Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on the bill sponsored by the hon. member for Verdun-Saint-Paul.
The bill proposes that the government implement final offer selection as a mechanism for resolving the year long labour dispute at ADM Agri-Industries, otherwise known as Ogilvie Flour Mills.
I was a bit surprised that a member from the government side would sponsor the bill. When the hon. member for Lethbridge was seeking support for his final offer arbitration in Bill C-262, which called for basically the same as the bill today only it applied to grain handling disputes, government members did not want any part of it.
If the hon. member from Verdun and perhaps the rest of his caucus truly believed in the concept they would have spoken in support of Bill C-262 at the time it was debated in the House.
How can he promote final offer selection or arbitration in one case and oppose it in others? Since flour mill workers are grouped into the same category as grain elevator operators they fall under federal jurisdiction. If the hon. member and his colleagues were really concerned about the workers at Ogilvie Mills, they would have got the ball rolling on March 20 by supporting the bill of the member for Lethbridge on final offer arbitration in grain handling disputes.
We know the government runs hot and cold. The fact the member could not get unanimous consent for his bill is a perfect example as far as final offer arbitration is concerned. They did not like Bill C-262 and they came out in force to ensure that it did not survive.
The Minister of Human Resources Development in a news release announcing that royal assent had been given to the West Coast Ports Operations Act was quoted as saying:
The imposition of the final offer selection procedure in this particular legislation should encourage the two sides to demonstrate a strong sense of rationality in deciding on the positions they place before the arbitrator.
That is what we said in Bill C-262, that it was a tool that could be used by either side in a dispute.
The transport committee in its recently released national marine strategy recommended a final offer selection mechanism for settlement of all disputes between pilots and their customers. It seems to work in some areas. As the mover of the bill mentioned, it is not something union people are objecting to. There seems to be growing popularity for the concept of final offer arbitration.
The committee also recommended that the new Marine Transportation Act should provide for final offer selection for the settlement of all disputes between the new not for profit Seaway Corporation and its employees. The chairman of the committee spoke on final offer arbitration during the debate on Bill C-262. He spoke at length about the need to maintain essential services. He also said:
Employees either have the right to strike or not.
He went on to say:
We have to roll with the change. I do not feel 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.
We are getting mixed signals from the government.
Last week in the human resources development committee I had an opportunity to ask the Minister of Labour if she would consider implementing final offer arbitration as a solution to ending disputes involving essential services. She conceded that it might be an interesting concept but that it would be difficult to use as a method of settling disputes, especially complicated disputes like this one. I got the distinct feeling that she would not support that sort of move. I am not surprised my hon. friend could not get unanimous consent to make his motion votable.
Obviously he has one other colleague in his caucus that feels the same as he does. The member for Vaudreuil introduced exactly the same bill but it has apparently been withdrawn. I am sure they both thought there would be no repercussions since the government employed final offer selection as a way out of its problems with the west coast ports.
My friend from Verdun-Saint-Paul is probably thankful in some ways that it is not votable because if it were he would have to vote in favour of it and we have seen the government sometimes punish people who vote for their constituents.
The Reform Party believes in the bargaining process. We do not want to interfere in the process of two parties coming to an
agreement. We see final offer arbitration as tool that is useful to both labour and management. Certainly my friend across the way has alluded to having support of the union in this case.
We on this side are concerned about the impacts that strikes and lockouts have on workers, employers and Canadians who most often have to bear the brunt of the costs and inconveniences when the services of monopolistic industries are withdrawn. When all efforts to solve the disputes through the regular collective bargaining process have been exhausted, final offer arbitration should be available to all parties.
The recent strikes in the railway helped to underline the weakness inherent in the Canada Labour Code from preventing a shutdown to essential services. The federal government has a responsibility in this area to act in the best interest of Canadians. Transportation and communication services are essential to the daily movement of people, goods and services.
Canada's competitive advantage is determined by the efficiency and reliability of the transportation and communication network that it relies on. We cannot afford any major shutdowns in the network that links the country together. A case in point was the recent railway strike that is estimated to have cost the Canadian economy in the neighbourhood of $3 billion.
Final offer arbitration is the most effective and impartial means of obtaining a solution to the concerns of labour and management where an impasse occurs that inflicts significant damage on Canadians. It requires both parties to negotiate in good faith and quickly, while keeping in mind their overall interest as an organization.
There is nothing to prevent both sides from achieving their deal providing they are being fair, open and expedient with each other. Tremendous pressure is put on both sides to reach an agreement if the arbitrator is in a position to adopt all of one or all of the other side's proposals.
The threat of arbitration should be enough for both sides to reach agreement if the arbitrator is in a position to adopt either side's proposals. The threat of arbitration should be enough for both sides if they want to reach an agreement.
In cases where fundamental issues are at stake, such as employment security, an agreement may never occur through the collective bargaining process. A strike or lockout only makes matters worse and nobody wins in those situations. The best solution is for someone respected by both sides to make a decision on the fairness of one proposal and for the process to be viewed as legitimate by both sides.
Section 57 of the Canada Labour Code contains a provision for final settlement by an arbitrator for disputes that occur during the life of a collective agreement. The parliamentary secretary from York North referred to this provision on March 2 when he said: "Our system of compulsory collective agreement settlement through arbitration or some other peaceful means contributes to a high degree of stability in our industrial relations system". The message government is sending on this issue is one of confusion. Government is for it in some instances and not for it in other instances.
I am certainly not trying to circumvent the collective agreement process. I do want to ensure that in areas of essential services Canadian people are protected from costly disruptive work stoppages that could affect their safety and their livelihood. We need an amendment to the Canada Labour Code which would expand the provisions contained in section 27 to include final offer arbitration in work stoppages in essential services as soon as the existing agreements expire.
The Ogilvie workers and their employers have been involved in a bitter labour dispute as has been mentioned, for almost a year. Those people would certainly like to get back to work. It is unfortunate that this bill is not a votable one. If it were, I would be suggesting to our caucus that we should support it.
I encourage the government to come forth with legislation considerably similar to this that would work as a long term solution and not a piecemeal approach to the problems.