Debates of March 15th, 1995

West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

I am very pleased to be able to say a few words tonight because I believe we are going through a period of incredible transition in our country. We have seen the government having to do things that five years ago we never would have dreamed would have been necessary when we brought down the budget.

Canadians realize that there is no longer that pot of gold out there or that our future is assured or guaranteed. People are uneasy because they know we are facing change. They also know that in Canada we have assets unparalleled in any other country in the world: natural resources and human resources to actually make the transition from a resource based economy to an economy dependent on human skills competing in the global economy.

We can do this but it is going to require a lot of changed attitudes. I do not believe that in the future the concept of management on the one side; labour, be they unionized or not, on the other side, be it government or the public, are going to necessarily be the stakeholders in the way they have in the past.

We have introduced in our country and throughout the western world, for very good reasons, the concept of collective bargaining, the concept that workers have the right to negotiate freely for their conditions and for their terms of employment. Management has the right to lock out workers if they do not accept the union offer. However, more and more we are going to have to realize that workers are citizens of the country, that managements are citizens of the country and that all of us have a stake in finding new ways to deal with labour disputes.

Can we afford to go back to the era of 10 years ago when we had the worst labour-management record of any of the industrialized countries? We were doing it to ourselves. Of course we cannot because we are now competing in a global economy where other nations have learned to resolve their labour disputes in a civilized, non-confrontational, non self-inflicting damage manner. Anytime there is a strike or a lockout it is an admission of failure in the collective bargaining process. Let us recognize that.

I am glad in the present circumstances that we let this thing go as long as we possibly could to see if a collective agreement could be arrived at by a negotiated solution. This is always best, rather than imposing conditions which may not be acceptable to either side.

We had to act however. The member for Wild Rose puts it very forcefully. They went on strike this morning. That is why, with the consent of all members, we are sitting tonight to pass that legislation. Maybe some members, like the member for Winnipeg Transcona, do not necessarily agree with this. I understand some of his concerns for the working person. However we have to recognize that the moment we start using lockouts and strikes, we are denying our competitive ability vis-à-vis all of our neighbours in the global economy. How irrational can we be to allow these things to take place?

Legislation preventing strikes in every circumstance is obviously not the solution. As people with a duty of public leadership in Parliament perhaps we have to work more closely with labour and management to see if we can settle these strikes before they become self-defeating for all of us. Maybe we are going to have to find ways to say: "You just cannot strike in certain circumstances. You cannot lock out in certain circumstances because it is against the national interest".

Maybe we can look at new solutions such as final offer arbitration.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Maybe these are some of the approaches we can go into. However, we know the risk is always there if management and labour in a dispute know that government will step in and settle that dispute by legislation. Then they will not negotiate in good faith.

Looking ahead, the solutions are not always that obvious to us. If they were, we would have found them a long time ago. No one in the House believes that strikes and lockouts are the solution. But I do believe that if we keep stressing that we are now in this together, it is not a question of adversaries and stakeholders fighting it out. We are all in the same boat. If we are

fighting one another, we are drilling a hole in the bottom of our own boat. This has to be the attitude we bring to our future as management, as labour, as citizens and as government.

With this approach we are going to be able to overcome a lot of the animosities of the past. In doing this, we will have to ensure that we do not allow the injustices to creep in which gave rise during the twenties and the dirty thirties to organized labour that had to strike. We are going to have to make sure that we do not have the rapacious management of the twenties and the thirties that was capable of dictating not only wages and hours, but conditions that were unsanitary, unhealthy and such things. That is not what we are asking for. We are enlightened.

We know that a happy workforce is a productive workforce, is a competitive workforce. We know that a management team that works with labour and shares their problems, that brings them to the table, that opens the books to them, that says: "We have a big problem, how do we fix it together," is the type of enlightened management that avoids problems and brings about the new routes to productivity being employed by many of our competitors around the globe.

Let us not rejoice tonight in the fact that we have had to legislate an end to this work stoppage. Let us recognize that what has happened is a failure for every one of us. It is a failure for everyone in this House who did not use his or her collective strength and ability to say to labour and management, is there not a better way. It is a failure based on the way we have done things in the past. We have done them better recently, but it is only 10 years ago that we had the worst record for lost days because of work stoppages, strikes and lockouts.

Let us say we have done what we have had to do. It was necessary in the public good. Let us say, can we not use this as an occasion to find a better way for the future.

Recognizing the role played by workers, unions, companies, and Canadians in general, we must recognize that the measures taken today are not remarkable and that their sole purpose is to protect exports, harbours, and farmers, and to provide essential services. But, from now on, let us recognize that we must find more efficient and more realistic alternatives to ensure peace on the labour front, and co-operation between unions and management, in order for Canada to become stronger, more competitive and more prosperous.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

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

[The Chairman]

Order. House in committee of the whole on Bill C-74, an act respecting the supervision of longshoring and related operations at west coast ports.

The parliamentary secretary to the Leader of the government in the House has the floor regarding clause 2.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Chairman, some discussions took place between the different parties in this House.

Mr. Chairman, I think you will find there is unanimous consent if such is required, but you will find there is general consent in the committee to have the amendments put by members of the opposition. I do not believe there are any government amendments to the bill, although there may be some, as the hon. member for Calgary Southwest is keen on saying.

The opposition may wish to move amendments and there would be a disposition to allow all of those amendments to be put, notwithstanding which clause they may be on. Then the discussion could range over all of the clauses and all of the amendments while being nominally on clause 2.

At the end of the discussion I think you would find a disposition to put the question in order on all of the clauses, the amendments appropriately placed for each clause, the title and the preamble, or whatever there may be to put questions on at the end of the bill. I would invite the Chairman to do that if that is satisfactory. I think you will find general consent.

[The Chairman]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chairman]

We received 11 amending clauses and I believe all of them are in order.

The chief opposition whip has the floor regarding clause 2.

On Clause 2

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I will table a series of eight amendments supported by the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, and I will read each of them.

The first amendment reads:

That Bill C-74, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting, in lines 18 and 19, on page 1, the word "arbitrator".

The second amendment reads:

That Bill C-74, in Clause 6, be amended by deleting, in line 7, on page 3, the word "mediator-arbitrator" and replacing it with the word "parties".

The third amendment reads:

That Bill C-74, in Clause 8, be amended by deleting, in lines 30, 36 and 37, on page 3, the word "arbitrator".

The fourth amendment reads:

That Bill C-74, in Clause 8(2)(b), be amended by deleting, in lines 11 and 12, on page 4, the words "and render a decision in respect thereof" and replacing them with the words "and report to the minister".

The fifth amendment reads:

That Bill C-74, in Clause 8, on page 4, be amended by deleting paragraph (2)(c), paragraph (2)(d), paragraph (3)(b) and paragraph (4) and by deleting, in line 18, the word "arbitrator".

The sixth amendment reads:

That Bill C-74, in Clause 9, on page 4, be amended by deleting the word "arbitrator", in line 34, and by deleting all the words following the word "mediation", in lines 40 to 45.

The seventh amendment reads:

That Bill C-74, in Clause 10, on page 5, be amended by deleting the word "arbitrator", in lines 3 and 4.

The eighth amendment reads:

That Bill C-74, in Clause 11, on page 5, be amended by deleting after the word "provision", on line 17, all the words in lines 17 to 21.

Mr. Chairman, I already made a speech at second reading and those amendments reflect the proposals put forth during that speech. Consequently, I have nothing else to add and I will let other members speak on these issues.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Chairman, the amendments submitted by the Bloc Quebecois, as I understand them, are meant to introduce a mediation system without arbitrators, without a timetale and without any indication of what would be done with the mediator's report.

I would simply like to remind the members of this House that when the conflict began in the western ports, the government followed all of the steps set out in the Canada Labour Code. The first step was to name a conciliator from the department's Mediation and Conciliation Service. This conciliator was named back in 1993 to help the parties negotiate with each other. Unfortunately, the conciliator achieved no real results.

Then, my predecessor officially named a conciliation commissioner. This action was taken back in October 1994. The commissioner worked with the parties for several months and submitted a report quite recently, in February 1995.

Therefore, I think that all of the possible mediation and conciliation steps to bring the parties to an agreement regarding the collective agreement have already been taken. This is why I find myself obliged to tell the Bloc Quebecois that it would be extremely difficult for this government to accept its proposed amendments.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Chairman, our amendments clarify a number of points, including what should be done with the report. We suggest submitting the report to the minister. I assume that if the minister received a mediation report which involved the participation of both parties, she would know what to do, which means at least reading it and probably taking some kind of action. That was my first point.

Second, I realize there was an investigation commissioner, but the fact remains that special legislation has something urgent about it and is a major step in the process, and the parties would certainly take the mediator's proposals more seriously in the knowledge that the minister would subsequently receive a report which they had helped to draft and that the minister would be able to intervene, to take this report and bring the discussions and the mediator's proposals before the House.

So I think the basics are there. And if the minister wants to include a time limit in days in the amendments we are proposing, well, we would be happy to oblige if the minister is so concerned about that.

On the other hand, I must say that when we consider how this dispute developed, all the employer did was order a lock-out and 15 hours later we have special legislation. This tends to poison labour relations, and that is exactly what happened.

It should be pointed out that the union allowed grain movement and longshoring. It was management that interrupted these essential services which could be maintained under an anti-strikebreaking act. I disagree somewhat with my colleague from the NDP who said earlier that the Bloc Quebecois had made this emergency debate possible. I think it is important to debate this issue, even though we will be voting against this legislation.

I will remind him that, had his party held its own in the 1990 debate on anti-strikebreaking legislation, perhaps we would not be having this debate now. But the NDP did not do so in November 1990. Principles are one thing, actions are another and actions speak loader than words.

I think that, with our amendments, the hon. minister has enough material to take more significant action in this matter.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois misunderstood me. First, let me assure the House that, as Minister of Labour, I personally read each and every report I receive. Have no fear, if a report is sent to me, I will read it.

I think the Bloc member did not understand the fact that I already have a report that was sent to my predecessor. We have already tried conciliation at a previous step in this process. There was a concilation commissioner who submitted a report, not only to the minister, but to both parties involved who took cognizance of it.

The conciliation commissioner did an outstanding job. He examined in detail all the problems involved and came up with some answers. His report was handed down not only to the minister, but also to both parties involved. The bill before us provides for the appointment of a mediator-arbitrator, that is to say that the emphasis will be put, first and foremost, on mediation.

This is in line with the wishes expressed by members of the Bloc Quebecois who demanded a mediation process. This bill will ensure that such a mediation process takes place. If the parties cannot reach an agreement, the mediator will become an arbitrator and will then act in such a capacity. So, in that sense, the bill before us addresses the concerns of both parties who, unfortunately, could not come to an agreement.

As I said earlier, a Minister of Labour is always reluctant to introduce back-to-work legislation. It is always better for the parties to come to an agreement by themselves, but since this was not possible, we must act to protect the entire economy of Western Canada.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I think there is a big difference with this bill. This bill provides for a back to work order which we agree with and do not wish to amend. What is proposed here is a mediation process as a result of the pressure tactics used by the union or a lockout declared by management, and we agree with a back-to-work legislation.

What we say, however, is that it would be much better for the mediator to do his or her job in a setting different from that which existed before the pressure tactics, the lockout and the special back-to-work legislation. This bill contains all the elements needed for the parties to adopt more realistic attitudes, which was not the case when an investigation commissioner was chosen even before any pressure tactics was used by the parties, something they will no longer be able to do after this bill is passed.