Debates of March 20th, 1995

Point Of Order

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

Mr. Speaker, in light of the very serious rail strike that is currently tying up the rail system in our country, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a bill, notice of which was given Sunday morning by means of a special Notice Paper, entitled an act to provide for the maintenance of railway operations and subsidiary services.

I seek the unanimous consent of the House to permit the bill to be introduced and given first reading at this time.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

My colleagues, I wish to inform the House that in accordance with a representation made by the government, pursuant to Standing Order 55(1), I have caused to be published a special Order Paper giving notice of introduction of a government bill. In just one moment I am going to lay upon the table the relevant document.

However, I have a point of order from the member for Kingston and the Islands. Is there any comment? I invite comment only for the reason that I thought the hon. member for Laurier-Saint-Marie was rising to his feet before I put the question. There being no comments, is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Unanimous consent is not given for the introduction of the bill at this time.

The House resumed from March 2 consideration of the motion 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.

Grain Export Protection Act

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege today to speak to a bill introduced by the member for Lethbridge. The bill seeks to make it illegal for anyone, employee or employer, to cause any cessation of work at any stage of the progress of grain from the premises of the producer of the grain to export.

It should be obvious that the bill would affect a large number of Canadians, indeed everybody who comes near the grain, from the farmer who grows the grain to the trains and ships which carry the grain. It would directly affect my riding of Erie whose economy includes the entire spectrum from grain production to the marine industry.

I wish to focus on one aspect of the bill and what it brings to the labour relations atmosphere with the government's own employees. That is the provision in the bill which would amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act by adding new criteria, limiting the right to strike.

The bill seeks to add to the Public Service Staff Relations Act in section 2 and subsection 78(1), words which have the effect of prohibiting employees from engaging in any strike activity in areas related to "the orderly progress of grain from the premises of the producer of the grain to export".

When the Public Service Staff Relations Act was introduced almost 30 years ago, legislators included a unique concept to labour legislation. This was the notion of designating employees as essential and denying them the right to strike. That is to say that employees whose duties included functions which were performed in the interest of the safety and security of the

Canadian public, those employees could not engage in a strike. If one was to search the Canada Labour Code or other labour codes, one would not find many examples of such a concept.

In my opinion, this is a good, reasonable and justifiable concept. Employees of the federal government and numerous other federal institutions should not be in a position to withdraw services which would cause harm to the safety or security of Canadians.

This provision has stood the test of time. When public servants engage in strike activity, a number of their colleagues continue to work and provide essential services to the public. The last public service strike provided us with many examples of this provision.

Both air and marine search and rescue operations continued. Ice breaking continued. Mariner's charts and maps continued to be produced and updated, and the all important function of providing notices to shipping carried on. As well, the fisheries patrols were maintained and employees involved in this function continued to provide a service to the public.

Air operations continued and airport facilities were maintained. Weather observations continued. Forecast were prepared and communicated to users. Of great comfort, notification bulletins affecting aviation safety continued to be produced and disseminated.

Naturally prison guards and correctional services are deemed an essential service and continued to perform their tasks. All those employees, including those who provide care and security for inmates, medical care, food, heating and all those functions necessary to maintain the system, continued to perform their duties.

Health care was maintained by designated employees in such areas as poison control, hazardous product identification, medical support at federal hospitals, ambulance drivers and dental and chronic care in isolated areas. Also designated were some employees who were involved in research related to health care which used laboratory animals.

Essential to Canadians, income security programs such as UI, family allowance and the Canada pension plan continued. This included the processing of new claims as well as issuance of benefits.

Employees involved in customs and immigration control remained on the job. Included among these essential jobs were employees responsible for the primary inspection of meat and fish products imported to Canada.

Not surprisingly, the provisions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act also preluded those involved with national security from striking. Included among these were the civilian and federal employees who provide support to RCMP operations.

Of interest to members, parliamentarian operations were designated an essential service. Hansard continued to be printed, along with commission reports and other parliamentary publications. As well, simultaneous translation services continued to be offered.

These are some of the examples of services considered essential for the safety and security of the public, and for which the public service employees could not withdraw services.

The central theme throughout this list is: these services are essential for the safety and security of the Canadian public. It is evident that the current provisions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act have by and large served the Canadian public well. By tinkering with these provisions and including the notion of economic hardship in the grain industry, are we trying to fix what is not broken?

It is an unfortunate but accepted reality that strikes will cause inconvenience and maybe even economic hardship to some. If we are to accept that employees have the right to strike to put pressure on their employer, then we must accept the results. If it is our view that strikes should not cause hardship to anyone, then it is my suggestion that all strikes be declared illegal.

This bill starts along this road. It is heading toward a destination that can only bring grief to employer-employee relations in the country. I would not argue that the movement of grain is not important to Canadians. Obviously it is. However, I do not believe that the production or movement of grain is essential for the security of the public. The movement of grain is, like many other commercial activities, an important economic activity in the country.

If we were to introduce the idea that there can be no strikes or lockouts in the grain industry which sector would be next? Is it the auto industry? Is it the shipping industry? How about forestry services? In certain sections of the country ore production is extremely important. Should we consider banning work stoppages there? If we are to use economic criteria I am confident that every member of the House could cite an enterprise worthy of consideration for a bill such as this.

I would like to remind members that in many jurisdictions police are given the opportunity to withdraw from their jobs. Medical practitioners and teachers also have this ability.

As I mentioned, if we accept that employees have the right to strike and to exert pressure on their employer, then they must be permitted to do so. The introduction of a provision in the Public Service Staff Relations Act prohibiting strikes in one specific area, be it grain handling or some other industry, begins to erode this right. Employees either have the right to strike or they do not.

The provision restricting the right to strike in the federal public service to those performing services essential for the safety and security of the public is a restriction but I think it can be reasonably argued. In addition, this provision has been in place for almost 30 years and still allows the public service employees to withdraw services. As we saw during the last public service strike, employees still have the ability to exert considerable pressure on the employer.

Seeking to expand restrictions to cover economically important services, first one and then many other industries or activities, will ultimately remove the right to strike effectively.

I can envisage the time when any strike which puts any pressure on any employer or others will then be proposed for exclusion under public service staff relations and the Canada Labour Code. Legislators will slowly and painfully remove the right to strike from any employee as a means of exerting any pressure at all. Is this what our country has to offer its workers and its representatives? I think not.

The introduction of further restrictions to the right to strike will, without any doubt whatsoever, worsen labour relations in the country. As we all know, these relations are already strained. It is my personal belief that after a number of years of difficulty it is time for all parties to labour relations to bring a positive and constructive approach to them for the future.

Times are changing and everybody must change with them. I do not feel that the way to begin a positive and co-operative renewal of labour relations is by introducing legislation which begins to erode what labour considers a basic right. If we are going to give labour the right to withdraw services in order to exert pressure in collective bargaining, then we must allow this withdrawal of service to have some effect. We either fish or cut bait. To carry the analogy further, we cannot tell employees that they can fish but they cannot have worms.

I am sure the member for Lethbridge did not intend anything sinister but was simply advancing a proposal which would protect the interests of the grain industry and this is to be commended. However, I believe the results of considering this bill cannot but lead to other interested parties looking to protect another and then another and no doubt an important industry through labour legislation. While the reasons for desiring protection from strikes or lockouts are noble in themselves, we must look at how we propose to do this and the results such a proposal would bring.

In conclusion, while I agree with the member that the grain industry is important to Canada, as are many other industries and activities, I cannot accept the notion that Parliament legislates protection at the expense of the rights of other Canadian citizens. Despite what I believe are good intentions, the results would be inappropriate and I cannot support the bill.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what the hon. member had to say, and I realize that the grain industry is very important to the Canadian economy and to western Canada in particular. But I would like to say that grain is surely not more important than the lives and health of our fellow countrymen.

But people's lives and health, and these are under provincial jurisdiction, can also be affected by a labour dispute. What was the best solution found after a lot of research and trial and error? In order to strike a balance between the right of workers to strike and the priority right of individuals to health and safety, it was determined that the best solution was to establish the principle of essential services. Essential service does not mean the right to strike is taken away.

Those who dream of the day there will be no more strikes should realize that taking away the right to strike does not guarantee there will be no more strikes. In fact, history has shown that before the right to strike existed, there were many, extremely rough strikes, for the simple reason that there was no legislation. The strikes were there before the right to strike. If we want labour relations to be more harmonious, if we want grain and health to be priorities, we must ensure that labour relations are more conducive to dispute settlement.

We must not forget that, especially at a time when for more than ten years, in many cases, workers have had to tighten their belts, make all kinds of concessions and pay more and more taxes, when the economy starts picking up, these workers would like to have their modest share, at least. We must not forget that in this country, we see executives of private companies getting outrageously high salaries and benefits, although they are hardly as productive as Japanese companies. In Japan, the gap between the salaries or incomes of executives and employees is much narrower than in this country.

We cannot afford an economic model where executives can earn whatever they please and workers will just have to tighten their belts and watch others take their share of the profits. We must not forget why we have labour legislation. We have labour legislation because we had to deal with the flagrant injustice that existed at the time. And if we think that bringing all this back will lead to prosperity and harmonious labour relations in this country, I have got news for you. It will not happen.

[The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Kilgour)]

As we are at the beginning of the week, I would ask each of you, in so far as you can, to co-operate and always address your remarks to the Chair.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Clearly, I could not use these words in reference to you. This is not news for you, because you already know full well that this sort of unfair situation cannot be allowed

to develop so blatantly on the assumption that the workers alone will always be asked to contribute an ever increasing share.

Today, tomorrow and in the coming days, we will be talking about railway workers. We will see that they too, with each successive collective agreement, have had to forgo working conditions they previously enjoyed. This is the truth. They have done so in order to take refuge in what they considered essential in a time of unemployment-a sort of job guarantee.

And now, because the employer is not budging-and we will have to see what the government does in this-we are about to see these workers as well lose some of their working conditions.

As regards this particular bill, I understand and I share the desire for harmonious labour relations. However, when it is unreasonably assumed that the right to strike may be withdrawn without provision being made for sufficient means to settle working conditions, I do not expect grain transportation to be harmonious and secure. This will not be the case. History has shown us that this has not been the case in the past; it will most likely not be the case in the future.

I would add, particularly since the government has not seen fit yet to propose anti-strikebreaking legislation, which would allow re-establishment of a balance of power. If we want to establish labour relations, and in the area of essential services as well, which permit a balance-and not only the appearance of a balance but real healthy labour relations-attention must be paid as well to the balance of power. Many provinces have a provision for this, and it has proved its worth.

As for our case, the work that remains to be done at the federal level to ensure labour relations that permit public enjoyment of the services they are entitled to, but without the cost of the cuts we must face being passed on to the workers concerned, will involve paying greater attention to finding this balance. This is the only way to ensure that the same protection accorded to grain in Canada is accorded to health and life in the provinces.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

To meet the test of fairness and the spirit of fairness I must humbly submit that I failed to recognize the proper sequence of speakers, not having taken into account all the speakers who spoke previously in this debate.

For the next two interventions I will go to the Reform Party if there are two speakers. Then I will be back on track.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today, March 20, 1995, marks a very troublesome day for those who depend on the railways and for those who must use the port of Montreal to get their products to customers.

Canadians are feeling the full effects of strikes and lockouts, and back to work legislation for the railways is in the works. We have been in this situation before. Last Wednesday we sat late debating Bill C-74, back to work legislation to settle the labour dispute on the west coast.

A little over a year ago we also debated back to work legislation with Bill C-10 to handle a similar dispute which lasted for 12 days.

Unfortunately these are not isolated incidents. Canadians have felt the effects of similar disruptions many times. I believe 13 have ended with back to work legislation in the past 30 years.

Unless both sides in the CP Rail dispute can reach an agreement some time very soon, we will be debating back to work legislation again today, tomorrow or soon.

I find it ironic that components of the grain handling and transportation system are consistently treated as essential services when work stoppages occur. I am here today to ask the government not to provide essential service legislation. I am asking the government to carefully consider the very positive impact of Bill C-262; the impact it would have in ameliorating recurring problems between labour and management.

Currently there is no effective collective bargaining taking place between labour and management. Both sides know they can depend on government to legislate them back to work. Let us not pretend we have productive collective bargaining taking place right now. We do not. Let us end the charade and do what Reformers called for in last year's emergency debate and what the hon. member for Lethbridge is currently calling for in his private member's bill, Bill C-262.

Bill C-262 provides a tool for both labour and management to prevent these disruptive and expensive work stoppages which affect people all across the country when they occur. The current work stoppage at CP Rail and at the Montreal port would not have happened if Bill C-262 were in place. These disruptions in grain handling and grain movement and in the movement of other goods must not be allowed to continue.

The collective bargaining process must be allowed to work where it can work. In the vast majority of cases, in situations between labour and management, they do reach agreement and the process works fairly well. In other cases the process does not work well. When this happens labour and management both lose. Unless an agreement is reached the operations will close down.

The case of grain handling and shipping is unique. It is unique because the cost of a disruption can and will be borne by farmers in three ways. First, added costs cannot be passed on to the consumer because farmers are price takers in a very competitive marketplace. Second, there is a loss of revenue in present sales

and, more important, in future sales through the loss of long term customers. Third, farmers have no real alternative. They have no way to get around the system. They must ship through the rail transportation and grain handling systems currently in place. They cannot choose to use another system which is offered by someone else because it does not exist.

That is why work stoppages should not be allowed in the grain handling system. I hope the hon. member for Mercier will now understand why stoppages in the grain handling system are so important and why they are every bit as important as the welfare and health of members of labour unions. The welfare and health of farmers is directly affected by these work stoppages. This is coming from someone who has lived and worked in agricultural communities through these disruptions over the years.

The extra stress caused by farmers being deprived of income makes one of the most dangerous businesses in the country today even more dangerous. By allowing these disruptions to happen continually farmers' health and welfare is affected every bit as much as members of the labour unions. I hope the member will now understand that the concerns of farmers and the stress and the danger to their health are every bit as important as that of labour union members.

How do we deal with the situation in a way that is fair to labour, to management, to the all too forgotten party, grain farmers, and alfalfa shippers and other shippers? Bill C-262 provides a solution through final offer selection arbitration. This process is triggered upon request by one party if the parties concerned are unable to reach an agreement through the collective bargaining process. The key features of this process as outlined in Bill C-262 are as follows.

The trade union and employer are requested to provide the minister with the name of a person they jointly recommend as arbitrator. The trade union and employer are required to submit to the arbitrator a list of matters agreed on and a list of matters still under dispute. For disputed issues each party is required to submit a final offer for settlement.

The arbitrator then selects either the final offer submitted by the trade union or the final offer submitted by the employer. In the event that one party does not submit a final offer, the other party's offer is automatically accepted. The arbitrator's decision is binding on both parties.

As you can see, final offer selection arbitration does not prevent the collective bargaining process from following through to a conclusion. It simply speeds the process up. However, it does prevent the very few from doing unacceptable damage to so many.

There are the other workers and the loss of work and income for the other workers shut down by the stoppage. There are the other businesses involved in grain handling and movement. There is the damage done to business enterprises and Canada's now faltering reputation as a reliable grain exporter. There are the farmers who must shoulder most of the costs for short and long term damage resulting from lost markets. They have no way of passing those costs on to the consumer or of recouping those losses.

Legislation that provides a long term solution to this problem should have been passed years ago. In this regard I would like to pledge continued leadership by Reform members of Parliament in continuing to press for long term solutions to this and similar problems in the grain handling system.

We cannot afford to have disruptions continue in the grain handling and transportation systems. I am asking for support for Bill C-262. Indeed in the past, several members of the government side and others have provided support for final offer selection arbitration.

I do not have time to read all the quotes, but these quotes are from the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food himself, and the Minister of Human Resources Development, and from the chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board, Lorne Hehn. He stated that the grain industry cannot afford any more strikes and lockouts and said: "We cannot afford to shut down a multibillion dollar industry for the sake of a few people. I think that we have to do something about this situation".

Mr. Hehn went on to state that he would favour a first offer selection. "If an agreement could not be reached through the collective bargaining process," he said, "I think that would bring people to the table in a more honest fashion. We could settle these things without shutting the system down". I believe this first offer arbitration is much like the final selection process we are proposing here today.

The senior grain transportation committee voted on October 14, 1994 to support a system of final offer arbitration. It is down in black and white from members of this government.

The most effective way I can present the importance of stopping these disruptions in the future comes from farmers. My father lived through these disruptions in his farming career and each time I saw the stress and the pain. I know the hurt that caused him and his neighbours. As for myself, in my farming career I have lived through several of these disruptions. I know the pain and the loss these have caused my neighbours and myself.

Finally, I would like to stress that it is not only labour unions that are being tough on this issue. Farmers have threatened in the past-and there could come a time when this will happen-to take over the process of grain movement in any way they can on their own. Farmers will not let these disruptions continue indefinitely. They must stop. I encourage this government to

support Bill C-262 to ensure this is the end of these disruptions in grain handling and grain movement.

[Allan Kerpan, Reform, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud and honoured today to rise in this House and give my full support to Bill C-262 which was presented by the hon. member for Lethbridge.

The timing of this particular debate in the House is absolutely perfect. We are sandwiched between back to work legislation which occurred last Wednesday and certainly the potential of another forthcoming round of back to work legislation in the rail industry. We could not have asked for a better time to talk about this ongoing problem which has occurred many times in the history of western Canada as far as the agriculture business goes.

Today I would like to do something just a little bit different. Rather than dwell on how the innocent third party is affected by this proposed legislation, I would like to look at all aspects. I would like to look at how this would affect labour and management and also of course, how it would affect the third party, in this case, the shipper.

I want to talk about how this would affect the shipper in this case. In my position I am most familiar with how it would affect the agriculture industry in Saskatchewan particularly in Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.

I want to look back at the labour dispute in Vancouver a little over a year ago. We looked at something like 11 days of tie ups. The grain industry never recovered all summer from that labour dispute. I know that firsthand. I live about two and a half miles from the grain elevators in my home town and our community never recovered and Saskatchewan never recovered from that short labour tie up.

I also looked at some of the evidence I received in the last few days. There is a statement from Mr. Blair Wright of Olds, Alberta, an alfalfa dehydrator. He said that his company was just beginning to make inroads to Japan. He estimated that he lost $500,000 in revenue during that shut down in Vancouver last year.

He also said that the Japanese businessmen he deals with stated they cannot understand why Canada allows such destruction of its export business. Mr. Wright is obviously concerned that he will lose his Asian markets entirely for this emerging product. He also stated that the American ports on the west coast are actively promoting their continuous delivery to Asian markets. The port of Vancouver has the potential to lose major customers if this government does not take legal means to prevent further labour disruption.

I also talked to alfalfa dehydrators in Saskatchewan last week. They told me that a labour dispute of one week is an annoyance. A labour dispute of two weeks inflicts serious pain on their industry. Anything longer than a two week labour dispute is a complete disaster to the industry.

With regard to things like canola prices, although they may not be directly affected, on Monday, March 13 the price of canola was $9.44 in my hometown. By Wednesday morning it had dropped to $9.20, a drop of some 24 cents. Is that directly related to labour problems? Perhaps some of it could be related.

Having said that, I look at the innocent third party, the shipper. I know this piece of legislation would do the job to alleviate those types of problems and frustrations. I look at labour and the unions. There have been arguments in this House that it is not fair to labour to have final offer selection. I do not agree with that. I see what long term labour disputes do to labour. I have seen it in my home area of Moose Jaw.

There have been two major strikes at Moose Jaw Sash and Door. The people were on strike or locked out for more than three years. The company ended up closing its doors. Did that help labour? No.

Moose Jaw meat packers were on strike for some 18 months recently. I had the opportunity to drive by their strike location many times. These people were playing horseshoes and cards because there was no work to do. Did that help those people? No. The labour dispute did not solve one thing for labour in that instance. I talked to many people on the line. They were willing to go back to work. They wanted to go back to work, to some real work. There is no way in the world they could ever hope to recoup any of the financial loss they faced by being out on strike for so long.

Looking at that, labour is in a no win situation. In a discussion paper written by Mr. Errol Black and Mr. Jim Silver, they quote the idea of final offer selection. They say: "The fact is that final offer selection is aimed at a real need, namely, the problems of workers in weak bargaining units".

They go on to say: "Final offer selection provides such workers with an alternative to strikes which they have little chance of winning. Any repeal of final offer selection", which by the way is in place in Manitoba, "and this problem-unionizing and winning gains for workers in weak bargaining positions-will remain". This is more evidence that long labour tie ups have a harmful negative effect on workers.

I want to talk about management, or the businesses and companies. When they face long term labour disputes either by strike or lockout it really disrupts the orderly flow of any product. Again, in this case I look at agriculture products from Saskatchewan to either Vancouver or Thunder Bay. When we see

a tie up like that, there is no way in the world to recoup financially those losses faced in a very short period of time.

I look back to last year's labour dispute and remember talking to people in the grain industry. They said there was no way in the world they could catch up to what they had lost in a very short time. Those effects are felt immediately.

I spoke earlier about the labour dispute at Moose Jaw Sash and Door. That company was locked out and on strike for so long that it closed its doors. The company is no longer in existence. Did that solve any problems for the good of business? I do not think so. That is why we have to look at some alternative to bring this thing together so that we do not have these problems as time goes on.

If we talked to all three parties we could sell them on the idea for final offer selection and for this bill. In my mind, as a farmer from central Saskatchewan, as my colleague mentioned before, I have seen the effects firsthand of these types of labour disputes. We never recover from them.

My colleague across the way said we cannot call this an essential service. I am not calling it an essential service, but it is essential to the livelihood and future of those people in my province. Their financial lives, perhaps not their physical lives, depend on getting their products from their farm gate to the port. That is the way we do business in Saskatchewan. That is the way we make our living. If that is interrupted then it is essential in my mind because it has a very far ranging, serious effect on my livelihood.

In conclusion, again I would urge all members of this House to support this legislation. It is the first real positive step I have seen since I have been in this House to eliminate a big, broad problem with a wide ranging approach, a fair approach and an approach that makes a lot of common sense to me.

[Bernie Collins, Liberal, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and pleasure to rise this morning and speak on Bill C-262 which is before the House. As a former member of a trade union for many years, I find it interesting that this bill would be put forward at this time, although the issues before us are very serious.

The bill calls for amendments to some sections of the Canada Labour Code which impact labour dispute settlement mechanisms. Specifically, the title of the bill states that it is intended 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.

I strongly suggest the bill is not appropriate both in the legislation and in its timing as it would introduce an unfortunate mechanism. The government is currently in the process of making unprecedented changes to the grain transportation system which will have far reaching effects, rather than bringing yet another complex mix and not bringing about the change we are looking for.

This is not the way we want to solve the problems we are experiencing in the grain handling system. It is important to note that we already have the means to alleviate the problems. Recently introduced legislation meant that dock workers had to return to their jobs in Vancouver and grain and other shipments were moving.

The issue demands more than just a temporary measure. The labour minister has introduced a commission to study labour relations at established ports. The commission will look into the long term solutions to this dispute and similar ones in the future. The commission, I should add, is only part of the government's ongoing efforts to streamline Canada's grain handling system.

These problems do not go unnoticed. As a result the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food on May 16 gathered a group together to examine many of the issues. The group was formed to look at short term grain movement, the problems of long term resolution and of recurring difficulties. It included labour unions representing the grain handling and transportation system.

The movement of grain is not done in isolation by any one collective workers group. That is why the team approach has to be taken. For further proof we need only to look at the records or the grain shipments to many terminals in this crop year.

We recognize that we have had labour problems in the past with grain handling. I believe the way to resolve the problems is not by providing arbitration to prevent strikes and lockouts. Rather labour must be productive and constructive and become a partner in developing an effective process for the movement of grain.

There is no doubt that it is a serious problem. We are prepared to respect the collective bargaining process to promote co-operation between the parties in a dispute either through mediation or conciliation.

My colleagues at human resources development have indicated that 90 per cent of collective agreements referred to conciliation are resolved without a work stoppage. In instances that result in negative impacts on entire sectors the government has demonstrated as recently as in the past week it is prepared to step in and break deadlocks. As such there is no need to introduce amendments to the Canada Labour Code. If we look at the experiences of countries in which compulsory arbitration is widely practised we see that strikes continue to occur.

Grain transportation is a very large and very complex industry involving numerous trades. For instance, 12 companies are operating terminal elevators, 14 companies are operating transfer elevators and 19 elevator companies are in the prairies. In addition we must add the two major railways that move our grain products by vessel to the Great Lakes and to our external ports.

Are we prepared to remove the collective bargaining rights of all these people? There is an enormous degree of complexity and we understand the concerns of all. To single out one group of men and women, the vast majority of whom have never had an industrial dispute through Parliament, strikes me as less than fair. Co-operation is the way to establishing partnerships fundamental to the economy and the well-being of society.

The adoption of Bill C-262 is not likely to produce results even close to what is desired. Rather I would suggest members support the efforts currently under way to reduce problems in our grain transportation system.

It is fundamental that changes have to take place in the western grain transportation system. These changes were recently introduced in the federal budget. They will create a less rigid and more responsive operating environment in which a faster, lower cost and more efficient system may evolve, the benefits of which will be shared by all.

Therefore, for all these reasons I do not feel I could support introduction of new legislation at this time.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let me start by pointing out that I think it is important to put into context the whole debate about back to work legislation, the shutdown of the railway system and best offer arbitration.

Let me do so by pointing out that Canadian farmers are probably the best farmers in the world. They are the most productive and the most efficient. If it were just on that basis they had to make their living everything would be fine; they would be extremely prosperous and the country would benefit as a whole. However there are all kinds of other issues that raise their head and stand in the way of farmers actually being able to earn a proper living.

One of them is the trade war that seems to be ongoing with the U.S. and Europe. At the same time we have huge government debts and deficits that contribute to high input costs, high taxes and high interest rates which all conspire to make it very difficult for Canadian farmers to compete particularly against Americans.

Meanwhile we have farm institutions like the Canadian Wheat Board and the transportation system that are in desperate need of reform. There is tremendous pressure on the wheat board to change, not only from Americans, our competitors, but from inside, from people who actually support the wheat board. They want to see change. The hon. member for Vegreville has been at the forefront of pushing for a democratic wheat board elected by farmers and with farmers on the board. That makes sense to me.

I want to talk for a moment about the history of the transportation system in Canada. Even when it is not shut down by a strike it is at best inefficient and slow. I do not know how many calls I have received over the last year and a half from people asking: "Why are there no cars at my elevator? What happened to my grain as it disappeared down the track?"

We need Bill C-262. There is no question in my mind. It is one thing the government can do to bring to an end the problem we face today. As fate would have it, we are debating Bill C-262 on a day when we have a rail strike in the country. It will also provide a long term solution.

I encourage the government across the way to set aside partisan differences, to consider what is for the greater good and to consider farmers across the country. Actually the unions and the employers will benefit by this type of legislation, by best offer selection arbitration. We encourage the government to set that aside and to join with Reform today, the hon. member for Lethbridge, to bring the whole issue to an end by supporting Bill C-262 and by bringing some sanity back into the transportation system.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It being 11.53 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 93, the time provided for debate has expired. Accordingly the question is on second reading and reference of Bill C-262. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Call in the members.

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

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I declare the motion negatived.