Ray Speaker

[Supply, March 23rd, 1995]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[The Economy, March 22nd, 1995]

I love these Wednesdays.

[The Economy, March 22nd, 1995]

Colleagues, I am having a little bit of difficulty hearing and understanding the questions at this end of the Chamber.

[Alberta, March 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to comment on a remarkable story of growth.

The province of which I speak surged ahead of all other provinces in 1993 and its real GDP rose 5.1 percent, more than double the national average of 2.2 per cent. Both international and interprovincial exports rose and record crop and livestock production lifted farm incomes substantially. Labour income also rose markedly, accompanied by a significant jump in consumer spending.

How did this happen? Was large scale government intervention in the economy the cause of this excellent growth rate? No, it was not.

The growth that has occurred in Alberta, a province which has cut its spending by nearly 20 per cent in the last two years, is the result I am talking about.

To all of the McCrakens, the Whites, the Hargroves and the Axworthys of the world, if you want growth that benefits all citizens in Canada, do not increase government spending, cut it.

It is time the Alberta advantage became the Canadian advantage.

[Point Of Order, March 20th, 1995]

Unanimous consent is not given for the introduction of the bill at this time.

[Point Of Order, March 20th, 1995]

My colleagues, I wish to inform the House that in accordance with a representation made by the government, pursuant to Standing Order 55(1), I have caused to be published a special Order Paper giving notice of introduction of a government bill. In just one moment I am going to lay upon the table the relevant document.

However, I have a point of order from the member for Kingston and the Islands. Is there any comment? I invite comment only for the reason that I thought the hon. member for Laurier-Saint-Marie was rising to his feet before I put the question. There being no comments, is there unanimous consent?

[Labour, March 16th, 1995]

I ask colleagues on a supplementary question for perhaps a sentence and then to put the question.

[West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995, March 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on third reading of Bill C-74.

We want to move those ships out full of western Canadian grain. I appreciate the member from Winnipeg's indicating that to this assembly.

For many years in my period of time as a member of the Alberta Legislature there were numerous opportunities, I remember about 12, where governments of Canada, both Liberal and Conservative, did not have the gumption or the aggressiveness to deal with this problem.

We in Alberta moved resolution after resolution asking the federal government to pass legislation to put the workers back to work. The governments did it but to a major cost to western Canadian farmers over and over again.

A year ago it cost us a lot of money, $35 million in demurrage and penalties. The Alberta Wheat Pool tells us there was $100 million in terms of loss to the Canadian economy and $450 million in lost sales for grain farmers. That is provided by the figures from the Canadian Wheat Board.

Many dollars were lost. Even in this short time that the workers were off work, we suffered serious losses. One of my colleagues illustrated in the House earlier that the strike cost one of our alfalfa shippers $250,000 because they could not get it off the boat and into the marketplace. That market was lost to some American producers. I do not think that is fair.

I understand the minister and the government were advised several days ago that an agreement could not be reached. Why did we not bring legislation into the House so that if a strike did occur we could act immediately and put the workers back to work?

This is the first step in a series of responsibilities the House will have. We have not settled the matter with regard to Montreal. My colleague, the member for Lisgar-Marquette, has illustrated that point very well on how one of his producers

or processors in that province of Manitoba is affected in a very significant way. We have to deal with that. Why did we not deal with that tonight and get it over with for the industry?

We do appreciate that the minister has brought the legislation before this assembly. We give her full credit and compliment her for that and compliment the composition of the legislation as it is. It has met one of the needs of western Canadians. The minister deserves that credit.

I also on behalf of my colleagues want to give the minister credit for the fact that she and the government intend to set up a commission or some body to look at ways we can deal with this problem on a basis that does not require legislation or a knee-jerk reaction every time workers walk off the job or there is a lockout, as is the case at the present time. I give the government full credit for that.

In all the years federal governments have dealt with this issue they have always brought legislation in to put the workers back to work or prevent or stop a lockout and they stopped there. They were afraid to challenge the unions on this very basic question. They were afraid to do what they thought would disturb the collective bargaining process and they wanted to maintain the integrity of that process.

Western Canadian farmers face a very unique situation. It is different. We as farmers in the west are victims of the collective bargaining process. We pay the bills. When there is demurrage to be paid we pay it as farmers. When there is loss of sales we pay it as farmers. Whatever the losses are we are the ones who pay. It is not management. It is not the unions. They do not pay any of it. There are no losses on their part. It is the person who ships the raw product, grain and other agricultural products, or our processed products into the export market. We are the victims.

The collective bargaining process as it now stands is completely unfair. The right to strike in that process does not fit that circumstance at all.

There must be a different approach. I have recommended in private members' Bill C-262 that we look at a process by which there is binding arbitration and that each party provides to the arbitrator a final position.

The arbitrator then would choose one position or the other and at that the work continues and there is an agreement for both of the parties. That is one of the options we should look at. Maybe there are other options.

The minister has indicated there will be a commission. The matter will be studied. I hope that is not a diversion or a delay. I hope the minister and Prime Minister are very sincere that there will be recommendations that will come into either the June portion of this session or into the fall session of the House whereby we deal with the problem once and for all.

It can be done without violating what we talked about, the collective bargaining agreement process by which management and employees can settle their various disputes.

Agriculture is different from General Motors, for example. General Motors has management. Its employees produce automobiles. If the automobiles are not manufactured and sold, management and employees are affected. It does not affect the other people beyond that. That is the very basic difference in terms of these two processes.

We intend to support this legislation. We want the government to support it and move quickly on it. We want it to deal with the other circumstances affecting the export of agriculture and other export products. We want that to happen as quickly as possible. If it needs to be done tomorrow let us do it tomorrow and not wait until there is a major crisis in our economy.

We are looking forward to some major changes in legislation this fall that will deal with this problem on a long term basis.

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

That's because you are listening to us.

[Fisheries, March 13th, 1995]

I will take that as a wave.