House of Commons Hansard #167 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.

Topics

West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

9:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

9:35 p.m.

An hon. member

On division.

(Clause agreed to.)

(Clause 1 agreed to.)

West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

9:35 p.m.

The Chairman

Shall the schedule carry?

West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

9:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

9:35 p.m.

An hon. member

On division.

(Schedule agreed to.)

West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

9:35 p.m.

The Chairman

Shall the title carry?

West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

9:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

9:35 p.m.

An hon. member

On division.

(Title agreed to.)

(Bill reported.)

West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

9:40 p.m.

Saint-Henri—Westmount Québec

Liberal

Lucienne Robillard LiberalMinister of Labour

moved that Bill C-74 be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

9:40 p.m.

Liberal

Lucienne Robillard Liberal Saint-Henri—Westmount, QC

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with conviction that I rise again in this House to introduce the 1995 legislation on west coast port operations. As you know, the purpose of this bill is to end the current dispute between two parties.

I have already explained at length all the details surrounding this dispute which, in my opinion and in the opinion of many Canadians, cannot go on. Until now, the government had pro-

vided all the assistance it could to help solve the problems. First, we appointed a conciliator.

Then we appointed a conciliation commissioner, whose report was submitted to the parties. Unfortunately, we face a situation which requires government action. Believe me, it is with regret that, as the Minister of Labour, I must table this bill before the members of this House. It would be much better-and we all know it-for the parties to negotiate a collective agreement together, and that is our basic policy.

However, all port operations on the west coast have now come to a stop and the economic consequences are such that the government must act. This bill provides for the immediate resumption of operations and the appointment of a mediator-arbitrator, who, I hope, will bring the parties closer.

In closing, allow me to thank all the members of this House for their co-operation on this bill. This shows, I think, that we all care about this country's economic development.

West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

9:40 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC

Mr. Speaker, you will, however, understand that my speech will differ from that of the Reform Party, even though we are both speaking in opposition.

I would like to say that it is always difficult moment for Parliament when its elected members are obliged to adopt special legislation to force people back to work, since we agree, hope and say that, in the workplace, there is nothing better than a collective agreement that is wanted, negotiated and implemented by the parties.

Therefore, I believe that the Minister of Labour cannot be particularly proud of starting her career here in this House, by imposing special legislation. She will be quite free in the coming days to go down in history by allowing us to adopt anti-strikebreaker legislation, legislation sought by the official opposition from the time there were eight of us, and we continue to think that this must be done.

Therefore, we are saying to the minister that the best way for her to continue her work as Minister of Labour is not to introduce more back to work legislation, but to follow in the footsteps of one of the greatest Quebec democrats, a person she should seek to emulate, I am referring, of course, to René Lévesque who gave the province of Quebec an effective anti-scab legislation.

Since I mentioned anti-scab legislation, I should remind you that in a province or country-the Labour Minister in nodding in approval to the position of the Bloc-there is a direct link between such a legislation and the length of strikes and also, I should say, healthy labour relations.

This is what we are saying to the minister: it is unbelievable that, in 1995, no anti-strikebreaking legislation is in place at this federal level of intervention. I know that she realizes such legislation is necessary and wants to put it in place. She said herself that preliminary consultations were under way and she was committed to consulting the parties. So, she will have the chance in the days to come to go down in history as having given this country an anti-strikebreaking act.

With this in mind, as the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie said and the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup after him, we, the official opposition, fully grasp what a shame it is to have a lock-out bring the West Coast to a standstill. We know how important port activity is to the economy of the region. That is why we hope that a back to work agreement can be signed.

The difference between the labour minister and ourselves is the fact that we do not want a back-to-work order at any cost. Our concern with this bill is that it will shamelessly resort to arbitration. The minister should be consistent with herself. She was very pleased to tell us earlier that the discussions have resumed, that both parties have come back to the negotiation table, although their efforts might be a bit timid. She even linked the resumption of the negotiations to the statement she made in the House during question period.

We should be pleased about the efforts, albeit timid, made by both parties to resume negociations. We take comfort from the fact that, with the resumption of the negotiations, we might be able to avoid arbitration and rely on the mediation process.

It is certainly not because we are naïve or overly tolerant that we in the official opposition continue to believe that mediation would have been possible. Why would mediation have been possible and why is it desirable? Because in the delicate balance of labour relations, arbitration means acting unilaterally. A third party outside the dispute is given the extraordinary power to make decisions on the application and the validity of each clause of a collective agreement. We think that this is not desirable, that the use of arbitration where a person will be able to impose a collective agreement that will be effective until December 1996 is not desirable. I will say it again, we would have preferred being able to continue the mediation process.

A link should also be made with another fact. We believe things would have been different if we had had anti-scab legislation in Ottawa. This debate provides us with an opportunity to do something. The hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup reminded us that this is the second time the House passes special legislation concerning operations at the west coast ports.

At the time of the first legislation, the present labour minister had other things on her mind, and I am sure she had no idea that she would some day be the member for Saint-Henri-West-

mount in the House of Commons. But she must not forget that, at that time, we were already debating back to work legislation.

Why is it that her government, a government that she obviously supports, did not take the opportunity of that first labour dispute to set up a commission of inquiry on labour relations that were already a cause for concern.

Why did we wait so long? Why did we not learn from that first labour dispute and the passing of special legislation several months ago. It is because of all this deteriorating process that we are puzzled by the action taken by the minister.

I want to take this opportunity to really invite my colleague to make an impression as Minister of Labour. We all know that she is a determined and brilliant woman and that she is able, if she wants to, to take advantage of this labour relations review process to bring the parliamentarians to participate in this debate on whether or not we should have an anti-scab legislation at the federal level. We believe so and we have an opportunity to evaluate a model which is the one established by the Quebec National Assembly.

The Minister of Labour, who is a few years older than I am, will recall that this anti-scab legislation has proven right in Quebec, which used to be the champion for lost hours and days of work. The anti-scab legislation played a crucial role in pacifying labour relations. This is what we must aim at in the days to come.

We have to keep in mind, because it is important to do so, that we have two classes of workers, since three provinces have passed anti-scab legislation: Ontario, British-Columbia and Quebec. Thus, this is to say that some 60 to 65 per cent of the Canadian workers are protected by anti-scab legislation. Therefore, there are two classes of Canadians. This situation is far from healthy or acceptable.

To conclude, I want to say to the labour minister that she and I have something in common. Like her, I represent here a Montreal constituency. As hon. members for Montreal, we are obviously concerned with the continuing situation in the port of Montreal.

The minister says she is confident that we can avoid resorting to special legislation and that a negotiated agreement can be reached. I am sure the parties involved will take advantage of the mediation offer aimed at a negotiated settlement, so that we can have a collective agreement that is desired.

To avoid the kind of situation we are now in, it is important to maintain the optimum conditions for dialogue. However, these optimum conditions, that we would like to see for Montreal, can obviously not be maintained on the West Coast, because if the bill is passed, working conditions, non-monetary clauses as well as salary clauses, will be imposed by arbitration.

The Reformers' impatience is hard to understand, because it must be said that they have been behaving in a very unruly manner tonight, and I am sure that my colleagues will agree with me because everyone knows that the members of the Reform were unruly.

In conclusion, we agree with the return to work, but we would like to see ideal conditions for dialogue maintained, which is incompatible with a special bill.

West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

9:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Finally, with apologies, the hon. member for Lethbridge.

West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

9:50 p.m.

Lethbridge Alberta

Reform

Ray Speaker ReformLethbridge

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on third reading of Bill C-74.

We want to move those ships out full of western Canadian grain. I appreciate the member from Winnipeg's indicating that to this assembly.

For many years in my period of time as a member of the Alberta Legislature there were numerous opportunities, I remember about 12, where governments of Canada, both Liberal and Conservative, did not have the gumption or the aggressiveness to deal with this problem.

We in Alberta moved resolution after resolution asking the federal government to pass legislation to put the workers back to work. The governments did it but to a major cost to western Canadian farmers over and over again.

A year ago it cost us a lot of money, $35 million in demurrage and penalties. The Alberta Wheat Pool tells us there was $100 million in terms of loss to the Canadian economy and $450 million in lost sales for grain farmers. That is provided by the figures from the Canadian Wheat Board.

Many dollars were lost. Even in this short time that the workers were off work, we suffered serious losses. One of my colleagues illustrated in the House earlier that the strike cost one of our alfalfa shippers $250,000 because they could not get it off the boat and into the marketplace. That market was lost to some American producers. I do not think that is fair.

I understand the minister and the government were advised several days ago that an agreement could not be reached. Why did we not bring legislation into the House so that if a strike did occur we could act immediately and put the workers back to work?

This is the first step in a series of responsibilities the House will have. We have not settled the matter with regard to Montreal. My colleague, the member for Lisgar-Marquette, has illustrated that point very well on how one of his producers

or processors in that province of Manitoba is affected in a very significant way. We have to deal with that. Why did we not deal with that tonight and get it over with for the industry?

We do appreciate that the minister has brought the legislation before this assembly. We give her full credit and compliment her for that and compliment the composition of the legislation as it is. It has met one of the needs of western Canadians. The minister deserves that credit.

I also on behalf of my colleagues want to give the minister credit for the fact that she and the government intend to set up a commission or some body to look at ways we can deal with this problem on a basis that does not require legislation or a knee-jerk reaction every time workers walk off the job or there is a lockout, as is the case at the present time. I give the government full credit for that.

In all the years federal governments have dealt with this issue they have always brought legislation in to put the workers back to work or prevent or stop a lockout and they stopped there. They were afraid to challenge the unions on this very basic question. They were afraid to do what they thought would disturb the collective bargaining process and they wanted to maintain the integrity of that process.

Western Canadian farmers face a very unique situation. It is different. We as farmers in the west are victims of the collective bargaining process. We pay the bills. When there is demurrage to be paid we pay it as farmers. When there is loss of sales we pay it as farmers. Whatever the losses are we are the ones who pay. It is not management. It is not the unions. They do not pay any of it. There are no losses on their part. It is the person who ships the raw product, grain and other agricultural products, or our processed products into the export market. We are the victims.

The collective bargaining process as it now stands is completely unfair. The right to strike in that process does not fit that circumstance at all.

There must be a different approach. I have recommended in private members' Bill C-262 that we look at a process by which there is binding arbitration and that each party provides to the arbitrator a final position.

The arbitrator then would choose one position or the other and at that the work continues and there is an agreement for both of the parties. That is one of the options we should look at. Maybe there are other options.

The minister has indicated there will be a commission. The matter will be studied. I hope that is not a diversion or a delay. I hope the minister and Prime Minister are very sincere that there will be recommendations that will come into either the June portion of this session or into the fall session of the House whereby we deal with the problem once and for all.

It can be done without violating what we talked about, the collective bargaining agreement process by which management and employees can settle their various disputes.

Agriculture is different from General Motors, for example. General Motors has management. Its employees produce automobiles. If the automobiles are not manufactured and sold, management and employees are affected. It does not affect the other people beyond that. That is the very basic difference in terms of these two processes.

We intend to support this legislation. We want the government to support it and move quickly on it. We want it to deal with the other circumstances affecting the export of agriculture and other export products. We want that to happen as quickly as possible. If it needs to be done tomorrow let us do it tomorrow and not wait until there is a major crisis in our economy.

We are looking forward to some major changes in legislation this fall that will deal with this problem on a long term basis.

West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

10 p.m.

NDP

Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on something I was speaking about earlier but which was exacerbated by a speech given by a Liberal member who spoke about the national interest.

In the context of talking about the national interest, a double standard exists between how we regard labour when it pursues its economic self-interest and how we regard capital when it pursues its economic self-interest.

When money markets act in ways that hold the country hostage, we do not take the same offence as some members take when a trade union is said to be holding the economy hostage in its economic self-interest.

What I was pleading for was that there not be this double standard that if we want to hold that everyone should be accountable to the common good or to the national interest, we have to do that with some uniformity.

We cannot say that trade unions or working people should be accountable to the national interest but the money marketeers, the currency traders and the money speculators can do what they like, act in their own economic self-interest and that our only role as a Parliament is to appease them, ask them what they want next, do whatever they want so that they will invest in our country. We need to to stop having this double standard.

Picking up on the comment that the Liberal member made about national interest, this is also an interesting concept given globalization and free trade agreements.

Why are working people asked to subscribe to a notion called the national interest? I believe in the national interest, but when we ask the same thing of the corporate sector we are accused of being romantic. We are accused of not being with it. We are accused of not understanding that there are no borders any more.

Investors, capital and corporations move all around the world doing whatever they want. Anyone who wants to talk about the national interest, except when they are trying to morally intimidate working people into giving up their economic self-interests, are called romantic. Why is that? Why is there this double standard when it comes to working people? I do not understand it.

I think ordinary Canadians sense there is something fishy when they are always supposed to act in the national interest but the people who can play with interest rates and the money markets and who can look around the planet for cheaper labour markets or weaker environmental regulations or weaker labour laws, that is okay for them. They can seek their economic self-interests; that is just called finding a good investment climate. However, when working people want to do the same thing, shame on them. They are not taking the national interest into account.

I say, shame on this House for accepting that double standard.

West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

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

West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

10 p.m.

An hon. member

On division.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)

West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

10 p.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That on Thursday, March 16, 1995, when proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38 have been concluded, the motion to adjourn the House shall be deemed to have been withdrawn and the sitting shall be suspended until such time as the Chair may reconvene the sitting for the sole purpose of a royal assent;

That immediately upon return from the royal assent, the House shall be adjourned until the next sitting day, provided that if no royal assent has been held by 9 a.m. on Friday, March 17, 1995, the House shall be reconvened for the sole purpose of being adjourned until 10 a.m. on that day.

West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is there unanimous consent to that, colleagues?

West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

10 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

There is not unanimous consent to the motion.

West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

10 p.m.

Windsor West Ontario

Liberal

Herb Gray LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, I think a formal motion of adjournment is required pursuant to the order of the House earlier this day. Therefore, I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is there unanimous consent to that motion?

West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)