Elwin Hermanson

[National Co-Operative Week, October 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of my Reform colleagues with regard to National Co-Operative Week and International Credit Union Day.

The co-op movement has a long and proud tradition in my province of Saskatchewan. It has played a significant role in the development of the province, in our nation and lands beyond our borders.

I pause to reminisce for a minute. My father was involved in some of the early co-operative movements. In fact his membership number in the Western Credit and Savings Union in Swift Current, Saskatchewan, was 152 which indicates some of the history and grassroots nature of the movement.

Like most people in the prairies, and perhaps across Canada, I belong to several co-operatives. Interestingly enough, one of the first meetings I had as a member of Parliament was with the credit union management, members and boards of directors in west central Saskatchewan. It was a very profitable meeting, indeed. They were concerned about federal issues that are dealt with by the Parliament of Canada and they were happy to meet with their MP.

The concept is simple and sensible. A group of consumers or producers ban together to strengthen their bargaining position in the buying and selling of products. When members are buying they increase their competitive edge and when they sell they lower their marketing costs.

Co-ops have had their ups and downs, their triumphs and failures, as do most business enterprises, but they have been most successful when they have stayed out of the world of politics and focused on doing business and doing it well. Co-ops are businesses, and their job is to do business effectively for their owners, who are the co-op members, ordinary people who buy and sell.

Today I extend my best wishes to the co-ops and credit unions of Canada and the world. This includes their members, their boards of directors, their employees and their millions of customers.

[Point Of Order, October 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I was not given prior notice of this point of order.

It strikes me as a rather serious challenge by the hon. member that the auditor general should not be independent of government, not be independent of the opinions of the House when he studies the efficiency of the government and the spending of government. Certainly if the auditor general does not have the independence to make suggestions on whether or not governments have acted prudently, we have stripped him of his power and we have stripped him of his reason for being. Therefore I disagree with the hon. member. I think his argument is very weak and should not even be considered in the House.

[Canada Labour Code, October 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to participate in the debate on Bill C-317, sponsored by the member from the Bloc that deals with the ban on replacement workers.

The Bloc member favours a ban on replacement workers. This stems from the Bloc being very upset with the use of replacement workers by the American owners of the Montreal company known as Ogilvie flour mills. Because flour mills fall under federal jurisdiction and Quebec's provincial anti-replacement worker legislation had no effect on the company, I understand Bloc members feel it is important to bring the legislation forward to the House of Commons for us to review in private members' hour.

The proposal comes from a member of a separatist party that wants to take the province of Quebec out of Canada. We feel they do not realize the consequences of their actions. I do not think they realize the consequences of the bill as well. It is a bit like sandbox diplomacy where a youngster is playing in the sandbox and if he does not get along with his companion he says: "I am going to take my toys and go play in another sandbox. No one else can play with these toys; I will take them with me".

Hopefully when we are dealing with legislation and labour disputes we can get beyond sandbox diplomacy in politics. The sandbox approach to labour disputes and to labour legislation, particularly legislation such as the bill that would ban replacement workers, is not the solution to the problem. It would exacerbate the problem considerably.

I will not go on at great length debating the clauses of the bill proposed by my colleague. However I want to take a brief look at the consequences of labour disputes and perhaps a more constructive and positive way of resolving them other than banning replacement workers and getting into a frustrating battle between labour and management where people take sides. I would also advise my colleague from the Bloc that perhaps this approach to labour legislation and a relationship with labour is not in their political best interests.

All we have to do is look at our political cousins, the New Democratic caucus, and see what has happened to them over the years and what happened to them over this past weekend. They have always catered to the elite in the labour movement, the leaders, and felt that was the key to their political success. Even in their leadership convention over the weekend we saw where labour played a significant role in determining who the leader of the party would be. That has led to their political demise and even to an erosion of support among rank and file union workers because of their position on issues dealing with labour and management.

A word of advice to my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois is that perhaps for their political well-being they might not be advised to pursue this type of legislation.

I want to discuss labour relations on the west coast, which impact on my part of the world. Western Canada is important. I know we debate Quebec and its relationship within Canada quite a bit these days. However, I just want to deal with the labour situation and replacement labour and perhaps a better approach to solving labour disputes from my perspective in Saskatchewan.

Since 1972, six labour disputes relating to the west coast ports were settled by federal back to work legislation. Two other labour disputes were settled by federal back to work legislation in 1988 and 1991. They were also directly related to grain handling disputes in British Columbia, although they were somewhat different.

Within the current term of this 35th Parliament, two labour disputes have occurred at the west coast ports and there had to be back to work legislation. Specifically, these are the West Coast Ports Operation Act, Bill C-10, and the West Coast Ports Operation Act 1995, Bill C-74. These relate to disputes occurring in February 1994 and March 1995.

That brings me to the principle of the right to strike, the right to lock out workers, and the right to replace workers with so-called scab labour, or the opposite of that, the right to implement legislation that would ban the hiring of replacement workers.

The strike and the lockout are effective tools in the labour and management arsenal. They have been using these for a long time to bring about a resolution. Usually the side with the deepest pockets and the strongest resolve to win will force resolution in their favour. We respect this mechanism. If that is the approach that labour and management want to take, we respect it. It is not a

mature approach, but we live in a free country and that should certainly be considered.

In the case of the west coast ports, however, labour disputes are unique for a couple of reasons. One is that the federal government does not allow labour and management to actually carry the resolution process to the point where there is a disruption and it gets into a replacement labour situation or the banning of it. It passes back to work legislation as part of that. That has taught us that there is an innocent third party that is damaged economically. For that reason, there has been great pressure to find a better way to resolve management and labour disputes than through strike or lockout actions and subsequently through the use of scab labour or the banning of that same labour.

We have suggested that what has been working and has even been legislated by the House is the use of final offer selection arbitration. I would be more encouraged if my colleague had brought forward legislation that would take us from sandbox diplomacy with regard to labour relations and move it to a more mature ground, such as that of the final offer selection arbitration process.

The cost of the west coast ports disruption is in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The direct cost of the 1994 dispute was over $125 million. The indirect cost in the loss of future contracts was over $250 million. According to the Minister of Human Resources Development, the threatened grain sales could amount to $500 million.

Having outlined these problems, we did not leave the people in the lurch. We decided we had to do something constructive about this. We suggested the final offer selection process. It is a tried and true process. It is not a brand new idea. In fact, the process has been legislated in this House.

Perhaps it could have an expanded role beyond some of the essential services, such as west coast ports and national railways. It could be accepted by labour and management more readily, rather than going the route of replacement workers or a ban on replacement workers.

This is how final offer selection arbitration works. If, and only if, the union and the employer cannot make an agreement by the conclusion of the previous contract, the following measures are immediately put into place without work disruption. If there is no work disruption that means there are no replacement workers and that step has been precluded altogether.

The union and the employer are requested to provide the name of a person they would jointly recommend as a arbiter. The union and the employer are required to submit to the arbiter a list of matters agreed on and a list of matters still under dispute. For the disputed issues, each party is required to submit final offer for settlement and the arbitrator then selects either the final offer submitted by the trade union or the final offer submitted by the employer. In the event that one party does not submit a final offer, then the other side's offer is automatically accepted and the arbitrator's decision is binding on both parties.

This is the direction in which we believe labour and management relations should be going. It is the way to more maturely settle management-labour disputes. It precludes having to use replacement labour or banning replacement labour altogether. It prevents work disruptions. It prevents loss of pay for the workers. The collective bargaining process is still in place. It is still allowed to take its full course. The parties are brought together to resolve their disputes more quickly, more fairly, more equitably and more harmoniously.

I would ask the hon. member to consider when he brings future legislation to the House this as a third option which might be superior to others that have been considered.

[Points Of Order, October 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth. We previously brought to the attention of the House the fact that legislation submitted to committee prior to second reading has not had proper analysis at the committee level and has been denied adequate debate in the House.

Once the legislation goes to committee it does not come here for second reading, one of the most extensive reviews of legislation available to members of the House. That is gone. We are limited to a 180-minute debate just to review sending the legislation to committee, not to review the contents of the legislation.

When we agreed to this change in the rules we thought the potential was there to make committee work much more meaningful. However we have experienced in committee clause by clause study of legislation that is restricted to a few seconds per clause or a minute or so per clause. Things are rammed through. Then without second reading we came to third reading where the bill is approved in principle and no further amendments could be brought forth by members.

[Employment Equity Act, October 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the third reading debate of Bill C-64, an act respecting employment equity.

The hon. Minister of Human Resources Development has described the new employment equity legislation as follows: "This initiative is a significant step toward ensuring equitable employment opportunities for women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities".

The President of the Treasury Board has echoed the minister of HRD, suggesting the legislation is necessary to ensure equity and fairness in the workplace.

I suggest this is a snow job by the Liberal government which is masquerading as a beacon of light when it is moving us back toward the dark ages.

I suggest this because governments that have experimented with employment equity have found it does not work and it does not matter how you couch the term. It does not matter whether you say it is not exactly the same as the American employment equity program or not exactly the same as Bob Rae's legislation. The principle is whether it is working. It has not worked in the United States. It was rejected by the voters of Ontario. It was rejected even by the Liberal Party of Ontario.

Meanwhile its elder brothers and sisters in Parliament are pushing ahead Bill C-64, a bill respecting employment equity. It talks about numerical targets or goals. It simply is talking about quotas and it is federal legislation which means it is the law of the land.

It is wrong. It is draconian. It is against the will and wishes of the Canadian people and it is against the prevailing wisdom of those who have experimented with employment equity in its various ways, shapes and forms and who have found it does not work.

The Liberal government has couched employment equity in terms that mask the true intent of the legislation. I heard the hon. member before me saying it is not what we think it is, it is sort of a wishy-washy, mishy-mushy-wushy piece of legislation.

It is employment equity. That is what the bill is called and that is what we are talking about here. I wish hon. members on the other side would have the courage to say they are proposing employment equity rather than saying it is something new that we have never tried that we do not really understand.

The government is going about to ensure equity and fairness in the workplace for all Canadians? I doubt it very much. I believe it is imperative to provide the House with a non-biased, general definition of employment equity. We picked one that members on both sides of the House should agree is fairly accurate.

Employment equity could be defined as results oriented actions that a government department or contractor by virtue of its contracts with the government must take to ensure equal employment opportunity. An employment equity program includes such goals as correcting underutilization and correction of problem areas. In addition, it may also include relief such as payback, retroactive seniority, make-up goals and timetables.

I could speak on a lot of these but I want to briefly talk about the unprogressive manipulation this legislation includes, the goals and timetables the government will surely be following to implement and cement the numerical targets it talks about.

This definition outlines the intent of the legislation. The Liberals undoubtedly have timetables to indicate that certain percentages of employees must be appropriate to women, aboriginal persons, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities by a certain point. The employment equity policies can be viewed as results oriented, which indicates the results of proportional representation, regardless of qualifications, are the main focus of the legislation.

The Reform Party's position on this legislation is that an employment equity policy is unnecessary. It is ineffective. It is very costly. It is unpopular. Governments lose because they have tried to implement employment equity. It is discriminatory. It is intrusive. It is harmful to designated and to non-designated groups. The equality of all Canadians is recognized by affirming that hiring and promotion should be based solely on merit rather than on gender, race or other distinguishing factors of that nature.

Employment competition based on the merit principle is the key to both equality and productivity. The Reform Party has no qualms with encouraging the recruitment of qualified visible minorities and women through advertising and training programs. Visible minorities and women should then compete on a non-discriminatory, colour blind, gender neutral basis for jobs, promotions or educational positions.

The Reform Party believes discrimination is a heinous offence that needs to be rooted out of our workplace. However, this will not be achieved through employment equity legislation being orchestrated by the federal government. I believe private companies doing contract work with the government and government departments have the proper mechanisms to deal with discriminatory practices. Any problems not addressed by the company or the government department can be appealed to either provincial or federal human rights commissions under the human rights code.

Private companies in particular have a vested interest in maintaining a representative workforce because it makes good business sense. According to Fazil Mihlar of the Fraser Institute:

The market solution of the problem as it stands is discriminatory employment costs firms money; therefore if an employer refuses to hire the best candidate for a particular job, the productivity of the discriminating employer is bound to fall and consequently produce less profit. The more competitive the industry, the less likely firms are to engage in discrimination.

The bottom line is that companies are capable of achieving employment equity without governments imposing legislation.

I could talk about the American experience. We have already been criticized in the House for doing that, but if time permitted I would.

We did a bit of research on the breakdown of electoral success in the House of Commons by gender as calculated from the 1993 federal election. The numbers are interesting and also a bit revealing.

I will start with the Reform Party. We were successful in electing 29 per cent of the female candidates our party had nominated. This was without any manipulation or any intervention whatsoever. We only elected 25 per cent of our male candidates. In other words, one quarter of the men who won nomination in our party were elected to the House. A higher percentage, 29 per cent, of the women who were nominated at the riding level by the Reform Party of Canada were successful in the 1993 federal election. This is with no manipulation by the leader of the party, no directives from our party office telling the constituencies: "Make sure you nominate women. We want a lot of women nominated from our party."

The members of our party who selected female candidates chose excellent candidates who garnered the support of their constituents. They were more successful than the male candidates.

If we look at the Liberal numbers, they are about even. They were actually a little less successful in electing female candidates than they were in electing male candidates. Now, as we know, the Liberals elected a lot more MPs to the House, so the percentage of successful male candidates was 60 per cent. That is why they have a majority government.

With all the manipulation, with the bypassing of the constituency nomination process and the anointing of star female candidates, they elected 59 per cent of the females, one per cent less than the male candidates they elected. So the wisdom of the Liberal Party

hierarchy was not the same wisdom as the constituents in the ridings, who voted for who they felt was the best candidate.

This indicates the whole concept of employment equity, the playing around with quotas and jiggering around with results not based on merit but based on numerical targets does not work and is not effective. It even hurt the Liberals in the last election.

I see my time is running out. I want to talk about the party that has made the most noise about employment equity in Canada, the NDP. Of course, they have suggested very stringent quotas. They suggest that there has to be an equal number of women on their party councils and committees from top to bottom, inside and outside and around the corner.

They had 100 female candidates and they elected one, who happened to be their leader, the highest profile candidate they put forward to the Canadian electorate. So one per cent of their females were elected. They did not do so well on the male side either, but they did elect four per cent of their male candidates. This is from a party that has indicated that there must be employment equity, that it must be legislated and written in stone.

Instead of having the government on this side and the opposition on that side, they would almost want to have men on one side and women on the other and make sure it was equal. That is the approach they have taken to employment equity, and it just does not work. It has not worked for that party.

Why would the Liberals, who are intelligent people and a party that has been around for over 100 years, want to give us Bill C-64, which would try to impose upon companies and government departments what does not work in practicality, does not even work in their own party, which has been a failure everywhere it has been tried and which is disgusting and discriminatory by its very nature and is demeaning to the very people it is supposed to help?

I like to see visible minorities and female members in the House of Commons and in business, who are there because they are darned good, the best at what they do. I have a lot of respect for those people, whether they be black, white, yellow or red, whether they are male or female or whether they are handicapped in some way. I have a lot of respect for those people who made it on their own. If they are being given numerical quotas by a federal government and are given a position just because they happen to fit a certain category, it is demeaning to them.

I suggest this government should withdraw this legislation. It is wrong, it is immoral, and it does not work.

[Agriculture, October 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, actually the law is not always enforced. In fact, farmers do not know what the law is because there is no standard.

The minister in charge of Canadian customs, the Minister of National Revenue, has received notice that today trucks carrying farmer owned wheat and barley will pull in at Canada customs at the Peace Gardens in Manitoba. I would like to know if the minister has given orders to customs officials to seize the trucks or if he has given orders to let those trucks pass through into the United States?

[Agriculture, October 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of agriculture.

Canadian farmers have been delivering wheat and barley to the United States, often clearing Canadian customs without a Canadian Wheat Board export permit. On Tuesday, three American trucks hauling barley from Canada were seized by customs as they tried to enter the United States. Previously, these same trucks with the same product were allowed to enter the United States.

Is it legal or is it illegal? Are exports permitted or are they refused? Will the minister tell confused farmers why some trucks are seized and others are not?

[Explosives Act, October 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to rise in the House to address third reading debate on Bill C-71, an act to amend the Explosives Act.

I am happy to inform the House that my party is supporting Bill C-71. I will not go on at great length to discuss the bill because of that support. It is good to see legislation come forward in the House which is required and which we can support because so often legislation has been flawed.

My one criticism of the business of the House has been that we have had to deal with a lot of rather inconsequential legislation. While Bill C-71 is important, all members of the House would have passed the bill rather quickly. It has not received much obstruction. It seems odd that we are spending so much time on these bills of little consequence when there are issues like the national debt and deficit to deal with. UI reform is needed. Health care reform is needed. Those areas are being ignored by the government.

I notice the minister of agriculture is present in the House. Certainly there are agriculture issues which need to be brought to the front burner. We encourage members on the opposite side of the House to bring forward those very pressing issues.

Yes, we will give support to the common sense bills brought before the House like Bill C-71, but let us see a little more substance. Let us see a little more meat to deal with.

The bill to amend the Explosives Act will allow Canada to formally participate in an international convention on the marking of plastic explosives for the purpose of detection, a very worthwhile cause. The purpose of the convention is to make sure that as many plastic explosives in the world as possible are able to be detected by legal authorities mostly in airports to stop terrorism.

We all use airports, except perhaps the members from Ottawa who I am sure stay home all the time. We recognize the importance of safety and the importance of being able to detect explosives so that our air traffic continues to be safe. It is an anti-terrorism bill. Therefore I can give my hearty endorsement to the piece of legislation.

After the Air India tragedy and the PanAm bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, in the late 1980s, the United Nations passed two separate resolutions both in 1989. One was passed by the security council and the other by the general assembly. These resolutions urged the International Civil Aviation Organization, another U, body to intensify its work on an international regime for the marking of plastic explosives for the purpose of detection.

Out of those resolutions was born the convention I have already mentioned. It was put forward in Montreal in 1991 and was signed by 100 nations. Although Canada signed as well it did not have the legal authority to ratify it. The bill will grant Canada the ability to formally ratify the convention, another reason to endorse the legislation.

For the last four years research has been ongoing to consult with the industry and develop an appropriate chemical marker. It has been developed in labs in New Jersey. Now is the time to move forward.

Unfortunately the convention will not take effect until 35 nations become signatories, 5 of them producer nations. Five nations which produce plastic explosives need to sign this agreement. I understand that five producer countries have signed, among them Slovakia, Switzerland, Norway, the Czech Republic and Spain. Canada will be the sixth producer country to sign. This still means that only 13 countries including Canada will have legally ratified the convention. That is a long way from the 35 that are needed to actually put the wishes of the convention into reality.

I agree that the ordinary terrorist without international connections will be harder pressed to obtain material that will escape detection devices. Therefore the convention is a positive thing.

Interestingly the United States has signed the convention but as yet has not introduced legislation to ratify it. We talked with the explosives industry organization in Washington, the Institute of the Makers of Explosives. It endorses the convention and said that the Federal Aviation Administration, the lead agency in America dealing with the issue, may introduce legislation soon to ratify it but nothing has been done to date.

We have not had an incident for a long time like the Lockerbie incident or the Air India disaster. The urgency unfortunately has died down somewhat and the issue has probably taken a lower priority. I hope it will not take another tragedy to bring the issue to the world stage once more.

For whatever reasons the convention is not in force right now and therefore it really is not relevant right now. Probably until the United States recognizes it, no significant countries will join in ratifying the law.

The amendment to our own act will continue to be irrelevant until we do something on a political level to bring the United States into the game. Until that happens nothing will ever get done and airline passengers all over the world will be at greater risk from the plastic explosives going undetected in aeroplanes.

A couple of weeks ago the member for Fraser Valley East called on the Minister of Natural Resources to urge her American counterparts to do something about it, to urge them to go ahead and ratify the convention so that other nations would come on board. My colleague has since received a letter from the minister saying that the Americans are already working on legislation implying that there is no need to address the problem.

We would reply that the Americans have been working on it for years with no action. The minister needs to express her concerns directly on a political level to her American counterpart and we are calling on her again today to do that. We want the minister to call her American counterpart and bring him up to speed on the issue. We urge the United States to move on the issue and formally approve the convention so that we can keep terrorism where it belongs. Of course it does not belong at all.

The minister also promised in her letter to participate in an American study that will examine the cost and benefits of marking conventional explosives that are being used in the biker bombings in Montreal to see whether it would be cost effective to identify all

explosives and not just plastic explosives. We are pleased to hear that Canada will take part in this study and we look forward to the results.

In conclusion, I reiterate that I support Bill C-71. My colleagues support Bill C-71. It will not set the world on its head but it is a step in the right direction and is worthy of our support. It is certainly a shame that the government is not moving ahead with a Canadian agenda but instead is keeping to housekeeping legislation like this which we could have moved through even more rapidly than it is going through the House.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the legislation and look forward to its speedy passage.

[Oceans Act, September 29th, 1995]

The program is a failure.

[Oceans Act, September 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy if the member could respond to me perhaps even in his own time when we are not in the Chamber. These concerns were expressed to me by the people who make their living from fishing in Atlantic Canada.

The fisherman said the minister is not standing up for his industry, that he is throwing roadblocks in their way and none of the Liberal MPs from Atlantic Canada are standing up and speaking for them. They are very concerned and appalled. They have 31 Liberal MPs in Atlantic Canada and one Progressive Conservative MP and quite frankly they do not see much difference between the two parties. They were asking if no one in Ottawa was going to speak up on their behalf about these access fees. They see these fees as a tax imposed on them to put them out of business.

I implore the member for Hillsborough and his colleagues, the other 30 Liberal MPs from Atlantic Canada, and the Progressive Conservative member for Saint John to vote against Bill C-98 unless there is a commitment from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to not impose these access fees, this horrible tax on the fishing industry. These entrepreneurial fishermen keep the rural and coastal communities of Atlantic Canada alive.

If those members refuse to listen to their constituents, if they insist on voting with their party, voting with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, voting with the Minister of the Environment on this issue, I emphasize they will not be voting for their constituents. In the future why should these hard working people vote for members of Parliament who come to the House and refuse to vote for them? These are rhetorical questions but I would appreciate answers from the Atlantic members of Parliament in the House.