July 6, 1972

PC

Lincoln MacCauley Alexander

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Alexander:

No.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ST. LAWRENCE PORTS OPERATIONS BILL MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESUMPTION OF LONGSHORING AND RELATED OPERATIONS
Permalink
NDP

David Lewis

New Democratic Party

Mr. Lewis:

For him, that is serving the public interest.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ST. LAWRENCE PORTS OPERATIONS BILL MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESUMPTION OF LONGSHORING AND RELATED OPERATIONS
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Oh, oh!

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ST. LAWRENCE PORTS OPERATIONS BILL MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESUMPTION OF LONGSHORING AND RELATED OPERATIONS
Permalink
NDP

David Lewis

New Democratic Party

Mr. Lewis:

Let him say that to the workers in Montreal-

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ST. LAWRENCE PORTS OPERATIONS BILL MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESUMPTION OF LONGSHORING AND RELATED OPERATIONS
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Oh, oh!

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ST. LAWRENCE PORTS OPERATIONS BILL MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESUMPTION OF LONGSHORING AND RELATED OPERATIONS
Permalink
NDP

David Lewis

New Democratic Party

Mr. Lewis:

-in Hamilton or elsewhere.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ST. LAWRENCE PORTS OPERATIONS BILL MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESUMPTION OF LONGSHORING AND RELATED OPERATIONS
Permalink
LIB

Maurice Dupras

Liberal

Mr. Dupras:

The hon. member is playing to the gallery.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ST. LAWRENCE PORTS OPERATIONS BILL MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESUMPTION OF LONGSHORING AND RELATED OPERATIONS
Permalink
NDP

David Lewis

New Democratic Party

Mr. Lewis:

Nuts to the gallery, and nuts to the hon. member. I speak plain English.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ST. LAWRENCE PORTS OPERATIONS BILL MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESUMPTION OF LONGSHORING AND RELATED OPERATIONS
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Oh, oh!

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ST. LAWRENCE PORTS OPERATIONS BILL MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESUMPTION OF LONGSHORING AND RELATED OPERATIONS
Permalink
LIB

Gérald Laniel (Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Chairman:

Order, please. I think it would be better if hon. members allowed the hon. member who has the floor to make his speech. It is very difficult for the Chair to follow what is going on.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ST. LAWRENCE PORTS OPERATIONS BILL MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESUMPTION OF LONGSHORING AND RELATED OPERATIONS
Permalink
PC

Lincoln MacCauley Alexander

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Alexander:

The hon. member has taken almost two hours of the committee's time.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ST. LAWRENCE PORTS OPERATIONS BILL MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESUMPTION OF LONGSHORING AND RELATED OPERATIONS
Permalink
NDP

David Lewis

New Democratic Party

Mr. Lewis:

Mr. Chairman, I have not much more to say.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ST. LAWRENCE PORTS OPERATIONS BILL MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESUMPTION OF LONGSHORING AND RELATED OPERATIONS
Permalink
PC

Lincoln MacCauley Alexander

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Alexander:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ST. LAWRENCE PORTS OPERATIONS BILL MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESUMPTION OF LONGSHORING AND RELATED OPERATIONS
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

Filibuster!

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ST. LAWRENCE PORTS OPERATIONS BILL MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESUMPTION OF LONGSHORING AND RELATED OPERATIONS
Permalink
NDP

David Lewis

New Democratic Party

Mr. Lewis:

I must emphasize and underline that these interruptions and interjections merely show the direction of the thinking of some members of this committee.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ST. LAWRENCE PORTS OPERATIONS BILL MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESUMPTION OF LONGSHORING AND RELATED OPERATIONS
Permalink
PC

Lincoln MacCauley Alexander

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Alexander:

The hon. member, I must say, has a lot of nerve.

[The Assistant Deputy Chairman,]

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ST. LAWRENCE PORTS OPERATIONS BILL MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESUMPTION OF LONGSHORING AND RELATED OPERATIONS
Permalink
NDP

David Lewis

New Democratic Party

Mr. Lewis:

I say that the objective of the bill is not being served. In some respects we are jeopardizing the bill, and I hope it will not be jeopardized by giving the arbitrator power that he does not need. He is being given power to do things that are unnecessary, and that may harm the welfare of the people involved. That is why I am pleading.

I did not put my amendment in for nothing. I hoped that the minister and his advisers would come forward with a much better amendment which would do in a better way what I am trying to do. I am certain that this is the right thing to do. I am also certain that it is wrong and improper to interfere with the plan in the years 1973 and 1974. That is unnecessary and unjust, and that is why those powers ought to be limited to this year.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ST. LAWRENCE PORTS OPERATIONS BILL MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESUMPTION OF LONGSHORING AND RELATED OPERATIONS
Permalink
LIB

Martin Patrick O'Connell (Minister of Labour)

Liberal

Mr. O'Connell:

Mr. Chairman, we went over this ground quite extensively this afternoon. The hon. member for Winnipeg North was not present to hear the exchange, but he will find the explanations in Hansard that I gave then to support the provision set out in clause 7. I have given a good deal of thought to this matter and have looked carefully at the proposition the hon. member for York South has brought forward. We have considered it most carefully. We have considered the equities involved and after a brief excursion down that road, which has its attractions, we have returned to favour the present proposition as being one that provides the greatest justice. We must remember that we must provide justice for both parties; there must be equity for both parties. That will be in the best interests of all in future.

The hon. member for York South has brought forward an amendment. However, I must confess to some puzzlement because in speaking to it he opened up another door, and when you go through that door I think you will find that you are going beyond the whole purpose of this bill, certainly beyond the provisions with respect to the arbitrator's authority as provided in the bill. He would be putting the working people, for whom he has expressed concern, into greater jeopardy in the years 1973 and 1974 than any that might be contemplated in this bill.

If I understood the hon. member correctly, at the close of the debate this afternoon he was saying that we ought to make a provision in the bill so that the minister, on petition of one of the parties to the collective agreement, would automatically be able to appoint an arbitrator to modify the agreements in 1973 and 1974. We are not giving any such right for modification of that kind in those future years.

As I understand it, there would be the automatic appointment of an arbitrator of those collective agreements if certain events arose. What are those certain events? As was suggested this afternoon, it might be the plea of the employers that for one reason or another they could not live up to the income security plan, the plan that pays for 37 weeks whether they work or not under the new regime; they could not pay for it and they would be financially embarrassed. Am I to then appoint another arbitrator to open up the whole matter again? Are we to be in continual insecurity in this one field of arbitration? Even if we agreed that was a good proceeding-and I immediately say it is not-would we not be going beyond

July 6, 1972

the whole purpose of this bill, which is not to cure hypothetical events which might occur in the future? What the bill is intended to do, and I read from its title, is as follows:

An act to provide for the resumption of the operation of the ports-

Our whole objective is to provide for the resumption of the operation of the ports. Surely we would be going beyond what we agreed to on second reading, the principle of this bill, in providing in addition that in some future eventuality which we are unable to foresee at this time we should open up and modify the collective agreement.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ST. LAWRENCE PORTS OPERATIONS BILL MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESUMPTION OF LONGSHORING AND RELATED OPERATIONS
Permalink
NDP

David Lewis

New Democratic Party

Mr. Lewis:

That is not what my amendment says.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ST. LAWRENCE PORTS OPERATIONS BILL MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESUMPTION OF LONGSHORING AND RELATED OPERATIONS
Permalink
LIB

Martin Patrick O'Connell (Minister of Labour)

Liberal

Mr. O'Connell:

The hon. member says that is not what his amendment does. I am glad he has retreated to the confines of his amendment. When he spoke, he went beyond that. We ought to have that perfectly clear in our minds if we are seeking the best interests of the men as well as of the employers, as we must. If it is to be a viable agreement in the future we should not introduce into anything we do any jeopardy down through the succeeding years.

I earnestly hope that the decision can be made soon. I do not mean five months from now, or next year; I mean very soon-as soon as the arbitrator is in a position to judge the operations and, therefore, the facts of the case to make the job security plan viable. All that we are providing at this point in time is that at the earliest possible moment the arbitrator will make his decision. That is his "once only" decision with regard to income security; he will not have another opportunity. He will look as far into the future as he is able to do objectively and he will make his judgment.

I earnestly hope, and I think it is the hope of all members, that when the arbitrator fixes the date for the start of the job security provisions it will be the earliest date feasible, and when he fixes the terminal date beyond which the modifications will not apply that will be the earliest feasible date to make this a viable plan as required in clause 7. It is quite conceivable that it will be in 1972; but I am entering on delicate ground and I know that none of us would wish that. That is for him to decide. However, in the nature of the circumstances I think it is quite reasonable to expect that he will know what we consider to be an early decision, an early date to begin and an early date to terminate the modifications.

If we in Parliament set a date either to begin or to terminate, we take a judgment upon ourselves that we know something about the facts, something about the matter of dispute and we are capable of saying "the end of this year and no longer." It may be longer. I earnestly hope it will be shorter; I expect it will be. However, that is territory upon which it would be imprudent for us as Members of Parliament to trespass at this time in considering this bill.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ST. LAWRENCE PORTS OPERATIONS BILL MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESUMPTION OF LONGSHORING AND RELATED OPERATIONS
Permalink

July 6, 1972