September 1, 1972

LIB

Russell Clayton Honey (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

The Chairman:

I have discussed this with my colleague who was in the chair at the time, and it is my understanding that the amendment is before the committee. At this particular point, my position is that the committee will have to decide on the amendment.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WEST COAST PORTS OPERATIONS BILL
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESUMPTION AND CONTINUATION OF LONGSHORING, GRAIN HANDLING AND RELATED OPERATIONS AT WEST COAST PORTS
Permalink
PC

Lincoln MacCauley Alexander

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Alexander:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to put the position of our party before you. Although I am very impressed with the intent of my friend's amendment, and I say this with all due respect, perhaps if there had not been all the excitement which occurred last night the Chair might have seen that this is a substantive amendment. It certainly negates the intent of clause 8.1 think we are here primarily to deal with the strike as it exists in the province of British Columbia and to get the men back to work in order that the grain handlers may also pursue their vocation.

I have every sympathy with the hon. member for Moose Jaw who on August 31 at page 3929 of Hansard said:

We recognize the importance of this situation, and this amendment would require that some consideration be given to the setting up of a study to determine a better method of moving grain out of the country.

With the interest that my friend has in this matter, Mr. Chairman, surely after giving this some profound deliberation he must know-

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WEST COAST PORTS OPERATIONS BILL
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESUMPTION AND CONTINUATION OF LONGSHORING, GRAIN HANDLING AND RELATED OPERATIONS AT WEST COAST PORTS
Permalink
LIB

Russell Clayton Honey (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

The Chairman:

Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for interrupting him, but the Chair has some difficulty hearing him.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WEST COAST PORTS OPERATIONS BILL
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESUMPTION AND CONTINUATION OF LONGSHORING, GRAIN HANDLING AND RELATED OPERATIONS AT WEST COAST PORTS
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WEST COAST PORTS OPERATIONS BILL
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESUMPTION AND CONTINUATION OF LONGSHORING, GRAIN HANDLING AND RELATED OPERATIONS AT WEST COAST PORTS
Permalink
LIB

Russell Clayton Honey (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

The Chairman:

I appreciate the hon. members have things to discuss, but I would ask that they move behind the curtains so that the committee may proceed.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WEST COAST PORTS OPERATIONS BILL
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESUMPTION AND CONTINUATION OF LONGSHORING, GRAIN HANDLING AND RELATED OPERATIONS AT WEST COAST PORTS
Permalink
PC

Lincoln MacCauley Alexander

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Alexander:

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that you admonished members of the House, but it should be pointed out that the members admonished are to the right of the chair. We are now dealing with their bill but they have no interest in it.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WEST COAST PORTS OPERATIONS BILL
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESUMPTION AND CONTINUATION OF LONGSHORING, GRAIN HANDLING AND RELATED OPERATIONS AT WEST COAST PORTS
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WEST COAST PORTS OPERATIONS BILL
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESUMPTION AND CONTINUATION OF LONGSHORING, GRAIN HANDLING AND RELATED OPERATIONS AT WEST COAST PORTS
Permalink
PC

Lincoln MacCauley Alexander

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Alexander:

The only thing they can do is chat and try to figure out when the election will be called.

Mr. Chairman, I shall not pursue this matter any further, except to say that I think this amendment goes far beyond what we are supposed to be deeding with. If this is true, and I believe it is, notwithstanding what occurred last night with respect to the ruling of the Chair, we in this party will not vote for the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Moose Jaw.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WEST COAST PORTS OPERATIONS BILL
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESUMPTION AND CONTINUATION OF LONGSHORING, GRAIN HANDLING AND RELATED OPERATIONS AT WEST COAST PORTS
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Question.

[The Chairman.]

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WEST COAST PORTS OPERATIONS BILL
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESUMPTION AND CONTINUATION OF LONGSHORING, GRAIN HANDLING AND RELATED OPERATIONS AT WEST COAST PORTS
Permalink
PC

John (Jack) Henry Horner

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Horner:

Mr. Chairman, not having had a ruling from you, I assume that you agree the amendment is in order.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WEST COAST PORTS OPERATIONS BILL
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESUMPTION AND CONTINUATION OF LONGSHORING, GRAIN HANDLING AND RELATED OPERATIONS AT WEST COAST PORTS
Permalink
LIB

Russell Clayton Honey (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

The Chairman:

Order, please. With respect I think the hon. member for Crowfoot will agree that when he asked me the question when the committee resumed this morning, I said the amendment was before the committee. At this particular point, I do not think it would be helpful to go back and consider whether the amendment is in order. The fact is that the amendment is before the committee and that is the ruling I made. It is before the committee and that is the fact on which the committee must proceed.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WEST COAST PORTS OPERATIONS BILL
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESUMPTION AND CONTINUATION OF LONGSHORING, GRAIN HANDLING AND RELATED OPERATIONS AT WEST COAST PORTS
Permalink
PC

John (Jack) Henry Horner

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Horner:

Mr. Chairman, I do not like to get involved in points of order or rules, but I think it would facilitate my understanding, and maybe that of the committee, if the Chair would advise whether he is prepared to listen to argument for or against the amendment, whether or not it is in order and whether I may make a speech on unions in general. This is my difficulty. I do not know whether to debate the amendment from the point of view that it is out of order, as I believe it to be. If the Chair is ruling that the amendment is in order, I want to make a speech on unions. I have many thoughts on unions and this would be an appropriate time to put them forward. In this particular instance, the grain handlers and the longshoremen's union were prepared to move grain until the head of the union said "No, grain gets no special treatment-all commodities are stopped". Where is the head of the union? He is in Los Angeles. I believe the international head of the longshoremen's union is in Los Angeles. The party to my left supports these unions and thrives on them, but they do not seem to acknowledge the fact that the head of this union deliberately prohibited the grain handlers in the longshoremen's union from going to work and handling the grain which this legislation is brought before Parliament to direct them to do. I have many more thoughts on unions which I should like to put forward, and if the Chair is not going to make a ruling I am prepared to make a speech on the matter.

I see that the Chair is not prepared to make a ruling and therefore I shall say a few more words with respect to unions and this amendment. The hon. member for Moose Jaw moved this amendment purely and simply for political gain so that he may return to his farmers saying that he was on the side of right and that he moved an amendment.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WEST COAST PORTS OPERATIONS BILL
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESUMPTION AND CONTINUATION OF LONGSHORING, GRAIN HANDLING AND RELATED OPERATIONS AT WEST COAST PORTS
Permalink
NDP

John Leroy Skoberg

New Democratic Party

Mr. Skoberg:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WEST COAST PORTS OPERATIONS BILL
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESUMPTION AND CONTINUATION OF LONGSHORING, GRAIN HANDLING AND RELATED OPERATIONS AT WEST COAST PORTS
Permalink
LIB

Russell Clayton Honey (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

The Chairman:

The hon. member for Moose Jaw rises on a point of order.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WEST COAST PORTS OPERATIONS BILL
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESUMPTION AND CONTINUATION OF LONGSHORING, GRAIN HANDLING AND RELATED OPERATIONS AT WEST COAST PORTS
Permalink
NDP

John Leroy Skoberg

New Democratic Party

Mr. Skoberg:

Mr. Chairman, I respectfully suggest that we are dealing with an amendment that has nothing to do with organized labour or unions whatsoever. We are not dealing with international or national unions. I believe that when a member stands in this House and says that directions have been given from outside this country with regard to this tie-up, he should be able to produce evidence to support his contention. I do not think it is proper that any member should be put in this position when he moves an amendment that has nothing to do with the topic that the hon. member is discussing at this time.

September 1, 1972

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WEST COAST PORTS OPERATIONS BILL
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESUMPTION AND CONTINUATION OF LONGSHORING, GRAIN HANDLING AND RELATED OPERATIONS AT WEST COAST PORTS
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WEST COAST PORTS OPERATIONS BILL
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESUMPTION AND CONTINUATION OF LONGSHORING, GRAIN HANDLING AND RELATED OPERATIONS AT WEST COAST PORTS
Permalink
LIB

Russell Clayton Honey (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

The Chairman:

Order, please. I think the point that the hon. member raises is really a matter of argument. The hon. member for Crowfoot may argue one way and the hon. member for Moose Jaw may argue another way. The hon. member for Crowfoot.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WEST COAST PORTS OPERATIONS BILL
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESUMPTION AND CONTINUATION OF LONGSHORING, GRAIN HANDLING AND RELATED OPERATIONS AT WEST COAST PORTS
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Question.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WEST COAST PORTS OPERATIONS BILL
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESUMPTION AND CONTINUATION OF LONGSHORING, GRAIN HANDLING AND RELATED OPERATIONS AT WEST COAST PORTS
Permalink
PC

John (Jack) Henry Horner

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Horner:

Mr. Chairman, what about the rule of relevancy? What about the rule on the expenditure of money? This amendment could cause the expenditure of money and such an amendment is only supposed to be moved by a member of the Cabinet. In any case, I notice that there is some general opinion that the House is ready to vote on this motion so I will not hold it up for more than about another two minutes.

The hon. member for Moose Jaw suggests that what I said about the head of the international union is false or wrong. If I had known he was such a doubting Thomas, I would have brought some newspaper clippings with me. On August 11, the beginning of the strike, the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board said there was no worry, no strike and the grain handlers in the International Longshoremens Union would continue to work. The grain handlers intended to continue moving grain, but the head of the International Longshoremens Union, whose head office is in Los Angeles, stated quite categorically that he would not allow them to move Canadian grain. Perhaps he wanted more traffic to move through the port of Seattle which is south of Vancouver. Perhaps that is what motivated him. I really do not know.

It is high time that we examined the whole question of unions. This legislation deals with two international unions, one with its head office in Chicago and the other with its head office in Los Angeles. They control the economy of a great part of western Canada. If this amendment is in order, surely the government will accept it, set up the inquiry and decide whether Canada could have its own union which would have a responsibility to the economy of Canada and not to some foreign empire builders who control the unions. I believe that this amendment is out of order, but as Your Honour has ruled it to be in order, I am prepared to vote for it.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WEST COAST PORTS OPERATIONS BILL
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESUMPTION AND CONTINUATION OF LONGSHORING, GRAIN HANDLING AND RELATED OPERATIONS AT WEST COAST PORTS
Permalink
NDP

John Leroy Skoberg

New Democratic Party

Mr. Skoberg:

Mr. Chairman, in view of the type of discussion that went on last night and this morning, perhaps I should explain a little more what this amendment is all about. I wish to ask the minister to clarify the actions which the government has taken and also what action the Canadian Grains Council has taken with regard to settling some of these long-term disputes at the ports between management and labour.

It was interesting to listen to the labour spokesman for the official opposition, the hon. member for Hamilton West, dealing with the strike which exists in British Columbia today. Surely, this committee is concerned with the long-term effects of all strike. Surely we can make suggestions and amendments to take care of the long time, situation that exists. All this amendment does is set a deadline as to when this government should take action

West Coast Ports Operations Bill

or initiate an inquiry. This type of action should be supported by every member of this House in order to clarify some of the problems that exist.

I wish to refer to three areas where the longshoremen have come up with separate agreements and separate contracts to look after situations on the west coast. I refer to the Burlington Northern, the National Harbours Board and Roberts Bank. They are working in Roberts Bank today. If grain were taken out of the general cargo classification, there is no question but that grain would be moving through that terminal.

There are many areas of dispute about which management, particularly the elevator operators at the port of Vancouver, have no concern. If the hon. member for Crowfoot is going to make an accusation about who wanted to unload the cargo, I suggest that he do a little more homework. The people from the hiring and despatch hall are not the ones who say what cargo will be loaded and from where. It is disgraceful for a member of this House to attack unions without looking at the entire picture.

A grain group was set up by the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Surely, this group should have looked at the overall problem. It is the responsibility of the Minister of Labour or the minister in charge of the wheat board to tell this House whether they are, in fact, looking at a long-term solution. The minister of Labour is not listening. Maybe I had better wait a minute. Can the minister inform this House whether the whole area of taking grain out of general cargoes, as was the case when other commodities were taken out of master agreements, has been considered in the light of the discussions we had last evening and this morning?

All the amendment does is ask the government to initiate an inquiry. It does not direct how the inquiry should be undertaken. We cannot expect the people engaged in this industry to worry about public sentiment and so on. They have to know where they stand. We cannot be expected to pass legislation which compels people to return to work when there is more than one side to the picture. The press invariably gives attention to the union and not the employer or the government. The government may have an answer as to why an inquiry should not be instituted and why grain should not be taken out of general cargo. I would appreciate some response from the minister. Perhaps the government has already done this. If so, I will withdraw my motion.

I cannot understand why anyone in this House would not support an amendment such as this. I was amazed to hear the hon. member for Crowfoot say today that he cannot support the amendment when last night he said he would support it. It seems strange that we cannot resolve some of the differences that have been in question for years and years with no foreseeable solution.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WEST COAST PORTS OPERATIONS BILL
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESUMPTION AND CONTINUATION OF LONGSHORING, GRAIN HANDLING AND RELATED OPERATIONS AT WEST COAST PORTS
Permalink

September 1, 1972