Maurizio Bevilacqua

[Employment, June 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Victoria Haliburton for a very important question as our government deals with the transition from cyclical unemployment to structural unemployment.

One program that is very successful in our department is the self-employment assistance program, which has generated 34,000 jobs. The program helps people on social assistance and unemployment insurance to start up their own business. The multiplier effect of the program is 1.1 full time jobs; in other words, 68,000 jobs have been created. The budget for this program has also been increased by 62.1 per cent.

During this time when the Canadian economy is going through changes, it is very important that our government devote itself to programs that help people help themselves and create sustainable employment.

[Canada Labour Code, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join the debate on Bill C-317, a bill to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act which, if enacted, would prohibit the hiring of replacement workers by employers during a legal strike. The bill also contains provisions which are intended to ensure that essential services are maintained in the event of a strike or a lockout in a crown corporation and in the public service.

While this bill proposes changes to both the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act, my comments on this bill are confined to those changes which would affect the Canada Labour Code.

The two specific proposals advanced by the hon. member pertain to the institution of collective bargaining. If I may, I would like to spend a few moments outlining my views on this institution. In a nutshell, I believe in collective bargaining because it works and because it is an institution that promotes democratic decision making.

If one were to go through a copy of the Canada Labour Code, one would find at the beginning a preamble to part I, the section that deals with labour management relations. In my view, this preamble articulates in a very eloquent way why we need and why we have a system of free collective bargaining in this country.

The preamble refers to the promotion of the common well-being through the encouragement of free collective bargaining. It speaks of the freedom of association and of free collective bargaining as constituting the way to determine good working conditions and to promote sound labour management relations. It expresses the desire of the Parliament of Canada to extend its support to labour and management in their efforts to develop constructive collective bargaining practices. In other words, the preamble to part I of the Canada Labour Code conveys in no uncertain terms the federal government's commitment to the preservation and encouragement of collective bargaining.

Political parties of all stripes adhere to this belief in collective bargaining. Not surprisingly, labour unions also support free collective bargaining. Indeed, over the years they have resisted with all the resources at their command any effort to restrict worker access to free collective bargaining or to replace it with government regulations or other mechanisms.

Maintaining that integrity of the collective bargaining process is probably the most important concern of the majority of trade unionists. For many employers collective bargaining provides an efficient way of promoting stability in the workplace, for securing the consent of the workforce and for obtaining innovative solutions to a variety of workplace issues. Employers who value partnerships with labour realize that they can lead to a competitive advantage.

Paul Weiler, distinguished Canadian labour lawyer, author and Harvard professor, describes it best. He states that collective bargaining is a mode of employee representation which serves two vital social functions. First, it obtains for workers a measure of protection from the employer and the vicissitudes of the labour market, protection from substandard wages and benefits and from arbitrary and unfair treatment on the job. Second, it affords workers a degree of participation in an organization's decision making. It requires employees to take responsibility for defining, asserting and if necessary, compromising their concerns.

As Professor Weiler has written: "Collective bargaining is as intrinsically valuable as an experience in self-government. If one believes as I do that self-determination and self-discipline are inherently worthwhile, indeed, that they are the mark of a truly human community, then it is difficult to see how the law can be neutral about whether that type of economic democracy is to emerge in the workplace".

As I mentioned, I support our system of collective bargaining not only because of its democratic nature, but also because of its effectiveness. Something like 95 per cent of all collective bargaining disputes in federal jurisdiction governed by the Canada Labour Code are resolved without resort to a work stoppage.

When a third party is needed and the mediation and conciliation service provides assistance, about 90 per cent of disputes are settled without work stoppage. Time lost due to strikes and lockouts is but a fraction of a per cent, far less than the time lost due to workplace accidents.

The system works because it places the responsibility for the settlement of workplace conflict on the shoulders of those directly involved. It acknowledges that labour and management know best what their needs are and it calls upon them to take ownership of the terms and conditions that govern their employment setting.

By looking south of the border we can get some idea as to what would happen in this country if our system of collective bargaining were allowed to deteriorate. In the U.S. trade unions and collective bargaining are on the ropes and the consequences are starting to be noticed. According to the Commission on the Future of Worker-Management Relations, the decline of unions has contributed to the rise in inequality.

The commission reported among other things that the U.S. earnings distribution among workers is the most unequal among developed countries. Lower paid workers in the U.S. earn markedly less than comparable workers in western Europe. U.S. workers work about 200 hours more during the year than workers in Europe. While occupational accident rates in the U.S. showed little improvement over the past decade, they declined significantly in Canada over the same period. So distressed were the commissioners by what they found that they were moved to declare: "A healthy society cannot long continue along the path the U.S. is moving with rising bifurcation of the labour market".

Of course, our industrial relations system is not noiseless. Work stoppages do occur and people are inconvenienced. But in the vast majority of cases, both labour unions and employers recognize that a work stoppage is far more costly than a peaceful settlement. It is in the interests of both parties to resolve their differences through negotiation rather than through the display of raw power.

It should be emphasized that collective bargaining works for business as well as labour. The majority of respondents in a survey of large employers reported that they are successful in reaching their bargaining goals, that they are able to work together with the union during the life of a collective agreement and that they have the ability to adjust to changes in technology.

It seems to me that what employers and managers value above all else is stability. Generally speaking, stability is what they get through the collective bargaining process.

The private member's bill the hon. member has put forward for discussion would significantly change collective bargaining for enterprises regulated by the Canada Labour Code. It seems to me therefore that such reforms ought to be considered within the context of a comprehensive review of part I of the Canada Labour Code.

[Singer Employees, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is extremely irresponsible on the part of the hon. member to use occasions like this to play cheap politics.

If the hon. member would review the responsibilities of the Minister of Human Resources Development he would find it is the responsibility of that minister. To attack the Minister of Labour, and I know exactly where you are coming from on this issue-

[Singer Employees, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will look into the matter and report to the hon. member as soon as possible.

[Firefighters, June 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make a few comments on private member's motion M-136 presented by the member for Winnipeg Transcona.

The motion urges the government to consider the advisability of introducing right to know legislation for the protection of firefighters and other public servants who in the course of their duties are confronted by fires or disasters involving harmful substances.

Let me first commend the member for bringing the issue up for discussion through his private member's motion. I personally know the member to be a politician of vision and passion and a vigorous and eloquent defender of worker interests.

Those of us on this side of the House share the concern he brings to occupational safety and health. We too are appalled by the number of accidents and fatalities that annually occur in our workplaces. We also believe that work in Canada ought to be a rewarding and satisfying activity that does not pose undue risk to those who must perform it.

The good news is that because many innovative measures have been taken over the years, considerable progress has been made in the area of occupational safety and health.

The intent of the member's motion is something upon which I think we can all agree. However, its fatal flaw is that it does not fall under federal jurisdiction. If I may say so, the member is knocking on the wrong door. Labour related matters including occupational safety and health issues are mainly a provincial and territorial responsibility. Requiring employers to provide information on hazardous substances to emergency response personnel is a matter which provincial and territorial authorities need to address.

As the member may know, occupational safety and health legislation in Canada is based on the internal responsibility system. This arrangement recognizes the employer's right to manage an enterprise in an efficient manner as well as the employer's responsibility to protect the safety and health of the employees. It also recognizes three fundamental rights of workers: the right to participate, the right to refuse dangerous work, and the right to know.

Since 1988 Canada has had in place a nationwide system to provide information on hazardous material being used in the workplace. Known as WHMIS for workplace hazardous materials information system, it established a uniform identification system for dangerous ingredients in the workplace. It came about because in the early 1980s business, labour and government realized that Canadian workplaces were woefully lacking the kind of information necessary to handle safely the kind of materials and equipment which were being introduced in the workplaces of Canada.

The system was comprised of four features: labelling requirements, the provision of material safety data sheets, worker education, and protection for confidential business information. WHMIS ensures that the hazardous materials produced, imported into or used in Canadian workplaces are adequately identified by suppliers using standard criteria. It requires the data sheets on hazardous materials to be transmitted by suppliers to employers and subsequently to employees. It obliges employers to provide their employees with adequate professional training on how to use the materials.

By effective dissemination and information through WHMIS, employers and workers get the data and knowledge required to communicate with one another, making possible the kind of co-operative efforts necessary to enhance safety and health in the workplace. Because employees have firsthand knowledge of the workplace, their involvement is essential. For employees to be able to assume responsibility for workplace safety and health they must be able to recognize what is going on and understand the changes occurring in the workplace. WHMIS ensures that workers have the information they need to make the decisions which they must make. In short, WHMIS is a response to the right of employees to know the hazards of the materials with which they work and the way to safely handle such substances.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that WHMIS is the most advanced information system in the field of occupational safety and health in the world. It is a system which works and, if I may say so, it is a system we can proudly speak of internationally. It should also be mentioned that WHMIS was the result of an extraordinary collaborative effort which brought together not only the governments in Canada but also organized labour and the business community. No one sector, no one government acting alone could deal with this issue in an effective and efficient manner.

WHMIS legislation in each of the jurisdictions throughout Canada is harmonized legislation based on a model regulation which was developed during the consultative process. Regulatory agencies in each jurisdiction ensure compliance within its

boundaries. WHMIS has been successfully implemented in all jurisdictions.

I think most officials and informed observers believe that its successful implementation was due to the fact that potential problems were identified by the stakeholders during the design stage when steps could be taken to minimize any possible adverse impacts in the workplace. Although the process was time consuming, its participatory nature made possible a relatively smooth implementation.

As I indicated, most emergency response personnel, that is, the employees alluded to in the member's motion, come under provincial jurisdiction. Those who fall under federal jurisdiction, including firefighters, receive their WHMIS information and training as required by part II of the Canada Labour Code, the part that deals with occupational safety and health issues and by the provisions of part X of the Canada occupational safety and health regulations.

The member might be interested to know that presently a committee of labour and business representatives and government officials is reviewing part II of the Canada Labour Code. Among other things it is considering a recommendation that part X of the Canada occupational safety and health regulations be changed to indicate the local health and safety committees which would participate in the development of an inventory of hazardous substances. This inventory would then be made available to health and safety committees, health and safety representatives to the fire department and to the employees' physicians on request.

At the present time only the province of Ontario has a provision in its occupational safety and health act requiring employers to provide a material's safety data sheet to fire departments and local medical officers of health upon request.

Ontario is to be commended for taking the lead in this area. The member might consider approaching the other provinces, perhaps beginning with British Columbia and Saskatchewan to urge them to consider implementing the kind of legislation he has asked this House to implement.

[Criminal Code, June 6th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the government recognizes the importance of human resources development services to rural communities across Canada.

As announced in the budget, HRDC is carrying out a thorough review and reorganization of programs and services to reduce overhead costs and find new ways of delivering services more efficiently and effectively. Every effort is being made so that services are accessible relevant to local needs and service oriented.

As the minister of HRD has previously stated, there will be more points of service in rural communities after reorganization than there currently are. Priority will be on ensuring that all clients including those in smaller communities will not have to travel for more than one-half hour to have access to basic services. The addition of 300 to 400 electronic kiosks means that HRDC will have the potential to reach 97 per cent of the working age population in all areas, including those in smaller communities.

In the context of that reform the minister is looking at developing new partnerships with the private sector, the unions and local stakeholders in the delivery of our services.

One specific area in which this approach is being pursued is the area of agricultural employment services. The minister has already announced that his department will continue to provide these services for the next year. At the same time, he has announced that AES and CECs will be involved in the development of transition plans at the local level to involve more players in the delivery of agricultural services.

Regions will work with industry partners to recommend co-operative agreements that will continue to serve employers in the agricultural industry. CEC is exploring options to handle the labour exchange function currently provided by AES. HRDC remains committed to the agricultural community and will continue to provide the best services possible.

[Student Exchanges, June 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North for his question. I know he has worked very hard to improve Canada's recognition of foreign credentials.

I am very pleased to report to the House today that the Minister of Human Resources Development, along with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, this morning at a conference in Alberta on NAFTA announced the establishment of a three-year program for North American mobility in higher education. The program will involve approximately 60 Canadian institutions and the private sector. Thanks to this program, 400 students will

be able to spend periods of study in the U.S. and Mexican post-secondary educational institutions.

This is yet another example of the Liberal government's global and forward looking policies.

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, June 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has a very suspicious way of looking at statistics.

The fact is that because of the changes we have made to UI, over 280,000 low income families in this country are benefiting through a differential benefit rate of 60 per cent.

I understand the point made by the members of the opposition, but I think there comes a time in this House when they should be applauding positive measures for people.

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, June 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. It raises the very important issue of unemployment in Canada, which the government takes quite seriously. It is for this reason that through various programs initiated by the government over 460,000 new full time jobs have been created in Canada.

I also bring to the attention of the hon. member that reading the report would make it very clear to her that the reason there are fewer people on unemployment is job creation.

In Quebec over 110,000 full time jobs have been created. Also in the province of Quebec over 86,000 people did not exhaust their UI benefits prior to gaining new employment. That to me is positive change for the people of Canada.

[Supply, May 30th, 1995]

They understand exactly what the motion is all about. They read between the lines. The hon. member can couch it in elegant language but we know what it is all about. The Canadian people know what it is all about.

Reformers will have to go to the people of Canada and talk to over 50 per cent of the Canadian population who have not been given a fair deal. They will have to explain their stand and tell them that the hiring practices existing in the country are fair to all. When the Reformers have those answers they can come back here. They can speak to the people with disabilities, to visible minorities and to all the groups that appeared before the committee. They can give them the right answers and not play cheap politics with something that is extremely serious to our economic system.