1991-10-10

Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the TVeasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) of the House of Commons, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the annual report, 1989-90, under the Access to Information Privacy Act.


SCRUTINY OF REGULATIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the second report of the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations.
In accordance with Standing Order 123, it is my duty to inform the House that this report contains a resolution to revoke the agricultural exhibition loans order, Consolidated Regulations of Canada, 1978, chapter 318.
Pursuant to Standing Order 123(1), a copy of the order is attached as appendix A to this second report.
This report constitutes a portion of the disallowance procedure set out in Standing Order 123.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Danis:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to waive notice and introduce legislation which would deal with return to work of the grain handlers in Thunder bay.
I wonder if there would be unanimous consent on the part of my colleagues to allow me to waive notice and introduce the bill?


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Speaker, we are willing to waive notice to have the bill printed and circulated at this time. It is also our intention to allow the debate to commence later today if the government should so choose, but until we see the legislation and how the minister reacts to certain amendments and suggestions we cannot make any guarantees as to when the debate would finish.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if I could assist the House. The hon. minister has moved for consent to introduce the bill. I take it that consent is given. However we need a royal recommendation which is not yet with us.
Under the circumstances I would ask that we stand this down until the royal recommendation arrives and then proceed.
Is there agreement on that?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, you will know that yesterday I tried to move a motion relating to the televising of the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution and was not given unanimous consent at that time. It is my understanding that I will have that consent now.
Therefore I would like to move the following motion:
That, notwithstanding the report of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges, Procedures and Private Members' Business concurred in by the House on October 20, 1989, the following will be the order of priority for access to the parliamentary channel during the mandate of the special joint committee on the Government of Canada's proposals for a renewed Canada.

October 10, 1991
Routine Proceedings
(1)	House of Commons proceedings live;
(2)	Replay of Statements under Standing Order 31 and of Question
Period;
(3)	Proceedings of the special joint committee live where that is
technically feasible;
(4)	Replay of proceedings of the special joint committee;
(5)	Replay of House proceedings or portion thereof beginning with
Question Period;
(6)	Weekend replay of the previous week's proceedings of the
special joint committee.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the parliamentary secretary in his point about replay of the proceedings meant to replay those parts that had not been played live. Is that correct? I wonder if he could confirm that.
My understanding is that the House will be played live. Question Period and Statements under Standing Order 31 will be replayed. Then any live proceedings of the committee then taking place will be played. Then any committee proceedings taped during the House proceedings, for example, or at other times that have not been played would be played and then the replay of the House would follow as number five.
I wonder if he could confirm that that is the understanding. I do not think it is the intention to replay the special committee's proceedings immediately and not replay the House. Is that the understanding?


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I am sorry. I passed my copy of the motion in so I do not have it in front of me.
Clearly I want to make two comments. First of all, this is the House order that we had agreed to among House leaders the other day. As I recall it, it uses the words: "House of Commons proceedings live". In fact it does cover off the concerns of the hon. member. We agree with the assertion.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition from residents of Amos, Authier, Berry, Saint-Felix, Saint-Mathieu, Guyenne and Manneville, in the Abitibi area, who respectfully submit to Parliament that the regulations on compensation for pregnant women fail to consider all criteria for working conditions under the Canada Labour Code. They ask that preventive withdrawal for pregnant women be made a desirable and necessary option for women at work.
Wherefor your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to give serious consideration to the deficiencies of the Canada Labour Code during the upcoming review process and recognize the need for including clauses on the preventive withdrawal of pregnant women, with pay.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Are all questions allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As you have detected here, we are endeavouring to work out the day's agenda on the fly, so to speak, in the sense of having to deal with the question of the stoppage in grain movements at the port of Thunder Bay in an appropriate manner.
October 10, 1991

This day had been designated an Opposition Day and should that occur we would not be able to get to this legislation tomorrow. I do not know when the Senate would be able to handle it, and that could make several unnecessary days of delay in the restarting of grain movements, to nobody's advantage.
What I would like to propose is an extraordinary measure in a sense, that the House in essence start the second reading debate in the expectation of receiving the royal recommendation which I understand may be right there so we could complete first reading introduction that was called for.
The second reading can start with agreement that it shall not go past one o'clock. We would use that period to see if we could reach some accommodation in treating the bill for the rest of the day. I know there is a desire for Committee of the Whole discussion.
If no agreement is reached, we could go to Government Orders on the return of the House after Question Period with the understanding that the Opposition Day would be postponed until tomorrow.
The fact that that is a Friday rather than a Thursday would be acknowledged by allowing the Liberal Party the first right of refusal, so to speak, of the next Opposition Day to make up for any perceived loss of position in that regard.
That is rather complex, but I think it reflects what I thought I heard the member for Churchill say earlier, that he was ready to start the debate on it but did not want at this point in time to give a commitment as to when it would be completed in all stages until they have an opportunity to discuss some elements of it.
The Liberal Party has acknowledged that it also has some questions on a specific that it would like to talk to the Minister of Labour about. If that were the agreement then perhaps we could proceed on that basis.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker there is a bit of confusion. I said that we were quite willing to start the debate. Of course, when I made that offer I assumed that the government had royal proclamation and was able to give us an actual copy of the bill. It is sometimes very difficult to debate a bill that you do not really have in front of you. However, I am willing to start the debate with a final copy of the bill given to each of the members in the House, with or without the royal proclamation. What I have right now is just a draft and I
Routine Proceedings
have no idea if it is the exact wording that we will be receiving later. It is very difficult to debate that.
We are willing to start the debate. We are not at this point willing to say when second reading will end, but we are willing to start the debate whenever we can have a copy of the bill.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Chair. Is it my understanding that you do now have the royal proclamation?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Yes, we do now have the royal recommendation. Would the House agree that we do first reading now?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: By unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


THUNDER BAY GRAIN HANDLING OPERATIONS ACT
Marcel Danis: for leave to introduce Bill C-37, an act to provide for the resumption and continuance of grain handling operations at Thunder Bay, Ontario.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mr. Danis moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed. Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a second time?


An hon. member:: Later this day.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: By unanimous consent later this day.


Harvie Andre: I am suggesting that we commence debate which has been agreed to and that at one o'clock, if we do not have a House order in place, we will return to Government Orders when the House resumes after Question Period. This is not to suggest that second reading would necessarily be over at that time but merely to give us that period of time rather than an unlimited period of time in which to work out the modalities for treating the bill through the rest of the day.

October 10, 1991
Point of Order


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, we agree with the suggestion of the government House leader, but I wonder if he would perhaps give us an undertaking that the Minister of Labour would forthwith meet with our critic who is available to discuss certain provisions which we allege might be in the bill. We would have to see the bill in its complete form. If he could do that forthwith-and I presume some consultations will take place with members of the New Democratic Party as well-we could get a firm indication from the government and from the House on the way in which they wish to proceed with this particular bill.
One o'clock does not seem to be an inordinate amount of time before a House order could be given, but if necessary we would be prepared to sit through the lunch hour in order to address this matter as expeditiously as possible.


Marcel Danis: Madam Speaker, I will of course meet with the opposition critics. If the hon. opposition House leader will let me do the opening speech in the debate, I will do that immediately after.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on an entirely different subject on a point of order which really ought to be raised today. I want to speak to the matter of how the House deals with the question of language which has been found offensive enough to be withdrawn by hon. members.
I know that you, Mr. Speaker, are very concerned about what happened in the House yesterday. I am not here standing on my feet today to reflect on the way in which you dealt with that or any previous incident, but simply to speak to the matter of how the House in general and how the House's tradition deals with these matters and how we might deal with them in the future.
It is a fact, Mr. Speaker, as you so rightly pointed out yesterday that a tradition exists in this House. When a
member withdraws a particular comment and apologizes, that has traditionally been the end of the matter. I understand that tradition and I think it is a good one.
You can look at the literature with respect to these kind of incidents. For instance, Beauchesne's fifth edition, citation 325 states:
When the Speaker takes notice of any expression as personal and
disorderly,-
He then goes on to talk about retracting the offensive expression and apologizing to the House et cetera for the breach of order. The point I want to make here is that this tradition has developed in and around what have been regarded as personal remarks, those which are offensive to the individual person.
We do not really have a tradition of dealing with remarks which are offensive to an entire group of people. The problem has arisen in the last little while of language which is thought to be insulting not just to the particular member. Therefore it has traditionally been satisfactory for the person to get up and withdraw that personal insult. If the member to whom the insult has been made is satisfied, that has been the end of the matter and rightly so I say, as you pointed out yesterday.
The fact is that an entirely new concern is developing now and that is how do we deal with language which is offensive to an entire group of people.
An incident arose a couple of weeks ago in which sexist language was used and was found to be offensive to all the women in the House of Commons and Canada. Language was used in the incident yesterday which is found offensive by an entire group of people in Canada, in this case the black community.
How do we deal with that? It seems to me that that is the question which the House at some point has to address itself to and that is why I raise this point of order. It may be that there are other things that have to be done. The government itself has to be accountable for the behaviour of its members. That is another matter. That is for a political debate between the government and its critics. I am not here to raise that particular point.
October 10, 1991

I am here to talk though about how the House deals with it. The House has this tradition which you pointed out yesterday, but what I am submitting is that that tradition has developed around the question of personal insults and is not adequate to the problem of dealing with what are seen to be words that offend an entire group of people.
I might also say, Mr. Speaker, that in the same vein, although I think you were well within the tradition to deal with it the way that you did, that there are other motions which have existed over time in which unparliamentary words, as a result of motions, for instance, have had to have been recorded by the Clerk. The words which were used had to have taken place on the floor of the House, which is not what happened yesterday.
I would also ask you to consider that element of the existing tradition by which there have been instances where the offensive words have been put on the record, so to speak, particularly of course when they happen off the record, but members hear them as many members did yesterday. The words were withdrawn, but at no time was there a public acknowledgement of exactly what had been said. We are left to an ongoing debate about whether x was said or y was said.
We do know that there was an apology made and presumably people who apologize know what they are apologizing for and the House ought to be able to deal with that directly.
There is also the tradition, and again I refer to Beauchesne, that the member himself who has been offended has to be satisfied with the result of the exchange, in this case the withdrawal or apology. I contend that in the instance where the language is not the kind of personal language that the tradition has traditionally addressed itself to, there needs to be more happen than simply the withdrawal of a personal insult.
There should be an acknowledgement on the part of the member and/or someone speaking for the member's party that this not only reflects on the member who made this remark, but it reflects on the entire House of Commons, the government and the political process. It is simply not enough to get up and say you are sorry after all these things.
Point of Order
As anyone knows, particularly those who are parents, you only get away with saying you are sorry just so often. At some point the behaviour has to change. It seems to me that is what this House has to address. I know there has been an informal committee struck already to deal with the question of sexist language. Mr. Speaker, you might want to consider ways in which that committee might be explicitly instructed to deal also with the question of racist language and other forms of language which offend groups, rather than just people.
That might be one way in which we could deal with it but in the final analysis, it is not just a question for the House. It is also a question for the government and I realize that is not a point I can pursue on a point of order, and I will not. However, it may be pursued by others in another context.
I would ask that all these things be taken into consideration by the Chair and that you might report to us at some point as to how you propose to deal with what I think is really a new development. We are not just talking about personal insults here, we are talking about a dimension of offensive language which goes far beyond what the tradition has been developed to deal with.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, this perhaps gives me an opportunity to indicate some action that I have been talking about for well over a year. The whole question of the decorum of this institution has been the subject of much debate around the country. The Spicer commission indicated that people were disgusted with the behaviour of this institution, the barracking, the name calling, the yelling.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


Harvie Andre: You have not seen the tape. Ask your colleague there. He has seen the tape. Maybe he will stop that accusation. Your colleague from Kingston knows it is a false accusation. It is precisely this kind of barracking that is at the root of the problem here. This kind of false accusation, false demeaning and the attempt to slander. I would ask the hon. member to check the tape which his colleague, the hon. member for Kingston has seen, and stop making that accusation.

October 10,1991
Point of Order


Mr. Speaker:: Given the seriousness of this question, I wonder if all hon. members could exercise some considerable restraint and allow each other to address the Chair.
The hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona has raised a matter which I think the House knows is serious. The hon. government House leader has referred to the fact that across the country there is an unprecedented mood, at least in current times, of antagonism toward not just those of us who happen to be elected but to the whole political process. Some of that is manifested by complaints as to what happens in this place.
We have had several incidents recently which I think have given concern to reasonable and decent people in this place, which means the majority of us. The hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona is raising as a point of order whether or not we are adequately dealing with some of the things that have happened. What he is asking the Chair to do is to consider these matters and perhaps find a way to report back to the House so that we can reach the objectives which most of us wish to not only meet, but to maintain. We must also keep in mind our obligation to this institution, the history of the place, our country and the public.
In reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona, the government House leader is rising. He started off by talking about concerns which he has already mentioned in the past about decorum in general in this place.
I certainly think it appropriate, given the circumstances, that I should hear him.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as you summarized, the question of decorum, the behaviour in this House, has been the subject of much public discussion and much public disgust, frankly, as it sees the manner in which we operate.
Too often, if we do not like the answer, the statement or the debate from the person opposite, we shout, we yell, we tiy to shout them down and we try to throw them off track. It is almost like we do not want to hear what they have to say.
Yet, the public who is watching expects us to debate in seriousness the major issues that are facing the country. We are not to howl down each other. We are not to use epithets and so on.
There is a question of epithets being particularly harmful and hurtful to the individuals concerned. There is no question about that. Epithets of any sort should not be used in this House. Some do hurt personally to a greater degree than others, and sometimes our mouths get in motion before our brains are in gear. Things might happen.
The hon. member over there is interrupting me again. He will not listen to what I have to say. He has to interrupt. He is a member of the New Democratic Party.
This debate has been going on and on. We have had discussions about it. We keep interrupting each other when we talk about it.
There is the member for Victoria again, interrupting me.
As a result of this reputation and the demeanour which has come into disrepute, I have raised the matter on many, many occasions with House leaders opposite in this House.
We struck a management committee in the last reforms. We have asked it to deal with a lot of aspects of how we perform in here and to come forward with recommendations.
Frankly, this is an opportune time for me to commit now to this House, and I will of course discuss it with opposition House leaders first, that after the break when we come down, I will put a motion before the House which will define clearly what is inappropriate behaviour in this House and empower the Chair to enforce that code of conduct in a direct way.
I will commit now that we will make it a free vote. If it is a government motion, we will make it a free vote. I will commit now to have that motion on the floor of the House, let it be voted on and then the Speaker will have been empowered by this House to deal appropriately with any in this House who feel that epithets, barracking, yelling, interruption or any of those behavioural things which the public finds offensive can be dealt with.
I will make that commitment now since for a year now we have been talking about it. Nothing happened. Perhaps it is time to bring it to a head, and when the break is over a motion will be brought forward to that effect.
October 10, 1991

People can debate it. We will vote on it and see if we can live by our own record of decision.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg Transcona has made a valuable intervention. I would hope that the Chair would want to act upon that intervention as quickly as possible.
The government House leader has made reference to a motion which would be brought in, but in point of fact, Mr. Speaker, you already have the authority under the provisions of the Standing Order to act where you believe that the behaviour of members of Parliament on any side of this House is out of order. I would be happy to discuss with House leaders at any time, as would I am sure my colleague to the left, the substance of that particular motion and ways in which it might assist you in terms of how you exercise your responsibility as the arbitrator of this great Chamber.
Perhaps we could move on, Mr. Speaker, with a matter which we were told last night was of great urgency, namely the grain handlers dispute and perhaps hear from the Minister of Labour.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Broadview- Greenwood. On the same point?


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on the same point.
I listened with care to the words of the government House Leader and I agree with most of what he put forward, but I think that so often Canadians at large do not really see what goes on in this House and they do not understand that quite often there is a provocation that exists from the government side toward the opposition in terms of its approach to questions we ask. Quite often, at the same time, when we are giving answers there is also barracking and heckling on the government side.
In the member's approach this morning, he seemed to indicate that his own House was in order. I would suggest that sure, it is okay for us to maybe put some discipline into our side of the House, but he should not think that his organization could not stand some review itself.
Point of Order


Mr. Speaker:: Just before I hear the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona, who has raised this matter, I think, in a very carefully structured way and within the rules, I will just respond momentarily to the hon. member for B road view-Greenwood.
Let me make it very clear to the hon. member and to all hon. members that having been here for many years, there is no particular monopoly of virtue on either side in this assembly when it comes to anything from heckling to something worse. But that is not the point. The point is that when decorum degenerates, it leads to further and further excess and it may very well be that both sexist remarks and racist remarks are a direct result of the state of decorum in general. It is very difficult to disengage completely the one kind of excess from the other.
The hon. member has talked about provocation. I do not think we need to have a House committee to remind ourselves that there often is provocation in this place and it comes on both sides. There has to be, of course, some common sense to our approach because this place has never been a tea party and strong-minded men and women who believe passionately in things are going to express that passion and conviction from time to time. But certainly I am prepared to try and assist along the lines expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona, the government House leader and the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.
I will hear the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona. Perhaps he can be of further help to the Chair.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to delay things any more than I have to, but I do want to say that there is a distinction to be made between concerns that have been expressed for a long time and, most recently, in the Spicer commission, but by many other people about general matters of decorum in the House of Commons and what happened yesterday and a couple of weeks ago. There is a qualitative distinction to be made and I am not sure whether the government House leader simply did not understand my point of order or whether there is an attempt to bury a much more serious matter of how we deal with sexist and racist language in the question of the general decorum of the House.

October 10, 1991
Point of Order
You cannot reduce this to a silent Chamber. There are going to be political exchanges. There is going to be the kind of vigorous back and forth both on and off the record stuff that the House of Commons has always been and, I think, always will be. This is not a corporate board meeting where everybody agrees about what the bottom line is. This is a place where we exchange values and ideas, where we fight for things in which we believe. But we do that within certain parameters and we do that within certain rules and lately we have done it in a way that the Canadian public has found offensive.
That is one issue.
I have been here twelve and a half years and it is only in the last three or four weeks that we have had to deal with the problem that I am raising now and asking the Speaker to deal with. That is the question of open sexist and racist language. That is different from what the government House leader was talking about. That is what I ask you to address.
We are addressing the other question in the subcommittee on parliamentary reform dealing with Question Period and other things and we need to deal with that. But let us not confuse it in such a way as to bury the significance of what has happened in the last few weeks.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona. I understand perfectly well the distinction that the hon. member is raising and I am very sensitive to it.
At the same time I do ask hon. members and the public which is listening to keep in mind that the general decorum is also of importance because when that is reduced too far beyond what is acceptable, it leads to other things.
The other thing, and I repeat what I said to my hon. friend from Broadview-Greenwood and other members, is that this is a tough place. It always has been. That is not an excuse for excess, but it is and it must be remembered that the most precious things and the most vital issues that this country faces are debated here and
there will be at times expressions of great commitment, conviction and passion.
I am sure that people will understand that in a free country, provided that those expressions are done in such a way that they do not wound others or bring into indignity the institution itself, that is probably something we have always had and probably something that will continue.
The other thing I want to say to hon. members is this. What we are discussing are a couple of incidents that only took a few seconds in this Chamber out of the many hours in which debate takes place. It is no secret that most of the time in this place there is not only excellent decorum but the place is relatively calm and there is debate which is seriously proceeding.
I think on behalf of all members of the House I have to make this statement. Maybe it is a misconception to say that this place is always in excess or even in an uproar because that is not so. There is also no doubt in my mind that the public is asking us to improve.
I might just say to hon. members, remember many years ago when in order to express our approval of some brilliant move on the part of one of our colleagues or some brilliant criticism we pounded the desks. You will remember that it was shortly after television came into the House that we began, all of us, to receive letters and telephone calls saying that we should stop it.
What stopped it is that one party stopped it and substituted it with applause and within a few days it had ceased. It does not take place any more. That is an example of the House responding to public opinion.
I will not go on any longer because I can see some members are tempted to pound their desks in approval of what I have just said. That would sort of defeat the example.
I will do the very best I can, in response to the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona. I understand exactly what he is saying. I am conscious that it is a serious matter and I shall try to assist the House.

October 10, 1991



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Marcel Danis: that Bill C-37, an act to provide for the resumption and continuance of grain handling operations at Thunder Bay, Ontario be read the second time, and by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.
He said: Madam Speaker, I think that most hon. members do share my feelings that collective bargaining, for the most part, serves the public interest in this country and serves it well. The federal industrial relations system embodied in Part I of the Canada Labour Code has proven to be an effective vehicle for the resolution of labour disputes over the years. The vast majority of negotiations have been resolved without resort to strike or lock-out activity. However, it is equally part of the collective bargaining process to include strike or lock-out action.
Such is the case, Madam Speaker, in the current dispute involving the Lakehead Terminal Elevators Association, representing Cargill Limited, Manitoba Pool Elevators, Parrish and Heimbecker Limited, Richardson Terminals Limited, Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and United Grain Growers Limited on the one hand and on the other hand the Transportation Communications International Union, Lodge 650, representing some 900 grain handlers in the port of Thunder Bay.
Unfortunately the parties have been unable to reach agreement on certain issues in their attempt to renew the collective agreements covering employees of the six grain companies having terminal elevator operations in the port.

I should point out, Madam Speaker, that this dispute involves parties that have demonstrated the ability to resolve their differences in the past with relatively little disruption to the Canadian economy. There have only been three strikes of Thunder Bay grain handlers in the past twenty-five years and, during that same period,
Government Orders
eight other bargaining rounds were settled without resort to work stoppage action.
The previous contract negotiations were settled at the direct bargaining stage following the provision of conciliation officer assistance. This occasion marks the first time that legislative intervention has been required to terminate a work stoppage in the grain handling industry at Thunder Bay and bring about a resumption in the flow of export grain through the port.

The current dispute involves negotiations to renew the previous collective agreement between the two parties which expired on January 31, 1991. The parties did meet in direct negotiations on several occasions between January and May 1991 in an effort to arrive at a contract. Despite their efforts, the two sides were unable to reach agreement and a conciliation officer from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service of Labour Canada was appointed on June 17, 1991 to assist the parties in resolving their differences.
Meetings with the conciliation officer were held during the months of July and August. Even with the provision of third party assistance, the association and the union were unable to find common ground to settle the dispute.
Following the receipt of the report of the conciliation officer and a review of the status of the dispute, I decided not to appoint a conciliation commissioner or establish a conciliation board.
The collective bargaining process provided for under Part I of the Canada Labour Code places the onus for reaching a resolution squarely on the shoulders of the parties to the dispute.
By declining to provide further assistance to the parties at this particular stage of the negotiations, I was in fact conveying the message that the parties ought to have been able to resolve the outstanding disputes themselves in a short timeframe.
It was my view that the appointment of a conciliation commissioner would have served only to protract the process, entrench the parties in their positions and delay the ultimate conclusion of a new collective bargaining agreement.

October 10, 1991
Government Orders
Despite the responsibility placed on the parties, no further negotiations took place and the union commenced legal strike action on October 3, 1991. This followed a period during which grain handlers in Thunder Bay were laid off effective September 10, 1991 as a result of the strike by the Public Service Alliance of Canada. It involved federal grain inspectors and weighers in the port.
As you can see, Madam Speaker, grain handling operations at Thunder Bay have been virtually at a standstill for the better part of the last month. For a port which handles approximately 40 per cent of total Canadian grain exports, this is unacceptable for this country's farmers and for Canada's reputation as a reliable exporting nation.
As an indication of this government's concern, I spoke with the representatives of both parties last Friday urging them to return to the bargaining table and extended the offer of mediation assistance.
This past Tuesday, given the serious consequences of the work stoppage action, I instructed Warren Edmons-don, Director General, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to travel to Thunder Bay and meet with the parties to assess the situation, and determine the possibilities for a settlement.
Mr. Edmonsdon met with the two sides in Thunder Bay yesterday and conveyed to them my strongest possible concerns over their failure to resolve their contract dispute. The parties were also made aware that the government was not prepared to stand by while serious damage was inflicted on our farmers and the country's economy.
While Mr. Edmonsdon has advised me that there is some room for a negotiated settlement of the dispute by the two parties, prospects of an immediate resumption of grain handling activities in the port remain remote.
If we were faced with an industrial activity that offered reasonable alternatives or in which the parties inflicted harm only on each other, the work stoppage might be allowed to continue until the parties took the action necessary to settle the dispute. This is not the nature of the grain handling industry at Thunder Bay.
The Thunder Bay terminals are the largest elevator facilities in Canada. Approximately 40 per cent of Canada's grain exports flowed through Thunder Bay in the
last crop year which ended July 31,1991. The significance of the elevators to the economy of Thunder Bay is obvious. Their importance to the ability of western Canada's grain producers to get their crops to domestic and world markets is equally self-evident.
Madam Speaker, the economic impact of the strike at the Thunder Bay terminals is clearly of great concern to the government. The intensity of the competition among grain exporting countries is well known. The threat to the viability and income of our grain farmers is well appreciated by members of the House. What is unfortunate, Madam Speaker, is that this strike occurs at a time when the Thunder Bay terminals are experiencing a rebound in the volume of grain exports after two years of low exports.

The volume of grain exports increased considerably in the last crop year and we do not want to see this improvement jeopardized further by this strike and by the preceding stoppage involving the PSAC grain inspectors and weighers.

I know that the Prime Minister and my colleagues, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds will have more to say on an assistance plan for grain farmers. But at a time when this government is working on a significant measure of assistance for grain producers, it is unthinkable that a work stoppage in the grain handling industry could jeopardize these efforts and the welfare of the grain producing industry of western Canada.
The proposed Thunder Bay Grain Handling Operations Act provides for the immediate resumption of grain handling operations in the port of Thunder Bay. It also makes provision for the appointment of a mediator-arbitrator to deal with all matters remaining in dispute between the parties. The bill extends the term of the collective agreement to include the period beginning February 1, 1991 and ending on a date to be fixed by the mediator-arbitrator not earlier than January 31, 1993 or later than January 31, 1994.
Under the terms of the legislation, the mediator-arbitrator is given 90 days or such longer period as the minister may allow to endeavour to mediate all of the matters in dispute.

October 10, 1991

Government Orders
In the event that the mediator-arbitrator appointed under the legislation is unable to bring about agreement with respect to any such matters, he or she is required to render an arbitral award on the issue.
For the information of hon. members, the main issue in dispute during this round of negotiations centres on pensions. I can assure hon. members this and all other issues will be placed before the mediator-arbitrator.
Nothing in the proposed legislation restricts the right of the parties to agree to amend any provision of the agreement other than that relating to the term of the agreement.
The bill also contains enforcement provisions to ensure compliance with the legislation.
The Thunder Bay Grain Handling Operations Act, while bringing about an end to the current work stoppage, does provide the parties with an alternative to an imposed settlement. By providing for an appointment of a mediator-arbitrator, the legislation presents the two sides to the grain handling dispute with the further opportunity to avail themselves of a neutral third-party assistance in arriving at an acceptable solution to their grievances.
Equally important is the fact that although Parliament is being asked to move urgently on this legislation, the parties can still take advantage of the opportunity to settle the dispute themselves before enactment and before proclamation.
I am prepared to continue to offer our assistance to the parties, but time has now become critical. I urge the negotiators for the Lakehead Terminal Elevators Association and the Transportation Communications International Union Lodge 650, to seize this occasion and make every effort to reach an accommodation on the outstanding issues in dispute.

As I indicated earlier in my tenure as Labour minister, it is not a pleasant task for me to introduce such legislation. However, the parties to this dispute have had ample opportunity, including conciliation assistance, to resolve the issues in dispute and have failed to do so. They have imposed the consequences of their dispute on Western grain producers.

I am sure hon. members would agree that this government has an obligation to act in order to protect the economic interest of the agricultural sector as well as Canada's reputation as a reliable grain exporter. This legislation underscores this government's commitment to that responsibility.


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make a few comments relating to this back to work legislation and what the minister has just said in his opening remarks. I also want to suggest some alternatives that could have been put forward before we had to again, as a government, get involved in labour relations.
To a certain extent, I want to say to members in this Chamber that it is becoming quite obvious to us who are involved in labour negotiations that the government has now become part of the collective bargaining process and that, in essence, is the final conclusion and that we, as members, are being asked more and more often to be the final arbiter of whether a particular dispute should be allowed to carry on or whether a particular dispute has any ability of success.
I want to deal first with some of the background of this particular dispute in Thunder Bay. By doing that I think it is important to rely on a couple of interesting statistics. This strike is not an unusual strike in the sense that it is the fourth such strike in the last 20 years in Thunder Bay.
There is something unique about this and that is that in the previous strikes with the grain handlers in Thunder Bay, they were all worked out before back to work legislation took place. For example in 1968 workers were out two months before a mediator was appointed and that mediator helped the process to a final conclusion and there was no back to work legislation.
In 1981 during a very difficult period in our history as a country there was a world recession, a massive recession. Workers were out for two weeks and again a mediator was appointed and there was a resolution to that dispute before back to work legislation took place.

October 10, 1991
Government Orders
Again in 1986 workers were out five weeks and a mediator by the name of Bill Kelly was appointed and again I want to emphasize that there was a resolution to the dispute without back to work legislation.
I want to suggest to the minister and members of this House something about the belief that this particular strike has been going on for a long time. In labour terms a week is not a long time. It is unfortunate, I want to emphasize this, that we are putting two particular groups against each other. We know that the farmers are having tremendous difficulty in the west and that there are bankruptcies every day. I also want to emphasize that we have a position in this House to maintain and that is that collective bargaining and the rights of workers also at the same time have to be maintained.
That is a very delicate situation for members of Parliament. There are competing interests as we well know in this House. We have been lobbied by our own colleagues. I suggest the minister has had the same difficulty I have had and that is members from his caucus and members from my caucus from western Canada and those who are really involved in the grain industry are suggesting that it is totally inappropriate for a particular strike like this to be going on at this time.
I want to suggest to the minister that I am very disappointed in some of the comments that have been made by him in the last few days. On the one hand he suggested in answers to me in the House of Commons that he wanted both sides to come to some sort of agreement without back to work legislation.
On the same day that the minister was saying that to me and members of the House of Commons, another minister of the government was suggesting that in essence they have already agreed in cabinet that there would be back to work legislation and they would not allow this dispute to go on any further.
I want to point out to the minister and to members of Parliament who are interested in this issue that when those kinds of statements are made when a dispute is ongoing, one has pretty well completed the process for the two bargaining parties. Simply, one cannot negotiate when one side does not believe that there is any reason to negotiate.
I talk specifically about the terminal employers, the individuals who are at this time trying their hardest to ship grain out of the Thunder Bay port. I think it is very
important that the Lakehead Terminal Elevator Association be aware that we on this side of the House do not appreciate the belief that it does not have to bargain in good faith any longer because the government will bring down the axe as soon as it feels that there is any pressure or any heat from the public.
In a situation like this there is guaranteed to be heat and pressure applied by all sides because of the effects of a strike of this nature.
I want to put on the record some of the issues that are ongoing and one of the reasons why this particular negotiation has not had the ability to be rectified by both parties.
People have to be aware that the union, the transportation communication workers, have said to all those who are prepared to listen that this is not a fight between farmers and grain handlers in Thunder Bay. This is basically a negotiation for survival.
Since 1984 these particular employees have lost in this union in the city of Thunder Bay, which is something we also have to be very cognizant of, a minimum of 1,000 jobs.
Also, to follow suit, out of the 900 roughly who are still there, only 400 are considered to be full time. Full time in the harsh environment in which we live in Thunder Bay is a maximum of six months employment. You can understand when looking at it in that perspective just what that means to the members of the union, to their families and to the city of Thunder Bay.
In essence what we see is a complete dismantling of that particular port. The argument the union is making is that if there is not some sort of understanding of where we are going as a country as it relates to the handling of grain and the shipments of grain across Canada, and if we do not have some sort of plan of how we are going to deal with that, then these people cannot continue to feel that their jobs are secure and that they have an opportunity like all other Canadians of making some sort of plans in their lives. They do not know whether they will have a job tomorrow.
This is really what the negotiations are about. One is about job security, and one is about the lack of sensitivity of the terminal employers in Thunder Bay. They do not realize that the employees need to have some semblance of where they are going to go.
October 10,1991

I want to use one example, the pension plan itself. Apparently, and this is what we are being told, the union has a pension plan to which the two parties contribute. This plan has a surplus of $7 million. In the plan the employer is asked to contribute a certain amount. What the argument is in negotiation right now is that in essence the employer has not contributed a red cent. It has refused to contribute.
To make matters worse, because of technological change, because of pools being put together in an amalgamation process, there is going to be some job loss and we very much in this place understand that.
What the union has asked the company for is the ability to remove the employees in a more humane way through attrition. Instead, what it has decided to do is remove the employees at the top end of the pension scale, meaning those employees who have up to 14 years of seniority. Just this spring 27 of those employees lost their jobs, the reason being very simple. It is cheaper for those particular companies to hire young individuals who are not going to cost them any pension benefits down the road.
Because of that scenario and the lack of ability of the workers to get the companies to discuss pensions at the negotiating table, the negotiations broke down.
I want to suggest to the government that it did not do a very good job as a third party, a helping hand type of philosophy that the Department of Labour has in past disagreements been used for. It took one of its top officials in the ministry of labour and sent him to Thunder Bay on Tuesday night with a last ditch attempt to make it look like it was interested in a negotiated settlement.
You cannot sit with a particular group in a span of a few hours and at the same time get statements over the wire as were made by the minister of grains and oilseeds and expect anything to come of it.
In essence the government on the one hand wants Canadians to pretend that it was quite prepared to let both parties come to an agreement as quickly as they could without interference, but at the same time had already made its decision that it was going to legislate these two groups back to work as of Friday, which is tomorrow.
I want everyone to know in this place that under those circumstances, we will never get a negotiated settlement
Government Orders
in this country when there is a strike on if that is the kind of attitude this government is going to take.
For that reason I would like to talk about a particular amendment I am going to be putting to the House today. That amendment simply has to do with who will be helping the two parties make a decision in this particular dispute.
Under clause 8 of the particular bill we are debating here today, the mediator-arbitrator is going to be appointed by the government. I have suggested to the minister and now I am suggesting to all Canadians that because of the difficulties of this particular situation and the quickness of the government's reaction to the pressure of the farmers, and I can understand the tremendous amount of pressure it felt because I know colleagues of mine on this side of the House have felt the same pressure, there was not the opportunity for the mediator who was to be appointed under the understanding that I had from the minister, as of today for example, to discuss this issue further with the groups.
That mediation never took place. A mediator was never formally appointed to sit down with both sides. He was there simply to feel out both parties to see if there was room for a settlement.
The minister has stated in the House today that there is room for settlement, there is some room for manoeuvrability. Because of that, if we were not so quick to act, I am quite convinced that there could have been a settlement to this disagreement.
For that reason I would like to ask the members to consider in this place that we appoint an arbitration panel, a panel with expertise from the company and expertise from the union, because the particular issues that are being dealt with are very technical. Due to the fact that there was not a lot of discussion beforehand by the mediator, what took place was a lack of consultation and a lack of homework by both sides.
I think it would be very appropriate to give the minister time to look at the idea of a panel in order for us to look at the technical aspects of the disagreement. I am suggesting that the union be allowed to appoint someone to this panel and the company be allowed to appoint someone to this panel and that the arbitrator appointed by the government allow the minister and the members of Parliament and the public at large to have representation and the arbitrator appointed by the government would have the last say in this whole dispute.

October 10, 1991
Government Orders
We have not had an opportunity for both sides to bring their arguments forward because the company has refused to this date to discuss the issue of the pension and job security situations in the port of Thunder Bay.
I will be presenting that motion later on today. I give notice to all the members who are here to think about that because it is a little bit different than what is normally put in place. I think in this particular case the uniqueness of it will allow that sort of situation to take place.
I understand the minister is now looking at that seriously. I think his fear is that this might become unruly and in essence the government appointed arbitrator will have to make the decision anyway.
I am hoping that with both parties at the table in the sense of being a more active participant, with the technical expertise of those other two individuals, we may be able to get some sort of long-term resolution to this problem and not a short-term band-aid that a mediator-arbitrator normally puts in place. An arbitrator is normally not capable of dealing with the intricate issues of the whole industry because, to put it simply, that individual does not work in that industry on a daily basis. I look to the government to look on this particular amendment favourably because it is something that I am sure that the workers and the people of Thunder Bay would like resolved in the long term, and that is just what the Lakehead terminal employers are proposing to do with the 900 employees who are left in that particular city.
I want to suggest also to the government that we on this side are very concerned about the process of back to work legislation that is being put forward to us in this House on a fairly regular occasion. I want to make mention of three pieces of legislation that we have seen; one as late as last June and the last two, this one we are talking about today and the PSAC back to work legislation.
I first commend the minister on this piece of legislation and the one in June allowing us a mediator-arbitrator. Hopefully we will expand on that and have a panel. I must confess that I am a little bit lost to understand why they would not also allow for a mediator-arbitrator in the PSAC dispute and the back to work legislation that
we saw by the President of the Treasury Board not too long ago in this place.
The inconsistency of the policy of the government as it relates to labour relations in this country and the lack of policy and direction that it is giving employers and employees alike is going to create some difficulties for us down the road if it continues.
I caution the government not to continue to put these kinds of pressures on the collective bargaining process. If it does, it will completely fall apart. I do not want to sensationalize this issue, but I want the government to realize that there will come a point in time if it continues this back to work legislation on a regular basis where employees will refuse to go back to work. Then the whole system of our laws and our institutions will fall apart. It is not that drastic a move for people not to realize that it could happen. It simply could happen if we continue not to have the sensitivity that is necessary to allow both sides who are in dispute to work out their differences without the hammer coming down.
I have discussed this issue on numerous occasions with the minister. I have discussed this with both parties on numerous occasions. I want all in this place to know that I do not for one believe that the Director General of Mediation and Conciliation or the Minister of Labour and his department have done a job which could even be considered decent in this whole issue.
We have no choice in this place as members of Parliament but to vote in favour of legislation like this because of the competing interests and the pressures that are there. We do not have to like it, even though we do vote in favour of it because we realize the sensitivity of the problems that the farmers in the west are having at this time and the difficulties of our international reputation of shippers of grain to the rest of the world.
Having said that, I would like to conclude by saying to the minister that we on this side would like to suggest to him and to the government that they reflect on what the union has asked them to do and that is to take a look at a particular appointment: "Therefore, under Canada Labour Code Part I, division 7, general promotion of industrial peace, the Transportation Communication Union, lodge 650 hereby make formal application to the minister to appoint an industrial inquiry commission to examine the following".
October 10, 1991

I want to put this on the record because this is really the issue that we are dealing with. What we are dealing with right now is the immediate crisis in the grain industry, the immediate crisis that farmers are having. In the long term we need a solution to the problems that are becoming more and more obvious to us all. What they would like the minister to look at in this industrial inquiry commission is: (a) outstanding bargaining issues currently in dispute between the Transportation Communications Union and the Lakehead Terminal Elevators; (b) upon settlement of the current labour dispute, the commission would then examine matters that will affect industrial relations, including future negotiations between the TCU Lodge and the Lakehead terminal employers. One is the effect of reduced grain handling through the port of Thunder Bay. Two is the effect of decline in grain prices for prairie commodities. Three is the effect of technological change. And four where they would like to consider the elevator's consolidation.
This is very important because, as I said at the very beginning of my intervention, we have lost a total of
1,000	jobs in Thunder Bay since 1984. You can understand how the people in Thunder Bay feel about this particular issue right now, not just the employees, but all the people who are associated with the city of Thunder Bay.
I think it would be very much appropriate for the minister, once we have dealt with this piece of legislation today, to take a look at this particular request by the union, which is really a request by the city of Thunder Bay, to get an understanding of where we are going in this country as it relates to grain handling. Is it going to be a fact, as a lot of people in Thunder Bay think, that most of the grain in this country is going to be shipped from the west coast? Is it true? If it is true, let us be up front about where we are going with this and say to the employees and their families in the city of Thunder Bay that in the long term, the next 10 or 15 or 20 years, this is what we envision the structure of grain shipments in this country will look like.
If we think that this particular piece of legislation by the minister and the government of the day is going to
Government Orders
rectify the issues that are before us in the city of Thunder Bay and across Canada, we really are whistling in the dark.
I am suggesting to the minister and to the government that we have to look at both these issues. One, in the short term, is the arbitration panel that I have suggested in order to talk about some of these issues that the city of Thunder Bay and its employees and employers are talking about, and also the application for the inquiry to the minister to look at the over-all issue in general of this particular industry.
Having said all that, I would urge the government to realize, first and foremost, that this side is not very appreciative of this particular piece of legislation because it does walk all over the whole process of collective bargaining, but we, in essence, when all is said and done, will support this legislation because we believe that the crisis situation will not be helped in the short term by delaying the legislation, but in the long term, we emphasize we would like to see some process put in place that will be fair to all sides and especially to the city of Thunder Bay so that this situation will not happen as a regular occurrence.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I, too, wish to speak on this back to work legislation. In starting out, I would like to point out to the minister that we have been co-operative to-day in that we have allowed him to waive notice and to start this debate without the usual 48 hour notice that is required under the House rules.
I want to, in retrospect, make it very clear that we are not stalling this legislation but, on the other hand, we do not believe in giving the government a blank cheque.
I was somewhat disturbed to hear that the Liberal Party will vote for this legislation and I was very disturbed to find out that one of the Winnipeg members of the Liberal caucus said that they would support the legislation even before they saw it. The one thing I have learned with this Prime Minister and this government is you never give them a blank cheque. I just do not trust the government and I think there are a number of reasons in recent history why many, many Canadians do not trust this government and would certainly not wish to give it a blank cheque.

October 10, 1991
Government Orders
In looking at the legislation, I too believe that for the most part it is reasonable legislation, although I have always objected to the high fines that are there and which are obviously very high on the employees and do not have the same economic impact on employers. The reality of the situation is that the employers can always afford these fines where individual Canadians cannot afford them.
The other aspect of the legislation that disturbs me is the fact that it was brought in because the director of mediation services says he cannot successfully complete his work.
Let us look at what happened yesterday. The director of mediation finally arrives in Thunder Bay. It was his first day there. He has a meeting with the union and the company. They agree to get back to the table. There is an understanding that the outstanding issue, which was pensions, would be dealt with at this meeting.
As the meeting is about to commence, there is a Canadian Press story saying that the minister of grains and oilseeds has announced that the government will be introducing back to work legislation.
At the same time that story barged its way into the mediation room, the House of Commons committee that deals with labour matters was also meeting. I got a copy of that CP story which I showed to the minister in the committee. The record will show that.
I said that the announcement would destroy the work of the director of mediation. Later that afternoon, I had a chance to talk with the union side. The first thing that was said, even before I had a chance to open my mouth was: "Did you see what Mr. Mayer said?" Their caucus was up in arms.
They said-I understand that the director of mediation echoed it-that the whole mood of the mediation changed as a result of that premature and completely unnecessary political announcement by the minister of grains and oilseeds.
I do not know whether or not mediation would have worked. I am not going to make one of these announcements that says: "If Mr. Mayer had not said what he said, then mediation would have succeeded." I do know that it failed as a result of the unnecessary and unwarranted
intervention of the minister responsible for grains and oilseeds.
I have been a negotiator and I know how important it is to have a good mood in a negotiating room, to feel that you are being treated fairly so that you can work out the problems.
As I said earlier, yesterday was the first time that the employers were willing to allow the controversial issue of pensions to be dealt with. It was the first time, at the very first meeting on the issue that is preventing a settlement. Then the dagger was dropped.
The dagger was dropped by this government, not by the minister responsible for labour, the person who has been saying in this House that we have to let mediation work, that he wants the mediator to go in there to try to resolve this issue and to get both parties together. No, that power was taken from the Minister of Labour. It was usurped by the minister of grains and oilseeds, a man who is completely insensitive as to what the job of a mediator is. He was completely insensitive to how damaging his remarks would be.
His words may have played well in certain parts of the country and they may have played well in a province that is facing a provincial election on October 21, but they were unnecessary remarks. They were inappropriate remarks and they were very damaging remarks. I wish the minister of grains and oilseeds was in the House and could apologize to the people of Canada.
I come from western Canada and I do understand the plight of the farmers, especially at this time. I understand their concern for making sure that grain flows. We could understand that. We can support that but I find it ironic that this government wants this legislation passed now.
We have had the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds and various Conservative backbenchers get up and say we must let the grain flow. Yet yesterday in the House of Commons I asked the Minister of Agriculture this: "If you want the grain to flow, why are you laying off workers in Churchill tomorrow, Friday of this week; why are you closing down the one port that has not been affected by strikes at all this year?"
October 10, 1991

The minister said: "Well, there are no ships in Churchill".
The minister was wrong. The minister is completely unaware of what is happening in the port of Churchill, western Canada's only prairie seaport. It is not surprising that you hear these statements from the Prime Minister, the minister for grains and oilseeds, the Minister of Agriculture and other Conservatives. They don't even know what is going on at a prairie port. They don't even know that they are closing down a port early. They don't even know that grain has been sitting in full grain cars for over 10 days, grain that should have been going to Churchill is sitting at the Hudson Bay junction, not flowing.
The Minister of Agriculture also got up and said that there is no storage at Churchill. There is lots of storage room in Churchill. Again the ministers of this Crown, who get up and pretend to be so concerned about farmers, do not even know what is happening in their own areas of responsibility.
Madam Speaker, I could go on for a long time but I think what we want to resolve in this House today is how, now that the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds has caused all this commotion, how we resolve this dispute-not just for today, not just for next week, but for the long term.
One of the suggestions that I had made was that of the three person panel, instead of having a mediator-arbitrator. I talked to the minister and he said this was a cumbersome approach, that it is not done federally. Well, it is done in many provinces and it works successfully. I say that not from an academic background or anything of that nature, I know it works because I have used three person arbitration boards when I was negotiating for teachers in northern Manitoba and as an employer who has negotiated on the employment side I have sat on a three person arbitration board.
From personal experience I know it works. I really would recommend that the Minister of Labour and this government consider a way of having this legislation passed fairly quickly through this House and at the same time make sure that the local concerns of the people of Thunder Bay are understood.
The minister might be able to find a mediator-arbitrator who is experienced. He might find someone who as an individual is respected by both labour and management. But that does not guarantee that the concerns of
Government Orders
the employees in Thunder Bay, the concerns of the employers, are truly understood when the final decision is being made. That is the advantage of a three person panel; you don't have to have this arbitrator sitting by himself or herself in isolation, making his or her decision on the basis of various formal presentations that have been made. He or she would be in a room with two people who have understanding of the situation, the history in Thunder Bay, the history of the elevators, the real economic situation that faces both the employees and the employer. A three person panel allows for those concerns to be dealt with in whatever final report that comes out.
It ensures local participation. It ensures a thorough understanding of the issues and it ensures that the history of Thunder Bay where I believe somewhere in the neighbourhood of a thousand positions have disappeared over the last while, is understood and when making a decision this is dealt with.
Madam Speaker, I cannot stress how important this is. I have also been in a situation where we have had a single arbitrator. I have seen arbitrators with all their knowledge and with all their experience lack the important information to come down with a settlement that really resolves the issues that are in conflict.
As I said, we have many fine arbitrators in this country, many very skilled mediator-arbitrators but they do not necessarily have all the information at their fingertips that is necessary.
I would say that there can be an almost just end to this labour dispute in Thunder Bay. Forget about the minister for grains and oilseeds' unnecessary and unwarranted intervention; forget about the fact that various cabinet ministers have got up in this House and blamed the workers for everything, because that has happened; forget about the fact that mediation was never really given a chance to work in Thunder Bay; forget about the fact that this legislation was announced not by the Minister of Labour but by another minister who should not have been involved in the first place.
Let us look at what we can do now. Let us look for a way where this government and this House can show justice to the people of Thunder Bay. Let us ensure that we have a three person panel that can understand the issues as they apply in Thunder Bay, understand the broader issues of grain handling, the concerns of the pools, but make sure they also understand what is really happening in that community. That is one way that this government can show good faith.

October 10, 1991
Government Orders
I would hope that the Minister of Labour would show that good faith and make those necessary amendments when we get to committee of the whole. It is a way of resolving it. It does not require any more time. There are clauses in the legislation before us that give the mediator-arbitrator 90 days to make his or her decision. The same thing can be done with a three person panel. It is not cumbersome. Yes, it is more difficult in some ways for some individuals. However, it does ensure along with that difficulty that we actually deal with the issues that are there and it gives us a much better chance of providing a long-term solution to some of the problems that exist in Thunder Bay.
I would also like to point that this is not a union that has been on strike each and every year. This is not a union that has required back to work legislation in order to resolve its disputes. For the most part the grain handlers at Thunder Bay have negotiated with then-employers and have settled the situation without the need for back to work legislation.
Now that it is before this House I think that it is imperative that the government give the tools to the employers and to the employees to ensure lasting peace at the port in Thunder Bay.


Mr. Len Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words on this legislation, an act to provide the resumption and continuance of grain handling operations at Thunder Bay. I would like to address it from three aspects; first of all, the seaway itself from the aspect of agriculture and the farmers and third, from the aspect of all Canadians. I had a great deal of sympathy for the hon. member from Thunder Bay. I have sat on the transport committee different times when a great deal of concern was raised about the seaway and grain handling. Anyone who has sat on the transport committee knows the history of that situation.
I believe at one time about 75 per cent of the grain came through the Thunder Bay route and the St. Lawrence Seaway. That has changed drastically. Having
been a farmer on the prairies and living to the east side of Moose Jaw, I know that the cut-off point for the transportation of grain generally speaking has been from Moose Jaw west and from Moose Jaw east through Thunder Bay.
The numbers are dramatic. Also I do not believe he drew attention to it but the price of grain at the port of Vancouver is higher than the price of grain at the port of Thunder Bay. This all comes into play.
It is very important to the St. Lawrence Seaway and to grain handling in Thunder Bay that the movement of grain is continuous and not held up. I think it is in the best interests of the workers there that the grain keeps moving and this continues because there are difficulties that surround the whole movement of grain. I indicated earlier that 75 per cent of the grain used to come out and there were return loads such as steel and other things for the boats coming in. This is very important. We understand that and I certainly heard what the member had to say. However I am pleased to hear that they are going to support this legislation because they realize the impact of the significance of this to a country.
From the aspect of agriculture, we saw in Winnipeg yesterday the very difficult situation that farmers are facing. There is no question about that. It is obvious to this House and to anybody in Canada who is watching the situation what farmers are facing.
I was at Rosetown. The presentations made by farm groups and farmers were very important and made in a direction that was non-political. Yet they said in a very direct way to the people of Canada and to the government that grain handling and the situation of farm income is so important today. No one would argue with that. We are talking about farm income figures at $6,300 a family farm, which of course is a number that comes from Agriculture Canada. Within hours I think we will hear announcements from the government addressing that situation.
The Prime Minister was in Winnipeg and had a very good meeting with the farm leaders. He indicated very clearly that there would be help coming from the government for the farmers.
October 10, 1991

However, the movement of grain in this situation is very important. It is important to the continuance of our customers. Boats come in and there are demurrage costs. The Grains Commission indicated that the cost at the strike was something like $50 million a week in demurrage and cost of grain sales. When boats are turned back or not loaded, sales are lost. They could go to Seattle and load or they could just lose confidence in the ability of the grain movement in Canada to meet the need. This is not helpful.
It is most important that we have an effective system so that we do not lose our markets, especially when we are facing the problems on the international scene.
We know what it means in terms of dollars and cents to the farmers and the farm situation.
I was speaking to representatives of some of our elevator companies in Saskatchewan last evening. They indicated that they could take grain if they could get it moving. This is most important to our farmers and to their livelihood.
The third area that I would like to speak about is the importance of this movement of grain to all Canadians. I think there is something happening in Canada that I am not entirely enthused about. In fact, I am very, very concerned about it.
There seems to be an undeclared war between urban Canada and rural Canada. This ought not to be. This ought not to be, and I want to emphasize this. Grain movement and the conditions of agriculture are important to every Canadian citizen.
One of the strengths of this country has been that we have been able to provide cheap food for Canadians. Maybe it is too cheap. Agriculture Canada tells us that probably 14 per cent of the income of Canadians buys their food. In many, many countries, it is up to 50 per cent and I am not saying that that is ideal.
What I am saying though is that as Canadian farmers, and I am one, have provided a service; the production of food for Canadians, for North Americans and even for the world if you will, at a very, very reasonable price.
It is important that we have the strength to continue to do that. I believe that we need understanding from the urban community and the rural community.
One of the advantages, if there are advantages, of carrying the message through these rallies has been that
Government Orders
the Canadian citizen, whether rural or urban, becomes conscious of a very, very serious problem that exists.
This problem is not only at the local and rural level, it is also at the national and the international level. Our government has taken steps and the Prime Minister has given leadership, particularly at the international level.
I attended the meeting in Vancouver with the Prime Minister when he met with 50 farm groups going to Tokyo. The topic of agriculture was not on the agenda of the G-7. Thanks to the Prime Minister, and too often he has received no thanks, it was put on the agenda of the G-7 and is now running at the forefront. This is important at the international level. It is very, very important.
We are getting tired of hearing the word "GATT", but it is very, very important that we see and find some agreements in that area.
I want to point this out on grain movement. We have sold to Russia over the past 30 years about 37 per cent of the production of agricultural commodities and grains and oilseeds. It is about 37 per cent.
That country is in a position now where it has no money. One of the major problems that we face in agriculture and from the international aspect as well as the national is that many of our sales go to countries and people who cannot afford to pay, yet they need the products.
This certainly begs an international problem which needs an international solution of making food a priority. If there is one human right that any individual should have anywhere in the world, it is the right to eat. It should certainly be a priority.
We must say that that is not the priority in the way it exists today. Our government and our Prime Minister recognize that. Our Prime Minister has been giving leadership at the international level although you might say: "We have not seen much proof of it". It is on the table and it is important.
I think we have a window of opportunity right now, when the Prime Minister is dealing with Mr. Gorbachev and Mr. Bush and the G-7 countries saying "how are we going to come to grips with this problem." There is a window of opportunity to deal with this very serious problem, but it is going to need understanding from all of the countries of the G-7, Japan included.

October 10, 1991
Government Orders
I would like to get into that sometime, but it leads into another subject. When I go to my farm and I pick up bearings that I get from the John Deere Company, they will have "Japan" written on them. I go and start up my grain loader and it will have a motor that was made in Japan. I walk up the hill to the House of Commons and I count the cars coming up and I look at the makes and they are Toyota and many makes that are made in Japan, East Germany and other countries.
My own view on this is that some of these countries are going to have to start carrying some of the load of producing food and providing food to people who cannot afford to pay for it, because the farmers on the prairies or in Ontario or Quebec or wherever across this country cannot subsidize the Third World. We cannot do it. It is impossible.
We need an international approach, which the Prime Minister has been taking, which the Minister for International Trade has been taking in international trade, which our Minister of Agriculture, our minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, our Minister of Finance and so on have been taking.
I would now like to move back to the national scene, the importance of grain handling and co-operation between the rural community and the urban community. We had a good example yesterday. The hon. member sitting behind me here was at that meeting when we met with the chicken producers of B.C. and the turkey producers and, I believe, a representation of the dairy producers.
The whole situation of article XI certainly comes into play here with respect to the GATT. I made the point to that delegation that the best friend it had in B.C. in dealing with this problem at the GATT was the province of Quebec. The province of Quebec in the dairy industry and in the feather industry has the same problems that it has. There is strength in unity, not in separation as some are directing. There are political movements at both ends of this country that would divide the unity of this country.
I made the point to the farmers there that it was most important if they were to have a strong feather/dairy industry in B.C. to have the support of the farmers in Quebec. I made the point by saying: "Let us say this country separated, God forbid, but in 18 months or two
years from now, you could have a much bigger problem than just dealing with article XI of the GATT".
We must recognize the importance of this country working together, both ends of the country, every province, to strengthen agriculture for the benefit of all Canadians. I make the point that we need an understanding of agriculture, of rural Canada and of urban Canada. I think we all agree that at this time it is most important that the grain move down the St. Lawrence Seaway as well as to the west.
I am very, very pleased about the debate that has been introduced today. I am sure that every farmer in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, B.C., Alberta and right across the country are together in this thing. We are together in this as Canadians for the benefit of Canada. For the benefit of having a strong Canada we must have a strong agriculture and a strong economy.
If you want to look at the example today of what happened in Russia, its agricultural industry went down to the point where it cannot feed themselves. God forbid that that would ever happen in North America, but it is important that we not take things for granted and that food becomes a priority in the mind.
I should not get off on this subject because it is a pet theme of mine, as many of you know. Food is not a priority in the world today but it should be. It is one of the basic human rights, but I believe that there is a consciousness today across this country and a consciousness this fall that may bring about some rethinking in political circles all around the world that says every person has a right to eat, but you cannot have that food unless you have got a producer out there who can produce that food. We need to work together, rural and urban, all Canadians, to build a stronger industry, to build a stronger Canada, for truly this country has been an example of a country in which we do not know shortage.
I want to throw this in. I talked to a doctor from Austria. I asked him the question on subsidies. He said, very simply: "You North Americans"-he qualified us all as North Americans-"don't understand hunger. In my lifetime I have seen hunger three times. You do not have an appreciation for food or the priority of it that you ought to have".
October 10, 1991

I think that today Canadians need to have a new appreciation of the priorities that should be put on food, and this goes right down to the producer, to grain handling and to the urban centres. We are all together in this. I cannot emphasize enough again, as we look to this bill, the importance of doing something that will move quickly to get the grain moving.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Madam Speaker, I want to put a few remarks on the record with respect to this legislation.
First of all, though, I would like to point out that I concur with some of the remarks made by the parliamentary secretary a few moments ago. When he talks about making food a priority I agree with him. I see food as part of our security. I think it is essential to the security of this country because if we cannot maintain a viable agricultural industry, if we cannot feed ourselves then we, as a nation, are not secure. I support the parliamentary secretary on that point.
When he talks about a better understanding or needing a better understanding between rural folk and city folk, or between the rural communities and the urban areas, again I concur in those remarks because when you come right down to it, we are all in this together. We all eat. We all need a strong agricultural community. We have to work together. There has to be a major element of co-operation.
When you witness the kind of development that has occurred at Thunder Bay, that is a strike of grain handlers, a strike that impedes the movement of grain, that creates difficulties, in effect it pits farmer against labour and that is unfortunate. There is no reason in the world why farmers and blue collar workers have to be at each other's throats, that they have to be adversaries. I am idealistic enough to believe that they should always be on the same side of the ledger or the same side of the equation.
There is no doubt that a strike of the kind that is currently in place at Thunder Bay creates difficulties. We have got to remove that impediment as fast as possible and as much as possible not take away the very essential rights that belong to labour in this country.
Government Orders
There is one other point that I want to make. It relates to something that the parliamentary secretary mentioned just a few minutes ago. He was talking about the assistance required by farmers. He was mentioning the alleged Prime Minister's leadership on this question.
We are all aware of the plight of the fanners. We are all aware that they are getting $2 or less than $2 a bushel for their wheat. That is a starvation price. They need help and they need it very quickly. I am told that just minutes ago the Minister of Agriculture did announce some kind of aid package. I am not familiar with the details but I am hoping it is the kind of aid package that farmers will appreciate.
If there is an aid package that is welcomed by farmers, is it really because of the Prime Minister's leadership or is it because of the farmers in this country taking matters into their own hands? I think it is the latter. If we do have an assistance program announced today, I think most of the credit, if not all the credit, should go to the farmers in this country. They are the ones who held the rallies. They are the ones who held rallies in Miami and Brandon, Manitoba and in Rosetown and Weyburn, Saskatchewan and the granddaddy of them all, insofar as rallies are concerned, was held in my home city of Winnipeg yesterday. It is estimated that about 7,000 farmers gathered on the grounds of the Manitoba legislative building to make their case, to tell the world about their plight, about their financial situation. If there is some assistance announced today I think the credit should go to the farmers.
The government knew about this situation months ago. In a way the government's procrastination or the government's dithering really put the farmers through a terrible wringer. They have gone through hellish moments in the last few months. This is what they have had to do. They have had to hold rallies to tell this government to act.
I think it is unfortunate that they had to do that. I do not think it is in the nature of farmers to do what they have done in the past few weeks. I know it is not in their nature. Farmers in conversation can make their points and make them very strongly. It is not in their nature and not in their history really, although it has been done on occasion in the past to gather together in huge crowds and loudly protest. That is not the way they do it.

October 10, 1991
Government Orders
They did it because of the situation they are in. They did it because the government was not acting. The government was not moving.
Now I hear that the government has announced something. I wish I had the details. I hope it comes some way in helping farmers through this very difficult period. But I can tell you this: All the emergency aid in the world is not the ultimate answer. I say this because we have an unbelievably vicious trade war going on out there over subsidies. Until we deal with that situation, we will not find a resolution to some of the major problems facing farmers.
With respect to the legislation, my good friend from Kenora-Rainy River has already spoken to the specific issues. He has put those issues on the record and has spoken eloquently. I think the House better understands the situation as a result of his presentation a few minutes ago.
I want to say that I find these situations difficult because I wish collective bargaining would do the job. I wish that we MPs did not have to involve ourselves the way we have. We have done this a number of times. Just recently we did it in the month of June and that had to do with the work stoppage in Vancouver.
I do not like the way the system is working. I believe in collective bargaining. We give people the right to strike, we give them certain rights and privileges. They use them for whatever reason, and then because of the impact on the farm community in this case or on the economy, we yank those rights away. We unfortunately do not have any choice in this particular case. We don't have any choice but I think the system needs improvement. I said it in June and I will say it again, we have to examine this system and see if we can come up with improvements. It creates all kinds of tensions and I don't really think that we are the experts, are we? We are not the experts. We are here to lay down policy, to enact laws, and after that it is up to the parties involved to work out what is best for them.
I really urge the government to look at this in a very, veiy serious way, because we need improvement.
Our labour critic, the member for Kenora-Rainy River, talked about amending the legislation. He talked about the need for an arbitration panel consisting of representatives from labour and management and a
neutral third party. To me, certainly on the surface, that makes a lot of sense. If you have a three party panel, you have expertise from a labour point of view and expertise from a management point of view. Then you have a third neutral objective person who can perhaps bring it all together, and bring about a settlement satisfactory to both parties.
When the bill goes to the Committee of the Whole, I hope this is something that can be examined in detail. I think that it has a lot of merit, certainly on the surface.
My final remarks, and again it is from an agricultural perspective, have to do with the current situation on the farm. Yes, we support the legislation because there is no choice. We have got to get the grain moving. Just minutes ago a farm package was announced and there may be some help there for the farmers. But we have got to get the grain moving. It has to go through the Lakehead. It is crucial that the exports are maintained, that our sales are maintained. It is very important to farmers that when they make a commitment to a nation, a commitment of sales, that that commitment is kept. If you do not live up to contractual commitments, as my friend from London West has just said, the competitors will step in and they will keep the commitment that you made in the first place. The farmers understand that and I think we all understand that. This is why the strike has to be ended. The work has to be resumed.
I checked the figures just this morning, Madam Speaker, and there is something like 3,700 boxcars waiting to be unloaded. That is a lot of wheat. That is a lot of boxcars. That is a lot of work and it has to be done right away.
In conclusion, I want to say it is of paramount importance to farmers, particularly on the prairies and in western Canada, that work resume at Thunder Bay. The grain must move.
It is unfortunate again that we find ourselves in a situation where farmers are pitted against organized labour but in this case economic factors are at the fore and they must be dealt with. The only way we can deal with it right now is to get this legislation passed as quickly as possible so that the grain handlers can get back to work.
October 10, 1991


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, we on this side of the House are sorry, as I am sure the government is in its own way, that it had to come to this but we are faced once again with back to work legislation, albeit in a different context than the back to work legislation we were faced with over the strike by the Public Service Alliance of Canada.
The dilemma throughout the week has been that on the one hand we wanted the minister to give as much time as possible to the collective bargaining process in order for it to work. At the same time we knew that the closer we got without success to the end of the week prior to the one when Parliament was not sitting, we were creating the possibility of having to deal with this legislation in a very short time frame. This is one of the reasons we have made it possible for the debate to begin in the way we did this morning. We will continue to be in discussion with the government over the course of the day as to how things ought to proceed.
I might say in referring to how things unfolded this week that there might have been a different outcome. The possibility of an agreement being reached was sabotaged or endangered-however you want to put it-by the statements made by the Minister for Grains and Oilseeds at the rally in Winnipeg yesterday, that things were proceeding. There was no guarantee that they would proceed to an agreement but nevertheless there was progress. When people heard at the rally in Winnipeg that the minister had announced back to work legislation, this indeed soured the mood and made the possibility of an agreement even less likely.
I think that is unfortunate and is one of the contributing factors to why we find ourselves in the situation we are now in.
It is not just farmers, although obviously it is farmers, who are most greatly affected by this. These strikes affect other people and other sectors of the economy as well. I speak as one who has a great many railroaders in my riding. When the grain finally piles up and the boxcars are not being emptied and not coming back, that eventually begins to affect employment in ridings like Winnipeg Transcona.
Railroaders know what it is like to be on strike.
I keep that in mind when I deliberate upon what my response might be to the kind of situation I find myself in now and which my colleagues and I find ourselves in as supporters of the collective bargaining process and as
Government Orders
people who are generally critical of back to work legislation, but who realize also that there are situations, particularly when the government has made up its mind, that call for some arrangement to be made here in the House with respect to the legislation.
Again, the government could have made all this a lot easier and still could make it easier if it would agree to the very reasonable requests that are being made by the union vis-a-vis the legislation.
One of the sticking points over the last little while in the negotiations, as I understand them, has been the refusal of management, the company, the pools, to put pensions on the table. It seems to me reasonable for employees to want to be able to negotiate, at the time of renegotiating a contract, to want to have the matter of pensions on the table. This has not been the position of the companies.
All that the minister had to do, and I understand that he has said something in this respect, earlier on in the week was use whatever clout he has as the Minister of Labour to make sure that pensions were on the table in a way that might have helped an agreement to come about.
There has also been a request by the union for a three person arbitration board, rather than the one person as the government suggests, the idea being a person selected by management, another person selected by the union and someone else mutually acceptable is a preferable way of having settlements like this arbitrated.
As the hon. member for Churchill said, this is not uncommon. It is a process that has worked. It is not as if it is some radical new idea. It is just a radical new idea to the bureaucrats in the Department of Labour who do not like to do anything different. They have their ways. They are set in their ways. Heaven forbid that anyone should come up with a suggestion that they have not come up with already.
It seems to me that the minister should take this request seriously now. I understand that he has rejected it. If he has rejected it, he might consider another proposal by the union which is that at the very least the person who is appointed the arbitrator be someone who knows a great deal about pensions, someone who can take the pension concerns of the union seriously and deal with them fairly and adequately because that person knows what they are talking about when it comes to pensions.

October 10,1991
Government Orders
I would certainly ask the minister to take that into account and perhaps to say something about that later if he can when we get into Committee of the Whole for instance that would reassure us and reassure the grain handlers that that kind of concern is going to be adequately dealt with.
If those kinds of commitments could be given, it would certainly facilitate the passage of the legislation. I hope that we can over the next little while hear something back from the minister on this so that we can be able to say that the process here was not a fait accompli, that the government was open to suggestions from the opposition and from the union and that we might actually make some progress in improving the bill which has been put before us.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, the bill before us, an act to provide for the resumption and continuance of grain handling operations at Thunder Bay, Ontario, raises a number of questions that I and a number of my colleagues have some difficulty with, both in principle and in operation.
While we understand the very natural anxieties of the agricultural community on the Canadian prairies, we also through a long history of involvement, for many of us a direct involvement, in matters dealing with industrial relations have considerable sympathy and understanding for the very real daily problems faced by employees at Thunder Bay.
Politics is a matter of choices. My colleague from Churchill earlier today asked a couple of very pertinent questions as to why the government, when it has so loudly proclaimed its very valid interest in getting the grain moving through the terminal at Thunder Bay, has not taken what action might be taken in order to ensure that the port of Churchill, which has storage facilities that are unused and which is able to take its former historic role as being a key shipper of prairie grain, remain functional. It has not been put on track when the government should have been able to see this problem coming.
No one wants to question motivations, but it still is a question that should be answered. If it is so vital that that
prairie grain move and if the government could see this problem emerging, as most of us think it could, why then was action not taken to see that the port of Churchill remain functional? That is a question the government has to answer.
Other of my colleagues, the member for Winnipeg-Transcona and the member for Churchill, spent some time, and I want to just touch again, on the question of single person mediation and arbitration as opposed to the request that has been made for a three member panel for mediation and arbitration.
The normal and valid argument against third party intervention generally is that the immediate and almost sole interest of a third party that is intervening is to end an existing dispute and simply get a contract signed. That arbitrator does not have to live with the results of whatever is contained in that collective agreement and no third party has to live through the daily, weekly, monthly and yearly very serious problems and relationships that often exist within any given industrial undertaking.
We all agree that in some way or another because of the important public interest involved in this dispute, there will be some third party intervention. We understand that but once that choice has been made, surely we should attempt to define that intervention in such a way as it can most accurately reflect and work out answers to problems which are understanding and sensitive to the continuing problems that take place within the Thunder Bay operation and within that industry.
What we have submitted and what other parties have submitted is that can best be done not by a single mediator/arbitrator but by a three member panel in which there is direct involvement from both the employees who are most directly involved and the employers who are most directly involved because they know what those relationships have been.
That is something you cannot learn by simply listening to submissions and reading briefs within a necessarily very compressed period. It is something that you can only really get to understand if you have lived through the previous history within that specific undertaking or operation.
October 10, 1991

We would submit again, along with many of the other parties involved, that it is important in order to not only get a settlement, but to get a settlement that hopefully will allow the two parties in Thunder Bay to live together in a constructive relationship for a significant period to come. The parties most directly involved should have direct representation in the arbitration process.
It just seems like common sense to me. We recognize that there are across this country, not many but a number of individuals with some experience as single arbitrators who have done yeoman service and have shown a great proclivity to gain a deep understanding, in relatively short periods of time, of some of the specifics involved in the various disputes that they have been called upon to intervene in. It is, in an area of our economy that is so sensitive and so important to the needs of so many, maybe asking too much to expect any single person, no matter how efficient or how experienced, to be able to exercise the wisdom of Solomon.
We would again just ask the government to reconsider and give very, very special and sensitive attention to that request. We think the request has obvious merit and we think that many people across the country, even the farmers directly or indirectly affected by the dispute, would understand that as well. If it takes just a little bit longer in order to come up with the appropriate personnel, and we cannot really see why it should, I think everyone would be understanding and appreciative of it.
We also understand that pensions have been one of the major issues in dispute, and not really even in dispute so much as that the employer, for whatever reason, has refused to place those matters on the table.
In an industry which has seen a great number of layoffs and a great deal of insecurity over the period of the past few years and the past few months, I think we have to be sensitive to the likelihood that a large number of those employees and the community that surrounds them are going to feel that matters relating to retirement, early retirement and the kind of pensions which their members who may find themselves among the victims of layoffs again in the near future must have, are of great great priority, not only personal priority but community priority. They want to see that there is some stability as changes continue to take place.
Government Orders
We would hope again that the government, however this process evolves, will attempt to make clear to those who are going to be involved in the mediation-arbitration that they are advised to take the pension issue very seriously, not to tell them how to deal with it, but that it must be dealt with.
The whole matter of compulsory settlement is one that we certainly do not relish having to deal with. However, as a government and as a party that has formed governments in a number of provincial jurisdictions, and in the near future will likely do so again, we have found it necessary from time to time in a given public interest dispute to recognize that there are limits to freedom when a vital public interest is involved.
While it is a question of principle, we have always in the past been quite prepared to deal with the realities of the situation. We will be willing to deal with those again today, or whenever the time finally comes for a decision. The events of the past few weeks in this place have seen another major intervention by the government in imposing a settlement on the Public Service Alliance and the employees of the federal government. I think almost all Canadians, no matter which side of the debate they were on, thought this was unjust. This has left a certain atmosphere among many in the work force across Canada, both public and private, that there is perhaps too quick and ready a proclivity on the part of this government to move to deny people certain basic fundamental rights and freedoms in the name of some broad public interest. This dispute may more readily lend itself to a resolution that will perhaps find a broader measure of agreement than did the previous Public Service dispute. Our proclivity to move quickly to impinge on those freedoms leaves a bad taste. It makes it much more likely in the future that this government will face great difficulty, even in instances in which it may be quite justified, to attempt to gain public or parliamentary support for its actions.
If we cry wolf too often, people are not going to answer. I think the government ought to take a very close look at its own record in this regard and the fairness of the measures that it does impose when it does decide that measures must be imposed.

October 10,1991
Government Orders
It is for that reason, again, that I just want to go back very briefly and urge the government to (1) consider advising whatever person or panel of arbitrators is finally appointed to consider the serious pension issues that have been raised by the employees at Thunder Bay, and (2) to give very serious consideration to the request that has been made for a three member panel so that we can have a solution that the industry, the employees and the community at large can live with. Hopefully we will see some continuing peace and justice within that community and that industry for the next number of years.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I am rising to participate ever so briefly in this debate today. I just want to commend the government for one aspect of this bill. We, as my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River has indicated, are in support of the legislation in principle. We believe it is necessary at this time. So there is no misunderstanding as to why we support back to work legislation today and yet not have supported the back to work legislation with respect to the Public Service, I want to make it clear that we are supporting this bill in part because it contains an arbitration or mediation clause.
What the government is doing by this bill is appointing an arbitrator-they call it a mediator/arbitrator-to adjudicate on the matters in dispute between the parties and effect a collective agreement between the parties. The bill that was introduced to force the public servants back to work contained no such provision. It simply ordered the public servants of Canada to resume their employment and it gave them a zero per cent increase. We objected to that legislation because of its manifest unfairness and we would, of course, oppose such a bill in future. That is clearly unfair. The government should never have proceeded in that way.
In this case it has returned to an element of fairness. It has at least provided that an independent third party will adjudicate the matters in dispute. That of course is what it should have done in the case of its own public servants. What it did in that case was act as judge, jury and ultimately executioner for its public servants. It should have appointed a third party arbitrator who could have determined what was a fair contract in the circumstances between the government as employer and its employees.
This bill at least is fair. I know my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River has striven to ensure that such legislation was not necessary, but unfortunately it appears that the talks are not continuing at least in a way that will lead to a settlement. He has indicated that we as a party will support this bill in principle. I am pleased to have participated in that discussion. I want to make it clear that the principal reason we are doing so is because of the change in this bill from the previous bill in that it provides for an independent third party to adjudicate the matters in dispute.
On that basis, we will support the legislation.


Mr. Dan Heap (TVinity-Spadina):: Madam Speaker, I want to underline certain points about the bill to order the grain handlers back to work. With the rest of my party I understand the need to get the grain moving. In particular, I understand the need of the farmers to get even the measly $2 per bushel that may be all they get. I am also aware that there is a different kind of need on the part of large trans-national operations such as Cargill which are taking over the world marketing of grain little by little, but moving fairly fast.
I am informed that the big issue is pensions. The amount of grain moving through Thunder Bay has been declining. The number of jobs moving the grain has been declining. The remaining workers are very naturally concerned about the pension system.
It seems that the employers refuse to discuss that. They are not bargaining in good faith and are not willing to address an issue that was legitimately on the table. It is an issue that is of extreme importance not just to their employees but also to many of the residents of Thunder Bay. Those pensioners if they have a decent pension will be spending their money mostly in Thunder Bay where they have lived most of their lives.
It is unfortunate that the weight of this bill may be directed primarily not against the employers who are unwilling to talk about the chief issue, but against the workers who use the only means they have to bring the employers to the table on that issue.
As has been mentioned by my colleague from Churchill, the scale of the fines is superficially equal: $100,000 on the employer, $100,000 on the union if it does not follow the legislation. That is in the spirit of the French proverb that I understand in English says that "The law in its majesty forbids rich and poor alike to stale bread or to sleep under bridges". In other words, Cargill can simply chalk up a $100,000 fine to expenses and take it
October 10, 1991

from the consumers at the other end of the commercial pipeline. The unions have nothing but the dues of their own members with which to pay a fine. In reality, the fines against the union and against the company are not by any means equal. They favour the company.
Nevertheless, I am glad that the minister sent his representative who had some prospect of getting some movement on the pension question. He was able for the first time to bring the employers to discuss that issue.
I am hoping that the arbitration will be able to deal sensitively with the issue of pensions and other issues on the table.
I also want to support the idea that there should be an arbitration board, one named by the employer, one named by the union and the chair named by the minister.
I want to refer to my own experience. I have had no direct experience in arbitration, but as secretary of my local union for 12 years in a factory that made corrugated paper boxes, the union that is now the Canadian Paper-workers' Union, I had a good deal of indirect experience with arbitration and much direct experience with the steps leading to arbitration. I started as an employee doing unskilled work, moving stock around the plant, becoming eventually a machine operator in the press department. I also became a steward and then an officer in the local. As such, I participated both in the negotiations with the company, which were at first annual and then biennial, and in the settlement of grievances or disciplinary situations.
I think it is very clear that people who are engaged in the same work not only are better able to defend their fellow workers but are better able also to decide when a proposed line of defence is unreasonable. In other words, there is some peer judgment exercised by a local union in the matter of its members' individual disputes. There is also a great weight on the local union not to ask in collective bargaining for something that is unreasonable. In my union, and I believe in other unions such as this one, offers by the company must be brought back to
Government Orders
the members for a vote. The recommendation of the executive or the bargaining committee, one way or the other, sometimes is overturned by the membership vote.
What I am illustrating is that there is important knowledge and expertise to be had from a union appointee to an arbitration board. Without question, there is important knowledge and expertise to be had from an employer appointee. I cannot speak so directly of that.
I seriously urge the government to consider enlarging the board in the way that has been suggested by some of my colleagues on this side. I think if the government were to do that, it would make its initiative in this law far more credible. The reason I mention that is that the government's action to date in this matter is questionable in at least one way, and that is the outburst or whatever it was, planned or unplanned, of the minister of grains and oilseeds yesterday, which completely made a mockery of the Minister of Labour's representative sitting down with the disputing parties. To ask them to come together and discuss the very thing on which they were divided and then have the news that that does not matter because there is going to be back to work legislation in any case certainly makes bargaining impossible.
In many, many bargaining sessions between my local union and our employer, Continental Can, the question of trust, the question of confidence in the bargaining process was essential. During the 18 years I worked there, we did not have a strike. I do not claim that was because of my participation, but I am saying that the union and the company were both willing to reach a compromise on all those occasions.
I do not suppose that the cabinet was responsible for the intervention of the minister of grains and oilseeds but because of the unfortunate timing with which it occurred, I think the government would get better support not only from the grain handler workers, but from other workers in general in the country, if it showed sensitivity by enlarging the arbitration to a three man board.

October 10, 1991
Government Orders


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the hon. member's speech but I was unable to discern from it whether he is supporting this bill.
Could he tell us his position or his party's position on whether they support this bill? It was not clear to me from the speech.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, the matter is being discussed within our caucus and the hon. member will learn in due course what stand we will be taking.


Robert Daniel Nault: Madam Speaker, I too would like an opportunity to make a quick statement and then pose a question to the member.
One of the things the member mentioned was that his party seems to be very much in favour of the discussion that I have had in my speech about a panel versus an arbitration board versus just an arbitrator-mediator. I thank him for that because I think that is a concern that the union has.
The reason it has that concern, as I said before in my speech, was that the particular issue that it is dealing with is very technical in nature. It seems to me that we should, as parties on all sides, look at that particular issue and come to agreement on it.
I have discussed this with the union, and it does not see any sense in prolonging this strike because of the fact that the company through its listings in the press has come to the conclusion that there is no need to negotiate any further. There is going to be back to work legislation very shortly.
I have taken the lead somewhat from the workers in Thunder Bay who have said to me and I am sure to other members in this place: "Do not prolong this whole issue." If we can get some legitimate negotiations going through an arbitration board, then we may be able to get a lot further down the road than we are now. So far, the company has refused to deal with the pension issue, which is the major issue.
I would like to ask the member to tell us whether he personally thinks it would be beneficial for the party that he represents to vote in favour of this legislation. With the help of this particular arbitration board we will then have the right mechanism in place to deal with the issue as quickly as possible based on the economic situation that we are in.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, as I said before the matter is still under discussion in our caucus because we do not know what the government is going to do, for example, in committee or in report from committee about the recommendation that the hon. member himself and others have advocated.
We do not know. We were quite surprised when one of the Winnipeg members of the Liberal Party gave a blank cheque to the government and said:"Anything that the government does, I will vote for". The debate is not finished, and as I have said we will discuss it within the caucus.
The question is whether a person is to make a decision without having the information with which to make it.
The Liberals may be happy to say: "Anything the government does is just fine by us". I am not. I want to see what the government is going to do. We do not intend to prolong the debate unduly, but we do not intend as the Liberals clearly are doing to simply surrender all the union's requests and abandon all the union's requests by telling the government: "No matter what comes, the bill will be passed".
We do not approve in general of this back to work legislation, but given the points raised not only by the hon. member but previously by our own members, that delay for the sake of delay would be useless and harmful to all concerned, we do not intend to delay it but that is different from the question of whether we will give final approval to the bill as such.


Marcel Danis: Madam Speaker, I think there is consent on three things: first, if you put the question, you will obtain the consent of the House to adopt Bill C-37 on second reading, on division.

Number two, I was going to suggest that you call it one o'clock afterward. We are getting veiy close.
The third point would be that immediately after Question Period, which would be three o'clock, we proceed then to Committee of the Whole.
October 10, 1991

Hopefully with the co-operation of my colleagues we may proceed through all stages of Bill C-37 this afternoon.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, there have been discussions and it is agreed that we would accept second reading on division because at this point we do not support the legislation.


Robert Daniel Nault: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Liberal Party, we very much agree with what the minister has said and we find it quite interesting that on the one hand the member who just spoke did not know whether his party was going to vote in favour or against and then the Whip for the NDP all of a sudden told us exactly how it was going to vote.
I sure wish the members would make up their minds so we could get this done with in a more amicable way.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Carried on division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock p.m., I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, racism is on the rise in Canada. This week at a Canadian Jewish Congress conference, Ottawa police reported that an incredible 38 per cent of all youth crime in the city this summer was racist crime. Thirty-eight per cent. Violent race riots have also occurred in Montreal and Halifax.
Just last weekend a revisionist who denied the holocaust tried to spread his lies just two blocks from this House. Closer to home, in this House yesterday a racist slur was uttered by a member of Parliament. What a fine role model for Canadians.
Six months ago I asked the Prime Minister what the government was doing to stop the spread of racism in Canada. He spoke eloquently but did not offer specifics. We do not need platitudes. We need action.
I will ask again; what does this government plan to do now to stop the alarming growth in race related hatred, violence and crime in Canada?


NATIONAL FAMILY WEEK
Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, this week, October 7-13, 1991, is National Family Week, sponsored by Family Service Canada.
This week is dedicated to public recognition of the contribution families make to the Canadian way of life. It is also a good time to highlight the activities undertaken by the Department of National Health and Welfare for Canadian families.
Over the years, the Department has launched many initiatives for this purpose, such as family allowances, child health and income security programs and the National Adoption desk. More recently, the Department has played a key role in initiatives against family violence and in the national anti-drug strategy.
Mr. Speaker, we hope that all these programs contribute to the greater physical and mental welfare of children and families.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, Mogar Timber Mill Ltd., a small lumber processing firm in my riding of Surrey, B.C., is in danger of closing because of the government's mishandling of the GST.
The company has written to the government stating:
I have not received my GST refund cheques for the months of May, June, July and August 1991. This is a total amount of $32,602 that is owing my company. There is no company that can survive when they have to pay out their profit and working capital. We are fed up with your system, we cannot figure out how this government can stay in power after causing so many small companies to shut down. You do not understand how important the working capital is to us.

October 10, 1991
If these delays continue we will be forced to shut down the company
and lay off our employees.
On behalf of Mogar Timber and all small business I call upon the government to not only change the GST refund system but to scrap the GST.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, on August 25 the Minister of the Environment announced that the federal government has committed $25 million in green plan funding to strengthen Canada's fight against ozone layer depletion.
The government will strengthen controls, establish programs for the recovery and recycling of ozone depleting substances and increase our program of research and monitoring.
A permanent high Arctic ozone observatory will be established at Eureka, Northwest Territories that will place Canada on the leading edge of ozone science.
The government is also increasing the existing Canadian ozone monitoring program by 20 per cent and will augment Canada's participation in joint international research programs.
The 1987 Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer was the first environment treaty signed by 25 nations addressing a truly global threat.
Canada has set up a domestic control program to exceed the agreed international targets. Our commitment is to phase out CFCs by 1997 and other major ozone depleting substances by the year 2000.


THE ECONOMY
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, despite our finance minister's sunny proclamations that the recession is over, thousands of residents in my riding of Northumberland ask: "Over for whom?"
Personal and small business economic crises are rampant, resulting in extreme family difficulties, emotional trauma, farms, small business and personal bankruptcies and closures.
The fact that there are so few jobs available in my community has caused welfare rolls to grow at such alarming rates that the system worries that its capacity to sustain its present load, let alone cope with the increases which are predicted.
The people of this country cry for leadership, vision and compassion. This government must recognize that its greatest asset, its people, are willing to work and want to be trained for good jobs, its small business entrepreneurs are willing to risk and help the economy grow. Crippling high taxes, the high dollar and unemployment policies must be addressed by this government.


MEMBER FOR GLENGARRY-PRESCOTT-RUSSELL
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, on October 8, 1991, the Liberal member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell said in this House, during the debate on Bill C-211:
Last year there was a fire in Baie Comeau, in the Prime Minister's
own riding. Is it logical that a volunteer should not be able to help
with the fire because he is receiving UI?
I would like to clarify two points on this subject. First, the fire in question was this year. Second, La Presse of July 27, 1991 contained the following: "Elected officials on the North Shore want to fight forest fires with volunteers, but Quebec refuses." The Quebec Minister of Forests, Albert Cote, said: "We put in all the resources required in the circumstances. It would be irresponsible to send people into the forest without proper training and supervision."


CULTURE
John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about leading cultural institutions in my home city of Winnipeg.
I am informed today that the Manitoba Museum of Man and Nature faces a cut of almost $200,000 in financial assistance from the Department of Communications. This cost will place a terrible financial hardship on the museum.
October 10, 1991

In fact, if the government proceeds with this cut, it will threaten services now provided by the museum to schools and rural communities in Manitoba. It might also mean job losses.
The museum already has a deficit and will have serious difficulty in coping with this latest blow. The Winnipeg Art Gallery also faces a similar cut.
I urge the Minister of Communications to reverse these decisions. These institutions are major contributors to the quality of life in my home province.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Harry Chadwick (Bramalea-Gore-Malton):: Mr. Speaker, in Bramalea-Gore-Malton, we are waiting for the sounds of silence.
We were told not to worry about airport expansion, not to worry about noisy aircraft, not to worry about flight frequency. We were told that all these things will not matter when the airlines start flying quiet planes. With airlines competing for a dwindling world travel market, I am concerned that our airlines will not be able to afford to replace their fleets with quieter aircraft.
If the prominent airlines cannot afford to fly the new quiet jets, what about other less prominent airlines? In the United States, the FAA has unveiled legislation that would require airlines to have 25 per cent of their noisy planes removed by 1994 and the remainder by the year 2000.
Can we expect equally definitive legislation in Canada? Mr. Speaker, forgive us if we are not optimistic. Forgive us if we just do not buy the latest solution to living with airport noise.


PERSONS AWARD
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the winners of the 1991 Persons Award, named for the day women officially became persons in Canada, October 18, 1929. The winners are Doris Anderson, Solange Femet-Gervais, Ursula Franklin, Jane Manuel and June Menzies.
These women have made outstanding contributions, advancing the cause of women from advocacy on behalf of farm workers to repealing sexism in the Indian Act to working for equality for women in non-traditional fields. They are five courageous women.
I also want to congratulate women who have not received awards for a lifetime of work advancing the cause of women in Canada. We need to better appreciate the work of our foremothers, our sisters, our daughters and, of ourselves, in applying skills, intelligence and talent to a commitment to achieve full social and economic equality for the women of Canada.


FAMILY ASSISTANCE POLICIES
Mr. Allan Koury (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve):: Mr. Speaker, the time has come to review our family assistance policies to make sure that they match the reality of the 1990s.
The present support system was developed on the basis of the needs of a traditional family composed of two parents, one of whom earned a salary. This system had two parts: a benefit plan and rules to prevent tax avoidance through income splitting. The tax system was later modified to follow trends in family structure, for example by setting up an equivalent credit for wholly dependent persons.
Today, the benefit plan and the rules are in flagrant contradiction. Thus, unmarried couples with children are in a better tax situation than married couples with children. The problem was recently recognized by Statistics Canada, Mr. Speaker, and is real. We are aware of it and will try to solve it.


TREASURY BOARD
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, let us examine the Tory yearly salary policy. The government refuses to give a salary increase to its employees this year and has limited the increase to 3 per cent for each of the next two years. It is fiscal restraint. But now the government has been caught giving fat bonuses to heads of Crown corporations and to other Order in Council Tory appointees.

October 10,1991
Mr. Speaker, if you were a good CN president last year, you get an $87,000 Christmas bonus this year to top up your measly $365,000 a year salary. If you have been a bad boy this year, oh, well, not to worry because you will only be judged next year for what you did last year in order to get a bonus this year, and the year after that, of course.
Mr. Speaker, that should clear it all up. By the way, is this not the year of the pig? No matter how you cut it, if you are a Tory bigwig, you can always agree with the tire salesman who once said that it has been a very "Goodyear", but if you are an ordinary taxpayer or government employee, every Tory year is a bad year.


AIDS AWARENESS WEEK
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, this is AIDS Awareness Week. Since there is as yet no cure or vaccine for HIV infection, education and prevention programs remain the most effective tools in preventing the spread of the disease.
Community groups are fundamental to fighting AIDS, as they provide preventive education programs and are key players in the provision of care and support to those who are HIV infected.
The many challenges that Canadian society faces concerning AIDS will be brought to the attention of all citizens and all levels of government by the many community-based organizations.
This week, Mr. Speaker, represents an opportunity for us to show our support in the battle against HIV infection and AIDS. I urge all members to participate in the many activities planned for this week.


SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE FOR A RENEWED CANADA
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier- Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, the Special Joint Committee on the Future of Canada began its work yesterday. Before that, we had the Charest Report, the Beaudoin-Edwards Committee
and the Spicer Commission, better known as the "Spicer circus".
It seems less serious to us than commissions like those chaired by Fulton-Favreau and Pepin-Robarts. We should call it "the remake of the Spicer Circus", something like Rocky I, II, III, IV.
The Belanger-Campeau Commission would be a more appropriate model, according to Liberal Andre Ouellet. Canadians deserve better, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, it would be preferable to have one-to-one discussions between Quebec and Canada once Quebec has held its referendum. We would benefit from following the European Economic Community, Mr. Speaker, which, remember, is an economic organization of sovereign countries.


GOVERNMENT OF NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, Premier McKenna of New Brunswick announced the make-up of his new executive council. Responding to the need to reduce government as expressed by the people of New Brunswick, the premier reduced his cabinet from 24 members to 18, a 25 per cent reduction.
This, along with mergers and streamlining of government departments, will save the taxpayers of New Brunswick an estimated $3 million to $5 million a year. The number of women in ministerial positions has also risen to five, the highest in the history of the province. Mrs. Shirley Dyshart will become the first woman Speaker of the New Brunswick legislature.
I congratulate the premier and all members of his new government, particularly those from my federal riding: Mrs. Ann Breault, a new addition to the cabinet who becomes Minister of Income Assistance; Sheldon Lee who retains his position as transportation minister; and Bruce Smith who becomes our new Solicitor General.
I along with my colleagues in this House look forward to working with the Government of New Brunswick in making a better New Brunswick, indeed a better Canada.
October 10, 1991


SERVICE MEDALS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, recently members of the Canadian Armed Forces who served in the gulf war were recognized for their outstanding dedication and professionalism when the Canadian government created the Gulf and Kuwait Campaign Medal. Earlier this year, in June, the government announced the creation of the Canadian Volunteer Service Medal for Korea.
The Cameron Association in Winnipeg asks us all to recall an event of great significance in the course of the Second World War in Europe: the raid on the French coastal port of Dieppe in 1942.
Many Dieppe veterans are asking, with the 50th anniversary of the Dieppe raid approaching in 1992, that the Government of Canada finally do the right thing and strike a medal to acknowledge the dedication, professionalism, heroism, sacrifice and contribution that was demonstrated by so many Canadians on August 19,1942.


BILL C-17
Mr. Dave Worthy (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, late last night the legislative committee passed Bill C-17, the government's proposed gun control legislation.
I want to congratulate all those who contributed to the process, but in particular committee members from all sides of the House, for the diligence and dedication required to achieve this improved bill.
For some of us the process began a number of months ago with the special committee on Bill C-80. Many said that we were attempting to hijack, scuttle or water down the bill. It will be obvious to all in this House that this has not happened. In fact the opposite is true.
The democratic process was allowed to function and the result is legislation that is stronger and more effective, just as predicted by the Minister of Justice.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, did you know that Petro-Canada, still 80 per cent owned by the people of Canada, is currently training the
Oral Questions
son of the managing director of the state owned Myanmar Oil Corporation in Calgary?
The military government of Burma, according to Amnesty International, operates one of the most oppressive regimes on earth. It has no basis to exist in law or in democratic practice.
The 85th Interparliamentary Conference held in Korea earlier this year passed a resolution expressing concern that the Burmese Parliament had not been allowed to sit since the May 1990 elections and that 62 elected parliamentarians had been arrested.
The latest sleight of hand by the Burmese regime has been to amend the election law with the retroactive effect of barring anyone convicted of a security or moral offence from running for Parliament.
Petro-Canada will never retrieve the $6 million paid as a "signing bonus" for the right to drill for oil in Burma, but it could still retrieve some of its honour and Canada's by disentangling itself, even at this late stage, from its involvement with a regime that has shown no regard for human rights or democratic principles.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
We keep hearing all the ministers of the government saying that the recession is over. I want to tell the Prime Minister that if they would take the time to go across the country like I have, they would meet the plant workers.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I met 7,000 farmers yesterday and they all know that if we had not put pressure on this government for a month and a half nothing would have happened.
If they were to talk with the plant workers who are losing their jobs, they would know that these people do not think that the recession is over. If they were to meet with the single mothers who are obliged to go to the food banks, they would know that they do not think the recession is over.

October 10, 1991
Oral Questions
I would like the Prime Minister to realize that there is a human face to this recession and we want to know the truth. Is the recession over or is it not over?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend will acknowledge, with economic growth in the last three months annualized at 4.9 per cent, with inflation in the last three months below 3 per cent, with interest rates that have declined by six percentage points in the last year and 13 basis points more today and with 49,000 net jobs created in the last number of months, that those signs are all encouraging.
What is even more encouraging are the results of the IMF and the OECD which indicate that in 1992 Canada's economic growth is liable to tie that of Japan's, thereby leading the industrialized world.
There are no guarantees in this life, but I think that the record is encouraging and I hope my hon. friend would agree.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister for International Trade was in Montreal. He spoke to businessmen who complained the dollar was too high, exports were going steadily downward and they had to lay off hundreds of workers every week. The minister said that businesses that wanted to compete on international markets should not let themselves be influenced by the strength of the Canadian dollar.
I therefore want to ask the Prime Minister: Does he agree with the minister's statement or does he in fact think, as we do, that this is no way to heat people who want to create jobs but need help at this time? Does he agree that when we have a situation like the one we are in today vis-a-vis the Americans, we must use our monetary policy to help our entrepreneurs?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I responded to criticism about the value of the dollar, and I asked whether it was one of the Liberal Party's monetary policies to proceed with an artificial depreciation of the Canadian dollar, with all the disastrous consequences that would automatically ensue.

When the Leader of the Opposition was Minister of Finance and President of the Treasury Board and the dollar was trading at $1.02, he was asked whether he was going to order the lowering of the value of the dollar. He said: "I have not given any instructions to the Governor of the Bank with regard to the Canadian dollar. The Canadian dollar is a floating dollar and it is the marketplace that will decide where the Canadian dollar should be. That is the policy of the Liberal government and I have not given any specific instructions to the Governor of the Bank to lower the dollar".


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, I
have not done that, Mr. Speaker, but there is one thing I did that this government would have been well advised to do, and that is not to borrow abroad to finance the deficit of the government when we have enough savings in Canada.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is the way he has trapped himself.
In those days, I would like to tell the Prime Minister, the dollar went down when we were there because in Canada the paper mills were closed down, the mines were closed down, and it was the instrument I used to bring Canada back to a competitive position.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I want to know if the Prime Minister, like his minister for external trade, tells businessmen who want to improve the competitiveness of their products abroad to take the 90-cent dollar and shut up, try to export, and you will never receive any help from this government.
What is the policy of this government in terms of making Canada competitive in international markets?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, obviously the debt, the deficit, the productivity rate and foreign investment, all of these matters, impact very significantly on the value of the dollar as do the inflation rate, anticipated growth, and so on, as my hon. friend knows.
When he was Minister of Finance he was asked the question: "Are you ever tempted to fix the value of the Canadian dollar?" "A. No. No industrialized country's currency is fixed". "Q. Do you ever think of getting out of the finance portfolio for something less tough?" "A.
October 10,1991

No. Yes. You know it is tough when I look back to all the problems of my predecessors".
The problem my friend referred to, he adopted a policy when he was Minister of Finance of letting the dollar seek its own level. That was a policy that has been endorsed by industrialized countries since the Second World War, and we think it is an appropriate one.
Now he says that when he was Minister of Finance he chose not to borrow abroad. He did not have to. He printed money recklessly, as a result of which the debt of Canada increased by 1,100 per cent in 15 years. The Leader of the Opposition is an architect of the destruction of public finances in Canada, and everybody with a brain in his head knows it.


Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
This government keeps telling Canadians that we have free access to the U.S. market. However, fresh fish shipments are held up at the border by as much as three days, softwood lumber shippers now have to post bonds, shippers of breeding livestock are held up and detained as long as three days, and now we have a tremendous increase in the live hog-pork countervail.
This is nothing but harassment. Is this what this government means by free market access?


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the difficulty with softwood lumber at the border. I think there has been considerable confusion on the part of the United States as to exactly what the softwood lumber arrangement should be, but we have made our representations to them and we have been guaranteed that there will be no further hold-ups.


Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister as well.
That answer indicates to the House that they are aware. What we want to know is what is going to be done. A Canadian pork producer today receives $110 for a hog, but in order to sell that hog into the United States that
Oral Questions
producer has to pay the United States government $24 Canadian.
My question is: Is this free trade? Is this market access? Is this fair?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, went through all of this yesterday in some detail. We know this is not an uncommon thing for the United States pork producers to do. Is our own industry going to object to this? The Government of Canada will stand behind the Canadian industry.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The farm package announced this morning will give farmers about $7 an acre, and the government has said that that is what farmers need. Well, yesterday I too met
7,000	farmers who said very clearly that they needed $30 an acre to continue or they are out of business.
So I want to ask the Prime Minister: according to his government's calculations, how many farm families will this shortfall put out of business permanently?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I think the crisis in the farm community is much more serious than the Leader of the New Democratic Party has put forward in her question.
Thirty dollars an acre amounts over $2 billion. That is on seeded acres. If it were uncultivated acres it would be amount to $3 billion. Neither the Government of Canada nor the provincial governments have the capacity to provide that support.
What we have done is work with the farmers and the provinces and put forward programs that will provide before seeding next year $40 an acre in assistance to the grains and oilseeds industry in Canada.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the minister. As the minister well knows, farmers want to stay on the farm. When they say that they need $30 an acre to make up for the 1990 shortfall, they are not just making this up out of the air. They are saying this is a question of survival. Last year, 44,000 farmers had left the land for good.

October 10, 1991
Oral Questions


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Forty-four thousand farm families have left the land for good. What is the minister prepared to do for those farmers who cannot make it on $7 an acre? They say they are going to go out of business permanently. I ask the minister again: What is he prepared to do now to assist them to survive?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I want to be as kind as I can. I think it is very important at this time that we recognize what has been done.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The member from Toronto, who I am sure thinks agriculture is fine if Safeway is open, should maybe listen. We think it is very important.
The problem is that neither the Government of Canada nor any provincial government has the resources to provide what some farmers have suggested. I would read to the hon. member and to the House a document from the Saskatchewan Pool. It is addressed to my colleague, the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds: "The farm aid packaged announced by the federal government today is appreciated and is a significant commitment to resolving problems being experienced by Canadian farmers".


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: We know that they could use more. We would like to have been able to provide more.
Canadians believe in their farmers. Canadian taxpayers are going to have to do what the taxpayers in Europe and the taxpayers in the United States have done: assist their farmers in their time of need. I am sure they are prepared to continue doing that.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementaiy question for the Prime Minister.
The minister indicated this morning that either through increased taxes or reduced programs we were going to have to pay for these programs for farmers. I understand that the government does not want to add to the deficit. That is understandable.
Given that, there are places where the Prime Minister can find money to assist the farmers of this country. I want to ask the him: rather than raise taxes for the middle class, will he close the tax loophole that is for
business lunches and entertainment deductions for corporations? It will raise $1 billion for the Canadian government to assist farmers.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we will be happy to look at any suggestions my hon. friend has when the Minister of Finance returns and introduces a fiscal measure in order to recover the amounts required on behalf of this expenditure on behalf of the farmers. We will be happy to look at any constructive suggestions that she may have, any suggestions from the opposition. I assume there will be a debate on the floor of the House and we will be happy to do that.
My hon. friend points out that there was $800 million sent out today to Canadian farmers. There is $2 billion more coming to assist agriculture, but the $800 million deficiency payment today is I think significant.
It is interesting that in debate the other night NDP Leader Roy Romanow in Saskatchewan said: "What the farmers need is a third line of defence, $500 million". We provided $800 million. I hope my hon. friend will be pleased.


VALUE OF THE DOLLAR
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, in my riding, a Sidbec employee recently lost his job. The president of the company and the president of his union told him that the suicidal level of the dollar had destroyed his future. Mr. Speaker, I would like to put the question I was asked by this employee to the Minister of Finance: If the president of the company, one of the bigger companies in this country, and the president of my union, quite an important union, agree on this point, why won't the Minister of Finance listen?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, of course the government is veiy much aware of current levels of unemployment, and it wants to do everything it can to enhance economic recovery. That is why the government must put its fiscal house in order. I think the hon. member will realize that when during the first six months of the year, provincial governments had to borrow $10 billion outside the country-more than was borrowed last year-this foreign currency was then converted into dollars, thus putting upward pressure on the dollar.
October 10, 1991

I would also like to recall what the Prime Minister just said about the option of letting our currency float. There is pressure on the dollar. There is a feeling of insecurity in certain parts of the world, but people have confidence in Canada, despite our problems. There is also our financial situation, where the government occupies all the space on the capital market. These are the problems we are addressing, because we feel things must improve. Today's drop in the bank rate is in fact further evidence that our formula is the right one.


INTEREST RATES
Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, there are two reasons for the high dollar. Over the past seven years, first of all, we have had a strong Bank of Canada; and second, we have had a weak Government of Canada.
The issue, very clearly, is not simply one of bringing interest rates down, it is stopping the dumb, artificial propping up of the Canadian dollar. Eliminate the short-term interest rate gap between the Canadian and American interest rates and the Canadian dollar will come down; bring the Canadian dollar down and people will go back to work.
My question for the Prime Minister is this. When is the government going to move to eliminate the gap between American and Canadian short-term interest rates? When is the government going to move to bring Canadians back to work?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows that the rate has dropped by six percentage points and the spread-


Gilles Loiselle: It has been cut in half.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is a successful business person. He knows full well that the spread has narrowed, has been cut in half over the last number of months between the American and the Canadian rates. He knows as well that all the economic indicators, including the one for last month, was positive. He knows as well that there are pressures on the dollar,
Oral Questions
that investment is flowing into Canada in very strong numbers.
My hon. friend, if he is suggesting, the rates are coming-


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: When are you going to eliminate the gap?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the gap has gone from 595 to 290 and is now on the way to 260 and declining. I think this is a remarkable degree of progress.
My hon. friend would probably agree with his leader when he was Minister of Finance when he said that " we do not think that the level of the dollar at this time is a good level for maintaining our competitive position. We hope that the fluctuation will not be downward, but if the pressures of the market bring the dollar down, we will live with it because we are not the ones who fix the dollar. It is the market which determines the value of the Canadian dollar". When the Leader of the Opposition said that, the dollar was at 87 cents.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows that for every cent the Canadian dollar goes up, Canada loses thousands of jobs and $1.3 billion in export sales.
Will the Prime Minister explain to Canadians why he thinks that a rising dollar that cost us jobs, that cost us export sales, is good for Canadians?


Gilles Loiselle: I would like to repeat again that this government does not have a high dollar policy. The Canadian dollar fluctuates according to the market. We live in an open market economy.
The International Monetary Fund report, on which the opposition is very silent today, commends us for doing precisely what we are doing to allow the economy to prosper, taking control of the fiscal situation of our country and reducing the deficit, an effort that has been opposed every step of the way by the opposition for the last few years.
The Prime Minister was very humble. He said that the growth for Canada expected by the International Monetary Fund is the same as Japan. It is higher than that of Japan at 3.8 per cent for 1992, and we are very proud of that.

October 10, 1991
Oral Questions


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, let us look at the record. Since January 1, 1989 Canada has lost
261,000	or 13 per cent of all its manufacturing jobs.
Surely the Prime Minister recalls the report of his own Economic Council of Canada which told him three years ago that if we had an 88 cent dollar we were going to lost thousands of manufacturing jobs.
If the Prime Minister will not listen to Canada's manufacturers or workers, why did he not at least listen to his own experts?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I remember just a few months ago we were hearing the same questions from the opposition parties.
They were telling us that the short-term Canadian rates were 565 percentage points above the U.S. They were saying that it was a tragedy, that we should bring the dollar down and that that would solve everything. We have brought the interest rates down and the dollar is going up. How can he explain this contradiction? It is not as simple as he says.
Of course, if you give away your products, people will buy them. You live in a real economy, and you have to be competitive.
The dollar floats because of many reasons we have already expressed today.


IMMIGRATION
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
As the minister knows, the government's own appointee condemned the unconscionable delays in Canada's refugee backlog system by granting refugee status to the Francois family as the sort of thing on which all responsible refugee groups have commented favourably.
Will the minister assure this House that he will not introduce yet further delays by appealing Ms. Lavender's decision?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will give that assurance to the hon. member that a binding decision by an arbitrator, which is not a court of law, will be reviewed by the Federal Court of Appeal.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, as the minister knows, the United Nations subcommittee on human rights was sympathetic to the Canadian Council of Churches evidence that lengthy delays up to five years are damaging the emotional and mental health of refugees in Canada who have been separated from their families.
Will the minister now speed up the backlog program by increasing the resources available, particularly in Ontario and Quebec, so that the remaining 35,000 cases can be completed before December 1992?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the target date for completion of the hearing of backlog cases will be delayed a bit in the province of Quebec. It will be delayed also in the province of Ontario. In the rest of Canada, the target date will be met.
When he talks about damage, there is also the fabric of this country to protect. We need rules in place which allow us to have a proper system of immigration, and this is exactly what we are attempting to have. The resources required to deal with the backlog are in place. They will be spent to accomplish the objective first set when we introduced the backlog program.


FISHERIES
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, last year in Atlantic Canada foreign overfishing accounted for 150,000 tonnes which is almost equal to the total allowable catch for the whole region and represents 3,000 jobs.
This government is allowing foreigners to plunder the veiy resources upon which the Atlantic region depends. I would like to ask the Prime Minister when he is going to get seized with this problem. When is he going to get serious about protecting our fish for our fishermen?

October 10, 1991


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, it should be clear.
If the hon. member would care to look at the record of all the efforts the government is deploying to stop the overfishing, if he would look at the reality of the overfishing in Atlantic Canada, he would see the steps that have been taken by all levels of government and by the industry in Europe to try to stop this overfishing.
We have not succeeded completely, but the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is always trying to convince the EEC to stop overfishing and respect the environmental concerns of Canada in the North Atlantic.
The hon. members says that we allow foreigners. The hon. member should come clean with Canadians and tell them that no foreign trawlers are allowed within the 200-mile limit off Canada, except according to the rules set by NAFO, and that is the reality.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I am going to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who, when he announced the aid package for Newfoundland and Labrador and the Atlantic region last week, stressed very much that the failure of the fishery was due solely to environmental problems.
If this is so, how can he account for Soviet fishermen giving evidence to Newfoundlanders on Soviet overfishing in our own waters, and how can he account for the rage, the anger and the frustration of the Newfoundland fisherman who cannot fish 45 miles off their own coasts in area 3NO without being arrested. More particularly, Mr. Speaker, what does he intend to do about it?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, is away on duty. You know, it is great to stand up and grandstand in the House. What he is not telling the fishermen in Atlantic Canada and in Newfoundland and Labrador is that the reason why the quota in 3NO from about two years previous was 46,000 tonnes and has been dropped to approximately 13,000 tonnes was for conservation reasons.
Maybe the Liberal Party is in favour of letting fishermen raid the resource and kill it. We are not.
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. The compensation payment for PVY-N for last year's crop has not yet been completed. Farmers have been waiting for over a year and a half.
The application forms for the 1991 crop are not yet available. What I want to know, Mr. Speaker, is when will the application forms be available. I especially want to know if the funds are in place to immediately respond to the losses, or will the P.E.I. potato producers have to wait until next year again.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, payments for last year to date are over $9 million. There are some 36 applications for assistance that have not been processed because there were some problems in filling out those forms for 1990.
We have established an action committee in Prince Edward Island of the stakeholders, producers, provincial government, federal representatives. They are the group that is working to provide an application form for this year's assistance.
I can assure the hon. member that the dollars to address this concern, as I said when I met with the premier of Prince Edward Island in Saskatoon and established the process, are available from the Government of Canada.


Joseph Blair (Joe) McGuire: Mr. Speaker, I hope the grain farmers of the west do not have to wait as long as the potato farmers of Prince Edward Island for their compensation.
I have a question for the same minister. Preliminary re-testing results of the supposedly infected fields showed an 80 per cent error rate. Potato fields were destroyed for absolutely no reason. The minister's department has been re-testing for the past several weeks. They admit this now publicly.
What I want to know, Mr. Speaker, is what are the results of the re-tests being carried out over the past number of weeks. Can the minister now tell the P.E.I. farmer what is actually going on.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, when the virus was discovered in Prince Edward Island last fall, the plants were in the tuber stage. This year we have gone through a testing process that was agreed to. I want to emphasize to the hon. member that it was agreed to by the Province of Prince Edward Island and their scientists and by the Government of Canada and our scientists in a protocol.

October 10, 1991
Oral Questions
We are in this together. We are in it for the betterment of the potato industry in Prince Edward Island. Yes, there is a hypothesis out there, a theory that there may have been some mistesting. But no one including the international panel of experts has any doubt that PVY-N is in Prince Edward Island. What we are doing together with the farmers and the province is attempting to eradicate that so that the industry will be able to sustain itself.


COMMENTS IN CHAMBER
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
At a time when we are trying to send out a signal to Canadians that Canada is a country for all Canadians, we have in the last two weeks witnessed derogatory remarks made in this House that have insulted both the women of Canada and visible minorities of Canada.
I know that the Prime Minister has a commitment to combating sexism and racism in this country, as I do, and I want to ask the Prime Minister: Will he take serious action to show that commitment by removing the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration from their duties to show his seriousness?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I thought this item had been dealt with quite effectively by yourself when it came up. In any event, the whole question of the demeanour of members of Parliament in this House has been a subject I have been talking about for a year. I committed earlier this day to bring forward a motion to this House. We can fully debate that, have a free vote, and impose on ourselves standards of behaviour that will make the people of Canada proud rather than disappointed in this House.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I think everyone in this House will agree that we do not need a free vote on sexism. We do not need a free vote on racism.
I want to say to the Prime Minister that I as a leader will personally commit that, should anyone in my caucus make sexist or racist comments in this House, I will relieve them of their duties and I ask the Prime Minister: Will he simply do the same?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have no difficulty at all in subscribing to the point of view expressed by my hon. friend.
I have sat here for seven years as Prime Minister and have been I think subjected to just about every possible epithet coming from the other side of the House. One of the members of the NDP, among other things, arrived here and slopped down a fish, with huge insults, on-


Some hon. members:: That is not sexist or racist.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend says: "We are of course opposed to sexism. We are of course opposed to racism of all kinds". I have stood against both throughout my political and private life.
My hon. friend will agree that this is a two-way street. We are going to enforce these requirements very severely on ourselves. I know that she will want and the Leader of the Opposition will want to enforce the same demands and the same high standards of conduct on all members of the Official Opposition.
The opposition does not require calumny, smear, character assassination, or any of the things to which we have been subjected for the last seven years. In the process I can commit to my hon. friend that we will subscribe to very high standards with pride and with pleasure. I know that they too will insist that the Leaders of the Liberal Party and the NDP do no less for their own members.


PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRY
Mrs. Carole Jacques (Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, Kemtek, a petrochemical company, announced that it intended to suspend all operations indefinitely. Mr. Speaker, this decision threatens more than 1,000 jobs in East Montreal. Last week, the minister responsible for Montreal and the executive and members of the union had a meeting to discuss a solution. My question is this: Could the minister give the House the
October 10, 1991

assurance that he will co-operate fully with these people in order to save these jobs?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her abiding interest in this unfortunate sequence of events that recently struck East Montreal.
As the hon. member mentioned, last week I had a meeting with employers, employees and a number of people otherwise involved in this situation. The federal government and the Government of Quebec are very concerned. Every effort is being made to attract a new owner in order to keep the plant open and thus preserve a number of extremely vital jobs.


Carole Jacques: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. I would like to know whether the minister has received confirmation from the provincial government regarding its position on this case.


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec, through the Quebec Industrial Development Corporation, has asked for the company to be declared bankrupt so that the case can be settled. A receiver was appointed yesterday, and I repeat that the federal government and the Government of Quebec are working very hard to maintain the company's operations, if at all possible, and to preserve those 1,000 jobs.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
At a time when this government is boasting about its prosperity agenda, 1.5 million Canadians are unemployed. Now Statistics Canada reveals that their job prospects which were already dismal are at their worst point in seven years. With the made-in-Canada recession we saw factory after factory shutting down and jobs vanishing forever.
I ask the minister: When will this government face reality and take all the necessary steps to halt the deindustrialization of this nation and put Canadians back to work?
Oral Questions


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, if that member is so concerned about the fate of workers in Canada, I do not know why he and his party and his cohorts in the other place fought Bill C-21 for so long. He likes to talk about unemployed people in this country. These people this year will get $1.8 billion more in training to adapt to the requirements of the changing economy.
Instead of just grandstanding on the issue, the Liberals should put their foot where their mouth is and support them.


Maurizio Bevilacqua: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
The government strategy of jobs, jobs, jobs has been a failure, failure, failure. You promised Canadians a worker readjustment program. You have not certainly delivered.


Some hon. members:: Order.


Maurizio Bevilacqua: The government now speaks to the issue of global competitiveness and at the same time cuts in the areas of education and training, both vital components to compete globally.
Given this government's failed employment strategy, how can Canadians expect the jobs that will enable them to compete against the world?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, we outlined in the Speech from the Throne the will of the government to try something which of course Grits in previous generations never succeeded in doing, that is to bring together the people of Canada to work under the labour force development strategy and to try to get the business sector and labour in Canada to work together so that we could provide our workers, men and women all across Canada, with the tools they need to fill those jobs that are required.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
The Refugee Review Board has decided to deport the family of Guillermo Jerez saying it is not convinced they would be persecuted if they returned to Nicaragua.

October 10, 1991
Oral Questions
Given that international agencies have documented 52 killings of people like Mr. Jerez and his family since 1990, why will the minister not personally intervene and overturn this deportation order?


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, let me first say that I am just as appreciative of the member's concern as those who are trying to make the case that the process in place should not be followed. Mr. Jerez has had the benefit of the entire refugee determination process, including a full review of his claim by an independent tribunal. I am satisfied that he and his family have received due process at all stages. We have fulfilled our part of an agreement with the family last week and postponed removal until this week.
I want the hon. member and other members in the House to appreciate fully that we must respect the process that is in place. It is recognized throughout the world as being the most generous and fair in the world and it should be allowed to work.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, speaking of process, I would suggest that the Jerez family is not the only family in that situation. As a matter of fact, of the 100,000 refugees cases presently in Canada, only
4,000	people have been deported at a processing cost of $300 million and more. That is almost equivalent to the entire budget of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees around the world.
Would the minister call for an urgent administrative review to make our system more effective and save the lives of people like the Jerez?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the hon. member is really sure of the accusation he makes about this refugee determination system. We have in this country, as the hon. member knows, a system which must be not only fair but firm.
When he talks about removal, we have at this time of the year almost tripled the number of removals of people who have gone through the process but are not here legally. I do not think Canada should be ashamed of its
record because we often get criticism like this but very few criticisms for the decisions that we make in favour.


Mr. Speaker:: A single question from the hon. member for Edmonton East, a single question and a short one, please.


Mr. Harvey (Edmonton East):: I will decline, thanks.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary Northeast, even shorter.


YUGOSLAVIA
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Mr. Speaker, I am going to accept that question and it is directed to the Prime Minister.
As we know the fighting in Croatia continues. The cease-fire is not holding. The Stalinist Junta in Belgrade illegally took control of the armed forces of Yugoslavia and wages a war against the innocent children and civilians of Croatia.
Therefore my question through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Prime Minister is: Will our government recognize the changes in the Balkans, the new reality, and recognize the duly elected Government of Croatia?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, Canada has been very active in trying to promote peace and a ceasefire in Yugoslavia, both through the CSCE and by offering to monitor through the European community. Canada also led the resolution in the Security Council at the United Nations.
But recognition, as the hon. member knows, follows a number of international criteria. Among them, there have to be settled boundaries and an effective government in its independent ability to control a territory.
We are encouraged by the latest ceasefire where we have the President of Croatia, the President of Yugoslavia and the defence minister in a tenuous accord that might result in the possibility of recognition at some point down the road once some of those issues are settled.
In the meantime, the most important thing is that the parties stop shooting and that they observe the ceasefire that they themselves have signed on to. Until that happens it is very difficult to take any further steps.
October 10, 1991


POINTS OF ORDER
[Stage Direction]
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, just so that the Prime Minister is not seen as having misled the House, it should be pointed out that in his statement today quoting Roy Romanow the net income shortfall for Saskatchewan of $500 million is that province's proper share of a $1.3 billion-


Mr. Speaker:: That really is not a point of order. That is a question of debate. I have to point out it is a question of debate and I do not think it should be proceeded with.


QUOTATION DURING QUESTION PERIOD
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period I quoted from a letter from the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and I was not able to finish the quote. I want to be sure that it is on the record. It reads: "This assistance must be delivered to farmers as soon as possible. This farm aid package falls short of the income shortfall needed that was identified for both Saskatchewan and Canada. However we look forward to continued dialogue with the federal government relative to the support that will continue to be required as long as we are faced with the devastating effects of the international trade war". It is from President Garf Stevenson.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the remarks of the hon. minister, especially on this issue, but I do ask ministers and members during the 45 minutes that is allotted to us to all strive mightily to get the questions in and to also get the answers back. Otherwise on points of order we just extend the Question Period and that is something which of course puts some pressure on the good nature of the House.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the government House leader with regard to the business of the House for the remainder of today and tomorrow, as well as for the days after we return, particularly Monday and Thesday of the first week after the break.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that this afternoon we can complete the back-to-work legislation for the Thunder Bay grain handlers so that the Senate might deal with it tomorrow and have it in place and have grain moving again to the benefit of western farmers.
I would like formally to designate tomorrow as an Opposition Day.
In terms of the business for the Monday on which we return, October 21, I would ask the indulgence of the opposition parties so that we might have the usual discussions tomorrow to find out what would be the most appropriate pieces of legislation to deal with on the first few days we are back. We will endeavour to get that solidified so that we can communicate it to members before they go for their holidays in the Bahamas or wherever else they are going for the break.


Mr. Speaker:: We may want to return to this in just a moment.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I know that hon. members would want me to recognize the presence in the gallery of a foreign minister of a friendly and long-standing ally of Canada, the Foreign Minister of Denmark, His Excellency Usse Ellemann-Jensen, who is here, I might say, in the Royal visit of Her Majesty and His Royal Highness of Denmark.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.

October 10,1991
Government Orders



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]


[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill C-37, an act to provide for the resumption and continuance of grain handling operations at Thunder Bay, Ontario-Mr. Danis-Mrs. Champagne in the chair.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On Clause 3 -Definitions
Robert Daniel Nault: Madam Chairman, I would like to move an amendment to clause 3, page 1 line 2 by inserting the word "board" after the word "arbitrator".
This is to follow suit with my amendment that I will be making to clause 8 which simply reflects the interest of my party.
For the minister's information, I have already given him a copy of this particular amendment. It is the interest of our party to have an arbitration board versus an arbitrator-mediator. The reason for that is simply that we believe that the circumstances in this case warrant the changes to the normal process and procedures of an arbitrator-mediator.
Due to the technical expertise necessary in this particular issue of pensions, we would request the minister and the government to support this amendment. We believe it would help both parties come to a resolution of the issue. In the long term, it would help both parties to understand the job security difficulties in the port of Thunder Bay, the job loss and also the direction that particular industry will be taking in the long-term.
The job security and pension issues are two of the fundamental issues that the company has refused to negotiate so far. I would ask the minister to support this particular amendment. I also suggest very strongly that the ability of this particular amendment to follow
through would make the union much more secure in its fight to have this particular issue dealt with.


Marcel Danis: Madam Chairman, I thank the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River for giving me a copy of his proposed amendment earlier today.
I have looked at the amendment very, very carefully. I realize as he and the hon. member for Churchill do that the issue of pensions appears to be the main stumbling block in this dispute.
I do believe that the bill as drafted now can meet the concerns of the union leadership. Obviously, they would like to have a fair opportunity to make their point known concerning the pension issue to the mediator-arbitrator.
The hon. member knows that the person whom we plan to appoint, of course, will be a fair person. I would hope that I would be in the position to appoint someone with a background in pension issues if possible.
Were that not to be the case, however, I can assure my friend from Kenora-Rainy River and my friend from Churchill that whoever is appointed will certainly get all the financial resources necessary to have whatever study he or she wants made on any pension issue. I can assure my friend of that.
With that assurance, I would hope that my friend would be satisfied that the government will make sure that all the concerns of the union are taken care of with regard to pensions.


Andrée  Champagne: If I may for a moment, we were taking into consideration the amendment as presented by the hon. member.
Please help the Chair here. He says that clause 3 be amended at page 1, line 2.1 would imagine that the hon. member means clause 3. Yes, it is page 1, but could it be line 20 instead of line 2? After "mediator-arbitrator", he would like the word "board". It is line 20 and not line 2, correct?
We will come back in a minute with that.


Robert Daniel Nault: Thank you for correcting me. That is exactly what we meant.
While we wait to see if the amendment is in order, I would like to ask the minister if he would explain to us


October 10, 1991

what seems to be the difficulty with him accepting the amendment.
He has suggested to us in his response about the particular necessity to have an arbitrator-mediator who is capable of dealing with the very technical issue of pensions and job security, but he did not go that step further and explain to me what difficulty he would have with an arbitration type board or panel with the ability of the company and the union to have their own expertise at the table to explain in detail so we will not have to feel that even though it is not possible for the Minister of Labour to get someone with the capabilities, we will have that issue dealt with because it is the main stumbling block in the whole affair and, it seems to me, the reason why the strike is in process at the moment.
It is not good enough to suggest that it is hoped that we may get someone who is capable because that is very difficult to do. Those of us who are familiar with labour negotiation will quickly tell you that to be involved in the pension issue is a very complicated subject. As much as I think we have very capable arbitrators and mediators in this country, I feel that that expertise is very much necessary in order for us to get some long term stability to that port of Thunder Bay.
I ask the minister again, as a direct question, what seems to be the reasoning behind his reluctance to allow this amendment to go forward?


Marcel Danis: Madam Chairman, there are two reasons I do not support the amendment proposed by my hon. friend. First, I believe it would be extremely difficult for the mediation part of Bill C-37 to proceed with three mediators in a dispute dealing mainly with one issue. Second, I know that the pools and the unions will have a full opportunity to make their cases known to the mediator-arbitrator, whomever she or he may be.
With those two assurances, I would hope that my hon. friend would then withdraw his proposed amendment.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Chairman, my question for the Minister of Labour is this. As the minister knows, the amendment is being put forward in very good faith. The minister has indicated on the floor of the House that both parties will have an opportunity to present their respective cases. I suggest to the minister that the distinction that he must
Government Orders
draw between a single arbitrator and that of a board is the following: representatives will have an opportunity to present their cases but I would conclude that with an arbitration board with representatives from respective parties, this will be able to facilitate the arbitrator in coming to a decision which is much more equitable, fairer, and more than likely will be more expeditious in the process. That is what the arbitration board can do.
We have seen arbitration boards facilitate that process in a host of labour disputes, both with the public sector and the private sector.
The minister is shaking his head. I ask the minister to reflect very carefully on the substance of the amendment which is being offered, the fact that it is being offered in good faith, knowing full well that at least one of the parties, if not both of the parties, would prefer a board as opposed to a single arbitrator.
I think the minister will want to reflect on the fact that the onus being put on a single arbitrator, particularly as it relates to a very fundamental issue of this particular dispute, is somewhat onerous. It can be lessened by having the board which would then facilitate the process expedite the process and reach a fair and equitable decision. I would hope the minister would not discount the substance of the amendment, the way in which it has been offered, and perhaps he might want to reflect on it again.


Marcel Danis: Madam Speaker, my first comment would be to say publicly that I do believe that the amendment brought in by the member for Kenora-Rainy River was done in good faith. That obviously is true and I really believe that.
Second, the hon. House leader for the Official Opposition said that the settlement should be equitable and fair. We agree with that too.
Third, my hon. friend, the opposition House leader, seems to want to rely a lot on the arbitration part of this legislation, I believe in the mediation part of it. I fail to see how three mediators can achieve the settlement that we want. I have absolutely no concerns whatever that this union and management have all the means possible to get their positions known to the parties.

October 10,1991
Government Orders
My hon. friend, who is one of the best lawyers in this country, if he were hired by the union or management to plead the case in front of a mediator-arbitrator, would I am sure he do a good job. Why do they not do it?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Chairman, I also would like to support the amendment suggested by my colleague in the Liberal Party. Earlier today I indicated that I believe a three person panel makes a lot of sense. I spoke about my own experience on both the employee and the employer side with arbitration boards. I know that they work well. They provide that in-depth knowledge, local knowledge that is quite often necessary to get long term settlements, especially to disputes which occur on a fairly regular basis, such as that in the grain handling industry.
My concern is with the legislation itself, with the very term mediator-arbitrator. The minister in his rejection of the amendment said: "A three person panel may deal well with the arbitration but does not deal well with the mediator part of that title".
I would like to say to the minister, and I have said it before to previous Ministers of Labour, that I think the labour department is making a mistake in combining those two titles. They are very distinct roles. I am sure that the minister and his officials who are in the House to assist him today recognize that when the two parties are dealing with a mediator, they quite often would say things they will never say to someone who is going to be in a position to arbitrate later on.
It makes it very difficult for the mediation role to succeed if that same person is going to be sitting in judgment as an arbitrator later on. To explain further, if you are a party in negotiations and you are using the services of a mediator, you will quite often say: "if the employer will just move in this area, we are quite willing to draw back over here". You may say: "This is our bottom line on this particular issue". You say a lot of things in confidence to a mediator in an attempt to reach a settlement.
If that same person is going to be sitting in judgment, and this legislation says that if mediation fails then that same person must make an arbitration ruling within 90 days, then it is very difficult for the two sides to sit down and treat that person as a mediator.
They are always going to be looking at the arbitrator half of the hat. They have to. They have to protect themselves. I am wondering if the minister would get up and explain why the government always combines these two roles into one, especially in this particular case in which we know that the director of mediation services unfortunately was not able to spend very much time in Thunder Bay before the negotiations broke down.
Would it not have been much better had these two roles been separated and two different individuals appointed, one to deal with mediation and a different person, or group, to deal with the arbitration?


Marcel Danis: Madam Chairman, I must tell my hon. friend from Churchill that the system of mediation arbitrator has been used many times in the past. It has even been used on a voluntary basis by people in that industry on the west coast.
My friend will recall that, unfortunately, recently we have had to have back to work legislation for the grain handlers on the west coast and the same system was used of the mediation arbitration. When I did appoint the person in question I understand that both parties, even though both may not have been satisfied that the back to work legislation was passed, were satisfied with the person who was appointed and the system that was used.
I do believe that when the parties deal with the mediator in his or her position as mediator knowing that in the end that person may have the final say, the parties may become more rational and we may get a decision faster.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Madam Chairman, if I could just pick up on this point, this may be jumping ahead to clause 8, but perhaps we can squeeze the point in here because of the way the discussion has begun.
If the mediator or the mediator-arbitrator, begins his work or her work, and the parties find that the system of shifting to become an arbitrator is going to impede the work of the mediator-arbitrator as a mediator, does the minister read the act to provide him with the authority of replacing the mediator-arbitrator with another person to cover the arbitration part of it later on? I appreciate that the powers would remain the same in the person, but if the parties came to the minister and asked for a change part way down the road, would it be possible for that to take place?

October 10, 1991


Marcel Danis: Madam Chairman, the person who would be appointed by the government would be the person who would take the issue theoretically in 48 hours up until the end.
I can tell my friend that the parties can now-we talk about the first phase on mediation-if they want, negotiate and reach a settlement. Nobody has to wait for us to pass the legislation. We do not have to wait for the other place to approve it. We do not have to wait for Royal Assent or proclamation.
The parties can, if both of them are in good faith and want to negotiate, do that. Once the government proceeds, if the House and the other place agree to go ahead with Bill C-37, then there would be an appointment made by the government and that person would see the matter through to the end.


John F. Brewin: If I could just follow up on the point I made. Both my friend from Churchill and the minister in their initial exchange made good points. That is to say there are occasions when the role of arbitrator interferes with the role of mediator and therefore that may not work.
Equally, the minister made a good point in saying that frequently it does work.
All I was seeking was some assurance from the minister that if as this process begins to work itself through with the mediator-arbitrator initially trying to act as a mediator, and if all of those participating come to the conclusion that they need to go to arbitration, and the mediator-arbitrator has somehow spoiled his or her role by acting as a mediator, does the minister contemplate at least the possibility of appointing someone else to complete the job?
Is that open in this legislation? All I am asking now is, does the legislation bar that happening or does the legislation at least leave that open, and should everyone, including the minister, see it as a useful idea?


Marcel Danis: Madam Chairman, my hon. friend is either being very hypothetical and theoretical, or being very pessimistic. Unlike my hon. friend, I do believe that has been tried on a number of occasions, unfortunately, before. It has worked.
My friend paints the absolute worst case scenario in a situation like that. If that ever came about, I would think
Government Orders
that whoever would be in this position would resign the position and then I would appoint somebody else. That is absolutely the worst case position which I am not even contemplating.


Robert Daniel Nault: Madam Chairman I wonder if the minister and members of the other parties would be disposed to allowing clause 8 to be put forward with the amendment we were going to propose, which is what we seem to be talking about in this instance. We could then get into substantive debate about clause 8.1 think that is what we are talking about now.
I did suggest the particular wording, which was on clause 3 at page 1 of Bill C-37. I wonder if we could do that now so that we could continue with the discussion. There are a few issues I want to bring forward but it is more appropriately done in clause 8 than it is running around here in clause 3.
The Chairman The hon. member may want to table the amendment he has for clause 8 at this time and we can look at it.
The problem I have is that there is already an amendment that has been not officially put to the House, but there is an amendment there. The way we accepted it was that if in the definitions at line 21 "mediator-arbitrator" means the mediator-arbitrator board appointed pursuant to subsection 8, then it would automatically be added for concordance. This was why I did not think we were out of order in discussing the matter which will come up in clause 8.
If there is unanimous consent to stand on clause 3 at this time and go to clause 8. I am quite prepared to call clause 8.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
On Clause 8 -Appointment of mediator-arbitrator


Robert Daniel Nault: Madam Chairman, I want to get back to clause 8 because that is really what we are involved in here.
I want to assure the minister, and maybe it is possible for him through his officials and himself to assure the parties, that the important issue of pensions and job security for the purposes of this legislation will be one of the most fundamental issues talked about and that the individual or the individuals who will be appointed by the minister through this process will have the expertise.

October 10, 1991
Government Orders
There are two ways we can do that. We can do that by simply creating the board to which I am referring in clause 8.(1), or we can amend Bill C-37, clause 8 at line 24 by adding after the word "agreement" the words "and resources for pension/job security purposes."
I have not given the minister the other amendment, which is the alternative to my whole argument which is that perhaps we can somehow insert for purposes of this whole discussion that we can be assured that the resources will be available. By resources I mean the individuals with the necessary expertise to work with the arbitrator-mediator in order to secure the kind of discussion that is necessary to come to some sort of consensus by the three parties involved, the government, the union and the employer.
I will put forward my amendment to clause 8 which reads:
That Clause 8(1) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
8.(1) Within 48 hours after the coming into force of this act, the employer shall appoint one member and the union shall appoint one member, and thereupon the minister shall appoint a chairman of the mediator-arbitrator board, and the minister shall refer to the mediator-arbitrator all matters relating to the amendment or revision of the collective agreement that at the time of the appointment remain in dispute between the union and the employer.
Provided that should either the union or the employer fail to appoint a member within said 48 hours, the minister may forthwith appoint such member in the place and stead of the said union or employer as the case may be.
I put forward that amendment and I also would like to put forward one other amendment. It is simply for the minister's perusal and for the other members.
Hopefully, I have the right line this time. I suggest it is line 22 and it is 8(1), after the words 'collective agreement'. It says: "Clause 8(1), line 22, add after the word 'agreement': -and resources for pension job security purposes that, at the time of the appointment, remain in dispute between the union and the employer".
That gives us an assurance within the legislation that we will deal with this particular piece of legislation.
I do not know whether it is appropriate and I ask for your indulgence, Madam Chairman, again to give me
some guidance here. Is it possible to suggest two amendments to the same issue by the same member? There seems to be a bit of a contradiction in terms. I wonder whether you could explain that to me before I officially submit this one.
Should I debate the one I have already submitted first, and then get into this one at a later date?


Andrée  Champagne: What the Chair suggested to the hon. member earlier was to please table those amendments with us so we could read them very carefully and then decide whether they are receivable.
We should have the first one back within a second. We had some photocopies made for the minister and for the Thble. If I understood correctly what the hon. member has suggested, the second amendment would come if the first one had been agreed upon or negatived.
It is a bit difficult at this time for the Chair until we have both amendments in front of us. If the hon. member would be kind enough to allow us to have a look at both amendments, then maybe the Chair could help the House. In the meantime, I am sure that members and the minister will want to study the proposals as made by the hon. member.


Robert Daniel Nault: Madam Chairman, I am not attempting to confuse the issue but it is the minister's belief that having a board or panel will make it more difficult for an arbitrator who has been appointed and I have given him another suggestion.
The final amendment that I have put forward to you suggests that we can add the ability for the arbitrator-mediator to have the efficient resources necessary. By "resources", I mean it was within his rights to bring forward pension expertise acceptable to both sides and that will allow us to get at the table with the parties involved a legitimate discussion on a very complex and technical issue.
I would be interested if the minister would confirm whether he would be willing and able to allow that type of an amendment to go through which would assure the union and the employer that particular issue, which is foremost in our minds, would be looked after.
October 10, 1991


Marcel Danis: Madam Chairman, I do agree that all the resources, financial or otherwise, should be made available to the mediator-arbitrator to deal effectively and fairly with the issues of pension and job security.
I do agree with that and we all agree with that. We also agree, and I said so in the speech at second reading stage, that all issues are on the table for the mediator-arbitrator. I do not believe, with respect to my hon. friend for Kenora-Rainy River, that it is necessary to put that in the legislation.
If my friend wants to make sure that the mediator-arbitrator is aware of that, I will, at the same time as a letter of appointment, send today's debate with a letter of appointment to the mediator-arbitrator, but I do not think I need to do that. It is obvious that the mediator will get the resources and will deal effectively with those issues.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Chairman, I would like to take the minister up on his offer of having today's debates sent to the person he will be appointing as mediator-arbitrator.
I think it is very important when someone receives this appointment that he or she is aware of what is expected. It has been very evident in the debate that has taken place today that all three parties have indicated they believe the issue of pensions must be dealt with. That does not say what the arbitrator will rule if he or she gets forced into that situation, but it does mean that it has to be dealt with.
I really hope that the Minister of Labour will go the extra mile to find an arbitrator who is knowledgeable about pension plans and is able to make the appropriate judgments on this very important issue. I hope he can find such a person. I know it may be difficult, but I think it would be well worth the search because as we all know, those of us who have ever dealt with pension plans, it can become very confusing. If someone is not aware, the best advice may not make that person feel very comfortable in writing an arbitration board that would adequately deal with the issues that we are talking about.
Failing that, it certainly is necessary to make sure that the arbitrator does have all the necessary resources, consultants and information in front of him or her to be able to make that judgment.
Government Orders
I would ask the minister not only to table the debate or give the debate to the mediator-arbitrator, but to go that extra step. I would hope he would reassure the House yet again that he would do that.


Marcel Danis: Madam Chairman, I can assure my hon. friend from Churchill that all the resources will be made available to the person who will be appointed as media-tor/arbitrator in the dispute and that it will be made known to that person that all issues are on the table.
I agree with my hon. friend from Churchill and I will send a copy of today's debates to the person at the time of appointment.


Andrée  Champagne: The Chair will be with the committee in a minute. We are still studying the amendment proposed to clause 8. Can I be given a few more minutes, please?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Chairman, maybe this would give me an opportunity to say something about the process of negotiations and the very fact that we in the House of Commons are now being asked by the government to pass back-to-work legislation. The three parties have mentioned the fact that pensions will be one of the areas that the mediator-arbitrator looks at. It is ironic that this is an issue that the employer refused to discuss at the negotiating table over the last period of time.
It is further ironic that it was only yesterday afternoon that issue actually got to the negotiating table. I find it ironic that here we are basically telling a mediator-arbitrator that he will be expected to do that which the employer would not do. He or she will be in a situation to deal with something that the employer should have put on the negotiating table. I am not going to tell the employer what he should have offered in terms of pensions. I do not think that is our role. It would have solved a lot of problems. It may have prevented a strike had the employer been willing to deal with this at the negotiating table.
It is ironic when I think back about the remarks made by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds, and some of the Conservative backbenchers who kept getting up in this House and telling the workers to go back to work. Not one of them suggested that perhaps the employer should put the issue of pensions on the negotiating table.

October 10, 1991
Government Orders
We heard speech after speech, snide comment after snide comment by Conservative members but not one of them suggested that the employer should negotiate on all the issues. If that had happened we may not be debating this legislation at this time.


Marcel Danis: Madam Chairman, of course I cannot speak on behalf of the employer and I do not speak on behalf of the union either. I must tell my friend that on Friday last week and Monday this week I did contact both sides. I had a full and frank discussion with the representative of the pool, the attorney in charge, and made it known to the attorney that when they met the person who eventually turned out to be Mr. Edmondson I wanted some flexibility on the part of both sides and I wanted all issues to be brought to the table.
I understand now that in fact all issues were put on the table yesterday. I think an effort was made in good faith by both parties.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Chairman, in fairness, I was not including the Minister of Labour when I was attacking various Conservative cabinet ministers and various Conservative MPs for always referring to the employees' role and saying the employees should get back to work and never looking at the employer's side of the situation. I believe he was conducting his role as he should, dealing with both parties. I was referring to other members of his cabinet and caucus who only seemed to look at one side of the issue and perhaps were are not aware that the sticking point, the major issue, was pensions and that it was the employer who was refusing to negotiate that.
I want to make sure that the House understands that I was not impugning any motives to the Minister of Labour.


Andrée  Champagne: The Chair has looked very carefully at the amendment moved by the member for Kenora- Rainy River on clause 8(1). I cannot find it in order. The bill as approved by the House at second reading allows the minister to appoint a mediator-arbitrator.
The amendment would take some of that power away from the minister because the minister could not in a way name that person. We must go back to the first amendment that the member presented that dealt with the definitions, and said that mediator-arbitrator means the mediator-arbitrator board appointed pursuant to
subsection 8(1). The minister could then be somehow allowed to name a board instead of one person, so this could be acceptable.
At this time it really is a new concept that there would be three people and that two other people would be part of the mediator-arbitrator and form a team. The minister would not have the ability of naming those people. This is a brand new concept that was not in the bill at second reading.
It goes really beyond the scope of that clause. Therefore, the Chair has no choice but not to receive this amendment.


Robert Daniel Nault: Madam Chairman, I do not propose to debate with the Chair as to whether or not it is in order simply because I cannot.


An hon. member:: Go ahead.


Robert Daniel Nault: Oh, can I? If I can debate it I will. One of the problems that I foresee with the argument that has been put by the Chair is simply that it changes the scope of the whole bill and that is not necessarily true. The principle of back-to-work legislation and the principle of having an arbitrator or an arbitration board is to have someone to mediate a dispute. We have not taken that ability away from the arbitration process, and we have not taken that ability away from the Minister of Labour.
The Minister of Labour will still have the ability to appoint on the government's behalf a mediator-arbitrator. All I am suggesting is that the mediator-arbitrator process be extended to include two more people.
Therefore, if that were the case, the principle in essence of the bill has not been changed whatsoever. We are just expanding on the abilities of the mediator-arbitrator process to have more expertise within its process.
I for one am a little confused as to why the Chair would feel that it has changed the principle and the abilities of the minister to appoint the mediator-arbitrator because it has not. Indeed he still has the same abilities he had before the amendment. The only difference is that he is also allowing both sides of the dispute to nominate an individual who will participate with the chairman of that board, which is the arbitrator.
October 10, 1991

I do not see how that could simply change it. I certainly would be interested in knowing from the Table why it is that it senses it has changed the whole process.


Andrée  Champagne: What the amendment would do is allow the minister to name the chairman of that board. The board itself is not in the bill at second reading. Bringing the board in itself is a new concept that goes beyond the scope.
The hon. minister could then only name the chairman of that board. This is where the Chair sees that it brings in a new concept and it goes beyond the scope of the clause.
But, as I have told the hon. member, we are now in committee and I am just Chairman of this committee. He can of course appeal to the Speaker to rule on my judgment of this amendment. At this time I do not see how we can accept this amendment.
One more thing that may be helpful to the hon. member is that it is not so much the board concept as the fact that it is taking the power of appointing away from the minister. If the minister were appointing the three people-this is what the bill said at second reading: "The minister shall appoint a mediator- arbitrator"-the other people involved would not have been appointed by the minister and this is where it goes beyond the scope of the clause as accepted at second reading.
Am I being clearer to the hon. member?


Robert Daniel Nault: Madam Chairman, let me assure you that if you read the whole amendment it suggests that the minister does indeed have the power to appoint those members.
The fact remains that unions will make the appointment of their particular individual but under this amendment the minister still has to accept that individual.
I get the impression by the discussion I have had with the minister and with the opposition on the other side, not so much the opposition over here, that it is not going to be accepted by the minister anyway.
I do not know whether we want to continue on with this debate at length now or maybe at a more appropriate time.
I would be most interested in asking the Chairman to rule on it, but how long would that take?
Government Orders


Andrée  Champagne: It could take maybe half an hour, I do not know where the Speaker is at this time, for him to be briefed on what the amendment is. Please bear with me for a moment.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River says that it is not taking any power from the minister. What the amendment he proposes says is that the union shall appoint one member, the employer shall appoint one member and then the minister shall appoint a chairman. It is taking away from the power that the minister has in the bill as accepted at second reading.
This amendment can really not be accepted.
Shall we revert to clause 3?
On Clause 3-Definitions


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There is the original amendment on clause 3, the amendment moved by Mr. Nault which said:
That clause 3 be amended on page 1, line 21, by inserting the word "board" after the word "arbitrator".
Is it the pleasure of the committee to accept this amendment?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Nault) negatived.
Clauses 3 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 8- Appointment of mediator-arbitrator


Andrée  Champagne: On clause 8 the first amendment was not deemed receivable. We have a second amendment moved by Mr. Nault which says: "Clause 8.1, line 24, after the word 'agreement' and resources for pension and job security purposes that, at the time of the appointment". I must say the Chair has a certain difficulty with trying to fit the amendment within the paragraph. Can the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River be of some help to the Chair?


Robert Daniel Nault: What I am suggesting is that after "collective agreement", I will read it for you:
8.(1) The Minister shall, after the coming into force of this Act, appoint a mediator-arbitrator and refer to the mediator-arbitrator all matters relating to the amendment or revision of the collective agreement-
And added in there is:

October 10, 1991
Government Orders
-and resources for pension and job security purposes. And at the time of the appointment, remain in dispute between the union and the employer.


Marcel Danis: Madam Chairman, if I may speak on the proposed amendment by my friend from Kenora-Rainy River, the powers given to that person would be the following ones.
In the Canada Labour Code, Part I, section 16, a person would have the powers:
- to summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses and compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce such documents and things as he or she would deem requisite, with a full investigation and consideration of any matter within its jurisdiction.
I feel that the law, as written now in Bill C-37, takes care of the concerns raised by my hon. friend, and therefore I see no need for the amendments, however well intentioned they may be.


Robert Daniel Nault: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. One of the reasons we wanted this particular assurance put into the legislation is simply that we are convinced, at least in the discussions that I have had, that with the limited amount of knowledge that an arbitrator-mediator will have in the area of a very technical subject, that being pensions, there should be added resources for that particular subject.
One of the reasons I am suggesting that in there is because if the company or the union wanted to allow the individual we suggested to take time off work, there would be added resources for that kind of situation. I am not convinced that under the legislation that we have now the individual with the expertise that we are talking about will have the opportunity to avail himself or herself of this whole process on a continued basis simply because of the fact that so far, as we have had the discussion, we cannot get both sides to talk about the issue at all.
I am quite worried that over a period of time, the month or so we will be involved in this issue, there will be added costs to that whole process. I cannot understand why the minister would feel that adding such simple words would affect at all the process in allowing us to feel assured that, in this sense, the whole issue that we are dealing with, which is pension and job security, will have the resources necessary to be dealt with in its total form. I am not quite convinced the minister is
aware of just how difficult this whole process is and how complicated it can be and how much time it can take. If he can assure us that is the case, then again, I do not see any reason why he would not allow that small half sentence to be inserted in the clause.


Marcel Danis: Madam Chairman, I give my complete commitment that the person who would be appointed once this bill is proclaimed would have the full and necessary resources to investigate or deal with any and all issues in dispute. My friend knows there is no way you could possibly settle this dispute unless you have an agreement or a decision of an arbitrator on the pension issue.
I am confident that the person will get all of the resources available and will also have all the powers available by section 16 of the Canada Labour Code, and will be a fair and knowledgeable person as far as possible.


Madam   Chairman@: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. members:: No.


Andrée  Champagne: Negatived on division.
Amendment negatived.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Chairman, I would like to move a further amendment to clause 8. I move:
That clause 8.(1) be deleted and the following substituted
therefor:
Within 24 hours after the coming into force of this act, the employer shall nominate one member and the union shall nominate one member and thereupon the minister shall appoint a chairman of a mediator-arbitrator board and the minister shall refer to the mediator-arbitrator all matters relating to the amendment or revision of the collective agreement that, at the time of the appointment, remain in dispute between the union and the employer. Provided that should either the union or the employer fail to appoint a member within the said 24 hours, the minister may forthwith appoint such a member in the place instead of the said union or employer as the case may be.


Andrée  Champagne: The Chair has very much difficulty with the amendment as presented by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. The committee has rejected the amendment presented in clause 3 which presented the possibility of it being a board. This was rejected in clause 3. I have very much difficulty going back to this principle of it being a board even if it is such that the minister appoints and the union and the employer nominate.
October 10, 1991

Maybe the hon. member can tell me how, once we have turned down the possibility of a board in clause 3, I can now go back on clause 8 and accept it.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Chairman, clause 3 does not appoint the board. Clause 3 is merely a definition clause in the bill. The amendment to clause 3 was moved solely for the purpose of making it clearer what was meant if clause 8 were to be subsequently amended and it was drafted on that basis. In other words, had the amendment in clause 8, which is the substantive amendment, been adopted it would have clarified the bill to amend clause 3, but not the other way around. Clause 3 need not be amended just because in clause 8 it is a board. Clause 3 defines, I believe the term is mediator-arbitrator. Clause 8 still refers to mediator-arbitrator, it is just that it happens to be a board if this amendment to clause 8 is adopted. I submit that it is in order on that point.
I draw the Chairman's attention to the fact that amendments may be made to bills at this stage and that the amendment is relevant to the bill. I submit that it is not inconsistent with or contradictory to the bill insofar as it is agreed to by the committee because the clause 3 amendment, which has been rejected, was an amendment only to definitions, as I have said, and clause 3 could be left as is and it would still make sense given this wording. It is simply that it would have made it clearer and the amendment was drafted on that basis.


Andrée  Champagne: Mediator-arbitrator, as I see it, is in the singular and not in the plural. I guess we could give the hon. member the benefit of the doubt on that.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Chairman, citation 698 of Beau-chesne's states:
(5) An amendment which is equivalent to a negative of the bill, or
which would reverse the principle of the bill as agreed to at the
second reading stage is not admissible.
I submit that this amendment does not violate the principle of this bill which is to provide for the termination of this strike by way of mediation or arbitration, nor is it a negative of the bill. It is supportive of the principle of the bill which simply provides that instead of a one-man arbitrator, which I presume is contemplated by the current bill, there would be a three-person board of arbitration.
Government Orders
I submit that within the parameters of citation 698 of Beauchesne's sixth edition this amendment is in order.


Andrée  Champagne: At no time did the Chair let it be understood or pretend that the amendment was changing or reversing the main terms of the bill. What the Chair said is that we felt that the amendment went beyond the scope of the bill and it was a new concept.
What I would suggest now, which might be the easiest way, is to accept the amendment. I will put it to the House and we will see what happens then.
Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Andrée  Champagne: I declare the amendment negatived. Shall clause 8 carry?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Clause 8 agreed to.


Andrée  Champagne: Shall clause 9 carry?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Clause 9 agreed to.


Andrée  Champagne: Shall clause 10 carry?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Clause 10 agreed to.


Andrée  Champagne: Shall clause 11 carry?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Clause 11 agreed to.


Andrée  Champagne: Shall clause 12 carry?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Clause 12 agreed to.
On Clause 14-Coming into force


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Chairman, clause 14 is a new clause. It is not the normal clause that we have in back-to-work legislation.

October 10, 1991
Government Orders
We were not given any warning that the government would be changing this particular clause. Normally there is a guarantee with regard to back-to-work legislation that the employer and employees will have at least 12 hours after the act is proclaimed.
It was just last week that we had the situation with regard to the Public Service Alliance strike that the Senate, in its rush to pass the legislation, did so at five or six minutes to eight o'clock in the evening.
The President of the Treasury Board was on the air saying he expected people to be back at work at eight o'clock the next morning. He gave them 12 hours and six minutes, or something of that nature.
Of course that created great confusion because there was no way that a lot of people would even know that the Senate had passed the legislation at five minutes to eight o'clock in the evening.
I should point out that I was one of those people. I was called by some people who said: "When do we have to report back to work?" I did not know exactly when the Senate had passed the legislation.
There are absolutely no restrictions in this new amendment. There is not even a guarantee of 12 hours. It is quite possible that if the Senate in its rush tomorrow passes this legislation at four o'clock in the afternoon, the cabinet could say: "We want you people back at work one hour hence".
It was not that long ago that we guaranteed people 24 hours before they had to return to work. Then the last legislation said 12 hours. Now there is no given time, no minimum time. I suspect that the minister might get up and give assurances to this House that he will not do anything nefarious or he will not use the store alarm that the President of the Treasury Board tried to use.
On the other hand, I would not like to see this clause, even if we get assurances at this time, used in the future. It gives too much power to the government with absolutely no guarantees that either the employees or employers will have adequate information and adequate time to do it as required.


Marcel Danis: Madam Chairman, after the convincing argument of my friend from Churchill, I would be ready to move the following amendment. I hope my friend
from Churchill will never say there is no co-operation in this House.
The amendment would be the following one:
That clause 14 of Bill C-37 be amended by striking out lines 19 to
21 on page 5 and substituting the following:


COMING INTO FORCE
[Stage Direction]
14. This act shall come into force on the day immediately after the
day on which this act is assented to, but not before the 12th hour after
the time at which it is assented to.
Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Chairman, sometimes you do not want to accept surrender.
I am encouraged that the minister has reinstated the normal clause. I would only ask in accepting this clause that he also assure that because we are not talking about a large number of work sites and that we are talking about one city, a limited number of employers and one bargaining unit, they would be given adequate time.
If for some reason the act received Royal Assent at some weird hour of the night, people should not be surprised, there should be adequate time allowed and we should not go through the charade we went through last week with the Public Service workers.


Marcel Danis: Madam Chair, I can certainly give my word to my hon. friend that no one will be taken by surprise.


Andrée  Champagne: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Danis) agreed to.


Andrée  Champagne: Shall clause 14 as amended carry?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Chairman, I have a bit of a problem. I know when you are sitting in the chair at the table, you do not have the same view as you have when sitting in the Speaker's chair. Sometimes I have been up and you have gone on without noticing that I have been standing waiting to speak.
The short title reads:
October 10, 1991

This act maybe cited as the Thunder Bay Grain Handling Operations
Act.
I wonder if, since the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds was the one who announced that this legislation would be coming down, not the Minister of Labour, the government would be willing to have the title named after the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds. Perhaps, if the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds feels that he is the one who announces labour legislation, the government would also be willing to look at further legislation combining the two portfolios with only one minister.


Andrée  Champagne: And I was about to apologize to the hon. member. I guess we can both talk about our sense of humour.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Marcel Danis: that the bill be concurred in. [English]


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Marcel Danis: that the bill be read the third time and passed.
He said: Madam Speaker, as we near the last stage of this bill in the House, I would like to thank the members of the House for their co-operation in enabling the government to pass this legislation as rapidly as possible.
I said in my earlier speech at the second reading stage that it is not with pleasure that any labour minister has to bring in back-to-work legislation. We feel it is necessary at this time for the economy and we feel it is absolutely necessary for the farmers of western Canada that the grain move.
Having said that, however, I would hope that the parties would take advantage of the opportunity they still have through mediation to reach a settlement through the normal collective process. I urge them both to negotiate in good faith and try to reach a settlement before the bill is proclaimed.
Government Orders
Having said that, I would like to thank members of the House for their co-operation.


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Madam Speaker, I first apologize for not being a participant in this debate up to this point. Unfortunately I was attending a grain conference in Winnipeg when we found out at about two o'clock this morning that the assessment officer whom the Minister of Labour had sent to Thunder Bay to meet with both sides had failed to get both parties to agree on some form of a settlement and as a result the legislation that is before this House would be introduced this morning. Since it is very important to the grain industry in Thunder Bay I thought it my duty to return from that conference and attend to make some comments this afternoon with respect to this legislation.
Not to detract from what the minister has just stated and not to delay the passage of the bill, I want to assure him of that, but the remarks I am going to make concern some of the issues that affect the people who work in the grain industry in Thunder Bay.
During this whole unfortunate process I have spoken several times to both parties that were intimately involved in trying to reach a settlement. I think I should on their behalf explain to the House, and through the House perhaps to the people of Canada, the very issues that have stopped the flow of grain through the port of Thunder Bay for the last several days.
At the outset I think it is important to note that the grain workers in Thunder Bay are not selfish in what they have done. As we compare the grain workers in Thunder Bay with the grain workers in Prince Rupert and Vancouver, the grain workers in Thunder Bay are making something like $2.50 less an hour than their colleagues in Vancouver.
Coupled with that there is also the fact that the grain workers in Thunder Bay work approximately a six-month year, whereas their counterparts work up to a ten-month year. We can see that there is a substantial difference in the annual take-home pay of people who work in the same industry moving the same type of grain and, as I am told today, moving it to the same markets that traditionally were the markets serviced by the grain industry and the grain workers in Thunder Bay.

October 10, 1991
Government Orders
I will just relate a few personal incidents that I think are very important.
First and foremost, as the day approached we saw the veiy fine union representative, Herbert Daniher, in complete frustration at not being able to get the companies to sit down at the table and negotiate a contract. Although we may put fine words on it, the reason they did not want to negotiate was the fact that they made a pre-condition to sitting down at the table, stating that pensions were not to be discussed.
As it stands with this legislation now, it is very evident that when the conciliator-arbitrator is appointed after the passage of this bill, the mediator-arbitrator will certainly discuss the pension issue. I am certain that he will treat those people in the port of Thunder Bay with the degree of fairness that up to now they have not been treated with.
I also think of some of the incidents that have led up to this dispute, and I say that they are incidents that affect human beings working in a community that did not have to exist. I am thinking in particular of this summer and a man named John Pino coming into my office. He had worked for 15 and a half years for Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, had not been called back to work for the 18-month period, and had received his final termination from Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. This is a family man with responsibilities and a mortgage, like all of us. After dedicating 15-plus years to this elevator complex, he was told that his services were no longer needed, and this is the unfortunate part, because the grain was moving through the port of Thunder Bay and the people working at that elevator were working double and triple time and it chose to work people double and triple time rather than calling back these people who had 14 years and 15 years of seniority.
That is not fair play and that is the reason for the frustration in the grain industry in Thunder Bay today.
I think of people who have walked through my office in the last two or three months who were involved. Baldino Iello, whom I was at a hockey game with on Saturday night in Thunder Bay, contributed over 20 years of his life to this industry and finally gave up in frustration, saying that he could not carry on in the present circumstances any longer, mainly because the equity, the quality and the way some of these people are treated are no longer tolerable.
Those are just a couple of the human elements that I had dealt with throughout the summer. I think that is the unwritten agenda that has caused the frustration and the dilemma in which we find ourselves today.
There is no question in my mind as to what is needed. I would hope that the industrial commissioner Mr. Daniher has requested and whom the minister will appoint very shortly will continue after this legislation is in place and long after a settlement is reached by the mediator-arbitrator to look at what is happening in the grain industry, particularly in Thunder Bay, with respect to justice for its people, with respect to equity between the various parts of Canada, and with respect to consideration for the contribution which those people have worked long and hard in the grain industry in Canada to give. They should not be treated in the way they are being treated.
I would hope and would suggest to the minister that I hope the industrial commissioner he will appoint will be given a broad mandate in order to look into these injustices that have been perpetrated on the grain workers at Thunder Bay for so many years.
The dilemma they find themselves in is that five years ago we had over 2,400 employees working in the grain industry in Thunder Bay. Today there are fewer than 700 people working full time.
Of those 700 people there are usually 200 or 300 off on part-time work. In a period of five years that industry has gone from 2,500 down to less than 700. That is the whole substance. In essence, that is why we are here today passing back-to-work legislation to get the grain moving.
Let me also say that there is empathy on behalf of the grain workers in Thunder Bay for the farmers in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I would want to address that issue for just a moment. I hope that those people who are on farms in Saskatchewan and Manitoba would not look unkindly to the people who are working in the grain industry in Thunder Bay because they face the same dilemma. The hardships that they are facing in the prairies today are much the same hardships that are being faced by the people who are working in the port of Thunder Bay.
October 10,1991

The price of wheat is not what it should be, neither are the wages. That leads me to the issues that I think are so important to bring before this House and before the people of Canada. These are the fundamental issues over which the companies have refused to sit down and negotiate on behalf of the employees who are being directly affected because of the huge loss of jobs that are happening on our waterfront. What we are trying to accomplish is just a certain amount of stability in that area of commerce so there can be planning, so they can go out and make the purchases necessary to house and cloth their families, and that is being denied to those people who work in that industry.
The issues, and we have heard the words, deal with pensions and what is called job security. I have taken those two issues, and they are almost buzzwords in the negotiating field today, and I have broken down them down into four elements with the help of my colleagues in Thunder Bay. Let me just explain for a few moments what those four issues are.
In the bargaining package they want what is called credited service. Because of the long terms of lay-offs, up to 18 months in some instances, when an employee who has worked for a considerable amount of years in the grain industry in Thunder Bay came to retire he may have 35 years of seniority but only 22 years of credited service because of the amount of time that he worked. All the employees want in this bargaining process is the ability to pay into their pension plan their regular contribution. It is not free. They want to be able to pay a voluntary contribution to their pension plan so that during the times they are unemployed because of lay-off they will be able to contribute to the pension plan and when it comes time to retire they will have 30 years of seniority, as an example, and 30 years of credited service.
When you compare this to any other industry, I do not care whether you are in mining or manufacturing automobiles or tires or working for the government, when you retire after 30 years you are usually credited with 30 years of pension. That has been denied the employees in the grain industry in Thunder Bay and that is just what they are asking for. It is that simple.
The other thing and part of the area that was not discussed was that they wanted to reduce the retirement age to 55 in order that they could bring the work force into some kind of balance, retiring those people with more seniority and bringing on fresh talent.
Presently the age is 58.1 think the figure that we use is
Government Orders
85: the age of the individual plus the number of years of seniority. If that equals 85 they are allowed to retire. They wanted the retirement age reduced to 55. The dilemma they find themselves in is that they could not negotiate-the company refused to negotiate-the difference between age 55 and age 58. Any one of us who has bargained at the bargaining table knows that you come in with one position on the one side and the other position, you sit down, and as long as you are talking to one another you are going to arrive at some kind of a settlement. You cannot arrive at a settlement if you are not going to sit down at the table and bargain. There is not a great deal of difference between a retirement age of 55 and a retirement age of 58. I think that is a non-issue that has led to this dilemma that we find ourselves in today because of the intransigence of the company in sitting down and negotiating these areas.
The other area-Madam Speaker, I know you are going to say this is trivial-is the benefits that an employee receives at the age of retirement. The employee who works in the grain industry is allowed at the end of the day, after fulfilling his terms of service which equal 85, to continue on with his drug plan as long as he agrees to pay $81 a month.
During the whole process of his employment he was on a dental plan. This is the crux of the argument here. As he approaches and decides on retirement, he no longer has the option to use the dental plan or participate in the dental plan after his retirement. That is just not fair.
When a person works in a company he is used to a drug plan and a dental plan as he is used to the other benefits. One of our Crown corporations, Canadian National Railways according to yesterday's The Globe and Mail, is one of the least competitive railways in North American according to research done by its own accounting firm. I suggest that we look at the benefits that these people receive and compare them to the benefits that these grain elevator workers receive in Thunder Bay.
In the last issue that prevented a settlement or even a negotiating point is something that they called income protection. There is not a great deal of job security when we talk about income protection. I do not want this to be misconstrued. This is not indexing as we know it and as I understand it. I am not in the pension plan of the government.

October 10, 1991
Government Orders
As I understand it, government pension plans in this very House are indexed according to inflation. I know among the school teaching profession that their pension plan is indexed to compensate for the cost of living. The elevator employees in Thunder Bay have never had the benefit of indexing in their pension plan.
What they have done and what happened up until 1984 was that the company would sit down with the union at the end of the year and say: "Yes, cost of inflation". They would negotiate for the pension plan something less than the normal inflationary rate that would allow the employee who had worked for the elevator company for a number of years to live with a certain amount of dignity.
In 1984 the company said: "That can no longer be the case. From here on in, in every bargaining process, we want what is called income protection on the table and we will bargain for it every year".
In 1988 they refused to bargain income protection so that the pensions that were paid in 1984 without any increase are the same pensions that are being paid in 1991.
All the union wanted was to have a certain amount of protection to say: "Will you look at the pension plan? We do not expect indexing. We are not asking for pie in the sky, but look at the pension plan and try to take into consideration some of the increased cost of living. Try to compensate us in some way toward achieving that goal". That is all that is. I do not see a great deal of job protection in that benefit.
Those are the issues. There are four issues: credited service, reduced retirement age to 55, minimum benefits on retirement, and income protection. Those are the only four issues that have caused the movement of grain to stop in the port of Thunder Bay mainly because the companies would not sit and negotiate.
They adopted the stance: "If you want to talk about pensions, we are not going to come and bargain". That is not fair. It is not fair to the work force and it is not fair to the system of bargaining and labour negotiations that we have come to expect in this country.
Therefore, I sympathize a great deal with the workers who I represent from the city of Thunder Bay. I know my party does not normally like to accept back-to-work legislation as we have seen it in this House. Given that the companies failed to respond, to sit down and bargain, I am satisfied-and I am sure my colleagues are satisfied-that the employees will finally be able to get a fair hearing with the assistance of the mediator-arbitrator who will be appointed immediately after this legislation is passed. At least there will be a certain amount of justice done on behalf of the employees who work in the grain industry in Thunder Bay.
I hope that is the essence of what we are doing here today for their benefit.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Before recognizing the hon. member, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Don Valley East-Regional Development; the hon. member for Trinity-Spadina-East Timor; the hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau-Public Service; the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood-the economy; and the hon. member for Northumberland- Poverty.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Chairman, we are in third reading. It is our intention to put up one more speaker. However, if we could get unanimous consent not to see the clock until he is finished his debate, we would appreciate it. I do not think it would be a problem but considering that it is just about 4.45 p.m., if he could have the extra time to finish his speech, we would not be putting up any other speakers and would allow the vote at that time.


Marcel Danis: Madam Chairman, of course I agree to the suggestion by my hon. friend from Churchill that after the member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan completes his speech at approximately 5.05 p.m. we would then proceed with the vote at third reading.
October 10,1991


Robert Daniel Nault: We concur with that.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Chairman, I thank the minister for defining a few minutes for me.
This is actually an historical debate for the city of Thunder Bay and for the port of Thunder Bay. It is the first time in 25 years that this House has found it necessary to legislate workers and/or the company back to work at the port of Thunder Bay. In the past the threat of legislation has been used effectively to force the parties to the bargaining table. This time, because of the new calendar of the House we are not sitting next week and I think the pressure was not appropriately applied in a way that would have brought forward the result of some kind of negotiations. I regret that.
I regret too the manner in which the workers in Thunder Bay have been attacked verbally by members of this House, ministers of the Crown, and representatives of certain groups in the prairies. I want to spend a bit of my time dispelling the myth that this particular strike taken by the members of the grain handling union in Thunder Bay was in some way punishing the farmers of western Canada.
We have seen headlines and news stories saying millions of dollars a day are lost because of the strike at Thunder Bay. One would assume that means that people have not been able to get the grain that they bought and therefore no money was coming into the system. We certainly know that it means that because the prairie elevators are full the farmer cannot deliver and therefore get paid. I grant that. However, in terms of the industry and in terms of the nation, two ships cleared the St. Lawrence River on October 4 and three ships cleared on October 7 carrying a combined total of 128,000 tonnes of grain that somebody was able to pick up and take to a customer. Madam Speaker, that suggests to me there has been no loss of sales. There has been no inability in this country to provide grain to its customers. Quite frankly, even if this rumoured $400 million sale to the Soviet Union is announced today or tomorrow, they are not going to be parked at Baie Comeau or Port Cartier or Quebec City tomorrow morning waiting to pick it up. Even if they do, assuming that the one million tonnes that is in storage in those downstream elevators is the right kind of grain, they could pick up some grains. So that we have not lost existing sales, we have not in any way impacted on our customers. And yes, some customers might want to wait to see how long it would take for the dispute to be resolved, but all they have to do is look back in history to know that in situations like this when
Government Orders
there is a lot of grain to move that at the most it is one or two weeks.
The other thing that people have to know, Madam Speaker, is that Thunder Bay has a remarkable ability to rebound. We were only scheduled to get 1,500 to 2,000 cars a week coming in from the prairies. We can do 6,000 a week without any question. We have been able to do much more than that. So we could recover very quickly. And if this legislation receives Royal Assent tomorrow, it is quite conceivable that the grain handlers and the elevator companies can be back at work on Saturday. The 5,000 cars that the Wheat Board has had filled, sitting on the rail tracks somewhere between Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Thunder Bay, if not a lot are parked in Thunder Bay, will very quickly be dumped into the elevators and the 16 or so ships that are sitting in the harbour will be quickly loaded and steaming downstream towards the transfer elevators.
So, Madam Speaker, we can recover. If the government believed that this strike really was causing harm to the farmers, it did not have to legislate the workers back to work. It would have been very simple to go, farm by farm, to where the country elevators were full and fill up
5,000	grain cars and use them for storage. I can understand if they decided not to fill up the total fleet of grain cars- I can understand why they would want some flexibility. But they decided to fill up only 5,000 cars and use them for storage out of a fleet of 26,000 cars. They could have added another 5,000 cars for storage, freeing up some space at the prairie elevators so that the farmers could have brought their grain from the farm gate to the elevator to get paid.
But they decided they didn't even want to do that. They could have taken the unusual step of going to the farm, determining how much was in storage, and providing a payment based on a pre-sale of that grain in storage so that the farmer would have the appropriate cash flow.
But this government did none of that. It did not attempt to find a way around the problem of moving grain off the farm gate. It also could have, starting next week-and I regret to say this- started moving grain from Manitoba and part of Saskatchewan to Vancouver. It could have also cleaned some of the grain out of the prairies and moved it by rail past Thunder Bay to Quebec City-something called the winter rail program, only this time it would be in the fall. It could have done those things if the issue really was to help the farmers. Of course, the reality is that if there had not been an election in Saskatchewan right now, if there had not been a massive crisis in the farm community where they

October 10, 1991
Government Orders
need $1.3 billion just to stay afloat, then perhaps the approach would have been different.
But this government I regret to say has been playing games with the lives of the people on the prairies and the lives of the people in the port of Thunder Bay.
Let us deal with the port for a second, Madam Speaker.
The Minister for Grains and Oilseeds is quoted in today's Globe and Mail as saying: "We are not going to sit by and see a port shut down that is a major part of our grain sales to one of our most important customers". He is reported to have said that at the rally at the Manitoba legislature yesterday.
Let us look at what has happened to the port of Thunder Bay since this government has taken office. At the outset I want to say that the initial cause is not its fault. It was the previous Liberal government that in 1983 passed what is now called the Western Grain Transportation Act which was the elimination of the Crow. In that act it provided a financial incentive to move a maximum amount of grain through the west coast at the expense of the port of Thunder Bay.
We have already been told that the number of grain handlers in Thunder Bay has gone from 1,700 in 1984 down to 700 today. That is 1,000 permanent well paid union jobs lost at the Lakehead.
We have also had the appropriate spin-off losses in rail. We have seen our Great Lakes shipping fleet cut in half in terms of the number of vessels we have. Madam Speaker, I want to say to you today if we have one of those bumper crops that we always dream about, this country can no longer move it to our customers should we have it. We no longer have the capacity to move 19 million tonnes out of the port of Thunder Bay throughout a year. We just cannot do it because of the neglect of the port of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system.
I said at the outset that it was Liberal legislation that created the situation, but this government has been in
power since 1984. Seven years and there has been talk, talk, talk, but no action.
I just came back from a two-day conference in Winnipeg dealing with the issue of the direction of grain and how the WDTA is structured in terms of payments to the railroads or payment to the producers. I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that the frustration there was we have been talking about this and it is time for some action, time to restore some balance.
If the Minister for Grains and Oilseeds is sincere about the importance of the port of Thunder Bay, then it is time that this government got off its butt and did something to ensure that it has a permanent role in the movement of grain products from the prairies to export position, particularly to the Soviet Union. Most of the grain that goes to the Soviet Union comes through the port of Thunder Bay. A small portion goes through the port of Churchill and that is an issue as well that has to be addressed, to provide some permanency and stability to that grain community.
Madam Speaker, you have been told that the issues that have precipitated the strike are pensions and job security. I am not going to get into the details, the technical nature of it. I want to tell you the human side of it. If you have seen 1,000 of your colleagues lose then-jobs, if you have seen others who you have worked with for 15 to 20 years not have work for a year or a year and a half, if you had families who have lost their homes, marriages that have broke up because of the loss of employment, the loss of income, you can understand how important job security is to the people of the port of Thunder Bay.
This year has been a very bad year for us. We have lost one full paper mill with 400 plus people permanently out of work, another paper mill was downsized by over 400, a questionable future for UTDC, and thank heavens the province has stepped in to manage things until Lavalin can find a buyer so we can maintain that valuable rapid transit rail car construction facility in Thunder Bay. As we heard last week, our shipyard facility is doomed because of the lack of work for most shipyards in this country.
October 10, 1991

The strike has not been a good one. I do not blame the union for that. Everything that I saw leading up to it was a group of companies which wanted nothing more than to put their workers out on the street.
I want to give one example. On the Friday when the Public Service Alliance went back on the picket lines in Thunder Bay, one of the first groups to go back were the inspectors and the weighers.
I should tell you that the grain handlers union has a cause and a collective agreement which gives them the right to refuse to cross picket lines. Given that in the first phase of the PSAC strike, they did not cross the picket lines, one of the companies-I do not know which one-on the Monday after the PSAC lines were up again, had the nerve to call over 100 grain handlers back to work.
They called them off pogey, off unemployment insurance. They had to know that that meant they would lose unemployment insurance but not get any work because they could not cross the picket line. They would refuse to cross the picket line.
That is not fair bargaining. That is not setting a climate to provide for meaningful negotiations. The companies themselves have to accept the responsibility that they created the scenario that led to the walk-out by the grain handlers union.
I will just make a final few comments, because I realize that the time is running out. I want to say very clearly that I and my colleagues in this House will be saying "nay" when you ask if this legislation shall be passed. We will be voting against it because we do not believe that collective bargaining should be destroyed in this fashion.
I also want to make it clear that we are agreeable to see this legislation pass this House today, to be completed in this House today because we recognize that it will be futile from any point of view to continue this now that negotiations have failed.
Madam Speaker, let me leave you with one thought. Would we be doing this today if the House was sitting next week? I suspect not. I wonder once again about our priorities as we deal with these and other matters.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Government Orders


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Bill read the third time and passed.
* *
*


ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE
Marcel Danis: I have a motion, Madam Speaker. I would ask if there is unanimous consent of the House for the following motion:
That notwithstanding any Standing Orders and usual practices of this House that on Friday, October 11, 1991 the House shall suspend at the hour of adjournment to the call of the Chair for the sole purpose of receiving a message from the Senate respecting Royal Assent on the bill in the name of the Minister of Labour entitled an act to provide for the resumption and continuance of grain handling operations at Thunder Bay, Ontario, unless the said bill receives Royal Assent earlier that day.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 30(7), the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, October 3, 1991, consideration of the motion of Mr. Althouse that, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of introducing amendments to the Income Thx Act so that taxpayers whose income may fluctuate from one year to the next would be able to average their income over five years.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Argen-teuil-Papineau had two minutes left. Does she intend to use them?
The hon. member for Argenteuil-Papineau.


Mrs. Bourgault:: Madam Speaker, I had two minutes left on what, exactly?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry but I realize that with all the noise and brouhaha in the House, the hon. member was unable to understand what the subject was.
We are about to resume debate on the motion of Mr. Althouse. The hon. member was the last person to speak when we debated this motion. She has two minutes left, but if she does not want to use them, we will resume debate.
The hon. member for Mackenzie, on a point of order? [English]


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, there have been some discussions and unless members are anxious to make speeches on this, I would be prepared to have the vote deferred until the Wednesday after we come back into session.


Mr. Dorin:: Madam Speaker, I was going to make some comments on this particular matter because I do know a little bit about the history of this. One of the things that I wanted to respond to was the fact that the hon. member, who has managed to find his way to the House after the vote which was trying to help farmers in Saskatchewan by getting their grain moving, is the same one who is now
October 10, 1991

suggesting we should be assisting people who have high incomes in given years to pay income tax.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I will have to stop the hon. member for Edmonton Northwest. There are 45 minutes left for debate on this bill. There are possibilities of debating until six o'clock. If the hon. member wishes to be recognized and speak on this, he has 10 minutes at his disposal and then we will see what the wishes of the House are.
What the hon. member was doing was really rising on a point of order and then starting to debate, so I could not let that go on. If the hon. member for Edmonton-


Murray Dorin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I was going to debate. It is a little bit confusing here, I thought I was on debate and that debate was continuing. In the interest of solving this problem, one of the things I intended to raise was there was going to be an undertaking by myself that perhaps the member might wish to withdraw his motion so there would be no vote and the subject matter could be referred to the finance committee. I was going to offer an undertaking that we would then, sometime between now and Christmas, take up the matter.
However, I may withdraw that if we do not get an opportunity. I was going to give that undertaking which would mean that there would be no vote. I could not find the hon. member to ask him whether that would be acceptable.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The first person who rose was the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. Is he relinquishing the floor right now?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Yes.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, there were at least two options that were discussed: first, that the subject matter be referred to committee, like the hon. member just referred to; or, that unanimous consent be sought to cause the vote, but then to have it deferred until Wednesday, October 23. That is the preferable option in the mind of the hon. member whose motion we are discussing and so that is why the member rose to suggest that particular option. If the member would like to speak to the bill first then perhaps we could have an agreement that we would hear him and at that time we would have an agreement to have a vote and have it deferred until Wednesday, October 23.
Private Members' Business


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, there have been discussions between all three parties and I understood there was agreement to allow this vote to be deferred.
What the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona has suggested is the hon. member make his 10-minute speech. There will still be a few minutes left today. We could agree that a division has been demanded and it is deferred until Wednesday when we resume.
I understand there were discussions with the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader that that is acceptable. I have not received any word to the contrary. Perhaps if the hon. member wishes to make a speech, as suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona, we could proceed, hear the speech and then wrap this matter up.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am quite prepared to recognize the hon. member for Edmonton Northwest on debate. If there has been some agreement or there seems to be different interpretations to that agreement, perhaps while the hon. member is debating, other people may want to go behind the curtains and talk about it a little more.


Murray Dorin: Madam Speaker, that is acceptable. Maybe I will speak for just a few minutes, agreement can be reached and we can deal with it. I am not going to stand in the way of deferring the vote particularly if that agreement is what is understood. I did not quite understand the situation. By the time I am finished, hopefully it wrll be resolved.
Briefly the difficulty with what the hon. member is proposing, which is to provide for five-year averaging for farmers, is that it creates a situation where persons may end up with substantial income in a given year, perhaps $50,000 or $100,000 but because they lost money the year before means that they do not pay any tax. The result is they show up in the taxation statistics as people who earned $50,000 or $100,000 that year and paid no tax.
If we go back to a debate that occurred in this place five or six years ago on the question of the minimum tax, I would like to remind members that the occupations of tax filers that can be determined according to the main source of income showed that the largest group of people who had high incomes and paid no tax were farmers, followed by fishermen, followed by small business owners.

October 10,1991
Private Members' Business
It seems to me rather strange that we would have this proposal coming from the same party that was a very strong advocate of a minimum tax so that people could not earn$50,000 or $100,000 in a year and pay no tax. It would now like to recreate that situation which the government has sought to address by removing those kinds of tax loopholes.
I think it is rather strange that we would be doing this. However, I would also like to suggest that one of the things we have done in the finance committee is we created a subcommittee chaired by Mr. Soetens, the hon. member for Ontario, and we are inviting members as well as other people from the public to submit any ideas that they have for consideration. We will give them preliminary consideration.
If we think there is some merit to the case, we will then invite the particular individual or group to come and make a full presentation of their case. We will probably then also invite some people who may have other points of view. At the end of the day, if we can make a judgment, we will pass that judgment on to the Minister of Finance by a report to this House or whatever means.
We would like to do some of these things early enough this fall and next year to be in his hands before the budget that he will bring down some time around February.
I wanted to explain the process that will be available. It is for all members and everyone else. It may be a vehicle that could be useful for the member to take advantage of in a way of determining the pros and cons of his motion and whether or not it deserves additional support rather than simply having a vote on the matter today or next week and ending it there.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Do I understand that the member has moved that motion, or was that just a suggestion?


Murray Dorin: Madam Speaker, I am simply making a suggestion, which the hon. member who has moved the motion may wish to take advantage of. It is up to him to determine whether he would prefer to withdraw his motion and refer the subject matter to a committee and use this other process, or have this vote, which will take place either today or next week.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I was just trying to ascertain exactly what the hon. member had said. If the motion would be to withdraw the motion as it is now, of course it would need the approval of the hon. member who has moved that motion. If not, the motion is deemed withdrawn.
The only person right now who can say anything to that motion is the hon. member for Mackenzie.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, to very briefly close the debate, the elements of this debate have been made quite clear throughout the short time that the debate has ranged. The motion would affect people with widely fluctuating incomes, farmers and fishermen, who are most affected, but also authors, people who work under contract, et cetera. This would encourage the government to reintroduce that legislation, which is still in effect. There would not be a break in the rules that apply under income tax and Revenue Canada because the last of those years is still to come. We are almost at the end of the very last year.
I just want to point that out, and point out as well that I recognize the options that are available to me, to have a vote, which is my preferred option, which I believe would be deferred until the Wednesday evening following our return to this House. I realize that we also have the option of sending to this new subcommittee. My experience in this House with other motions has been that the House has tended to pass them-I presume that that may happen with this one-and the government legislation subsequently reflected the motion that was adopted by the House. If the House so chooses to take that route tonight, they can vote in favour on the Wednesday when we return after Parliament resumes on October 23.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if I might have the indulgence of the House to move that after hearing the member, whom we have now heard, and pursuant to discussions that took place earlier, a vote on motion No. 81, in the name of the member for Mackenzie, be deemed to have been caused and deferred until Wednesday, October 23.


Mr. Hawkes:: Madam Speaker, I think there is a missing element. There has to be a time indicated. If it was to be the close of government business, it would be 7 p.m on October 23.
October 10, 1991

The other question I had, Madam Speaker, is whether the private member's motion for Wednesday, October 23, is a private member's motion that would in fact be a votable motion. If the private member's motion on that date were to be votable then a better time would be 8 p.m., at the conclusion of Private Members' Business on that day.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, the motion is before you there.
Given what the government Whip has said, it could be added "at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, October 23". It is a friendly amendment and the House could dispose of the question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: My understanding is that by unanimous consent the question is deemed put and a division of the question that would be now before the House stands deferred until Wednesday, October 23, 1991 at seven o'clock p.m. at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Madam Speaker, do you happen to own a fur coat?
Do not answer that, Madam Speaker, because I know that is a controversial subject these days. The animal rights activists, for instance, have understandable concerns about the humane trapping of animals although most of us still do eat meat and wear leather shoes.
It is really not because of the animal rights activists' concerns that the fur coat manufacturers are hurting these days, but they are hurting. Many of the fur coat
Adjournment Debate
manufacturers in Canada are Canadians of Greek origin. A great many of those live in my own constituency.
There are families such as the Papadopoulos family, the Zaphiropoulos family and the Frangos family, all of whom are involved in the production and the manufacture of fur coats in this country and have been for many years.
Four years ago, there were many animal rights activists around but the fur coat manufacturing business was a booming one. In fact, the Canadians of Greek origin who owned and operated those kinds of businesses in metropolitan Toronto made representations to me and to the Minister of Immigration to bring more skilled workers into the country to be able to help and assist them.
Their business was booming, and they needed more skilled labour. Many of them come from the region of kastoria in Greece. Today, they are in serious trouble and many of them are seeing a lifetime of effort just go down the drain. Others are hovering on the edge of disappearing altogether, and with them, thousands and thousands of jobs, jobs that are skilled jobs and high paying jobs.
The fur coat manufacturing industry is only one of many, many examples of the problems that we are facing today with the industry in southern Ontario and in metropolitan Toronto.
Since 1989, some 47 different industrial plants in metropolitan Toronto have closed finally and completely. Unemployment is now higher than the national average in metropolitan Toronto. It is now something like 10.8 per cent whereas just a year ago, it was 4.7 per cent.
Of the 85,000 people who are depending on general welfare assistance in metropolitan Toronto now, some
65,000	of them are employable if there were some jobs out there for them to be employed at. There are something like 127,000 residents of metropolitan Toronto now on unemployment insurance benefits.
This is virtually the worst situation in metropolitan Toronto since the Great Depression of the 1930s. In the early 1980s, we had a worse recession for Canada as a whole, but not for metropolitan Tbronto.
Now, metropolitan Toronto has been hit and it is hit hard by the economic downturn. There are programs in place as you know, Madam Speaker, to help Atlantic Canada, to help western Canada, and to help Quebec and northern Ontario.

October 10, 1991
Adjournment Debate
There is none for southern Ontario because southern Ontario and metropolitan Toronto have been traditionally considered as the fat cats. Perhaps they have been. Perhaps we have been in the past, but certainly we are not now.
For years and years, the former Liberal government and now our own government has had a policy that has provided little if any help for southern Ontario. Well, southern Ontario and metropolitan Toronto now need help, Madam Speaker, and I want to ask the minister tonight what he is going to do about it.


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: I would like to assure my hon. colleague that the federal government, in spite of what he said, is very active in southern Ontario. I would like to emphasize that we already have in place many policies and programs designed not only to prevent adverse economic development in southern Ontario, but also to provide the building blocks for long-term prosperity, not only in southern Ontario but for all Canadians from coast to coast.
Soon the government will launch its prosperity initiative and provide a forum in which Canadians can plan and work together to prepare for the challenge of a global economy.
In addition to concentrating on building long-term prosperity for southern Ontario, this government has already put in place many initiatives which benefit especially this part of the country. The program for export market development helps firms in Ontario to sell to border and southern states and the overseas market.
Southern Ontario firms benefit significantly from this assistance. I would like to also point out that the new exporters to the border states program has helped many southern Ontario firms get involved in the export market. So I think, Madam Speaker, that these initiatives and other federal initiatives and federal departments and agencies are playing an important role in supporting southern Ontario industries.
We realize on this side of the House, and my colleague is right in saying that there are problems in southern Ontario, as there are in many other parts of Canada, but the federal government is committed to helping the economy of those areas by providing means that will help the local economies of those areas and the local enterprises to grow and export and create jobs.


EAST TIMOR
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, on September 18, in answer to my question, the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs said that Canada considers that Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor is a fact. She also said that we do not condone the manner of incorporation and that we deplore and condemn the loss of life that occurred.
Apart from the fact that those statements seem not entirely consistent, I want to point out other contrary facts in the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Portugal is recognized by the United Nations as the administering power of East Timor and it has continued its dialogue in an attempt to resolve the state of invasion and oppression by Indonesia. It has recently sent a fact finding delegation and will soon send a parliamentary delegation to East Timor when the arrangements can be made.
It has taken Australia to the International Court of Justice for entering into a treaty with Indonesia to drill for East Timor's offshore oil.
Furthermore, Madam Speaker, on August 7 of this year, Amnesty International presented a 37-page report to the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization in which they say, in part:
Serious violations continued to occur in East Timor over the last year, accelerating patterns of short-term detention, torture and ill-treatment of alleged political opponents, many of whom may be prisoners of conscience, and persistent reports of extra-judicial executions, hundreds of unresolved cases of disappearance and the continued imprisonment of at least nine alleged Fretelin supporters sentenced in trials which Amnesty International believes were unfair.
Not surprising, in spite of the Indonesian government statement that people are free to visit, Amnesty International has not been permitted to visit East Timor yet. Furthermore, Madam Speaker, our history does not have clean hands.
When our ambassador, Glen Shortliffe, advised the Canadian government that the takeover was a fait accompli, he also pointed out that this would result in greater benefits to Canadian companies in improved trading relations with Indonesia. That is what has happened. Over 300 companies have been investing in Indonesia, looking for the abundant natural resources, the tax holidays and the oppressed cheap labour earning no more than $1 U.S. per day.
October 10, 1991

Furthermore, Canada has provided arms to the Indonesian government that it used in continuing the oppression of the East Timorese people. In 1984 Canada assisted with a weapons bazaar in Indonesia and eight Canadian weapons manufacturers had facilities there. The list of companies that do business, and obviously find it profitable in Indonesia and East Timor, is too long to list, but it includes Air Canada, Alcan, Bank of Nova Scotia, Bell Aerospace, Canadian General Electric, Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas, International Nickel, West-inghouse, Litton Systems- a famous anti-labour, antiunion employer-and Levy Auto Parts Company.
I urge that the Secretary of State for External Affairs revise her understanding and reverse Canada's policy of supporting the aggressor, the invader and the oppressor, and work with Portugal to liberate by peaceful means through the United Nations the oppressed people of East Timor.


Lise Bourgault: Madam Speaker, Canada considers that Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor is a fact, recognizing that there has never been any history of independence or self-government in the territory. Canada does not condone the manner of incorporation and deplores the loss of life that occurred. At the meeting of the UN Commission on Human Rights in February 1991 in Geneva, Canada expressed regret at the continued allegation of human rights abuses and urged Indonesia to ensure human rights are fully respected.
Canada expressed also its support for the Indonesian decision to open East Timor to domestic and international visitors.
Members of the Canadian Embassy in Jakarta make regular visits to East Timor to make inquiries on reports of human rights abuses, detentions, and the general living conditions pertaining there. The last visit took place in September. There are indications that tension is mounting in the wake of the visit of a Portuguese parliamentary delegation this month with possible consequences with respect to the human rights situation.
Adjournment Debate
Canada continues to closely follow the situation in East Timor, and of course we fully agree with the hon. member's concern for the human rights situation in this part of Indonesia.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins -Chapleau):: Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to address a question that I had posed in the House September 26 to the President of the Treasury Board. The question was raised with regard to the amounts of bonuses that are being paid to certain managers in the Public Service and the senior executives of Crown corporations.
There was some discussion at the time, if I recall correctly, that they were bonuses and then they were not bonuses; they were Christmas bonuses but they are not Christmas bonuses; they are part of their pay package, they are being paid at Christmas time, but it is not really a Christmas bonus.
To this date we are still not too sure exactly what they are. The fact remains that a lot of these executive types are getting upwards of $85,000 and in some instances which I will refer to in a moment they can get as high as perhaps even $99,000, in the form of a pay bonus.
We have been told by the President of the Treasury Board that these are a recompense for productivity.
This is happening at a time when the hourly rated workers are being offered zero, three and three. I take offence to the fact that when I addressed the question the President of the Treasury Board referred to the fact that if zero per cent were such a fast number, why was it not good enough for PSAC. I think that is an insult to the workers who are the very people who produce, who make the boss "look good", the senior executives who are getting these fat cat bonuses off the backs of these very workers who are being told they are getting zero.
There is something wrong when we hear on one side that there is no money, that the funds have dried up, that we have to tighten our belts, that we all have to contribute, that it is not time to spend and give raises. It is time for restraint.

October 10,1991
Adjournment Debate
On the other hand we say that some time ago there was 15 per cent taken out of the wage package of these senior executives and it is only being given back to them in the form of a bonus if they are productive.
It is a contradiction in terms. They are not the ones who are being productive. It is the people on the front line who are productive. They are the ones who are producing.
In the last couple of days there have been some votes in this House with regard to forcing people back to work. PSAC was one group. The grain elevator operators are the other group.
If things come in threes I guess the next group of people who will be ordered back to work if they do go out on strike-and it looks as if they probably will-will be the postal workers.
We are told by the President of the Treasury Board that the bonuses and the wage structure are regulated by an advisory board. That advisory board has told the government that the Canada Post Corporation president's wages should be between $248,000 and $310,000. If we take an average of $300,000 and that executive is entitled to 25 per cent, because that is also the guideline, he will get $75,000 bonus.
My time is up but I would love to go on much longer.
The point remains that this whole idea of bonuses has to be reviewed and I am asking the minister to appoint a review board or send it to committee, but this double standard cannot go on. I am asking the minister to respond.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, the principle of the compensation for senior executives is that their total compensation consists of two parts: base salary and performance pay.
Increases to their base salary were limited to 4.2 per cent for 1990-91, which is the same average increase awarded other public servants for the same period.
Similarly, collectively bargained employees whose agreements expired prior to the February 26 budget will receive a 4.2 per cent increase as provided for in Bill C-29.
With regard to performance pay for the Governor in Council community, including heads of Crown corporations, bonuses are only awarded based on performance in achieving corporate objectives. They have not yet been approved or paid for performance during the fiscal year
1990-	91.
I would like to add that bonuses for heads of Crown corporations are only awarded on recommendations of boards of directors.
This elaborate consultative and administrative process accounts for the delay in implementation.
The government rejects the view that the restraint measures should reach back to some people retroactively, for previous years' service, but not to others. This clearly would be unfair. The same principle should apply to everyone.
In keeping with the government's restraint program, performance pay has been suspended for the fiscal year
1991-	92 for all senior executives and Governor in Council appointees inclusive of the heads of Crown corporations. This combined with a wage freeze for 1991 means that senior level total compensation will be subject to zero increase in that year, similar to collectively bargained employees. I should add that for the latter, however, salary increments will continue to be paid during that period.
I would like you to know that senior level compensation is normally established on the basis of independent advice and recommendations to the Prime Minister from the advisory group on executive compensation in the Public Service. That group is made up of eight senior executives from the Canadian business community and has provided advice over the past 23 years to successive governments. They support performance pay for senior executives as an alternative and a more cost efficient and effective method of distributing compensation. I should add that this method of compensation is widely used in the private sector.
Finally, as the President of the Treasury Board has indicated time and time again, there will be no salary increases nor performance pay for fiscal year 1991-92 for members of the management category and Governor in Council appointees including the heads of Crown corporations.
October 10, 1991


THE ECONOMY
Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, two weeks ago in this House I directed a question to the Minister of Finance. It was answered by the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology. It had to do with Mr. Lou MacEachem who received the Entrepreneur of the Year Award in Calgary.
Upon receiving his award, Mr. MacEachem announced that because of the GST, the high dollar and other taxes, he was selling his business, and I said: "and leaving the country".
I asked the minister: When was this government going to stop drowning small business in red tape and taxes.
The minister, who is a skilled parliamentarian, was at the dinner and got up and said that Mr. MacEachem was not leaving the country. I naturally felt like the minister sort of blew me out of the water. I felt that my facts were not really correct.
Subsequently, I went and had a further chat with Mr. MacEachem who did receive the Entrepreneur of the Year Award. There are two points that I want to make. The first one is that the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology was right in that Mr. MacEachem himself is not leaving the country. But the real truth of the matter is that Mr. MacEachem, a man who employs over 300 people, is selling off his businesses. He wrote me a letter: "Further to our telephone conversation, Mr. Mills. If I had not received the Entrepreneur Award this year, it would never have happened to me in Canada because the entrepreneurial spirit has been killed in Canada by government and is dead in me so for as Canada is concerned".
He went on to mention that he showed the Minister for International Trade a number of articles, which he attached, as to what some of the problems were with taxes, red tape and paper burden in this country. He then went on to say: "Having started many people in business in this country, I shall not be doing it any more." He started selling off his assets and will have all of his assets sold by the end of 1994. He said: "My reasons for not staying in business: GST, fines, withholding tax reporting, government operating and regulating at the same time, such as UIC, WCB, no offsetting write-offs when a deal goes bad and abuse by Revenue Canada. I have one big
Adjournment Debate
problem in business: government, government, government! Yours sincerely, Mr. Lou MacEachem."
I appreciate the minister doing his best to put me in an awkward light by saying that Mr. MacEachem was not leaving the country.
There are 900,000 entrepreneurs in this country right now. They are begging this government to listen. What they want the government to hear is that the paper burden and the tax designs of this government are crushing their entrepreneurial spirit. Tomorrow is an emergency debate on small business and so we can continue this discussion then.


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to what was said by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood. Perhaps I may remind him that his party, which was in power for many years before this government was elected, put a very heavy burden on small businesses and on Canadian business in general.
The hon. member has, I believe, a business background. I am sure there were good times and times when things were not so good. He must admit that government tax burdens and red tape did not start in 1984 or 1988. It started well before that time. The hon. member knows the business community. He must have realized, and his friends must have told him, that since 1984, this government has been working very hard to enhance the position of Canada's small businesses. It has introduced policies to help Canadian small businesses become more competitive and more actively involved in export markets.

My colleague will remember that not too long ago we replaced the old manufacturers' sales tax with a new tax, the GST. The GST being a different tax is not a new tax. It replaces the tax that put a burden on our economy, on the capacity of our small business to compete and to export.
As my colleague said, tomorrow there is a special debate on this issue. I am sure that all members of this House will welcome the opportunity to talk about it.

October 10, 1991
Adjournment Debate POVERTY


Christine Susan Stewart: Madam Speaker, I have the opportunity this evening to rise in response to a question that I posed in this House to the Prime Minister on October 2 that had to do with the rate of child poverty in this country.
I thought perhaps at the time that the Prime Minister had unintentionally misconstrued what I was asking in my question because of the response I got from him in which he said I was trying to mislead the Canadian public and was giving false information.
I tabled information in this House which corroborated the statement I made which was that there are more than one million children living in poverty in this country. I say that I thought that perhaps I had been misinterpreted and gave the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt. I was frankly appalled by a response I got to my question from the Minister of National Health and Welfare in which he critiqued what I had said in the document that had been tabled in the House.
Subsequently I have been in touch with many of the agencies that deal with those living in poverty in this country and particularly children. In 1990 Statistics Canada tells us that there were 5.6 million children under the age of 14 years living in Canada. Those human beings who are aged 15, 16, 17 and 18 are also considered to be children in this country. One in six children today is estimated to be living in poverty in this country. That makes more than one million children living in poverty in this country. It is a dreadful legacy that we leave for the future of this country to permit such a thing to exist.
Beyond just the argument over statistics and numbers, I was very concerned with what the Minister of National Health and Welfare was saying in his letter. At one point he stated that we should be proud of certain statistics about Canadian initiatives and other federal initiatives that have been taken vis-a-vis children.
For example, the government has made a dollar commitment to eliminating the problem of family violence. That is very important and we support that. We know that the situation of poverty contributes to family violence in this country and the government is not facing the reality of how children are living in this country.
I certainly am affronted by the response and the attitude of this government. It is not only myself. There
are many people who care for children and their future in this country and our country's future is our children today. The government will hear more from me and those agencies on this issue in the coming days.


Lise Bourgault: Madam Speaker, I believe that in his exchange with the hon. member for Northumberland, the Prime Minister mentioned major programs the government has launched in response to this appalling situation that affects us all, both intellectually and emotionally: the thousands of children living in poverty in this country.
I heard her refer to a letter she received from the minister with further details on the government's initiatives. Of course, it is quite a challenge, and it is also a very complex issue that is difficult to quantify when we realize, for instance, that there are poor children who are fortunate: they eat three meals a day, are cherished by their parents, cared for and protected. These children may be poor, but they are not unhappy. On the other hand, there are poor children who lead miserable lives because they come from a disadvantaged environment, broken homes, families living in extreme poverty, where many of them are beaten and abused. Single-parent families are most likely to be living on low incomes, and the children in these families are particularly exposed to poverty.
Madam Speaker, I know the hon. member doesn't like figures, but I think I should mention a few, because the government spends $15 billion annually on aid to children through family assistance programs. The hon. member is aware there are provincial jurisdictions involved as well. At the present time, there are 956,000 fewer low-income people than in 1984.1 agree we must do more. We are very concerned, Madam Speaker, and we are actively seeking ways to improve our response to the needs of these children. It will take the co-operation of both opposition members and the government to find short and medium-term solutions to this very serious problem facing our society.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being 6.30 p.m, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 a.m, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, October 11,1991