Debates of Feb. 8th, 1994

West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1994

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating the government for bringing the legislation to the House. Reformers are pleased that the government finally listened to our persistence in Question Period to settle this issue. I would also like to thank members of all parties for their co-operation in allowing the legislation to be dealt with quickly.

I want to speak on behalf of western Canadian grain farmers in making it very clear to the House that this disruption should never have happened. Legislation that provides a long-term solution to this problem should have been passed years ago. In this regard I would like to pledge leadership on behalf of Reform

members of Parliament in reaching a long-term solution to this problem. Disruptions in grain handling must not continue.

This legislation appears to provide for an adequate solution to this particular disruption. For example, the arbitration procedure proposed in this bill seems to be a fair one. I believe both sides will provide serious offers knowing that one offer will be fully accepted and the other fully rejected by the arbitrator. This bill should allow this House to legislate an immediate end to this particular problem.

There is however a more important consideration. That is a long-term solution to the problem of disruptions in grain transportation and handling. The following points illustrates this.

There have been nine disruptions which have ended in back to work legislation for longshoremen and management since 1956. They occurred in 1956, 1972, 1974, 1975, 1982, 1986, 1988, 1991 and again in 1994. There have been over a dozen other labour-management disputes involving grain handling and transportation which have ended in back to work legislation. Many other situations have been settled through normal labour-management negotiations but all have caused disruptions in grain transportation and grain movement.

Hundreds of millions of dollars in lost sales have been incurred through these disruptions, but it is very difficult to put an exact figure on the value of the loss of sales due to unreliable delivery to our customers. Let me demonstrate the damage that has been done to the Canadian economy, especially to grain farmers.

Agriculture Canada has estimated that this strike has cost between $100 million and $150 million. This figure however does not take into consideration the damage to Canada's reputation as a reliable supplier of grain.

The Canadian Wheat Board indicated that the Japanese food agency has cut its next order from 80,000 tonnes to 35,000 tonnes. This reduction amounts to a loss of $6 million to Canadian grain farmers. Japanese buyers have indicated grave concern about depending on Canadian sources for future grain supplies. This is very serious.

The chief executive officer of a large grain company quoted a Japanese buyer as saying in these last couple of days that Canada should implement a strike month so we can get all of these strikes out of the way and have reliable grain deliveries for the other 11 months. It is a serious problem. The Japanese are complaining about these disruptions and we have to deal with them. It is truly an embarrassment that the Canadian government is allowing this to happen.

Lost shipment on the west coast amounts to 73,000 tonnes per day. However the losses go way beyond the two weeks of this strike. It will take several weeks for the system to operate at full capacity again. A catch up time is required. Demurrage costs alone will amount to $6 million, again paid for out of the pockets of western Canadian grain farmers. No one else covers these costs.

Past strikes have cost tens of millions of dollars and the damage to long-term commitments has been severe. Direct losses, for example losses to grain companies, terminal operations and demurrage on ships waiting in port are losses that can be calculated. However, the losses are due to disruption in sales and therefore future lost markets cannot be easily calculated. All of these losses I emphasize again are to western Canadian grain farmers. I could continue with examples such as these but let us start talking about long-term solutions.

There are at least two options which should be examined as possible long-term solutions. The first one is to declare grain handling an essential service. The second is to put into place better labour-management negotiation processes. I will explain the second option just a little later.

In declaring all grain handling an essential service, Reform policy states that grain handling should be deemed an essential service if use of alternative shipping points should not prove sufficient in maintaining shipment levels and customer satisfaction. This option therefore is conditional on having available other cost effective options to ship our Canadian grain.

The second option is to put in place a better labour-management negotiation process. This could involve ensuring that a new agreement will be in place before the old one expires. There would be no strikes under this option either.

To accomplish that an arbitrator could be appointed approximately six months before a contract expires. If a settlement has not been reached within two weeks of the end of the contract, then an arbitrator would ask management and labour to come up with their best offer, their best position. The arbitrator would then pick one, either the labour position or the management position. One position would be completely accepted and the other position completely rejected. This is in line with what the Liberals have proposed to end this particular strike.

Under this process a strike would not be allowed to occur. This is good for labour. It is good for management. It is good for western Canadian grain farmers and others using the system. These options should be considered in developing a long-term solution to the recurring disruptions in the grain handling system.

In conclusion I once again congratulate this government for bringing forth this legislation. On behalf of western Canadian grain farmers and others hurt by these disruptions, I strongly

encourage this government to work through an all-party committee in reaching a long-term solution to these recurring problems.

The last strike lasted five days, this strike eleven days. Let us ensure there are no future strikes which will curtail grain movement in the country.

[Vic Althouse, NDP, Mackenzie, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's outlining his solutions to labour disputes at the west coast. I am personally quite angry that this particular dispute has come about and the disruption that has occurred. Before we are finished with this nearly three weeks will have been lost in the shipment of grains, at a time when the shipping program was at its peak and in particular at its peak for those grades which we have had some trouble disposing of since they were in surplus in Canada: No. 3 wheat and the feed grains.

In listening to the hon. member's solutions I wonder if he would square for me what I understood his party's position is with regard to property rights and the rights of the owners to manage that property. How would he square that right with his proposal to force these people to stay open, keeping in mind that this disruption for grain at least and the previous one or two disruptions came about as a result of a lockout where the owners of the longshoring companies or the grain handling companies simply refused to open their doors to let the workers continue?

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not want to point a finger, in this case or in past disputes, at either management or labour. That is not my intent at all. I recognize that some have been lockouts and some have been strikes.

In terms of reconciling our position on property rights and ending a strike, we fully recognize that to make an open market system work well certain regulations must be in place. This is exactly one example of that type of situation. We have a near monopoly situation. Farmers have no option other than this route to get their grain to the customer. This is one time when government regulation is needed so that the system will work well.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment for the hon. member who just spoke. I make these comments as a former personnel director in an educational institution which has weathered the stormy seventies and seen better times later in terms of work relations. I think that there is a principle that is sacrificed with the best offer proposal: in labour relations, we must always have a win-win situation.

Yet this proposal will inevitably lead to a choice being made, a situation where there will be a winner and a loser. When I look at past labour disputes, in 1972, 1975, 1982, 1986 an so on, it is clear to me that the worst thing we could do would be to make a decision where one side would win and the other one lose. This would create a situation where, in terms of labour relations, they would always be at one another's throats and, when the time to negotiate a new agreement comes, they would dig their heels and ask themselves what would be the best way to play their hand with the legislator in order to end up on the winning side instead of the losing side.

I think this is not a good way to put the responsibility in the hands of the bargaining parties. This is especially true in the present case where, beside the fact that the dispute has a major economic impact, it would seem that neither labour nor management exhibited totally inappropriate behaviour. The problem is much more due to the historical background.

To conclude, I would like to ask the hon. member if, based on the foregoing arguments, he would not favour instead the option to let the adjudicator set what the new work conditions will be for the workers involved.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one possible solution I laid out was that all of these disputes would be settled before the end of the contract. Therefore there would be no labour disruptions in this type of dispute where there really is no option available for people using the service.

I do not see that as really encouraging settlement through legislation. In fact I believe there is a higher probability of labour and management reaching an agreement before a negotiator or an arbitrator comes into play. This type of settlement where there is one option from labour and one from management put on the table is going to lead to more serious and more realistic offers. I believe a more fair settlement is reached with that type of mechanism.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes before we go into committee of the whole to express my surprise and disappointment as we consider this legislation, one of the first bills to be introduced by this government. It is similar in scope to legislation passed by the Conservatives between 1984 and 1992, mainly toward the end of their mandate, when there was a labour dispute at Canada Post and a dispute in the public service, where they acted with a total lack of imagination and a total lack of care.

After keeping its distance, the present government had decided, now that things have come to a head, to intervene in this dispute in the tried and true way, on the advice of their senior officials or perhaps as a result of public pressure. One wonders, considering that it was clear a dispute was imminent, especially in January when the parties started jockeying for position, the unions had made their statements and the employers had shown a great deal of intolerance, why all of a sudden no one in the

government showed any concern or if they did, they kept a very low profile.

What amazes me in this dispute is that although it started as a rotating strike, the union maintained throughout its willingness to handle grain despite all kinds of pressures, out of respect for the farmers. After one day, plus a few days later on in only some of the ports, a lockout was declared. Someone over there knew the government had special legislation ready and waiting. They were already prepared for that eventuality, so there was no incentive to reach a settlement through mediation and conciliation during the weeks prior to the strike. If the appointed mediator had trouble reaching an agreement, especially on a clause that might easily have been dealt with, they could at least have tried another mediator.

The minister could have intervened, perhaps directly in a meeting with the parties, but no attempt was made. They prefered to stick with the Conservative or Liberal tradition whenever there is a dispute in our ports that affects the economy of a region or of the entire country, including postal disputes and the public service, which means bringing in special legislation.

How can we expect a normal bargaining process with a level playing field, when one of the parties knows that after a few days on strike, the government will table special legislation? There was hardly equality between the two groups and, in a difficult economic situation, an employer generally lends a deaf ear to union demands.

It is in that sense that I voice my disappointment. The very first legislative measure passed by this government is going to be a special law to settle a dispute which could have been mediated.

I want to make it clear that-although today we gave our consent in that particular case knowing full well that the government was unwilling to pursue any other route-we will not always agree so easily. In the future, the government will be faced with a barrage of interventions and they will have to demonstrate the necessity of such a measure.

We contacted the striking workers and they proposed amendments. They were open to discussion, they were willing to compromise and they suggested amendments to the Bill. The discussion we had with those people shows without a doubt that something was not right out there. There are always two sides to a dispute, but one side was not consulted.

The certainty of a recall bill was always in the mind of the negotiators. They did not have to make any concessions, they did not have to negotiate anything, they knew that a bill would be forthcoming. This is exactly the same attitude the Conservatives had when faced with similar disputes.

The red book that Liberals waved during the last election is quickly turning blue. They are behaving like Conservatives when faced with a dispute like this one. I deeply regret that move by the government and I will vote against the bill. I support the suggestions made by our critic in response to the minister; his speech was truly outstanding.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to committee of the whole. Pursuant to Standing Order 100 I do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of the whole.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Kilger in the chair.)

[The Assistant Deputy Chairman]

Order. House in committee of the whole on Bill C-10, an act to provide for the maintenance of west coast port operations.

(Clauses 2 to 7 inclusive agreed to.)

On clause 8:

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Chairman, we do this committee of the whole so rarely that none of us are as practised at it as we used to be, but I must say it is nice to be back on the front bench momentarily.

I wonder whether this is the appropriate place to ask the minister a few questions. I have two things. This is the clause having to do with final offer selection. I wonder if the minister could indicate whether or not the fact that this is in the bill is simply a reflection of the fact that this is what the employer in this case had hoped for prior to the stage of mediation or whether this reflects a new policy thrust on the part of the government in labour relations by way of recommending not just in this bill but to the country that final offer selection will come to be seen as one of the ways in which labour disputes of this kind and others might be settled.

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member from Transcona himself said earlier in the debate that the idea of final offer selection has very valuable precedents and that colleagues of his in the province of Manitoba introduced such proposals as a way of

trying to provide a more extended and active way of developing a collective bargaining process.

I would say that the Government of Canada, which is always interested in learning and adapting to useful ideas presented at the provincial level, would feel that final offer selection in this case makes a lot of sense, particularly because in the one case the issues in dispute are not complex. They are basically monetary ones of a very limited nature.

Second, as I tried to say in my opening remarks, because there are similar disputes of this nature brewing on the horizon, it would be very important for us to indicate that rather than having Parliament continually do a bailout of parties in the dispute that we once again try to, while the work stoppage may be harmful, restart or restore elements of collective bargaining, which in this case really requires both parties to make their best efforts to come out with what they think is the most reasonable, rational, effective solution. Then there is a certain risk that they play that they would not be accepted, but it is a way of putting some discipline, some pressure and some persuasion on the parties to get down to a serious calculation of what would be in the best interest of their industry in a collective way.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Chairman, the minister mentioned the discipline that he would want to bring to both parties to the dispute in this case and in other cases if he should find a way to have final offer selection built more into the labour relations of the country. I wonder if at this point he could tell us, because there is no obvious point in the bill where this question might be asked, why he chose not to try to impose some discipline on the company at the point at which the longshoremen volunteered to continue to handle the grain and the company refused.

It certainly seems to us, as I said in my earlier remarks, that this was an opportunity for the collective bargaining process to work without the pressure that it immediately creates when grain exports are held up. I wonder if the minister could explain why he did not say to the company: "Look, you simply cannot have that advantage. If people are willing to continue to handle grain then you must be willing to continue to permit them to do so". Why did he permit the lockout to transpire?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Chairman, while the movement of grain is a major and vital part of the port of Vancouver activity, it is not the exclusive, sole activity. There are many other commodities that move through the port of Vancouver such as potash, sugar and other raw commodities from western Canada which are considered just as vital to those who produce them.

Also, because of the containerization in the port itself and the clear diversion that was taking place, I think the employer was basically saying it would be wrong and the reason why we do not endorse a single shot or single item settlement is it would in fact be discriminatory against many others who have serious economic stakes in the port of Vancouver.

One of the reasons, as I said in my remarks, for bringing in the legislation at this time is the reputation that Canada must establish in its west coast ports for reliability. In this case we have already noticed the shift of many container ships into the American ports to the south. If we just allowed the grain movement to take place by itself those other items would have provided damage to their own producers, their own manufacturers and would have have continually eroded the positioning of the port of Vancouver which is also in the vital interest of Canada to maintain as a viable port.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Chairman, must I still address the Chair? No. Then you will not hold it against me this time. It could be habit forming.

My question, Mr. Minister, is along the same lines as that of my colleague from the NDP. Basically, you chose to let matters ride for quite a long time. Today is February 8 and since the employer declared the lockout on January 29, some time was allowed to pass. There was an attempt at mediation and I only learned of the concrete results after meeting with departmental officials. If I had had this information in hand before my meeting with them, I would have asked them different questions.

I want to say at the outset that given the mediator's position, given the fact that the final offer was the employer's preferred means of settling the dispute, that the mediator agreed with the employer's minimum position or vice versa, in point of fact, the workers may have been quite convinced, and no one would have been able to convince them otherwise on the basis of the facts, that the final offer was in fact a veiled way of proving the employer right. That is why I announced that I intended to propose an amendment to clause 10(1).

I do not want to start an argument because it is important to me that these workers are given the best possible chance to have an equitable solution put on the table. However, in order to ensure that they do get this opportunity given everything that has happened before, given this agreement on the 65 cents which was very close to the initial offer made by management and given the major concessions made by the workers, I think that to offer as the only solution a choice between two final offers is the same as supporting the employer's position.

I have the impression that in the opinion of my colleagues opposite, and especially the Minister of Labour-whom I hope

is still listening to me-who has just taken up his new duties and as Minister of Labour, must maintain his neutrality toward both parties, that in their opinion, disputes must be settled, but not so that there appears to be a bias in favour of one of the parties.

It seems to me that under the circumstances, the minister should give both parties the opportunity to reach an equitable settlement. I want to stress that the state of the economy is different in British Columbia than it is elsewhere. I would like for things to be this way in Montreal. This may not be an interesting problem to resolve but, just between us, I would much prefer to solve this problem than some of the other ones that are tied to the state of the economy.

Therefore, with regard to clause 10(1), I think that you should agree to my amendment since we are now at the stage of examining the dispute settlement process.

[English]

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Chairman, let me say first that throughout this bargaining and dispute, both officials of this department and myself have not taken any sides and have retained very strict neutrality, as has been the tradition of this department. I think it is wrong to suggest otherwise.

We feel that collective bargaining itself has both rights and obligations to it and in order to be exercised properly those of us who represent the third party, which in this case is the public interest, must ensure that there is no particular bias.

The fact that along the way the employer in this case sort of suggested that the final offer of selection might be one means of settlement does not mean to say that it is a bias in favour of the employer. Quite the contrary as I said to my hon. friend for Winnipeg Transcona. It was an NDP government in Manitoba, which I may say was not known as a friend of management necessarily, that proposed that as an endorsement. Similarly in the province of Ontario we have had final offer selection.

I do not think final offer selection in itself is attached to either side of the dispute, labour or management. It is just an important technique. The reason we are proposing it in this bill has nothing to do with the particular proposal of management in this case. We felt it was a better technique than arbitration which was tried in the past and failed. It has not succeeded in restoring a more legitimate useful process among the bodies.

As I outlined in my speech we had four different occasions when Parliament had to bring back the grain handlers in the port of Vancouver. In each case arbitration was used and it clearly did not have a kind of leavening effect. The chastening effect might be a better way of describing it.

What the hon. member for Mercier is proposing could well apply should a dispute arise at the port of Montreal. This provision in the bill sends a message to those in Montreal, namely that they should work out a solution through the collective bargaining process.

That is the reason. I think we are trying to say to a number of parties to the dispute that final offer selection is a way of continuing responsibilities.

In this case arbitration would not work. It has proven not to have been usefully exercised in the past to gain some kind of long term new set of labour relations. That is why I would appeal to the member.

I recognize in the amendment that she has proposed, which she was kind enough to share with me, that in effect it is just another form of arbitration. It is a not a variation on final offer selection. It really is a slightly revised version of arbitration itself. Therefore I think it would not serve the purpose of this act nor would it serve the purpose of the hon. member who as she expressed would hope to try to avoid a dispute of this kind in the port of Montreal or other areas.

As I said earlier in my remarks, I am quite happy to work with members to develop some propositions, policies and guidelines that we can better use, particularly in the transportation industry which is vital to this country. I would be very anxious to do that because I think we need to do it, but in this case I think it would be more effective and more appropriate if we use final selection which I believe is a fair device. Both sides have an equal right to present what they consider to be the most effective solution. Both sides have an equal right to win. Both sides have an equal possibility of losing. There are no flaws whatsoever in this proposal. It is fair to both sides.

[The Assistant Deputy Chairman]

Before giving the floor back to the hon. member for Mercier, I would like to rectify something I said earlier, if I may. When you first rose, you asked me if members always had to direct their comments or questions to the Chair. It would seem that I erred on the side of familiarity and that, in fact, even in committee of the whole, members must address each other through the Chair. That being said, the floor is yours.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

I did think there was a problem in there somewhere.

I would like to tell the minister that he seems to be forgetting an important point. When he says that the final offer in itself did not constitute an approach favouring one side over the other, I agree with him.

Not in itself but on that particular occasion there was the intervention of a mediator. I read this in the newspaper. The mediator is said to have agreed with 65 cents. The longshoremen had made an offer of 75 cents.

It is very important that the minister listen to me. If I speak in English it is because I want to be sure to be well understood. I hope I express myself correctly.

I want to defend the longshoremen of Vancouver. A mediator agrees with a settlement of 65 cents, which is only 5 cents more than the 60 cents offered. The union has asked for 95 cents and in front of the mediator because it wants a settlement goes as far down as 75 cents. I am sure if they went down to the docks they would have a real discussion with the guys there. I suppose that most of them are guys.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think the minister is listening to me.

We have a situation where the only point that is not settled, as I understand it, is the money gap. The mediator of the minister agreed to 65 cents. The employer wants a final offer and the minister presents a bill. When we speak to the longshoremen's union we think the minister is with the employer.

I pray the minister will preserve the impartiality of the labour minister for the months and years to come. I hope this will be the case. I hope we do not have a conflict in Montreal but if we have one I hope that the labour minister will have all the impartiality that he should have.

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to say that the remarks made by the hon. member for Mercier were impressive, in either official language. I did listen to her. Whether she is speaking French or English, the message is the same, if I understood her correctly.

I think the hon. member is beginning to stretch the point. There is no evidence of bias in this case. The role of the mediator is to make recommendations on what he or she thinks would be the best judgment. To suggest that it demonstrates a bias is simply saying whether it is a judgment call or not. I do not think they side with one party or the other. It would be unfortunate to cast aspersions on a mediation service which over the years has done very well by this country and has served in a very neutral and objective fashion.

I also believe that if the hon. member would look carefully at the legislation she will see there is equal opportunity for both sides at the start. Both sides have the right to recommend the selection of the arbitrator who would decide on final offer selection. We invite both parties to come together to find a person of their mutual choosing so there would be no suggestion there was any one side. On the other hand we also have to declare that we do not, as I carefully pointed out before, fall into using the arbitration methodology which has proven in the past to become another form of avoidance by the parties to the dispute.

I would argue it is very important to use final offer selection for the cases to follow. If we simply agreed with the hon. member and went back to the traditional forms of arbitration then it would give the message to all others who are facing similar disputes that once again they can rely on that crutch, that artificial lifeline and we would not have more relevant and realistic labour relations discussion in some of these crucial areas.

I want to assure the member there is no bias and if the parties in dispute use the final offer selection as it is set out in this legislation they will find out it is to their advantage.

It was put to both sides, employer and employees, the necessity of making a judgment based on the best interests of their overall industry. If there is a dispute how do we divide the spoils? To what extent do we ensure there is fair compensation for employees at the same time we retain the economic viability of the industry itself?

We should not be debating these questions in the House of Commons. We are not the experts. We are not party to it. We should not be arguing whether it should be 65 cents or 72 cents. It is not our business. We are not the stakeholders nor should we presume to take over their responsibilities. What we should be doing is putting together a procedure that we think will arrive at a fair solution and in this case because of the inadequacies of the past by using arbitration I would not want to return to that methodology at this time.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in the discussion of this legislation.

I believe as the only member of Parliament from the greater Vancouver area who has spoken in the debate I want to raise a couple of concerns with the minister, particularly with respect to this final offer process.

I want to put it in context because the minister has said that it is important there be no bias. It is also important there be no perception of bias, there be no perception on the part of either party that one party is being given undue advantage in the process that we as elected representatives are putting in place to settle this dispute. If the test is not only actual bias but a perception of bias, not only justice being done but being seen to be done, this legislation fails that test.

I want to make it very clear that I have spoken with representatives of the longshoremen, with Gord Westrand, the president,

and other representatives and they feel a sense of anger and betrayal at where this process has led.

They tried hard to get a collective agreement. They bargained for many months in good faith trying to get a collective agreement. On the other hand I firmly believe the employer was well aware of the fact that if they just sat back and took a hard line, the government would move in and settle.

Representatives that I spoke to asked the question my colleague asked earlier. I recognize the importance of moving grain and I know that my colleagues recognize the importance of moving grain because over half our caucus is from Saskatchewan. We do not need any lessons on the importance of grain movement to prairie farmers.

I see the Minister of Agriculture here in the committee. I see the minister responsible for labour. If it was so important to move grain, why did they not say to the B.C. Maritime Employers Association that it should move that grain? The longshoremen were quite prepared to move the grain. Of course the reality was that the employer was prepared to hold them hostage and to hold the grain farmers of the prairies hostage in order to put pressure on the government to do exactly what it has done, which is to bring in this settlement.

The question I want to ask the minister is this. It comes back to the point that was raised by the hon. member for Mercier. This employer even before mediation started made it very clear that it wanted final offer selection. It made that very clear during the process as well.

We think final offer selection would be a good idea. The union was quite prepared to accept even non-binding arbitration. It moved an awfully long way. However what is happening in this legislation is that the employer is getting exactly what the employer wanted.

If the final offer selection process is in place as is proposed in this legislation, what happens? The employer and the union both have to agree on the appointment of an arbitrator. If they do not, who appoints the arbitrator? The arbitrator is appointed by the minister.

This is the same minister who appointed the mediator. Therefore from the perspective of the union, quite clearly if the mediator has already said that 65 cents is enough the perspective and the perception of the union is that that is exactly what the acceptable final offer is. From the perspective of the union, it is a done deal.

The employer's position will be maintained because after all the minister's appointee has already said that he thinks 65 cents is enough. It is not fair. Not only is it not fair but it is certainly not perceived to be fair by the men and women in the longshoremen's union.

I want to ask the minister whether he would be prepared to reconsider. I believe this has been poorly handled. When one intrudes into the collective bargaining process in this very heavy-handed way one has a particular obligation to be fair. The fines in the bill are harsh and excessive. I know my colleague from Transcona is going to be dealing with that point later.

The union made an effort to arrive at a settlement. It was prepared to move an awfully long way. The employer hung in there and said: "To hell with you. We know the government is going to order us back. We know the government is prepared to impose a settlement which effectively will be in the interests of the employer".

How can the minister responsible for labour stand in his place and suggest that it is a fair process when he knows full well that the outcome of this process is almost certainly going to be in favour of the B.C. Maritime Employers Association?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Chairman, I am quite intrigued by the point of view raised by the hon. member who is making a great plea for fairness but clearly expresses a bias on one side. He is hardly expressing what I would call a fair objective analysis of the situation.

It is his right to do that but now he is putting me in an untenable position. If I was to take his position, I would be showing bias to the other side would I not? By his own verbal gymnastics he has been able to totally defeat his purpose. Now he has said that if I adopt his position that is bias on one side versus the other.

Clearly and obviously in the interests of fairness I cannot adopt the hon. member's suggestion.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Chairman, I think we are getting away from the real point here.

I appreciate the hon. minister acting in this matter. I would have liked to have seen him act a little faster as he knows. This legislation is here to do something for the victim and not for the offenders in this strike.

It is time that we as the House of Commons realize that we as a country are a victim of these senseless strikes. We cannot continue with them, regardless of whether we are for labour or for management. The whole country is suffering through this. I appreciate the hon. minister taking these steps. We have to realize that when we will not have food on our tables to eat, we will find out how important these strikes have been and I thank him for that.

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Chairman, I take the hon. member's representation. I should point out that Premier Roy Romanow of the province of Saskatchewan endorses that position exactly as he stated in the Saskatchewan legislature yesterday and it unanimously passed the Saskatchewan legislature.

I would be very happy to provide a copy of that to the member from Burnaby.