moved that Bill C-233, an act to provide for the settlement of labour disputes affecting west coast ports by final offer arbitration, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on my private member's Bill C-233 which provides a process to prevent costly strikes and lockouts at west coast ports.
As new MPs in 1994 one of the first emergencies we were forced to deal with emanated from a work stoppage at west coast ports. The Reform Party has always understood that when labour disputes occur in the transportation sector or at the ports, it is the users, the innocent third parties who pay the costs. Since we arrived here four years ago there have been three occasions when work stoppages in these sectors alone required back to work legislation.
In February 1994 the dispute between the British Columbia Maritime Employers Association and the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union shut down west coast ports for almost two weeks. One year later, in March 1995, parliament was called on to bring an end to a dispute between the foremen from this very same union and the Maritime Employers Association. No sooner had this group been ordered back to work than we were called upon to pass another bill legislating an end to a work stoppage, this time in the railway sector.
On each occasion the Reform Party pressed the government to act quickly to protect the livelihood of the users. Rather than deal with each work disruption on an ad hoc basis, we believe it would make more sense to deal with all potential disputes ahead of time by establishing a process called final offer selection arbitration.
This government, however, does not see the need for a permanent solution. For some perverse reason it passes up every opportunity to solve the problem once and for all by giving both sides the tools to settle their disputes. The government prefers instead to take a piecemeal approach to labour issues. Nowhere is this more obvious than when the labour bill currently awaiting second reading is examined.
The Canada Labour Code has jurisdiction over only 10% of the country's workforce, yet a work disruption in any federally regulated work place has immediate, far-reaching and long lasting effects on the entire nation.
Because of the unique nature of the federal system alternate sources are often not available. It is in the interest of all Canadians that we have reliable access to essential services to keep employment within our borders and to establish and maintain a reputation worldwide as exporters of goods.
Our reputation as reliable exporters and shippers is dealt a severe blow every time work stoppages occur in the vital transportation and port sectors. Like a boxer, the more frequent and prolonged the blows the longer it takes to get back up until eventually the match is lost.
As a trading nation we cannot afford to lose ground. Today's global customers require a stable, dependable supply of goods. In a proper functioning labour environment, employers and employees both have to weigh the costs if they resort to a strike or lockout.
Employees will have to forgo wages, live on a meagre strike pay and face possible personal financial hardship. Employers, on the other hand, stand to forfeit lost sales and revenues. These are normally powerful enough incentives for a negotiated settlement.
In key economic sectors, however, this normal safeguard does not apply. The knowledge that work stoppage will not be permitted to last for any length of time must be factored into the negotiating process. If they cannot achieve their goals at the bargaining table all too often negotiating parties will give up and allow the federal government and its arbitrators to settle the dispute for them. Unfortunately the real victims of this process are not the employers and employees, but Canadian farmers, producers, importers and exporters.
Good labour relations cannot be legislated. Final offer selection arbitration, however, gives the parties the tools to resolve their differences. It does not favour one side or the other.
Here is how it works. If and only if the union and employer cannot make an agreement by the conclusion of the previous contract, the union and the employer would provide the minister with the name of a person or persons they jointly recommend as an arbitrator or an arbitration panel. The union and employer would be required to submit to the arbitrator or panel a list of the matters still under dispute.
For disputed areas, each party would be required to submit a final offer for settlement. The arbitrator selects either the final offer submitted by the trade union or the final offer submitted by the employer; all of one position or all of the other. The arbitrator's decision would be binding on both parties.
A permanent and fair resolution process must be put in place, removed from the whims of government. Back to work legislation has become too predictable and management and unions count on it. Permanent legislation would provide both sides with predictable rules and a timetable by which to negotiate.
The risk to Canadian jobs should be minimized. Not only a significant number of jobs would be lost in the export sector if these disputes could not be resolved, but jobs at the ports will be at severe risk when alternative means to ship goods are utilized. The use of more reliable U.S. west coast ports would result in the loss of cargo and British Columbia jobs in the ports.
The cost interruption of government business should not occur. While there is need for regulation by various levels of government, it is unnecessary to put emergency measures in place each time labour and management are unable to reach a satisfactory agreement. Resolving the differences of these two groups can be achieved without interrupting the regular flow of government proceedings.
We are not talking about ending the collective bargaining process. We are talking about making it work better. Every time back to work legislation is used it usurps the collective bargaining process.
Final offer selection arbitration is not a new concept. As a matter of fact, it was used by the government to settle the 1994 longshoremen's dispute. At that time the minister of human resources development said:
The imposition of the final offer selection procedure 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 have been saying all along.
Even the Mulroney government saw the benefits of final offer. It included it in the 1987 National Transportation Act as a mechanism to solve pricing disagreements between shippers and railways. One transportation writer described it as a very useful precedent for all rail shippers, in that it confirms that an inexpensive and expedited recourse is available when manufacturers or producers are dissatisfied with their freight rates.
The problem is that no government has yet been willing to enshrine final offer selection arbitration in the Canada Labour Code as a permanent dispute settlement mechanism. The best solution the government could manage is the half measure in Bill C-19, the amendments to the labour code, which would force grain handlers and longshoremen to cross the picket lines of their colleagues to ensure that the grain already in the ports is loaded on to ships.
By the time parliament intervened in 1994 in the dispute between the British Columbia Maritime Employers Association and the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union the work stoppage is estimated to have run up $125 million in direct costs, $250 million in indirect costs, and $500 million worth of grain sales had been threatened. During the best of times this is a very severe hit on the national economy. In a recession it is devastating.
At the moment, despite the problems with the Canadian dollar and the recent jump in the unemployment rate, analysts describe the economy as strong. Yet a prolonged strike or lockout in the railway sector could wreak havoc with this recovery.
Grain represents 30% of the port of Vancouver's business. There is no doubt about its importance. I would be the first to agree that grain farmers have been forced to endure more than their fair share of losses due to labour disputes beyond their control.
The minister was in Vancouver last month begging farmers to support his bill but he is missing the point. Farmers do not want to be pawns in other people's labour disputes. They have enough obstacles to contend with from the weather to the wheat board.
Once again the threat of a rail strike hovers over us. In March 1995 when parliament legislated an end to the railways dispute, the legislation included provisions mandating two year contracts with an expiry date of December 31, 1997. A nationwide rail strike this spring is a very real possibility. Contract talks involving 6,500 CN Rail workers collapsed over the weekend despite the presence of a federal conciliator, and a strike vote is not unlikely.
The provision which the government is proposing as a solution to the problems of farmers will be useless if there is a rail strike. Final offer selection arbitration as described in the bill would give farmers, producers, importers and all exporters that use west coast ports the assurance that their goods would reach consumers unimpeded.
Final offer selection arbitration is not discriminatory. It does not single out one commodity over another like the Liberals are attempting to do with their proposed amendment to the Canada Labour Code. It is fair to importers that are suffering because of the dismal value of the Canadian dollar. It is fair to grain farmers who, thanks to the Canadian Wheat Board, have enough problems trying to sell their grain. They deserve to be spared the ongoing threat and uncertainty of strikes and lockouts. It is fair to all producers and exporters who use the west coast ports to ship their goods to market.
The time has come to include final offer selection arbitration as a permanent dispute settlement mechanism in the Canada Labour Code.
