Dale Johnston

[Canada Labour Code, March 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as we resume deliberations on Bill C-66, an act to amend Part I of the Canada Labour Code, it is relevant to look back at the purpose of the bill, as stated by the minister. He said at the outset that he wanted to seek a balance. That was the direction he was going to take. It is now obvious that there are many differing opinions on what constitutes a balance.

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 manner.

The first and only motion in Group No. 1, standing in the name of the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, proposes to remove flour mills and other undertakings related to the milling of grain from federal jurisdiction. Aside from his party's quest to remove all aspects of Quebec life from federal jurisdiction, I am sure the hon. member submitted the amendment because of the 15 month work disruption at the Montreal location of ADM Agri-Industries Ltd., otherwise known as the Ogilvie flour mills.

The collective agreement between the workers and the original owner, John Labatt Ltd., expired January 1992. When the mill was sold to the U.S. owner, Archer-Daniels-Midland, in June 1992, a new collective agreement had not been signed. The strike, which began on June 6, 1994 lasted until September 1995. That was a long 15 months for everyone concerned.

Members on all sides of the House are concerned when prolonged strikes or lockouts occur in their ridings. We in the Reform Party are concerned about impacts that strikes or lockouts have on workers, employers and Canadians who most often have to bear the brunt of the costs of inconveniences when services of monopolistic industries are withdrawn.

Hon. members will know that my Reform colleagues and I have long been concerned over the effects of work stoppages in the west coast ports where grain shipments are concerned.

In the first session of Parliament my colleague, the hon. member for Lethbridge, sponsored a private member's bill that if passed would have provided a dispute settlement mechanism to all parties involved in the grain transportation and grain handling sectors. Of course, I am referring to final offer selection arbitration.

When the problems of Ogilvie flour mills were debated in the House in May 1995, I suggested that the matter could have been resolved quickly in the Canada Labour Code contained this provision. The previous speaker talked about the union breaking tactics. If we had given both union and management those tools of final offer selection arbitration at that time the 15 months of heartache would not have been endured.

We see final offer selection arbitration as a tool that is useful to both labour and management. When all efforts to solve disputes through the regular collective bargaining process have been exhausted, final offer selection arbitration should be available to the parties.

Final offer arbitration is the most effective and impartial means of obtaining a solution to the concerns of labour and management where an impasse occurs that inflicts significant damage on Canadians and on the Canadian economy. It requires both parties to negotiate in good faith while keeping in mind their overall interest as an organization. It does not prevent either side from achieving a deal provided they are being fair and open with one another. In fact, there is tremendous pressure on both sides to reach an agreement because the arbitrator is in a position to adopt either side's proposal.

In cases where fundamental issues are at stake, such as employment security, an agreement may never occur through collective bargaining and a strike or lockout may only make matters worse.

The best solution is for someone respected by both sides to make a decision on the fairness of one proposal for the process to be viewed as legitimate to both sides.

The answer is to give employees and employers the mechanism to resolve their problems without the pressures of strike, lockouts or back to work legislation. Oftentimes back to work legislation includes final offer selection arbitration.

For those reasons I propose amendments to this bill which we will debate in Group No. 8. I am sure the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve will recognize that if final offer arbitration had been available to the workers at Ogilvie mills, months of hardship could have been avoided.

The answer is not just to turn grain related matters over to the provinces, as the hon. member suggests, but to offer them means to solve their problems. The member through his amendment is mistaken if he thinks the amendment to the Canada Labour Code would automatically exempt flour mills and other milling operations from the Canada Labour Code. He seems to have forgotten that flour mills and grain elevators have been governed by federal law since World War II when they were considered to be in the national interest and in fact are protected by the Constitution and the Canada Grain Act. No doubt he has just forgotten. I am sure he would not want to initiate another round of constitutional talks. Obviously he cannot be serious about this amendment.

[Excise Tax Act, February 6th, 1997]

The member opposite says "replace". Yes of course it was written as replace in the red book, a very limited production paper that was only available to certain people in Canada. At the town hall meeting the Prime Minister admonished the lady who asked him about his GST promise. He said: "Obviously you did not read the red book". She probably did not but I would suggest she is in good company. There are millions of other Canadians who never had an opportunity to read the infamous red book because as you know, Mr. Speaker, it was not made available to everybody in Canada.

The bottom line is that the GST was something about which the opposition parties said: "No, we will not accept that. This is a matter of fact if we are in power". It is almost as though they thought there was not a ghost of a chance of their getting into power so they could promise the moon. As it turned out they did get into power. People put their trust in them that they would live up to their word and do away with the GST but they did not do that.

This is a little bit like the NAFTA agreement. In opposition the Liberals said over and over how unfair the agreement was, how they would abolish it, do away with it, scrap it and get rid of it. History has shown and will show that it was hardly amended and was accepted almost holus-bolus by the Liberal government once it came into power.

For the many merchants in my constituency who put up with this GST nightmare daily, and I hasten to say that of the problems that come to my constituency office, the GST and problems with the GST are number one.

[Excise Tax Act, February 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-70 today. We are talking about an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the Income Tax Act, the Debt Servicing and Reduction Account Act and related acts. Among all that verbiage comes the GST and the blended sales tax.

While I am doing walking tours in my constituency, whether it is in Leduc, Ponoka, Wetaskiwin, Lacombe, Bentley or elsewhere, I ask the shop owners and the people in their employ what is their biggest problem or what it is they would like to discuss. I tell them they have their MP before them. It is an opportunity for them to tell me what it is they like about the way the country is run or more likely, what it is they do not like about the way the country is run.

The most often mentioned thing about how they do not like the way the country is run has to do with the GST. The GST makes reluctant tax collectors out of shop owners, business people, people who have concerns about paying their staff, about paying for their lights and their heating. People have concerns about keeping their shop open, keeping their staff on payroll and making a living for themselves and their families.

Not only do they become reluctant tax collectors, but if for some unknown reason they do not follow the collection of the tax or the filing of the papers to the exact degree the bureaucrats insist on, then they are subjected to all sorts of harassment, penalties, interest and audits. An army of people rain down around their necks and tell them that this voluntary job, this job they took on under great duress, is not being done properly and if they do not do it properly they can face all sorts of penalties and interest charges.

More specifically we should be talking about the blended sales tax or the harmonized sales tax, the BST or the HST. Those acronyms conjure up some great possibilities, but I guess I will not allow myself to go in that particular direction at the moment.

One of the things that is particularly grating to general members of society in the province of Alberta is that even though we do not have a provincial sales tax, we are now compelled to pay a sort of surreptitious provincial sales tax in order to help fund this $1 billion fund. This $1 billion fund has been called all kinds of things. I know that Mr. Speaker has advised us to be very judicious in our choice of words, so I have chosen the term persuasion fund, which I hope will pass the parliamentary committee.

Residents of Alberta are going to have to pay into this $1 billion persuasion fund whether they like it or not. Residents of Alberta are quite proud of the fact that they do not have to pay a provincial sales tax. Now of course it looks as though they do.

When the GST came about, we all remember the events which led up to the imposition of the GST. It was first talked about as having to be a 9 per cent tax. I remember very well. I was on county council in those days and we all agreed that if we had to pay some kind of a consumption tax in order to ever see our way clear of this deficit and debt that we would wind up having to pay for, that yes we could see ourselves paying some kind of a tax, provided that all of the revenues from that tax went toward debt reduction and deficit reduction.

As a matter of fact we even went so far as to say-and this was just brainstorming, it was nothing official or in the minutes of the meetings-we were talking among ourselves. We decided that if the government of the day were to say there would be no exemptions, there would be no kickbacks, there would be no partial exemptions-well, kickbacks perhaps, partial exemptions shall I say.

I will use the municipalities in Alberta as an example. They were exempt for I believe it was 57 per cent of the GST. I believe that is the correct amount. That necessitated the employees of the county of Ponoka to fill out a GST form to apply for this rebate on goods that they bought. They paid the full 7 per cent up front and then they were allowed to recover I believe it was 57 per cent of that by remitting the form.

We said that it was too complicated. Immediately we could see that it was going to require extra bureaucracy and extra help in order to figure out who was eligible and who was going to get the rebate and who was going to pay the full shot and so on.

We said that if it was something that was going to go straight toward the debt to reduce the debt and improve our lot in the days and years to come, then we could probably live with it if it was around 3 per cent and was applied to everything: toothpaste, diapers, bread. We said that we could handle that because we could see ourselves working toward a goal.

I believe the thinking of the government of the day was that if it started off at 9 per cent and wound up with 7 per cent, then the people of Canada would say: "Whew, at least it is not 9 per cent", and perhaps they would accept it.

The people of the constituency of Wetaskiwin told their sitting member, who was a government member at the time: "We will not support you. We do not want the GST. If you vote in favour of the GST we will not support you". The member said he heard what they were saying but the government of the day voted in the GST.

During that time the Liberals sat in opposition. There was a great hue and cry against the inequities and the unfairness of the GST. We could see during the election campaign how the Liberals promised to scrap, kill, abolish and otherwise do away with the GST.

[Canada Labour Code, November 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it has been more than 20 years since the Canada Labour Code was amended. Over that period, the Canadian labour force changed dramatically thanks to the rapid growth of technology.

For the most part, the code has served us well. Only a few changes are needed to improve the operations of the Canada Labour Relations Board and to ensure that strikes or lockouts do not negatively impact on the health, safety and economic well-being of Canadians.

It has been evident from the legislation presented by this government that there is a tendency to go overboard, gun registration being a case in point.

In the case of Bill C-66, the government is intruding on the rights of workers, employers and the Canadian public far more than is necessary. In its attempt to be all things to all people, this government has foisted a flawed bill on the Minister of Labour.

Even though the Canada Labour Code governs the activities of only 700,000 workers, federally regulated industries are often the lifeline for Canadian manufacturers, producers and processors. They are primarily service oriented, involved in free movement of goods, services, capital and people across Canada. Because of the unique nature of the federal system, alternative sources are not often available.

The goal of any legislation and regulation should be to create an environment which encourages economic growth.

The government should seize the opportunity to fulfil one of its red book promises, that being the one called jobs, jobs, jobs, by making sure that the Canada Labour Code allows businesses and their employees to operate on a level playing field.

We know that taxes kill jobs. The government infrastructure programs and other make work projects do not create permanent jobs. Vague labour legislation and regulations that are made on a case by case basis will not create jobs either.

With the unemployment rate at 10 per cent, 1.4 million people unemployed and more than 1 in 4 Canadians worried about losing their jobs, one would think the government would do its utmost to ensure a stable environment for conducting business.

Last week the Minister for International Trade released a study showing that after-tax costs of setting up a business in Canada average 6.7 per cent less than in the United States. This is good news for Canadians and could be a catalyst for job creation for businesses looking for a place to expand and invest.

The government should be helping by offering a secure and dependable infrastructure that would allow them to get their products to market and receive their raw materials unimpeded. Instead, Bill C-66 would only muddy the waters and become more of a deterrent than a booster of economic growth and job creation.

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

Stable labour relations will promote investment and reinvestment. Bill C-66 does not clarify what constitutes an essential service, nor does it spell out what constitutes undermining a union when replacement workers are used in a strike or a lockout. This is not fair to workers, employers or third parties who often have the most to lose in labour disputes that occur in federally regulated industries.

Scores of witnesses appearing before the industrial inquiry commission on industrial relations at west coast ports testified about the repercussions experienced by farmers and producers when strikes or lockouts prevent their crops and products from reaching markets.

Those witnesses convinced the members of the commission who in turn proposed a number of workable recommendations to solve the problem. Unfortunately the drafters of this legislation did not follow the commission's advice and came up with what at best could only be called a watered down or partial solution.

This half measure would ensure that grain, once it reaches port, would be loaded on ships. There is no provision, however, to ensure that grain reaches the port if there is a labour dispute elsewhere in the system. If that happens Parliament will be called upon to legislate everybody back to work.

Over the last 20 years Parliament legislated an end to 19 strikes in the transportation and grain handling sector. It is in the interest of labour and management producers and processors to resolve disputes without parliamentary intervention.

In the face of the growing importance of the global economy there is a need for continuous reliable shipping through Canada's ports and transportation sectors. The costly interruption of government business is not required. While there is a need for regulation by various levels of government it is not practical 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.

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 predictable rules and a timetable by which to negotiate. Canada has a world class transportation system and communications infrastructure that should not be vulnerable to closure.

A disruption in the day to day operation of vital transportation sectors inhibits the national economy from functioning. The potential impact of even a short work stoppage in many federal operations is catastrophic to Canadian business and to the Canadian economy as a whole. A strike in either the rail or truck sector cripples the automotive industry which must move finished products, raw materials and parts throughout North America on a daily basis.

Westerners rely heavily on the railways. Each year approximately 80 million tonnes of products, most of which are bulk commodities such as grain, coal, sulphur and potash, leave the prairies by rail on their way to consumers in domestic and international markets. Prairie shippers provide CN and CP rail with 50 per cent of their originating tonnage and contribute almost the same portion in revenues.

While it is impossible to put a price on the damage done to our reputation as a reliable exporter, the direct costs from the 1994 west coast ports dispute are said to have amounted to over $125 million. The estimated indirect costs, loss to future business and so forth, were in excess of $250 million and threatened $500 million in grain sales.

The risk to Canadian jobs must be minimized. Not only will a significant number of jobs be lost in the export sector if these disputes cannot be resolved, but jobs and the ports will be at severe risk when alternative means to ship goods are utilized. The use of U.S. ports could result in a loss of cargo and jobs in Canadian ports.

I recommended final offer selection arbitration many times in this House and to the Sims task force and the west coast ports inquiry commission. Final offer arbitration is a tool to effectively and permanently resolve labour issues that fall under federal jurisdiction. It does not favour one side or another and here is how it works.

If and only if the union and employers cannot make an agreement by the conclusion of the previous contract, the union and employers would provide the minister with the name of a person they jointly recommend as arbitrator. The union and 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 selection. The arbitrator then selects either the final offer submitted by the union or the final offer submitted by the employer; all of one or all of the other. The arbitrator's decision would be binding on both parties.

The measures contained in Bill C-66 will not, however, achieve the balance that the minister seeks. It will not promote harmonious relations between the two, nor will it ensure the uninterrupted flow of commodities to market.

If Canada is to be a major player in the global marketplace, it is incumbent upon us as legislators not to interfere but to provide logical, sound legislation under which workers and management can operate.

[Canada Labour Code, November 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There seems to be no English translation coming through.

[Petitions, November 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have petition, duly authorized, from 100 constituents in the Calgary area. In part it says that the undersigned believe that the application of a 7 per cent GST to reading material is unfair and wrong.

Among other things they ask Parliament to zero rate reading materials under the proposed harmonization sales tax, and ask the Prime Minister to carry out his party's repeated and unequivocal promise to remove the federal sales tax from books, magazines and newspapers.

[Veterans, November 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on November 11 Canadians will gather at cenotaphs from coast to coast to remember and say thanks to those who fought for peace and democracy.

School children are taught about the causes of war and how the battles were won, but can the history books convey the personal experiences of war? Each veteran has a story to tell of heroism, fear, sacrifice, camaraderie and the joy of coming home.

To keep the memory alive, I ask each and every veteran to record their personal tales. They can be written, dictated or videotaped. The legions could get involved by compiling the stories and donating them to the local schools or libraries.

Young people from every community in Canada left the comforts and safety of home to risk life and limb for strangers in other lands to make this a better world. Their courageous deeds must not be forgotten.

[Agriculture, November 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, like school yard bullies, the government likes to start fights with those it knows it can threaten and beat.

First it was the gun owners, ordinary citizens who will now have to pay to register their firearms or face criminal conviction for non-compliance.

Then the government, intent on its own version of crime control, turned its attention to grain farmers. A Manitoba farmer was sent to jail and about 150 others face charges for selling their grain in the United States.

Is it illegal for farmers to sell their crops? The courts said it was okay, but the agriculture minister, intent on protecting the wheat board's monopoly, secured an order in council to make it illegal.

This Liberal government will leave no stone unturned to stop farmers from getting a better price for their grain. Customs inspectors and RCMP officers have strict orders to apprehend these people. Meanwhile, the flow of contraband continues north and south across the 49th parallel.

[Human Reproductive And Genetic Technologies Act, November 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting nay on this motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Speech From The Throne, November 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I gave my first speech in the House on January 20, 1994 during the debate on the speech from the throne. I am disappointed that after two and a half years and two throne speeches little has changed.

Back then I expressed the views I had heard from people in the Wetaskiwin riding during a year of campaigning. They were concerned about the economic future of Canada. They were worried about the kind of Canada their children and their grandchildren would inherit. Over the Thanksgiving break I heard the same concerns repeated time and again by my constituents.

Before tackling the 1996 throne speech however, I would like to take a few moments to look back over the last two and a half years at the expectations and the realities of the 1994 throne speech.

The first throne speech promised that MPs pensions would be reformed but hopes for meaningful change were dashed when the Liberal caucus troughers would only accept minor alterations to their gold plated MP pension plans. The Reform Party MPs who anticipated fair retirement packages had their hopes dashed as well, so we opted out.

The ongoing unity debate and the continued growth of the national debt over the last two and a half years exposed this government as inefficient and ineffective.

The litany of broken election promises and forgotten pronouncements of two throne speeches are signalling an end to this government's honeymoon.

The 1996 throne speech commits the government to "promote a proper climate for economic growth and jobs". The government promises to do this by modernizing part I of the Canada Labour Code dealing with labour relations, an area not substantially changed in the last 20 years.

The workplace of the 1990s is very different from that of the 1970s. Restructuring and downsizing are the new realities. The government, instead of responding to the new challenges in a

positive and progressive manner, reverted to that old Liberal standby, a half million dollar study.

Studies do not put gas in the tank or pay the mortgage. Employers can no longer guarantee lifelong jobs to employees. Workers want the government to provide an environment where labour and management can focus their attention on the task at hand without the threat of a strike or lockout.

Last year when the Minister of Labour appointed a task force to review part I of the labour code, I hoped that the recommendations would include a mechanism for solving disputes. In the last 20 years Parliament has legislated an end to 19 work stoppages, including three in the last two years in the transportation and grain handling sectors. The combined costs of the west coast ports dispute and the railway strike/lock-out are estimated to be in the $4 billion range. Yet the task force failed to seize the opportunity and recommend measures that would ensure Canadian products reach their markets.

I recommended final offer selection arbitration to the task force as a mechanism to effectively and permanently resolve labour disputes that fall under federal jurisdiction. The industrial inquiry commission into west coast ports supported my position. 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. It puts the onus on both sides to reach an agreement and can be used equally by labour and management.

If the government is serious about improving industrial relations, minimizing conflict and bringing greater stability to federally regulated sectors, labour and management must be provided with a permanent, just, and effective dispute settlement mechanism. Now that the minister has had an opportunity to reflect on the report and compare it to the recommendations from the industrial inquiry on west coast ports, I expect that he will recognize the benefits of final offer arbitration and will make it a focal a point in the code.

Canadians have always been a step ahead of the old line governments. On October 25, 1993 voters showed that they wanted change. They tossed out the Tories believing that the Liberals had the people and the plan for the 1990s. What did they get? They got more of the same.

My colleague the member for Beaver River put it quite succinctly when she said that the Liberals find it very difficult to take a firm stand on anything except of course fences. After putting up with three years of fence sitting, Canadians are demanding decisive leadership.

My constituents told me that they want immediate action on the economy. They want tax relief now so that job creation can occur.

What have three years of Liberal rule brought Canadians? Since coming to power the Liberals have raised taxes 31 times. As a result of these tax increases the government will collect $25 billion in extra revenue by 1997. We know now what their debt reduction strategy is.

Even when the government reaches its target or if it reaches the target of 2 per cent of GDP or $17 billion, $70 million a day, $70 billion annually will have been added to our debt. If the debt increases at the rate that it has been, it will be $615 billion by 1997-98, an increase of $107 billion since the Liberals took office in 1993.

As long as the government continues to spend more than it collects in revenues it has to keep borrowing to meet its commitments. The interest on that borrowed money will be a whopping $50 billion this year alone. When that $50 billion is added to the $600 billion that we owe already, it is a double whammy for Canadians. That is $48 billion or $50 billion that will not be available for health care and social programs.

The Minister of Finance has to balance the budget by 1997-98. I suspect that he would like to balance the budget but I believe that his task is made even more difficult because of his prime ministerial aspirations. Unfortunately for him, his current boss does not realize the seriousness of the problem.

The Prime Minister acknowledges that "of course we have a debt but we can pay off our interest; we have no problem at all". Canadians know, even if the Prime Minister and his cabinet do not, that if you borrow money to pay the interest on loans and credit cards, you put yourself deeper and deeper into debt. Somehow the Prime Minister has missed this very basic reality of finance.

Only when there is an end to deficit financing will Canadians find the hope alluded to in the throne speech. When deficit financing ends, the Minister of Finance will be able to follow Reform's fresh start lead and ensure that future budget surpluses will be used to reduce taxes and to lower the debt.

Had the Liberals adopted the common sense suggestions made in Reform's taxpayers budget released last year, Canadians would be on the way to budget surplus, investor confidence, job growth and social program securities this year. Instead, the Liberals are extending the pain with no prospect of gain, to the point that their fiscal policy is not just being called unsustainable any more but immoral.

Canadians are willing to take the bitter medicine now if there is tax relief in sight. An aggressive attack on the deficit and a commitment to eliminating it by the year 1997-98 will be accepted

by taxpayers who do not want to leave a legacy of debt and deficit to their children. We simply cannot continue to borrow against our children's futures.

Studies show that if the Liberal trend of taxation is allowed to continue, children born today will pay 32 per cent of their life income in taxes. Future generations will be even worse off. They will have to pay an estimated 65 per cent of their earnings in taxes, thanks to the inability of today's government to come to grips with the debt and deficit.

After years of inept governments, Canadians are ready to take their future into their own hands. They recognize that the Canada pension plan and OAS programs cannot be counted on to finance their golden years. Canadians want control over their retirement savings to ensure that those golden years are not tarnished. Canadians do not want the government to impose higher taxes to prop up programs when their future viability is questionable. Canadians can look after themselves but only if the government curbs its appetite for taxes.

When the government embarks on a plan to make the Canada pension plan sustainable for future generations as proposed in the throne speech, it must completely revamp the program and not simply increase the premiums and raise the age of eligibility.

There are solutions to the problems we face. We need new ideas and a government that is not afraid to change. 1970s solutions are not applicable in the 1990s.

On October 17 the Reform Party took another unprecedented step and released a fresh start election campaign. Our plan will reduce the size of government. It will provide tax relief. It will make families a Canadian priority. It will make our streets safer and it will repair our social safety net.

I have appreciated the opportunity to speak on the throne speech today.