Francine Lalonde

[Income Security, February 21st, 1994]

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

On Friday, February 18 last, the minister announced the make-up of the expert committee which will have slightly less than two months to advise him on the ambitious proposed reform of Canada's income security system and labour market.

However, the House committee will have only 12 days to hear testimony from individuals and groups and to advise the minister on the concerns and priorities of Canadians.

Considering this unrealistic timetable, my question is will the minister concede that in fact, his action plan is already in place, that it is the same as the Conservatives and that he prefers to consult a committee of experts at $500 per day rather than allow enough time for public consultations?

[Social Assistance, February 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, very cordial agreements were also reached at Meech Lake and in Charlottetown between the ministers representing the two levels of government. How can the minister explain that his government, which was elected on the platform of no more references to the constitution, is so blatantly violating provincial jurisdiction?

[Social Assistance, February 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. In today's newspaper coverage of the meeting of human resources ministers, we learned that the federal government, through its reform of social programs, intends to play a major role in social assistance and deal directly with Canadians, thereby violating provincial jurisdiction in that field.

Will the minister dare to confirm that he is considering abolishing transfers to provinces regarding social assistance and launch a direct payment program for Quebecers and Canadians?

[Manpower Training, February 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying that the answer I was just given had never been provided until now and could prove to be interesting in the future. As far as the province of Quebec and myself are concerned, this is another example of the skilful sidestepping that has not prevented the federal government from actually refusing flatly to recognize Quebec's full powers in the area of manpower. My question is this: does the minister recognize that this has adversely affected Quebec and still does?

[Manpower Training, February 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

The Quebec minister of employment is reported in La Presse as saying last evening that manpower clearly comes under Quebec's jurisdiction as an extension of education.

Can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs tell this House whether he agrees with the Quebec minister of employment that manpower is an extension of education and therefore, that Quebec's jurisdiction is clear?

[West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1994, February 8th, 1994]

Mr. Chairman, this is the first time in a bill that all the costs of arbitration by the government, not arbitration in a collective agreement, are borne by the parties.

I know that these are tough times, but I wonder if it would not have been better to propose an amendment to the code itself, rather than use a special law, which for the first time in such a case will make the two parties pay the costs.

[West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1994, February 8th, 1994]

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment. Let me move an amendment and say at the same time that I did hear the minister's answer, but I would still like to have this amendment. I find his proposal interesting, if there were no amendment.

It reads as follows:

That clause 10(c) be amended by adding at the end: "or concludes with the combination that appears most equitable based on the respective final positions of the parties".

If I may add a few words on the exact wording of the amendment, it preserves the final offer and requires the arbitrator to choose between the union's offer or the employer's or to determine a position in between the two which seems more equitable to him. But he does not have the mandate to go beyond that. This is very different from arbitration where the arbitrator has complete freedom.

In arbitration, the arbitrator could decide on 85 cents or 59 cents. He is free. Of course pressure is put on him, but in this case, it is between the two elements of the final offer. This means that pressure on the two parties would continue in a way that either of them could hope to be the winner.

That is why we are presenting this amendment and we think that it preserves the labour minister's ability to act later and allows for use of the best conditions in the final offer. Under these conditions we cannot say that the final offer was tried, because everyone in all universities will say that the previous conditions were not such that the final offer could be judged.

[West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1994, February 8th, 1994]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the hon. member that the fact we are sitting here shows we recognize the third party that is not here is very important. We do not like to agree on such a bill that will become a law, but it does not mean we do not have to take great care in how we resolve the conflict on the shores. We agree on the basis of the bill, but what will happen after that?

I would like the minister to understand that the mediator who was named by him, which is within his power, was representing the law and he agreed. I read it in the newspaper. His proposition was 65 cents. The minister tells me that we do not have to talk about that, but concretely it is a very good way of seeing what we are doing.

The real fact is that for everybody there this agreement between the mediator and the employees has all the chances in the world of being an agreement that will be kept by the employer and be agreed to by the arbitrator who will be named. Understanding what is going on makes me think that it will be

very hard for the parties to agree on an arbitrator. It is crystal clear when we know a little about labour relations.

With the best offers for resolving the conflict, the union will be sure that its proposition has the same weight as that of the employer. That is why in that particular case I urge an amendment to let the arbitrator choose and if he chooses the employer's offer we will at least have the possibility to choose a mix between the two. This is why the labour minister should preserve the faith in a process which is not biased. I am not saying that the labour minister is biased, but I am saying that he should preserve the process.

I am sure that in conflicts to come he will see that the mediation will not intervene in the process. The final offer process is not normally used even in places where it is now part of the law.

Those of us who are in labour relations have to know how to proceed with it. So the process itself must not be discredited. This is my main point and this is what I want to defend in the amendment I have brought forward. Otherwise the generous speech that was made is not in touch with the law being presented.

[West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1994, February 8th, 1994]

I did think there was a problem in there somewhere.

I would like to tell the minister that he seems to be forgetting an important point. When he says that the final offer in itself did not constitute an approach favouring one side over the other, I agree with him.

Not in itself but on that particular occasion there was the intervention of a mediator. I read this in the newspaper. The mediator is said to have agreed with 65 cents. The longshoremen had made an offer of 75 cents.

It is very important that the minister listen to me. If I speak in English it is because I want to be sure to be well understood. I hope I express myself correctly.

I want to defend the longshoremen of Vancouver. A mediator agrees with a settlement of 65 cents, which is only 5 cents more than the 60 cents offered. The union has asked for 95 cents and in front of the mediator because it wants a settlement goes as far down as 75 cents. I am sure if they went down to the docks they would have a real discussion with the guys there. I suppose that most of them are guys.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think the minister is listening to me.

We have a situation where the only point that is not settled, as I understand it, is the money gap. The mediator of the minister agreed to 65 cents. The employer wants a final offer and the minister presents a bill. When we speak to the longshoremen's union we think the minister is with the employer.

I pray the minister will preserve the impartiality of the labour minister for the months and years to come. I hope this will be the case. I hope we do not have a conflict in Montreal but if we have one I hope that the labour minister will have all the impartiality that he should have.

[West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1994, February 8th, 1994]

Mr. Chairman, must I still address the Chair? No. Then you will not hold it against me this time. It could be habit forming.

My question, Mr. Minister, is along the same lines as that of my colleague from the NDP. Basically, you chose to let matters ride for quite a long time. Today is February 8 and since the employer declared the lockout on January 29, some time was allowed to pass. There was an attempt at mediation and I only learned of the concrete results after meeting with departmental officials. If I had had this information in hand before my meeting with them, I would have asked them different questions.

I want to say at the outset that given the mediator's position, given the fact that the final offer was the employer's preferred means of settling the dispute, that the mediator agreed with the employer's minimum position or vice versa, in point of fact, the workers may have been quite convinced, and no one would have been able to convince them otherwise on the basis of the facts, that the final offer was in fact a veiled way of proving the employer right. That is why I announced that I intended to propose an amendment to clause 10(1).

I do not want to start an argument because it is important to me that these workers are given the best possible chance to have an equitable solution put on the table. However, in order to ensure that they do get this opportunity given everything that has happened before, given this agreement on the 65 cents which was very close to the initial offer made by management and given the major concessions made by the workers, I think that to offer as the only solution a choice between two final offers is the same as supporting the employer's position.

I have the impression that in the opinion of my colleagues opposite, and especially the Minister of Labour-whom I hope

is still listening to me-who has just taken up his new duties and as Minister of Labour, must maintain his neutrality toward both parties, that in their opinion, disputes must be settled, but not so that there appears to be a bias in favour of one of the parties.

It seems to me that under the circumstances, the minister should give both parties the opportunity to reach an equitable settlement. I want to stress that the state of the economy is different in British Columbia than it is elsewhere. I would like for things to be this way in Montreal. This may not be an interesting problem to resolve but, just between us, I would much prefer to solve this problem than some of the other ones that are tied to the state of the economy.

Therefore, with regard to clause 10(1), I think that you should agree to my amendment since we are now at the stage of examining the dispute settlement process.

[English]