Mr. Speaker, my friend from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve asked rather rhetorically what motivated the Reform Party to present these amendments. I am happy to tell him what our motivation was.
We are in favour of any measure, within reason, that helps the farmers get grain to port, on to the ships and to market. However, why has only grain been given this priority? A lot of other commodities in Canada have to be shipped. Certainly grain is a very important commodity and it fits into another specific category which a lot of others do not. It is a food stuff, a staple which is perishable. That makes it fit into two categories.
There are coal, potash, lumber, plenty of other commodities which may or may not reach port, which may sit in the mill yard or at the mine and be held up because of a rail strike or because of other unions which may be on strike or locked out. It is a work disruption that prevents those products from getting to port and ultimately to market.
I do not have to tell the House that the Canadian economy is rather fragile and needs an infusion or transfusion. The Canadian economy has suffered hit after hit because of work stoppages which resulted in lost markets, of ships going to other ports to get similar commodities because they have been assured they will be loaded.
I do not have to tell members that if a ship is turned away from a port once or twice its owner may say: "We are tired of that sort of treatment. We are going to make permanent arrangements with another port". The port of Vancouver has lost business in the past to the port of Seattle simply because Seattle seems to be a more reliable port over a long period of time.
That is why we have introduced these amendments. We also feel that final offer selection arbitration is a good tool, although the Sims task force did not seem to agree with us. It stated that the use of final offer arbitration would create a situation where there would seem to be a winner and a loser. That is possible. However, final offer selection arbitration would also have the effect of having those parties bargain to the point where the winner would not win a lot and the loser would not lose a lot. If the parties knew it could come to that, they would probably reach an agreement before the arbitrator was ever named.
Therefore, I cannot encourage the House strongly enough to consider the use of final offer selection arbitration.
Let me read some comments from standing committee witnesses with regard to this amendment that separates grain as a commodity and does not allow the others.
Donald Downing, president of the Coal Association of Canada, had this to say: "This amendment cannot be allowed to stand as it discriminates between commodities and makes a special case for one. It suggests the Government of Canada places a priority and a special status on grain that would be impossible for us to explain to our valued coal customers in over 20 countries". I think that speaks volumes. How would the coal association explain this? "Yes, it is true that if grain arrives at port that the right to strike has been taken away from the people who load the grain, but if coal arrives at port it is just going to have to sit there and wait".
I have a couple of other quotes here that I may or may not read into the record but they are on the record of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources Development.
Section 87.4 allows for the continuation of a service in a strike/lockout situation if there is a danger to public health and safety. That is a good amendment, but I would submit that it needs to have one more caveat attached to it which is that there should be some provision for the protection of the national economy. I suppose one could say that absolutely anything could affect the national economy, but we are talking about things that have a huge effect on the national economy and a huge effect on Canada's reputation as a reliable supplier of these commodities.
My colleague from Vegreville has talked about final offer selection arbitration. I have spoken on it several times today and numerous times in the past. We will probably continue to do so in the future because it is a tool that is not discriminatory to either management or labour. It is a tool that can be used equally by either one.
It is a rather unique situation. It is a tool that, if used to its ultimate, is not used at all. Therefore it is exactly what the situation calls for. What we have now is a situation where the parties are discouraged from reaching an agreement. Maybe discouraged is a bit too strong. At least they are not encouraged to bargain something they can both live with because they know, and the employer is just as guilty as the employees, it is not really necessary to come to terms at this point. "Let's hold out and we will only be out a few days. We will be legislated back to work". We have plenty of precedents. They are only out for three or four days. Parliament legislates them all back to work.
What has happened to their right to strike there? That is taking the right to strike or the right to lockout completely out of their tool box.
I really think it is important to the Canadian economy and ultimately to jobs in this country. We all know how important jobs are. Every time we lose an international customer for whether it is coal, grain, potash or lumber we are losing jobs. We simply cannot afford that. I am sure members will agree.
In committee the member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte secured passage of an amendment that would help prevent work stoppages on the Atlantic ferry operating between North Sydney and Port aux Basques, Newfoundland. In essence it was declared an essential service. It was a great amendment, one that was certainly important to the member who introduced it and to the people of Newfoundland. For one reason or another, perhaps known only to the government, that amendment does not show up.
I would like to express my disappointment. It was a good amendment. It should have been here.
