tradition is to only change collective bargaining laws after thorough deliberation and consultation with all of the stakeholders. This tradition has served us very well. It has allowed us to develop at the federal level at least. I will refrain from commenting on the radical and polarizing swings in my home province of Ontario over the last five years. We had the NDP way over here at one end for a little while and now we have the Conservatives, some would suggest very right wing indeed, going the other way. That kind of polarization and swinging back and forth does nothing for labour-management relations. In fact, it does a disservice to the people who have to make a living by collective bargaining.

Since the last amendments were made in 1972, the environment surrounding industrial relations has undergone a revolution. Free trade, deregulation, rapid technological advances and workplace restructuring place new demands on both labour and management. In light of this, we need a comprehensive review of the Canada Labour Code, not piecemeal action as suggested tonight.

In fact, the Minister of Labour launched such a review just a little while ago. This review is looking at the big picture. We want to improve the labour code to encourage co-operation between labour and management, to reduce unhealthy and counterproductive levels of conflict and to ensure that administrative bodies are responsive to the new and always changing labour relations environment.

Since last winter, extensive consultations have been carried out with labour, management and interested and knowledgeable third parties. Many issues are being studied, including those that the member proposes to deal with in Bill C-317. It is a difficult task, as labour and management hold diametrically opposed viewpoints on these issues. For example, there is the issue of replacement workers. Let me quote Tom d'Aquino, whom we all know, and what he thinks on this ban.

Tom d'Aquino writes: "We would dramatically alter the delicate equilibrium which has been established over the course of many years between management and labour and firms which are subject to federal jurisdiction. The obvious result would be to strengthen the position of organized labour while simultaneously weakening management's position, with clear implications for the outcome of their private contractual negotiations. Government interference of this sort would violate the most basic principles of equity and fair play. It would be highly disruptive and entirely inconsistent with our open market economy. It also would override the fundamental rights of individuals to decide where and when they choose to work".

On the other side we have Bob White, whom we also know quite well. He is on record expressing the CLC's strong support for restrictions and even a total ban on replacement workers, including management staff.

Our job is to try to reconcile these deeply held, apparently incompatible positions. It will not be easy, but it is something we simply have to do.

Last June the Minister of Labour established a task force to conduct an independent review of part I of the labour code and to recommend changes. I want to mention tonight the issues and areas this task force will be looking at and to mention to the members opposite who have suggested that the Minister of Labour has done virtually nothing on this issue and that she has been somewhat reluctant to get involved in these major changes that are necessary for the economy and for the labour relations we have to deal with. The review will be completed by December 15. I am confident the people on the task force will do a thorough and professional job.

The task force is dealing with very critical and important issues which include the conciliation and mediation process with a view to reducing delays and encouraging settlements and the possible role of alternative dispute settlements; fact finding and special mediation; the procedures for acquiring the right to strike or lockout; and the rights of employees, employers and bargaining agents once a strike or a lockout occurs. The general purpose of the code will be looked at as will the need for labour management committees, preventive mediation programs, grievance mediation and expedited arbitration. Bargaining unit structures including recommendations of industrial inquiry commissions into labour relations at west coast ports will be made regarding geographic certification provisions. Finally the need for alternative procedures or bargaining structures for the non-traditional work relationships

like telework, contract work and casual employees will be looked at.

As members can see, although I did not lay them all out tonight, the task force has a large task ahead of it. There is a lot to do and not much time to do it. Then we will be able to make informed decisions on the issues raised by the separatist party opposite and on other issues as well taking into account the big picture.

In order to make sense of the whole process we will have to wait until the ongoing studies are complete. Then we will all be able to make an informed decision and a position will be reached by the government on what we will put in front of the House as far as new legislation is concerned.

That is what the federal government believes is the true way. We have put comprehensive labour relations management proposals to the House instead of the piecemeal approach suggested by the member opposite.