Dale Johnston

[Species at Risk Act, February 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-5, the endangered species bill. I will speak from my standpoint of being a farmer.

We would have to go a long way to find better stewards of the land, the resources and wildlife on it, than farmers. Farmers are aware that we must be good stewards of the land because if we are not we simply cannot continue to do what we do for our livelihoods.

I would like to dwell on some of the positive aspects that the Canadian Alliance has brought to the bill. We believe that a balanced plan to conserve the biological diversity of protected, endangered species is critical for balancing a healthy environment and for a high quality of life for all Canadians. We must have the ability to feed ourselves to maintain a healthy environment and be sustainable. There has to be a balance. Endangered species legislation must encourage critical conservation through community-based stewardship programs, incentives, respect of private property rights, and full compensation.

My friend from Saanich--Gulf Islands referred to the possibility of us learning from similar legislation passed in the United States. Americans found that their legislation did not lead to better conservation or better protection of endangered species. In fact it led to harsher environments for endangered species. People did not report a short-eared owl or some kind of rare butterfly, or mushroom growing on their property. They did not risk having the whole bureaucratic force descend upon them, being read the riot act and maybe even charged with something. They took the attitude of shoot, shovel and shut-up. That is absolutely counterproductive to what the legislation is trying to attain.

When I go fishing with my buddy Stan and his son Marty we do not catch all the fish in the lake and bring them home. We do not even catch our limit. We set out to bring home enough fish for supper. My wife and I like fresh trout very much so we catch maybe two, or if they are a little larger one will do. We do not take all the fish out of the lake. We leave some for next time. It is called stewardship.

What I find so offensive about the bill is that it takes an adversarial point of view with the very people it should be co-operating with. There should be incentives and co-operation. There should be encouragement for people in the farming business, and in industry as well.

However I want to speak specifically about farming because that is how I made my living for the last 35 years. The government is making a huge mistake by not bringing the farming, agricultural and ranching communities onside with it as full partners and participants rather than taking the big brother approach that we shall protect these endangered species.

Farmers may be aware of some of the species but certainly not all of them. We are aware that the whooping crane is an endangered species and I am sure that farmers who had a whooping crane nesting on their land would take extreme caution to stay away from it and not disturb it. However while they are doing that they should be compensated.

All of us work very hard to pay for our land and we work very hard once we get it paid for to make a living from it. It is a basic right that we should be able to enjoy the quiet enjoyment of our land and be able to farm it in order to produce food.

If we do not have control of our land farmers will be added to the species at risk list. People in Canada will go hungry when farmers are regulated to the point that they cannot produce food for our nation anymore.

There are many people with farm backgrounds in the House, not just in our party, but in all parties. If we go back a generation or two, there are probably agricultural links literally to every person in the House and certainly if there are not direct agricultural links, there is a need for people in the House to depend on agriculture to feed them.

I would like to talk about compensation and not just compensation on an ad hoc basis. This has to be compensation at fair market value. If we do not have the ability to dispose of our land at fair market value, then we never had ownership of it in the first place. Surely to goodness we have not come to that point in Canada where people will be deprived of the ownership of their land. I thought that was something that was saved for totally totalitarian regimes.

The points I am making are absolutely critical to the survival and the saving of the species that the bill intends to help. Farmers and ranchers are excellent stewards of the land. The last few years have been particularly difficult for farmers on the plains. It has been dry. We have had barely enough moisture to get a crop in my area. I am fairly close to the foothills so we get showers that come over the mountains and we get rain but 25 miles east of me those showers have completely petered out and the land is even drier and--

[Petitions, February 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is also from constituents in my riding of Wetaskiwin who believe that it is unacceptable that our government's liberal attitudes about sex are placing our children at risk. Therefore they request that the Parliament of Canada restore the legal age of consent for sex to 18 years from the current legislated age of 14 years.

[Petitions, February 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first one has 84 signatures from petitioners who believe that it is unethical to harm or destroy some human beings in order to benefit others. Therefore the petitioners request that the Parliament of Canada ban human embryo research and direct the Canadian Institutes of Health Research to support and fund only promising ethical research that does not involve the destruction of human life.

[Transportation Services, December 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking my colleague from Kelowna for his wise counsel and also thanking the member for St. John's West, who was speaking from the point of view of a person who lives there and has to rely on that ferry.

I would like to make some comments for the parliamentary secretary. He has intimated that the use of final offer selection arbitration somehow usurps all of the bargaining process, free bargaining, and the federal mediation and conciliation service. It does not. The labour groups can go through all of those stages. As a matter of fact, what final offer selection arbitration ensures them is that they will not be legislated back to work. That is what it does. It puts it in the code and basically says “You and your employer go through every step that is necessary to reach an agreement. If all those things, including the use of a mediator or a conciliator, does not bring you to agreement, then there is this other tool that you can use instead of the drastic and traumatic effect of a strike or a lockout”.

The member from Winnipeg said that we in our party like to use this and we advocate this for everything. That is absolute and total rubbish.

First, the Canada Labour Code covers only 10% of the Canadian workforce. We only advocate the use of final offer selection arbitration in areas where the Canadian public has no other alternative, like the Port-aux-Basques to North Sydney ferry, like the west coast ports and like the post office. We have no alternative to those things. If our local grocery store's employees go on strike or are locked out, we can go to a different grocery chain to buy groceries, but if the Port of Vancouver employees go on strike, where does western Canada find another port to take over in the interim? There is not one, just as there is not another ferry service in operation to the Rock, as the people of Newfoundland call their home.

I want to make it absolutely, perfectly clear that if the final offer selection arbitration is codified, it is simply another tool that management and labour can use in coming to an agreement; it is not holding a hammer over anybody's head.

I also want to make it clear that I am not advocating for the union. I am not advocating for the employers. I am advocating for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. They deserve this service every bit as much as the people of Saskatchewan deserve to have the Trans-Canada Highway running through their province. These people deserve it; they should have it. I would like to ask unanimous consent of the House to make the motion votable.

[Transportation Services, December 10th, 2001]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should introduce amendments to Part I of the Canada Labour Code to ensure that during a strike or a lockout an employer operating a freight or passenger service between North Sydney, Nova Scotia, and Port-aux-Basques, Newfoundland, as provided for in Term 32 of the Schedule to the Newfoundland Act, its employees and their bargaining agent continue to provide that service and that all outstanding disputes are settled by final offer selection arbitration.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to the private member's motion. Although it is not votable, it certainly gives us an opportunity to talk about the need for continued passenger and freight operation between Port-aux-Basques and North Sydney.

A constitutional amendment passed in the House on October 30 and was proclaimed last week officially changing the name of Canada's easternmost province to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Through that motion, I guess, the government wanted to show the people of that great province that it believes it has their best interests at heart but I believe its benevolence only goes so far.

Because Newfoundland is an island, the interprovincial gulf ferry that operates between North Sydney, Nova Scotia and Port-aux-Basques, Newfoundland is a vital transportation link. In short, it is their lifeline. It enables trade and movement of goods and passengers to and from that province. It allows those Canadians who reside in that province ready access to other parts of their own country. The ferry service is to Newfoundland and Labrador what the Trans-Canada Highway is to the rest of Canada.

Unlike my landlocked home province of Alberta, Newfoundland and Labrador does not have the advantage of fertile soil and conditions that favour growing excess produce and the raising of cattle. Therefore it has to import most of what it consumes. It relies on the gulf ferries to bring in the necessities of everyday life and to transport Newfoundland products to outside markets.

The current turmoil in the airline industry, poor service and lack of competition on eastern Canadian routes, has only served to increase the reliance on this ferry service. Whereas most provinces enjoy multiple options for transport of people or goods from one province to another, Newfoundland and Labrador basically has one route.

Section 32.1 of the terms of union under which Newfoundland joined Confederation in 1949 guaranteed continuous ferry service. In 1972 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that whether or not there was a work stoppage the government must maintain the ferry service or pay compensation to the province.

Since the operator of the gulf ferry is Marine Atlantic, which is a federal crown corporation, there will never be a lockout because the government would have to pay the province compensation if there were. Yet there is no provision in the Canada Labour Code to protect Newfoundlanders from work stoppages. Even the threat of a suspension of service is detrimental to the provincial economy and devastating to its vital tourist industry. Any interruption of service, even only a few days, causes backups, destroys perishable goods and increases the cost to both shippers and consumers.

The government has turned a deaf ear to the pleas of Newfoundland and Labrador politicians, businesses and business organizations to change the way it deals with labour relations on the gulf ferries.

The Canadian Federation of Municipalities recently passed a resolution encouraging the federal government to enact legislation under part I of the Canada Labour Code to ensure “that the ferry service between North Sydney, Nova Scotia and Port-aux-Basques, Newfoundland be unaffected by any disruption in service”. It is very important to the Canadian Federation of Municipalities.

When the current Minister of Industry was running for re-election as premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, he said that the ferry should be declared an essential service. That is a fairly drastic measure. The hon. member for Humber--St. Barbe--Baie Verte also has been an advocate for declaring the ferry service essential. As a matter of fact, in his rookie days in the House he piloted an amendment through the human resources development committee that would have prevented a work stoppage on Marine Atlantic ferries operating between North Sydney and Port-aux-Basques. His government colleagues, however, shot down his amendment and it was deleted from the bill at report stage. However, he was not deterred and I congratulate him for standing up for his beliefs.

He continued to push for an essential service designation during the summer of 1998 when contract negotiations were at an impasse and a prolonged work stoppage looked imminent. I expect, though, that he will endorse the motion because he is interested in a fair deal for the workers, the company, his constituents and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

In today's fast paced business climate, neither employers nor employees can afford prolonged disputes that distract from their real goals. Workers want job stability, job satisfaction and reasonable compensation for their efforts. Employers want a competent, reliable and productive workforce. Both sides look to us, as parliamentarians, to give them the tools to settle disagreements in an expeditious, cost effective and fair way.

Unlike the Liberals, the Canadian Alliance is not out to strip away the bargaining rights of workers. The motion before us today proposes the adoption of final offer selection arbitration as a permanent dispute settlement mechanism that would provide employers and employees with a fair contract and ensure the continuous ferry operation.

Final offer selection arbitration is not a new concept. It was used by the government to settle the 1994 longshoremen's work stoppage at the west coast ports. It was included in the National Transportation Act as a mechanism to solve pricing disagreements between shippers and the railways. Recently it was used to resolve the nurses' and healthcare workers' contract dispute in Nova Scotia.

Final offer selection arbitration gives labour and management the tools to resolve their differences. It does not favour one side over the other and it eliminates government interference in the negotiations.

Here is how it works. If and only if the union and employer cannot reach an agreement by the conclusion of the previous contract, the union and employer would provide the minister with the name of a person or persons they jointly recommend as an arbitrator or arbitration panel. They can have one or the other, either one person or a panel of people.

The union and employer would be required to submit to the arbitrator, or the panel, as the case may be, a list of the matters agreed upon, a list of the matters still under dispute and their positions on those matters still under dispute. For disputed issues, each party would be required to submit their final offer for settlement. The arbitrator or the panel 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 position. The arbitrator's decision would then be binding on both parties.

This all or nothing scenario encourages both sides to put their best offer forward and it usually means the offers are closer together than is the case with traditional arbitration.

As a matter of fact it makes them bargain truly in earnest because they know this is their last shot at it and they are going to come as close to it as they possibly can.

If we adopt final offer selection arbitration as a permanent dispute settlement mechanism and enshrine it in the legislation both sides would have predictable rules and a time period by which to negotiate. They also would not have the House holding back to work legislation over their heads.

The motion is not designed to end the collective bargaining process but to make it work better through final offer selection arbitration. It is also meant to provide those people of Newfoundland and Labrador with a reliable ferry service.

Every time back to work legislation is used it usurps the collective bargaining process. Collective bargaining, of course, is about compromise and about negotiation. One cannot legislate good labour relations.

We are not talking about removing the right to strike but the removing of the need for traumatic, drastic measures like strike or lockout, neither of which are very attractive to either party. Strikes and lockouts are a last resort action and are not entered into lightly by either party.

Some groups fear that final offer selection arbitration would remove the right to strike but the right to strike, has been weakened more by back to work legislation than it ever will be by final offer selection arbitration. Labour and management must be given the tools to solve their disputes in a fair and equitable manner, without threat of government intervention.

There is very little incentive to bargain earnestly when back to work legislation is inevitable. The purpose of a strike or lockout is to force a settlement. Final offer selection arbitration is also a mechanism to force a settlement. It puts the onus on both sides to reach an agreement. Final offer selection arbitration is a tool that could be used equally by labour and management. It would, I believe, provide a permanent, just and effective dispute settlement mechanism.

The government likes to exert its power and show who is boss by resorting from time to time, and fairly often since I have been here, to back to work legislation. Usually, when the legislation is brought in, there is no alternative by that point because the government has taken such a hands-off approach that everything is to the point where the economy is at a standstill or something that we need so badly has come to a stop and there is no choice but to legislate these people back to work. Only when people are back to work does the government discover that the argument that brought them there in the first place still is not settled. Then the government uses final offer selection on an ad hoc basis. It should be codified.

Some traditions do not fit every occasion. Sometimes they are just not worth preserving. That is the case that could be made in this instance against back to work legislation. With back to work legislation, the government intrudes on the rights of employers far more than is necessary. Some of my colleagues in this place, probably the ones opposite, will argue that there are provisions already in the labour code that protect the health and safety of Canadians.

In fact, section 87.4 of part I of the code does provide for the maintenance of activities necessary to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public. In other words, the government must maintain services up to a certain level so that the public is not in any serious danger of any particular health risk. This section of the code does not define what constitutes an essential service. Instead, the determination is left to the Canada Industrial Relations Board. Therefore, an application must be made to the board and each case dealt with on an individual basis.

The board then schedules a hearing to listen to the positions and plan of the employers and employees. The board determines the extent of the services that must be provided. This is an added burden on a tribunal that is already overworked. It does not help settle the dispute but prolongs it, because it takes the board so long to get these things dealt with.

I do not believe that is fair to employers, the workers or third parties who have a lot to lose when a strike or lockout is taking place. This is the reason why Marine Atlantic workers, who turned down a tentative contract offer in August, agreed to settle their disputes by binding arbitration.

This is a pretty unusual case. Here is a case where the union negotiated terms with the employer, took that back to the employees and the employees said it was not the contract they wanted and they would rather go to binding arbitration.

The employees themselves asked for this on a piecemeal basis. Why not put it in the code so these things can be settled before all the acrimony breaks out? The employees know that a strike is not in their interests, or their passengers' interests or the interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Why not give them the security and something to which they could look forward?

I look forward to hearing from representatives from other parties. I am also looking forward to an opportunity to wrap up in the five minutes I have at the end. I am hoping that other parties will support the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Canada Labour Code, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today on behalf of my party to speak to Bill C-340, a bill that seeks to amend the Canada Labour Code to allow pregnant and nursing employees to take advantage of provincial occupational health and safety legislation.

Right off the bat I will congratulate my colleague, the member for Laurentides, on having her bill chosen for debate. I know this is something she has worked very hard on for quite a while and something for which she feels very passionate. This particular area has been an interest of hers for quite some time.

Members in the House come from many various backgrounds, ethnicities and cultures, and certainly have different philosophies. We do not always agree on policy. However, the one thing I think we all share in common is the fact that we all had mothers and we all share the concern over the safety and health of expectant and nursing mothers.

A few months ago part II of the Canada Labour Code was amended. It was under that review that the committee was studying the proposed amendments and heard witnesses from Quebec who, like the hon. member for Laurentides, supported change to the federal legislation that would bring in line the standards in the province of Quebec.

As previous speakers have noted, pregnant and nursing mothers in Quebec can obtain a reassignment of their duties if the working conditions are hazardous to the mother, the fetus or the nursing child. The employee in Quebec has the right to cease work without the loss of rights or benefits if the employee is not reassigned.

Under part II of the Canada Labour Code, a pregnant or nursing employee may stop performing her job if she believes the health of the child is at risk. She is required to consult a physician as soon as possible but in the interim can be either reassigned or, if a reassignment is not possible, can receive the wages and benefits she would ordinarily be entitled to receive for that period during which she did not perform the job. I think this is a reasonable provision if the worker is first removed from her job if there is a health related concerned and her wages and benefits are protected.

This bill, however, would give the federally regulated employees the right to “avail herself” of the regulations in place for workers in the province in which she works. Does this mean the worker can cherry pick from the program of her choosing? Until or unless the federal government gives complete control of this area to the provinces, the federal law, in my opinion, must prevail.

Quebec seems to be the only province with this type of program. As the hon. member will be given a chance to wind up the debate with a five minute summation, I would like her to answer a few questions for me. How will the bill help pregnant and nursing mothers in other parts of Canada other than Quebec where there is no such provincial legislation that states a mother can choose from or, as the member says, avail herself of?

Could the member for Laurentides address how well this program is working in the province of Quebec? I listened to her comments when she said that we should not ask her what the program costs because it was an investment. I would like her to let us know how much this program does cost in Quebec.

We could probably debate for the rest of this session the advantages and payoffs that would come from proper health and safety for expectant mothers and their babies. I would still like to know what this costs the provincial treasury in the province of Quebec, as well as the employers. The employers obviously have to be partners in a situation like this as well.

I would also like to know how many expectant or nursing mothers take advantage of the program on an annual basis.

What are the criteria? What types of situations are covered? Such a program, while nice to have, has to have an expense to it. It has to be fairly expensive, I think, to operate and to administer.

I would also like the member to explain to the House who pays for the program and what, if any, are the premiums? Does the working mother have to pay a premium into a fund? Is it some kind of insurance? Does it all come out of the employer's pocket? How does it work?

Has the hon. member for Laurentides, and I am sure she has, done an analysis or obtained estimates of how much the program would cost to implement on a national basis?

Does she have any intention of spreading the idea that they have in Quebec across to the other provinces and territories? If so, I wonder how she would go about doing it.

It is fine to cherry pick from this situation or from the provincial legislation but if there is no legislation in, say, Saskatchewan, British Columbia or the Northwest Territories, then the bill would really be of no effect to the people who live in those other areas until such provincial legislation is passed. I see the bill as strictly being relevant to people, expectant mothers and so forth, in the provinces of Quebec.

Until jurisdiction for labour is placed solely under a provincial jurisdiction, I believe the federal law must prevail.

There will be another opportunity, as the member opposite has mentioned, to review this issue when part III of the Canada Labour Code is amended. We have been waiting for some time to see if there will be amendments and I am convinced there will be, probably later this year.

[Labour Disputes, June 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, for the moment there is labour peace at west coast ports, but the probability of future work disruptions continue to haunt companies whose livelihoods depend on a secure, reliable export route.

There have been four work stoppages at west coast ports in the last 10 years. This is an unacceptable record and the infamous weak link in the supply chain between Canadian exporters and their customers.

The government failed to put a dispute settlement mechanism in place that would ensure that Canadian exports are not held hostage to labour disputes. The process must be changed so that there is a predetermined dispute settlement mechanism in place that will be used for issues that cannot be resolved at the bargaining table.

The government partially protects grain exports, and that is good, but grain only represents 8% of the value of products moving through those ports. Shippers and manufacturers are worried about the loss of markets, reputations and revenues when the present collective agreement expires. They need and deserve protection now.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 7th, 2001]

That was an opt out.

[Final Offer Arbitration In Respect Of West Coast Ports Operations Act, March 27th, 2001]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-309, an act to provide for the settlement of labour disputes affecting west coast ports by final offer arbitration.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill which would prevent work stoppages at west coast ports. Stoppages at west coast ports have cost Canada billions of dollars over the years in lost sales and exports of grain, not to mention the impact they have had on the farming economy, on the unions and on employers.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Petitions, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table on behalf of my constituents a petition that calls upon the House to amend and repeal section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act dealing with rural route mail couriers. I am pleased to present the petition on their behalf.