Leon Benoit

[Supply, March 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have seldom heard as much distortion of another party's policy at one time. The member has done an excellent job of that and I congratulate her if that is her goal. There has not been that much distortion from a single member in a long time.

The member referred to the Liberal budget and how there has been so much flexibility given to programs under the budget. I would like to ask the member how this budget gives flexibility when it will still mean adding $24 billion per year, by the finance minister's own figures, to the debt and when interest payments on the debt will increase to $51 billion per year by the end of the three-year period?

How does that give flexibility to social programs where billions and billions more will have to be taken from social programs to make interest payments? How does that give flexibility if the Canadian economy collapses and we go hat in hand to the International Monetary Fund asking for a loan and it says that we have to get rid of a lot of our social programs, otherwise it will not lend us the money? How does that give flexibility?

[Agriculture, March 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House I asked for clarification from the agriculture minister on exactly who the Crow payment is intended to benefit: landowners or actual farmers. I did not receive an answer to this very basic question. This is extremely frustrating since western Canadian farmers have a number of other questions they would like this government to answer as well.

For example, is the purpose of the $1.6 billion payout to compensate for losses in land value, or is it meant to be a transition fund for farmers who have lost the Crow benefit but are still shipping grain? What accommodations have been made within the phase out plan for renters and lessors? How will the money be paid to farmers? When can farmers expect to receive the money? Specifically, what measures will be taken to allow the system to become more efficient and to give farmers more flexibility in marketing?

The government must not keep western Canadian farmers in the dark on these issues any longer. Farmers must be able to plan with certainty and recoup some of the losses which will result from these cuts.

[Crow Rate, March 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on February 27, 1995 a departmental paper said the phase out money would go to landowners to help compensate for the loss of land value.

The next day the agriculture minister was quoted as saying that he was open to the possibility of encouraging provincial governments to pass the payment on to land renters.

The minister seems confused. Is the payment meant to compensate for the loss in land value or to help compensate for the extra freight cost? Farmers need an answer on this.

[Crow Rate, March 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, farmers need clarification from the minister of agriculture as to who the Crow phase out payment is intended to benefit. Is it intended to benefit landowners or is it intended to benefit farmers?

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

Mr. Chairman, tomorrow let us get back to work legislation on the rail strikes. Next week let us get legislation before the House that will prevent this from happening again next year and in the years following.

I would like to thank my fellow members of caucus who have worked so hard in pushing for an end to this strike. I would like to thank in particular the member for Wild Rose for asking yesterday for an emergency debate to end the longshoremen strike which stopped movement of grain and other products. I would also like to thank the Liberal government and the labour minister for her action in legislating this strike to an end.

I want to talk about the costs this strike will bring to farmers, that the strike last year brought to farmers, that the rail strike will continue to bring to farmers in western Canada and to others who depend on this movement system.

Particularly for the farmers these costs include demurrage costs on ships that wait to be loaded. It cost millions of dollars last year in the 12-day strike. It took the government 11 days to act last year. I guess it is to be congratulated. It took less time this year with this strike. How long is the government going to take on the rail strike? We have yet to see.

There are 28 ships waiting in port right now with 17 more ships due by Friday. More than 60 per cent of the grain exports are not moving. Grain elevators are backed up. Lost sales which we incur with each of these strikes are the biggest single cost to farmers and for other shipping commodities through the west coast and other ports.

What is the value of lost sales in grain due to this strike, due to the rail strike which still continues, due to the strike last year? Last year the estimated cost over the 12-day strike was over $200 million in lost sales. This year for the longshoremen strike it will be millions more. We do not know when the rail disruption will end. I would like to ask the minister when she plans to end the rail disruption.

Why did this longshoremen strike and the rail strike ever happen? In 1992 a contract ended. We knew, this minister knew, this Liberal government knew, Reformers certainly knew, farmers knew and union members knew there would be a work stoppage.

It has become tradition for unions to depend on back to work legislation to end strikes and lockouts. It has become tradition because they have learned over the past years they do very well by waiting for government to legislate them back to work. In some cases the agreements have actually been better than they have been asking for in negotiation. Labour has come to depend on governments legislating them back to work.

Why did we have to wait until the work stoppage actually came into effect? Why are we waiting for the rail strike to continue? When will the minister act in that regard?

Last year when government legislated an end to a disruption on the west coast, the Reform Party presented during the debate positive alternatives which, if implemented, would have prevented this situation from ever happening. Reform pushed for last best offer arbitration during last year's debate. Nothing was done. I would like to quote from a speech that I gave about a year ago in the House in very similar circumstances.

I want to present one of the Reform options which I presented to the House at that time and which the Liberal government should have responded to then and which I ask it to respond to now.

I talked about two options. The second option:

-is to put in place a better labour-management negotiation process. This could involve ensuring that a new agreement will be in place before the old one expires-

To accomplish that an arbitrator could be appointed approximately six months before a contract expires. If a settlement has not been reached within two weeks of the end of the contract, then an arbitrator would ask management and labour to come up with their best offer, their best position. The arbitrator would then pick one, either the labour position or the management position. One position would be completely accepted and the other position completely rejected.

Under this process a strike would not be allowed to occur. This is good for labour. It is good for management. It is good for western Canadian grain farmers and others using the system. These options should be considered in developing a long term solution to the recurring disruptions in the grain handling system.

That is what I recommended in debate last year.

Since then the hon. member for Lethbridge has put forward a private members' bill on this issue, Bill C-62, which he will talk about later. In that bill is the process for dealing with last best offer arbitration.

I encourage the government after the third hour of debate which takes place at noon on Monday to be here to vote in favour of Bill C-62 so that we will have in place a mechanism that will work and that will satisfy labour and management to some extent. It will prevent these disputes and these disruptions from happening in the future.

I call on the Liberals now to be here on Monday to listen to the third hour of private members' debate and to vote so that these disputes will not occur in the future.

As my last question I ask the hon. Minister of Labour if she will support Bill C-262 which will put in place a last best offer arbitration procedure that will prevent any disruptions in the grain handling system from occurring in the future?

I ask the labour minister that now and I encourage her to support the bill next Monday. I ask her whether she will support this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is sad that I must stand here today to talk about putting an end to a strike that should not have happened.

This type of work stoppage has happened again and again. There have been over 25 stoppages in the grain handling system in the last 25 years. There is no need for that.

The irony is that as we debate putting an end to this longshoreman strike, at this very time there is a labour disruption effecting rail movements which will still prevent the proper movement of grain and other commodities to market.

I refer to the Minister of Labour's response in question period yesterday to a question from the hon. member for Simcoe Centre. He said: "The Minister of Labour may have time to wait and sort this out but Canadian farmers do not. Present shipments are in danger. They must plan for future crops now and should not have to worry about whether the rail system will be there when they need it. I ask the minister again, when will the government introduce back to work legislation?"

The response from the Minister of Labour was: "I would like to ask the Reform member to remain calm and to refrain from spreading panic among the parties concerned. As we speak, grain is moving in the west, in Vancouver this very day. We should keep in contact with the parties and keep in mind that it is always better to negotiate an agreement than to envision legislating these people back to work".

The hon. member for Simcoe Centre said in his next question: "We have been calm far too long. When is the time to get nervous? It is right now. There have been 13 work stoppages in 29 years. Our western grain growers cannot afford to bear the brunt of another strike. Canada's transportation system must be reliable or our customers will go elsewhere. Once the back to work legislation is passed, will the government take steps to ensure the threat of future rail strikes is removed once and for all?"

The minister's response was: "As usual, the hon. member is going a bit too fast. At this stage, legislation is out of the question, so I will not answer hypothetical questions".

The minister's response to the Reform member's question was not acceptable then and it is not acceptable now.

Today we are talking about ending a strike which affects longshoremen. It is not good enough to do this today. We must bring in back to work legislation tomorrow to end the rail strike which will still cost farmers and other shippers money tomorrow, Friday, Saturday and the day after that.

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member who just spoke. He talked about how the Liberal budget will do a wonderful job and how it will solve the problem in terms of the present fiscal situation.

How will the hon. member explain to his constituents the loss of jobs, increased and continued high interest rates and eventually the lost social programs that will result from the inactivity of the government?

Let me refer to the interest costs on the debt that have increased from $39 billion from the time the government took office. They will be $51 billion, just the interest payments on the federal debt, by the end of the three-year budget period.

How will the hon. member explain this to the people in his riding who are looking for jobs, looking for relief from high interest rates on their mortgages, and looking for security in social programs?

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order I would like to say that it disturbs me-

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Oh, oh.

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member in his presentation said that he was quite proud that the government has met the deficit reduction target of 3 per cent of GDP in three years. The member stated that beyond 1996-97 the deficit will continue to fall under a Liberal government.

If this is the case why does the Liberal government not set a definite date for arriving at a balanced budget? Why does it not set a definite target? The positive results of setting a definite target will be that businesses will expand and new businesses will start up. That is what creates jobs. A positive effect would be lower interest rates and security for social programs which cannot be provided under this continual overspending.

Why will the government not commit to a definite date for eliminating the deficit?