House of Commons Hansard #130 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was amendment.

Topics

World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Bonnie Brown Liberal Oakville—Milton, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the amendment put forward by the member for Vercheres. I appreciate his initiative. This has come upon us fairly quickly. He has responded very quickly to the concerns of the steel industry by getting an amendment in by the deadline.

I think his speed and his responsiveness demonstrates the commitment not just of this government but indeed of this Parliament to both the management and the workers in the steel industry.

In the all-party steel caucus that support is obvious at every meeting. We sit around the table, people from all parties and management and labour, working together. It really is quite an exciting experience to be part of that particular group here where usually the setting is so highly partisan.

I should point out that we did have the opportunity yesterday to speak with the minister. He pointed out to us the difference in the wants of the way we legislate and the way the Americans legislate. It is much more their style to put a lot of details into their legislation whereas it is more our style to keep things pretty clean and put the details into regulation.

Yesterday the minister did not seem to be adverse to the idea of those concepts in the amendment in the regulations, however he pointed out to us that it was going to require as the parliamentary secretary pointed out the involvement of the Minister of Finance. He could not speak completely freely at that meeting knowing he had to get a cabinet colleague on side.

I would like to inform the mover of this amendment and those who are supporting him that I happen to know that this issue has been brought forward to the Minister of Finance in the last 24 hours by the Deputy Prime Minister. We now have three members of cabinet responding to the concerns of the steel industry as my colleague across the floor has responded today.

Keeping in mind that those three members of cabinet will work together on it, I think I can assure him that the general intention of what it is he wants to achieve will probably come forward. However, the idea of this amendment does not seem to be true to the Canadian tradition of how we write legislation and therefore I will have to join the parliamentary secretary in voting against it.

I would also like to assure the member that within the steel caucus we will continue to press to make sure that these things are achieved but in a more subtle way.

World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Bloc

Philippe Paré Bloc Louis-Hébert, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief, first of all because the member for Verchères has explained quite well the theoretical and practical basis of his amendment as well as the need for it.

I find somewhat deplorable that members opposite have completely ignored the public hearings that we held with representatives of different industries. It is as if those public hearings were absolutely useless. I think it is a waste of time. Not only have we wasted time, but if we added up all the consultations that this government has done in the last year, we would probably find that vast sums have been gobbled up practically for nothing since the government always ends up doing what he intended to do anyway.

Members opposite recognize that the amendment is essentially good but they say they would prefer doing it by way of regulations. Let us not forget that regulations do not have the scope of an act; members opposite probably know that as well as we do. Actually, it is probably the reason why they are opposing this amendment to the act.

People often say that they are all for virtue, but such an assertion is not enough to guarantee that virtue will prevail. I think that in a way it applies to anti-dumping. The fact that the Uruguay Round prohibits dumping is not a sufficient guarantee that it will not occur. Therefore Bill C-57 must provide for a means to face the problem when it arises because it will.

We all know that dumping is an unfair trade practice. It can be so harmful to the industry against which it is used that it may make it disappear. In order to avoid such consequences, the GATT agreement prohibits dumping. However, it is incumbent upon the industry victim of dumping to prove that it has suffered a prejudice so serious that its future is threatened.

The amendment we propose defines the factors for determining such prejudice, which is not provided for in this bill. In the absence of guidelines, the injured industry would be unable to present its case in an appropriate way. Nevertheless, the United States could be used as a model in that regard. Therefore I invite the government to support the amendment.

World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Is the House ready for the question?

World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

The question is on Motion No. 10, standing in the name of Mr. Bergeron. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

All those in favour will please say yea.

World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

All those opposed will please say nay.

World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

In my opinion, the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Pursuant to Standing Order 76, the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of the bill now before the House.

And the bells having rung:

Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), I have been requested by the chief government whip to defer the division until a later time.

Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(6) the division on the question now before the House stands deferred until Monday at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-55, an act to establish a board having jurisdiction concerning disputes respecting surface rights in respect of land in the Yukon Territory and to amend other acts in relation thereto, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Yukon Surface Rights Board ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte Newfoundland & Labrador

Liberal

Brian Tobin Liberalfor the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

moved that the bill be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

Yukon Surface Rights Board ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?

Yukon Surface Rights Board ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed

Yukon Surface Rights Board ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte Newfoundland & Labrador

Liberal

Brian Tobin Liberalfor the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Yukon Surface Rights Board ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Prince Edward—Hastings Ontario

Liberal

Lyle Vanclief LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and address the House on third and final reading of Bill C-55, the Yukon Surface Rights Board Act.

I begin by thanking hon. members for supporting this bill at second reading. My colleagues clearly see the need to proceed with this bill because it will bring positive and lasting change to the Yukon. We appreciate their contribution to second reading debate and ask the House to once again give positive consideration to this legislation.

Bill C-55 will establish a new surface rights regime in the Yukon, a regime that will serve and protect the interests of all residents of the territory. As well, this final piece of legislation is required to allow implementation of the Yukon First Nations land claim and self-government agreements to proceed.

Clearly we only have one reasonable course of action. We must proceed with this bill as quickly as possible. We must live up to the crown's commitments to build new relationships with Yukon First Nations. In doing so we will open the doors for economic development, job creation and other social benefits for all residents of the Yukon.

Yukoners are virtually unanimous in wanting this bill to pass quickly. The minister has received letters, for example, from the Yukon Chamber of Mines urging the government to pass this legislation. Yukoners want and need the certainty of the economic development opportunities that this bill and the land claims settlement will bring.

Hon. members are aware that the surface rights board that will be established by Bill C-55 is a requirement of the Yukon umbrella final agreement. The creation of this board acknowledges the changing face of land ownership in the Yukon. It is an excellent example of foresight, planning and preparedness by government.

As land claims in the Yukon are settled, large tracts of land will be confirmed as First Nations land. Other residents of the Yukon will also be able to more readily acquire land as private owners. The crown's current role as primary land owner in the territory will gradually be eliminated.

At the same time, the certainty of land and resource ownership that will result will rekindle interest in subsurface minerals, including minerals on privately held land. In support of resource development and resource development initiatives, a new mechanism of public government is needed. This will ensure that access rights are available to those who want and need to use the land.

That mechanism is known as the Yukon surface rights board. It has been modelled on similar boards operating in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. This board will resolve disputes relating to both settlement and non-settlement lands throughout the Yukon. As has already been said, we anticipate that most of these disputes will involve access to land for exploring for or developing subsurface mineral resources.

We want to emphasize that the Yukon surface rights board will have a range of known and definite powers for resolving disputes. These will include the power to issue access orders, to establish terms and conditions of access, and to award compensation for access or for damage resulting from access. However, Bill C-55 will require people to attempt to negotiate access in compensation agreements before bringing a dispute to the board. The board will only be asked to resolve disputes where no such agreement was possible.

Orders of the Yukon surface rights board will be enforceable through the Supreme Court of the Yukon Territory. Decisions may be appealed to the court on limited grounds, such as bias or lack of procedural fairness.

We also want to stress that the board will take a balanced approach to its work. Bill C-55 ensures that all sectors of the Yukon society will have an opportunity to participate in the important decisions that need to be made.

Under the terms of its land claims agreement, the Council for Yukon Indians will have the right to nominate one-half of the members of the surface rights board excluding the chairperson. Yukon Indians will also be guaranteed representation on any panel created by the board to deal with matters concerning settlement lands. This will give aboriginal people an important and effective role in decision making relating to surface rights.

The remainder of the board's members will be nominated by the federal government. The minister intends to ensure that all interests in the Yukon are represented on the board. It will become a practical example of resource co-management that can be replicated in other jurisdictions.

Bill C-55 was drafted with cost efficiency in mind. It provides a less costly and time consuming option than the courts for addressing issues of access and compensation. The requirement for negotiation and possibly mediation before bringing a dispute to the board is also intended as a cost saving measure.

As hon. members are aware, this bill is based on extensive consultation with representatives of the Yukon First Nations, the territorial government, the mining industry and the Yukon general public. Many of these parties have been directly involved in drafting this legislation. Consequently, Bill C-55 is fair and responsible to everyone with a stake in the future of the Yukon.

As a result of the unprecedented consultative process, we have been able to reach a general agreement on the principles of this bill. We have also reached consensus on almost all of its provisions.

As I said at the outset, we have no reasonable alternative but to proceed with this bill. Parliament's endorsement of this legislation is critical to the process of settling land claims in the Yukon and bringing the fundamental democratic right of self-government to Yukon First Nations. It is vital that we uphold the crown's honour by fulfilling our obligation to Yukon First Nations under the land claims agreement.

Bill C-55 is also sound, responsible and necessary legislation in its own right. It will bring decision making closer to the people affected. It will provide a known regime for obtaining access to private and public lands. This in turn will facilitate economic development and provide a level playing field for Yukon industry compared to other areas in Canada. This will ensure that resource development projects will go ahead after many years of delay and frustration.

Bill C-55 will also give Yukon Indians the chance for a new partnership with governments and non-aboriginal Yukoners. This is a goal that is supported by all Canadians. I therefore urge my hon. colleagues to agree to send this legislation to the other place after which an order in council can be approved to proclaim this legislation into law.

Combined with the Yukon land claims and self-government legislation, Bill C-55 will help bring about positive changes that have been long envisaged in the Yukon.

Yukon Surface Rights Board ActGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Bloc

Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, I think it will not come as a surprise that, of course, we will support the bill, as we did for Bill C-33 and Bill C-34.

In fact, I say that it would be illogical not to adopt the bill now before the House, Bill C-55, since it will give effect to bills C-33 and C-34. Knowing the Yukon's concerns and since, as the critic responsible for these matters, I kept up with them for the whole session, we will be totally logical with ourselves by supporting the bill.

The bill is giving effect to Bill C-33 and Bill C-34. Before making a short description of these bills, I want to remind members that I went to the Yukon, this year. For me, it is the best way to deal with the issues and to see the way native peoples live.

Most of the members who will speak on the bills now before the House will do so without having visited the communities concerned. For my part, if possible, I try to go to these places in order to better understand the feelings of the people there and also to become aware of their quality of life.

I met some really remarkable people in the Yukon, very tolerant people who have also been very persevering. It was said repeatedly that these negotiations required 21 years of efforts before they could be concluded. Yet, we have to realize that the injustices do not go back only 21 years, but much further. When you become aware of the native way of doing things, of the way they see the world, you realize that from the very beginning, from the day the first Europeans came to the Yukon, aboriginal people accepted willingly to share their territory with them, but without relinquishing in any way their native rights, their rights as first occupants.

When the economy developed and when aboriginal people realized that they were excluded from that development, they understood that it was necessary for them to have a say about economic development and resource management on their land.

This is where we are today, after years, decades of injustice and after 21 years of negotiations. Bill C-55 will put into effect Bill C-33, which dealt with self-government. With that bill, and in some areas of activity, we were saying to aboriginal people: "Here, now, instead of designing and managing programs from Ottawa, we are letting you decide in areas like education, health, etc." I think we really have here a way to solve the major problems we find on reserves.

It is an interesting solution, because for too long we have had a very paternalistic approach to their problems and we simply pushed them into a situation of extreme dependency. Often, there is no economic development because their land base is very limited, and the resources they have access to are also very limited. Therefore, they cannot flourish economically.

The Auditor General revealed this week that close to 40 per cent of the native population is heavily dependant on either welfare or unemployment insurance. I visited reserves where the unemployment rate was around 80 per cent. It is painfully obvious that the way we deal with the native situation is outdated and does not work. What we have here is an example of how to help native communities help themselves.

When they manage their own affairs, not only are they no longer dependent on the bureaucracy in Ottawa, but they are in tune with local concerns. You know that when it comes to education and health matters, the native way is often very different from ours. Their approach is much more holistic, more respectful of the environment they live in. I believe that it is important to ensure that powers which used to belong to Ottawa be transferred to native communities. Bill C-33, which was passed recently, gives native people authority over some specific activities. It is the way of the future.

I referred to Bill C-33, which deals with self-government. Even though it is a different matter, it has something to do with the fact that one must ensure that the land which is given back to native people will contain enough resources to allow them to opt out of the Indian Act. As I mentioned before, this act keeps them in a state of extreme dependence. The land base arrived at in the agreement with the Yukon and the main stakeholders who have signed so far, will ensure that they will be able to become economically independent.

We could point out the importance of the board. The board is very important for the very simple reason that it must settle disputes. In the Split Lake agreement, for example, the lack of a

board to settle disputes is rather obvious. What would happen without a board such as the one proposed in this bill? The courts would systematically be called upon to settle disputes.

We realize that there might be hundreds of disputes, that people are waiting for their cases to be resolved because we know how heavy the courts' backlog is. The board proposed today will clear some of the backlog by settling disputes concerning both rights and territories.

We also at one point toyed with the idea of proposing amendments. However, after consulting with Yukon first nations, we concluded that it might be better not to define the rights and interests because they said that the nations could probably agree among themselves on what these rights and interests are.

We also played with the notion of person because, as you know, the agreement before us covers four first nations out of 14, if I am not mistaken. Another 10 or so are negotiating or close to a settlement. We were concerned at one point that the notion of person would only apply to signatory nations. However, after discussion, we realized that the term "person" had a broader meaning. As a result, the board will be able to settle disputes not only among the first nations that have signed the agreement and are subject to the act but also with the first nations that have not signed it yet.

That is why today we will support the bill without amendments as such.

Why do we support the bill? I think I have just given a few of the reasons: the Natives' desire to manage their own affairs along with the Canadian government's intention to stop placing Indians under its guardianship. I think that this government has announced its intentions, including a pilot project in Manitoba among other things. Let us say, however, that after almost 100 years the government finally realized that the law was obsolete and did not achieve its objectives and that it was imperative to completely alter the way we deal with Natives.

The government is willing to make these changes. Of course, Bloc Quebecois members also realized very quickly that changes were needed. One only has to visit some reserves a number of times to see that the system does not work. Avenues of resolution lie before us and the Bloc Quebecois will certainly agree that a new approach must be taken involving self-government and land claims.

As for respect for aboriginal cultures, if there is an issue that is truly fascinating, this is it. There are 635 communities living on reserves in Canada. I am limiting my comments to aboriginal people living on reserves, because you notice that many no longer do and this is the kind of unique dynamic that they have to deal with. There is the whole issue of the Metis, and the Inuit as well, because they too are very preoccupied with not being drowned by such concerns, by aboriginal concerns. In fact, they say so, every chance they get.

Coming back to aboriginal communities, to the 635 of them. This is a really fascinating issue, because although they belong to first nations and often speak the same language-there are approximately 50 aboriginal languages you know-we notice that from one of these 635 communities to the other, these aboriginal people all have their own way of looking at things. And that is what makes aboriginal affairs such a great challenge. It is a fascinating issue.

So, the agreement before us concerns aboriginal nations of the Yukon. Yukon has a rather unique history and the aboriginal people are proud of having shared in writing it with the Europeans. I can say, having travelled myself to that part of the country, that these people took me to see magnificent sites, including the Yukon River. It was beautiful at the time of year when I visited. Because of the glaciers, the river was completely transformed, taking shades of blue like I had never seen, except perhaps at sea or from a beach, watching colours change as the horizon becomes indistinct. But in the Yukon, the depth and colour of the river were really amazing. They are proud to say that they have shared this territory with others.

I was taken to a mountain where the first Europeans supposedly went to see the midnight sun. I had never seen the midnight sun. I found it thrilling. I was taken to the Klondike, now Dawson City, and we are proud to see that there was a happy coexistence between Europeans-I was even given the opportunity to try to find gold. I was assured that I could find gold, but unfortunately I could not take the time to do it. I spent more time trying to fish on the river and perhaps I did not catch any fish, but I did not get any gold either. I met some wonderful people there and I tell you that the trip was quite what I expected, a realization that those people are extraordinary and live in a wonderful place.

As I said at some length before, the inhabitants will have the resources needed for economic development. I think that with the areas granted and the degree of responsibility that these people will have-and they have been waiting to take control of their lives for a long time-I think that their future is now assured. They will have both the land base and sufficient economic resources to break from the tutelage of the Indian Act.

They will also be able to ensure their identity as native people. Several examples to illustrate this point could be mentioned. Let us take a very specific one, housing. One need only go to the reserves to see how all the houses are alike. It is so because the houses and the housing development plans were designed in Ottawa, and also because the budgets were usually rather limited. So, the question was: How are we going to build adequate houses, but without any frills? The result was that

these houses were often all identical and that the aboriginal culture was not taken into consideration.

It is important to them to ensure their development while also affirming their cultural identity. I think you will see a major change in the way native people will do things in the Yukon. I believe they will give us quite a demonstration. I am anxious to go back there and see how things will have changed in a few years. I hope that by then Quebec will be an independent country. However, it will still be possible to go to the Yukon because we have no intention of building a Berlin wall between Quebec and the rest of Canada. I will always be happy to visit the Yukon, look at the new way of doing things and see how these people will have taken control of their destiny and ensured that their culture is reflected in the decisions they will make.

This legislation puts an end to the uncertainty regarding territorial rights, land titles, cutting rights as well as mining rights.

Indeed, there was a great deal of uncertainty before, but things will finally be settled.

Negotiations lasted 21 years and surface rights had to be established to confirm ownership and rights over usable land. I briefly alluded to this earlier and I do not think it is necessary to go over that again.

Bill C-55 proposes the establishment of a board having jurisdiction to settle disputes. I also mentioned that point earlier and I made a comparison with Split Lake, where no such board exists and where arbitration problems are mounting. If such a board was established there, a large number of disputes would be settled without having to go before the courts. This is an original idea that will also save a lot of money to a lot of people.

Given the current state of public finances, it is very important to make good use of our money. I believe that this board will result in savings, considering the legal costs generated by all those endless disputes which would often end up in the Supreme Court. These people would rather settle things differently, more or less by consensus, which is the way democracy works. The board, through its membership, and I will come back to this later on, will solve these disputes.

It will be a last resort and it will represent a true transfer of jurisdiction to the first nations.

I want to say a little more on the housing and health issues, and also discuss infrastructures. We know that the government has spent a lot of money on infrastructure. I have personally visited several reserves and, as I mentioned yesterday in this House, I was stunned to see how dilapidated housing on the reserve is, but also that a large number of houses have no water system, no sewer and no running water. In Canada, we boast about our remarkable quality of life. But we tolerate these things, which only go to show that the Indian Act provides no solution at all. We boast about the remarkable quality of life in Canada, but the native people are living in what I consider Third World conditions.

With this kind of bill, and bills like C-33, C-34 and C-55, people will be able to invest their own resources in whatever basic infrastructure projects that might meet their own needs. This is not only a step in the right direction, but also the way to nip the problem in the bud.

I will now turn to the membership of the board, because I see that the private members' hour is coming up soon. The board will be made up of 3 to 11 members. What is original here is that the native people will have their say in the appointment of these board members. Since we are giving natives a land base and granting them self-government, it would be a bit silly to seize the very first opportunity we have to set up a board and appoint only white people. Of course, in Yukon, the majority of the board members will be natives. I think this is an adequate compromise. Half of the board members will be natives appointed by natives.

It is equally important that the people making up the other part of the committee also come from the Yukon. Personally, I have a good knowledge of native affairs, but I would feel very uneasy if the minister or the government chose me to sit on the Yukon committee. It would be ill advised on my part to say that I know that community and that I want them to benefit from my great wisdom. I think that the days when Ottawa could impose its wisdom on the regions and on the native communities are over and I think that the bill before us reflects a desire to help the First Nations take their own destiny in hand. Therefore, there must be a native component in all of the various committees so that the policies and the plans of the First Nations are reflected in reality and that the natives are free to take the directions they want.

I would be remiss if, before concluding briefly, I did not also mention Quebec's experience. I believe that Quebec's experience, notably the James Bay Convention, somehow sets a standard. I say this every time the issue of self-government comes up, and I say it again: I believe that the James Bay Convention set a standard which truly serves as a model elsewhere in Canada.

So I think it was very interesting in this regard. I would be remiss if, every time we have an opportunity to talk about self-government, I did not mention it, because that convention

was signed in 1975. I am not saying the agreement is perfect since there are no perfect agreements. They often are the result of a fine compromise. But even if it is now being attacked by the Cree nations, as some colleagues of mine said this week, we must consider that in those days, at the time of the signature, people were very happy with that document. Today, many provisions of the James Bay Agreement apply even in Yukon and I think many parts of the James Bay Agreement served as a model for the regulations on self-government that were adopted here, after that legislation.

There is wide consensus also in Yukon. Of course there are a great number of natives in Yukon, but there are also a great number of people of other nations who shared the territory with the native people. I say share, but I am being generous in saying that because, down deep, there was no sharing. It is more like the natives had to share part of their territory because the mining companies established themselves there. Perhaps these companies gave work to a few natives in the region, but we must admit the resources extracted from the Yukon territory did not really help finance the solution of the native issues in Yukon.

Therefore we will remedy the inequities with a proper compromise. The consensus is wide enough, even in the Yukon. The Yukon government agrees on that, the Mining Association agrees on the proposals that are before us. People realize that there have been inequities for too long and that negotiations have taken place for 21 years. Finally, I want to say that the last page of paternalism in Yukon has been turned today, that we are putting an end today to an era that may have been useful at the time for some people, but surely not for the native people, and that a new era in which native people will take control of their destiny, in which there will be no dependence towards the federal government, is beginning.

These people will now be able to tell their children and grandchildren:"That happened in 1994". And if we consider their attitude during the negotiations, and their perseverance, for decades, from generation to generation, these people have been saying: this must be changed, and they persevered, so that today, we are turning over a new leaf, and as a result, aboriginal people, I am positive, will be much better off, as far as their culture, natural resources, territory and their relationship with non-aboriginal people in the Yukon are concerned. From this day onward, there will be no more dependency. They have started something new, and I am looking forward to seeing how things will evolve, and from now on we will see that we made the right decision in 1994.

I want to congratulate all first nations who, I know, are listening to us today. Today is the culmination of all these negotiations, and of course the Bloc is delighted to have been a part of these discussions, and in concluding, I want to thank them for their cordial welcome, and I am so happy that we were with them throughout this process, and the Bloc Quebecois is pleased to say that they will support this bill.

Yukon Surface Rights Board ActGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Grain Export Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

5:25 p.m.

Lethbridge Alberta

Reform

Ray Speaker ReformLethbridge

moved that Bill C-262, an act to provide for the settlement of labour disputes affecting the export of grain by arbitration and to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of my Bill C-262 respecting the Grain Export Protection Act. The bill deals with an issue that grain farmers in western Canada and in my constituency have been addressing and wanting to address for some time.

For 11 days last January and February a labour dispute at the Vancouver ports disrupted the flow of Canadian grain to export markets. It is estimated that Canada's grain industry incurred losses of hundreds of millions of dollars.

The federal government responded by introducing special back to work legislation, Bill C-10, to end the dispute and resume the flow of grain. Far from being an isolated case, it marked the 13th time that the workers were legislated back to work since the year 1966. Bill C-262 provides a permanent solution to this chronic problem by amending the Public Service Staff Relations Act to prevent labour disputes from disrupting the flow of grain from the farm to export.

In cases where grain transportation is threatened by strikes or lockouts those actions are prevented. To settle such disputes the bill provides for a settlement mechanism known as final offer selection arbitration. The process is only utilized if the parties involved are unable to reach an agreement through the normal collective bargaining process.

For those who are not familiar with final offer selection arbitration, let me quickly mention some of its key features. First, the trade union and the employer are requested to provide the minister with the name of a person they jointly recommend as the arbitrator.

Second, the trade union and employer are required to submit to the arbitrator a list of matters agreed upon and a list of those matters still under dispute. For the disputed issues each party is required to submit a final offer for settlement. The arbitrator

then settles either the final offer submitted by the trade union or the final offer submitted by the employer. The arbitrator is not permitted to split the difference. In the event that one party does not submit a final offer the other side is automatically accepted. The arbitrator's decision in these matters is binding on both parties.

Why was the final offer selection chosen? This dispute settlement mechanism used by the federal government in Bill C-10 was chosen to force the negotiating parties to make a greater effort at settling their differences by themselves. By compelling each party to submit a final best offer and by preventing the arbitrator from splitting the difference between the two, the mechanism creates a strong incentive for both parties to submit a credible, constructive and economically realistic offer for settlement. Any party that tables an unreasonable final offer would be taking a huge gamble the arbitrator would choose the other party's proposal. It is hoped that the existence of the process will encourage negotiating parties to reach agreements before it becomes necessary to have the arbitrator choose one offer or the other.

Since 1966, as I have mentioned, the federal government has had to pass special back to work legislation in the areas of longshoring and grain handling 13 times. The cost of such disruptions to grain farmers and the grain industry is tremendous. The Western Wheat Growers Association estimated that the 11-day work stoppage which was ended by Bill C-10 of this year cost the grain industry some $35 million in demurrage, penalties and out of pocket expenses.

When the Minister of Human Resources Development spoke on Bill C-10 he stated that the strike was threatening some $500 million worth of grain sales. That is not acceptable.

The frequency of such work stoppages over the past 20 to 30 years has also made foreign buyers question the reliability of Canada's grain supply. The most recent work stoppage at the west coast ports so concerned Japanese canola importers that they have begun offering Australian farmers minimum pricing contracts to encourage them to grow canola.

Another reason Bill C-262 is necessary is the vulnerability of western grain farmers to work stoppages in these industries. To illustrate just how vulnerable grain farmers are, let us consider this example. In 1988, 30 per cent of the country's grain exports were halted by 69 grain handlers in Prince Rupert. As usual the federal government was compelled to legislate them back to work after a few days.

One source of the problem is that Canada's transportation network has failed western grain farmers by limiting the options available to them in moving their grain to market. This is largely a result of the distorting effects government policies such as the WGTA subsidy, the Crow benefit, have had on the development of the nation's transportation structure.

Another source of grain farmers' vulnerability is the composition and location of Canada's grain markets. Approximately 80 per cent of Canadian grain is exported and most foreign buyers prefer loading out of west coast ports.

Finally there is a combination of legislation, regulations and purely economic considerations that has made it uneconomical or impractical for farmers to ship grain to export markets via such alternate routes as Thunder Bay, Churchill and American west coast ports.

On average the federal government has had to legislate grain handlers and longshoremen back to work, as I have said, about once every two years. Each time it happens grain farmers lose control over their livelihoods and their lives. Why should we not settle the issue once and for all instead of waiting for the next time it becomes necessary to rush through emergency back to work legislation? There is no need to have next times because with Bill C-262 we can resolve the problem once and for all.

One question asked is: Does Bill C-262 not violate the right to bargain collectively? I want to say very clearly that Reform is not anti-labour. That is not the intent of the bill. It is not a bill about union busting. We fully support the principle of collective bargaining. As a member of the legislature in the province of Alberta I have spoken a number of times in support of the process. However we also support the right of farmers to earn a living. We believe that governments have a responsibility to protect western grain farmers from ever again having to incur the costs they incurred during past strikes and lockouts.

In the sectors affected by the bill, that is the grain industry itself, the right to bargain collectively and to strike or to lock out employees is presently somewhat of a fiction. All the parties involved realize this very fact. Why do I say that? It is fiction because the federal government is always compelled-and the history is there-to intervene to end such work stoppages within a matter of days. The proof for this statement, as I have said more than once already in my remarks, is that the federal government has had to legislate the workers back to work some 13 times since 1966.

In a properly functioning labour environment with employers and employees they both have to take into account costs in the form of lost wages or in the form of sales. Then the question about strike action becomes something different. Normally this is a powerful incentive for both sides to reach an agreement at the bargaining table.

However this normal safeguard does not apply in the case of longshoring and grain handling. The knowledge that any work stoppage in these areas will not be permitted to last for any length of time has been factored into the negotiation process for the parties. They do not fear a strike nor a lockout knowing it

will not last too long. They know the victims in the process will not be the employers or the employees but western Canadian grain farmers because in the end they pay the bills.

When I look at legislation such as this I wonder whether or not it should be permanent legislation. I do not believe it should be permanent. We in the Reform Party hope that at some point we could take the legislation off the books. Such legislation is presently necessary due to a number factors. Western grain farmers have no choice but to export their grain via one transportation route. If they had the option of shipping their grain via route a or via route b when there is work stoppage there would be no need for Bill C-262.

This is one reason a Reform government would work to create a more flexible and efficient transportation network. Transportation reform is one of a series of measures which Reformers believe would empower farmers by giving them greater flexibility and control over their own livelihood. When such reforms are put in place there would be no need for legislation such as the private member's bill before us today. At such a time the legislation could be repealed with no harm to grain farmers. Until such reforms are made Reformers believe the government's priority should be to protect the western grain farmer.

If in the future after Bill C-262 has been repealed and there is some combination of events that threatens western grain farmers again, we would not hesitate to bring back into effect that kind of legislation.

I look at Bill C-262 as a private member and as a farmer from western Canada. I was involved in each work stoppage that occurred over the past 13 years either as a member of the legislature or as a farmer who wanted to ship grain to meet my expenses and commitments as a farmer. I was always frustrated.

I remember in the legislature moving resolutions that the provincial government should go to the federal government and get the work stoppage stopped so that farmers could start shipping their grain and getting out of some of the financial stress they were facing. The provincial government said it was a federal matter. Often it stayed that type of thing even though members of the legislature in Alberta agreed that something should be done.

I remember as a farmer saying: "I know I am paying the bill but I cannot sit at the table. I have no place at the table as a farmer even though I am paying the bill in order to make my case. There is no one at the table representing me". The grain companies did not have the vested interest of the farmer. We could not say anything to the grain companies. We could not say anything to the longshoremen. They were not responsible to the farmer. It had been and still is a very frustrating and difficult problem.

I always said that if I had the opportunity something should be done where the farmer is represented at the table. The bill empowers the federal government to be at the table and to say to the 23 or 25 unions between the farm gate and the hold of the boat that if they move to a point where they can negotiate no further at the table they must move to arbitration. You present your case at the table the best you can. If you win you get that settlement; if the employer or the shipping companies win then that is the settlement. That is the way it is. We would be a little more involved as a farmer in an indirect sense, the federal government would represent us there.

What happens now under the circumstances? What happened in January and February 1994? Again we had work stoppage. Farmers were in difficulty. The government was being pressured to bring in a bill to put these people back to work.

Then it becomes a political item. Should we force labour back to work or not? Should we get involved or not? What are the politics of it? Are the farmers stressed or are they not? Do we want to represent the union? We do not want to lose their vote out there.

All of a sudden here is the farmer of western Canada in terms of his financial circumstances and his marketing capabilities being involved in a political process. He should not be involved in this type of circumstance. As far as I am concerned, that is wrong and it should stop.

It is incumbent upon this government to look seriously at this proposal and take some action. I know that western farmers would shout hurrah and be excited about it. They would want this type of action from the government. They are getting tired of being pawns of these few longshoremen who are paid very high hourly wages, exorbitant wages, for the jobs they are doing out on the coast.

I have said this in the Alberta legislature and I have said it publicly to the media and in a variety of other places. We as farmers were so disgusted with the circumstances out there. I said that I could train 25 to 40 of the young farmers from my constituency in two weeks or less and move them out there. We could take over those jobs and we could continue to get our grain on the boats and move it forward.

I can tell you a lot of young farmers were so upset because of this strike, with people getting paid high wages out there and having no consideration. Living on the coast at Vancouver, sitting out on the port where the water never freezes over, or sitting up at Prince Rupert where there is not any kind of agricultural environment, there is no loyalty, no communica-

tion, no concern for that farmer. That farmer is out on the flat prairie trying to survive under not only very adverse climatic conditions but economic conditions as well.

This bill should not be taken lightly by government. The normal practice for this kind of thing is that if a private member introduces and presents a bill on the floor of the House of Commons or in a legislative environment, just because it comes from a private member of Parliament from the opposition the first knee-jerk reaction is for government members to come up with one reason or 10 reasons to reject the bill.

Government members do not think about the merits of the bill and whether it will it work. They often think about who is going to get the credit. Well, I could not care less who gets the credit, but we should think about the idea behind the bill and consider it sincerely so that we can solve this problem once and for all for the farmers of western Canada.

That is my case. I leave it with this House of Commons. I am certain that western Canadian farmers, the agriculture industry, are very interested in these kinds of changes. I urge my colleagues to give it their utmost support and consideration.

Grain Export Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

November 24th, 1994 / 5:45 p.m.

Liberal

Morris Bodnar Liberal Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK

Mr. Speaker, because of time constraints I will give an abbreviated version of my speech. The comments of the hon. member are interesting especially in light of his saying that we should be looking at the idea behind it. Perhaps the idea is most commendable. It is a question of whether this legislation meets the needs we are looking at.

I would like to begin my remarks on Bill C-262 by noting that we have been asked to look at what I regard as a very unusual piece of legislation. The author of the bill, the hon. member for Lethbridge, has titled the bill the grain export protection act. I say it is unusual because the House is very seldom asked to pass legislation that seeks to protect an economic activity from the participants themselves.

We have passed legislation that protects people from dangerous products or dangerous working conditions and we have passed legislation that protects consumers from unfair competition. In Bill C-262 in contrast we are being asked to pass a piece of legislation that seeks to protect an economic process, which is the transportation of grain, from the participants who are capable of slowing down or stopping the transportation process.

The first question I would ask with regard to the stated intention of the bill is, who would the bill affect if it were to be passed? What companies and trade unions in the grain handling and transportation industry would be covered?

A shutdown of the national railway system or a shutdown of one of the major terminal elevators would certainly affect the transportation of grain and would come under the scope of the bill. What about a shutdown of one of the transfer elevators on the Great Lakes or along the St. Lawrence seaway system? What about a shutdown of the Prescott elevators or the Sorel elevators near Montreal? Would the legislation apply to the companies or unions at these points? They are involved in the transportation of grain to the export market.

Obviously, the scale of operations of these companies is much smaller than the terminal elevators at Thunder Bay or Vancouver. Therefore it is questionable as to whether or not they should be included. Unfortunately, the bill is unclear on this point and we are left to surmise for ourselves as to the companies and workers who might be covered by the bill.

I should like to emphasize the important role played by grain farmers throughout Canada to our national economy as indicated by the hon. member. As we examine Bill C-262 we will want to keep in mind that we are assessing the relevance of this bill to grain farmers principally in the prairie provinces as well as the men and women who work in the grain transportation system across Canada.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, this is an abbreviated version of my speech. The management of the grain transportation and handling system is a complicated matter. There are an untold number of factors that contribute to the success in the operation of the system and there is an equally wide number of factors that can go wrong. The experience of this past year with the difficulties in the grain hopper car supply and weather conditions illustrates this point very well.

When we look at a bill such as C-262 and the drastic measures it proposes, we have to keep in perspective the fact that industrial relations is only one dimension in the workings of this very expensive and complex system.

I feel extremely uneasy about one implication of this bill which I believe should be highlighted. That is the fact that it seeks to ameliorate the conditions of one group in the western economy by restricting the rights of others, namely the parties involved in the grain handling and transportation system.

I would suggest that it would be an extremely questionable act for the House to enact such a measure. I say this especially in view of the fact that many of the difficulties in the prairie grain economy are attributable to the international competitive environment and the difficulties we experienced earlier this year with the hopper car situation.

I seriously doubt that the proposed legislative amendments would have the desired effect for the prairie economy and may in fact have negative implications for the agricultural sector.

There is well founded evidence in those countries that have institutionalized the use of arbitration that work stoppages albeit illegal in nature continue to occur. In addition the arbitra-

tion process can result in settlements which are not always reflective of the mutual interests of the parties.

The export of Canada's grain and its delivery to domestic markets depend on the vital activities of many companies and their workforces. On occasion the reliability of grain transportation and handling can be inconvenienced by work stoppages involving players in the system.

Hon. members will be aware there have been occasions in the past where the particular party in power has had to take action in the public interest and bring about a resolution of work stoppages by legislative intervention. However, these infrequent occurrences hardly warrant the passage of proposed Bill C-262 before us which would remove collective bargaining rights and provide for the drastic measures that are contained within it.

We need only look to the experience of countries in which compulsory arbitration is widely practised. That experience is instructive. It indicates very clearly that strikes continue to occur even with compulsory arbitration and that such a measure turns out to be less than the solution or the panacea it is purported to be.

I have stated that there is a widespread consensus on the source of present difficulties in international grain markets and in the measures that are being introduced to help augment the supply and efficiency of grain hopper cars. In view of this reality my feeling is that it would be unfortunate to inflict such a weighty and questionable measure as is proposed by Bill C-262 on the employers and workers in the industry.

Therefore, I have to say that Bill C-262 is not an appropriate measure for regulating collective bargaining in the Canadian grain handling and transportation system. I would urge hon. members of this House not to support the proposed legislation.

There has been mention made of the needs of Canadian farmers and certainly there are losses that occur in strikes. There are always losses that occur in strikes, losses that occur not just to the grain farmers, but losses that occur to the people who work in the industry and to the companies involved. This is part of the bargaining process and labour management and it should continue. Elimination of such processes causes bitter feelings, causes stress and tension. In fact it exacerbates the situation rather than improves it.

Grain Export Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

5:55 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Guy Chrétien Bloc Frontenac, QC

Mr. Speaker, the bill introduced by the hon. member for Lethbrige deals with grain tranportation from the point of production to the point of export.

If we go back a little, we find that this bill has its origin in a work stoppage which occurred last February at the port of Vancouver. To better understand the scope and the reasons of this bill, we must go back in time.

On January 27, in Vancouver, representatives of the Longshoremen's Union and management failed to come to an agreement. The union decided to go on legal strike at the port of Chemainus on Vancouver Island. Two days later, on January 29, management reacted by imposing a lock-out. On February 8, that is 10 or 11 days later, the Minister of Human Resources Development had this House pass Bill C-10 forcing longshoremen back to work. That bill imposed a settlement of the labour dispute. It provided for the appointment of an arbitrator to whom both parties where to submit their final offers. He would then choose one of the two which would be the new collective agreement.

This way of doing things is contrary to the bargaining process since it totally rejects one of the two offers. The object of bargaining is to find a compromise fair to both parties.

At the time, my colleague from Mercier had proposed an amendment which would have made the bill more in keeping with the spirit of collective bargaining. She was proposing to let the arbitrator choose parts of both offers to construct a final offer which would contain elements proposed by both parties. As I said, the essence of bargaining is finding the right compromise.

The amendment of my colleague from Mercier was rejected by the Liberals opposite who argued that their basic idea was the best, and rejected also by Reformers who considered that this bill did not go far enough. They will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the bill before us today espouses the same logic. They want to settle once and for all labour disputes affecting the export of grain.

To this end, the bill proposes two measures. The first one is to forbid employees to strike and employers to lock them out, if this strike or lock-out would cause cessation of work by any employee whose work is essential to any stage of the progress of grain from the premises of the producer of the grain to export. The second one is to make grain transportation an essential service.

This is the crux of the matter. Is grain transportation an essential service? You will understand that, for our part, we too are sticking to the same logic as last winter and spring by vigorously opposing this bill.

By removing the right to strike and to lock out, bargaining powers are reduced to nothing. We recognize that grain export constitutes a special case. Last winter, the strike was having devastating consequences for western producers: the grain shipped to port could not be loaded on the 25 foreign ships waiting for their cargo. Some even sailed to an American port to

get their cargo. Obviously, when Canada does not meet its grain export obligations, it has a serious impact on the industry. But we believe that this is not the way to solve the problem.

Many strikes in this industry have ended in ad hoc legislation by the governement. Earlier today, I learned, much to my surprise, that since 1966, in 28 years, no less than 13 ad hoc bills have been passed in order to settle disputes in the port of Vancouver. This is an average of a little more than one ad hoc piece of legislation every two years. Serious questions have to be asked. What is happening there? What is the matter?

Is management taking advantage of those employees? How come the federal government has had to intervene 13 times to settle directly a labour dispute? Mr. Speaker, this might make you smile, but I have a friend who is getting divorced for the sixth time. I told him: "Listen, there is a problem. It is either you or the women you choose. Either you do not know how to choose your girlfriends or you are the problem".

Thirteen bills in 30 years, that denotes a serious problem. I suggest to members of the Reform Party that labour relations should probably be looked at. There is probably a problem in that famous seaport, if not in all the west coast harbours, because it is not normal to have labour strikes every two years.

I have been on strike before, and I was proud of it. An employee on strike loses his salary. His ultimate goal when striking is to put an end to some injustice.

If an employee loses money, the employer should also lose money. I barely had time to say half of what I had in mind, but I will conclude by saying this: unfortunately, the Bloc Quebecois will vote with the government and against the Reform Party, because this bill does not agree with our policies.

In Quebec, we know about essential services, and we associate them with hospital workers, firemen, and policemen, but not with seaports. If we were to let longshoremen become essential services, tomorrow it would be the bulk milk carriers, the day after, workers in feed mills, because people would say: "Oh, those poor cows, sheep, pigs and hens will have nothing to eat!"

Mr. Speaker, obviously this does not make sense, members of the Bloc Quebecois will simply vote against this legislation and support the Liberal Party, in order to defeat the Private Members' bill presented by the hon. member for Lethbridge.

Grain Export Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

6:05 p.m.

Reform

Jake Hoeppner Reform Lisgar—Marquette, MB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address this bill today from the viewpoint of the farmer. I have farmed through all the years that we have had disruptions in the grain handling system.

My career started in 1957. I farmed through about 10 years of fairly decent grain handling activities. We were without strikes until 1966. It amazes me when I hear members on the opposite side today saying how important it is to support labour and management. My colleague from Lethbridge never stressed that it was totally labour's fault that these strikes existed. There was probably some belligerence from the management side as well. The problem in the grain handling system probably lies with both management and labour.

The first strike in 1966 was at a time when farmers had no grain drying facilities. I remember very well how the grain was backed up in 1966. We had decent weather to combine but we did not dare combine because the grain was tough and damp. We had to leave that number one quality wheat out in the field until the weather cooled enough so that we could store it. This is what happens to the farmer in the grain handling system when we have labour and management disagreeing.

By 1972 we had had backups on grain. There were good crops. I remember very well that in 1971 I bought three bushels of barley for $1 because there was no movement in grain. I bought numbered wheat at 70 cents a bushel to feed to my cattle operation.

Grain farmers did not know what to do with their top quality grain. That was the first time in my life that I had ever heard of farmers going bankrupt. It was not due to the farmers nor to their efficiency or work habit. It was due to unions and management not agreeing on a set price.

In 1971, grain handlers got a 66 per cent increase in wages. Farmers were selling their grain for one-third of the price that they should have had. If that is treating people fairly, I never want to be discriminated against.

The hon. member for Saskatoon-Dundurn, who is a lawyer by profession, suggested that there is third party liability in this situation. If two cars driving by his home were involved in an accident, rolled into his house and his house burned, who would pay for it? Would the hon. member pay for it? I bet he would not. That is what farmers have put up with for 30 years.

The Liberals will get no feathers in their hat because they have had as many strikes during their reign as the Conservatives.

If this country is going to survive, the primary producers of our products must be treated fairly. If that does not occur something is going to happen. Hon. members should remember that in 1995 GATT will come into effect. The western Canadian grain farmer will have the opportunity to move his grain through the transportation system in the U.S.

As the hon. Minister of Transport pointed out in his speech in Winnipeg in October, the United States transportation system is 66 per cent more efficient than the Canadian system. The United

States primary elevator system and terminal system is less than half as costly as the Canadian system.

If farmers do not get a decent deal through this bill, in 1995 farmers are definitely going to move their grain through a system outside this country. At that moment the people in the east can start floating their toy boats down the St. Lawrence seaway because that is all they will have. Farmers will not put up with that any longer.

It is important that members opposite and members of the Bloc realize that if we do not give fair treatment to the people on the land who are being discriminated against, those people will no longer support them.

Any political system that allows its primary food producers to go down the drain will itself follow quickly. The slightest blip in the economy will force grain prices down. The 20 per cent of farmers who produce 80 per cent of the food today will be gone. I want to see hon. members on the other side at that time try to import food with a dollar that is worthless.

It is time that we as members of Parliament and the government start addressing the real issues, not the superficial issues. If we do not protect our food industry we will see something happen that this Parliament will wish it had never seen.

Mr. Whelan, the former minister of agriculture, said that we have lost 100 food manufacturing plants in the last 10 years. That tells me that something is very wrong in our system. If that continues another three or four years this country will lose its balance of payments to the point that we will not be able to pay the interest on the debt that Conservative and Liberal governments have put on the backs of our children and grandchildren.

Today, instead of being partisan we should start agreeing and improving the system so that farmers can make a living and support the rest of this country.

The hon. member for Malpeque is a very strong supporter of supply management. If the grain producers do not get a fair deal, his supply management theory will be out the window.

I wish I could impress on Parliament the seriousness of this problem. When I look at the Soviet Union today, which I visited after the coup in 1991, I see a country that has half the agricultural land in Europe, the oil of the Middle East and gold of South Africa, starving. It is an example of what happens when we allow the primary producer to go down the drain.

I hope that Parliament has enough logic and sense to start dealing with these issues. When I see statistics that show it takes the same amount of time to move a rail car from the prairies to Vancouver as it did in 1907 there is something wrong with our transportation system. It cannot be put on the backs of the farmers.

When I see that charges at our elevators are four times as high as in the U.S. it is not the farmers' problem. When the taxes on our terminals are three and four times as high as they are in the U.S. that is not the problem of the farmers.

I hope I have impressed on Parliament that there has to be a solution found to this inefficient, expensive system of grain handling because if we do not find it somebody will do it for us.