Dale Johnston

[West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995, March 15th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Wild Rose.

For 11 days in 1994 shipping through the B.C. ports was paralyzed. The estimates of the losses to the Canadian grain industry ran in the hundreds of millions of dollars. We are talking about grain in that instance. There were also manufacturers who lost out in the strike in 1994.

What did that strike cost them? It is difficult to measure that. Even more difficult to measure is the damage to our reputation as a reliable shipper. These were not the only losers in that strike. I believe everybody in a strike or a lockout situation is ultimately a loser. The workers on strike will probably never be able to make up for the wages they lost during that time.

It is absolutely ludicrous that such losses should be allowed to occur over and over again. In doing a little research, I came upon some bills that were very similar in nature. Some of them would think we could dust off and they would be suitable for today.

They are dated 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989 right up to 1994 when we had to consider just such legislation in order to get the port of Vancouver working again. Déjà vu, here we are again. Sixty per cent of Canada's grain exports have been held in limbo. When one ties up that system, it has a domino effect. It backs up right to the farmers' gates. Nobody in a strike situation is in a winning position.

My friend from Rivière-du-Loup pointed out that perhaps because this has happened so often, the collective bargaining process is failing. I could not agree with him more.

Our minister has assured the House she would like to put something in place to ensure this does not happen again. I hear my friend from Rivière-du-Loup saying the same thing. He would like to make sure we do not have to go through this painful exercise, that perhaps when labour and management realize it is only a matter of time before the government steps in they maybe are not bargaining as closely and as honestly as they should.

I would be delighted if the Minister of Labour would look closely at what the Reform Party has put forward. My colleague from Lethbridge has put forward Bill C-262, a final arbitration bill, which we hope would never have to be used. Just because it is there does not mean that it is something we are going to beat up either management or union with and make them settle.

It is intended so both management and union know that if they cannot come to an agreement, they had better bargain hard and fast or this could be implemented.

We also have to look at what kind of a situation we would be in if the strike and lockout situation at the port of Vancouver were settled tomorrow. That contract is only good until December 31, 1995.

Then negotiations will start all over again. Perhaps next year at this time we would be back in the House considering back to work legislation again. Today the Minister of Labour announced the establishment of a commission to study labour relations.

I invite the Minister of Labour to read through our bill, to study our bill and to see the merit in it. If the minister is philosophically opposed to supporting a motion simply because it came from the Reform Party, then fine. Defeat that motion, but bring in another one that is very similar and will accomplish the same thing.

In speaking to the port authority today in Vancouver, it was estimated that in the container business alone, some 7,000 containers at about an average income of $1000 per container for handling has been lost in the little time this strike has been going on. This adds up to $7 million in lost revenue, not to say anything about the damage done to our reputation as a reliable supplier and what it has done to labour management relations.

A chain reaction takes place whenever we have a situation of this type. We are in a situation in which some 405 people have managed to bring the entire west coast shipping to a halt. It completely grinds to a stop from the port right back to the gate of the farmers and the manufacturers.

Is it not odd that these people at the port have never been designated as an essential service until they go on strike or are locked out? Suddenly they are essential. The fact we have to bring in legislation to put them back to work makes them essential in my books.

Bill C-262 would not only be a very useful tool to labour and management, it would not only apply to the port of Vancouver, but also to the port of Montreal where we have a similar situation taking place.

The port of Montreal is a very important east coast facility and we should be considering some intervention in that area. We have been reading in the paper where the port of authority there expects the government to take action, thereby strengthening our case that Bill C-262 would be required reading for the Minister of Labour.

We are not trying to point the finger at anyone in particular. It takes two organizations to come up with a conflict and I am sure there are two sides to this conflict.

Our final offer arbitration bill would be a very useful tool, one probably welcomed by both business and labour and I encourage the House to support that bill.

The Reform Party will be supporting back to work legislation.

[Labour, March 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister on her move.

What is needed now is final offer binding arbitration, as put forward in our private member's Bill C-262. Will the minister make a commitment today to support Bill C-262? If not, will she present similar legislation of her own?

[Labour, March 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have been informed the government has finally agreed to Reform's demands for back to work legislation in the current west coast labour dispute.

This addresses the immediate problem for Canadian shipping. What is the Minister of Labour prepared to do to prevent further disruptions?

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, on March 3 I asked a question of the Minister of Labour concerning what was then an impending strike at CP Rail. I asked what action the minister planned to take to ensure a continuation of negotiations, thereby avoiding a potentially bitter, long labour-management dispute.

In his response, the parliamentary secretary to the minister stated that his government would simply leave matters to the collective bargaining process. However, in the time that has passed since I first raised my question, strikes and lockouts have occurred throughout Canada escalating to the point yesterday of a complete withdrawal of services by the 3,200 member Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees.

So far the work disruptions involve only the members of that union. However, the other key player, the 4,000 member Canadian Auto Workers union, is prepared to take strike action anytime after March 15, which of course is tomorrow.

The potential consequences of the ongoing labour dispute between the railways and the unions are enormous. To complicate the situation, 405 members of the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union in the British Columbia ports have walked off the job, paralysing the movement of goods in western Canada.

It is imperative the government take quick and decisive action to halt the further disruption of our transportation routes. The fragile Canadian economy simply cannot withstand a blow like this. The uninterrupted operation of our transportation system is an essential element of our economic recovery. No one can dispute that.

More important, when examining the economic implications of a strike, we have to consider the bottom line. Here nobody wins. Too many people are harmed by needless strikes and lockouts. It is simply reprehensible to expose Canadians to more of this kind of nonsense.

Negotiations between CP Rail and the two unions in question have been ongoing for some 15 months. It would appear that neither side is truly serious about arriving at a new contract. If the resolve were there, surely the differences would have been settled peacefully and promptly by now.

Simply suggesting that the two sides continue the collective bargaining process is unsatisfactory. In the meantime, while they continue talks for who knows how long, countless numbers of people will be hurt by a dispute for which they are not responsible.

For this reason, the federal government must now step into this dispute with back to work legislation. This legislation should include a 30-day cooling off period during which meaningful negotiations could take place.

As the work disruption drags on it appears obvious that the government is stalling for time while it drafts anti-scab legislation. A cop-out like that is unacceptable.

Canada's railways account for close to 40 per cent of all freight tonnage moved in the country. Whether they be shippers of newsprint, coal or potash, the auto industry or western grain farmers, importers, exporters and manufacturers they must be assured that they have a reliable method of getting their products to market. Otherwise those markets will dry up.

Foreign buyers need suppliers they can count on. If they cannot rely on the Canadian market they will simply go elsewhere.

Aside from the direct impact of rail stoppages there is immeasurable harm resulting from what is known as the domino effect. Industries which cannot obtain parts or ship their goods will have to shut down production and lay off employees. The longer the government allows this situation to go on, the more far reaching the impact will be on Canadians from coast to coast. This means less revenue for the cash starved federal treasury.

[Labour, March 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour.

A strike is now looming between CP Rail and two unions. Negotiations could break down by Monday and CP has said that in that event it would use replacement workers.

What is the minister doing to ensure that negotiations do not break down, thereby avoiding a potentially bitter labour-management dispute?

[Grain Export Protection Act, March 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up where my colleague left off.

Witness the labour dispute at the port of Vancouver in January and February, 1994. For 11 days the grain shipping process was paralysed. Some estimates place the loss to Canada's grain industry at hundreds of millions of dollars.

It is absolutely ludicrous that such losses were allowed to occur. These losses came about as a result of a failed collective bargaining process.

We cannot allow one sector of the grain shipping process to harm everyone else in the chain. When there are disruptions in the grain marketing system individual farmers are not the only ones to suffer. Workers everywhere else along the shipping chain are affected. It has a domino effect on the whole industry.

When a strike occurs grain starts to back up in the system. The system becomes, if you will, constipated. The grain stops its otherwise perpetual flow from farm to market. This is detrimental to numerous people. Whether at the grain elevator or somewhere along the railway many people are forced to endure pain because of the actions of a few. This is not acceptable.

With many unions that are involved in the grain transportation process we are left with the never ending threat of strike action. All too often strikes do occur. When they occur they disrupt the economy.

More than just accepting the measures suggested in Bill C-262, we might also look at further legislation that would require all union contracts affecting grain handling transportation to come due at the same time. This would simplify things and perhaps put an end to the rotating type of strikes.

No one benefits from a strike. Unionized workers suffer losses of income while on strike. While they may win an increase in their pay, all too often the net result is a loss of income. Employers lose in a strike. They lose money, they lose contracts and they pay demurrage on waiting ships. Besides that, no work gets done.

In the case of grain transportation strikes there are an incredible number of people who are directly harmed: railway and all its workers, dock workers, shipping companies and their employees, and of course farmers are harmed.

This represents only the direct impact of a strike action. Countless others are harmed indirectly as well. The ultimate casualty is the whole Canadian economy. Exports represent a huge sector of our economy. Canada's balance of trade continues to tilt in our favour. We must ensure that we retain this favourable balance.

As borders become more and more meaningless Canada must be prepared to take on the entire world. That means we must achieve competitiveness to attain a dominant position in the global economy. When Canadians are unable to access the world market we all suffer. The thrust of the bill is final offer selection arbitration. I believe these measures will be fair to all sides.

Legislation such as Bill C-262 provides a reasonable answer to endless strikes in the grain transportation sector of the economy. Further it represents a reputable solution when considering legislation that could apply to other areas in the labour market.

Historically strikes affecting grain movement take place when markets are good and when prices are up. The use of binding arbitration to settle labour disputes is a good way to avoid unnecessary and crippling strikes. This would go a long way to foster good relations and co-operation between labour and management. With management and labour working hand in hand, our reputation as a reliable supplier of grains and oilseeds would improve with the possible result of increased demand, increased price and perhaps an increase in employment.

Since 1966, as my colleague has already alluded to, we have gone through this process 13 times when the federal government has had to intervene and introduce back to work legislation to keep the grain flowing to market. We need to ensure that never again are such measures necessary.

The bill provides for a dispute settlement process that I believe will be fair to all parties. This bill could not be of more immediate importance or more timely. The looming threat of a

strike on the national railways again threatens the process of grain handling.

Above all, grain must be able to continue its orderly flow to market. The principle of keeping the economy flowing should be our number one priority. We need legislation like Bill C-262 to ensure that the economy does not face unnecessary crippling work stoppages. Disruptions in the market hurt everyone.

[Petitions, March 2nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 31, it is my pleasure to present a petition of some 55 pages.

It states that since Canadians from coast to coast are calling for changes to the Young Offenders Act, the petitioners want the act changed to become serious enough to deter young people from committing crimes and tough enough to provide real justice.

Therefore, they request and pray that Parliament will amend the Criminal Code of Canada and the Young Offenders Act of 1992 to comply with this petition.

[Petitions, February 15th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the second petition is from the constituents of Wetaskiwin.

The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend the Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way that would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase, sexual orientation.

[Petitions, February 15th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a petition.

The petitioners request that Parliament support laws that severely punish all violent criminals who use weapons in the commission of a crime; support new Criminal Code firearm control provisions that recognize and protect the right of law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational firearms; and support legislation that will repeal and modify existing gun control laws which have not improved public safety or have proven not to be cost effective or have proven to be overly complex as to be ineffective and/or unenforceable.

[Unemployment Insurance Act, November 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity today to speak on Bill C-218 which seeks to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. The member for Saint-Hubert proposes to eliminate the exemption that prevents family members from collecting UI if they work in the family business.

I suppose the intent of unemployment insurance at the time it became law in 1940 was to provide financial assistance to industrial and commercial workers during periods of unemployment. Since that time the program has expanded to encompass everything from grants to organizations under section 25 to maternity leave and sickness benefits. Today 97 per cent of paid workers are covered by the unemployment insurance program. The originators of the program would not recognize it in its present form today.

For some time now Canadians have been expressing concern over the abuse of the unemployment insurance program. Even the Minister of Human Resources Development realizes there is a need to tighten up the system and close the loopholes.

When the hon. member for Saint-Hubert outlined her reasons for introducing this bill, she said that the primary effect of section 3(2)(c) is the systematic exclusion of women who work for their spouse. She finds it objectionable that such employees must prove to Revenue Canada adjudicators that the labour contract has all the features of a job that the employer would have given to someone else who was completely unrelated to him or her.

We believe that if a wife works for a husband or vice versa, they should be prepared to prove that a bona fide employer-employee relationship exists. At this point many people on farms would qualify under those regulations.

It should be incumbent upon them to show they are not taking advantage of the system and trying to add to the family income. I do not believe this is an unreasonable safeguard in a system that is all too often abused. Members from the official opposition often talk about abuse in the system.

Revenue Canada adjudicators would adjudicate arm's length relationships. Statistics show that each year some 3,750 UI claimants are denied benefits because they do not work in true employer-employee relationships. This actually amounts to one-quarter of the claims that are reviewed each year. This means there are some 11,000 arm's length relationship claimants who do receive UI benefits. If this amendment were passed those 3,750 claims that are rejected each year possibly would be approved. Taking the average benefit from 1992 which is

$6,600, the minimum annual increase in UI payments would be $25 million.

I am sure my colleague for Saint-Hubert believes that her amendment would be a great benefit to women and to the small business community. The truth is that she is ultimately bringing more harm to those people she is trying to protect.

The changes and add ons brought in since the inception of the program have been costly to the workers and their employers. Together the contributions by employees and their employers average 7.3 per cent of contributors' income.

As it stands now the UI program will take $19.8 billion from the people who are trying to keep their businesses solvent and from workers who are trying to make ends meet and pay their taxes. That $19.8 billion amounts to approximately $1,500 from every Canadian worker covered by the unemployment insurance program. It is the second highest source of revenue for the federal government, second only to personal income tax.

If the hon. member really wanted to help women and small businesses she would support the proposal of the Reform Party for a private insurance plan, one which is operated on basic, actuarially sound insurance principles. She would be proposing an amendment to make UI contributions voluntary so that those who are not eligible to collect benefits would not have to contribute to the plan. She would be calling on the government to lower the tax rate so that money could be left in the hands of the entrepreneur, the farmer, the small business person who relies on family members to help out on the farm or in the store.

We feel most Canadians would agree with our party's belief that a dollar left in the hands of an entrepreneur, a small business person is far more likely to stimulate economic growth than a dollar left in the hands of mother government or bureaucrats.

Reform Party members oppose this bill for many reasons. It opens up the Unemployment Insurance Act to yet another avenue of abuse and waste of taxpayers' dollars at a time when we should be tightening the loopholes and saving employer and employee UI premiums to cover UI claims by workers and their families hardest hit by today's high unemployment. This bill would increase payouts of the UI benefits by millions of dollars per year. It directly contravenes Reform Party principles which support elimination of fraud and abuse and returning UI to true insurance principles.

Most important, spouses employed by their partners already have an advantage over other Canadians because they can split their income and reduce their taxation in that way. While Reformers support income splitting for married couples, we would like all Canadians to have equal opportunity to do so.