Dale Johnston

[Canada Labour Code, February 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today on 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.

In the last parliament the Minister of Labour attempted to revamp part I of the Canada Labour Code. He failed in that task when his Liberal colleagues in the other place refused to give it expeditious passage.

With the summer to address the flaws in Bill C-66, it appeared that the new and improved legislation would be a priority. It was the first item on the order paper for this, the 36th Parliament, but it took the minister another six weeks to introduce it and another seven weeks to convince his House leader to schedule it for second reading.

Reformers hoped that the delay would mean a fair and balanced bill would be forthcoming. The minister could have waited longer because the minor adjustments barely make any difference.

Anyone who only had access to the minister's press release would have been fooled into thinking that real improvements were made to the legislation. Closer scrutiny reveals, however, that the few technical changes will not make much difference to this botched attempt to modernize part I of the Canada Labour Code.

The Reform Party proposed a series of amendments to Bill C-66 that would have gone a long way toward improving industrial relations in the country. Had the government not used its majority to squash our proposals, Bill C-66 would have sailed through the House unimpeded and would have easily passed the scrutiny of the other place. Today it would be law and we could turn our attention to cutting the $600 billion national debt and giving Canadians a much deserved tax break.

Fair and balanced labour laws play an integral part in Canada's ability to attract and hold business. Uncertainty fuelled by the threat of work disruptions can scare away potential investors and cause existing industries to question whether they would be better off elsewhere. As a nation where the unemployment rate for the last four years has hovered around 9% we must take steps to encourage job creation and not scare it away.

So far the government with its dependence on high payroll taxes is doing an exemplary job of discouraging job creation. It is widely acknowledged that high taxes kill jobs. Even the finance minister of the Liberal government agrees with that.

We know government infrastructure programs and other make work projects do not create permanent jobs. Labour legislation and regulations made on a case by case basis will not create jobs either. Stable labour relations will promote investment, reinvestment and those sought after jobs.

It is in the interest of all Canadians to have reliable access to essential services, to keep employment within our borders, and to establish and maintain a reputation as a worldwide reliable exporter of goods.

This reputation is jeopardized whenever we have a work stoppage in one of our key sectors. Take the recent postal impasse for instance. Weeks of uncertainty over whether or not there would be mail delivery created havoc. Not only did it cost Canada Post millions of dollars. It dealt a severe blow to small businesses and charities that depend on the pre-Christmas period to ensure their viability.

If the Canada Labour Code contained a permanent dispute settlement mechanism, workers and management would be better off. Customers and business would be assured of a reliable mail service. Yet the government passed up another opportunity to stabilize industrial relations by not including a permanent dispute settlement mechanism in Bill C-19.

The Reform Party has a long term solution, but so far the government has refused to implement it. Final offer selection arbitration is a tool to effectively and permanently control labour issues that fall under federal jurisdiction. It is fair because it does not favour one side over the other.

Here is how it works. If and only if the union and the 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 they jointly recommend as arbitrator.

The union and the employer would be required to submit to the arbitrator a list of the matters agreed upon and a list of the matters still under dispute. For disputed issues each party would be required to submit a final offer for settlement.

The arbitrator then 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 be binding on both parties.

We are saying that rather than go to back to work legislation every time there is a work stoppage in one of these key areas, this tool should be there for management and the union to use. I submit that when this tool is used to its ultimate it is not used at all because it encourages both parties to bargain earnestly and come to a settlement.

As the minister said earlier, the best agreement you can have is one that is agreed to by both parties. I believe the final offer selection arbitration would go a long way to achieving that very goal.

In 1994 one of the first actions of the newly elected Liberal government was to legislate an end to work disruption at the west coast port, back to work legislation. In those days the prime minister did not deem it necessary to have a separate labour minister, so the human resources minister of the day included final offer selection arbitration as a mechanism to settle the dispute between the longshoremen and the port of Vancouver.

Which was it? Was it back to work legislation or was it final offer selection arbitration? It was both. Legislating the parties back to work gets the wheels moving again, but it does not do anything to resolve the issues that are still in question in the contract. They have to bring in final offer selection to resolve that. There is the precedent for the very thing we have been asking for.

In the wake of the ongoing tensions created by the need for yet another legislated settlement, the government set up an inquiry commission into labour relations at west coast ports. The 200 page report recommended final offer selection arbitration as a way to provide protection to the economy and to the interests of the public and third parties.

It is all very nice for the minister to say that he will be very stern in cases where public safety is at stake, but I think he has an obligation to protect the Canadian economy too. We are all very interested to see our employment figures improve and to see the economy improve. As a minister of the crown he should take very seriously these threats to our national economy.

Obviously this was just another inquiry commission with the main purpose of taking the heat off the government and letting it appear as if it is doing something, because the west coast ports inquiry recommended that final offer selection arbitration be included in labour legislation.

Last week the House debated my private member's bill, Bill C-233, which proposed the use of final offer selection arbitration as a process to prevent costly strikes and lockouts at west coast ports. My bill was based on the very recommendations I just spoke of from that inquiry.

We should not be too surprised at the government's reluctance to implement a permanent solution to crippling strikes and lockouts. There is a recurring and notable reticence by the government to give up control of anything. For that very reason government members think they will be seen as heroes by the voters for legislating an end to work stoppages. They could be real heroes by taking action to prevent an economically crippling work stoppage in the first place.

A costly interruption of government business is not required. While there is need for regulation by various levels of government, it is neither practical nor prudent to implement emergency measures whenever 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. A permanent and fair resolution process must be put in place, removed from the whims of government. We need permanent legislation that would provide both sides with a predictable rule and timetable by which to negotiate.

The labour-management problems at west coast ports have been studied over and over. Yet this legislation would not solve any of the problems at the ports. In fact it will actually complicate and hinder the bargaining process.

At the time of Confederation grain elevators were declared to be for the general advantage of Canada. Since then the government realized what western farmers have always known, that any dispute involving grain handling threatens the Canadian economy and our reputation as a reliable exporter.

The Liberals, I suppose not wanting to be seen as protecting the grain industry from all too frequent work disruptions, included a provision in the legislation guaranteeing the tie-up, the let go and loading of grain vessels, and the movement of those vessels in and out of port in the event of a work stoppage.

On the surface this looks like a positive measure for the grain industry, but like so many of the measures we have seen the government initiate, once we scratch the surface the cracks appear. Since one of the worst fears of grain exporters is that a labour disruption might stop a shipment from reaching the customer, this is a small step forward. It is a baby step. Contrary to the information circulated by some groups, it does not “prohibit third parties from shutting down the flow of grain in the event of a dispute”.

The government's meagre concession to grain producers falls far short of ensuring the product reaches market and farmers are not left in the lurch. The disruption in 1995 that brought rail traffic to a halt is still fresh in the minds of western Canadians.

The two year settlement imposed by the back to work legislation expired at the end of last December and some unions have yet to sign a new contract. Failure to reach an agreement could mean a strike or lockout this spring and grain shipments, regardless of the status of the legislation, could come to a standstill.

We are saying that it is fine to load the grain that gets to the port, but if a strike takes place between here and the port there will not be any grain at the port to load.

Grain represents 30% of the business of the port of Vancouver. What about the other 70%?

The negative impact of any port dispute is not limited to grain, nor is its economic impact greater than the implications of the port shutdown on the exporters and importers of other commodities, including forest products, coal, sulphur and potash, to name a few.

The inclusion of provisions such as found in section 87.7, that create an uneven playing field among various sectors of the economy, is unnecessary and not helpful in making Canada an attractive place to visit.

When representatives of groups such as the B.C. Maritime Employers Association, which represents 77 wharf and terminal operators and stevedoring firms in Vancouver and Prince Rupert, appeared as witnesses before the standing committee on human resources development during the Bill C-66 debate, they told us that the grain provision in this bill could actually worsen the already rocky history of labour disputes at the ports.

The inclusion of final offer selection arbitration in the Canada Labour Code would level the playing field and ensure grain and all other exports are not held hostage.

Another of the technical changes found in Bill C-19 relates to the government's feeble attempts to appease those opposed to the ban on the use of replacement workers. The son of Bill C-66 attempts to clarify the wording, but the end result is still a de facto ban on the use of replacement workers.

The minister says in his statement that no general prohibition of the use of replacement workers is in this bill, but I submit there is a de facto ban.

This provision still gives too much power to the new Canada Industrial Relations Board, which will be hard pressed to deny any union leader's contention that their rights have been violated.

The other issue that was to be clarified over the summer was clause 50, which amends section 109.1 of the Code dealing with union's access to off site workers.

The changing nature of today's work environment has seen an increasingly large number of people working away from the traditional workplace. The government decided to help fledgling union membership by permitting unions to acquire the names and addresses of potential new members. When the privacy commissioner appeared before the committee of the other place studying Bill C-66, he said: “What is missing, as we see it, in clause 50 is the element of consent”. That is how we see it, too.

The minister tinkered with clause 50, but the element of consent is still missing. I moved an amendment to Bill C-66 requiring employee consent before the release of any personal information, but of course it was defeated. The inclusion of consent in this bill is crucial.

Once again, the government passed off to the CIRB the authority to make decisions on a case by basis instead of showing real leadership by protecting the rights of Canadian workers. Another major flaw remaining in this legislation is the provision giving the CIRB the authority to certify a union even though a majority of the employees are opposed. How can that be?

Let me refer you to the most publicized case of how this type of provision works against employee wishes. That can be found at the Wal-Mart in Windsor, Ontario. The Ontario Labour Relations Board agreed to certify the union, even though the employees at the Windsor store voted 151 to 43 against it last May.

Canadians should have the right to join a union if the majority of their fellow employees agree. If they are opposed, membership should not be forced on them. The workers should be empowered to make the decision, not the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

A mandatory secret ballot is the only fair way to determine if the employees want union representation.

This all powerful board will emerge from the ashes, or perhaps the crumbs, of the Canada Labour Relations Board.

The Canada Labour Relations Board has been in disarray for years and a steady succession of cabinet ministers stood idly by while it struggled. In 1995 a power struggle between the chairman and the vice-chairs over who should assign and schedule cases was played out in the media.

One has to question the effectiveness of such an important quasi-judicial decision making body that was unable to resolve its own problems. It took a mediator and about $203,000 worth of public funds to settle this internal dispute. At least Bill C-19 reduces the term of employment for the chair and the vice-chairs to five years from the current 10 years. As a Reform Party labour critic I proposed this change to the Sims commission two years ago.

In light of the difficulty the government encountered in its attempt to fire the chairman of the CLRB, Bill C-19 should spell out not only the terms and conditions of employment for the board executive and members, but it should clarify exactly what it means “to hold office during good behaviour”. Maybe some expense account guidelines would not be going awry either.

The need for specific policy and enforceable guidelines is essential if the board is ever to regain its credibility. It is absolutely incomprehensible that no one stepped in when the chairman claimed $700 Paris lunches or charged for travel and meals for other international jaunts. These were deemed okay because of the chairman's position as head of the international board. Where was the benefit in this to the Canadian taxpayers? Surely there should be some stipulation for this kind of activity.

Let us look at how the board operated. In 1994 the chairman apparently informed the members that the CRLB “must address certain financial practices which do not comply with Treasury Board directives or with the spirit of the government's philosophy concerning the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars”. The auditor general found this advice was not adhered to or implemented. The chairman did not heed his own directive so why should he expect anyone else at the CLRB to do it?

Meanwhile the Treasury Board, the PMO, the privy council office and a series of labour ministers took no notice. They did nothing, even when he charged $53,000 for expenses to attend 28 meetings of the National Academy of Arbitrators.

In 1996 the task force review of the CLRB's performance concluded that decisions were not being made in a timely manner. The auditor general stated: “The problems of the CLRB are due to poor management practice, inadequate paper oriented communications, poor leadership from senior members of the board and a general lack of professionability and accountability which have created a climate which is at times venomous, harassing, stressful and which undoubtedly is eroding morale, the quality and efficiency of the board's work and the board's internal and external credibility and integrity”.

That is about as strong a directive as I have ever seen an auditor general use. The things he said leave out nothing. Board members cannot get along, the board cannot function, it does not function in a timely manner, it is not conducting its business, it is in fighting, morale is being eroded and it is stressful and venomous. That is a pretty condemning statement. I applaud the auditor general's courage in making it.

I attempted to have the chairman called as a witness before the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. I sent a formal request to the committee clerk last summer. It would have provided MPs with the opportunity to question the chairman. It also would have given Mr. Weatherill the opportunity he wanted to publicly defend himself. When a meeting was eventually scheduled for some reason it was cancelled. That reason is still unknown to me.

The auditor general's report must be seen as confirmation that things were definitely awry at the Canadian Labour Relations Board.

At this point we have to ask how well Canadian labour and business has been served by this body.

The government has to answer for the longstanding mismanagement at the CLRB. The minister must take steps to ensure that this never happens again. The board's decisions are for all intents and purposes final. While the Federal Court Act allows for a review of the board's decisions, there is no provision allowing this senior judicial body to set aside board decisions if there were legal errors or if the case was handled in an unreasonable way.

This is the situation facing one interprovincial transportation company where both the employer and the employees are dissatisfied with the board's certification ruling. The current Canada Labour Code does not provide them any recourse and Bill C-19 does nothing to help their plight either.

We cannot support Bill C-19 in its present form for the reasons I have outlined. We will be proposing a series of amendments which will go a long way toward achieving fair and balanced labour laws.

[Small Business Loans Act, February 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques talk about the need for investment capital and start-up capital. He must recognize that it is also necessary to have leasing capital and working capital.

Whether you apply for this money through the regular lending channels or whether we go through the Small Business Loans Act, one of the first requirements is to present a business plan in which you project where your market will be, what your expenses will be and what you expect your bottom line to be.

I would ask my colleague to comment on how he sees taxation, both income tax and payroll taxes, affecting the business plans which have to be put forth by the people who require capital and in which areas he would support tax reduction.

[Division No. 72, February 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my voice of condemnation to the move taken by the government today to stifle debate on the bill.

I take exception to the last speaker who said that this was not closure but was simply time allocation and that we have had a lot of time to discuss the bill. That is rubbish. It is a real flip-flop for him and his party to take that stance when a few short years ago they stood on this side and condemned the Conservatives over and over again for invoking closure.

When you and I were boys, Mr. Speaker, a period that many people would refer to as the old days, a mythical character rode the western plains on a white horse and shot silver bullets. Known as the Lone Ranger, this relentless crime buster divided his time between rescuing damsels in distress and bringing bad guys to justice.

Today another mythical character roams the Canadian plains. Known in Saskatchewan as the lone Liberal, his mission is to round up farmers who think they have the right to sell their own grain. Along with his trusty sidekick for comic relief, the Canadian Wheat Board, he brings to justice villainous farmers who think that if they can grow it they can sell it.

With the lone Liberal and the CWB in hot pursuit these criminals are dealt with, with due dispatch and without delay, while lesser law breakers like rapists and murderers are sternly admonished and sent home. Prairie farmers beware. The lone Liberal rides again and he knows where they live. He also knows where they park their trucks.

If the lone Liberal wonders why he is the only Liberal from Saskatchewan, all he has to do is look at his sidekick, the Canadian Wheat Board. By pushing the CWB agenda and not standing up for farmers, his compatriots were trounced in June. The heavy handed approach favoured by the lone Liberal will only mean that he will be the last Liberal from Saskatchewan.

Farmers are frustrated. They are fed up with the paternalistic approach of the government. Its primary goal is to control all facets of the lives of farmers. If anyone wonders why these farmers resort to border busting, the reason is that the government has made sure there is no option to the Canadian Wheat Board; it is the only game in town.

Farmers are self-employed only in the eyes of the tax man. In reality they are public servants without the benefits, without the salary and without the pension. The wheat board is like big brother, directing farmers on when to deliver the product and how much they will be paid: “Just bring it to us. It is none of your business what we get for it”.

Nowhere is the government's control fetish more evident than in its attempt to keep western farmers in line. For decades Liberals have been inventing ways to control the western economy. They did it in the national energy program. They are dying now to impose a carbon tax but in the interim they will settle for depriving western farmers of their property rights.

The bill even expands the board's control over wheat and barley to other grains, and to think the wheat board was set up as a temporary measure. Did we not hear that about income tax and the GST?

Failure to comply with this old soviet style state run monopoly results in a jail sentence. Farmers whose only crime is to try to get a fair price for their product are relentlessly pursued by the wheat police and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law by the government.

To make matters even worse, the board is now paying farmers less than the world price for grain. Compounding the problem is the fact that the board is so shrouded in secrecy that farmers cannot even determine how much less than the world price they are receiving.

Canadian taxpayers are on the hook for a $7 billion liability through the board, but the Canadian Wheat Board is not accountable to farmers or Canadian taxpayers. It is an unbelievable situation.

The advance billing for Bill C-4 predicted an enhanced accountability to farmers. Instead what we have before us today is a badly flawed initiative in which the Canadian Wheat Board is accountable only to its master, the minister, the lone Liberal.

The legislation continues to promote secrecy over accountability by ensuring the board escapes the scrutiny of the auditor general and exempts it, believe it or not, from the Access to Information Act.

Nobody is advocating that the wheat board should negotiate contracts in the media or in the public. We admit that. There has to be some secrecy to present day negotiations. The notion of commercial confidentiality may have some validity on current negotiations. But why is the government so opposed to releasing historic information? The only reason I can think of is that it may be trying to hide extravagant spending, bungling and mismanagement.

We know the Liberals love to brag. If they were proud of their record they would certainly want to tell us all about it. It appears that we will never know because the bill stifles the ability of the elected directors to represent the farmers who elected them.

How can directors act freely if they are bound by secrecy? By denying board members liability protection they will not be able to speak out and act on behalf of their farmer constituents. If the government thinks its problems will be over once Bill C-4 becomes law it is sadly mistaken. In fact the Canadian Wheat Board will become a target in international trade negotiations.

The changes to the Canadian Wheat Board Act before us today will not satisfy our trading competitors that the board is independent from the federal government. It will be nothing less than a monumental challenge to convince protectionist U.S. Congress members that the board does not have an unfair trading advantage.

If the government and the lone Liberal from Saskatchewan really want to empower farmers, they will accept the amendments proposed by my colleagues, the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River and the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville. It is high time for the Canadian Wheat Board to act in the best interest of farmers, not just of government.

I would certainly endorse Motion No. 37 in Group No. 6. It is not exactly what we had in mind, but it is a step in the correct direction. It would authorize a producer to market outside the Canadian Wheat Board a percentage of the wheat and barley produced by the producer in a crop year. This is the sort of thing we have been advocating all along.

Some people who like to spread misinformation about members of the Reform Party saying that it is the party that wants to knock the wheat board on the head; they want to kill it and do away with it completely. That is absolute rubbish. We have never advocated that. We have always advocated a dual marketing system. If the Canadian Wheat Board cannot operate without its state run monopoly, it must be as very poor organization.

Every one of us has to compete in our business life and in our political life. I think competition is good and so should the Canadian Wheat Board.

[Division No. 72, February 12th, 1998]

Rubbish.

[Final Offer Arbitration In Respect Of West Coast Ports Operations Act, February 10th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I was listening very closely to some of the comments from the parliamentary secretary and those made by the labour critic from the New Democratic Party. I think it is necessary to correct some misconceptions they have about this process.

The parliamentary secretary said that in her opinion fair and free collective bargaining has always been the best way to arrive at a settlement, or words to that effect.

Certainly we agree. We are not advocating a heavy-handed approach here at all. It is most important to note that the process applies equally to the employer and to the employee. It is a tool that can be used equally by them.

I have said many times before in the House that final offer selection would take the place of very heavy-handed back to work legislation. I see it as a real step forward.

Back to work legislation has become sort of a crutch whereby management and labour do not feel compelled to earnestly bargain, to get right down to cases and to settle the disputes themselves. Of course any dispute that can be settled between the parties is absolutely the best way to go.

We are offering final offer selection as a final step that would take the place of having to go through the trauma, so to speak, of a strike or a lockout and then having parliament legislate them back to work.

This tool can be used equally by both parties. If it were in legislation both parties would realize it was the final step and would bargain accordingly. They would get right down to the last parts of the case.

My colleague in the NDP actually made the case for final offer selection in Manitoba. He said that knowing the legislation was there 93 of 97 cases resolved themselves because the parties came to an agreement. That is exactly how we want it to happen. For those 4% to 5% that cannot come to an agreement, someone has to make the agreement for them.

My colleague in the Reform Party from British Columbia made an excellent point. When the local grocer has a work disruption, whether it is a strike or lockout, certainly it affects a few families that like to deal at the particular store. It also affects the employees and the owner of the store. However people in the city do not starve because they have alternative places to buy their groceries.

Canadians, particularly in the western part of Canada, do not have an alternate west coast port to use. It is the only game in town and the people who run the west coast port are very much aware of it. It is no coincidence that work disruptions take place at a time of year when western farmers are trying to market their crops through the port.

The parliamentary secretary says that this process will not work. There are many precedents in Canadian history to show that it does work. In the case of legislating parties back to work, all that accomplishes is to reluctantly have the parties go back to the job. It does not resolve any of the outstanding issues. Those outstanding issues are yet to be resolved and in many cases are done through the exact method we are suggesting here.

It is most unfortunate the bill is not a votable motion. I would have been very pleased to have seen how the House would have voted on it.

[Final Offer Arbitration In Respect Of West Coast Ports Operations Act, February 10th, 1998]

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.

[Criminal Code, February 3rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, on November 22 of last year I asked the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to act on the 1996 report given to her and prepared for her department on first nations social assistance.

The report confirms the findings of the auditor general, several internal studies and the royal commission on aboriginal people that the department is grossly mismanaging social assistance funds.

The report concluded that on reserve welfare dependency is increasing, costs are out of control and the department is running out of money. This confirms the Reform Party's audit which showed that 75% of DIAND's social affairs budget is unaccounted for. All of this is despite the fact the 1997-98 estimates allocate $1.03 billion for on reserve social assistance.

Judge Reilly of the Provincial Court of Alberta was so concerned that he took the unprecedented step of ordering an investigation into alleged political abuse, violence, drug dependency, suicide and other social ills. The results were staggering.

Grassroots natives are not receiving the benefits that are earmarked for them because of the government's inept approach to native issues. It is causing serious problems on Canada's reserves and nowhere is this more apparent than in my constituency of Wetaskiwin.

The Hobbema reservation is home to four Cree bands: Samson, Montana, Louis Bull and Ermineskin. Considered one of Canada's wealthiest reserves, Hobbema receives huge payments for oil royalties. The children receive about $100,000 in trust fund payments on their 18th birthday, yet this reserve is plagued with high unemployment, poverty and substance abuse. It has been estimated that 80% of the people on the Hobbema reserve live on welfare and in poverty. How can this be possible in light of the royalties and the transfers from the federal government?

Members of the Samson Band asked the same question. When they were not provided with any answers they staged a protest to draw attention to what they consider to be mismanagement of funds by the band council. Four concerned members travelled to Ottawa to seek a meeting with the minister but they received the proverbial brush off.

I asked the minister to clear the air and order a forensic audit of the Samson Band's finances. The hon. member for Skeena, Reform's Indian affairs critic, also asked the minister for an independent audit. Our requests fell on deaf ears.

The reluctance of the minister and her officials to get involved is another example of this government's determination to maintain the status quo, to keep people in poverty and to perpetuate dependency. One of Hobbema's respected elders, Norman Yellowbird, wrote in the Wetaskiwin Times that “the conditions outlined in Judge Reilly's report can be found on almost every reserve in Alberta, if not Canada”.

It is increasingly obvious that there are bands operating outside normal bounds of acceptable standards in terms of proper fair management of their social assistance programs. The human cost of this accountability crisis is both staggering and appalling. An effective monitoring appeal process is urgently required, preferably one run by the Indian people that is designed to protect against excess and to ensure equity and accountability.

Aboriginal people are clearly unhappy. Canadian taxpayers do not want to see their hard earned dollars misspent. How many more reports are needed? What kind of proof is required before this government abandons its practice of following the course of least resistance?

[Petitions, February 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 150 constituents from Wetaskiwin. They say that the CRTC on July 22, 1997 refused to license four religious television broadcasters including one Roman Catholic service and three multidenominational services. On that same day the CRTC did license the pornographic Playboy channel television service.

These people believe that they have a constitutional right to freedom of religion, conscience and expression. Therefore the petitioners pray that Parliament review the mandate of the CRTC and direct it to administer a new policy which will encourage the licensing of religious broadcasts.

[Canadian Labour Relations Board, December 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the report of the auditor general has prompted the Minister of Labour to initiate dismissal action against the chairman of the Canadian Labour Relations Board.

Given that members are routinely given severance packages at the end of their terms, will this minister tell Canadians how much the golden handshake to Ted Weatherill is expected to cost?

[Division No. 49, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, one of the most contentious issues was that CUPW had alleged that Canada Post wanted to lay off a good number of workers.

I suspect that losing the market share is going to hasten that kind of activity. If we cannot maintain the market share of Canada Post, there will be less work to do and as a result there will be fewer people working at Canada Post. It only follows.

I think the anecdote that I shared regarding my local paper is one instance in one constituency in one province of Canada. I am sure it can be multiplied by a good many times because other people will say that we are losing too much here, that it is too much of a risk with these constant interruptions in the postal service and therefore we will go to alternatives.

That is a sad state of affairs. We should have a good, strong, viable postal service in Canada so that when a letter is dropped into the slot, it is guaranteed that it will be delivered anywhere on the globe.

Of course, that is what we have had in the past and I do not see any reason why we could not have it in the future. The fact that we are here today debating to put the postal workers back to work and to reinstate the postal service tells you that there is something wrong.

We have had to do this before in the last ten years. We had to do it at least two other times. Why do we continue to legislate them back over and over again?

We need a system put in place that is going to resolve these things before they come to the work stoppage position and really harm innocent bystanders, people who really have no say in who goes to work and who does not.

We have put forth resolutions in this House, amendments to this bill, to use the final offer selection system by which, very basically put, the two sides will put forth the things that they do not agree on. They will agree to an arbitrator who will choose all their final positions or all the other final positions, one or the other. There is no compromise position in between.

As I have said before in this House, I believe that that is a tool that could be used effectively by labour and by management. I do not think it weights one side of the scale more than it does the other side. I believe that that is what we njeed to have as far as labour legislation in this country is concerned. We need to have a balance.

If we have the scales tilted too far to one side, then certainly there is going to be an undue advantage for that side. Therefore, this is a system that, if used to its ultimate, will not be used at all because the people who have it there as a tool to use will bargain very earnestly knowing that this is the legislated final step.

If they do not arrive at an agreement on their own, they will be compelled to go to this final step which really takes the decision out of their hands. I am sure that all parties would like to come to a negotiated settlement. However, I believe that final offer selection is a tool that could be used equally by each party. It would help in the negotiating process.

There are people who would argue that final offer selection takes away the right of these people to strike. I do not think it does. If we asked most people out on the picket line if they enjoy striking, they would say that they do not enjoy striking but feel compelled to do so.

Everybody likes stability. Everybody likes to have some control in their lives. When their paycheques stop and they are out on the picket line, it is not very pleasant especially in this November and December weather. I am sure those people would rather be gainfully employed and picking up their salaries just as they have for the past number of years.

I would suggest that what we are doing today takes the right to strike and to lock out away from these people more than final offer selection does. By mandating these people back to work we are saying that they do not have the right to strike, that they were on strike for nine or ten days but that is over with now and they have to go back to work. If they do not go back to work they are breaking a statute of Canada which is very serious.

We agree with the minister when he says that he takes very little satisfaction or no satisfaction in having to bring in back to work legislation. We agree with that. Something has to be done. We have to get the mail moving and it is obvious that the negotiation process was not going to get it moving.

We and everybody agree that the best solution is a negotiated solution. If the parties negotiated, they would all feel that they had a hand in it and that they were parties to the decision rather than having to throw everything up in the air and having the decision mandated by someone else.

I was very much surprised to see that the minister and his department would include the pay scales in this bill, that they would have the increases mandated. I was surprised to see a Liberal government bring this in. I was also surprised to hear some of the more left wing parties agree to this. They agreed to this idea in principle but amended it and juggled the figures a little. The NDP and the Bloc agreed to this mandated settlement. That really surprised me. I always thought they were the champions of labour and that they would want a negotiated settlement. We do too.

We think that part of the bill should have been removed. We suggested that and put forth amendments to that effect. I suppose the government in its wisdom and certainly in its numbers held sway and said whether the bill would live or die.

How has the last nine or ten days affected average Canadians? They have not received their newspapers through the mail. They have not received their cheques. Although we have had assurances from Canada Post that the old age pension cheques would be delivered, I had telephone calls from my constituency this week from some people who said that a lot of people on their block got their pension cheques but they did not get theirs. They say that it is December 1 and they do not know what to do. What can I say? How can I check it out for them since the post office is not working? All we can tell them is that their cheques were issued from Ottawa and we have no way of knowing where those cheques are gone.

The strike has had an effect on pensioners on a fixed income who depend on their pension cheques. Certainly I am not implying that seniors are living hand to mouth and pension cheque to pension cheque but they like to see it arrive on the regular day.

The post office in the smaller centres is sort of a social centre in the community. It is a place where you meet your neighbours. In a small town it is a place where you meet your business associates. Not everybody regularly attends the chamber of commerce meetings but they often attend the bank and the post office. They bump into their business associates and compare notes and talk about any manner of things. Of course when the post offices are closed that social aspect of the community is not there.

Not to mention the fact that charities at this time of the year are really dependent on the Christmas season for their biggest fund raisers. They raise about 80% of their funds in the month of December.

I know our political party likes to try to raise funds in November and December because it is getting close to tax time. Generally people have their end of year approaching and they have their finances pretty much in order. A lot of people budget a certain amount to give to charities and they do that usually in the last month of the year.

I am very pleased to see that the post office is going back to work. I hope it goes back very quickly and that all the talk of civil disobedience is just that, talk. I know that we have many very dedicated people in the post office workforce who pride themselves on doing an excellent job of delivering the mail through all sorts of conditions. I can hardly wait to get the mail system back to its normal condition.

The Minister of Labour has a great opportunity, one that perhaps has not been offered to other ministers of labour and that is to adopt and institute the final offer selection arbitration process. This process, as I have said many times in this House, is a great tool, one that would prevent the damage done to innocent third parties that have no control over these labour disruptions.

Oftentimes these labour disruptions are about power and there are struggles. I do not know that this particular instance was a power struggle but the possibility for that is always there. For third party persons who simply are users, constituents of the system, to be damaged by this to the effect that they have been during this postal strike is simply not fair.

We hear a lot of talk about fairness in this House and about balance. That is exactly what we should be striving for. Fairness and balance. I think the Canadian public, the consumers of the services of the post office deserve fairness and they deserve balanced legislation to make sure that that fairness is assured.

For the last two weeks 30 million Canadians have been denied the postal service. Within a matter of a few days I am very hopeful that we are going to see the resumption of those services.

I could probably continue and make several other points but time is running short. I look forward to hearing what my colleagues have to say.