Debates of May 12th, 1998

Points Of Order

[The Speaker]

The point of order the member brings up is surely an opinion which rightly takes place in debate. With regard to the leaks, from what I heard today there are two investigations going on. I rule at this time that this is not a point of order.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-19, 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 amendment) from the committee; and of Motions Nos. 18, 20, 22 and 23.

Canada Labour Code

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before question period I was speaking from a farmer's perspective to Motions Nos. 18, 20, 22 and 23.

I was trying to speak from a farmer's perspective, having farmed for close to 20 years in the British Columbia Peace River region, growing grain, grass seed and oilseed. I was remarking on how angry farmers become when they see the shipments of grain which are supposed to be freely flowing through the ports on to ships for shipment to our foreign markets, our overseas customers, delayed and held up in some cases for extended periods of time and the resultant cost that ultimately the farmers and the country pay.

I have heard from quite a number of farmers who grow these crops, the six standard grains, wheat, barley, oats, rye, flax and canola which I am assuming are included under this definition of exclusion from any possible strike action at the ports. They are quite concerned because they want to see this bill proceed so that they do receive that protection.

The end result is that we are going to be enshrining inequity and unfairness with the passage of Bill C-19 as it is presently written. That is why the official opposition has put forward Motions Nos. 22 and 23. It is to drop the inclusion pertaining simply to the standard grain crops. We feel that it discriminates.

I have not heard the answer from the government benches on whether specialty crops would be included under this protection. A lot of farmers are growing so-called specialty crops. Lentils, peas, fava beans, sunflower, safflower, these types of crops are being grown on increasing acreage across the land. In particular I am speaking about western Canada. I wonder if they are protected under this same clause. I do not think so. I think this clause simply pertains to the standard grains.

As we expand these markets for these specialty crops the bill is going to discriminate against some producers and thereby pit farmer against farmer when there are strikes or lockouts at the ports.

Motions Nos. 18 and 20 put forward by Reform have been open to attack, in particular from members of the fourth party, the NDP, saying they are unfair because they pertain to expansion of this restriction of strikes to protect the national economy.

In other words, if it can be shown that a strike or lockout has a profound impact on the national economy, it would not be allowed. Because of that, members of the NDP have suggested that we are being unfair to the unions and that no strikes would be allowed.

In fairness to their arguments, we cannot consider Motions Nos. 18, 20, 22 and 23 in isolation. We must consider them in tandem with the Group No. 8 motions, which have not yet been debated. These deal with Reform's proposal for final offer selection arbitration.

To make my point I refer to Hansard and quote the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre on February 10, 1998:

In the province of Manitoba where I am from we actually had final offer selection legislation for a number of years.

The actual fact is in Manitoba FOS was used very sparingly. In fact, the Manitoba labour relations board received only 97 applications in all the time that it was legislation in that province. Of those 97 applications only 7 were ever ruled on by an FOS selector or arbitrator. Four went to the union package and three were in favour of the company in those rulings. In the vast majority of cases, 72 in all, the application was withdrawn because the parties returned to the bargaining table and found a satisfactory resolution by more convention means.

The point I am making is that by his very admission, the hon. member from the New Democratic Party is saying that final offer selection works. In 72 of those cases the parties returned to the bargaining table and ultimately reached a satisfactory resolution to their dispute. The process worked. I add that as further confirmation that the Reform amendments to this legislation deserve serious consideration by all parties. When it comes time to vote on these motions, I urge all members to consider that and vote accordingly.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

May 12, 1998

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity of Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 12th day of May, 1998 at 4 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.

Yours sincerely,

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-19, 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 amendment) from the committee; and of Motions Nos. 18, 20, 22 and 23.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in this debate today on report stage of Bill C-19, specifically Group No. 6 amendments.

Unfortunately I am not happy about the way this is proceeding. In the last five years since I have been involved we have seen all too much of this in the House of Commons, that is, the use of closure to shut down debate on very important issues. It is very ironic. The Liberal government across the way was very critical of the Mulroney government for the use of closure and time allocation when the Liberals sat in opposition, but this is the 40th occasion where it has been used in the last five years.

It is a misuse of power by the government to use it in this manner. There is a very important principle involved, which is that all members should have the right to debate these important issues. This is the first opportunity I have had for a 10 minute debate on Bill C-19, the changes to Canada's labour code.

The area I would like to discuss stems from my role as critic for international trade. It deals with the Vancouver terminals, specifically section 87.7 under Motions Nos. 22 and 23 being proposed by my Reform colleague, the member for Wetaskiwin.

I am concerned that if the principle of allowing movement of grain for 72 hours after a strike or lockout notice has been given is such a good principle, why it is not applied to all commodities.

As recently as Wednesday last week, I had a meeting with the hon. Pat Nelson, the minister of economic development for the province of Alberta. She wanted me to bring the point to the floor of the House of Commons that it is very important to ensure we have good movement of our commodities through the terminals, through the port facilities, so we can continue to have good service and enjoy a good reputation worldwide. I am concerned that our reputation for delivery is not as good as it should be.

It is important also to note that Canada had the most time lost to labour-management strikes and lockouts of any industrial country except for Italy in the last 10 years. It is a deplorable state for a big country like Canada which relies on exports, on international trade to supply the world.

I am aware that the member from Regina, the former minister of agriculture, accompanied a group to Japan a year ago. They were trying to reassure the Japanese of Canada's ability to deliver in a timely manner products through our ports both in Vancouver and in Prince Rupert.

My concern has to do with grain itself. The Minister of Labour and others in the government are trying to win support from grain farmers across Canada by saying that if something happens and there is a strike or lockout at the Vancouver port, they will continue to load grain into an ocean-going vessel for 72 hours. This is true. However, it does not deal with any of the problems originating from the farm gate to the terminal. It does not deal with any problems in the railway system. There are something like 20 different labour-management units along the way that can disrupt the flow of grain during that time. It does not deal with things that my colleague from Prince George—Peace River, the critic for agriculture talked about.

When it says grains, the grains identified do not include alfalfa pellets. In my riding of Peace River, we have the world's biggest alfalfa pelletizing plant, Falher Alfalfa. It is very concerned that this section does not deal with Neptune terminals. It does not deal with Vancouver wharf. There is a $25 million operation that can be shut down.

If this principle is the sound principle the government is putting forward, why would it not extend it to things like specialty crops, like alfalfa, peas, lentils and all the other grains?

There is a real problem here and we have an opportunity to correct that problem. My colleague from Wetaskiwin has said that this is the first time the Canada Labour Act has been opened up in 25 years and it probably will not be opened up again for some time.

We are looking for this opportunity to make substantial changes now when the debate is happening. We encourage members in the Liberal government to listen to some of the reasoned amendments we are putting forward with a view to trying to improve Canada's delivery out of our port system.

A lot of other products are being handled in Vancouver. In Prince Rupert there is coal. We have sulphur. One of my colleagues has already mentioned that lumber is one of our biggest ones. Chemical potash and various other products are being exported worldwide. This legislation does not deal with that.

Our party thinks a more reasoned approach to this would be to go to final offer arbitration. What it does is it allows for the parties to negotiate for some time before the labour-management contract is finished. I would think negotiations should start if it is a three year contract a year ahead to see if they can come to some kind of an agreement. If they cannot, having a strike or lockout and withdrawing services has the effect of shutting down the terminal and in some cases shutting down the port.

As a grain farmer myself in the Peace River country I know the devastating effects of having some 20 ships sitting in English Bay harbour at Vancouver and paying demurrage of about $60,000 a day for each ship. It is a very big bill, millions of dollars. Last year it was approximately $60 million that grain farmers had to pay because of the ships that were waiting for product because there was a strike lockout situation at the Vancouver terminals.

We have to correct that. Canada has a reputation that has to be enhanced otherwise we are going to be bypassed. Products will be bought from the United States. I suggest we look at final offer arbitration as one way of resolving this.

Final offer arbitration needs to be explained a little. In a labour-management contract quite often when the contract is being negotiated the two parties will start a long way apart. If a labour union wants a 5% increase quite often it will ask for 7% or 8% knowing it will probably be negotiated down and it will be settled somewhere in the range of 5%. On the other hand the company quite often starts at a position recognizing that it is going to be a 5% settlement and starts negotiating at 3%. This goes on for months and months before they finally come to some kind of a settlement. Often there is time lost in that bargaining unit where labour is withdrawn or there is a lockout. This has a very devastating effect on the Canadian economy.

Final offer arbitration is a reasonable way to approach this. Approximately one month prior to the contract expiring if a settlement had not been reached by negotiations, each party would have to submit a reasonable final offer. I suggest reasonable. They would not have to submit a reasonable one but an independent third party looking at it would choose the more reasonable of the two. It would be in their best interests to submit a reasonable final offer. The arbitrator would decide which one looks more reasonable than the other and would choose that one and the parties would have to live with it.

In the event that did not happen, if one party put in a very unreasonable final offer and the other party did not, we know what would happen. The effect of that would be to have the two parties put in a reasonable offer at the start. It would prevent a lot of the problems we have in the labour-management area. Canada could enhance its reputation as being a reliable supplier.

If we miss this opportunity I think we are missing an opportunity that is going to cost future jobs. Canada relies on our exports for about one-third of our gross domestic product. That means 40% of the jobs of every Canadian family, every community rely on our ability to export. We know that some of our exports go through the United States but some go through our port cities as well.

This is an opportunity we want to seize. The government should look at these as reasonable amendments and adopt them.

[Reed Elley, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today in the House and speak on Bill C-19 and the amendments that have been put forward at this time.

A number of us will remember the eminent Canadian poet Robert Service who talked about strange things being done in the midnight sun in the Yukon. There have been some strange things done here in the midday sun in this House today. I have heard some. I have seen some.

First of all the government is putting time allocation on another bill that is before the House. The government when it was in opposition so quickly condemned the Conservatives for doing the very same thing and it continues to do this time after time. That concerns me very much, the limit on our free speech and on the democratic process in the House.

All Canadians should be concerned about the way the government is using time allocation to shut down democracy in the House. This is the parliament of all Canadians. We come here to represent them. If we do not have an opportunity to voice the concerns of Canadians here in this place, I ask all hon. members, where will Canadians have that opportunity if it is not here in the House through their duly elected members? I am very concerned about that.

I am also very concerned when I hear NDP members taking shots at the Reform Party inaccurately telling the Canadian people untruths about us, saying that we are against fair wages. What balderdash that we would be against fair wages. That is absolute nonsense. I want to suggest that the NDP cannot teach the Reform Party anything about economic policy or fair labour practices.

Perhaps the member should go to my province of British Columbia to see what an NDP government has done to the economy of that province. The member should see what kind of legislation it has tried to impose upon businesses in that province with unfair labour codes and see the kind of public revolt against that which occasioned that government to take the legislation out of the legislative docket.

We have just gone through a devastating strike in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan at the Fletcher Challenge mill. When we as Reformers say that we stand up for people who do not seem to be able to be heard in this country, that strike was another example of this very thing. That mill produces pulp and paper which contributes 53% of the tax base of the municipality which it is in. When its workers go on strike and labour and management cannot come to some kind of consensus, there are lots of third parties in that riding that are hurt far beyond the union members and far beyond the management and those who own the mill.

All the businesses suffer because of a strike that goes on and on. The small businesses lay off employees because people are no longer buying their goods. Car dealers have seen their sales plummet in January, February and March because of the strike.

The NDP members miss a big point in this whole debate when they only stand up for big unions. Someone has to stand up for the little ordinary guy in this country who feels that he has no voice in these kinds of occurrences in our society when prolonged and protracted labour-management disputes paralyze other industries and other businesses. Something has to be done about that.

In terms of Motions Nos. 18 and 20, we are concerned that there is no provision in the bill to protect the national economy.

We are concerned about Motions Nos. 25 and 29 that prohibit the use of replacement workers if the CIRB determines their presence undermines the union. This was a slight modification from previous Bill C-66, but this provision still leaves too much control in the hands of the CIRB which may view the use of replacement workers as undermining the union.

This provision could very well stop the use of managerial staff from operating the company. It restricts and infringes on the employer's rights. Somewhere along the way in this national debate on restructuring this kind of thing employers have to be able to have their say in this House of Commons and the employers that we hear from are saying that this is unfair and it needs to be changed.

It very well could shift the balance of power in labour management relations in favour of the unions. The Globe and Mail on November 5, 1996 quoted Nancy Riche, the executive vice-president of the Canadian Labour Congress, as saying: “I would go so far as to suggest that anybody who does work of a member of a union undermines the representative capacity of the union”. She went on to say: “None of the bureaucrats are going to agree with me—but we'll have to wait and see. The new board will rule”.

We in the Reform Party have some real concerns about this and that is why we have proposed this amendment.

I hope that all hon. colleagues in this House will not close their minds so easily to the amendments that the Reform Party has put forth in this regard, that they will see all sides of the debate and realize that there is more to this country than big business, big government and big union.

There are little people, hard working little people, who need to be heard in this country and it seems that the only party that is willing to stand up for them today, as it did in the hepatitis C debate, is the Reform Party.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are speaking today on motions to amend Bill C-19. This bill provides for changes to the Canada Labour Code and the opposition parties have put forward a number of amendments, in fact eight groups of motions to amend the bill, and there are a few motions in each of these groups.

Now we are speaking to Group No. 6. There are four motions in this group. The first two motions essentially add to the grounds for prohibiting the cutting off of services in the event of a strike. The bill provides for continuation of service in a strike situation if public health or safety is endangered. The amendments that we have brought forward would also provide for continuation of service to protect the national economy.

I listened with great interest to the comments of the member for the New Democratic Party on this series of amendments. What was so interesting to me was that the member really did not address at all the substance of these amendments or argue that the national economy, in the short term, could not be affected, so therefore we do not need the amendments. There was none of that.

The total tone of his speech was attributing motives. He talked about the deep bitterness of Reformers against workers, many of whom support the Reform Party, so I am not quite sure why we would be anything but approving of that.

There is a labelling, an attributing of motives and a real agenda here. I assure Canadians watching this debate that the agenda of the official opposition in putting forward amendments and in speaking to this bill is simply to protect Canadian workers and the well-being of Canadians in our labour legislation and in the way labour and business operate in our country. We are dependent on good economic results from the activities that take place. That is our motive and that is what we want to do in a very balanced, sensible and thoughtful way.

I urge members of the NDP and other parties to stick to the practical issues being raised and not to continue with their agenda of suspicion, conspiracy and some of the other things they seem to think are happening in this debate, because that is not the case.

There has been no disagreement that services should be continued in federally regulated sectors if public health and safety could be endangered by services being cut off. No one is disagreeing with that. We would argue that danger to the national economy should also be a consideration. Health and safety are immediate dangers and immediate harm could be caused by services being cut off. The danger and harm to a national economy can cause every bit as much pain and hardship. It can contribute every bit as much to the poverty of Canadian families as cutting off services in areas where health or safety is immediately impacted.

We need to think a little more broadly and long term when we give carte blanche to strikes and lockouts that impact people's livelihoods, their businesses, their incomes, their ability to pay their rent and mortgage, and their ability to put milk on the table for their children. We have to think of those things. We cannot just look at some immediate danger. We have to look at the impact over a little longer period of time that can be equally devastating. That is the intention of this amendment.

There is a cost to Canadian families and to Canadian workers in particular. Many of these workers are barely making ends meet as it is, thanks to the taxation policies of this government and the cost of living in Canada. They depend on the viability of the whole local economy and a strike can be critical in impacting their short term and long term well-being.

This motion is designed to protect the national economy and thereby to protect regular Canadians with their day to day bills, their day to day need for income and their day to day need to make sales in their little businesses in the towns where they work. We need to think about these things. We need to protect the Canadians of this country. If services are cut off in an area due to a strike or a lockout, and if it happens federally across the country, the industrial relations board needs some ability to determine what is going to be the impact on the national economy and thereby on the families and workers of Canada and those who are dependent on economic activity for their well-being.

This is a very sensible amendment that looks at the bigger picture. It tries to protect people from some of the so-called unintended consequences of labour unrest and labour shutdown. We need to look in a very balanced and logical way at whether this ought to be done. We should not close our minds and shoot the messenger, we should deal with the message and its merits.

I would urge all members to think about what is best for Canadians. That is why we are here. That is why we get the big money. That is why we get the airtime. We need to be very focused on what is best and look at the proposals on their merits. I think this proposal has a great deal of merit.

We also, of course, as a number of my colleagues have said, urge that other commodities be protected from disruptions in shipping besides just grain. There are farmers who have interests in different commodities. We know that some of the wheat pools support this legislation because grain is protected. But again we have to think more broadly, not just in a narrow sense. There are some very clear concerns about unintended consequences if only grain is protected from disruptions in shipping.

A number of people who work in the sector say that labour unrest and disputes will be extended and enhanced if only grain can be shipped because, in a sense, that commodity will be used to subsidize strike activities that hold up other commodities. Some income would come in from that one narrow sector, but the other sectors will still be disrupted and there will be less incentive to settle those disputes because they are not as harmful to the participants.

Our amendments are designed to look at the big picture, to look at other products that need to be shipped, such as coal, lumber, chemicals, potash and other commodities. I would ask that my hon. colleagues in this House look at these proposals on their merits. I believe then they will be soundly supported.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly a privilege to be able to speak to the motions in Group No. 6.

We have had the opportunity to talk about Bill C-19 a number of times in the House. I have to start off by saying that it is despicable when the government uses closure on a bill like this. This bill will affect every single farmer in western Canada. It will affect anybody, basically, who has anything to do with the movement of products across this country. The government owes the Canadian people the opportunity for us to debate this openly and talk about this issue as it will affect all Canadians.

The sort of thing that this government persists in doing is despicable. It is disgraceful. It is anti-democratic. It has used closure more than any other government in the history of this country. Canadians are watching and are going to demand some accountability for this sort of action.

The key thing about this amendment and the key thing about this bill is the protection of the economy of Canada. That has to be number one. We are talking about jobs and the standard of living that we have grown used to as Canadians, and we are falling behind.

I have had the opportunity to travel to many parts of the world and I have started to realize more and more what is happening to us as Canadians.

I cannot help thinking about last Friday when I was going to the airport. The cab driver said to me “The Ottawa Senators are not going to lose another game. They are way better than the Capitals and they will beat them hands down”. That is a little bit like we sometimes hear the Prime Minister talk about Canada. The United Nations says we are number one; therefore, we do not have to work harder. That is wrong. We have to continue to work. The world around us is becoming more competitive and we must be conscious of that.

In travelling recently to China, seeing the changes that have occurred there and having the opportunity to talk to some of our shippers and some of our businessmen, I asked: “What do you think of Canada looking from here back there?” The message that I got was “We don't deal with Canada as much as we used to”. They do not feel that there are the same opportunities, that there is the same aggressive tendencies to try to sell them something, particularly when it gets to things such as wheat.

I talked to a brewer who is responsible for buying malt barley for 150 breweries. He said he does not go to Canada any more for supplies. He does not go to the Canadian Wheat Board because he is not sure about whether delivery will come or when it will come. He indicated that there seemed to be many problems with guaranteeing delivery.

I talked to a Japanese shipowner who indicated a problem. He books his ships on a two year basis and allows so many days for sailing, so many days for loading and so many days for getting to the port of destination. He said he could not come to Canada because his ship might be sitting for 30, 40 or 50 days as a result of some transportation blockage or of some strikes that are so frequent.

That is what is hurting us as Canadians. We can talk about strikes and the national economy. However, we have to ask ourselves, going into the 21st century, what happens when a strike is called. We know for sure union bosses keep getting the salaries they have been getting. We know union members who go on strike do not get the salaries they have been used to getting, and if they are out for very long we know they never make up that money again.

We certainly know the economy of the country is hurt. We certainly know many people, for example farmers, are hurt. Let us just stop for a minute and look at the farmer. He has a lot of decisions to make. He has to decide when to plant, what to plant, what kind of fertilizer to use, what kind of seed to use, and then depend on the weather. He should not also have to depend on the unions to get his commodity to market and ultimately get paid for it.

Those people are hurt. The whole country is hurt in terms of our reputation because we do not have modern labour practices that allow us to be competitive.

A question has to be asked. There must be a better way than having strikes. There must be a better way than Bill C-19 which is liberal in its makeup. It goes a little way here and a little way there and does not stand for very much. No one really knows what it means. It certainly does not improve either the economy of country, the well-being of our people or our reputation internationally.

Instead of resting on our laurels it is time that we examine different ways of handling the situation. The motions put forward would help us to do it.

I will speak specifically to Motion Nos. 18 and 20 which the Reform Party has put forward. What effect would they have on our national economy? That becomes the number one issue when we decide what will happen. They also talk about protection not only of our economy but of third parties.

Going on to Motion Nos. 22 and 23 the key issue, as the previous member mentioned, is that all commodities be included. It is not enough to only include grain. We should be including many other things that move through our ports. On the prairies there are all kinds of different products. Right across the country we have products that depend upon transportation and upon the movement of goods.

We need to look at better ways. We need to examine them. I do not think it is fair to say that any one of us is anti-union. That is not the message. The message is that we have to find some other way to deal with the problem of labour disputes other than strictly going on strike. I hope the day will come when strikes will be a thing of the past.

It is also important to emphasize that we have to do what is good for the country and its economy. We have an international reputation to worry about. I am worried the government is not listening. I suppose it would argue that because of the huge turnout it is listening and is here to understand exactly what the message is.

However it is a little hard sometimes to see its members through the fog, but I am sure they are over there listening very carefully to the message that our member from Wetaskiwin has led us through in the debate on Bill C-19.

The bill is too little too late. The government is not listening to the people. The bill is out of date and back in the 1970s which is where most government members are at. It does not show any kind of vision for the 21st century. It will certainly not help the economy or the people of Canada.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The question is on Motion No. 18 in Group No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The recorded division on Motion No. 18 stands deferred. Accordingly the recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 20.

The next question is on Motion No. 22. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those opposed will please say nay.