Dale Johnston

[Schoolreach, April 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, last weekend my hometown of Ponoka played host to the Alberta SchoolReach provincial championships. I want to congratulate the winners representing Leduc Composite High School: Joanne Brownlee, Neil Jackie, Danny Jackson, Colin McIntrye, Taeed Quaddusi and Evan Saumer, along with their coaches Sandy Ogrodnick and Mrs. Senio.

Competition was fierce as teams vied for provincial honours. As one of the judges, I was impressed with the depth of knowledge, the spirit of competitiveness and the ability of the participants to articulate their responses. These students are a reflection of parents who care enough to instil in their children a quest for knowledge and fair play.

The commitment and confidence shown by these young people prove that our future is in good hands.

Good luck to the Leduc Composite Reach team in the national finals. I know they will prove to be a formidable force in Vancouver but, win or lose, they have made their parents, schoolmates and communities proud.

[Canada Labour Code, April 15th, 1997]

And reject it. The parliamentary secretary is assuming members would have to vote in favour of the restructuring proposal. That is nonsense.

In summary, although the motion is not votable and therefore not binding, it seems rather fruitless to address the issue. On the other hand I appreciated the opportunity to bring these thoughts to the House of Commons. I thank the members, particularly my colleague for Prince George-Peace River, who joined in the debate on short notice.

I think there is room for improvement in this area. Not only the travelling public but the 16,000 employees with Canadian Airlines will succeed and thrive. I very much hope they do. This would be of benefit not only to the users and the employees of the airline but to the Canadian economy in general.

[Canada Labour Code, April 15th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with extreme interest to my colleagues, and certainly to the member of the Bloc who alleges that the Reform Party is an extreme right wing party. That is laughable. These things have to be looked at in degrees. To my colleague from the Bloc, perhaps Karl Marx would be one of those extreme right wing people.

I do not see that there is any conflict here as far as the operation of unions is concerned. What we are talking about are democratic rights. The rank and file members of both the CAW and CUPE wanted an opportunity to vote on their employer's restructuring proposal.

Ultimately, it is in the best interests of Canadian travellers to have an option when they fly. There are beginning to be more competitors on the scene, but for a considerable length of time there have been two major air carriers in Canada, which is a situation that I want to continue. I would like there to be competition between the two airlines. I would not want to have the situation where we would not have a choice and would be compelled to run with one air carrier.

My Bloc colleague talked about too much discretionary power being in the hands of the minister. I agree with him. He is right on.

However my motion does not put extra discretionary power into the hands of the minister. If he had been listening to what I had said during my opening remarks, he would have learned that I object to the way the minister handles or addresses these situations on a piecemeal basis.

We are asking for legislation that would actually put labour and management on an even footing so they would know what the rules are when entering the game. Management could put up a restructuring proposal and if there is nothing to compel the rank and file people from supporting the restructuring proposal they could vote against it.

The way it is now they do not even have the option to reject the offer. The parliamentary secretary says we have to assume that it will be abused by management. We are talking about 700,000 people in industry and services regulated by the federal government. It is not an across the country widespread labour management issue.

We should not assume, as the parliamentary secretary seems to have done, that management will abuse it and every time it wants to roll back wages it will put a restructuring proposal to its membership. Let us for the briefest of moments go along with the parliamentary secretary and say some management people put forward a proposal like that, a proposal that was not a bona fide restructuring proposal. The membership would have the opportunity to vote against it.

[Canada Labour Code, April 15th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move MotionNo. 308 today, which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should amend Section 108.1 of the Canada Labour Code to include a provision that would permit employees to vote on any restructuring offer put forward by their employer.

This motion came about because of the Canadian Airlines crisis late last year. The House will recall that on November 1 the president of Canadian Airlines International announced that his company would run out of money by the beginning of the year. To save the company and the jobs of 16,000 employees, the company developed a last hope restructuring plan that required $70 million in wage rollbacks from the unions, as well as major concessions from creditors and the American parent, AMR Corporation.

Before the November 26 deadline, four of the six unions agreed to participate in this plan. The holdouts, however, were the Canadian Auto Workers, which represented 3,700 ticket agents, and the Canadian Union of Public Employees, which represented 2,600 flight attendants. The CUPE representative was obviously swayed by CAW's attempt to negotiate a government bailout, so

both refused to allow their membership to vote directly on Benson's plan.

The union members held rallies demanding the right to vote, but their cries fell on the deaf ears of their union bosses, who held out, waiting for the government to come across with moneys and/or concessions.

History has shown that in situations like this the federal government usually comes in like a white knight and offers a taxpayer-funded bailout. This time, having just awarded Bombardier a sweet $87 million interest free loan, the Liberals sensed, and quite rightly so, that there would be no public support for such a bailout.

The president of the CAW and CUPE were not employees of Canadian Airlines so their jobs were not on the line. With no real personal stake in the fate of Canadian Airlines, they were willing to take the risk of the company's bankruptcy and the loss of 16,000 jobs. If the airline collapsed, at least they had served notice to the government that they were ready to play hard ball and this would ultimately benefit future negotiations involving much larger companies in which they represent the unions.

The employees had a democratic right to be heard. Throughout the crisis the Reform Party called on the government to ensure that the democratic rights of the workers were upheld. Time and again government ministers said: "Yes, but the rules do not allow it".

The Reform Party opposes bailouts, but it also opposes inaction. The government did have an option which would not have cost the taxpayers a cent.

The member for Calgary Southwest, the leader of the Reform Party, asked the Minister of Labour on November 28 if the government would "be willing to introduce forthwith an amendment authorizing the Minister of Labour to direct an employee vote on restructuring offers such as that being put forward by Canadian Airlines to its own employees". To this query the labour minister replied: "It is up to management and the unions to decide and find the necessary procedure to have a vote on this matter".

The human resources development committee was meeting that same day to review the government's proposed amendments to the Canada Labour Code known as Bill C-66. I moved a motion in that committee that read: "Due to the critical situation at Canadian Airlines, this committee undertake to enter an immediate review of section 108.1 of the Canada Labour Code to permit employees to vote on any restructuring offer put forth by a company". The motion was defeated by the government MPs on the committee and by their friends in the official opposition. In fact, the parliamentary secretary went so far as to say that even considering giving employees the right to vote on any proposal was in his words "a waste of the committee's time".

This was the opportune time to open the issue for discussion and come up with a permanent solution so that workers would never again find themselves in this predicament. By its actions the government told the 6,300 employees in those two unions, and unionized workers in all federally regulated industries, that their government was not prepared to waste its time ensuring that their democratic rights were upheld.

I believe that there is a fundamental problem with the Canada Labour Code when employees are not given an opportunity to save their own company. Employees deserve that right and the Reform Party stands firmly behind their right to an open, democratic process. The government was not swayed by the Canadian Airlines' employees who pleaded for the right to vote because they needed those jobs and feared that prolonged uncertainty would irreparably damage the company. The government got lucky when the flight attendants came on side.

Now with five of the six unions on side, Canadian Airlines' fate was in the hands of CAW President Buzz Hargrove who steadfastly refused to allow the 3,700 ticket agents to voice their opinion.

Christmas was coming, a spring election was looming and Canadian Airlines was facing imminent disaster. The Government of Canada refused to act until the 11th hour. After telling Canadians for weeks that the rules did not permit government intervention, the Minister of Labour suddenly invoked an obscure clause in the Canada Labour Code to order a vote. This is not a new provision in the Canada Labour Code. It was there all along.

I want to make it clear that what we are advocating is giving employees the right to vote on their futures. We would not want to be so presumptuous as to predict the outcome of such a vote. All Reform asked in this case, and similar situations that are bound to arise in the future, was the assurance that each employee be given the option of voting on restructuring proposals. Did the government initiate action that would benefit all workers? Not at all. It was too afraid to make any meaningful changes. This is yet another quick fix, another one time only solution, more crisis management.

Once again the government proves it lacks vision. The changing workplace is more than just a name of another government task force. It is reality and it is time that the government shed its out of date approach to industrial relations. Workers, employers and union reps all need a level playing field. They all have the right to know where they stand and that they can rely on the Canada Labour Code to promote and protect their democratic rights.

Mr. Speaker, you have often heard me say in the House that the Reform Party recognizes the rights of workers to organize democratically, to bargain collectively and to strike peacefully. We stand by that statement. But what we are also seeking for unionized workers is the right to be counted when there is a restructuring plan on the table that determines whether or not their company stays in business, and ultimately whether they would continue to be employed in that enterprise or seek jobs elsewhere.

Some employees, when faced with the proposition of a company being on shaky financial ground, may say it is time to cut their losses and seek greener and more secure pastures. That should be their decision. It should not be part of a power struggle between union bosses who have little or no personal stake in the outcome.

As it turned out in this case the 2,600 CUPE employees voted in favour of the proposal by 87 per cent. Some 81 per cent of the 3,700 CAW workers voted to accept the company's restructuring plan. At least in the end the decision was the employees to make.

As legislators it is our duty to ensure that all employees who fall under the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Code are assured this democratic right.

[Canada Labour Code, April 15th, 1997]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should amend Section 108.1 of the Canada Labour Code to include a provision that would permit employees to vote on any restructuring offer put forward by their employer.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to allow me to split my time with the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River.

[Canada Labour Code, April 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, certainly my learned colleague, the transportation critic, has had his ear to the ground. Far be it from me to impugn the motives of the government but at the same time, I take great stock in the advice of my colleague, the transportation critic.

He asked specifically whether I would like to see protection in place for the workers. Absolutely. Protection is of ultimate importance. Workers have rights and they should have protection against such alleged manipulation for the sake of creating a certain political climate or saleability or non-saleability.

[Canada Labour Code, April 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question.

I do not know that any legislation could be a 100 per cent cure. There may still be some margin for error. However this will go a long way to settle the disputes my colleague talked about.

To put it in the farming vernacular, owners of livestock are obliged to keep them off the road so the public can travel without fear of running into livestock. They are supposed to use reasonable care and precautions to keep livestock from getting on to public highways. They put up fences which 99 per cent of the time keep the livestock in. There is no way under the sun they can ensure livestock will be in all the time. There is no way under the sun they can satisfy all demands of labour and management at all times.

Labour and management would be far better served by final offer selection arbitration than by back to work legislation after a work disruption takes place. That is basically equivalent, to use the farm

analogy again, to maintaining a proper fence or chasing livestock up and down the road trying to get them back in.

[Canada Labour Code, April 9th, 1997]

Far too much sense. With this bill the government and the minister have tried to placate the labour movement and the labour representatives in the Bloc and the NDP by bringing in back door anti-replacement worker legislation. It is neither fish nor fowl. It does not allow replacement workers and it does not

disallow replacement workers. It left to the discretion of the board; discretionary powers again.

Every piece of legislation we have seen in the House allows the minister and the governor in council discretionary powers. Here is a piece of legislation that allows the Canadian industrial relations board the discretionary power to rule whether replacement workers are an undermining factor to the existence of the union or whether they will be allowed and in what situations. Here we have another piecemeal situation where neither labour nor management has a clear cut definition of the status on replacement workers.

It has been pointed out many times before that we are talking about roughly 700,000 employees who come under the jurisdiction of the federal government, people in the transportation, telecommunications and banking industries primarily.

It should be noted that this is not legislation that covers all other organized labour in Canada. There are roughly 700,000 people employed in Canada who will be affected by this bill.

Final offer selection arbitration is the one tool that we feel is very useful to both management and labour. It can be equally used. I have explained the mechanism in the House before but I do not mind doing it one more time for clarity. Anything this good bears repetition.

The bargaining process would go on as usual. We all know that in the transportation sector, in particular the railroads, the grain handling industry and the longshoring industry, labour and management do not seem to have much incentive to come to an agreement expediently. I say that because if there is an impasse both labour and management seem to take the position that it does not really matter how earnestly they bargain because if they come to an impasse the government will legislate them back to work. The stoppage, whether a strike or a lockout, will be of short duration. Where is the incentive for them to bargain in earnest?

I believe final offer selection arbitration would encourage them to go through the bargaining process. If they could not find a solution the onus would be on them to name a mutually agreed upon arbitrator, to list the areas in which they agree, to list the areas still in dispute and to present their final positions on those items still in dispute to the arbitrator for a decision. The arbitrator would not say that these are the two positions and he will make his judgment somewhere in the centre. His obligation would be to take all of one position or all of the other position; final offer selection. That is an incentive. That is the incentive for them to say they do not really want to use an arbitrator and get down to brass tacks and settle this thing themselves.

I am not singling out labour and I am not singling out management as being at fault. We have seen as many lockouts disrupt grain shipments as we have seen strikes disrupt the grain industry. This is not simply a plea for the farmers in my area. We are talking about a lot of other goods like potash, coal and even iron ore.

Speaking strictly for the farmers, not only is it an economic hardship to the farmers but it is an economic hardship to the entire country. When we cannot ship our grain to the west coast, get it on the ship and get it to our customers, not only are the farmers the losers but Canadians in general are the losers.

I talked to one of our colleagues the other day who said that while in China they were asked if Canada still produced grain. This was a shocking question. Of course we produce grain. We do not produce enormous quantities but we produce excellent quality grain in malting varieties, milling varieties, pasta varieties; all kinds of grains and oilseeds. The retort was "you would never know it because nobody comes over here to sell the stuff to us".

Canada has a lot of work to do as far as its reputation as an international reliable supplier of a quality product. We have no problem whatsoever with the production of grain. We could produce more grain if there were a market for it. Profit is not a four-letter word. Profit is what among other things keeps this place operating. It is what greases the wheels of industry. It is what puts people to work. It is what pays taxes.

If we cannot continue to be a reliable supplier of products, if our reputation is damaged to the point that buyers of grain in China think that Canada no longer supplies the stuff, our credibility as an international supplier is severely damaged. It is high time we did something about it.

Bill C-66 has provided us with one study after another. We had the west coast ports inquiry. We had the Sims report. I was fortunate to make presentations to both those task forces. I recommended to the Sims inquiry that the final offer selection arbitration be included in the recommendations to be included in the bill. During the Sims inquiry hearings I suggested that the 10-year appointment of the chairman of the CLRB was too long and should be reduced to five years. Perhaps, as it is coming to light, even five years is too long.

I return to my original point. I am appalled at the position the minister takes when he is questioned by my colleague with regard to what he will do about the chairman of the CLRB and his ridiculous expense accounts.

The most recent west coast ports strike in 1994 was estimated to cost around $125 million just in port costs. The indirect costs were said to be in excess of $250 million. Perhaps we have threatened as much as a half a billion dollars in future grain sales.

I have quite forcefully made the point that harmonious labour relations in Canada are certainly important. The bill does not do a lot to improve labour relations in Canada. It might do something to improve relations between the government and the Bloc Quebecois. I am not sure of that but it might. I do not think it gives labour and management the tools they need to resolve their differences.

Perhaps I should make it perfectly clear that we are not advocating government interference should be a factor in settling labour disputes.

We are making the point that final offer selection arbitration used to the ultimate would be not used at all. In other words, if labour and management did not reach an agreement among ourselves, they would say final offer selection is what the legislation obliges them to do. Therefore the onus would be entirely on us and agreement would be achieved between the two parties. That is always the best deal. A negotiated deal is always better than an imposed deal. The ultimate winners in this entire scenario would be the Canadian people.

We are considering the bill at a time when the Canadian economy can ill afford any more blows. We are considering it at a time when there is a high unemployment rate. Unemployment has been in the double digit range for the last 75 or 76 months. It is almost impossible to compare today's situation with what it was in the 1930s. I hope that we never get to that situation again. What is comparable is that at no other time in Canada's history other than the great depression in the thirties did unemployment remain at such unacceptably high levels for such a long period of time.

Anything this place can do to ensure that labour and management are a bit more harmonious or a lot more harmonious would certainly be welcome in the Canadian economy.

I see that my time is quickly drawing to close. I appreciate the opportunity of speaking once again to this important piece of legislation. It has a couple of redeeming factors, but it would have been nice if more members of my caucus could have had an opportunity to express their views.

I conclude by saying once more the co-operation we have shown to the minister in the processing of the bill can hardly be construed as filibustering.

[Canada Labour Code, April 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-66 again, a revision to part I of the Canada Labour Code.

Certainly revisions to the Canada Labour Code are past due because there have not been any revisions to this part of the code in the last 20 years. It makes one wonder why the government is in such a hurry where this bill is concerned.

For the record I would like to clarify some allegations put forward by the Minister of Labour in answer to my colleague from St. Albert earlier today in question period.

When my colleague asked the minister why he was not removing the chairman of the CLRB for his alleged extravagances on his expense account, the minister asked why the Reform Party was not co-operating and was filibustering this bill. I believe the record should be set straight.

When this bill was brought to the House, the government asked if the Reform Party would concur to send it straight to committee before second reading. The Reform Party said it would be glad to oblige. We went directly to committee, heard witnesses and applied for some witnesses. We did not get every witness we would have liked but we understood that it went with the territory of being the third party in the House. However, we said that we would be constructive rather than obstructive, but the minister says we were filibustering.

Yesterday the minister alleged that we were actually filibustering. I cannot understand how in the world agreeing on our part to go directly to committee before second reading would be filibustering. That is rather a leap of logic.

When the bill came back to the House at report stage, the chief government whip asked if I would agree to extending the hours on this bill. I asked him how long that extension would be. He said that it would not be very long and so I and my party agreed. Again, how can this possibly be construed as filibustering the minister's bill? This is the second time we have bent over backwards to accommodate the minister. Filibustering, my foot. Accommodation.

The record will show that six members of the Reform Party have spoken to this bill. This is an extremely important bill particularly to western Canadians and to grain farmers in our area. It is not exclusive to grain farmers but it is definitely an area in which grain farmers are affected. Six of our members to this date have spoken to this bill. This is hardly a filibuster, even by Liberal standards.

I find the comments by the minister irresponsible and flippant. The comments by the minister have been extremely irrational. How can the minister say they read all about this in the newspaper and now they are going to check it out? Correct me if I am wrong but is it not the minister's responsibility to check these things out on an ongoing basis? Or does he not monitor the operations of his department and the boards that operate in that purview?

I certainly hope Canadians are paying attention today, the same Canadians who watched the irresponsible display from the minister during question period. I believe I have done my part to set the record straight.

The bill we are talking about has no provisions for final offer selection arbitration. True, it does have some provision for loading the grain products that reach the coast on to the ships once they are in the terminal elevator, but there is no dispute settlement mechanism. If there is a work stoppage, whether a strike or a lockout, in the grain handling system anywhere between the farm gate and the terminal in the next week or so, the government's reaction will be to enact back to work legislation. Part of that back to work legislation would be the use of final offer selection arbitration to bring the two sides together to solve the impasse.

If this tool is good enough to use in an emergency, on an ad hoc, piecemeal basis, which seems to be the way the government likes to run all its operations, why would it not be a good tool to have in place at all times?

[Final Offer Arbitration In Respect Of West Coast Ports Operations Act, March 12th, 1997]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-383, an act to provide for the settlement of labour disputes affecting west coast ports by final offer arbitration.

Mr. Speaker, the timing of the bill is quite relevant since we were talking about the labour code yesterday. The amendments that we as a party put forward to the labour code would have adopted final offer selection arbitration as a tool to be used in west coast work stoppages. It is ultimately important that we discuss the bill.

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