We will move on to the motions in Group No. 7, which includes Motions Nos. 24, 25, 28 to 30 and 32. All these motions are deemed to have been moved, seconded and read.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Reform

Dale Johnston Reform Wetaskiwin, AB

moved:

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-66, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 27 with the following:

"of the public or the causing of severe economic hardship to the national economy."

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-66, in Clause 37, be amended by a ) replacing line 20 on page 28 with the following:

"danger to the safety or health of the public or cause severe economic hardship to the national economy, the" b ) replacing line 28 on page 28 with the following:

"or health of the public or the causing of severe economic hardship to the national economy;"

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-66, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing line 8 on page 30 with the following:

"they normally provide to ensure the uninterrupted export of commodities from point of origin to final destination and the tie-up,"

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-66, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 30 with the following:

"let-go and loading of vessels and the"

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-66, in Clause 37, be amended, in the English version, by replacing line 10 on page 30, with the following:

"movement of vessels in and out of a"

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Saint-Léonard Québec

Liberal

Alfonso Gagliano LiberalMinister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

moved:

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-66, in Clause 37, be amended by deleting lines 28 to 46 on page 30 and lines 1 to 6 on page 31.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Reform

Leon Benoit Reform Vegreville, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of the amendments contained in group No. 7.

I have received letters from several grain farmers over the past months with respect to Bill C-66. They have said that at the least this piece of legislation would require that grain moves through the port once it arrives there. They said that would help to some extent. There have been many work stoppages over the years. Grain has arrived at port and one thing or another has stopped it from moving. The farmers have said that legislation would help.

Farmers did not know that part of the legislation would make things much worse, the measure to prevent the use of replacement workers. That could lead to a slower movement of grain and more damage to farmers as a result of having their commodity held up en route to port or as it is being loaded on a ship.

Farmers are torn on this issue. I want to speak for them on it. There is a better solution than the one offered in the legislation. The farmers have told me so and I will speak on behalf of the ones who have contacted me.

Grain farmers have suffered for too long. Some have seen their livelihood for an entire year being snatched away due to poor weather conditions. As well, often their grain has either been left on the farm or in local elevators due to some kind of movement disruption. That has happened too often.

One of the first pieces of legislation I spoke on when I came to Ottawa in 1994 had to do with putting grain handlers at the port of Vancouver back to work. It was back to work legislation. We have seen back to work legislation again and again. When we have government interfering, forcing the system to work through back to work legislation, clearly there are problems in the system which have to be dealt with.

I forget the number but there have been something like 20 stoppages over the years I remember. I remember as a very young boy on the farm getting grain ready to go to market and desperately needing the money from the grain to meet day to day expenses, to buy clothes and food for the family. Then I would hear about a stoppage in the grain handling system. There might have been some problem with the railway. More often than not the grain handlers were on strike at the port. Any one of the many links in the system might have broken down. Who paid the price? The captive shippers, in this case the grain farmers who have no other practical way of getting their commodity to the ships so they can get paid. This has happened again and again.

As I said, one of the first pieces of legislation that I spoke on was to legislate the grain handlers back to work. The problem had not been solved.

Will this piece of legislation help? To some extent it will. At least grain that makes it to the port will be moved through the system and loaded on to ships. That is not enough, not close to enough. It is not only grain farmers who are affected by a system that does not come through again, again and again. It is people with many other commodities who have no other way of getting them to port other than by railway. It is a system that breaks down on them again and again and costs them dearly. The legislation does not fix the system.

What has Reform proposed over the three and a half years we have been here? We have proposed many different solutions to the problem. In my second speech in the House in February 1994 I proposed the use of final offer selection arbitration which my colleague has mentioned in the House as a permanent solution to the problem.

Final offer selection arbitration allows for the bargaining process to take place but absolutely prevents a stoppage in grain movement right from the local elevator to the ship. That is the solution farmers need. That is the solution other captive shippers need. Nothing less than that is good enough, and this legislation provides a lot less. With the negatives it is questionable whether it will make things better or worse. On balance it could well make things worse.

We need this change. The Reform member for Lethbridge put forward a private member's bill respecting a final offer selection arbitration some time back in 1994. That bill was debated in the House and I believe it was votable. Had it passed it would have become legislation. Did we get support from the same government that is now presenting this piece of legislation? Did we get support from the Bloc? Did we get support from anybody for that legislation?

We never got support from anybody in the House but we got support right across western Canada from grain farmers who are fed up with having constant disruptions in grain movement that cost them so dearly when they can ill afford it. They are already at

the mercy of the weather and world prices, world prices being low more often than not due to government interference in the market.

It is not just the American government and the European governments that interfere in the market and do not allow the market to work properly. It is also the Canadian government. Canadian governments-Conservative and Liberal-have been interfering for some time. This has led to depressed prices. Farmers have had to deal with all this and with continual disruptions.

It is time for some real change. It is time we put in place final offer arbitration as a way to ensure that captive shippers get their products loaded on to ships in a timely fashion. This legislation will not do that unless we include these amendments and clearly end disruptions in the handling system once and for all. Farmers deserve no less.

In the red book the government included virtually nothing on agriculture. As an afterthought an addendum was added which included a lot of nice things to help make things better for farmers. It is time the government delivered on at least this one.

It is time not to settle for quarter or half measures. It is time to solve the problem. The government has an opportunity to deal with the problem and to say that it will solve the problem completely. Maybe that is overstating the case but it would certainly help in a dramatic way. That is why I speak in support of Group No. 7 amendments. I encourage the Liberal government to finally do something for grain farmers. They are being held hostage by the grain handling system. Right now, once again this year, grain is not moving.

During the elimination of the Crow benefit, the changes to the Canada Transportation Act and the privatization of CN Rail I called again and again for measures, as did my colleagues, that would put competition into the system. It would have fixed the car allocation process. It would have made the system work.

The government did not heed our call for action. Here is a chance for it to make up for that in some small way. It should support this group of amendments that will finally allow for movement of grain right from the local elevator to the ship without disruption. It is the least that farmers should expect from the government.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC

Mr. Speaker, I really want those who are following what we are doing to realize that, with the amendments proposed by the Reform Party-and I am not using any euphemisms, it is not a figure of style, I mean it literally-we are faced with amendments aimed at reducing the workers' right to strike. We would not have believed it possible for clauses of this nature to be brought forward.

For purely instructional reasons-I cannot be other than instructional since I am next to the hon. member for Rimouski-Temiscouata, who is a teacher-I would simply like to review for those who are following the debate just what is involved.

Clause 87.7(1) of the bill concerns access and services to grain vessels. The entire question of western grain, as we are all aware, even without any connection to the west, is of absolutely vital importance. This is a key sector of the economy.

What the legislator is giving here is a balanced point of view, one which, in committee-and I believe I am correct in saying this-even the ports people, the national stevedoring committee, indicated that they were somewhat in favour of the obligation, the maintaining of this obligation, to load vessels.

To quote the clause in question more precisely: "During a work stoppage, an employer in the long-shoring industry or other port industry, or its employees, shall continue to provide the services they normally provide to ensure the tie-up, let-go and loading of grain vessels and the movement of the grain vessels in and out of a port". It is understood that this is where shipping for export is involved, where anticipated high and low demand is a sensitive issue, so it makes sense to maintain such an obligation. I repeat, this clause in Bill C-66 was favourably received by the workers concerned.

A little further it says that unless the parties otherwise agree, rates of pay or any other terms or conditions of employment of the employees assigned to grain vessels during a strike are those provided in the previous collective agreement. I repeat, this is a wise provision.

And finally, on application by one of the parties or on referral by the minister, the board may make any order it considers appropriate to ensure compliance with that subsection. We are told that this new provision implements the proposal by the task force to include such a requirement in the labour code to prevent successive interruptions of grain exports as a result of work stoppages by employers and employees in a port.

Two years ago we, as parliamentarians, experienced the impact of a work stoppage involving the grain industry and the ports.

To avoid repeated work stoppages that can have a serious economic impact without depriving people of their right to strike, we agree with the proposed procedure.

We were surprised, however, to see that in the amendments proposed by the Reform Party, the reference was no longer to grain vessels but to all vessels. As though potash, uranium, steel, newsprint, recycled materials, bulk commodities, spices, and so

forth, should be treated exactly the same way. As though all export or shipping traffic should be treated the same way as the grain sector.

This is frivolous, and it is an unjustified restriction of the right to strike. Several times witnesses, especially for the employer side, came to tell us that we, as parliamentarians, should agree to expand the provisions significantly beyond grain vessels, and every time the official opposition said that this was impossible, that we did not think it was desirable or reasonable.

What reasons does the Reform Party have for wishing to restrict the right to strike or to expand the obligation to provide loading services? We agree with the provisions in the bill that say that in the case of grain vessels, nothing should be allowed to interrupt the loading, tie-up and let-go of grain vessels.

We cannot agree with that, and we cannot agree to generalize the provision contained in Bill C-66.

To do so would impose restrictions on and considerably undermine the rights of workers, and we do not want to be associated with such a process. I believe we will have a chance to see and comment on the scope of the Reform Party's amendments when we consider the next group of amendments, which deal with replacement workers.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Reform

Dale Johnston Reform Wetaskiwin, AB

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve asked rather rhetorically what motivated the Reform Party to present these amendments. I am happy to tell him what our motivation was.

We are in favour of any measure, within reason, that helps the farmers get grain to port, on to the ships and to market. However, why has only grain been given this priority? A lot of other commodities in Canada have to be shipped. Certainly grain is a very important commodity and it fits into another specific category which a lot of others do not. It is a food stuff, a staple which is perishable. That makes it fit into two categories.

There are coal, potash, lumber, plenty of other commodities which may or may not reach port, which may sit in the mill yard or at the mine and be held up because of a rail strike or because of other unions which may be on strike or locked out. It is a work disruption that prevents those products from getting to port and ultimately to market.

I do not have to tell the House that the Canadian economy is rather fragile and needs an infusion or transfusion. The Canadian economy has suffered hit after hit because of work stoppages which resulted in lost markets, of ships going to other ports to get similar commodities because they have been assured they will be loaded.

I do not have to tell members that if a ship is turned away from a port once or twice its owner may say: "We are tired of that sort of treatment. We are going to make permanent arrangements with another port". The port of Vancouver has lost business in the past to the port of Seattle simply because Seattle seems to be a more reliable port over a long period of time.

That is why we have introduced these amendments. We also feel that final offer selection arbitration is a good tool, although the Sims task force did not seem to agree with us. It stated that the use of final offer arbitration would create a situation where there would seem to be a winner and a loser. That is possible. However, final offer selection arbitration would also have the effect of having those parties bargain to the point where the winner would not win a lot and the loser would not lose a lot. If the parties knew it could come to that, they would probably reach an agreement before the arbitrator was ever named.

Therefore, I cannot encourage the House strongly enough to consider the use of final offer selection arbitration.

Let me read some comments from standing committee witnesses with regard to this amendment that separates grain as a commodity and does not allow the others.

Donald Downing, president of the Coal Association of Canada, had this to say: "This amendment cannot be allowed to stand as it discriminates between commodities and makes a special case for one. It suggests the Government of Canada places a priority and a special status on grain that would be impossible for us to explain to our valued coal customers in over 20 countries". I think that speaks volumes. How would the coal association explain this? "Yes, it is true that if grain arrives at port that the right to strike has been taken away from the people who load the grain, but if coal arrives at port it is just going to have to sit there and wait".

I have a couple of other quotes here that I may or may not read into the record but they are on the record of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources Development.

Section 87.4 allows for the continuation of a service in a strike/lockout situation if there is a danger to public health and safety. That is a good amendment, but I would submit that it needs to have one more caveat attached to it which is that there should be some provision for the protection of the national economy. I suppose one could say that absolutely anything could affect the national economy, but we are talking about things that have a huge effect on the national economy and a huge effect on Canada's reputation as a reliable supplier of these commodities.

My colleague from Vegreville has talked about final offer selection arbitration. I have spoken on it several times today and numerous times in the past. We will probably continue to do so in the future because it is a tool that is not discriminatory to either management or labour. It is a tool that can be used equally by either one.

It is a rather unique situation. It is a tool that, if used to its ultimate, is not used at all. Therefore it is exactly what the situation calls for. What we have now is a situation where the parties are discouraged from reaching an agreement. Maybe discouraged is a bit too strong. At least they are not encouraged to bargain something they can both live with because they know, and the employer is just as guilty as the employees, it is not really necessary to come to terms at this point. "Let's hold out and we will only be out a few days. We will be legislated back to work". We have plenty of precedents. They are only out for three or four days. Parliament legislates them all back to work.

What has happened to their right to strike there? That is taking the right to strike or the right to lockout completely out of their tool box.

I really think it is important to the Canadian economy and ultimately to jobs in this country. We all know how important jobs are. Every time we lose an international customer for whether it is coal, grain, potash or lumber we are losing jobs. We simply cannot afford that. I am sure members will agree.

In committee the member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte secured passage of an amendment that would help prevent work stoppages on the Atlantic ferry operating between North Sydney and Port aux Basques, Newfoundland. In essence it was declared an essential service. It was a great amendment, one that was certainly important to the member who introduced it and to the people of Newfoundland. For one reason or another, perhaps known only to the government, that amendment does not show up.

I would like to express my disappointment. It was a good amendment. It should have been here.