Debates of March 3rd, 1997

Canada Labour Code

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the amendments put forward by the members of the Reform Party, because it is important to make the distinction I do not think was made between what they want to do and the intent, even misguided, of the law, which was to recognize that there are essential services.

As you know, regardless of where we look in this country, there are no real miracles. Either strikes and lockouts are recognized and certain essential services maintained for reasons of public health and safety or they are not. In fact, however, no country is able to prevent strikes and lockouts. So most countries have opted for provisions to regulate essential services.

The Government of Canada, which had no such provision in past disputes, is trying to plug that loophole with clause 87(4), which states that if it:

-is of the opinion that a strike or lockout could pose an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public-

the board may issue an order to decide what activities should be designated and how and to what extent the employer and employees should attempt to come to an understanding.

So, in the event of serious public health and safety concerns, the board will ask the parties to negotiate. And if the parties fail to reach an understanding, the board may decide what must be done.

The Reform Party wants to add "severe economic hardship to the national economy" to the provisions on public health and safety, to the imminent and serious danger to the safety or health of the public. They have two amendments to that effect.

Let me tell you that the board would be at a loss to determine what "severe economic hardship to the national economy" means. It seems to me that it would be hard to determine, given that, with unemployment soaring to 15 per cent in Montreal, one can wonder what it takes to qualify as severe economic hardship.

This provision does not seem relevant. They did provide an explanation. But the truth is that severe economic hardship cannot be used as a criterion in determining the services that should be considered essential.

The other very important amendment they made does not limit the employees' right to strike or the employer's right to lock workers out by designating some services as essential but by eliminating these rights altogether. That is in section 87.7, and I should point out that an agreement was reached. We were under the impression that both the unions and the employers in the long-shoring industry agreed with the contents of section 87.7, which states:

During a strike or lockout not prohibited by this Part, an employer in the long-shoring industry, or other industry included in paragraph ( a ) of the definition ``federal work, undertaking or business'' in section 2, its employees and their bargaining agent 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.

I know that the unions were in agreement because of their past experiences with lockouts and special legislation that was imposed on them when they were prepared to continue loading grain vessels. I know, I gave evidence to that effect and I can attest to it here because, as it happens, I was the critic on this issue when the final offer mechanism was used to settle a dispute, and I know that employers took advantage of the fact no such provision existed. Sometimes the employers are right, sometimes the unions are right,

but in that particular case, the employers clearly played a dirty trick on the unions.

The unions representing the longshoremen were prepared to continue loading the grain. Day after day, they repeatedly told us in the House that grain, and not potash, coal, or any other raw materials, was to be loaded into vessels or should we say unloaded, but this was not included in the amendment.

So, to remove the fact that they meant grain vessels and to change this section, as they are doing, means that dockers could never strike no matter what type vessel was involved. Clearly, this provision is impracticable. As I said at the beginning, everybody knows in the end that options exist.

Either we restrict the right to strike and to lock out by invoking essential services, or else we prohibit them. If we prohibit them, we know that we are opening the door to illegal strikes and lockouts which complicate the situation, and are against the rules.

In this second section, Reform members remove this "essential services" aspect. This aspect is related to grain vessels and interested parties agreed that for grain vessels, the right to strike would not exist. Services for grain vessels are essential, but other port activities will be limited by the definition of essential services.

I understand the pressure exerted on grain producers, but it seems to me that this issue, about which we heard a lot, is answered in clause 87.7. As for other producers, the government is trying to prohibit the right to strike or lockout, with the result that it will be done illegally and in conditions that we do not accept. The idea is to provide for some essential services in the labour code.

I will end on an interrogative or humorous note. I am leaving it up to members opposite to choose the term that best applies. The committee proposed an amendment to clause 87.8. This amendment provided that the freight and passenger service between Port-aux-Basques, Newfoundland, and Nova Scotia should be considered an essential service. I see that this small amendment proposed by the committee without the minister's approval was withdrawn by the minister at report stage. I imagine Liberal members will have something to say about this.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to enter into the debate today to talk about the provisions that my colleagues in the Reform Party have mentioned. The amendments we are trying to propose here today would ensure final offer binding arbitration for the situation in the grain and transportation industry, in the whole delivery system for what is a very important part of the Canadian economy, the export market.

I would argue whether it is in the national interest or not but it is very important for continuing service in the domestic markets as well. With tongue in cheek I must chastize my colleagues from the Reform Party who talked so much about the grain producers, which is worthwhile. I know many grain producers.

I would like to talk about the necessity to provide an assured transportation system for the feed industry. The feed industry in a province like my own relies extensively or maybe exclusively on the ability of the rail system to deliver feed in a timely fashion to the west coast for the use in our own feed industry.

West of the Rockies in my area in the Fraser Valley we probably have the biggest concentration of the chicken and dairy industry. There are hundreds of chicken, dairy and hog farmers all relying on a grain system and delivery system that will give them what they need in a timely fashion.

I mention this because this is not a theoretical discussion about the importance of assuring this system is not interrupted for any length of time.

The feed industry in the lower mainland has been denied access to grain delivery from the prairies. It has had to resort to trucking grain from Alberta to the Fraser Valley to try to keep chicken farmers and the rest of the farm industries in my area from running out of feed for their livestock.

They have heard every excuse under the sun. It has been blamed on the weather, a lack of locomotives, farmers, being unable to spot cars in the prairies and who knows what. I do not know if the minister knows. He certainly has not done a whole lot to help them out.

It is an example of a system that both export and domestic markets rely on being interrupted for whatever reason. Not only does it hurt our reputation abroad. It also hurts our ability to look after our own industries. Whether it can be blamed on the weather or on the government, it points out the necessity of having an assured supply of grain delivered to the west coast.

If the government is not prepared to entertain the idea of final offer binding arbitration it needs to do something to reassure the feed industry in my area will somehow be able to intervene to make sure it gets grain.

There are not enough trucks available in British Columbia to haul grain in the amount required to look after the industry in the lower mainland. The grain has to be trucked all the way from Alberta, maybe 700, 800 or 900 kilometres one way, to the feed mills in the Chilliwack area in order to sustain the industry on an

ongoing basis. They cannot hire enough trucks. Maybe the hon. member has enough trucks to help out, but farmers in my area cannot hire enough trucks to get that much feed delivered.

As grain cars back up across the prairies and on sidings at Boston Bar, tantalizingly close but still not delivered to the feed mills, we see the crisis develop in a hurry in the lower mainland.

I ask the government to consider what we are proposing today. We do not want to see our domestic market hung up because somebody threw their hands up in the air and walked away from a labour dispute. We have to be able to say that from production to delivery there is a system exporters can count on. Equally important and certainly even more important in my riding is the ability to know we can rely on the transportation system day in and day out, year in and year out, to get feed to the feed bins.

If we cannot do that in British Columbia I can tell the House what will happen. The agricultural industry which relies on the grain from the prairies will die a slow, withering death in British Columbia. Over the last two or three weeks we have seen an industry begging for some kind of government intervention to provide enough grain to feed the chickens. They should be able to rely on that and if they cannot they will do what they have to do.

They are telling me that if they cannot rely on the grain delivery system into the lower mainland, they will have to take their industry somewhere else. To tell farmers in the lower mainland that they are just not wanted is unacceptable. There should be some way to assure them that the export market important. We should encourage diversity and value added in the agricultural industry. We should encourage the feed industry and exports.

If I can use an agricultural term, one thing feeds on another and together it creates a critical mass of agricultural industries from suppliers to machinery dealers, to machine shops, to people such as Ty-crop in my area that has sprung up around an agricultural industry because of a certain critical mass there. They have become internationally known. All those things are at risk if the government does not assure a supply of grain to farmers.

Over the last few days some of the grain stuck on sidings in Boston Bar, sniffing distance away, have come to market. The inability to spot cars on the prairies and the inability to guarantee delivery have the whole feed industry in a turmoil. The industry needs that assurance.

By not assuring farmers of the future and of that supply farmers will start voting with their feet and with their cheque books. They will leave an area of uncertainty for an area of assurance. They will either move to the prairies, move to the states or move somewhere if they cannot count on our delivery system.

I urge the government to consider these amendments which will assure timely delivery to the feed industry. It will help producers and consumers, in this case the feed industry, to do the job the Canadian government and the rest of us have asked them to do. I ask the government to consider these amendments in the light of what I have presented today.

[George Proud, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-66 introduces for the first time in the Canada Labour Code provisions which will require the maintenance of activities necessary to prevent immediate and serious danger to public health and safety during work stoppages.

My colleagues in the Reform Party are proposing by Motions Nos. 24 and 25 to extend the application of these provisions to a much broader range of activities by making economic hardship to the national economy a criterion for requiring parties to maintain services during a work stoppage. Bill C-66 also introduces a requirement for employers and employees in the ports to continue to provide services to grain vessels in the event of a work stoppage.

The aim of this proposal is twofold: to ensure the continued movement of grain exports and to reduce reliance on legislative interventions to terminate and resolve port-labour management disputes. The Reform Party is seeking to extend the application of this provision to all commodities exported through the ports. These changes to Bill C-66 would effectively remove strike and lockout rights from large numbers of employers and employees subject to the code.

Let us recognize this approach for what it really is: a denial of free collective bargaining rights for large numbers of workers and employers in the federal labour jurisdiction, an approach more commonly associated with less democratic societies. We all know how successful such states have been in solving their economic and social problems.

Representatives of both labour and business told the Sims task force that they want to be able to frame their own agreements rather than have third party solutions imposed upon them. In their view third party solutions have had a history of failure, particularly when the issues in dispute involve significant changes to traditional practices.

The Sims task force examined the issue of maintenance of activities and concluded that the right to strike or lockout should not be removed from any group of workers or any employer subject to the code. The task force recommended that the code include specific provisions for the protection of public health and safety during work stoppages. With respect to the appropriate criteria for

determining which activity should be maintained, both labour and management support protection of public health and safety as a criterion.

The maintenance of activities provisions in Bill C-66 balance the collective bargaining rights of employees and employers subject to the code with the public's right to protection of health and safety. They represent a fair and equitable approach which has the support of both the labour and management parties.

I will now turn to the grain provision. Grain has been declared for the general advantage of Canada. It is a multi-billion dollar industry which exports to over 70 countries worldwide. The livelihood of 130,000 farmers and their families depends on Canada maintaining its reputation as a reliable exporter. These interests must however be balanced with the rights of labour and management to determine fair terms and conditions of employment through collective bargaining.

Since 1972 there have been 12 work stoppages in west coast ports which have disrupted grain exports. Nine of these work stoppages have involved longshoremen and their employers. Only three have involved grain handlers. One of these was limited to Prince Rupert and as such did not affect major terminal elevators in Vancouver.

Requiring the continuation of port services to grain vessels will therefore eliminate the major source of disruptions to our grain exports due to work stoppages in ports. However, as it is limited to services to grain vessels in the ports, it will not remove the right to strike or lockout from any group of employees or employers.

When grain exports are interrupted due to work stoppages pressures are immediately brought to bear on Parliament to adopt emergency legislation. In the past Parliament has intervened quickly to end and resolve disputes in the ports which have affected grain exports. This does not contribute to sound labour-management relations in the ports. The parties have come to expect Parliament to intervene. They have developed negotiation strategies around this assumption. This removes responsibility from the parties engaged in a collective bargaining dispute to resolve their own problems. It enables the parties to blame the government and ultimately Parliament for any consequences of an imposed settlement they perceive as adverse to their interests.

The proposal in Bill C-66 preserves the right of workers and employers in all sectors to engage in collective bargaining while providing protections to Canada's grain industry. It is the equitable approach suggested by the Sims task force and widely supported by the grain producers.

As the Minister of Labour indicated when he introduced the bill and repeated before the standing committee, the provision with respect to services to grain vessels will be subject to review in 1999, at which time stronger measures could be considered if necessary. The parties should therefore take the opportunity to make these provisions work.

The amendment adopted by members of the standing committee would require the continuation of ferry services between Port aux Basques, Newfoundland and North Sydney, Nova Scotia, in the event of a collective bargaining dispute. The government has introduced a motion to remove this requirement. I would like to explain why the provision is inadvisable from an industrial relations point of view.

While committee members heard from a number of groups with interests in tourism and economic development in Newfoundland, they did not have an opportunity to hear from labour and management on this issue or to examine the industrial relations implications of the provision.

First, it is important to note there has not been a legal strike or lockout involving employees providing ferry service between Port aux Basques, Newfoundland and North Sydney, Nova Scotia and their employer, Marine Atlantic, since the corporation began operating the service over 23 years ago. Marine Atlantic and the union representing the employees have always been able to reach an agreement on terms and conditions of employment without resorting to work stoppages.

Second, this issue did not surface during the lengthy process of the review of part I of the Canada Labour Code which included cross-country consultations by an independent task force and subsequently by the Minister of Labour. This is unfortunate since there would have been an opportunity for a more careful examination of a serious issue, that is the removal of strike and lockout rights for a group of employees and their employer. At first glance one might think the impact of this provision would be the same as the requirement in Bill C-66 for port services to grain vessels to be continued in the event of work stoppages. However that is not the case.

The requirement with respect to port services to grain vessels does not remove the strike and lockout rights of any bargaining unit of employees or any employer. Only port work related to grain vessels would have to be continued in the event of a work stoppage. This would affect a small portion of workers in any bargaining unit in the ports. The employer and the union would still be able to exert economic pressures throughout the strike or lockout action.

However, in the case of ferry services by May of this year when ferry service between Prince Edward Island and the mainland will cease the only year-round ferry service run by the current employer, Marine Atlantic, will be that between Port aux Basques and North Sydney. If the requirement to maintain this service is not revoked, employers and employees will not be able to exert economic pressure to resolve a collective bargaining dispute.

There are other changes in Bill C-66 which adequately address concerns raised before the standing committee without removing the rights of parties. The parties operating ferry services would be required to maintain services necessary to prevent immediate and serious danger to public health and safety. The new time limited one stage conciliation process will reduce the length of bargaining and encourage earlier settlements. In addition, the new requirement for a 72-hour advance notice of a strike or lockout action will prevent unexpected disruptions to service.

It seems to me to be somewhat heavy-handed to remove legitimate rights from a group of workers and their employer in anticipation of the possibility that a situation which has not occurred in over 23 years could happen. The removal of strike and lockout rights may have the undesirable effect of undermining the positive labour-management relations which have enabled the union and the employer to resolve collective bargaining disputes without resorting to work stoppages. Poor labour-management relations can negatively impact on the quality and reliability of the services.

I urge members to support the government motion to delete the provision with respect to the maintenance of ferry services. I am confident that the other changes to the bargaining process in Bill C-66 are sufficient to address any perceived problems with respect to ferry services between Newfoundland and Nova Scotia without removing the collective bargaining rights of the parties.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak on this issue today but I have heard a number of comments and I thought I would just add a few thoughts on this issue.

When I heard the hon. member from Fraser Valley talk about how his farmers were short of grain, it really astounded me. I look at statistics and see that the turnaround of a grain car in 1908 to the port at Vancouver was 21 days and today it is 19.5 days. That is one and a half days less.

I know the trains are going about four or five times faster than they used to. I know that elevators load cars about three or four times faster as they used to. Why do we have only a one and a half day shorter turnaround?

I am astounded when I hear that the farmers in British Columbia are suffering just like the grain farmers in Manitoba because they cannot move their product. The farmers in the Fraser Valley cannot feed their animals to produce money or to increase the economy. It astounds me when nobody talks about $1 million a day demurrage charges for ships sitting in port which is due to somebody's ignorance, mismanagement or inefficiency.

How can a country continue to prosper when we have this type of economy? What the government reminds me of is that if it had a spoke come out of a buggy wheel, it would shoot the horse. That is the way this government solves problems.

The government passed laws doing away with transportation subsidies, saying that everything would go smoothly from here on. Do you know something, Mr. Speaker? I had nine miles of hopper cars sitting empty in my constituency all summer and fall. No grain was being moved. Tell me why. We have a record carryover of feed grain on hand right now. Why did those chickens in B.C. not get that grain when they needed it? I wish somebody could explain that to me. The CPR agent came to see me. He said: "Jake, we had 50 miles of empty hopper cars sitting around all summer up till the harvest time".

We had a record carryover of grain and the chickens are starving in B.C. Is this something that we in the opposition are creating or is this something the government is not looking after? I would like to know. If we run our country in this direction we will not even have a dead horse to shoot. It will die before we get the gun out.

It is important that we finally realize that trucks move six or seven times faster than they did in the early 1900s. Grain cars can be loaded faster. Trains can move faster. There is a problem somewhere. Somebody is not doing his job using these implements or these tools. Who is it? It is not thin air. It has to be either management or labour.

The people who produce the products to be moved have increased their production 10, 15 and 20 times. They are not getting rewarded for it, nor are the farmers who are producing in the value added industries like chicken, dairy and hogs.

I wish the government would start realizing that farmers vote. If we do not have farmers, the other people who vote will not be eating very long and might not be voting either. It may not just be a matter of debating this issue in the House, it is a matter of doing something. The grain is there, the vehicles are there and the special value industries are there but something is not working. We had better find the problem.

I know in my farm operation if the tractor or the combine is sitting it is because the guy who is supposed to drive it is not around. That is what is happening to all our industries that are supposed to move the grain. Somebody is not around.

When I hear in my constituency that the railway workers have to be brought by limousine half way down toward Winnipeg and then the train sits for six or seven hours waiting for another limousine to come from Winnipeg to bring out another crew, I can see why we do not get anything moved. This is the reason we are having problems.

It is high time that we started realizing that if these value added industries are not going to be successful, like my hon. friend from Fraser Valley says, they are going to move. They are not going to stay around. When they move there will be no more taxes for the government to collect and no more industries providing jobs. Let us get on the ball and do something.

Why are we not succeeding? I would say it is because we have a Liberal government on that side and Reform on this side. However, that will change in the next election. Then things will start running smoothly. We will move grain and feed the chickens and we will not have to shoot the horse any more to solve the problem.

Motion To Extend Hours Of Sitting

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 26, I move:

That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary time of adjournment for the purpose of considering of Bill C-66.

Also I ask the unanimous consent of the House in deeming the recorded divisions and the votes on any other motion necessary to dispose of the bill at report stage to have been requested and deferred.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There are two matters to settle. First of all, the government whip is moving that the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary time of adjournment for the purpose of considering Bill C-66.

Will all members who object to the motion please rise in their places.

And fewer than 15 members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

There not being 15 members rising in objection to the motion, the motion is adopted.

(Motion agreed to.)

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House has also heard the hon. government whip's suggestion. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-66, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, as reported (with amendments) from committee; and of the amendments.

Canada Labour Code

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question on Group No. 7?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on Motion No. 24. 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 of the motion 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 nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

The recorded division on Motion No. 24 stands deferred. The result of the division on Motion No. 24 will also apply to Motion No. 25.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I had no intention of causing anyone to err, in this instance my colleagues from the Reform Party. Certainly it was understood that the request for unanimous consent would be applicable to Motions Nos. 8, 9 and 10.

I would also willingly offer the same co-operation on the group presently before the House, Group No. 7, if the members of the Bloc would also consent to have that vote deferred until tomorrow when all those matters will be dealt with.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on Motion No. 28. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?