GOVERNMENT ORDERS

CANADA LABOUR CODE

November 19-The Minister of Labour-Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development of Bill C-66, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

That Bill C-66, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development.

Bill C-66 amends part I of the Canada Labour Code and the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act. The Canada Labour Code has not undergone-

[English]

Mr. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There seems to be no English translation coming through.

The Deputy Speaker: I ask the hon. Minister of Labour if he could wait for a minute so that we can make sure the

[Translation]

Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that the Canada Labour Code has not undergone a major overhaul in more than 25 years. It had to be updated with the future in mind. This is a commitment, my colleagues will recall, we made in the last speech from the throne.

My primary objective is to ensure an orderly approach is taken to industrial relations. I sincerely believe that clear rules striking a balance between the rights and responsibilities of all concerned are essential to the effectiveness of our collective bargaining process.

I also believe that the reform proposed by our government specifically meets this balance requirement. This has earned it substantial support from the parties covered by the Canada Labour Code.

[English]

The amendments to part I of the Canada Labour Code are important, timely and essential but not radical. They will not turn our system on its head but will encourage co-operative labour-management relationships as well as constructive collective bargaining.

We want to develop a positive legislative framework. The bill creates a fair and equitable set of rules for a collective bargaining process. It will allow the parties to frame their own agreements and have the flexibility to find appropriate solutions to the competitive pressures of our changing environment.

Our reform package reflects a broad consensus among stakeholders and the recommendation of the independent task group chaired by Andrew Sims. These recommendations have been published in the report ``Seeking Balance''.

(1030)

[Translation]

We want to improve the administration of the code. This is why we are replacing the current board by the Canada Industrial Relations Board which, with its extended responsibilities, will be more effective and also more representative.

We have tightened up the negotiation process to allow a faster and smoother resolution of disputes, thanks to the following: a four month notice to bargain before the expiry of a collective agreement; a single one stage conciliation procedure; a secret vote within 60 days of a work stoppage; and a 72 hour advance notice before a strike or a lockout.

We want to promote better communication between employees, employers and the union. We also recognize the right of employers to express their views directly to the employees, provided they do not resort to unfair practices. As for the union, it will be allowed to get from the board the list of employees working off site and to contact them, as long as their privacy and their safety are maintained.

Traditionally, union and management groups were never able to reach a consensus on the issue of replacement workers. The government had to make a decision. After an in-depth analysis, it opted for a moderate and reasonable approach which, once again,

strikes a balance between the rights and the responsibilities of all those involved.

The equation is based on the premise that those involved will act in good faith. Under normal circumstances, the employer will be allowed to use replacement workers during a legal work stoppage. However, if it is established that such a practice is designed to undermine the representational capacity of a union, rather than to meet the legitimate objectives of a negotiation process, it will be deemed unfair.

We are giving unions the right to refer any contentious case directly to the Canadian Industrial Relations Board, which will have the authority to prohibit the use of replacement wokers during a conflict.

Our reform also provides that replacement workers must not be members of the bargaining unit. Therefore, they cannot take part in any vote, including a vote to return to work. At the end of a work stoppage, unions members will have the right to go back to their old job, before any other employee. They will also be still entitled to some benefits during the work stoppage, provided they keep paying related premiums. Moreover, any dismissal or disciplinary action could be subject to an arbitration process.

[English]

During any work stoppage we have to ensure that the measures necessary to protect public health and safety are maintained. No specific activities will be designated in the code. I believe that the parties should have the opportunity to negotiate an agreement. If they are unable to agree, the board will have the power to make that determination.

An important amendment ensures that the bargaining rights and the collective agreement will be carried over when an undertaking moves from provincial to federal jurisdiction. This is particularly important in these times when changes in ownership can occur frequently. It will prevent unnecessary disruption in labour-management relations and deter those who would use jurisdiction hopping to avoid bargaining obligations.

The next item deals with successive contracts for service in the airport industry. When a contract for services such as aircraft refuelling or security screening is transferred as a result of retendering, the new contractor will have to pay equivalent remuneration to employees. In the past the end of each contract has resulted in the loss of remuneration and employment for a group of workers mainly composed of women and immigrants. I feel it is our utmost responsibility to give them some protection against a competition process that would otherwise be based on who can pay the lowest wages.

This amendment will create a level playing field for contractors whose employees are unionized and reduce turnover rates, an important element to help maintain our airports at the highest security level possible.

(1035)

In the new code grain handlers and their employers will retain the right to strike and lockout. In the event of a work stoppage involving other parties in port related activities, including longshoremen, service affecting grain shipment must be maintained.

The shipment of grain is a multimillion dollar industry. We export to over 70 countries and the livelihood of over 130,000 farmers depends on our reputation as a reliable supplier and exporter.

When a work stoppage involving employees in longshoring or other port operations impact on grain exports, special labour legislation has become the normal reaction. This has effectively removed the incentive for the parties to resolve their own disputes.

Taking grain shipping out of the equation will allow the parties to address their differences in a less destructive manner, accept the responsibility for their own actions and forego involving Parliament in the resolution of their disagreements. We are confident that this measure will address the vast majority of disruption to grain exports at Canadian ports.

In 1999 we will review its effectiveness and if necessary we will look at the stronger measures like those recommended in the west coast ports industry inquiry in order to deal with this important problem for the whole country.

Finally, let me make it crystal clear that the amendments to the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act, as we call it CALURA, do not in any way diminish the accountability process of the unions. On the contrary, Statistics Canada has found a better, more efficient and cheaper way to collect the data. It will be included in the labour force survey Stats Canada receives every month from the union membership.

This simple operation will save Statistics Canada $300,000 a year and give us regular, reliable data. This is, therefore, a noticeable improvement to the old procedure and I am very happy to present it in Bill C-66.

[Translation]

In conclusion, I would like to share with my colleagues a very wise remark made in the Sims report. The report maintained that the Canada Labour Code must strike a balance between conflicting values and interests; between the interests of the employees and those of the employers; between social and economic priorities; between rights and responsibilities; between individual and majority rights; between the public interest and free collective bargaining.

This is exactly what we tried to do with the review of the Canada Labour Code. Therefore, I would urge my colleagues to support this motion. Bill C-66 will then be immediately referred to the standing committee. All those interested will be able to express

their viewpoints to committee members, who will then report on the suggestions that were made.

This is how all my colleagues can help turn the Canada Labour Code into a modern and useful tool to help both management and unions to settle their labour disputes.

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the least we can say this morning, and the Minister will agree, is that a review of the Canada Labour Code is long overdue. Several times we stood in this House to ask questions on various provisions of the code and each time the Minister would refer to the review he tabled three weeks ago, parts of which, I must say, are certainly evidence of his good will.

I am well aware that the Minister is a courteous man, but I have a feeling that he did not follow his reform ideas through to their logical conclusion and that he was a little bit inhibited in some of his actions. I certainly hope to have the opportunity in committee to urge the Minister to go further, to surpass himself, and to see to it that the bill be further improved upon, since, as you well know, this is the role of the opposition and a full time job.

(1040)

This being said, there are positive elements in there. Obviously, when the Minister suggests measures to accelerate the hearing of the parties, we cannot but agree. When the Minister proposes that a one person court may be convened so as to speed up the work of the Canada Labour Relations Board, we are all for it. When the Minister wants to change the name of the Canada Labour Relations Board, which lived last winter a crisis that almost destroyed it, we are in favour of that.

What the minister will have to specify is this: in the bill that will be considered by the human resources development committee, to make the Canada Industrial Relations Board, a quasi-judicial tribunal that is extremely important for the balance he is seeking to strike, does he intend to make it a truly representational body as he was asked to do on many occasions? Will he accept that members of this board be appointed from lists that will be submitted, as is done for other governmental organizations? To ensure that the Canada Industrial Relations Board decisions are not never questioned, the board must become a representational body.

Too often, in the past, appointments were made that did not reflect the kind of talent, expertise and knowledge that is to be expected from people who sit on this quasi-judicial tribunal.

The minister knows perfectly well this bill contains a provision that is rather vague. It says that the minister will consult. Of course, the notion of consultation is not very precise. It is true that consultation is important when making this kind of appointments, but I think balance would be much better served if the minister could use lists that would be submitted by both management and union representatives to fill vacancies on the board.

You will also understand that this reform, and the opposition's position, and the common understanding that will guide us over the coming weeks, because we on this side of the House are very aware that this is the beginning of a relatively lengthy process, since the Canada Labour Code is an extremely important tool in union democracy, that the whole issue of replacement workers will be the focus of our concerns.

I must say that it is undoubtedly this aspect of the bill that is the most disappointing. It is undoubtedly this aspect of the bill that goes most against the grain for the minister, where he did not achieve what he would have liked. The reform the minister is proposing has no central component, only peripheral details.

It is not clear where this came from. Recognizing the right to use replacement workers only in cases where the union's representational capacity is undermined is not something that flows from the Sims report. First of all, there is no case law to support it. There is no partner. I challenge the minister to rise in his place and tell us who asked for such a formula when the Sims task force was conducting its review. Who on the employer side or the union side is calling for such a convoluted formula, the concrete results and ramifications of which are unknown?

The mere fact that negotiations are continuing and the parties sitting down at the same table is evidence that a union's representational capacity will not be undermined and that the employer is not entitled to use replacement workers.

I cannot go along with the minister's statement that he cannot act without a consensus. I think this indicates a lack of knowledge of the context giving rise to the legislation passed by the National Assembly in 1977. If a consensus is required it is clear that, in such an instance, we are condemned to the status quo, and I think both the legislator and members of Parliament could be faulted for lack of courage in their failure to permit this very healthy exercise in democracy to take place in a well defined context. We agree that it must not take place in any old way, but, rather, that the context in which replacement workers are used must be well defined.

(1045)

I think we have to give in to what has been requested by the FTQ, the CSN and the Canadian Labour Congress and include it very plainly among the unfair labour practices. At the moment, seven unfair practices are set out and defined in the Canada Labour Code.

What is an unfair practice? It is the allegation that an employer, a union or an individual has taken part in an activity prohibited by the Canada Labour Code. Why was it not named clearly and

unambiguously? It would then have been a lot easier for the Canada Labour Relations Board to conduct the arbitrations required.

Everyone agrees that a strike is the ultimate weapon. It is acknowledged that there must be intermediate stages. However, in cases where it is unavoidable-and it is acknowledged to be an element of union democracy-I think it should have been clearly included among unfair practices along with section 24; section 50, which is about bargaining in bad faith; section 94, which deals with interference in union business; section 37, which has to do with a union's duty of fair representation; and section 95, which concerns prohibitions relating to trade unions.

I repeat, this is the thrust of the reform. You are well aware that the official opposition will not let this demand drop. We will encourage the minister to go right to the limit of his reformer tendencies, because I know for a fact that the minister is not a conservative.

There was also a strong demand by the unions regarding technological change. On several occasions, the minister rose in this House and mentioned how much the labour market was changing, and how traditional practices were fast disappearing.

One of the major demands was the right to strike, to reopen a collective agreement whenever significant technological changes occur between the signing of a collective agreement and its renegotiation. I believe we must keep this in mind. The committee will have to do some soul-searching regarding this particular demand.

I believe the minister should have implemented the Sims report as a whole and taken note of a demand, a very important recommendation regarding his powers. This very studious minister could not have forgotten the existence of a very clear recommendation to abolish eight different powers, or eight sections of the act giving the minister powers that appear somewhat archaic in light of current practices and realities.

Cases in point are section 57 regarding the authority to appoint arbitrators and an arbitration board; section 59 regarding the minister's right to receive copies of arbitration decisions; and section 71 regarding the right to receive notices of dispute. There are about eight sections like that. I believe that members of the Sims task force were all agreed that these powers were somewhat outdated.

You will also understand how disappointed the opposition is with regard to the RCMP. We even tabled a motion-which I moved-inviting the minister to put an end to the discrimination against RCMP employees. The RCMP is the only police force in Canada which is not allowed to negotiate working conditions through collective bargaining.

I believe the Sims report was very clear in this regard. The minister must be aware of it. It was recognized that it was not desirable to grant the right to strike. In fact, no one within the RCMP is asking for this right. What they are asking for is the right to collective bargaining with compulsory arbitration, which many municipal police forces currently enjoy.

Another serious omission, which we will have a chance to address in committee, concerns a very important demand made by PSAC, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, an organization the minister has held in high esteem so far. PSAC asked to be excluded from the application of the Public Service Staff Relations Act and be subject to the Canada Labour Code instead.

(1050)

Why did the Public Service Alliance of Canada and its members democratically express such a demand? Because under the Public Service Staff Relations Act they cannot negotiate provisions as important as those governing job security in legislation other than the staff relations act. The same goes for protection against technological changes, job classification, appointments, promotions, and transfers.

To conclude, while recognizing that the minister is acting in good faith, this proverbial good faith of his, we must take his reform proposal one step further and include a number of substantial changes requested by unions among others. I am convinced that, by the time we are through with our committee work, the minister will heed the official opposition's demands.

[English]

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it has been more than 20 years since the Canada Labour Code was amended. Over that period, the Canadian labour force changed dramatically thanks to the rapid growth of technology.

For the most part, the code has served us well. Only a few changes are needed to improve the operations of the Canada Labour Relations Board and to ensure that strikes or lockouts do not negatively impact on the health, safety and economic well-being of Canadians.

It has been evident from the legislation presented by this government that there is a tendency to go overboard, gun registration being a case in point.

In the case of Bill C-66, the government is intruding on the rights of workers, employers and the Canadian public far more than is necessary. In its attempt to be all things to all people, this government has foisted a flawed bill on the Minister of Labour.

Even though the Canada Labour Code governs the activities of only 700,000 workers, federally regulated industries are often the lifeline for Canadian manufacturers, producers and processors. They are primarily service oriented, involved in free movement of goods, services, capital and people across Canada. Because of the unique nature of the federal system, alternative sources are not often available.

The goal of any legislation and regulation should be to create an environment which encourages economic growth.

The government should seize the opportunity to fulfil one of its red book promises, that being the one called jobs, jobs, jobs, by making sure that the Canada Labour Code allows businesses and their employees to operate on a level playing field.

We know that taxes kill jobs. The government infrastructure programs and other make work projects do not create permanent jobs. Vague labour legislation and regulations that are made on a case by case basis will not create jobs either.

With the unemployment rate at 10 per cent, 1.4 million people unemployed and more than 1 in 4 Canadians worried about losing their jobs, one would think the government would do its utmost to ensure a stable environment for conducting business.

Last week the Minister for International Trade released a study showing that after-tax costs of setting up a business in Canada average 6.7 per cent less than in the United States. This is good news for Canadians and could be a catalyst for job creation for businesses looking for a place to expand and invest.

The government should be helping by offering a secure and dependable infrastructure that would allow them to get their products to market and receive their raw materials unimpeded. Instead, Bill C-66 would only muddy the waters and become more of a deterrent than a booster of economic growth and job creation.

It is in the interest of all Canadians that we have reliable access to essential services, to keep the employment within our borders and to establish and maintain a reputation worldwide as reliable exporters of goods.

Stable labour relations will promote investment and reinvestment. Bill C-66 does not clarify what constitutes an essential service, nor does it spell out what constitutes undermining a union when replacement workers are used in a strike or a lockout. This is not fair to workers, employers or third parties who often have the most to lose in labour disputes that occur in federally regulated industries.

Scores of witnesses appearing before the industrial inquiry commission on industrial relations at west coast ports testified about the repercussions experienced by farmers and producers when strikes or lockouts prevent their crops and products from reaching markets.

(1055 )

Those witnesses convinced the members of the commission who in turn proposed a number of workable recommendations to solve the problem. Unfortunately the drafters of this legislation did not follow the commission's advice and came up with what at best could only be called a watered down or partial solution.

This half measure would ensure that grain, once it reaches port, would be loaded on ships. There is no provision, however, to ensure that grain reaches the port if there is a labour dispute elsewhere in the system. If that happens Parliament will be called upon to legislate everybody back to work.

Over the last 20 years Parliament legislated an end to 19 strikes in the transportation and grain handling sector. It is in the interest of labour and management producers and processors to resolve disputes without parliamentary intervention.

In the face of the growing importance of the global economy there is a need for continuous reliable shipping through Canada's ports and transportation sectors. The costly interruption of government business is not required. While there is a need for regulation by various levels of government it is not practical to put emergency measures in place each time labour and management are unable to reach a satisfactory agreement. Resolving the differences of these two groups can be achieved without interrupting the regular flow of government proceedings.

A permanent and fair resolution process must be put in place, removed from the whims of government. We need permanent legislation that would provide both sides with predictable rules and a timetable by which to negotiate. Canada has a world class transportation system and communications infrastructure that should not be vulnerable to closure.

A disruption in the day to day operation of vital transportation sectors inhibits the national economy from functioning. The potential impact of even a short work stoppage in many federal operations is catastrophic to Canadian business and to the Canadian economy as a whole. A strike in either the rail or truck sector cripples the automotive industry which must move finished products, raw materials and parts throughout North America on a daily basis.

Westerners rely heavily on the railways. Each year approximately 80 million tonnes of products, most of which are bulk commodities such as grain, coal, sulphur and potash, leave the prairies by rail on their way to consumers in domestic and international markets. Prairie shippers provide CN and CP rail with 50 per cent of their originating tonnage and contribute almost the same portion in revenues.

While it is impossible to put a price on the damage done to our reputation as a reliable exporter, the direct costs from the 1994 west coast ports dispute are said to have amounted to over $125 million. The estimated indirect costs, loss to future business and so forth, were in excess of $250 million and threatened $500 million in grain sales.

The risk to Canadian jobs must be minimized. Not only will a significant number of jobs be lost in the export sector if these disputes cannot be resolved, but jobs and the ports will be at severe risk when alternative means to ship goods are utilized. The use of U.S. ports could result in a loss of cargo and jobs in Canadian ports.

I recommended final offer selection arbitration many times in this House and to the Sims task force and the west coast ports inquiry commission. Final offer arbitration is a tool to effectively and permanently resolve labour issues that fall under federal jurisdiction. It does not favour one side or another and here is how it works.

If and only if the union and employers cannot make an agreement by the conclusion of the previous contract, the union and employers would provide the minister with the name of a person they jointly recommend as arbitrator. The union and employer would be required to submit to the arbitrator a list of the matters agreed upon and a list of the matters still under dispute. For disputed issues each party would be required to submit a final offer for selection. The arbitrator then selects either the final offer submitted by the union or the final offer submitted by the employer; all of one or all of the other. The arbitrator's decision would be binding on both parties.

The measures contained in Bill C-66 will not, however, achieve the balance that the minister seeks. It will not promote harmonious relations between the two, nor will it ensure the uninterrupted flow of commodities to market.

(1100)

If Canada is to be a major player in the global marketplace, it is incumbent upon us as legislators not to interfere but to provide logical, sound legislation under which workers and management can operate.

Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise before the House today to address Bill C-66 which will amend part I of the Canada Labour Code, the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act. I am pleased because this piece of legislation is a symbol of the possibilities which exist when government, labour and business work together in an atmosphere of trust and co-operation.

The bill will modernize the industrial relations component of the Canada Labour Code, thereby improving the ability of labour and management to adjust and thrive in an increasingly global economy.

This is especially true when we consider the fact that the proposed amendments will affect about 700,000 Canadians in very important pivotal industries, such as banking, telecommunications, broadcasting, rail and road transportation, airports and airlines, and others. These industries are part of the backbone of our national economy. In many cases they are also where we will find jobs for the future.

It is so rare to see management and unions sharing the same opinion that I thought it important to mention the fact here.

It is true that a tremendous amount of work has been invested in producing this piece of legislation. Bill C-66 is the product of an extensive consultation process. These consultations included a task force of labour relations experts, a working group of management and labour organizations, and a series of meetings held by the Minister of Labour with representatives of labour, management and other interested parties.

The task force was chaired by Andrew Sims, an Edmonton labour lawyer specializing in arbitration and dispute resolution. He was admirably supported by two experienced colleagues, Toronto based labour arbitrator, mediator and fact finder Paula Knopf, and Quebec labour arbitrator and professor at Laval University, Rodrigue Blouin.

The task force received numerous written submissions and met with labour and management delegations and with members of the academic and legal communities at various locations across the country. It also invited labour and management organizations whose members are subject to the Canada Labour Code to set up a working group to discuss and endeavour to reach a consensus on issues.

When the task force submitted its report entitled: ``Seeking a Balance'', it reflected the consensus reached by the labour-management working group in a number of important areas. In addition to its own findings and those of the working group, the Sims task force also took into account the recommendations made by the West Coast Ports Industrial Inquiry Commission which had issued its report in December 1995.

It is quite an accomplishment that both labour and management have expressed support for the overall balance of the recommendations of the task force. The consensus reached is an illustration of what can be accomplished when we work together in a spirit of good faith and mutual respect.

On several key issues Bill C-66 reflects the consensus reached by labour and management. With these amendments the government is acting as a proactive catalyst for change. It is proposing strategies which will modernize the code, encouraging parties to settle their differences in a less adversarial fashion.

The amendments include the establishment of a new representational Canada industrial relations board composed of a neutral chairperson and vice-chairpersons, and equal numbers of members representing employers and employees. This board will replace the current non-representational Canada Labour Relations Board.

The new board will be given greater flexibility to deal quickly with routine or urgent matters. The board's powers will be clarified or extended to ensure that complex industrial relations issues, such as those arising from the review of bargaining units or sales of businesses, can be fully addressed, and to provide appropriate remedies in the case of unfair labour practices, such as failure to bargain in good faith.

There is the replacement of the current two-stage conciliation process by a single stage with a choice of procedures, to take no more than 60 days.

The right to strike or lockout will be subject to the holding of a secret ballot vote within the previous 60 days and the giving of a 72-hour advance notice.

(1105)

Parties involved in a work stoppage will be required to maintain services necessary to protect public health and safety. Services affecting grain shipments will be continued in the event of legal work stoppages by any third parties in the ports.

There will be no general prohibition on the use of replacement workers. However if they are used for the purposes of undermining a union's representative capacity, the board may declare their use as an unfair labour practice and order the employer to stop using them for the duration of the dispute.

Employees will be entitled to maintain insurance and benefits programs during work stoppages.

The amendments will also confirm the rights of employees in the bargaining unit who were on strike or locked out to resume employment following the end of a work stoppage in preference to any persons hired to replace them.

As chair of the parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, I look forward to a very interesting debate and hearing further opinions from all sides of the House. We will find ways to perhaps improve this piece of legislation.

[Translation]

Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this morning to speak to Bill C-66, particularly since my colleagues, as members of the opposition, and I, as official critic during the rail strike, may be partially responsible for its existence.

I remember that, while the strike spread throughout Canada, and we in the Bloc Quebecois spoke for the right to strike as set out in the Canada Labour Code, many Canadians told us that we were putting Canada at risk and I kept repeating: ``If the Canadian economy cannot afford the Canadian Labour Code, then change it. Until then, we defend those who use the Candadian Labour Code.''

So I understand that the government wished to amend the Canada Labour Code so that it facilitates dispute resolution in industries which are vital for the Canadian economy.

We cannot disagree with its intent. However, as my colleague, who now acts as critic and who spoke so eloquently, made clear, and as we will keep repeating and will no doubt hear very often during committee hearings, this intent cannot be reinforced by just any provision. As far as labour relations are concerned, nothing can be as insidious for the legislator as thinking that he does not have to strike a balance. The legislator must be aware that, in real life, if strong unions have developed, it is because there were strong, prosperous companies.

But we can say that, in Quebec and in Canada, unions have become increasingly responsible, that they have decided to take part in the economic development of their industries, and that they understand that hostile and antagonistic labour relations can be harmful. But, at the same time, they know that there can be no peace if they are toothless. Historically, and not only in Canada, when labour relations do not guarantee this balance, there is no peace, which is our goal.

(1110)

The absence of conflict within a company does not mean that peace prevails. As a former labour relations teacher, I can tell you that there is nothing worse for a business than to have employees who are dissatisfied, who are frustrated, who feel the business is not well managed, and who do not have a say in its operations. Nothing is more harmful, because the productivity that everyone talks about will not exist.

Productivity, that is the one coming from workers and not investments, is possible when workers feel that the business is well managed, that what is asked of them is feasible, and that they are given the means to do the job. However, in order to achieve that, workers must be allowed to speak up.

Under these conditions, unions that are increasingly responsible, that take it upon themselves to hold sometimes vigourous debates with their members, that support the development of a business and of its management, that become key players in the process, and I could name of few, including in the port industry, these unions expect the other side to recognize them as a voice for the workers who fully take part in the development of a business. Unions expect to be recognized as such, including in the legal periods agreed upon for the renewal of collective agreements.

Thus, when we want to introduce, as is being done, principles of essential services, with which nobody can really disagree, but when on the other hand we do not guarantee unions that workers who are not unit members, the replacement workers, or ``scabs'' as they are commonly called, will not be prohibited, unions do not feel they are fully recognized. If follows therefore that the trust placed in them during the operation of the collective agreement would no

longer apply when the renewal period is legally recognized, at a time when a power struggle is actually going on. It is an economic power struggle, and this is the real factor that will bring about results on the workers' side, but also on the employer's side.

On the thorny issue of rail transportation, we have often seen employers resort to lockouts, whereas workers were willing to work night and day to ensure essential unloadings. They know they cannot do otherwise. However, it is important to know, when such provisions exist, that employers would not be allowed to sabotage the good management tool a responsible union becomes once a collective agreement is signed.

Let me tell you this: If employers think that, after having used replacement workers in time of strike, they can count on the co-operation of unions-not co-operation in the sense of their refusal to stand up for their members' interests, but in the sense of a refusal to get involved in the development of the business-they are mistaken.

I think the minister should understand that, in this regard, he cannot expect that employers would agree with anti-scab legislation. That would be asking them to deprive themselves of a powerful tool. Therefore, the minister must have the courage to give people in the workplace this tool, which is essential if a balance is to be struck.

(1115)

Let me to say that when the Parti Quebecois government passed its anti-scab bill in 1977, initially, there was a wave of protest. I can tell you that employers were praying for a change of government in 1985, when the Liberal government came to power. They wanted Mr. Bourassa to cancel the anti-scab legislation.

But what did Mr. Bourassa tell them? This quote comes from a publication called Les Affaires. Mr. Bourassa told them this: ``Look, now that social peace has been achieved, why would you want to upset it, and disrupt it?'' And Mr. Bourassa kept the anti-scab bill because it provided rules that allowed and even, to some extent, compelled the unions to be the responsible instruments we need.

We need workers who have authorized and democratic representatives to speak on their behalf and wield some power, and we need well managed businesses, where employers have the managing powers they need to expand and be profitable. There is no doubt about that.

I know that our time is limited but I wanted to stress this point, which, in my opinion, is a major one. This point is not only precise or limited. No. In spite of real the improvements this bill will make to the code, if this clause on legal replacement workers is maintained, I think the spirit of the code will not be what the minister is seeking.

As was so eloquently said by our critic, we will work very hard to help the minister make the changes that are desirable.

[English]

Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to speak in support of this bill. I begin by reinforcing what my colleagues have said about the fair and balanced nature of this legislation.

I come to this discussion with a unionist background, someone who has sat at the other side of the table. It is very important when we are having this kind of discussion to keep in mind that in fairness and in order to make a system work, there not only must be a perception of fairness and balance but there must be fairness and balance in essence.

As some in this House have already mentioned, the alternative is to be draconian, to not allow people the ability to pull their services and on the employer side to lock employees out. If we want to go to that extreme then it is not necessary to find a fine balance and to maintain the fairness which the Canada Labour Code has had for a number of years.

Before I get too far into my presentation I will suggest that what we see here today is a consensus that was arrived at between employers and employee groups across the nation. As the minister has already said, it may not be some grand scheme to totally reform the Canada Labour Code, but there are a number of steps and changes to improve the code, which is what this is all about.

This is good for Canadians and Canadian business. I will look at some of the ways the government's amendments will help the employers of Canada. From my perspective it would be very easy to spend my short time talking about the importance to labour but I will talk about the importance of these amendments for employers. If I can feel comfortable, I imagine a number of members would also feel comfortable. Before I do that, I would like to say a few words about the consultation process.

(1120)

This consultation process is one that a lot of members in this House, whether they are new or have been here for a number of terms, are always arguing; the Government of Canada or the provincial jurisdictions do not do enough.

One of the things that is unique in the labour field is that very little takes place without extensive consultation. The consultation process was actually initiated some two years ago when the government was made aware of the need for momentous changes

and the fact that it wanted to, because of the way the work force was evolving, make changes to the Canada Labour Code.

I am sure those in this House will not argue that there has not been consultation. The Sims task force was going across the country. The task force went to Halifax, Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa, Edmonton, Montreal and Winnipeg to meet with Canadians and to listen to their views. The task force also held academic round tables at the universities of Laval, Toronto and Calgary. Of course it met with numerous interested parties in informal meetings and received a great number of written submissions.

As we have heard in earlier speeches in this House, the task force set up a labour management working group and considered the recommendations of the industrial inquiry commission. I will not go into that because suffice it to say this group did a remarkable job and did it with a lot of determination.

It does not surprise me from my past background that the labour side of the discussions with employers and employees working together has always been through labour relations, its hallmark and the reason why the legislation that is now before us has been very effective over the years and of course will be more effective once the new amendments are in place.

At the end of its consultations the group presented its report entitled ``Seeking a Balance''. The task force's recommendations were based on four solid principles and I think we should keep these principles in mind.

First, that the existing Canada Labour Code basically continues to serve its constituents well. This obviously means that the economy will be moving along at a good clip and having some fairness and balance in the system for both employers and employees.

Second, stability is highly desirable and pendulum like changes in the code do not serve the best interests of the concerned parties or of the general public. That is really one of the major issues that the minister and the different consultation groups focused on during these discussions. It is not acceptable either from the right or left wing's perspective in this country to think that you can make major pendulum swings in that balance I was talking about. The balance is so narrow in its parameters that if you move too far one way or the other it makes for very difficult negotiations and discussions between the two parties.

If we were to do as some members have suggested across the way and remove the right to strike and have final offer arbitration, that of course is a form of getting where you want to go but it does necessitate making those dramatic pendulum swings that I was talking about which could cause some disruption to a very successful labour relations regime that we in Canada have grown accustomed to.

Third, that consensus between the parties is the best basis for legislative change. That goes back to the official opposition's interest and making changes where there is no consensus. If you do that you could be accused in this case of trying to drive a round peg in a square hole. If it does not fit too well, so be it; we are trying as politicians should to be leaders in a field and ahead of the public and ahead of the consensus that may evolve over time.

Do not get me wrong, I think quite frankly in Quebec there are certain parts of its labour code that are effective to that province and that particular society, and that is good. However, we are not dealing here with one province. We are dealing with a total nation, a very large piece of geography, and a number of other provinces.

(1125 )

We cannot take one specific issue in one specific province and try, as much as we might like to, to make it fit. It just does not work that way.

It is important to know that this piece of legislation and the amendments we are proposing are a consensus between the parties which, in labour relations, is a very smart thing to do indeed.

The fourth recommendation should be enactable, long lasting and based on the concept of volunteerism. I believe all will agree that these principles are well founded. It is easy to see why the task force was able to come up with recommendations that were endorsed by both business and labour groups.

Today we are talking about the support of these groups, business and labour, as though it were quite a common thing. We all know that is not true. Everyone knows that the aims of organized labour and management, job security on one side and the most effective use of human resources on the other, are difficult to reconcile. Anyone who has been involved, like I have, across a negotiating table will know that it is sometimes a miracle to see that we can get these kinds of agreements without all the difficulty that can occur.

Without going through a number of examples of some of the groups, I would like to mention why the government has introduced certain amendments. We understand that measures which help resolve labour disputes faster and in a more positive environment are good for employers, workers and all Canadians. What these particular amendments will do is streamline some of these aspects of the legislation.

On the amendments that address the bargaining cycle and how they benefit employers, a primary objective of this group of amendments is to reduce delays in the collective bargaining process. The benefit of accomplishing this should be clear to anyone. One amendment will allow a notice to bargain to be served within four months prior to the expiry of the collective agreement. At present it is three months.

The task force thought that an earlier opening date would be established to encourage earlier attention to collective bargaining and to give the parties enough time to conclude an agreement before the expiry of the previous one.

Another amendment will provide for a single stage conciliation process. Both labour and management question the effectiveness of the current system which can involve two stages and can take a long time to resolve disputes. Single stage conciliation is one of the points upon which labour-management working groups agreed.

I hope I get a chance to speak on that particular issue at a different reading because it is important to get into how the conciliation process works and how important it is to the Canada Labour Code and labour relations in Canada.

There is the need, under this section, for a secret ballot vote before workers are allowed to strike. This vote will have to be taken no more than 60 days before the right to strike is exercised. While most unions already hold such votes, the Canada Labour Code does not require it at present. The requirement to hold a strike vote no earlier than 60 days prior to strike action will ensure that the vote is less of a bargaining tactic to pressure employers with more of an authentic expression of the employees' wishes. I can say from experience that at times that could be a bargaining tool.

Before people get too far into these amendments they should spend some time with their local labour groups and get a feel for them. They will find that there is a consensus in these amendments.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to Bill C-66, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. As the minister was saying in his speech, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Canada Labour Code, which has not undergone an in-depth revision in more than 25 years. Therefore, it had to be modernized with a view to the future.

What is unfortunate is that, in the end, the government has come up with an incomplete reform. Certain important issues, which have been around for several years and are still of considerable interest, are not covered by this reform.

(1130)

Here, in this House, we studied two private members' bills to prohibit the use of replacement workers, and the number of members voting in favour of these bills went up each time. The last time, the number was almost sufficient for the bill to pass. However, in the government bill before us today, there are no concrete measures to prohibit the use of scabs.

It is even somewhat offensive, because instead of saying nothing about that, the bill contains measures that are a bit ridiculous. It says that employers who negotiate will be allowed to use replacement workers, whereas employers who do not negotiate will not be allowed to do so. Everybody knows that, in the world of labour relations, it is very easy to appear to negotiate.

Any employer can pretend that he is negotiating. He can show up every morning at the bargaining table without any progress ever being made. We must not forget that the Canada Labour Code applies to areas such as telecommunications, radio, broadcasting, international and interprovincial transportation, airports, air carriers, ports, long-shoring, grain transportation and banking. We all know the labour relations background of these industries, how they can treat people and the impact of technological change in these areas. It is very clear that, if the government does not change its position, it will be missing a crucial element of this reform, namely to have a bill that prohibits the use of scabs, like the one Quebec has had for 15 years.

Quebec's experience shows that there has been a very obvious improvement in labour relations and that this legislation preventing the hiring of strike breakers is an important contributing factor. The minister, who represents a Quebec riding, should have been more sensitive to the representations made, all the more so as the last strike at Ogilvie Mills in Montreal, which lasted almost two years, was primarily about this issue. He represents a riding almost next door to that company's location. Representations were made to all the present federal ministers with ridings in Quebec, and there was lobbying somewhere, and this is all the government can come up with. It is not delivering the goods.

Therefore, giving an employer the right to hire strike breakers if he negotiates is purely cosmetic and is not an acceptable solution. It is essential that this be re-worked in committee.

Another current issue, the right of RCMP officers to form a union, has often been raised here.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police have not always been good friends of Quebec's sovereignists. However, it is a police force that has duties to perform and that is entitled to a certain level of independence with respect to its employer in order to be able to carry out its work effectively. This demand has also been on the table for a number of years. There are practices that exist in labour relations with police forces in a number of Canadian provinces. Unions have been formed and are doing well, and labour relations are good. Here also, the federal government is sidestepping its intended reform.

The minister says there has been no reform for 25 years and that an overhaul is necessary. If we want an in-depth reform, we need to have these two elements at the outset, namely a provision prohibiting the hiring of scabs and the possibility for RCMP staff to become unionised.

There is another area where the minister has not listened to the recommendations made by the consultation committee. It is about appointments to the Canada Industrial Relations Board. Management as well as unions wanted board appointments based on lists proposed by management and union representatives.

Yet, the minister has left the door open to appointing people who might not meet with the approval of one of the parties involved in industrial relations but who might nevertheless meet with the approval of the Liberal Party of Canada, for example. At any rate, the minister is leaving a door open, is leaving some room for political manoeuvering, in short, for political appointments.

(1135)

I think the minister will have time to think about that. I hope the committee will, in its wisdom, add amendments to ensure that appointees are truly experts in the field, so that the Canada Industrial Relations Board will have a solid and enviable reputation for its competence and for the fact that its members truly represent the world of work meaning both employers and employees.

Unfortunately, in the first supposedly major reform in 25 years, we see no reference to preventive withdrawal for pregnant women. In Quebec, those measures already exist and have been in effect for a number of years.

Here, in Canada, there is no mention of this at all. However, there are sectors where the number of female workers is very significant and where working conditions may be difficult. More and more new technologies are being used, and often their impact is not sufficiently known. We cannot afford to put a pregnant woman or her child at risk. This is not an area where we can proceed by trial and error.

I think that, considering the level of our modern technologies, society in Canada and Quebec should be just as innovative in the way it treats workers. As far as preventive withdrawal for pregnant women is concerned, I hope that in committee, the government will improve on its proposals to reform of the Canada Labour Code. I hope various groups will make representations and persuade the government to change some of its positions and be sensitive to certain arguments, including this one, and to understand the relevance of taking action.

I think the women of Canada would be grateful to the government if they saw this provision added to the bill, and it is quite surprising that the present government has failed to understand the relevance of making changes of this kind for the entire sector regulated by the Canada Labour Code.

In concluding, I may say that the Canada Labour Code is another flagrant example of the fact that jurisdictions in Canada are unnecessarily fuzzy. Within the same province, some people come under the Quebec Labour Code and some people under the Canada Labour Code. There is no similarity between the two. In Quebec, under working conditions which should be the same, some workers will not be covered under the antiscab legislation while others will be because they come under the Quebec Labour Code. This situation makes no sense to me.

This is the result of the implementation of the Canadian Constitution through the years without any amendment or improvement, and today we have two classes of citizens and double standards. This means that some workers come under a provincial code which is closer to the people-the government is more in touch with reality, more aware of certain issues such as the protective re-assignment of pregnant workers. The fact that it has been responsible for the implementation of social legislation might have heightened its sensitivity. It might also be due to the kind of governments we have had since it is indeed an area where Quebec has been ahead for a long time.

Last week, we celebrated the 20th anniversary of the Parti Quebecois. Obviously it implemented a wide range of measures with positive results. To conclude, I will say that the opportunity is still there for the Government of Canada to get with it and bring about its reform.

We do not proceed with a reform of the Canada Labour Code every year, in fact there had not been one in 25 years, therefore the Canadian government should do its job in committee. To conclude, I will repeat what I believe to be the four major points: make sure effective antiscab measures are in place; allow the appointment of members to the Canada Labour Relations Board from lists provided by those involved; take measures providing for the protective re-assignment of pregnant women; and, as a whole, see to it that measures which will be taken will ensure that we have a real Canada Labour Code in the years to come.

Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is also with great pleasure that I support the motion to refer Bill C-66 to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development.

(1140)

This committee stage will be the last step in a long series of consultations that were held across Canada on this bill which updates the Canada Labour Code.

I believe the labour minister clearly demonstrated how seriously he took this reform. He also showed some remarkable qualities as a conciliator and a unifier. His objective was a balanced, fair and

equitable reform. He certainly reached this objective since all the parties involved largely approved the bill.

Of course, all the parties would have liked the minister to totally support their own position, and many will go before the committee to seek amendments in their favour. It is normal, predictable and quite in line with the political and parliamentary tradition of this country.

However, all those who participated in the numerous consultations on the reform said they were satisfied that the minister had respected the consensus reached by the parties. I am not surprised. I know the labour minister is a man of his word who says what he means and does what he says.

I am happy that others have now discovered his great qualities. Under the circumstances, it is rare for labour and management to agree on something, particularly on the qualities of a labour minister.

Naturally, the Bloc Quebecois members maintain that the minister did not go far enough, that he should have adopted the unions' position with his eyes closed. Once again, the Bloc Quebecois members are lapsing into excess and abuse. It is always all or nothing. They cannot find a middle ground or reach a consensus.

Let us take for example the clause of the bill dealing with replacement workers. The Bloc is saying: ``We must do what is done in Quebec, ban them entirely''. Indeed, in the 1970s, the Quebec government passed legislation banning replacement workers. The economic and social context in 1996, on the eve of the next millennium, is quite different from what it was 20 years ago, and businesses are restructuring. They must face competition not only from other Canadian businesses, but also from competitors all over the world. In many cases, unfortunately, this results in hundreds of lay-offs.

We are no longer in the era of all or nothing draconian solutions. The labour minister understood that well and wants to modernize the Labour Code to ensure that everyone has rights and that the parties seek to resolve their disputes before resorting to a strike or a lockout.

If Bloc members look closely at Bill C-66, they will see that everything has been provided to rationalize procedures and to allow the parties to talk to each other, to resolve disputes among themselves or to call upon the Canada Industrial Relations Board to assist them. It is in this perspective that the minister has provided that, under normal circumstances, employers will have the right to use replacement workers during a legal work stoppage.

However, the minister did not want to leave workers without any resources, which is why his formula is so brilliant in my opinion. Should an employer use replacement workers to undermine the union's capacity to ensure proper representation, this would be perceived as an unfair practice, thus warranting the referral of the matter to the board.

If, after reviewing the case, the board determines that the employer's action does constitute an unfair labour practice, the board will now have the power to ban the use of replacement workers for the duration of the dispute. That is what I call an articulate and modern position suited to the working world of the year 2000. Employers have rights, and so do the workers.

In addition, the minister proposed other amendments which complement this important measure and give it even more value. First, he restructured the board. In the future, the new Canada Industrial Relations Board will be composed of a chairperson and neutral vice-chairpersons appointed by the government. Each case heard by the new board will be presided over by one of its neutral vice-chairpersons.

(1145)

Unlike its predecessor, this will be a representational board made up of an equal number of members representing employers and employees. This was not the case in the past. In the future, both employees and employers will have a say. They will be able to take an active part in the board's decision making process. For me this is a major step forward and the Bloc members should at least recognize it for what it is.

Also, Bill C-66 sets out a new procedure to be followed before a work stoppage. The notice to bargain may be served four months ahead instead of three months, to give the parties more time to discuss and reach an agreement. A secret vote on any planned work stoppage must be held within 60 days of a strike or lockout. Again, the government wants the parties to fully realize the importance of such action and not make any rash decisions.

[English]

Another major amendment proposes that workers who have been on strike or locked out will be first in line for their old jobs. It is important for employees to know that once a work stoppage has ended, no one else will be able to take their jobs. In a nutshell, I believe workers have made important gains with this reform, and they are well aware of this.

[Translation]

I find it unfortunate that Bloc members act as the unconditional mouthpieces of unions. As the fine representatives of all the people who elected them, including employers, I believe they should make allowances and not see everything in black and white. Above all, they should support the fair and balanced bill the Minister of Labour has put before us. I urge them to think about all this.

They could take advantage of the standing committee meetings to ask the minister any question they may have. I hope that, when

Bill C-66 comes back to us, they will agree to support this excellent reform of the Canada Labour Code.

Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-66, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, which was tabled by the labour minister on November 4. This legislation implements reforms to the collective bargaining provisions of part I of the Canada Labour Code, which govern federally legislated private sector employers and unions.

The key components of this reform are: the creation of the Canada industrial relations board, with extensive powers; changes to the conciliation process; the establishment of the rights and obligations of the parties during a work stoppage; the requirement to continue essential services during a conflict; making the undermining of a trade union's representational capacity during a strike or lockout an unfair labour practice; improving access to collective bargaining for off-site workers; and a requirement to maintain services affecting grain shipments, in the event of a work stoppage.

I have many criticisms regarding this bill, but for now I will only deal with the issue of replacement workers. Clause 42 prohibits the use of replacement workers only when an employer uses them for the purpose of undermining a trade union's representational capacity. For example, if an employer refuses to negotiate while using replacement workers at the same time, the new Canada industrial relations board could prohibit such a practice.

However, a company merely has to negotiate with the union, even if only for the sake of it, to avoid this prohibition and continue to use scabs. It is inadmissible. It will be difficult, if not impossible, to demonstrate that this unfair practice seeks to undermine a trade union's representational capacity. In most cases, the conflict will have been resolved without such a practice being confirmed.

(1150)

The basic principles of our collective labour relations system make it clearly illegitimate to hire replacement workers during a strike or a lock-out. This practice brings intruders into a dispute affecting exclusively two clearly identified parties, throws off the balance of power, and curtails the freedom of expression of strikers.

The rationale of economic pressure is that the loss of salary will be an incitement for the workers to be cautious and accept a settlement as soon as possible. It should be the same for the employer. At any rate, there is no comparison between the day to day economic hardship of strikers and that of an employer who can keep the production going with the help of management workers.

During a strike, employees can go into debt for a long time and jeopardize their professional career, not to mention their financial problems. During my long experience in the labour movement, I witnessed some tragic situations in this regard.

When an employer hires replacement workers, strikers have an immediate gut reaction of utter frustration. They feel personally targeted. They see this practice as unfair. The focus of the conflict shifts from working conditions to the hiring of scabs and job stealers. That frustration brings a degree of harshness into the conflict. That gut reaction of strikers is all the more serious since employment has become such a challenging problem in our society. Therefore, the use of replacement workers has a very negative impact on the strikers' behaviour.

Organized labour is very disappointed by the fact that the government has not totally prohibited the use of scabs in its amendments to the Canada Labour Code. Nancy Riche, Executive Vice-President of the Canadian Labour Congress, has condemned the government for once again not taking this opportunity to put an end to confrontation in the event of a strike or a lockout.

Clément Godbout, president of the FTQ, also complains that nothing in this bill prohibits the hiring of scabs. The FTQ represents almost 100,000 salaried employees under federal jurisdiction.

On October 22, I introduced Bill C-338 to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act. The purpose of this bill is to prohibit the use of replacement workers during a strike or a lockout, as is currently done in Quebec and in British Columbia.

The bill also contains provisions to ensure that essential services are maintained during a labour dispute. It is also aimed at maintaining a balance between the negotiating parties in order to shorten labour disputes and avert violence. My bill will affect some 700,000 Canadian workers under federal jurisdiction.

By introducing Bill C-338, I fulfilled a commitment I made to Canadian and Quebec workers. I think anti-scab measures are urgently needed.

(1155)

I urge the numerous Liberal members who, in the past, supported this kind of measure to exert pressure on the labour minister and their government. For once, the government should listen to the demands of the unions in this area. The Bloc Quebecois and I will pursue our efforts until legislation to prohibit the hiring of replacement workers is passed.

Earlier, I was listening to the labour minister who said that the absence of a consensus between the unions and management led him to decide not to include real anti-scab provisions. Such an excuse is unacceptable. There will never be a consensus in this regard. The government should have the fortitude to made such important and crucial decisions, as the Quebec government did in

1977. The measures taken at the time by the Quebec government are now instrumental in settling labour disputes as soon as possible.

I must say that I am also disappointed to note that the bill does not include any provision concerning the precautionary cessation of work for pregnant women. In Quebec, for instance, pregnant women are protected by the Act Respecting Occupational Health and Safety. However, Quebec women working for the federal government are not covered by this important provision.

I also regret that the bill introduced by the minister does not give RCMP employees the right to negotiate their working conditions through collective bargaining. I have a lot of reservations about this bill. We will have the time to express our concerns in committee and then to debate the issue in the House at third reading.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in support of Bill C-66. I would like to address my remarks to one aspect of the bill, that portion which deals with replacement workers.

When looking back over the union movement, at the turn of the century we see it starting with the sense that workers should receive fair value for their labour. As time went on the union movement in Britain, Europe, the United States and Canada grew stronger and stronger, particularly in the post-war period, after the second world war.

In the 1970s and 1980s the driving force of unionism transposed from this desire to have a value for labour-full value for the labour that the worker put in-to something that was a little bit more, the principle that the worker should share in the profits of the company.

In my own view, consequently what happened with organized labour, certainly in the 1970s and 1980s, was a sense that if unionized workers were employed by a company that was doing very well in the market then they bargained for higher and higher wages and benefits. I do not think that any of us would quarrel very much with that in principle. It seems reasonable that if the work force is very much a part of a company, it should benefit just as shareholders do when a company does well.

However, times change and sometimes they change very rapidly. In the late 1980s and coming into the 1990s we have seen the phenomenon of the global markets. First was North American free trade and now certainly a very strong trend to world free trade. This is a change in the situation with respect to countries like Canada in terms of their relationship with their work forces.

(1200 )

It now becomes imperative, if a country's industries are going to compete on the world stage, that they be cost efficient, especially in the area of labour. Thus we find the situation where, particularly in the United States, for example, the union movement is under assault simply because the average American worker, particularly the unskilled labourer, is in direct competition with the workers of Mexico, the Far East and other places.

We have two trends running here. We came out of the eighties with the desire to give unionized workers a greater share in the earned benefits of a company and then the contrary pressure that companies have to be more and more competitive.

In 1993 the Ontario government introduced legislation that banned the use of replacement workers. This legislation was a logical evolution in the union movement. It gave more power to the unions and better guarantees to workers that they would share in the profits of the company.

This law was too late. It was behind its time. By 1993 it was very clear to anyone who was interested in business, finance and watching world markets that this law, which the New Democratic government in Ontario had passed, was not in the best interests of the Ontario economy being able to compete in other markets.

There was quite a bit of resistance at the time the legislation was introduced and considerable resistance thereafter. There was a simple reason for this. I can cite from my own experience in the communications industry that technology had created a situation where replacement workers in the high tech industries could be recruited from home. They could actually operate from their homes rather than go to an office. The whole idea of banning replacement workers made it very difficult for high tech companies to create an environment where they could use workers who were no longer on the premises but were operating outside of the city where the company was located.

In the high tech area the ban on replacement workers had a very negative consequence to the competitive position of high tech industries in Ontario. Because it gave such clout to organized labour, it was a threat to those companies which sought to renegotiate contracts to bring the level of remuneration to the workers down to a level that was more competitive in the world markets in which they had to compete.

When the new Conservative government was elected in Ontario one of the first things it did was repeal that legislation. I am not entirely in agreement with what the Ontario government did. I believe that even though we have these pressures from world markets on organized labour, we as Canadians and as politicians have a basic responsibility to defend the traditions of organized labour.

In the final analysis, organized labour fights for the rights of workers. We have every reason to want to see, when these terrible pressures come to bear on organized labour, that it does not ultimately collapse under the pressures, as indeed is happening in the United States. The union movement in the United States is

undergoing severe changes. Its influence and size is reducing very rapidly.

Bill C-66 addresses the problem of replacement workers. There was a very excellent report entitled ``Seeking a Balance''. It reviewed the Canada Labour Code. I commend this document to people who are interested in the economic situation vis-à-vis labour unions in Canada. It is an excellent review and an excellent analysis.

(1205 )

It addresses the problem where corporations have the desire to break unions because of market forces. This tempts companies to confront labour unions and to even lock them out. Then there is the danger of very bitter and brutal strikes and ultimately the destruction of particular unions. Because there is so much labour in the marketplace, it is a real danger that companies can replace the unionized workforce with scab labour. That is not a good thing either.

Instead of banning replacement workers entirely, as was done in 1993 in Ontario, and as laws exist right now in British Columbia and Quebec, Bill C-66 provides that a company facing strike action can bring replacement workers on board for the duration of the strike as long as it is made very clear that it is not trying to do so as an attempt to break the union.

After the labour dispute has been settled, Bill C-66 requires a company that has used replacement workers to hire back the unionized employees. That avoids a situation where a company may deliberately try to break a strike by using replacement workers and then hiring the replacement workers after the strike.

The legislation takes a very positive step in addressing the conflicting pressures of the union movement that is faced with these overwhelming global market pressures which try to reduce the effectiveness of the unions.

This is the kind of balance that the Liberal government in its wisdom is able to strike between the very conservative political right which would see the elimination of most labour unions and the very left of the left, the left wing of the spectrum which has over past years created a situation where unions have more power than is in the interests of Canada's competitive situation. I really endorse that aspect.

I would like to add one other remark about a very positive aspect of the legislation. It addresses a past problem involving grain handling at our ports. Situations have arisen in the past where the country was literally held to ransom when our ports were shut down, not by the transportation unions alone, but by affiliated unions, some very small unions on occasion, that have set up picket lines. Of course other union organizations respect these picket lines and on occasion it led to the paralysis of our ability move valuable commodities.

The provision in the bill which limits the right to strike, to paralyze ports, to those unions directly engaged in that form of activity is a very positive one.

I hope that members on all sides of the House will see fit to support the bill. It is a very good bill.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Madam Speaker, labour ministers have been coming and going for three years, and they have all promised us a renewed Canada Labour Code. It was supposed to be a little marvel.

Well, a few weeks ago, the minister finally delivered this little marvel. The bill is not all bad, but it certainly is no marvel. Some aspects of the bill are what we could call an improvement, but others are deficient. Let us look first at something that I have noticed as being a small improvement.

(1210)

I am talking here about the recognition of the family residence as a place of work. We have to live in 1996. We are approaching the 21st century. Things have changed and it has become normal. It is a good thing that the government has thought of including this in the Canada Labour Code. Such a decision must have been inspired by certain speeches from members of the Bloc Quebecois.

It is important that the Canada Labour Code create a balance of power. I was listening to my colleagues opposite who were praising the newly tabled bill. They were saying that, finally, there was a balance of power, continually claiming that the balance that existed before had even been improved.

A few moments ago, when talking about the antiscab legislation in Quebec, a member even said that it was out of date, that we had to live in 1996 and that the labour environment had changed. It is sad to hear these kinds of things. We know that the antiscab legislation has been in force in Quebec since 1977 and that this province keeps getting good results with regard to the length and the contents of negotiations.

Everybody is happy, including unions and management, because strikes do not last as long. Everybody is happy. We must not forget that, when there is a strike, there is a picket line, of course, but these people on the picket line have families, spouses, children. Families are affected by a strike, and the impact then extends to businesses, services, etc.

I will not enumerate all those affected by a strike, but the impact goes far beyond the striking workers. It is often said that they are spoiled children earning $12 an hour who want $13 and therefore go on strike for 6 months. It is much more than that. People who go on strike are seeking a better quality of life.

A strike is a balance of power. If provisions are not added to the Canada Labour Code prohibiting replacement workers, it is a sign that the balance of power is being ignored, that it is acceptable for one of the parties to be stronger than the other.

And then they wonder why there is violence on picket lines, why people are frustrated. When there is no balance of power, people are frustrated. It is only normal, people are like that. In a nutshell, the Liberal government's complete lack of will to ban replacement workers is the most important weakness in this reform. It is obvious that there is no will to do anything about the issue. I will come back to this later.

Another aspect not often mentioned is the minister's powers. The Sims report recommended taking away some of the minister's powers, but this bill adds to them instead. In addition to some fifteen possible interventions by the minister in the bargaining process, another one is added: the power to order a union to hold a vote on the employer's latest offers. Nobody else, just the union. This is interference in the administration of the central labour body affected by the conflict. In my opinion, this is really biased. It comes close to being-I will not use the word-but I will say that it is biased, to be very nice.

Where does it say in the Canada Labour Code that the minister can force a company to act on sincere offers from the union? The underlying theme is always that the union is dishonest. It may well happen that a union is dishonest. An employer could be as well, but there is still a marked imbalance here.

(1215)

I am afraid I am running out of time, so I will concentrate on my next point, which is that the minister denied a request by the Public Service Alliance of Canada to be regulated by the Canada Labour Code and not by the Public Service Staff Relations Act. We could also add the RCMP, the only police force in this country-and there are a lot of people in this country, 27 million-which does not have the right to unionize. Talk about image! Their horses might have a better chance of joining a union than they would. This does not make sense. After all, this is 1996.

Earlier, I heard members say that in 1977, Quebec's legislation was rather obsolete. I just want to read to you a recommendation concerning Canada Post. As you know, negotiations are taking place at this time. Now this is what could happen without anti-scab provisions. ``Recommendation No. 15, that if the collective bargaining process does not produce the necessary adjustments without interruption of service-I am talking about postal services-the government be prepared to take appropriate steps to protect the immediate public interest and ensure the long term financial viability of a strategically repositioned Canada Post Corporation''.

Adding this to the Canada Labour Code means that Canada Post could hire scabs at any time, and we know what the consequences have been in the past. It is a mystery to me why they still fail to understand the risks involved in hiring scabs. But Recommendation No. 15 is clear: if you do not accept, we have the right to hire scabs, and we will. This is highly unusual.

One last point, because I know my time is running out. Right next door we have Bradson Mercantile which provides security services for the government in buildings scattered all over Hull and Ottawa. Its employees are now on strike. Scabs were hired to replace them. So what happened recently? It is just not done, but I feel I must tell you about it. Employees attended a meeting where they were told that a vote would be held to find out whether they were in favour of going back to work. And imagine, 30 scabs were there to vote as well. Seventeen people voted in favour of going back to work.

This means that some scabs voted against these people going back to work. That is what can happen under the Canada Labour Code when there is no anti-scab bill. Of course these scabs voted against the employees' going back to work, as their livelihoods depend on the lack of an agreement between the parties. They came to influence the vote because if the other people went back to work and the dispute was resolved, they would lose their jobs. So they took part in the vote. This is serious.

The government turns a blind eye to this kind of abuse, as far as the Canada Labour Code is concerned, to allow workers to establish what the hon. member for Mercier referred to earlier as ``l'équilibre des forces''. It should not be a privilege but a right. Fairness and balance should be what the Canada Labour Code is all about. But it is not, and there are many cases of abuse like the examples I just gave you and those my colleagues gave you this morning.

In concluding, I am disappointed because of certain shortcomings in the Canada Labour Code.

(1220)

[English]

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Madam Speaker, today I would like to discuss the proposed amendments to part I of the Canada Labour Code and how important they are to the workers they apply to. These amendments as outlined in Bill C-66 will have some enduring benefits to this important player, the employee, in the rapidly changing labour scenario.

The amendments are based on recommendations made by the task force on the review of the Canada Labour Code. In its report, ``Seeking a Balance'', the task force strove to find a balance between competing interests including those of labour and management.

The amendments we are discussing today serve to update the existing federal labour law and in no way radically alter the existing Canada Labour Code. Yet they will, I believe, serve the interests of working Canadians.

Part I of the Canada Labour Code applies to the approximately 700,000 workers and their employers in the federal private sector. These include the men and women who serve in our banks, keep our airlines safe and punctual, and physically move our volumes of grain exports on to the ships that come in for example to Halifax harbour. They are part of the group of workers who keep this country moving.

What are the concerns of this important group of workers? Apart from some issues specific to the particular industries they work for, their requirements as employees are no different from those of other industries and other employees. For instance, they want stability. They want to be able to exercise some of their democratic rights, such as the right to organize. They want to be able to have their voices heard in the workplace to ensure their viewpoints are heard and understood. These are factors central to the amendments.

One thing that will not change with these amendments is the continuing ability to engage in collective bargaining. It is an essential that has to remain. This right of workers and employers to organize and bargain collectively is central to any democratic society with a market based economy.

I am reminded of the book The Company Store which is well known in my area of the country. It talks about how in the 1920s the workers in the coal mines of Cape Breton were treated terribly by the coal mining companies, like Dominion Coal Company. It gives a very strong case for why we do need to have collective bargaining in our country and why workers' rights are so important to defend.

There may be those who feel at times that the unions today have become very strong, but if we look at the history we can see why we have to have the collective bargaining process. It is important that workers' rights be protected.

Collective bargaining is fundamental to the Canada Labour Code. For employees it ensures they get a fair and adequate reward for their labour and that they are able to participate as equals in determining policies that affect them in direct and significant ways.

Our existing collective bargaining system has served Canada well. Both employees and employers said that to the task force. It is our expectation that these amendments will allow it to continue to enhance co-operation between and among the respective parties.

Some of the key amendments that will be important to the employee include the following:

There is the establishment of a representational Canada industrial relations board. The chairperson and vice-chairpersons of this new board will be neutral and it will include equal representation of employees and employers. This will make the board more responsive to the community it is intended to serve. Formerly the Canada Labour Relations Board was non-representational. This new development will reflect more accurately the changing face of the Canadian workforce.

The board's remedial powers will be expanded to ensure good faith bargaining. The board will be given the power and the flexibility to deal quickly with routine or urgent matters.

Proposed amendments are also aimed at speeding up certification and decertification processes. They will protect employee rights where there is a change from provincial to federal jurisdiction.

Currently the code does not provide for continued recognition of bargaining agents and collective agreements in cases where a contract for services is transferred to a new employer as a result of contract re-tendering. This has resulted in the loss of remuneration and employment at the end of each contract period for workers employed by contractors in the air transport sector, which is important for instance at Halifax international airport in my riding of Halifax West. Many of the workers in the air transport sector are women and immigrants. Such successive contractors would now be required to pay employees equivalent remuneration. This is a very important amendment.

(1225 )

This proposal intends to deter competition based on who can pay the lowest wages. This will create a level playing field for contractors whose employees are unionized with those who are not, and it will help to reduce turnover rates, an important consideration for all of us in these challenging times. I know even here we are concerned about turnover rates.

With the growth of non-standard employment in Canada, particularly home based employment, attention has to be paid to ensuring that these workers are also a party to the benefits of collective bargaining. Most home based workers are women. It is estimated that two-thirds of home based workers are employed by an organization located elsewhere.

While the home based work arrangement has advantages for many people, others find themselves in a vulnerable situation unable to acquire the traditional employment benefits. For this reason we have included amendments proposing that the board have the discretion to grant an authorized representative of a labour

union a list of the names and addresses of employees who normally work in locations other than the employer's premises.

The union will therefore have access to off site employees on the condition that the privacy and security of off site workers are protected. The industrial relations board can indicate conditions and in a particular case for instance can say: ``We are going to give you this kind of information so you can access the people using a way that is suitable in the circumstances so that the privacy and security of the people in their homes are protected''.

As the minister said in his speech, one of his main goals was to bring an orderly process to industrial relations in Canada. Therefore some amendments clarify the rights and obligations of the parties during a legal work stoppage. The use of replacement workers during a legal strike has always been a very contentious issue. For as long as I can recall, labour and management have held opposite positions on this issue.

Not surprisingly, the consultation process did not succeed in reaching a consensus on replacement workers. This split appeared also in the Sims task force where a member tabled a minority report. In the end the minister and the government had to decide, and they did. They chose a moderate, fair and equitable formula based on the good faith of the parties.

There is no general edict forbidding the use of replacement workers during a legal strike. However their use for the purpose of undermining a union's representative capacity would be considered as an unfair labour practice. The union can refer the case to the Canada industrial relations board. If the board determines a violation has occurred, it can order the employer to stop using replacements for the duration of the dispute.

The amendments also confirm the right of employees in the bargaining unit who are on strike or locked out to resume employment following a work stoppage in preference to any persons hired to replace them. Another critical feature for employees is that they will be entitled to maintain insurance and benefits programs during work stoppages.

These then are some of the key amendments that will affect workers under part I of the labour code. The legislation also addresses management's interest and is indeed fair and balanced in its approach and aims. Its aim of enhanced co-operation should lead to improved productivity, better job security and increased worker participation in workplace decisions. This is good for Canadian workers and it is good for Canada.

Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-66 which amends the Canada Labour Code. This is a fair, balanced and extremely credible piece of legislation and I am proud to support it.

Bill C-66 is the culmination of extensive consultations with interested parties across Canada. Public consultations began about two years ago with preliminary discussions with the labour movement and business groups. These discussions identified major areas of agreement and disagreement concerning possible amendments to part I of the Canada Labour Code. Following these preliminary discussions, a task force of exceptionally able and credible labour relations experts was established to examine part I of the code and to make recommendations to the minister.

(1230 )

The task force was led by Andrew Sims, QC, and its other members were Paula Knopf and Rodrigue Blouin. The task force held public consultations in Halifax, Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa, Edmonton, Montreal and Winnipeg. More than 90 written submissions were received from close to 50 groups and individuals, including the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Federation of Labour, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Federally Regulated Employers group.

In most of the cities it visited, the task force also met informally with labour lawyers and labour law administrators. The task force held full day meetings at the universities of Laval, Toronto and Calgary which provided academic experts in labour law and administration an opportunity to express their opinions.

The task force also benefited from the work of the labour-management consensus group made up of representatives from the Canadian Labour Congress, the Confederation of National Trade Unions, the Canadian Federation of Labour, the Federally Regulated Employers-Transportation and Communication, the Western Grain Elevator Association and the Canadian Bankers' Association. The work of this group was important in identifying issues and areas in which consensus was possible.

The task force produced its report, including extensive recommendations, early this year. A final round of consultations involved meetings the minister held in April with representatives of labour, management and other groups in Vancouver, Regina, St. John's, Montreal, Toronto and Ottawa. These meetings gave the minister a chance to hear in person reactions to the recommendations of the task force.

An important conclusion of the Sims task force was that the Canada Labour Code is generally accepted by the labour and management groups as a viable framework which has facilitated collective bargaining in the federally regulated private sector. The workplace to which the code applies has been subject to a number of significant changes in recent years, however.

Privatization of government services has meant the transfer of some jobs to the private sector regulated by the code. Deregulation policies such as open skies and the elimination of the Crow rate

have changed the conditions of the competition in a number of industries regulated by the code.

This had a direct impact on collective bargaining as unions and management have realized that a work stoppage can have a serious impact on market share and profitability. Changes in trade policies, the adoption of new technologies and changing market conditions have also had significant effects on federally regulated private sectors.

In the face of these changes, unions have generally been on the defensive, employers have pressed for industrial change and the very existence of collective bargaining has come under some scrutiny.

I reject the view that collective bargaining is no longer relevant. Canada has benefited greatly from the collective bargaining process. The freedom of workers and employers to organize and bargain collectively is a cornerstone of our democratic, market based society. It is the means by which labour rates are fairly established. It ensures stability, predictability and efficiency. In times of dramatic economic change, globalization and new trading blocs, an efficient, effective and a responsive collective bargaining system is essential.

I believe that we are beginning to see a new level of co-operation between management and labour. We are seeing the flattening of organizations and the emergence of new styles of negotiation. The members of the Sims task force recognized that if such co-operation is to grow a balance must be found between a number of competing objectives. A balance must be found between social and economic goals. Work is a form of personal expression and a source of social security. Yet many businesses continue to export jobs in pursuit of profits. A balance must also be found between instruments of labour policy. Protection of freedom of association, for example, must be balanced against property rights. A balance must be found between rights and responsibilities.

(1235 )

While our system of collective bargaining conveys certain rights to management and labour it is also based on the expectation that labour and management will meet their responsibility to bargain fairly and in good faith.

Finally, a balance must be found between collective bargaining and public interest.

Bill C-66 is a balanced and fair piece of legislation which takes these dramatic changes into account, which recognizes the need to balance competing objectives and which will ensure that the code continues to operate effectively into the next century.

I would like to use the rest of my time to focus on aspects of the legislation which would include efficient administration of part I of the code.

Bill C-66 would significantly improve administration of part I of the code by restructuring the Canada Labour Relations Board. The non-representational CLRB would be replaced with the representational Canada industrial relations board. The new board would be made up of a neutral chair and vice-chairs with equal number of board members representing labour and management groups.

This would increase the confidence of those appearing before the board that their case is fully understood and properly reviewed. Decisions made by the board, especially those involving the exercise of the board's discretion, would be more credible in the eyes of both labour and management.

The appointment of part time regional members who are representative of labour and management will significantly improve the cost effectiveness of the board, give the board access to the expertise of persons who are active in labour relations and improve links between the board and the labour relations community.

Measures to reorganize the board contained in Bill C-66 would also make it more flexible, allowing it to respond more quickly to both routine and emergency issues. Rather than a three member panel, for example, a single vice-chair would be able to resolve some cases. In some cases such as preliminary motions or requests for the extension of time limits this simply makes sense. Access to the board would be enhanced by a repeal of the provision that requires parties to obtain ministerial consent before filing an allegation of bad faith bargaining. This would be particularly significant in cases where an immediate board hearing is needed to break a deadlock in negotiations.

Bill C-66 would give grievance arbitrators a number of important new procedural powers. This is necessity because the arbitration process has become more and more complex. The amendments will make the arbitration process more flexible and efficient and are an important step in ensuring that grievance arbitration is reserved for the resolution of disputes that parties cannot resolve on their own.

(1240 )

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I am sorry, but your time has expired.

Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Call in the members.

The vote on the motion stands deferred until tomorrow after Government Orders.

* * *

JUDGES ACT

Hon. Douglas Peters (for Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) moved:

That the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-42, an act to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to another act, be now read the second time and concurred in.

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the motion that this House give second reading to and concur in the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-42, an act to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to another act.

As hon. members will recall, Bill C-42 received third reading in this Chamber on June 18, 1996. In the Senate the government moved and the Senate agreed to an amendment to one clause of the bill, clause 5, which was passed by this House. It was a provision of general application regarding international activities of federally appointed judges.

The original purpose of the clause was to clarify the terms on which judges could engage in activities abroad, such as technical assistance projects in developing countries. It would have changed the existing law by allowing judges who participated in such activities, with the authorization of Canada, to receive expenses directly from an international organization.

The original clause 5 would also have established a framework within which judges could, with the authorization of Canada, work for an international organization of states or an institution thereof. Such a judge could, with the approval of the governor in council and after consultation with the chairman of the Canadian Judicial Council, request a leave of absence without pay in order to be paid directly by the international organization.

During the consideration of Bill C-42 in the Senate certain concerns were expressed about the implications for judicial independence of certain aspects of clause 5. It became evident that to obtain passage of the bill without further delay, the government had to agree to amend clause 5 to restrict its application to one specific case, that of Madam Justice Louise Arbour.

(1245 )

As hon. members will recall, Madam Justice Arbour of the Ontario Court of Appeal had been appointed by unanimous resolution of the United Nations Security Council following the recommendation of the UN secretary-general to the position of chief prosecutor of the United Nations war crimes tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. For independence reasons the UN insists that the chief prosecutor not receive his or her salary and expenses from a member state but instead directly from the United Nations.

Clause 5, as passed by the House in June, reflected sound policy and practical considerations and fully respected the principle of judicial independence. By moving an amendment to clause 5 in the Senate, the government did not accept that the arguments of those who said that clause 5 as originally worded would have threatened judicial independence.

The government moved its amendment for the sole and simple reason that it saw no other way to proceed quickly with the bill. The Senate's amendment to clause 5 would specifically authorize Madam Justice Arbour alone to take a leave of absence for the purpose of serving as the chief prosecutor of the UN war crimes tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

It would also permit her to elect to leave without pay and to receive salary and expenses directly from the UN in connection with her service as the chief prosecutor. In other words, by this amendment, clause 5 would cease to be a general amendment to cover the use of Canadian judges for international activities.

I would add that while the Canadian Judicial Council would have preferred to see the passage of clause 5 as originally approved by the House, the council has no objection to the amended version of this clause.

Bill C-42 would permit Madam Justice Arbour to respond to the request of the United Nations secretary-general and the security council to take on an international assignment of enormous importance to the world at large. They are counting on Canada to undertake the necessary measures to allow her to serve in accordance with reasonable and understandable needs of the UN.

Certainly all Canadians can be proud that one of our citizens, one of our judges, is representing this country and indeed the world at large in such an important forum. Therefore, I urge hon. members to approve the Senate's amendment to clause 5 of Bill C-42 as quickly as possible.

All other aspects of Bill C-42 as passed by the House in June remain unchanged. The bill would transfer from cabinet to chief justices the authority to approve judicial leaves of absence of up to six months as recommended by the last two triennial commissions on judges' salaries and benefits and endorsed by the Canadian Judicial Council.

The bill recognizes the importance of the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada by including the chief justice of that court on the membership of the Canadian Judicial Council and authorizes the payment of a modest accountable representational allowance of up to $5,000 per year to the head of that court.

The chief justices of the courts of appeal of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories would also be granted similar representational allowances.

Bill C-42 would also permit the appointments of up to three additional judges Canada-wide to the provincial courts of appeal which have been experiencing increasing workloads and backlogs over the past number of years.

It is the minister's stated opinion to recommend that two of these new appointments be made to the British Columbia Court of Appeal which needs more judges to deal with its workload and one to the Ontario Court of Appeal to replace Madam Justice Arbour.

(1250)

Finally, the bill would correct some of the technical errors and clarify some ambiguous language that exists in the Judges Act. Therefore, I call on all hon. members to support these changes to the Judges Act.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on this bill as official opposition justice critic, given that Bill C-42 has already been debated in this House and sent subsequently to the Senate. It has been returned to this House as the result of certain changes the Senate wanted to see in the bill.

I think that, to properly understand the full implications of the changes proposed by the Senate, we must at least look to see whether the bill initially met certain requirements and whether it followed due legislative process: that is, first, second and third reading.

Did the government, the official opposition and the third party seriously vet this bill to see if it required changing? Was Bill C-42 studied in committee? Was each clause studied by the parliamentary committee of members elected to this House? Was it passed at report stage?

The answer to all these questions is yes. Bill C-42 passed through all these stages. Those who received a very clear mandate from the people and who are in the House of Commons analyzed Bill C-42 and passed it. Yes, under the present system, this bill must go to the other House, the Senate. Why? Because that is the way it is, because that is the way the system works.

However, we must not take away the essence of the bill when it comes back to us. I think that Bill C-42 as passed by the House of Commons achieved the objectives that were set. It revolves around four main points, on the basis of which the members of this House decided this was indeed a good bill, one that should be passed.

I tried to understand the Senate's changes and I think that, for the people watching us, following the debates to some extent, to have some understanding of the Senate's changes, they must at least be familiar with the four main ideas behind Bill C-42.

We in the Bloc Quebecois supported the bill for many reasons. There was, among other things, a series of provisions which created new positions for judges. As we know, the present law allows the Canadian provinces and Quebec to create seven additional positions. With the change proposed in Bill C-42, which was passed by the House, legislative assemblies in each province can now decide, if necessary, to increase from seven to ten the number of additional judges.

Given what the provinces are experiencing, given what Quebec, Ontario and other provinces are experiencing, given the court delays, given the workload of judges, this change was normal. This has to be left alone. It was passed by this House.

There was also a series of clerical and wording changes. It was normal to update this law, to make it fairer. Judges were granted leaves of absence in order to ensure their independence. This is a very important criterion if we are to properly assess the changes proposed by the Senate, which must be approved by the House of Commons.

(1255)

Bill C-42 included a new paragraph requiring the approval of the Governor in Council only for leaves of absence of more than six months. At the present time, his approval is required for leaves of absence of a month or more. If a judge wanted a leave of absence of one month, he had to submit a request to the Governor in Council.

This change was to keep away the executive branch, to keep judges' decisions free from any political intervention. It was a deliberate choice, a very important change for the Canadian legal system, for the Quebec legal system. We welcomed this change and we supported it in this House.

The fourth amendment provided for in Bill C-42, which was quite new, and met a need in today's world, but which has been directly impacted by what came back to us this morning from the Senate, was the possibility for a judge, with the government's authorization, to take part in legal activities at the international level. Until now, judges had to devote themselves exclusively to their judicial duties. There exists, furthermore, a tradition requiring

judges to avoid involvement in situations that could oblige them to take a stand in public. Bill C-42 therefore represents a departure from our legal tradition in that it would allow judges to take part in international activities. But this was a good thing, since Bill C-42, which was duly passed in the House of Commons, set out very clearly how this was to be allowed.

This bill also rightly provided that a judge could not be paid twice. In other words, if a judge took on international duties, during that time he could not be on paid leave nor receive any kind of remuneration from the country where he had been appointed a judge.

Clearly, as a whole, the amendments in Bill C-42 met a national need, an immediate need, a need of those involved, as well as an international need given the major conflicts and international trials we are faced with nowadays on a regular basis. In a sense, the bill was a response to the needs of the international community.

This bill was carefully reviewed by a team of experienced researchers as part of a thorough analysis, and it was decided that the bill should be passed without amendments, that certain comments should be made in committee, but the elected representatives decided very democratically to pass Bill C-42 this way.

As I said at the beginning of my analysis, in Canada, we have another House, a non-elected House, some of whose members I could describe as slightly out of touch with reality, it is a fact, people who occasionally nod off, lulled by the sounds of party politics. One morning, in a fleeting moment of wakefulness, a senator said: ``Fear not, we shall not let this bill pass without amendments. We will amend it for the sake of justifying the money we make here at the Senate. At least part of the $43 million spent yearly on the Senate must be justified''.

The senators decided to take a specific example. They said: ``Let us amend Bill C-42 in a specific fashion, taking one judge in particular. This way, every time judges want to get involved on the international scene, they will have to start all over, going first before the House of Commons, then before the Senate. This will give us a little work to do. It will give us a chance to poke our noses into these matters, and make amendments. It will be great fun''. So, to a large extent, the Senate basically considers the general idea behind this bill as a specific case, and decided to amend it to have it apply only to the case of Madam Justice Arbour from the Court of Appeal of Ontario.

(1300)

Some of our listeners, including the Liberals across the way, may think that the Bloc is trying to protect some Quebecer. The fact is we are do advocate the principle of independence. But in this case, where the Liberals condone, to some extent, the attitude of the Senate, the person involved is a judge from the Ontario court of appeal.

This amendment has been sent to us after the House of Commons went through a clear and comprehensive process: first, second and third readings, not to mention a clause by clause review in committee, and report stage. Now we have to start all over again; we have to review the nice amendments made by the Senate. But what prompted the Senate, if not partisan considerations, to make amendments such as these?

I decided to have some fun. I rarely do this, but I read the great philosophical debates of the other place. Once in a while, we should read what senators have to say on a particular issue.

I read the Debates of the Senate for Monday, October 28, for November 7, and for October 22, 1996, to see what senators had to say on Bill C-42. I must say I was very surprised by the depth of the senators' review, by the seriousness with which they reviewed the legislation, and particularly by the sources that prompted them to propose amendments.

In the case of one senator, whom I will not name, out of respect for her, one such source is the infamous gossip magazine Frank. The senator said: ``Listen, in Ms. Arbour's case it does not make sense. We have to make a specific amendment''. The October 23 issue of the gossip magazine Frank carried an article on Madam Justice Arbour's friends in high places. It stated: ``Ms. Arbour has many friends and allies to boost her to the top- It was Goldstone who finessed Arbour's appointment through the United Nations. In Canada, the deal was stick-handled through judicial circles by her common-law husband, the sebaceous deputy attorney-general of Ontario, Larry Taman''.

The senator relied on this gossip magazine, this rag and the article published in it to say that a specific amendment had to be made to Bill C-42 to deal with the appointment of Madam Justice Arbour. Can that be the only evaluation criterion by which one can determine if a bill coming from the House of Commons, which is composed of democratically elected members, must, yes or no, be amended? Every four or five years, we go before the people to get elected. I find it hard to believe that a senator with such great intellectual capacity, one who likes to quote Frank, would be prepared to stand for re-election now and then.

The same senator went on to say, in her analysis: ``I am informed that Justice Arbour's contracted salary with the United Nations is US$250,000 tax free with, in addition, many more hundreds of thousands in expenses. With remuneration like that, Canadian judicial benches will soon be empty if Canadian judges are permitted to roam internationally in procurement of such employment and remuneration''.

Still, why should it matter to senators that such a person should earn US$250,000.? If the senator is afraid that judicial benches will soon be empty, since there would surely be judges who would decide to work internationally, she has nothing to worry about.

(1305)

I believe the Minister of Justice and the Government of Canada would be only too happy to appoint their good friends to the bench. Good? We know very well that, at the federal level, these are political appointments. But, up until now, even though these appointees have been friends of the government, I have no complaints, at least as far as Quebec is concerned. Having practised law before becoming a member of Parliament, I saw that the judges were quite competent, after all.

When the Conservatives are in power, all the judges are Tories, and when the Liberals are in power, all the judges are Liberals, but that is part of the game, as we say in my part of the country.

But let us be clear. Let us reassure the senators so that they are not worried or afraid. We will always find judges, we will always find very competent and well trained persons for the bench. The walls of the temple of Canadian justice shall not crumble because one, two or three judges decide to serve on an international tribunal and put their knowledge at the service of the world community. I thought that only one senator thought this way, but I read on and, unfortunately, there is more than one.

There is another senator who is a former member of this House. He was appointed to the Senate by the previous government. He says that there must be an amendment. He approved of the proposed amendment and said: ``Listen, the independence of the judiciary is one of the principles that all Canadian parliamentarians must strive to protect and advocate''. This is profound and it is true. He thought long and hard before coming to that conclusion.

``The independence of the judiciary is one of the last defences for the respect of democratic values in this country''. When a non-elected senator speaks of democratic values in defence of an amendment proposed by the Senate itself, I think this goes against the very principle of independence he claims to be promoting.

In Canada, we have written rules, unwritten rules, customs, and what not. The Minister of Justice or his parliamentary secretary must certainly know that there is an unwritten rule that says that Parliament should never adopt a bill for one specific judge. Never. To do otherwise is to go against the independence of the executive branch and of the courts.

I know that this is not meant to be a specific legislation, that Bill C-42 is not about Madam Justice Louise Arbour, but by bringing a specific amendment, by changing the spirit of a provision to make it specific to a particular case in order to solve a problem, I think the Senate is making this a specific legislation.

I think it is dangerous and deplorable that the government has decided to give up its powers because of the wishes of the other place. The government had taken a stand in Bill C-42. It had clearly stated its position. However, for considerations that nobody else knows, it has decided to yield to the Senate to amend the legislation and, indirectly, to undermine a recognized principle.

During the debate on Bill C-42, many things were said about impartiality, about the appointment of judges and about the whole legal system within which this legislation must be viewed. I will not repeat them.

(1310)

However, if the government is using the Senate to amend a piece of legislation, to bring amendments to a bill or to parts of a bill because of things it had not noticed, it is cause for concern. I do not think this is the case. I know the Minister of Justice. We can agree or disagree with his position in certain matters, including his decision to refer to the Supreme Court a matter of a very political nature affecting Quebec, we can disagree with some of his decisions, but I think the justice minister is a man who knows his bills inside out.

He is a man who, before making a decision, has the bill analyzed by his advisers, by his team of researchers, by experienced lawyers. And only then does he decide to table a bill. It has been discussed, he changed his position. The bill was passed after it is discussed, after the government and the opposition parties debated it.

I think that it is unthinkable that, in 1996, the Senate can force the government to backtrack on an issue as important as that of the independence of the courts.

I say to the government and its representatives that they are on the wrong track, they should not do this. Instead, they should make the Senate toe the line on this sort of issue. In this case, we are not in agreement with the Liberal government, the Canadian government, on this amendment. In fact, if I had not afraid that it would be interpreted as opposition to Bill C-42, I would have asked the House not to approve the bill at second and third reading. But as for the substance, as I said earlier, we are in agreement with Bill C-42.

As the opposition party, we are against the amendment made by the Senate through the government. We will therefore be voting against this amendment.

I urge the government to do its homework over again. I urge the government to consult its lawyers, researchers and special advisers a second time. I urge the government to do its homework over again, to take another look at the bill, so that it knows exactly what the situation is on this extremely important issue, so that we have legislation that is clear and that does not encourage judges to leave Canada. That is not what the Bloc Quebecois wants. We want

legislation that is clear. We want judges to know the rules ahead of time, and if a judge has expertise in a certain field and would like to be useful at the international level by being seconded to a court outside his jurisdiction, I think we should encourage that with legislation that is clear.

There should be a fair and equitable process for all individuals who would like to take advantage of this international experience. The amendment proposed by the Senate would make this impossible. How each case is evaluated would depend on the amount of pressure on the government opposite. I think this is disastrous in a society that calls itself democratic and emphasizes the independence of the executive and the judiciary.

In concluding, I would urge the Minister of Justice to review his calculations, if he has done any, to review everything with his legal advisers to make the necessary adjustments and in the end decide that the amendment proposed by the Senate is bad for the Canadian judiciary system and therefore for the Quebec judiciary system.

(1315)

[English]

Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the debate so far and primarily to the speech by the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River. The speech that he read sounded to me as though it was a speech written by the Minister of Justice who did not feel it important enough to show up here to read it himself. That being said, looking at the content of the speech, he urged us to deal with this amendment quickly, that we should rush it through in order to facilitate the government's agenda. I wonder why the rush.

As has been pointed out, there is a problem with Madam Justice Louise Arbour, a justice of one of the superior courts in the province of Ontario, who is currently on international assignment. I believe the rush is to legitimize her current assignment.

Section 55 of the Judges Act states:

No judge shall, either directly or indirectly, for himself or others, engage in any occupation or business other than his judicial duties, but every judge shall devote himself exclusively to those judicial duties.

Also when we listened to the speech this morning, we learned that the Senate had a problem with Bill C-42. As the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River stated, in order to get this bill through quickly and in order to legitimize Madam Justice Louise Arbour's current dilemma of not being exclusively devoted to her duties, the government amended the bill in the Senate and that amendment is now back in the House for debate.

The member spent some time talking about that amendment. However, the interesting thing is that there are two amendments, not one but two amendments. If I heard the member correctly, he did not mention that there were two amendments. He only dealt with one amendment.

Let me read the first amendment which the other House has sent back for our consideration:

1. Page 1, preamble: Strike out line 1 and substitute the following:

Whereas the Canadian Judicial Council has been consulted with respect to certain provisions of this act, particularly section 5, and agrees with the purpose of section 5;

I want to deal with the appearance of independence and integrity. For the record, we all know that Chief Justice Lamer is a man of integrity. His reputation is not being disputed in any way, shape or form. However, I am calling into question very much the fact that the Minister of Justice has put the chief justice in a very awkward position by putting this preamble in the bill in the other House and which is now being debated here.

Why? Quite simply, clause 3 of Bill C-42 confers a benefit on the chief justice and his spouse, who also happens to sit on the federal bench. As far as we are aware, clause 3 of Bill C-42 confers this benefit on the chief justice and his spouse alone. We have heard the Minister of Justice say there is one other couple but he has not divulged their names. Therefore, we are not sure if there is another couple. If there is another couple there is a maximum of four, but we do know that there are two. The chief justice and his wife benefit by clause 3 of section 2 and could very well benefit to a substantial degree.

(1320)

The Minister of Justice has written to the chief justice of the supreme court asking: ``What do you think of Bill C-42? Do you like it?'' He reads Bill C-42 and there is section 3 conferring a benefit upon himself. What is he supposed to do? He is put in a most difficult and compromising position, courtesy of the Minister of Justice who wrote to him asking what he thought of Bill C-42. The integrity of the chief justice of the supreme court has been

compromised by this preamble and this preamble is here by the choice of the Minister of Justice.

The point is that the independence of the judiciary is being slighted in the worst way in this odious amendment. And I do say odious amendment because what was the chief justice to say? He could either concur with the bill and accept the benefit which was within the bill. Perhaps he agreed with clause 5 because of the benefit. I hope not. As I said, he is a man of integrity and I would not question his integrity. But I do question very much that the Minister of Justice has placed him in this position. That is why this particular amendment must be defeated. If we have any semblance of respect for our judiciary, this amendment must be defeated.

This morning I rose on a point of order regarding the fact that by this amendment this is now a hybrid bill, a public-private bill because of the fact that Madam Justice Louise Arbour is being specifically mentioned in the amendment.

If I can go back to my point on the situation of the chief justice being dragged into this bill, I would like to quote from the Alberta Report of October 28, 1996, page 27. Professor Morton from the University of Calgary was speaking to the Senate committee regarding this bill. It reads:

Professor Morton instructed senators at length on the importance of judges appearing impartial. The Supreme Court ruled in 1984 that impartiality means the ``absence of bias, actual or perceived''. Earlier this year, the Canadian Judicial Council of which Mr. Justice Lamer is the titular head, said the relevant test of improper conduct by a judge is whether ``public confidence would be sufficiently undermined'' by it''.

Comments recently retired University of Toronto political scientist Peter Russell: ``It is very troubling that a main beneficiary of the change is the chief justice. That raises questions of whether there was any communication between him and the government. I think the public deserves some answers''.

Returning now to Madam Justice Louise Arbour, I mentioned this morning the fact that Madam Justice Louise Arbour's exemption from section 55 of the act is rightly the matter of a private bill. Again I quote the Alberta Report of October 28, 1996, page 27:

Madam Justice Arbour sought and won the UN job herself. Then Mr. Rock agreed to amend the Judges Act to allow judges to take unpaid leaves of absence

I quoted a ruling by a Speaker in the other House and I will quote a bit of it again: ``A public bill relates to a matter of public policy, while a private bill relates to a matter of particular interest or benefit to a person or persons. A bill containing provisions which are essentially a feature of a private bill cannot be introduced as a public bill. A bill designed to exempt one person from the application of the law is a private bill and not a public bill''.

(1325 )

It is fairly obvious from reading the Alberta Report. That Madam Justice Louise Arbour sought and won the appointment by the UN herself and then got the concurrence of the Minister of Justice to introduce an exemption to allow her to obtain the position seems to be a rather odious way of exempting a person from the Judges Act. Independence and integrity are very much being called into question here.

I am looking at Beauchesne's citation 1055 which talks about private bills demanding ``peculiar vigilance, lest public laws be lightly set aside for the benefit of particular persons or places''. The way that the contents of this bill, which are the appropriate subject matter of a private bill, are being passed is certainly not in a vigilant process.

Therefore I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after ``that'' and substituting the following therefor:

a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that the House disagrees with the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-42, an act to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to another act, since Amendment 1 places the Chairman of the Judicial Council in a conflict of interest and Amendment 2 has negatived the original intent of Bill C-42 to amend public policy and now introduces a waiver to s. 55 of the Judges Act for Madam Justice Louise Arbour, which according to the House of Commons rules and practices is properly the subject matter of a private bill and thus should not be inserted in a public bill.

Mr. Williams: I can continue on, Madam Speaker, if you want to have time to rule on whether or not that is an acceptable amendment. I certainly hope that you find it is so.

Regarding that particular amendment, if I may draw your attention to the amendment that I have just given to you, the Speaker ruled this morning, and he quoted certain references and precedents, that he did not have the authority to amend a message from the other place and that the right to amend the message from the other place rested with this House. On my point of order which asked that the part regarding Madam Justice Louise Arbour be the subject matter of a private bill, he felt that the decision had to rest with the House rather than with the Chair. I do hope you will agree that we can debate the motion and arrive at a conclusion by this

House on whether or not we want to proceed with what is being proposed by the Senate as an amendment to Bill C-42.

However, continuing on, the concerns that we have regarding Madam Justice Louise Arbour cannot be overstated. Again, I respect the integrity of Madam Justice Louise Arbour and the work she has done on the bench.

The point is that while she has the reputation as being an eminent jurist and has been selected by the United Nations for this arduous work in Brussels, according to the Alberta Report she sought the job herself. She was not selected because of her reputation around the world. The point is that if she did, this government has acquiesced in a most inappropriate manner, in a retrospective manner rather than in a proactive manner.

(1330 )

The Minister of Justice has told the House many times that his responsibility is to uphold the rule of law. It is his responsibility to uphold the rule of law. We now have a Canadian jurist in another country working for the United Nations to uphold international law and to prosecute horrendous and horrific crimes. We do not doubt the great work that needs to be done over there and we do not criticize the fact that it is an honour for a Canadian to prosecute.

However, we do concern ourselves with the integrity of the judicial system at home. If it requires a waiver of the Judges Act-retroactively I might add-for the jurist to go over there to uphold the rule of law, we are sending the wrong message. The message being sent is that we are prepared to bend and retroactively change our laws to allow this to happen when she is over there to uphold the law. There is an incongruity which needs to be addressed very carefully.

The rules of the House have been circumvented somewhat by the fact that this was introduced as a public bill, that it passed this Chamber as a public bill, is now back before us as a hybrid public-private bill which is not allowed by the rules of the House. There is division in the House whether we should be circumventing the rules in this way. I feel this casts a shadow on the appointment of Madam Justice Louise Arbour to fulfil these obligations for the United Nations. If the minister had wanted Canada's reputation as a prosecutor for justice to go around the world, then he should have been more careful in the way he approached the matter.

I respect the integrity and the competence of Madam Justice Louise Arbour. She is a jurist and in her new job she is to be a prosecutor. It means she will be on one side prosecuting the other side. I do not dispute the fact that she is prosecuting crimes of a horrific nature. But the point is that she is a prosecutor and she presumably intends to return to the bench and to that independent, impartial position. She has in essence removed herself from that independent, impartial position by accepting this position as a prosecutor.

Again, I am very much concerned that when she returns to the bench her impartiality might be challenged. It is a very problematic question. I would have hoped that the Minister of Justice would have thought that through, discussed it with the other members of the House, perhaps even discussed it with members of the other Chamber in order that Canada could have made and endorsed this appointment in order for Madam Justice Louise Arbour to take up these onerous duties and be a shining light for justice around the world and for Canada.

Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me the nonsense that spews from the mouths of Reformers on occasion. The nonsense has come forward today in relation to this bill, an important bill in a number of respects. The bill would allow one of our eminent jurists to do a very important international duty, to prosecute war crimes at the request of the United Nations.

(1335)

Canada has always been in the vanguard of justice on the international front. It has always stood for integrity and responsibility in doing our part to ensure that war crimes are punished and that our nation participates in just causes. It is out of respect for the reputation of Canada that Canadians are often asked to participate in such fora.

However, something so good and so noble is being dragged through the gutter by the Reform Party. That ought not to surprise anybody. If anybody is interfering with judicial independence, it is the Reform Party. There is no doubt that Madam Justice Arbour will acquit herself and her country well in her new duties. We feel it appropriate to bring forward the amendments and allow this to happen in accordance with the rules of the United Nations.

Another point has been raised by hon. members of the Reform Party. They have questioned the integrity of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. What is being brought forward in this bill is simply an amendment to bring the Judges Act in relations to pensions into equality with public service pensions, members of Parliament pensions and with other pensions. This amendment has been requested for a significant number of years. It has been brought forward along with a number of other amendments to the Judges Act. It is that simple.

The Reform Party questions how many people on the bench are married to other judges. There are four couples that we know of in that circumstance. There may be more but they are not required to report to the Minister of Justice when they fall in love and decide to get married. However, something that is good, something that is

appropriate and something that brings these plans into line with other plans is being questioned and turned into something bad.

This is very symptomatic of all that the Reform Party has stood for and has brought forward. It is to take things that are good and honourable and to turn them into something else. I ask the hon. member, in light of these circumstance, why the Reform Party continues to try and degrade good pieces of legislation which will bring honour to this nation?

Mr. Williams: Madam Speaker, I am certainly glad to respond to that intervention by the member for Prince Albert-Churchill River.

Let me be perfectly clear. In my speech I said that I would never think of challenging the integrity of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I have no intention whatsoever of challenging the integrity of Madam Justice Louise Arbour. I am quite sure that her integrity and the respect which she enjoys is well deserved.

(1340)

What is not well deserved is the way in which the government has gone about amending the rules. It has put these two eminent jurists in a very difficult, awkward and compromising position. They are not there of their own choosing, they are there because of the government.

If the member for Prince Albert-Churchill River cannot understand that point, perhaps that is why this bill and this government is in the mess it is in today regarding these two situations. The government has created the problem. It is not the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. His integrity is impeccable. He has been put in a compromising position by the Minister of Justice.

I do not know too much about Madam Justice Louise Arbour but I presume her integrity is also impeccable. She had been put in a very difficult position by the Minister of Justice who has allowed her to leave her duties on the bench against section 55 of the Judges Act and assume a position prior to legislation being passed by this House and the other place. That is the crux of the matter. Reform members feel that Madam Justice Louise Arbour is now compromised in her ability to prosecute and be a shining light for Canada. We think it is great and fully endorse the fact that a Canadian has been chosen to that high and prestigious position.

As I said earlier, these were horrific crimes and people have to be held accountable according to the rule of law. Surely those who are sitting in judgment, those who are prosecuting and those who are speaking on behalf of the world community that has been shocked by these crimes would want the confidence of knowing that the people who are performing these arduous duties are there without the slightest blemish or hint of problem from the country from which they come.

The point is that the government has put these two people in a most awkward and compromising position.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is with some consternation that I keep hearing the Reform members talking about certain things that cause us in Quebec to wonder what planet they are living on.

I do not want to return to the question of pensions and so forth, because I think it has nothing to do with the amendment before us, but the hon. member seems unable to distinguish between a judge appointed to serve an international community, who has an ad hoc mandate, a specific mandate to serve as attorney, which is one thing, and a judge who decides from one day to the next to request leave without pay to act as crown prosecutor in Canada, Ontario or Quebec. These, I think, are two different things.

For a judge to decide to take on a specific assignment to go and serve internationally to help an international community gather evidence to convict individuals who have committed major crimes, that is one thing. However, I do not understand the hon. member saying that once Ms Arbour, in this particular instance, returns to Canada, should she resume her duties as judge, there would be doubts as to her impartiality. What world do the Reformers live in?

Are they forgetting that judges are lawyers, crown counsel or in private practice before they are appointed judges at some point? When arguing his case, is the crown attorney right to question the judge's impartiality because he comes from the private sector, or vice versa?

(1345)

I have often argued before judges whom I knew to have worked for the crown. Do I fear from the outset that they will not be impartial? It is part of the training of someone in the legal profession to be able to separate things.

To conclude, I would ask the member if he does not think it beneficial to Canadian and Quebec jurists to work internationally showing how we do things. Does he not think international exchanges should be promoted?

[English]

Mr. Williams: Madam Speaker, in quick response to the member's question, yes, we have prosecutors and lawyers who are appointed to the bench and they are expected to make impartial judgments. However, this is a different situation. Someone is going from the bench and becoming a prosecutor. That is the opposite direction.

The intent is that at some later point she will return to the bench. She is not being asked to resign; she is being granted a leave of

absence. That issue has never been dealt with before. As far as I am aware, if a judge leaves the bench to become a prosecutor, he or she cannot return.

Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I have a few comments to make about Bill C-42 which has come back from the other House.

I would like to make a few initial comments about the justice critic for the Bloc. Obviously he does not remember the path which this bill followed. The bill did not go before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Witnesses were not called. We were assured by the government that this was a housekeeping bill. The government said it was a rather innocuous bill which deserved rapid passage through the House and that is exactly what happened.

If we are to criticize those who have looked at it in a more exhaustive manner, then we should really look at what they are saying about the bill.

The hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River, who was the one who indicated to our caucus that this was just a housekeeping bill and a rather innocuous one, now says it is a very important bill.

When this motion on Bill C-42 came back, I examined the reasons for it. Why would it come back? It is a housekeeping bill. It is an innocuous bill. It was not an important bill.

I read what witnesses who appeared before the committee of the other House had to say about the bill, as well as some of the senators' comments. In the short time I have I will quote some of the expressions made by one of the witnesses who appeared before the committee in the other House with respect to Bill C-42.

I will quote from the testimony of Professor F. L. Morton. I do not have time to touch on all of his testimony but I would like to quote a portion of it: ``The government is concerned, as well it should be, with the current status of Justice Arbour and the implications of her status for those responsible at justice. The government seems to hope that by passing Bill C-42 as quickly as possible it can retroactively legitimate apparent indiscretions by Justice Arbour and possibly others''. That is a pretty serious statement. It was not made by someone from the other House, who may be detached from reality, as was suggested by the hon. member from the Bloc a few minutes ago; it was made by a professor of law.

Professor Morton went on to say: ``For the past week I have tried to ascertain whether or not Justice Arbour is currently acting within the letter of Canadian law. On balance it seems that there is considerably more evidence to suggest that she is not''.

(1350 )

Again, this is certainly something we were not aware of at the time that we examined the bill and the bill passed through this House. We were not aware of those opinions and the ramifications of this bill.

To go on to quote Professor Morton's discourse:

My understanding is that Justice Arbour left for The Hague on August 1 to undertake new duties as ``Special Advisor'' to the UN Commission on War Crimes; and that as of October 1-that is, more than two weeks ago-she officially took up her new responsibilities as Chief Prosecutor. Apparently the government has attempted to ``authorize'' Justice Arbour's actions through two orders in council as authorized by section 54 of the Judges Act. Does section 54 authorize leaves for the type of activity that Justice Arbour has already undertaken? Not according to the testimony of Mr. Rock before this committee on October 7.

There is no provision in the Judges Act for a federally appointed judge such as Madam Justice Arbour to be granted a leave of absence without pay to work for an international organization such as the UN, nor does the act permit the salary and expenses of a judge during a period of leave to be paid by an organization or entity other than the Government of Canada or, in the case of expenses, by the government of a province.

Please continue debate, the hon. member for Crowfoot.

Mr. Ramsay: Madam Speaker, to carry on with the testimony of Professor Morton:

It would appear that Justice Arbour agreed to the appointment before it had been approved by the Minister of Justice (or any other officials), thereby forcing the minister to react to a fait accompli. Furthermore it then appears that the minister, rather than recommending to Justice Arbour that she postpone her new activities pending necessary amendments to the Judges Act, sought to temporarily legitimate her actions by an order in council; and then (because the order in council is conceded to be insufficient) sought to retroactively legitimate J. Arbour's new employment with general amendments to the Judges Act, Bill C-42, thereby forcing the hand of Parliament.

No doubt some will say that this is nit-picking. My response is simple. If the justice minister and appeal court judges cannot be expected to comply with the letter of the law, then who can? Indeed within the last month the justice minister himself pronounced on the meaning and importance of the rule of law. When Mr. Rock referred the issue of Quebec's so-called ``right of secession'' from Canada to the Supreme Court he declared that:

The rule of law ``is a living principle that is fundamental to our democratic way of life. In substance it means that everyone in our society, including ministers of government, premiers, the rich and powerful and the ordinary citizen alike, is governed

by the same law of the land. We are all bound by the Constitution, by the Criminal Code, by acts of Parliament and the legislatures''.

These are some observations. I only have time to refer to Professor Morton's concerns about Bill C-42 but there are others, including former Professor Peter Russell, who have expressed concerns about aspects of the bill. I feel that it is the duty of members of this House to closely examine these concerns.

I conclude by referring to the amendment the hon. member for St. Albert made and which I seconded. I am not completely satisfied with that and I offer an amendment to the amendment which reads: ``That the amendment be amended by adding ``and that this House respectfully request that Their Honours respond to this message no later than June 19, 1997''.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Madam Speaker, as I am reading the amendment moved by the Reform Party, I find it somewhat dangerous to state in the amendment that the chairman of the judicial council is in a potential conflict of interest. We know that the chairman of the judicial council was merely consulted with regard to Bill C-42 as he is an extremely important player in its implementation.

We only have to look at what happened in the past with highly charged issues such as the case of Judge Bienvenue when all parliamentarians rebelled and rose to condemn the state of affairs. In the end, the people in charge of the issue were the members of the judicial council. To consult the chairman of the judicial council on such a bill is, I believe, necessary and very important.

I would like the member to tell me in what way he believes the chairman of the judicial council is in a conflict of interest with respect to the debate we are having on Bill C-42.

[English]

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I would like to inform the House that the Chair will reserve its right to look over the subamendment as proposed by the hon. member for Crowfoot.

Mr. Ramsay: Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the question from my hon. friend from the Bloc.

The fact is that this bill has not been thoroughly examined by this House. We know the history of the bill as far as this House is concerned. The examination of the bill has occurred by individuals outside this House, particularly members of the other place who called witnesses.

The Speaker: My colleague, I know that you are in the middle of an answer and I am very reluctant to intervene at this time. If you could keep your train of thought we will get back to you right after question period.

As it is now 2 p.m., we will proceed to Statements by Members.

_____________________________________________