Mr. Wenman:

I am sorry that the Hon. Member who just spoke did not attend the committee hearings. We made amendments on behalf of all of these groups. We were their spokesmen in committee. We protected their right to be heard. Once they were heard, we presented amendments on their behalf for discussion. Many of those amendments were accepted.

Hopefully, the Conservative Party has signalled to Canadians that it is open to hearing and willing to working in a manner of co-operation, open-mindedness and civility. We want to end the tone of confrontation which has been featured in Canada far too long. We will be a government of reason which will be open to all groups and representative of the broadest cross-section of our society.

I thank the House for the opportunity to speak on this subject. I look forward to an opportunity in the fall when we can begin to study these appropriate and important issues in more detail.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):

Are there any questions or comments? On debate, the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey).

Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Lincoln):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say at the outset that I listened with great attention to the contributions made by the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) on third reading of this legislation. I was very impressed by his remarks, as I was by his performance in committee, which as he stated was of a marathon proportion. He worked together with his colleague, the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), who has a particular interest in human relations. I think the Conservative Party has been more than co-operative in the passage of this Bill. I do believe that the contribution made by the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) meant that the committee consisted of Members from all Parties and had common objectives.

The first objective was to pass the Bill on time because of its admitted advantages. Some of the changes were obvious and were required for the benefit of workers. Second, I think we felt an obligation to produce what has been described as the balanced Bill. Unless labour Bills are balanced to the optimum, they can hardly be effective.

I would like to speak very briefly about a number of matters on which the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West spoke- technological change, safety and women in the workforce. I do so, if not with expertise, at least with concern for these particular issues.

I arrived here in 1962. It might have been before the Hon. Member was born, although I am not sure. My maiden speech in the House of Commons was about industrial relations, although I was an employer of labour at the time. Later on, I had the privilege of being the Minister of Labour who brought in the first modernized Labour Code. In order to signify the progress which has been made in the last 15 or so years, that Labour Code reflected the findings of what I had recommended to students in the industrial relations field. The Woods task force was established. It was a multimillion dollar study performed by academics and experts over the better part of two years. That study reflected the terrible labour unrest of the sixties, when technology was brought very much to the fore and the Labour Code of the day made it virtually impossible

June 27, 1984

for workers to have any input into the impact, whether negative or positive, of technology.

Indeed, I remember in the early 1960s when the railway workers of western Canada lay down on the railway tracks in Wainwright and Nakina in order to make their point. Because collective agreements were of fixed durations-and under no circumstances could they be re-opened for negotiation-management would astutely introduce amendments which dealt with technology or technological change in the middle of a contract. The most flagrant example of that was the introduction of diesels which replaced steam engines. That made it possible for the railways to by-pass the beautiful little communities of the west which were entirely dependent on the trains stopping for coal. Virtually, those communities were wiped out by the new technology. The railway officials had a very good case. They said that they could not reject technology any more than a cotton gin, the Industrial Revolution or the wheel. We were determined to bring in a labour code which made it imperative for management to consult and then negotiate with the workers, not whether technology should be introduced, but that the impact be minimized if it was negative and that the rewards be shared if the impact was positive.

I must congratulate the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Ouellet). He has brought in a Bill which, as his critics have already stated, is not perfect and is not the ultimate, but it is a dramatic step forward from the Bill which I presented and passed through the House of Commons in the late sixties. There are some things about this legislation, as the Minister knows, which concern me. One of the things which concerns me is the blurring of lines between the rules which cover collective bargaining. Yet, necessary standards are needed for more than two-thirds of the workers of this country who have no protection because they are not unionized. Sometimes the lines get blurred and abused. I would have liked to have seen a clause which permitted organized labour and their employers to opt out of the impact of the Labour Code. That may happen the next time this legislation comes before the House, but this is probably my last speech and I will probably not be here. There is no substitute for a negotiated settlement and no substitute for collective agreements.

One of the most significant things which we were able to do in the House of Commons-because we allowed labour to open collective agreements if technology was introduced without sufficient notice-was to force labour and management to include in collective agreements the ways and means to deal with technology. It was brought out in committee that there have not been more than a dozen cases sent to the Canada Labour Relations Board, at the request of unions, which were based on complaints that there was no opportunity to negotiate. Therefore, management has become enlightened. They have become enlightened just in time, because if this country is to continue to produce and generate the capital which is needed for social policy, pensions, maternity leave and so on, we must be a more productive country. We must have a more productive workforce in order to generate the additional capital. We are not only behind Japan, which we hear about all the

Canada Labour Code

time, we are falling very far behind the other countries in the OECD. In Europe, unions have been a way of life, particularly since the second World War. Management in Europe has tended to recognize the social contract. Some of the things which we have attempted to include in this Bill recognize the unique problems of women in the workforce, including sexual harassment. I believe we have at the present moment a very unique worker coming on stream. Unlike 15 years or 30 years ago, the worker today tends to be a knowledgeable worker rather than simply a skilled worker. He or she has had a college or university education. These new workers are mobile. They are intelligent. They face the new world with great confidence and they are not afraid of technology or computerization. They only ask to be informed and consulted and to be listened to. Employers who refuse to recognize that fact do so at their own risk as does the country which does not put through the type of enlightened legislation with the thrust which this Bill has. It is not Utopia but it is a considerable improvement over the basic Labour Code.

What concerns me is that the Department of Labour, the Canada Labour Relations Board and others do not always understand the spirit behind the proposed legislation. What was the intent? Why is the clause written in that way? What did the legislature mean when this clause or that clause was discussed? I would like to give an example which is very close to my heart. In 1966, the most difficult labour situation in Canada was at the waterfront, the longshoring industry. It involved not only Montreal and Vancouver but all of the waterfronts of Canada. Men were treated little better than animals. They had to go every morning to a hiring hall to be selected for employment with no guarantee when they arrived there on a cold day that they would be hired. It was the law of the jungle with strong-arm tactics. There was corruption. It was a very bad situation. Ports like Montreal were strikebound for weeks and weeks. The Smith inquiry was set up to improve the situation. I rejected its report because in my opinion it was based on the premise that the trouble in the ports was essentially caused by employees. I recognized that those employees were stripped of their dignity, and we set out to do something about it. We also recognized, Mr. Speaker, the need for increased productivity. Today the number of employees in the Montreal waterfront is approximately half of what it was in 1968. The productivity is hundreds of per cent greater. Why? Because the worker now goes to work in dignity, in an automobile, with a guaranteed 40 weeks wages out of 52 weeks whether or not there is work. The hiring halls have been eliminated, pension plans have been introduced. Technology is not rejected. It is encouraged because so many cents per tonne coming in through technology, through containerization, find their way into the union for its particular projects, sickness benefits, pensions, or whatever.

This was not accomplished, Mr. Speaker, by myself or the Department. It was accomplished by intelligent use of new legislation. It was accomplished by making it mandatory for all employers to bargain as one and for all unions to bargain as

June 27, 1984

Canada Labour Code

one, thus eliminating the old game of playing one off against the other. If you look at the old Code, I believe Section 132, you will find that we set it up in such a way that these associations would have total jurisdiction over what was called "geographical delineation". I believe that is the way we put it. It simply meant that when negotiating time arrived, management would speak as one voice and so would the union.

In recent years, Mr. Speaker, in the 1980s, the Canada Labour Relations Board seems to me, as an observer, to have lost the sense of what was the intent. So we have a situation now where across the river some intelligent employer is setting up shop with union or non-union people who are prepared to work for less, not bothering to bargain but simply taking advantage of collective agreements which are eventually struck across the river, thereby reintroducing, if you like, the seeds of discontent, the destruction of something which has proven to be successful.

There has not been a major strike in the waterfronts of Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, Quebec or Three Rivers in ten years. The workers average between $30,000 and $40,000 a year. They earn it and are entitled to it. Yet the Canada Labour Relations Board, through decisions made in good faith, threatens that situation because it does not understand the spirit behind Section 132. It does not understand the importance of keeping the unions and management together. I mention this as an area which I do hope will be looked at every thoroughly by committee or by the House the next time the Code comes forward for debate. Perhaps Section 132 could be amended to make a little clearer to the members of the Canada Labour Relations Board what was the original intent of that particular section.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I share the views of the officials critic for labour of the Conservative Party. I share his concern for the argument advanced so eloquently by the Adventist Church. However, I must remind him as well that the Rand formula is not exactly breaking new ground. It is something which has been around for decades. It was introduced in the automobile industry. It was meant to provide a solution to people who did not want to belong to a union but who recognized that unions work on their behalf whether or not they are members. I have no opposition to the amendments which provide something whereby people of conscience could remain in the workforce and contribute indirectly to the work of the union.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that this is probably the most important piece of legislation which has gone through the House for some time. It is important because it is, perhaps, a belated recognition by the House and by the Government that unless the climate of co-operation between management and labour is such that the adversarial characteristics will be minimized, and unless the climate in this country is such that management, labour and government can work in unison in co-operation and dignity, we are not going to be able to maintain the flow of private capital to production, because we are still a decade behind the kind of industrial relationships which prevail in many other countries.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):

Are there any questions or comments?

Mr. Wenman:

Mr. Speaker, in my speech I was highly critical of the lack of participation of Hon. Members of the Liberal Party and of the Conservative Party in committee. I want to correct that. Because of the fact the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) has been here since 1962, and the fact that he has contributed his energy and a big chunk of his life to this House of Commons, one would have expected him to have been the last person to be at the committee meeting at 2 a.m. But he was there at 2 a.m. and then at 9.30 a.m. and throughout the hearings. He was there caring, being constructive and being positive. I thank him for that contribution and I did mean to include him in my comments, along with the Hon. Member for Calgry West (Mr. Hawkes) and the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) who sat there hour upon hour to make this legislation better. I wanted to recognize that and to thank him for his service and the comments he made today.

Mr. Mackasey:

Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. gentleman that I did not take any of his remarks the wrong way. I know exactly what he meant and I share his views. I suppose 1 was there, as he was, because I was brought up in a school of thought that you have an obligation to the job you take on, wherever it may be. When work is a pleasure, then you attend to it. When the Minister asked me to join that committee I looked on it as an opportunity in some simple way, through moral persuasion or seduction or even bullying, to come up with a Bill which I felt was non-partisan in nature. At no time in committee did I think we had broken down into pro and anti-labour, pro and anti-Liberal, or pro and anti-anything. I think all of us sensed that our frustration was that if we only had more time, we could do better. I just wanted to say that when you get discouraged, look at the original Bill in 1968 and see what progress we have made in 15 years. It has really been remarkable.

Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to see that this Bill is finally at third reading stage. As I mentioned when we started the second reading debate on this Bill, our caucus had been working ever since the election in 1980 to have changes made to the Canada Labour Code. I mentioned then that we had asked for a special House order which would allow this legislation to go to committee so that representatives from different groups could appear and we would report back for final disposition in the last couple of days of the sitting. When I hear some of the rhetoric coming from the spokesmen for the Conservative Party, I recognize that it is basically a defensive reaction by a Party which was smoked out a number of times here and in committee. An impartial observer of that committee would tell you that the Conservatives were doing everything they could to stall and not be caught. Their attempts to add more and more witnesses as the week progressed were not to hear more voices but to prevent the Bill from passing.

June 27, 1984

Mr. Mayer:

What a bunch of garbage.

Mr. Murphy:

1 regret we have had to take this tone in debate but after hearing the wild rhetoric of the official spokesman for the Conservative Party, the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman), it is very obvious that they have only looked at this as a political exercise rather than as a very important piece of legislation.

Mr. Mayer:

We are getting wild rhetoric from you right now.

Mr. Murphy:

Four years ago our caucus toured federal and provincial work sites right across this country. We went to every province and all sorts of industry and came out with a report called Graveyard Shifts: Life and Death on the Job in Canada. We presented that report to successive Ministers of Labour and got up in this House many times asking for changes to the Labour Code. I am glad to see that some of those amendments came forward, even if it took until the fifth year of this Government's rule. It is unfortunate that the actual debate on this legislation did not take place until the last three weeks of this sitting.

I agree with one aspect of what the Conservative representative said, that we should have had more time to study the legislation. I believe there could be amendments made that would strengthen the legislation. There were groups who, had they had more time, could have come forward with suggestions which would have improved the legislation. But that is not the case. We were forced to deal with the Bill within a week in committee. Even though it meant sitting late hours and committee members were fatigued, we agreed to hear from every group who wished to speak. But as our House Leader said the day after this Bill was tabled, we wanted it passed because we recognized that for the most part it was an improvement which would protect the life and safety of more Canadian workers. It would provide legal protection for federal Government employees who come under Part IV of the Canada Labour Code, protection they never had before. We also saw that there were some benefits in maternity leave and child care for those people who come under the Canada Labour Code. I must say that we saw some strictly token efforts in the area of sexual harassment, part-time workers and technological change. But they were improvements and, recognizing this session was coming to an end, we agreed to pass the legislation. We did all in our power to force both the Government to act and the Official Opposition to move on this legislation.

I make no apologies for our position. It was a deliberate attempt by us to get the legislation passed. We recognize that there were some who saw political benefit in not seeing it passed. There are some who felt they could benefit whether or not it passed. But to our way of thinking the women of Canada, the workers of Canada, are much better protected if it is passed, and that was the only goal we had. We accomplished that goal.

Some of the presentations we heard this afternoon at report stage and third reading talked about how the legislation was

Canada Labour Code

improved because the Conservative Party made representations on behalf of the individuals who came forward. However, were the women of Canada who came forward asked by the Conservatives or Liberals if they wanted the maternity leave or child care qualifying period moved up from three months to six months? No, they were not. So when people get up and make sanctimonious speeches about how they represent others, take a look at what they really did.

Mr. Wenman:

Which amendments did you present?

Mr. Murphy:

Look at the amendments the Conservatives had included in this Bill which will hurt many parents over the next couple of years. I hope we do not have to wait for four years into the next Parliament to make improvements in this legislation. I said earlier that part-time workers were just barely mentioned in this legislation. The technological change provisions are mere tokenism at this stage of the game. There is a lot left to do and I hope that with some improved rules in the House the committee can sit down fairly early in the next Parliament and look at what needs to be done to protect our workers who come under the provisions of the Canada Labour Code.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):

Questions or comments? Debate.

Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Labour):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with this opportunity to speak on third reading of Bill C-34. First of all, I wish to thank Hon. Members for agreeing to deal expeditiously with this Bill. There certainly was a time when we did not think we would be able to have this legislation passed before the House adjourned for the summer. However, I believe that especially the firm resolve of Canadian union organizations, which did not hesitate to make direct representations to the three Parties sitting in the House-as I said, I think this very firm resolve on the part of Canadian unions to see this labour legislation approved, and of course thanks to the efforts of all three political Parties, all this was an incentive for us to take all action necessary to get this Bill through the House, even when it meant sitting very late, on occasion, to expedite consideration of the Bill in committee.

Mr. Speaker, at this point, I would like to pay tribute to all those who helped realize this Bill. I think it is a piece of very important legislation for labour, and I am very proud to say that my senior officials have worked unremittingly for months to prepare these amendments to the Canada Labour Code. They conducted major consultations with all parties concerned in this country. I would like to stress more specifically the support, good advice and enthusiasm of my Deputy Minister, Mr. Mark Daniels, who has helped me enormously during the last few weeks in working towards passage of this Bill.

June 27, 1984

Canada Labour Code

I also wish to mention the very professional and very thorough work done by the two Assistant Deputy Ministers, Mrs. Wendy Porteous and Mr. Bill Kelly, who both took part in consultations on amendments to Part V and Part IV of the Canada Labour Code, and thanks to whom we now have a Bill that, to a considerable extent, meets the aspirations of Canadian unions.

I also wish to offer thanks for the often important but unspectacular work done by many officials in my Department who helped to draft and prepare documents and prepare the Bill, especially Mrs. Elizabeth MacPherson, Mr. Mac Rowe, M. Doug Baldwin, Mr. Jim McLellan, Dr. Ratna Ray, Mrs. Carol Racine and Mr. Peter Sorokan, who all worked to help make this Bill acceptable to both union and management representatives.

Once again, I think it is important to emphasize that we have been able to improve the Canada Labour Code thanks to the many groups in the labour and the business world we were able to consult. Thanks to these consultations which I myself, my predecessors and my officials have had with these representatives during the past years since these consultations took almost two years we were able to define a number of practical and realistic considerations and, especially, to formulate amendments that are progressive and appropriate at this time.

Mr. Speaker, more than ever I am confident that industrial relations in this country will be able to exist in an atmosphere of trust, civility and mutual respect. Undoubtedly, the Bill we are about to adopt today is particularly welcome to the unions, but I think that management representatives who made representations to the Committee understood that it was important to respond to the legitimate claims of the unions. The Bill we are proposing and are about to approve today is a step in the right direction towards improving the job environment and labour relations. I believe that our society, like all other western industrialized societies, will continue to develop rapidly and that this will be due to the incredible rate at which technology is progressing. However, I think that basically, we must have legislation that ensures that all of us, wherever we are, will be treated fairly and equitably. I think that this legislation, which is well-balanced and responds to the legitimate concerns of Canadian workers, nevertheless can be accepted and acknowledge by management as a Bill that is appropriate to our modern society.

I think that one of the major social facts of the eighties is the change in composition of the labour force population. The proportion of women in the labour force has risen over the last thirty years from 22 to 40 per cent, and in 1980, the participation rate of women exceeded 50 per cent. This massive arrival of women on the labour market has obliged people to re-examine their values and governments to rethink their policies.

Twenty years ago, labour policies did not have to consider the family responsibilities of workers. As a general rule, once women were married, they withdrew from the labour force,

while men dedicated themselves to their careers. However, due to a number of reasons that are economic, educational, demographic and psychological in nature, these differences have ceased to exist. Although men no longer dominate the sector of paid employment, women however, still have, though not willingly, a monopoly over unpaid domestic work. That is why they are often unable to take full advantage of their newly won access to paid employment. As many female workers are well aware, interrupting their period of employment to have and raise children reduces their years of seniority and adversely affects their chances of promotion and their eligibility for social benefits.

Mr. Speaker, these are so many irrefutable arguments in favour of the revision of Part III of the Canada Labour Code which I proposed to the House and which will very soon be approved by this Parliament. I have no hesitation in saying that in all my political career, after the cooperative housing program established when I was Minister responsible for urban affairs, this is the second most important social measure which I have had the privilege of being involved with as Minister. I think it is important to point out that the amendments we have submitted to Parliament are definitely to the advantage of Canadian working women, with respect to Labour Code Part III and most of the series of amendments found in Part IV concerning occupational safety and health.

Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of repeating the details of every aspect of this Bill. They are now well known. During previous interventions in the House, I had the opportunity to elaborate on the major amendments to Parts III, IV and V of the Labour Code.

Since I do not want to speak at length at this stage and would rather conclude my remarks as quickly as possible, I want to say before closing the debate that I was extremely pleased with the reaction of the unions. I want to thank publicly the CLC and the other labour organizations which gave their support to Bill C-34. As Minister of Labour, I was particularly glad to hear so many positive comments about this labour legislation which, I am sure, will stand us in good stead and certainly pave the way for more harmonious labour relations in Canada. I am convinced that the adoption of this Bill will signal the onset of a new era of harmony, understanding and co-operation between the Government of Canada and the Labour movement and, I should hope, between unions and the business community.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge Hon. Members to give unanimous approval to this Bill for which Canadian workers, men and women alike, have waited so long.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):

Any questions or comments?

June 27, 1984

Mr. Nickerson:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I see that the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) has returned to the House. I wanted to bring to his attention and yours, Sir, a certain remark made by the Hon. Member for Lincoln when he referred to another Member of the House as a "sidekick from Calgary". I would suggest that that is contrary to the rules of the House. It is disrespectful to the Member in question and leaves me not knowing to whom the Hon. Member for Lincoln referred. Perhaps he would like to withdraw the remark or rephrase it somehow.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):

Order. I do not think it is necessary for the Member for Lincoln to rise. The Chair has not heard the Member referring specifically to an Hon. Member, so it could hardly be considered an insult.

Mr. Mackasey:

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a point. I was referring to the friend of the Official Opposition critic of the Department of Labour. I suppose that I could apologize because we became rather close in the committee. I want to assure the hon. gentleman that I used the word "progressive", which hardly includes him, so he should not be worried about confusion.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):

We were on questions.