Dale Johnston

[Rail Strike, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the Minister of Transport said that the Government of Canada had a responsibility to maintain a rail system that is viable, competitive and affordable. Over the past week I submit that the government has failed to do all three of these things. It has failed farmers, manufacturers, consumers and commuters. Why has it failed? I believe it is because the government does not have a plan.

Why has the government not tabled a long term plan to ensure that rail stoppages are a thing of the past?

[Rail Strike, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the week long rail stoppage has cost Canada dearly. Canada has lost over $5 billion, of which farmers have lost $100 million, exporters have lost $1 billion and $2 billion has been added to the public debt. These are just the short term costs. The total will climb even higher because our clients have lost confidence in our transportation system.

My question is for the Minister for International Trade. What plans does the minister have to address these long term costs?

[Rail Strike, March 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it would certainly be nice if Canadians could see Mr. Fraser's report. We are becoming all too familiar with the secretive and rather stalling tactics of presenting these reports in the House.

Will the Minister of Labour tell the House if this report actually contains any anti-replacement worker legislation?

[Rail Strike, March 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in April of last year the government commissioned Paul Fraser to prepare an independent report on labour issues at CP, CN and VIA Rail.

If this report is worth anything at all, why were the recommendations not implemented in time to save the collective bargaining process and have the parties come to an agreement on their own without having to resort to back to work legislation and a $3 billion hit on the Canadian economy?

[Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995, March 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I believe it was Yogi Berra who said, and if it was not Yogi I am sure he will not mind if I attribute it to him, it seems like déja vu all over again.

Last week it was back to work legislation for the port of Vancouver and this week it is for most of the railways. I suggest the time has long past for the government to get serious about labour issues and come up with a long term solution that does not rest on the usual crisis management approach of back to work legislation.

We can draw some comfort from the fact that Bill C-77 does contain a guiding principle which allows the commissioners to look at long term solutions. I am pleased to see that clause in the bill. However, since they have 70 days to file a report, I hope their suggestions are acted upon faster than those contained in the Fraleigh report, the Hope report, or even the long delayed and never seen Fraser study.

Perhaps I am beginning to sound like a broken record. I have said it so often in this House, and I think it bears repeating. I want to impress upon this government that we have to look to the future and find better ways to deal with work disruptions.

I want the House to know that the Reform Party is concerned and that is why my colleague, the member for Lethbridge introduced Bill C-262. That bill was specific in that it would have applied to the grain industry but the principle of final offer arbitration is one that can be applied in any labour dispute.

When the bill came up for a vote on Monday, we discovered that the government has made an new ally with the Bloc and even the NDP, the very people who are responsible for holding up speedy passage of this bill, and as a result shot down Bill

C-262. I was disappointed by the coalition that was formed against that very sensible bill.

As is evidenced in Bill C-77, the government is putting its agenda first and perhaps labour issues second. The difference in the coming into force provision of CN, CP and VIA Rail, perhaps indicates that the government is more concerned with protecting the government's interest in CN than helping Canadian shippers, manufacturers, farmers and workers. The cost to the economy is maybe secondary. Securing a positive atmosphere for the sale of CN might be the primary goal here.

Does it not matter as much that VIA is losing $1 million a day or that passengers are inconvenienced? Does it not matter that the transportation of goods in this country is paralyzed? Does it not matter that our international trade reputation is in jeopardy, suffering another blow that perhaps we cannot recover from this time?

As we speak, container vessels are steaming out of Canadian ports and off to U.S. ports. The whole time the Bloc and the NDP are stalling, ports throughout Canada including Quebec are losing port fees and pilotage charges. The American longshoremen have been collecting the wages that Canadians are missing.

The trucking companies are missing out on business that helps them and their workers to survive, to pay their bills and to feed their families. Our balance of payments with our free trade partner are tipping further in favour of the U.S.

Now let us look a little closer at the real impact of this work stoppage. On the east coast the port of Halifax estimates that it has lost $1.25 million so far in this strike alone. Eight ships have already left for New York. We all know that the economy of eastern Canada just does not need nor can it sustain this kind of setback.

On the west coast the port of Vancouver was just recovering and getting back on stride after back to work legislation when this disruption came along. Now the port of Vancouver is effectively grinding to a halt again. At the moment 22 ships are at berth in the port of Vancouver, four of which are grain vessels waiting for loads of grain. Ten more are at anchor, three of which are grain carriers. British Columbia coal miners are anxious to see their four coal carriers now at dockside loaded so that mines can keep operating and miners can keep working.

The strike has tremendous spinoff and domino effects. It is not only the people on strike who are suffering or all the industries that depend on that form of transportation. The potash industry will soon slow down if the two ships waiting at anchor cannot load their cargoes.

Why is it that we still cannot get unanimous support to provide speedy passage of the bill? Of course it is inevitable. It is just delaying the inevitable to hold up the bill.

Vancouver's loss is Seattle's gain. Halifax's loss is New York's gain. Job losses are the order of the day in manufacturing. If car manufacturers cannot get their parts they have to lay off workers. If they are not supplying cars, dealers do not have cars to sell and have perhaps been laying off people in their dealerships.

Farmers are extremely vulnerable to the whims of the transportation system. The only option they have is to hope the situation will be alleviated before it gets worse and worse. About all they can do at the moment is hope and sit back and watch their hard-won international contracts go down the drain, contracts that may be impossible to get back. After all, why would a buyer renegotiate a contract with a Canadian who could not guarantee the product will be delivered for the promised date? Buyers will go elsewhere, all because the government was slow to react and because the Bloc and the NDP did not care about the average Canadian worker.

We were asking for the legislation a week ago. If it had been introduced a week ago we would be further down the path to having it passed and assented to than we are at this point.

It is inevitable. I understand my colleagues in the opposition making a political statement. I suspect the statement has been made now. The real loser is the Canadian worker who gets laid off from his job simply because the system is backed up.

We are putting the government on notice that the Reform Party will be watching to make sure it has the best interests of Canadians in mind and that it is not just out to protect and fortify the sale of CN.

We want to know what criteria the minister will apply to her ministerial order to put CP and VIA workers back to work. Will she put them back to work when she thinks the levels of services have dwindled, or will she listen to the people who actually use the services such as the shippers and the Canadian Wheat Board? Will she be listening to those people? We will be watching to see that she does.

We expect she will take into account the impact continued stoppage will have on the wheat board, car manufacturers, small business people, grain producers, coal miners, lumber producers and kids who will not get a new pair of shoes because their parents have been laid off from their jobs. Many people are having a very difficult time with their payments. Even a week off work can be catastrophic to them.

As a Montrealer I am sure the minister can appreciate the problems faced by travellers and workers who are having difficulty getting themselves and their goods in and out of that city. When Toronto commuters are inconvenienced or late for work, their business, productivity and families are affected.

We are prepared to give the minister the benefit of the doubt. We are prepared to believe the minister will do the right thing, that she will order CP and VIA back to work before there are any devastating disruptions if there have not already been some.

The Reform Party intends to support the bill. I suggest the other parties in the House have made their political statement and have made their political point. Now we should all get behind the bill and do what is right for Canada.

[Labour, March 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister, but perhaps she missed the question. The question was: When can Canadians expect to see legislation that will deal with this situation in the long term? The back to work legislation has nothing to do with the long term.

[Labour, March 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the government and the Bloc party teamed up to defeat a Reform Party bill that would have alleviated the problems we presently have in the labour front.

When can this government bring forth legislation that will put an end to this sort of thing once and for all for the sake of the producers and farmers in this country?

[Business Of The House, March 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today. The whole transportation system in Canada being tied up is a matter of pressing concern.

These services are never considered to be essential until after the services are withdrawn. We are not talking strictly about a strike. We are talking about a work stoppage. A work stoppage can be brought about whether it is a strike or a lockout. Whenever I refer to this situation I am talking about the work stoppage. People will understand we have work stoppages taking place in two separate areas. One is the withdrawal of services and the other is an area where the people are actually locked out.

These work stoppages result in a lot of lost jobs. My friends in the government party have campaigned vigorously on restoring jobs. This is certainly an opportunity for them to put up in this case, put their best foot forward and come up with legislation that will put these people back to work.

This is a stop gap measure. This is not a solution for the long haul. My party has been encouraging the government to come up with some long term solutions. For labour and management to have the possibility of back to work legislation constantly a threat they do not exactly sharpen their pencils and come to their best position. A case in point is where we have these contracts expiring up to 27 months before the actual work stoppage takes place. That is not collective bargaining at its best. That is not the process working.

In the House on March 3 I asked the minister what she was prepared to do in order to come up with some long term solutions. I was assured the collective bargaining process was working wonderfully and could expect it to work that way in the future.

Obviously it has not. Here we are once again trying to get unanimous consent from the House. I hope we do so we can get the parties back to the table, the rolling stock moving on the rails again, the passenger trains running again and the freight moving to its customers. That is of utmost importance. It is not just that we are looking at losses to farmers. We are looking at losses to farmers, huge losses, but there is a great spinoff of lost jobs as well.

Once these jobs are lost it will be impossible to get them back. Once the buyers of our services and our goods have decided they can get them from other sources it will take a lot of negotiation and a lot of proving that we will not put up with this kind of labour disruption in the future to prove to them that we are a reliable supplier of goods and services.

The people in the Bloc seem not to support the notion of introducing this legislation. It is of utmost importance to introduce this legislation today. I call on my colleagues from the Bloc to give their consent to this legislation so that we can debate it properly and get the parties back to the table and the freight moving again. To do otherwise is partisan politics at its worst, not looking at Canada's overall benefit.

Our colleagues in the Bloc could easily dismiss this as one of Canada's problems. After all, their ultimate goal is to separate from Canada. They could implement any kind of labour legislation they like. I would plead with them to support the introduction of this legislation today.

I assume me colleagues in the NDP will not support the introduction of this bill today. It would be extremely difficult for them to justify to their constituents how they could hold up a bill for another 48 hours which would effectively bring to the market the goods their constituents are producing. This is an extremely costly situation. It is not just the direct jobs, but the spinoff jobs. The long term effect of this has not been addressed.

Many customers of Canada's goods in the past have put up with disruptions of this type and are counting on back to work legislation. If this is not dealt with, to get these people back to the table and to get these parties talking again and the stock moving at a reasonable pace, our customers will say this is the last time they are prepared to put up with this kind of here today, gone tomorrow freight service. They will start looking for alternate routes to ship their goods.

Mr. Lorne Hehn, chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board, said we cannot afford to shut down a multibillion dollar industry for the sake of a few people. These services are never considered essential until after they have been withdrawn. Suddenly these are essential services.

When will this government come up with legislation to deal with these problems over the big picture, rather than this crisis management attitude?

At the moment crisis management is something we must consider in order to get us over this hump. I implore the government to come up with similar legislation to what it so very efficiently defeated here, presented by my colleague in Bill C-262.

The senior grain transportation committee voted on October 14, 1994 to support a system of final offer arbitration for all labour negotiations affecting grain movement. I have heard some of my colleagues in the Bloc say this effectively bans the collective agreement process. This is absolutely ridiculous. It is an augmentation to the collective bargaining process. This is not something imposed on the partners in the collective bargaining process from on high. It is something either one of the parties can invite.

It induces those parties to come up with a reasonable offer, their best offer to begin with. Instead of having negotiations or pseudo negotiations for 27 months, as in the case of one union, they could get their heads together and figure out their final position and present that position to begin with, rather than to parley back and forth for 27 months without getting anywhere.

This is a controversial bill and some of my colleagues in the House are philosophically opposed to having this bill presented. I implore them to allow it to be presented. I passionately ask they allow first reading of the bill so we can at least debate it and get it on the floor of the House where it belongs and to do what we can to begin to replenish or regain our reputation as a reputable supplier of goods.

[Charitable And Non-Profit Organization Director Remuneration Disclosure Act, March 17th, 1995]

I hope it sounds good to my research assistant too, who should take some solace in that.

I am sure that most people in the House realize and recognize that Reform MPs are making considerable donations in their constituencies, as a percentage of their income, to charities. We are all fairly well versed in the charities that are available in the community. As the previous member also said, this is intended in no way to call into question the good which these charities and non-profit organizations do.

As a matter of fact, I could see this as being an augmentation to the good they do. If too much of their collected funds actually do go to administration and so forth, then I am sure the people who have volunteered many hours to ensure these organizations and charities are a success would be very disheartened to learn of exorbitant salaries and fees paid to board members and executives.

I do not intend to take up my full time on this bill. A few words are as good as many words in a case of this type.

[Charitable And Non-Profit Organization Director Remuneration Disclosure Act, March 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to speak on this private member's bill. I would like to congratulate my friend from Hamilton-Wentworth for putting it before the House.

This is a bill which I do not think the Reform Party would have any problem supporting. It is about two things which we feel very strongly about, accountability and public disclosure.

We all have made contributions to non-profit groups and to charities and I am sure that all of us at times have wondered just what percentage of our dollars actually goes to the cause, which was mentioned by the previous speaker. How much of it goes to the cause and how much of it goes to administration and bureaucracy? This bill will go a long way in allaying some of our fears. There is nothing like information to put one's mind at rest. Certainly speculation and fear of the unknown are things which lead to more and more speculation.

While we are talking about accountability and public disclosure, I note that the previous speaker mentioned the pension plan. It was my understanding that there was great difficulty trying to get the record of who had received parliamentary pensions in the past, the amounts and also the amounts which were put in by the member and the amounts which were paid by the taxpayer. Perhaps a companion bill sometime down the road, along the lines of public disclosure and accountability for publicly paid pension plans, would be a great idea as well.

I have to make apologies to my research assistant, who actually wrote two speeches for me today, but I am using neither of them. I send my apologies to him.