CONTENTS
Saturday, March 25, 1995
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 131; Nays, 41 10981
Bill C-77. Report stage 10982
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu) 10982
Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 33,
34, 35, 36, 38, 39 and 40 10982
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 11001
Division on Motion No. 1 deferred 11007
Motions Nos. 4, 9, 13, 18, 23, 27, 32, 37 and 41 11007
Division on Motion No. 4 deferred 11008
Division on Motion No. 9 deferred 11008
Division on Motion No. 13 deferred 11009
Motions Nos. 14, 28 and 42 11009
Division on Motion No. 1 deferred 11009
Motion No. 1 negatived on division: Yeas, 40; Nays, 133 11009
Motion No. 4 negatived on division: Yeas, 40; Nays, 133 11010
Motion No. 13 negatived. 11011
Motions Nos. 27 and 41 negatived. 11011
Motions Nos. 28 and 42 negatived. 11011
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 133; Nays, 39 11012
Motion moved and agreed to. 11013
10981
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Saturday, March 25, 1995
The House met at 9 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the
House that an agreement has been reached by the majority of the
parties in the House with respect to an allocation of time to the
report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-77. Therefore,
pursuant to Standing Order 78(2), I move:
That, in relation to Bill C-77, an act to provide for the maintenance of railway
operations and subsidiary services, not more than three hours shall be allotted to
the consideration of the report stage of the said bill and not more than one hour
shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the said bill
and, at the conclusion of the final allotted hour of consideration of each of the
said stages of the said bill, any proceeding before the House shall be interrupted
and every question necessary for the disposal of the stage then under
consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or
amendment.
[
Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 180)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Barnes
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
DeVillers
Discepola
Duhamel
English
Finestone
Flis
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Gouk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Hanrahan
Hickey
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Patry
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Skoke
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stinson
Szabo
Telegdi
10982
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young -131
NAYS
Members
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Bélisle
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Mercier
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rosemont)-41
PAIRED MEMBERS
Members
Allmand
Asselin
Bellemare
Bernier (Gaspé)
Brien
Cannis
Canuel
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Dupuy
Easter
Marchand
Payne
Peric
Picard (Drummond)
Ringuette-Maltais
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
(0945 )
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare the motion
carried.
* * *
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-77, an act
to provide for the maintenance of railway operations and
subsidiary services, as reported (with amendments) from the
committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): There are 42 motions in
amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of
Bill C-77, an act to provide for the maintenance of railway
operations and subsidiary services.
Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20,
21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39 and 40 will be
grouped for debate.
A vote on Motion No. 1 applies to all the other motions in the
group.
[Translation]
Motions Nos. 4, 9, 13, 18, 23, 27, 32, 37 and 41 will be
grouped for debate but voted on in the following way:
(a) the vote on Motion No. 4 will apply to Motions Nos. 18
and 32;
(b) the vote on Motion No. 9 will apply to Motions Nos. 23
and 37;
(c) the vote on Motion No. 13 will apply to Motions Nos. 27
and 41.
[English]
Motions Nos. 14, 28 and 42 will be grouped for debate. A vote
on Motion No. 14 applies to Motions 28 and 42.
[Translation]
I will now submit the motions in the first group to the House.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I move that all the motions be
taken as having been read. That will leave more time for the
debate.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-77, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 14 and 15, on page
1, with the following:
````Commission'' means a Mediation Commission established under this''.
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-77, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing lines 35 and 36, on page
3, with the following:
``8. (1) During the mediation period,''.
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-77, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing line 22, on page 4, with
the following:
``a Mediation Commission shall be''.
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-77, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing lines 46 to 48, on page
6, with the following:
``11.(1) Within fifty days after its establishment, each Commission shall''.
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-77, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing lines 5 to 14, on page
7, with the following:
10983
``was established, endeavour to mediate all the matters referred to it and to bring
about an agreement between the employer and the union on those matters;''.
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-77, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing lines 20 and 21, on page
7, with the following:
``(c) submit a report to the Minister who shall lay the report before the House of
Commons within ten days
(i) unless the parties have reached an agreement within that period; or
(ii) where no agreement is reached, the parties may, by mutual agree-ment,
submit their dispute to arbitration or shall recover their rights under Part I of the
Canada Labour Code, once the ten days have expired.''
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-77, in Clause 11, be amended by deleting lines 22 to 30, on page 7.
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-77, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing lines 40 to 46, on page
7 and lines 1 to 6, on page 8, with the following:
``for the purposes of the mediation referred to in subparagraph 11(1)(a)(i), all the
powers of a conciliation commissioner under section 84 of the Canada Labour
Code.''
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-77 be amended by deleting Clause 14.
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-77 be amended by deleting Clause 15.
Motion No. 15
That Bill C-77, in Clause 25, be amended by replacing lines 9 and 10, on page
11, with the following:
````Commission'' means a Mediation Commission established under this''.
Motion No. 16
That Bill C-77, in Clause 30, be amended by replacing lines 1 and 2, on page
13, with the following:
``30. During the mediation period,''.
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-77, in Clause 31, be amended by replacing line 14, on page 13,
with the following:
``a Mediation Commission shall be''.
Motion No. 19
That Bill C-77, in Clause 33, be amended by replacing lines 38 to 40, on page
15, with the following:
``33.(1) Within fifty days after its establishment, each Commission shall``.
Motion No. 20
That Bill C-77, in Clause 33, be amended by replacing lines 45 to 47, on page
15, and lines 1 to 7, page 16, with the following:
``was established, endeavour to mediate all the matters referred to it and to bring
about an agreement between the employer and the union on those matters;''.
Motion No. 21
That Bill C-77, in Clause 33, be amended by replacing lines 13 and 14, on page
16, with the following:
``(c) submit a report to the Minister who shall lay the report before the House of
Commons within ten days
(i) unless the parties have reached an agreement within that period; or
(ii) where no agreement is reached, the parties may, by mutual agreement, submit
their dispute to arbitration or shall recover their rights under Part I of the Canada
Labour Code, once the ten days have expired.''
Motion No. 22
That Bill C-77, in Clause 33, be amended by deleting lines 15 to 23, on page 16.
Motion No. 24
That Bill C-77, in Clause 35, be amended by replacing lines 33 to 41, on page
16, with the following:
``for the purposes of the mediation referred to in subparagraph 33(1)(a)(i), all the
powers of a conciliation commissioner under section 84 of the Canada Labour
Code.''
Motion No. 25
That Bill C-77 be amended by deleting Clause 36.
Motion No. 26
That Bill C-77 be amended by deleting Clause 37.
Motion No. 29
That Bill C-77, in Clause 47, be amended by replacing lines 3 and 4, on page
20, with the following:
````Commission'' means a Mediation Commission established under this''.
Motion No. 30
That Bill C-77, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing lines 30 and 31, on
page 21, with the following:
``52. During the mediation period,''.
Motion No. 31
That Bill C-77, in Clause 53, be amended by replacing line 2, on page 22,
with the following:
``a Mediation Commission shall be''.
Motion No. 33
That Bill C-77, in Clause 55, be amended by replacing lines 24 to 26, on page
24, with the following:
``55.(1) Within fifty days after its establishment, each Commission shall''.
Motion No. 34
That Bill C-77, in Clause 55, be amended by replacing lines 31 to 40, on page
24, with the following:
``was established, endeavour to mediate all the matters referred to it and to bring
about an agreement between the employer and the union on those matters;''.
Motion No. 35
That Bill C-77, in Clause 55, be amended by replacing lines 46 and 47, on
page 24, with the following:
10984
``(c) submit a report to the Minister who shall lay the report before the House of
Commons within ten days
(i) unless the parties have reached an agreement within that period; or
(ii) where no agreement is reached, the parties may, by mutual agree-ment,
submit their dispute to arbitration or shall recover their rights under Part I of the
Canada Labour Code once the ten days have expired.''
Motion No. 36
That Bill C-77, in Clause 55, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 9, on page 25.
Motion No. 38
That Bill C-77, in Clause 57, be amended by replacing lines 19 to 27, on page
25, with the following:
``for the purposes of the mediation referred to in subparagraph 55(1)(a)(i), all
the powers of a conciliation commissioner under section 84 of the Canada
Labour Code.''
Motion No. 39
That Bill C-77 be amended by deleting Clause 58.
Motion No. 40
That Bill C-77 be amended by deleting Clause 59.
(0950)
She said: Madam Speaker, it is because the official opposition
takes its role seriously that, right on Monday, proposals were
made to the government, proposals that would have served a
dual purpose: to bring about a speedy resumption of work and
also a meaningful settlement, a negotiated settlement to this
serious situation that impacts on the Canadian economy.
I should point out that, instead of accepting our offer, the
government decided-I call it as I see it-to capitalize on the
circumstances, the difficulties created by this strike, as any
strike. Strikes are never fun, neither for the strikers-who feel
this is something they are forced to do-nor for those who suffer
the consequences.
The government took advantage of this situation to sort out its
problem, and that is to have working conditions imposed on rail
workers.
It is important to remind the House that a two-stage
mediation-arbitration process was recommended to the
government in the Hope report, and this recommendation was
made for the very simple reason that the companies have already
tried to obtain concessions in the past.
What is unusual is this statement: their demands are so
controversial and provocative because of the partisan role taken
by the government-the word is mine-who supports the
position of the railway companies and because of the tenacity
with which the companies have stuck to these demands.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Order. I would ask hon.
members who want to have private conversations to please step
out.
Mrs. Lalonde: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
This is a momentous event in the history of the Parliament of
Canada. Without taking too much of my speaking time, I would
just like to say that we realize this is emergency legislative
action and it is being taken for the second time in a short time.
All week long, we have been guided both by the proposals
tabled this morning and the need to bring about a meaningful
settlement. The government sabotaged the Hope report's
recommendations. Commissioner Hope recommended steps be
taken to bring both sides together to allow them to negotiated
settlements, these being the only way out of this difficult
situation in which the companies claim to be.
Let me read you a paragraph of the Hope report which gives
hope-no pun intended-and we want to give this hope a
chance.
(0955)
We can read this on page 72: ``During the commission's
proceedings, it was rather obvious that it would be possible to
negotiate settlements if freight carriers were prepared to accept
the fact that they will probably not win on all fronts, and that
they will have to pay for the changes which they want,
regardless of the settlement process. Similarly, if the unions
recognized the fact that both companies are confronted with a
financial reality which requires that some arrangements be
made in the interest of all the parties, they might be more willing
to negotiate an acceptable compromise''.
We can see the possibility for a settlement. This is what
Commissioner Hope looked for. He provided the government
with tools to reach a negotiated settlement. But instead, the
government chose to impose one, without giving the parties
time to meet face to face and express their respective views on
the problems and the future of the railway industry.
We wanted to give the parties a real chance, and this is why the
series of amendments brought forward this morning propose
mediation commissions which would report to the minister who,
in turn, would have ten days to table a report to Parliament
which would become a public document. If agreements were
reached within that ten-day period, the report would not go
public. Otherwise, at the end of this process, the parties would
either mutually agree to go to arbitration or, if they have not
reached a settlement-but we think they would-the Labour
Code provisions dealing with their rights would apply once
again.
Another way of doing things must be found when you do not
rely on a power struggle. In Quebec, we spent a lot of time
looking at these issues and workers now have the right to strike,
even in the health sector, provided essential services are
maintained.
10985
In Canada, the Labour Code provides the right to strike, but
that right is completely taken away by the government, when it
should come into play.
As I said repeatedly:
[English]
If the Canadian economy and politics cannot afford the
Canada Labour Code, there is a big problem because it means
that the problems will never be settled.
[Translation]
And when problems are not really solved, they resurface and
then they are much worse. This is what Commissioner Hope
explains in his report.
We want to make it clear to those who are listening, and who
may have suffered some inconvenience, that these workers are
exercising a right which is provided in the Labour Code. They
want a negotiated settlement, not an imposed one; they stated
that they are prepared to accept a compromise.
Commissioner Hope clearly showed that the companies'
hard-nosed attitude was due to the fact that they have the
government's support. Today, this House has an opportunity to
concretely show that the country is headed for new labour
relations, and not only where unions exist. The government
must be a role model. It must define the kind of labour relations
which will prevail in this country. However, the government is
not fulfilling its role when it is not paving the way to a future
which includes not only companies, but also every individual.
(1000)
It is because we highly respect our role as the official
opposition that we want to stress here in this House how
essential it is for Canadians and Quebecers to realize, through
this conflict, that a new direction is necessary, so that new
economic conditions can indeed be taken into consideration but,
more importantly, that we do not sacrifice, as is now so often the
case, the right of every individual to be treated with respect.
I invite the government to support the spirit of our
amendments. Rather than taking us back to the days when labour
conditions were dictated only by the prevailing economic
forces, these proposals seek to lead us to a climate of respect
between the employers and the workers.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, the purpose of the amendments presented this
morning by members of the Bloc Quebecois and, more
specifically, by the hon. member for Mercier, is to remove the
entire concept of arbitration from the bill and to limit the bill to
a mediation process.
The approach taken by the Bloc Quebecois may be a sign that
they did not follow the progress of negotiations after the
collective agreement expired. As you know, the parties tend to
start negotiating before a collective agreement expires. The
agreement expired on December 31, 1993, so that the parties
started negotiating several months before that date.
Subsequently, we appointed a conciliator to help the two parties
negotiate.
When this did not produce tangible results, we appointed a
conciliation commissioner who again for several months, tried
to get the parties to negotiate and conclude an agreement. It has
always been and always will be the position of this government
to help the parties negotiate and reach an agreement. Actually,
most collective agreements in federally regulated sectors are
concluded without intervention by the government as such and
without the need for legislation.
The proposal made by the Bloc Quebecois this morning would
mean that negotiations would be continued for 60 days. First 50
days, then a report to the House, and if the mediation process
fails, employees and companies will again be in a position to
strike or impose a lockout. That means that exactly 60 days from
now, we could be facing the same situation. Today is March 25,
and we might be back in this House on May 25, with a
nation-wide work stoppage in the railway sector.
I do not think the proposal is realistic. There would have to be
evidence that there is a good chance of succeeding through
mediation alone, and that is not the case. Both parties have
reached an impasse at this point. Neither party has asked for
mediation.
(1005)
The parties want to go back to work, that is quite clear. They
want the system to work, but both parties have reached an
impasse.
I heard a representative for the unions who appeared before
the Senate this week, and it was interesting to hear his response
when the senators asked if the people who act as mediators do
arbitration as well, and whether we should not separate
mediation and arbitration. Do you know what he told the
senators? He said: ``You know, when we have a mediator, and we
know that if we do not agree, it will be up to the same person to
make the decision for us, well, when the mediator looks us in the
eye and begs us to reach an agreement, we know perfectly well
what that means, and it makes us negotiate a little harder so he
will not have to make the decision himself''. This was said in the
Senate by a representative from one of the biggest unions in the
railway sector.
It is quite clear that each situation must be assessed on its
merits. I appointed a mediator in the Port of Montreal, but the
situation was entirely different. First of all, the Port of Montreal
has a long tradition of successful collective bargaining. It has
been more than 20 years since we had a general strike in the Port
of Montreal. Second, the parties were amenable and really
wanted to reach an agreement. These are prerequisites for
mediation. Third, it should be clear that the economic
repercussions of the strike in the Port of Montreal, compared
with the
10986
economic repercussions of the strike throughout Canada's
railway system from coast to coast are not the same.
Not long ago, the House passed back-to-work legislation
which imposed a mediation-arbitration process on the ports on
the west coast of Canada. Oddly enough, Bloc members did not
react the way they are doing now. Does this mean that the
members of the Bloc are not the official opposition and are not
concerned about what happens on the west coast of this country?
Why is it that today, they are criticizing the principle of
mediation-arbitration, while last time, although
mediation-arbitration was involved as well, there was no
discussion of the principles at stake as there is today. What is
going on? Do we really have an official opposition that is
concerned about Canada's economy from coast to coast? I
wonder. I am really amazed at this change in the position of the
Bloc Quebecois.
Since last Sunday we have tried to obtain the consent of the
Bloc Quebecois for the passage of the bill before the House. If
these amendments are the only thing they can come up with after
five days, A am sorry to say that we cannot accept them, because
we need results, and above all, we do not want to be faced with
exactly the same situation in two months' time.
(1010)
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, we just heard the Minister of Labour questioning
whether the Bloc was the official opposition. It is the official
opposition and the Reform Party is the national opposition.
The Bloc mentioned the noble conception of its role. I
disagree with that. I do not find anything about what it is doing
with regard to the legislation noble. I find the actions of the Bloc
Quebecois selfish and the most unconscionable I have seen in
Parliament. It has held up this legislation. It refused to waive the
48 hour notice necessary to get this in and debated quickly. It has
used every procedural tactic at its disposal to further delay the
passage of this bill.
We have to question what it is trying to accomplish. We know
the legislation is going to pass. The Bloc knows the legislation is
going to pass. It knows the CP, CN and VIA workers are going to
be legislated back to work. The Bloc is costing them extra pay,
costing the company extra revenue and costing companies all
across Canada a great deal of income.
Why is it doing this? Why is it selfish? The reason is the port
of Montreal. That is the sole reason we are all here today on the
weekend debating these delaying tactics offered up by the Bloc.
When the port of Montreal went down it happened that the
Standing Committee on Transport was in Halifax. Halifax was
booming. Everyone was walking around with a great smile on
their face because they had a tremendous amount of business
coming their way. It was pointed out to the member of the Bloc
who sat on that committee: ``You had better go back and tell
those people in the port they are really making a big mistake
because some of the traffic diverting to Halifax is not going to
go back when the strike is over. That is the way things operate''.
The Bloc took that to heart because we did not see too much of
it for a while after that. There were lots of telephone calls back
and forth. Then this great saving situation happened, the rail
strike. All of a sudden Halifax cannot get a lot of the goods to
load on the ships being diverted there. This played right into its
hands.
I wonder why there is so much emphasis on the port of
Montreal. This is not an action on behalf of Quebec, which the
Bloc is really supposed to represent because it is certainly not
representing the rest of Canada. This is costing manufacturers,
importers, people all across the country huge sums of money.
The total loss is expected to run in the range of $3 billion to $5
billion and that does not end when the strike is over.
This is not costing B.C. companies or Saskatchewan
companies. It is companies all across Canada, including
companies in Quebec. Bloc members are hurting the economy of
their own province. They are hurting it at a time when they know
full well the legislation is going to be passed in any case. This is
nothing more than a simple tactic.
As was mentioned by the Minister of Labour during her
speech this morning, there was not a peep out of Bloc members
when the same legislation was brought in on dock workers in
Vancouver. Why? Because they did not care. It was the very
same principle but it did not matter to them then. It was not the
port of Montreal.
The Bloc is trying to take every tactic to ensure that the rail
stays out until after the port of Montreal goes back to work. That
is all they are interested in.
The Liberals are not totally innocent in this either. We brought
this up long before the strike ever came in. We brought it up last
year when legislation was brought in for the dock workers in
Vancouver. Our economy is far too fragile and far too
interwoven to allow something this massive to go on. We have to
find alternatives and no action has been taken by the government
to do so.
(1015)
During the first week of the strike I attempted to contact the
Minister of Labour numerous times. I was promised a return
call. My intention was to find ways to work with the government
to bring the matter back so that we could get it settled. We were
10987
quite prepared to co-operate. I know the minister was extremely
busy at that time, as well being relatively new in the portfolio. I
understood that.
Appointments were made for the return of my phone call and
they were never kept. The Liberals had the opportunity to use
broader legislation at the time they legislated back the
Vancouver dock workers. It only took them two days to do that.
Why has it taken them so long in the case of the rail strike? The
reason probably is that they had to wait to make sure that CN was
fully involved in the strike so that they could bring CN into the
scope of the legislation as well.
The government's real target is CN. It wants to bring in
legislation that includes binding arbitration for CN. That is the
only part of all the tactics of the Bloc I have some agreement
with.
One problem in the legislation is the arbitration clause. It says
with regard to CN that there will be one member from the union;
one member from the company, which is the government; and
one member appointed by the government. We have a vague idea
about how the arbitration will come out.
The only alternative in this case is the Liberal solution used in
the case of the dock workers' strike last year. Why did they use it
last year and not now? I am talking of final offer selection
arbitration which gives the company and the union the chance to
get much closer together. It puts a lot more pressure on them to
be as close as possible and to take the most reasonable position
possible. It will allow them to settle outstanding issues and try
to reach a total agreement. In the end it will be one side or the
other. Whoever is the more unreasonable of the two will be the
loser.
That is a fairer operation than the type of arbitration that has
been brought forward. We have to go with the legislation
because we have to get the country back to work. That is the
bottom line. That is the most important part of the whole
legislation.
I ask the Bloc to start acting like a national opposition party,
be responsible, put the country back to work and put the
economy back on its feet.
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, the debate today is against a background
of Canada's burgeoning export records, the extraordinary
successes that Canada has achieved in its export trade which are
being jeopardized by the present strike of the railway.
The amendments before the House this morning would
attempt to resolve that strike through mediation. Mediation,
however, would require yet another 60 days of deliberation and
would not bring any early conclusion to the severe disruptions in
our export trade resulting from the prolonged strike.
If we have arbitration we can have an early resolution of the
problem that faces us. It is for that reason that we on this side of
the House oppose the amendments and intend to support the
rapid implementation of the bill now before the House.
The rail strike today is causing all sorts of disruptions in our
export trade which, as I said a moment ago, has reached record
levels in 1994 and again in the first month of 1995.
(1020 )
Canada recorded an annual trade surplus with the world of
over $17 billion in 1994, up almost $8 billion over the previous
year. Our trade surplus with the United States was $28.4 billion
or $8.7 billion higher than in 1993. In addition to those
formidable achievements, Canada has recorded a record
merchandise trade surplus with Japan of over $1.3 billion.
In the case of Japan and Europe, as well as in the case of the
United States, the success of our trade achievement depends on
the ability of our railways to deliver our products directly or to
ports for shipment.
As a result of the strike we found that severe disruptions were
already occurring. In the automotive sector, the Ford Motor
Company has had to curtail its production, reduce its assembly
line operations. In the pulp and paper industry in the province of
Quebec, the large company Repap Enterprises will shortly have
to close its operations altogether since it cannot have access to
its natural resources nor have the opportunity to ship its
products to markets where there is demand for Canadian
exports.
I draw the attention of the House to the fact that in the January
Canada recorded a trade surplus of some $2.4 billion in that one
month, up by $285 million from December 1994. In January
1995 Canadian exports stood at a record level of $22.5 billion,
up by $1.3 billion over December 1994.
In those circumstances we have a situation where Canadian
exports to the United States and American exports to Canada
total $1 billion a day, every day, day in and day out all year
round. It is imperative that rail services be available to ensure
that our goods reach the markets that have expressed such
demand for Canadian products.
We have already seen a situation arise where as a result of the
rail strike rail cars have been retained in Canada when they
should be moving goods and services across the border to the
United States. As I noted a moment ago, the products for
overseas are being detained because of an inability to reach our
ports. All this is against a background of increasing liberalized
trade, of freer market access that provides Canadians with the
opportunity to ship their products across the globe.
10988
Through the evolution of the North American Free Trade
Agreement and our commitment to free trade in the western
hemisphere we have seen new opportunities for Canadian
products in our own hemisphere.
The growth of the markets in Asia is know to all of us. We
have seen the so-called Asian tigers come forward as promising
new markets for Canadian goods and services. We have a highly
profitable market available to us in Japan, markets that will only
be enhanced by the commitment that all member countries of the
Asia Pacific Economic Co-Operation have made to trade
liberalization, indeed free trade, within 25 years throughout
Asia and the Pacific.
In the case of Europe the growth of the European Union, its
deepening and its expansion to additional countries have led to
greater opportunities for Canadian exports.
(1025 )
In a world of increasingly liberalized trade, especially with
the new World Trade Organization that came into being on
January 1, there are ample opportunities, promising new
opportunities, for Canadians. We have achieved such
remarkable success in ensuring the sale of Canadian goods and
services abroad that we cannot allow the situation in our basic
rail system to continue.
There must be a resolution to this obstacle to our further
growth in international trade, to the achievement of yet greater
levels in 1995, and to the achievement of a permanent and more
satisfactory method of resolving disputes and differences within
our rail system.
An hon. member: Team Canada.
Mr. MacLaren: It is evident to everyone, as one of my
colleagues reminds me, that Team Canada must have as an
underpinning the assurance of an efficient and reliable transport
system. Team Canada is the combined efforts of the provinces
and of the federal government to ensure that there is a concerted
effort, that all the energies of Canadians provincial and federal
are directed toward the achievement of our export goals.
Nowhere is this more evident than in our combined efforts to
ensure that small and medium size businesses are fully involved
in the export successes that have marked the Canadian economy
over past years.
Our efforts to promote small and medium size enterprises in
the export world, including our vigorous efforts to ensure that
small businesses in Quebec also enjoy those opportunities, can
only be hindered by the absence of a reliable and efficient rail
system. It is for that reason we oppose the amendments that have
been brought forward this morning and look for an early
resolution of the rail strike that is causing such disruption to our
export trade.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I think it is highly significant that the second
speaker for the government, the Minister for International
Trade, spoke for ten minutes without mentioning labour
relations for one single second. He said nothing at all about the
situation of the workers affected by this bill. I think this is a
clear indication of the government's true objectives.
The bill before us and the series of amendments are the
clearest indication of the government's real objectives. The aim
of the bill is not a return to work. If it were, the dispute would
have been resolved four days ago. We offered the possibility
Monday, we offered it Wednesday. Everyone agrees on a return
to work. The disagreement lies in the fact that special legislation
imposes a new type of relations on the parties concerned in the
rail sector.
Let us have a look at the amendments. First, commissions
were set up with the power to arbitrate and a biased mandate.
The proof is in clause 12. I think it is important for all Canadians
and Quebecers to understand this. The government's bill
provides that:
12. Each Commission shall be guided by the need for terms and conditions of
employment that are consistent with-economic viability and
competitiveness-taking into account the importance of good
labour-management relations.
This is the first time I have seen a government put
improvement of the economy ahead of agreement between the
parties, in a bill. With this clause, the government decided to do
a job on the entire rail sector. As the negotiators failed to reach
an agreement, the government wants to ensure the
transformation of the rail sector with clause 12 and force the
commissions to do the job.
(1030)
When the members of the commission see an interesting
proposal from the union, their hands will be bound by this
clause, which says to them: what the union is proposing will not
lead to the economic viability and competitiveness of the rail
system, which is the first requirement of the legislation,
therefore you will not be able to accept the proposal. We are
proposing a much more reasonable clause in keeping with the
longstanding spirit of labour relations in Quebec and Canada.
The aim of this proposal is not only to protect the workers, but
also to make the future interesting in this sector and prevent
people from getting into labour relations problems in the
coming years.
I think this proposal comes from our added experience in
Quebec of working together, of taking an approach to labour
relations that permits each side to come out a winner. This is the
essence of labour relations. It is nothing like arbitration, which
creates a winner and a loser, because in the years following
arbitration, the loser prepares to win the next time, with griev-
10989
ances and all sorts of unacceptable situations arising as the
result. It seems to me that the government should understand
this.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Crête: We are proposing in this regard that the
commission be guided first by the need to establish good
union-management relations and, to this end, that it promote
working conditions reflecting both the rights of the workers and
the economic viability and competitiveness of the
coast-to-coast rail system. And the way it is written means that
we think that human resources is what is most important. It is
what we hear in speeches around the world right now about
globalization. What will make us competitive is the way we treat
our human resources, not putting workers in no-win situations.
Both workers and management must come out winners. Was
management in favour of getting everybody back to work at the
beginning of the week? Do you think they would agree with
that? Go ask the management of the companies.
I think that this vision of government is dangerous and that it
is important for all of the citizens of Quebec and Canada to go
beyond this way of looking at things and to see the government's
relationship with society evolve. The government is going to
systematically decide who is right in society. The government is
going to decide who is right and wrong, and the next in line for
the snow job that railway workers are getting now will be the
unemployed. The next victims after that will be another social
category, and it will always be done under the pretext that we
absolutely need to do such and such a thing for affordability, to
emulate the American way, and that is why the official
opposition is against this way of thinking. I think that we have
nothing to learn from a party that has five members present in
the House when we are dealing with special legislation.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I would ask the hon.
member not to remark on the presence or absence of other hon.
members.
Mr. Crête: Thank you, Madam Speaker. At any rate,
Canadians can see what happens during votes and see who is
there to vote and who is not.
Therefore, I think that this series of amendments contains an
interesting proposal, and it is important for Canadians to
understand that we are not opposing this bill to prevent people
from returning to work, we are doing it to ensure that, in the
future, two, three, five, ten years down the road, that there are
good labour relations in this sector, that people have choices,
that part of the network will be sold. That will have to be
negotiated anyway with the unions, and because we have put
them in a situation where they cannot trust their employers, they
will continue to distrust them and we will have problems. When
Parliament has to bring in three special labour relations acts in
one year, that is a sure sign that there is a volatile situation in
Canada, and that it is one that would be better dealt with by
some means other than a government gag order.
I think it is important for Canadians to hear how the
government is going against the recommendations of the Hope
report.
(1035)
According to the Hope report, there are a number of major
points on which the parties could agree and we could then
proceed to the more technical points and, if need be, resort to
arbitration for some of these technical points. The government
held its nose and decided to ignore that part.
What saddens me a little is that I feel they are taking
advantage of the fact that a new minister has been appointed.
She must be briefed on the issues while fulfilling an economic
mandate, although the labour relations mandate is not
necessarily to settle economic problems but to ensure a good
labour relations climate. This is a basic element on which we
should agree.
I sincerely believe that the amendment proposing that the
commission be guided by the need to establish good labour
relations as a top priority is the first step in a successful
approach that would allow the whole railway industry to see its
future in a different light.
Let us assume that, in two years, CN wants to sell, for
example, part of its line to people in eastern Quebec, the Eastern
Townships or the Maritimes. With a binding decision like that
one, the unions will never feel formally bound by the outcome of
the negotiations, which will show at every phase of the talks
with the new employers. The employer faced with these new
situations will keep in mind that he could win through a decision
such as this special act of Parliament.
The employers in these situations may not want union
accreditations to be adjusted to the new employers. Are there
ways for these employers to ensure preferential treatment from
the government? Ensuring economic viability by taking away
workers' rights? This is the wrong way to see the debate, as I see
it.
In conclusion, you can be sure that, in labour relations, if we
do not see to it that there are two winners, the unions and the
employers, one of the parties will always have its moment of
truth in catching up later.
Shortsighted decisions such as this bill can only be corrected
by achieving a balance between the parties. Parliament's
responsibility is not to impose a different way to look at railway
development through special labour legislation. If we want to
change the railway industry, we should do so openly through
bills to that effect, but not on the backs of Canadian workers
because, at the end of the day, it is not only railway workers who
10990
will pay, but all those whose livelihoods depend on this industry
and all train users across Canada.
I hope that the government will finally decide to listen to our
arguments.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, first of all, I welcome this opportunity to mention that
our new Minister of Labour has done an outstanding job
regarding this strike.
[English]
It is not often that a new minister finds herself or himself with
such a heavy agenda so soon after being made a member of the
government. The fact that our Minister of Labour has acted so
quickly and effectively in dealing with this strike is a great
tribute to her.
[Translation]
I have a problem with the Bloquistes opposing this bill. I find
it quite strange that, last week, when we legislated the
resumption of work on the west coast, they did not seem to be
very interested.
I also noticed that the hon. member for Longueuil dissociated
himself from his party. He said his phone had been ringing off
the hook with nothing but calls of support and that he even
received calls from staunch sovereignists and mayors who
wanted to congratulate him. Clearly, this is clearly how the
people of Quebec feel because the economic impact the strike is
having on Canada and Quebec is extremely serious.
(1040)
I wonder why the members of this political party, who claim
that definitely the only thing they were prepared to agree to as a
party was sovereignty for Quebec, all of them but one agree with
this strike action. Clearly, they are now sending to the people of
Quebec the signal that a sovereign Quebec would be run by the
unions. They do not care what the ordinary people of Quebec
think.
[English]
The effects in Quebec and the effects across Canada of this
strike have to be dealt with. There is an old African saying that
when the elephants fight the grass gets hurt.
It is just fine for these people to come in and talk about the
sanctity of labour relations. We think that is important too. In
fact nothing would have been more desirable for the government
than to see the parties to this dispute find their own resolution of
it. That is why we waited; it was in order to see that the best
possible efforts could be made.
In the face of a national rail strike, the Bloquistes know that
governments in the past have always been obliged to act. The
effect on the economy is such that we simply must act in the
interests of all Canadians whose jobs and livelihoods depend
directly and indirectly on the rails. Listen to the impact.
One of the main industries being affected is the aluminium
industry.
[Translation]
The aluminum industry is the most important industry for the
economy of Quebec, particularly for its rural areas, and it
depends on rail transport.
[English]
Thirty thousand people are employed in that sector. It
produces $8 billion annually in shipments. Two-thirds of all
outbound shipments of aluminium are shipped by rail. Over
three-quarters of the industry's inbound shipments, such as the
chemicals that are used in the industry, are transported by rail,
90 per cent of the shipment by rail and $4.5 billion annually
comprising exports to the United States. Alcan and Reynolds are
now operating at only 70 per cent of capacity. Their plants are in
the province of Quebec.
In the automotive sector, earlier this week Ford had to lay off
3,500 workers at Oakville; 2,500 at St. Thomas; and 400 at
Windsor due to the strike. Most of them are back now but
operating at half capacity. All the auto manufacturers are
experiencing difficulty moving finished vehicles. Trucks are
used to bring in most inbound shipments, 85 per cent, although
rail is used for some essential bulk inputs such as body metal and
plastics. This industry itself accounts for over $50 billion
annually in output and employs about 150,000 people.
The chemicals industry, especially commodity chemicals, is a
major user of the rail system. Seventy per cent of outbound
shipments, about $15 billion annually, is sent by rail from
Alberta to Ontario and British Columbia, from plants in Ontario
and Quebec to the United States, to maritime ports for shipment
overseas. Chemical shipments amount to about $20 billion
annually. The industry employs 80,000 Canadians.
The fertilizer industry, potash and chemical fertilizers, is a
major rail user. Two-thirds of the fertilizer shipments, about
$1.25 billion annually, travel by rail. The industry is located
mainly in Alberta and Saskatchewan with 6,000 people
employed and shipments worth $2 billion annually.
[Translation]
The pulp and paper industry, another very important industry
for Quebec, also depends on rail transport.
[English]
Along with aluminium it is probably the most vulnerable to
disruption of rail service. It employs 100,000 Canadians in all
parts of the country. Shipments are worth over $20 billion a year.
(1045)
The effect of a prolonged rail strike on this industry is crucial.
There is one very simple thing we have to understand. I have
other statistics. I could keep reading them but it is important to
10991
conclude on this thought. We have built a very prosperous
country. Our prosperity has come to a very great extent from the
ability we have to extract natural resources, whether from the
forests, whether agricultural, whether from the mines or in the
past from the sea, and selling them to the world as price makers.
That is no longer so easy for us. Competition on resource
prices is extreme. The difficulty we have in getting our goods to
market contributes directly to our competitiveness not just in
the manufacturing sector but in the natural resource sector.
In the past it was easy for us to collect the rents from our
natural resources. The world was willing to pay the prices we
wanted and pay for the transportation costs built in. We built a
railway in times when transportation costs were not a big factor
in the price we could charge for the goods we sold. That world
has changed. We are in a world of extreme competitiveness.
The Bloc should understand how important it is to our overall
economy that we be competitive not just in the manufacturing
sector but also in the transportation sector, and in a real way.
That is the issue we are going to have to deal with over the
weeks and months to come in the resolution of this labour
disruption. The competitiveness of our transportation system is
a crucial element in the competitiveness of both our natural
resource and our manufacturing sectors in the world at large.
In container traffic to eastern Canada bound from the Pacific
we are only attracting 40 per cent of that traffic on the Canadian
rail system. Sixty per cent is using the U.S. rail system. That is a
competitiveness factor. We have to understand that other
countries get their natural resources to ocean bound vessels with
less distance involved than we face. The competitiveness of our
transportation sector is crucial.
Time has come for Canadians to deal with the issue of
competitiveness in our transportation industry. It has been dealt
with in our manufacturing sector. People in Quebec, in Ontario
and elsewhere have faced the necessity of difficult downsizing,
of coming to terms with needing to rationalize manufacturing
facilities, plants, acquiring new equipment, all for the purpose
of being able to ensure the continuing prosperity of their firms,
their regions, their provinces and this country. Now is the time
for the transportation sector as well to deal in a real and
continuing and lasting way with this serious issue.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to speak to the bill today.
I have heard a few comments about the ability of members to
count. I know they can go to five. I am wondering if they have
ever read the story in the Old Testament about David and Goliath
and what happened to the giant. I am very proud today to stand
here and see the confidence our leader has that the five members
here will handle the giants on both sides or all around us.
I have heard a lot of insults thrown around this morning. It is a
little discouraging to hear some of them. This problem has been
around for 25 years. It was not created in the last situation
between labour and management.
Fifteen times governments have legislated people back to
work and said they have solved the problem. We have never
solved any problems and the simple reason is governments have
been buying people to get elected.
I am pro labour. I am pro management. If I can get small
business or large business, I will get a vote. I will go to the
House and run the country. This is why were are here again today
trying to resolve an issue.
(1050)
I will tell the House a story about labour management
relations and I hope members will listen. During the break I was
asked to visit a plant in my riding which is a branch of a
multinational corporation. I knew most of its products were
shipped into the U.S. I felt that this was probably another
situation where I would get the news that it was either going to
downsize or close.
The news was it was going to expand by over $17 million. I
said what is going on here, everybody is shutting down and this
one is expanding. The plant manager said: ``I started in this plant
as a floor sweeper. I left home at 16 and had to fend for myself. I
came back to get into the community. Now I am plant manager''.
I asked: ``What did it to you? How did you show that kind of
confidence to your superiors to get this job?''
He said: ``When I took over this plant were were operating in
the red and it looked as if it were going to be shut down. I went
over the books and said I am unionized, I am going to lose my
job here if things do not turn around. I called in the people and
told them we were going to have a different type of management.
I am going to be supervisor and you are going to run this plant. I
am setting up four committees, one is going to do the hiring and
firing; one is going to look after efficiency; one is going to work
on problems, labour relations''.
He said: ``After a year you would not believe the increase in
productivity in this plant. I have not hired a man. I have not fired
a man. It is all done by the union. But I make sure when there is
profit that my people get a fair wage increase. I know we are
competing with the Americans and the head offices have given
me the go ahead to increase production because this plant can
survive''.
That is labour management. That is how the country should be
run, instead of the way it is right now. We had an opportunity a
week ago to do something that would have set us in that
direction. The House defeated Bill C-262, the motion of my
hon. colleague. I do not think I will ever have an experience
again such as I had this week when I sat with the forum of young
10992
Canadians at its dinner. Since we were busy working on this
legislation and I was on House duty, I could not be there for first
part of the dinner. I came back to the House for about 45 minutes
and had to leave again. Our whip had not been able to stay there
either.
We discussed this situation with the students. One asked me
whether I get a little discouraged when I see all the problems and
work from maybe 8.00 a.m. until 10.00 or 11.00 p.m. and
accomplish very little.
I said not really. At times I feel like going home but I think the
35th Parliament will go down in history as the turning point in
our country, that finally it will make some decisions that will
benefit the country, not destroy it.
An hon. member: The red book.
Mr. Hoeppner: The red book. The right start but we need the
green book to cover the red book.
I pointed out to these young people what our problems were
when we discussed job description and what was taking place on
the Hill. I said I was actually proud to be part of the 35th
Parliament. One young student said her generation will also set a
precedent and be recorded in history. She said for the first time
in history her generation is going to be asked to take a reduced
standard of living, a lower standard of living.
She is probably right with all the cuts coming, with all the
social program cuts. I asked her how she felt about it. She said it
hurts but they know it is reality and are willing to make that
sacrifice if it will do something for their country.
(1055 )
I felt like saying send all the MPs home and let the kids run the
country. They will make the decisions that have to be made.
They are not interested in a multimillion dollar pension plan.
They are interested in saving the country, bringing it back to
what it was years ago.
We sit here throwing insults back and forth and we think we
are doing our job. We are playing politics and politics is what
has brought the country to where it is. I hope we realize that
today, whether it is the Bloc, the Liberals or the Reform. The
next generation is not going to be putting up with the politics we
have seen in the 35th Parliament. The bright spot in our future is
that we have kids willing to make sacrifices.
When I think of the first and second world wars, I see how
many young people laid down their lives to protect this country
and make it great. They left everything. They had no chance.
What have we done in the last 25 years? We have put the country
into debt by $550 billion. We have an unemployment rate of
around 10 per cent.
What has politics done for the country? We have left our kids
a legacy they will have to deal with. I hope and pray they have
the guts to do it because my grandchildren and future
great-grandchildren will not have the opportunities I have had.
I hope it is serious enough in the House today that instead of
throwing insults at each other, we buckle down, go to work and
finally form some type of legislation that will put the country
back on the road to recovery and make it the great country it can
be.
[Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to be able to say that I am proud to take part in this
debate, but, unfortunately, such is not the case.
It is always preferable in this sort of dispute for the employer
and the union to attempt to resolve their differences on their
own. But, as we speak, after months and months of talks, the
dispute drags on. Despite this government's efforts to resolve
the conflict as quickly as possible, there is still one political
party that prefers grandstanding to finding a solution to the
crisis facing Canadians across this country.
Millions of workers are affected daily by this dispute. In the
Montreal and Toronto areas alone, 70,000 workers who must get
to their place of work every day are affected by this strike.
It affects not just large companies, but also small and medium
size businesses, who depend on the railways for their survival.
As we speak, Canadian Pacific is paralyzed and Canadian
National and VIA are for all practical purposes completely shut
down. There are also automobile manufacturing plants in the
Windsor area that have had to lay off 3,000 employees
temporarily. The manufacturing sector is losing close to $500
million daily. In other words, if the strike drags on, the loss to
our economy, according to their estimates, will be somewhere
between $3 and $5 billion dollars.
The Reform Party suggested that the Bloc Quebecois was not
worried about the dispute at the Port of Vancouver because it did
not concern them. I would like to point out to them the economic
effect of this dispute on Trois-Rivières, in Quebec.
(1100)
In Trois-Rivières, the Kruger paper company is losing a
million dollars a day. Five hundred employees are affected. Also
affected are Stone Consolidated in Port-Alfred, Pétromont in
the Verchères region, the Shell refineries in the east end of
Montreal, the entire Port of Vancouver, Alcan, ADI, Reynolds,
and I could go on.
I ask myself if there are other brave souls like the member for
Longueuil, who told his own party that what they are accusing us
of doing is not true. The Bloc Quebecois is accusing us of
flexing our muscles. On the contrary, if anyone is being heavy
10993
handed, it is the Leader of the Opposition, who always takes this
approach when someone, including the member for Longueuil,
does not agree with him. He told his own member that he would
have to live with the political consequences of his action.
I would like to quote the member for Longueuil, who said: ``I
do not see why my constituents would take it out on me. In fact,
the opposite seems to be happening. We have a major problem
when the transportation system breaks down. People must return
to work''. This is why this dispute must be resolved as quickly as
possible.
We have to ask why the Bloc Quebecois has taken this
position. It claims to be the defender of workers in Quebec. This
is not quite the case, because I myself have had calls from CN
and CP railway workers in Coteau and Kirkland who are not
happy that this dispute has still not been settled.
The economy, workers, everyone is affected, but still the Bloc
Quebecois persists. It persists, in my opinion, for purely
partisan reasons. They have said that we could have resolved
this dispute as early as Monday. Again, this is not the case,
because another 60 days would have gone by before the dispute
was settled. Why does the Bloc see itself as the defender of
workers? The main reason is because under Quebec law unions
represent workers. It is no accident that the CNTU, the FTQ, in
fact all the unions, support the separatist position. This is the
sole reason for the Bloc's partisan politics today.
Thus far, at least the Reform Party is supporting us and even
the NDP has seen the light. We have the support of the member
for Longueuil and also of other members not brave enough to
rise and vote against their party. Even the Quebec Minister of
Transport has told us that this dispute must be resolved as
quickly as possible.
But not the Bloc Quebecois. The Bloc wants to stall the
process; it is not in its best interests to see things improve,
because it does not want to show that federalism works. It really
does not care about those affected by this conflict, including the
small businesses that cannot get their raw materials or imports.
So, here we are today. We could have settled this conflict a
long time ago. But no, we have to sit on a Saturday. I am told this
is the fourth time, and it has not happened in years.
(1105)
An hon. member: That is what we are paid for.
Mr. Discepola: The hon. member said that is what we are paid
for. Sure, but every hour spent in this House today costs the
taxpayers an extra $25,000. All this because, during an
opposition day, the Bloc members insisted on talking about the
CBC and the Department of National Defence, rather than try to
solve this conflict.
I will conclude by referring to a comment made earlier this
week by the Leader of the Opposition, who said that the
referendum should be held as soon as possible.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Discepola: The sooner the referendum is held, the sooner
the Bloc Quebecois will have to decide. Does it really want to
play its role of official opposition and look after the interests of
all Canadians, or rather pick and choose the issues, as it has
already shown it is doing?
[English]
It is important to get this conflict settled as soon as possible,
and not at the expense of the workers as the Bloc Quebecois
would have us believe.
The government has always preferred to let conflicts be
settled between the two parties involved. We have tried. The
minister in her new role has tried in vain. We are at the point now
where the economy is paralysed and companies are closing
down. The government, contrary to what the Bloc Quebecois
says, has decided to act.
Let us get the economy back on track. Let us get the trains
running. Let us have the referendum as soon as possible. Then
the Bloc will have to decide whether it wants to remain the
opposition or resign and let the Reform take over.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Madam Speaker,
following the failure of the Meech Lake Accord, the then
Quebec Premier stated that, regardless of what was said or done,
Quebec was and always would be a distinct society.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Guimond: Those are the only fine words spoken by
former Premier Robert Bourassa. Today, we have yet another
clear demonstration of that, and I want to tell the member for
Vaudreuil and the federal Minister of Industry that, as far as
democracy is concerned, Quebec has nothing to learn from these
individuals. Let me explain.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Guimond: Madam Speaker, could you ask the hon.
member for Nickel Belt, the young pup from Nickel Belt, to go
yap outside the House?
Section 53 of the Quebec Labour Code provides for parties to
begin and pursue their negotiations diligently and in good faith.
Again this goes to show that the Quebec Labour Code is more
progressive than the Canada Labour Code, which does not
include any such provision. I want to point out to the House and
to the people who are watching us that, contrary to what Liberal
members may have said, the Bloc is not made up of unionists
only. For 17 years, I was involved in labour relations on the
10994
management side in Quebec, but there is one thing I have always
respected and that is the workers' right to strike.
(1110)
I support management, I am proud of it, but I have always
recognized the workers' right to strike and the employers' right
to lock them out. Having made this clear, let us turn now to the
Hope report. On the issue of good faith, I want to quote from
page 58 of the Hope report, paragraph 1, where it says: ``In brief,
the unions are faced with proposals put forward by the railway
companies which they cannot accept, so they must choose
confrontation as their only alternative to these unacceptable
demands''. Unacceptable demands made by management.
Also on page 58 in the Hope report, paragraph a), it says:
``The dispute resolves around the companies' demands which
can be described as controversial and provocative.''
Further down on page 58, the report reads: ``Their
demands-that is the companies' demands-are so
controversial and provocative because of the partisan role taken
by the government''-this is Commissioner Hope
speaking-``the partisan role taken by the
government''-which is, until further notice, the Liberal
government-``which supports the position of the railway
companies, and because of the tenacity with which the
companies have stuck to these demands''. This quote can be
found on page 58 of the Hope report.
Mr. Loubier: This is only a huge charade on the part of the
government, to score political points.
Mr. Guimond: I would ask the Canadians and Quebecers who
are watching us today from their living room or their kitchen to
remember-Quebec has a fine motto: ``I remember''-that the
Bloc Quebecois exposed the fact that the president of CN, Paul
Tellier, who has a yearly salary of $345,000 plus a $52,000 a
year expense account, received a $300,000 interest-free loan to
buy a house in Westmount.
Let us ask ourselves if it is normal, if it is realistic, in 1995,
that a senior civil servant paid with our taxes, the taxes of
Canadians and Quebecers, benefit from such perks. I do not care
if these advantages are offered to the president of CP or the
president of General Motors of Canada. If these companies want
to share their profits, they have the right to do so. However,
when the president of CN benefits from such perks and we are
paying for that through our taxes, it is a different matter. Do the
viewers who are watching us today pay their mortgage each
month?
Mr. Loubier: Yes.
Mr. Guimond: We pay our mortgage, and the president of
CN, who is a government official, should pay his mortgage like
everybody else.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
An hon. member: He has negotiated good working
conditions for himself.
Mr. Guimond: I welcome Paul Tellier to the next referendum
debate and I look forward to hearing him say to Quebecers that
they have to tighten their belts, just as he is saying to railway
employees. There are full-page ads in the daily newspapers
saying that CN has many employees who are paid for doing
nothing. But what about his interest-free loan? We have to
remind Canadians of that.
I also want to remind members of this House and all our
viewers of what our Minister of Transport said at the beginning
of October when he was guest speaker at a dinner held in
Winnipeg by WESTAC, the Western Transportation Advisory
Committee. He said: ``Railway workers with grade eight or nine
education cannot be blamed for negotiating excessive labour
contracts''.
That shows the contempt that the Minister of Transport feels
for the 62,000 railway employees in Canada. These comments
come from someone on the management side. I come from the
management side, and I say that some things are totally
unacceptable. The employees' level of education has nothing to
do with all this. Railway workers are important for rail transport
in Canada, and the proof of that is that, since they have decided
to exercise their democratic right to stop working, rail transport
is shut down.
(1115)
Often, we hear: ``You, the opposition, are good at denouncing.
You are good at blocking things''. Yes, but we also make
proposals. True, we oppose the government and I would like to
tell the Liberal majority members that when we are not here any
more, once the sovereignty of Quebec has come about, you will
have the Reform Party as the official opposition and everything
will be very fine. You will have an extreme right party as the
official opposition and you will just see that everything will be
fine in Canada. As for us, we will be sovereign.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the hon.
member for Nickel Belt for reminding me of the role of the NDP,
the party which had been, since the time of Tommy Douglas,
traditionally committed to fight for the interests of workers. I
want to say to all the workers of Canada and Quebec that the
only party that is fighting for the rights of workers, including the
right to strike, is the Bloc Quebecois. The NDP has abandoned
workers.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Loubier: They joined the Reform.
An hon. member: That is true. They abandoned them.
Mr. Loubier: The NDP Reformers.
Mr. Guimond: What is the Bloc Quebecois proposing? We
are told that we are good at criticizing, but we also put proposals
forward. As recently as last Tuesday, our leader, the hon.
member for Lac-Saint-Jean, really made an offer to the Prime
10995
Minister and the government, saying: ``We agree to pass back to
work legislation and to ensure mediation for 60 days, to put an
end to the exercise of the right to strike and the right to order a
lockout, so that the parties can negotiate on an equal basis,
freely and democratically. Then after that, we will see''.
We proposed exactly the same solution as the one used in the
dispute at the Port of Montreal. There are 7,000 containers now
leaving the port of Montreal. People there are busy working and
negotiating and my sources tell me that there is good hope an
agreement will be reached. There has been no special legislation
to deal with the dispute at the Port of Montreal.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Guimond: I just described the suggestion put forward by
the Bloc. In conclusion, I would like to remind the House of
what the Liberals are suggesting. They want to cut down on
working conditions of railway workers, more particularly those
at CN. The last budget announced a garage sale, a spring
clearance sale in the transportation sector. To make the assets
more saleable, collective agreements will be made less
expensive, especially those of the workers at CN. The Liberals
want to take away from workers their basic right to strike, the
only democratic means they have to express their dissatisfaction
with their employer. Nobody likes to go on strike, but when you
have to, you have no choice.
Mr. Martin Cauchon (Outremont, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am very proud to take the floor today to speak to Bill C-77, an
Act to provide for the maintenance of railway operations and
subsidiary services.
I am proud because the action the government and the
Minister of Labour have taken is basically a responsible move.
When I look at the opposition members, I have to admit, much to
my regret, that they are consistent. Members of the official
opposition party are consistent because they always had as their
philosophy that politics never work. Consequently, they apply
that philosophy to everthing they do.
People are told that is their philosophy, and people will make
up their own mind. But now, I would like to examine the two
opposite positions we have before us today. On one side, we
have the stance of the official opposition that wants to amend the
bill.
(1120)
Where does that amendment leave us? The opposition
proposes a 60-day mediation process, that is 50 days for
mediation and 10 days to let the Minister read the report and
table it in the House. But, after these 60 days, if there is no
agreement, we are in a dead end, and it is back to square one with
the lockout, strike and never-ending disputes. That is not the
way things should work with responsible people and a
responsible government.
On the other side, there is the position of the government,
which is reasonable and responsible, which I support and which
gives a mediation-arbitration commission composed of three
persons a 70-day mandate to let the parties try to reach an
agreement by mediation. During this 70-day period, the
committee will hear both parties, and then, if the parties still do
not reach an agreement, there is no denying that the members of
the commission will have in hand all the necessary elements to
make a proper decision. They will be able to weigh both sides
and, after the 70 days, if no agreement is reached-because we,
as the government, want to go ahead, and all parties, no doubt,
want to go ahead-this commission will make a decision in full
knowledge of the facts.
There is no need to go any further and explain in greater detail
the positions of both parties. There is no need to further
elaborate to see that the government's solution is realistic and
reasonable. However, I will repeat what I said at the beginning.
It is sad to see that members from the Official Opposition are
unable to rise above their own political interest and
partisanship. How can they confuse their own interest with that
of the population, the public interest? How can they confuse
partisanship with such serious problems requiring a quick
conclusion and solution.
On the other side of the House, they disregard the interest of
employers and employees and they also disregard the numerous
economic problems this dispute is creating in Quebec. The
previous speakers talked about that, therefore I will not give you
the long list of businesses having a hard time these days, and the
long list of employees being laid off. It is sad to see these people
claim they represent the workers when, in fact, they are acting in
their own best interest. Once again, they are just trying to fool
the people. The Parti Quebecois simply does not want the
system to work.
Since the Parti Quebecois was elected in Quebec City, they
have showed us repeatedly, and they are demonstrating once
again that they do not want federalism to work. Unfortunately,
they apply this ideology to real problems affecting the public.
They have left the Canada-wide negotiation table on
environment, where Quebec was one of the main and most
important participants. But since they do not want the system to
work, they left the table. What annoys them right now is that you
have here, on this side of the House, a responsible government, a
government that is holding the course, that is also responding to
the expectations of the provinces. We only have to look at the
finance minister's budget.
(1125)
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
10996
Mr. Cauchon: I say that we only have to look at the finance
minister's budget. To see how much this annoys them, we only
have to listen to the opposition members yelling today. When
they are annoyed, they yell and they yell loudly. That is what
they are doing right now. The budget responds to the requests of
the provinces. For instance, the Canada social transfer gives
much more autonomy to the provinces and will allow them to
refine their own social programs. That annoys the Bloc. They
are now trying other political avenues, still for partisan
purposes. What is sad this time is that they are playing party
politics on the backs of workers across Canada. And that is
mean-spirited.
The finance minister also responded to the expectations of the
provinces in terms of national standards. The new Canada
Transfer and the national standards will be worked out with the
provinces. The provinces will be asked to discuss these
standards with the Minister of Human Resources Development,
so that they will reflect the reality of all the provinces, the
Canadian reality.
In conclusion, there are on this side of the House, thank
heavens, people who are capable of rising above political
interests and capable of acting responsibly to ensure that we
make decisions so that, in this case, the economy and labour
relations can progress and, ultimately, all workers across
Canada, the Canadian economy and Canada as a whole can
benefit. The message that I am sending to the opposition parties
is this one: stop acting for purely partisan motives. People told
you that during the regional commissions; they want
governments that deal with the real problems, and that is what
we are doing in the case of the rail dispute. I congratulate the
labour minister for her initiative, and I also commend the
government for its responsible vision.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Réf.): Madam
Speaker, I am very pleased to rise and speak to Bill C-77. Part of
the blame has already been put today on the Bloc Quebecois.
You could also argue that they did not act as a national party nor
in the interests of Canada, and that they only have the interests
of Quebec at heart. Personally, I would blame the government
far more than the Bloc.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Ringma: I say that for several reasons. First, over the last
18 months, the government reacted to things instead of acting,
as it should have.
[English]
If we look at the longshoremen's strike as well as the rail
strike, we can see that the government could foresee what was
going to happen. The government knew there was a strike
coming on. What did it do? Nothing. C'est le mot précis, rien.
We have a government that is reactive. We have any number
of examples, one being the budget. Look at the government's
action on the budget. It knew it had to do something but how
much did it do? Just the bare minimum to keep things a little bit
in balance. That is the government's approach throughout this.
Look at national defence and the situation with the Canadian
forces. We have had this whole Somalia thing whirling around
our ears for several years now. The government had the
opportunity to take action on this but it did not.
(1130 )
I blame the government for a lack of leadership and a lack of
initiative. Let me remind the House of the airborne situation.
The government saw what was coming. It was pressed as long
ago as September 1994 to have an inquiry, get things out in the
open, and find out what had gone wrong. The government said
no, it would wait. It dragged its feet. When it stopped dragging
its feet, it finally moved a baby step, not a big one, never enough
to cope with what is needed.
We find exactly the same thing with Bill C-77. Bill C-77 is
not a permanent solution. It gets us off the hook for another year
or maybe two years. We will be voting for Bill C-77 because we
have a Canadian problem on our hands. This just temporarily
gets us off the hook. It is another baby step on the part of the
government.
Permanent solutions are available. My hon. colleague from
Lethbridge proposed a private member's bill, Bill C-262 a week
or two ago. In Bill C-262 lie the seeds of a permanent solution
the problem, not only in the rail area, but in the area of
stevedoring as well. Why do we not come up with a permanent
solution to these things? We have had 50 years of strikes. What
does that mean? It means that the collective bargaining process
in the area we are talking about and in the longshoring area is not
working.
We had the recent strike in Vancouver. Incidentally no one
else here was very concerned about it. ``It is just Vancouver so
we will legislate that quickly. No big problem''.
I want to read a couple of quotes from two things. One is part
of a letter from the Canadian Wheat Board to the government:
``In a letter to your government dated April 1994, we the Wheat
Board proposed that in those cases where a negotiated
settlement could not be reached, a binding arbitration process,
including final offer selection be instituted. This type of action
would mean that a strike could be averted and the parties could
continue to pursue collective bargaining. In short, the interests
of all parties could be satisfied''. This is the wheat board talking
to the Government of Canada.
This went out a year ago in April 1994. It has been reiterated
in March 1995. These are cries in the wilderness saying:
``Government, please listen''. Government has a responsibility
to take a leadership role and it is not doing it.
10997
I would like to read a line or two from a commission that
looked into the Vancouver ports area several years ago. The
commission stated: ``There are two key impediments to the
future growth of container traffic in the port of Vancouver. One
is a lack of co-ordinated effort by various links in the
intermodal chain. The other is a poor labour relations climate in
the port of Vancouver which acts as a disincentive for potential
investment in the port and its related intermodal linkage.
(1135 )
To overcome both these impediments requires a new approach
to managing human resources and organizational behaviour in
the port than has been taking place in the past. The experience in
Puget Sound ports, particularly in Tacoma, reveals that these
elements can be adjusted, attitudes can be changed and
reputations can be altered. The key to success seems to be the
provision of leadership and effective organization in order to
harness and channel available resources toward an identifiable
goal''. It is possible.
Let me cite one other example where the government could
have done something in anticipation of a problem. It
commissioned the Fraser report. A year ago the Minister of
Human Resources Development appointed Paul Fraser to
conduct an independent review of current labour issues on the
railway. This report was supposed to be tabled in June 1994. It is
still not on the scene. Where is the Fraser report? What is the
government doing with it?
Was the minister so flustered by the lack of progress with his
social programs that he scrapped this one as well? We have a
new Minister of Labour in the House. Perhaps that minister will
pick it up and do something with it.
The Fraser report, along with all the other reports that have
been done ad nauseam, may have provided a long term solution
to this continuing problem. However, the Fraser report is
non-existent. Even if it did exist, it would be ignored. The point
I am making is that the west coast terminal strike could have
been avoided in the same way that this railway strike could have
been avoided. We need a commission to come up with a
permanent solution.
I stand here as a Reformer, saying this is what the government
should do. However I know that not many across the way are
listening. Sometimes I ask myself, are you being effective in
Parliament, member for Nanaimo-Cowichan? A year ago I
would have given you the answer: I really do not know. What am
I doing here? What effect am I having? This year I have the
answer. The answer is: If we stick to our principles, which we
are doing, the markers are moving.
The Minister of Finance, for all the world, sounded like a
Reformer a month or two ago. He sounded totally like a
Reformer. He was getting the message. He was trying to get that
message across through the budget.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it
is my duty and privilege to rise and speak to Bill C-77, an act to
provide for the maintenance of railway operations and
subsidiary services.
I wish to address my concerns to the railway employees who
may be watching this important debate. For the reasons
enunciated so clearly by the Minister of Labour, the Minister for
International Trade and the Minister of Industry, the service
you, the railway workers and management, provide is the
lifeline and key component of the country's extensive
transportation infrastructure.
You supply a vital service for the industrial trade and
agricultural sectors of our growing economy. We in the House
can appreciate concerns for your personal finances, but would
you disagree with this member for Hamilton West when I say
that the best job security you can have is to work for a company
that makes a profit.
(1140 )
The economic impact of the current rail strike has been made
painfully clear to each and every one of us. We hear of it in our
ridings. We see the impact on the operations of a broad range of
large and small industries and employers.
In its opposition to the legislation, the Bloc Quebecois is
parochially principled. The official opposition is pretending
that it is acting in the interest of collective bargaining rights by
criticizing the mediation and arbitration provisions of Bill
C-77, the merits of which have not been questioned by the
stakeholders.
By perpetuating this kind of navel gazing, the official
opposition is not only missing the entire point of the legislation,
it is also thumbing its nose at the real concerns of both labour
and management.
While the opposition's thinly veiled political agenda
continues to cripple the Canadian economy, 2,500 Canadian
auto workers at Ford's St. Thomas, Ontario plant have been sent
home because of shortages. Three thousand, nine hundred
Canadian auto workers at Oakville and Windsor were forced to
work half time this week. Seventy thousand commuters in
Montreal and Toronto are lined up on the highways and at the
bus stations facing long delays getting to and from work. Not to
mention it is estimated the national rail strike could end up
costing this great country, a country in a period of growth, $3 to
$5 billion by the time it is finally resolved.
In the same way that railway employees and management
would like to stabilize their labour related economic
circumstances, we in government must do everything we can to
stabilize the nation's economy. In short, from an economic
standpoint we have to be productive to survive. It is that simple.
The transportation critic for the Bloc Quebecois went beet red
in the face a few moments ago decrying the economic
advantages of management. I agree with the opposition critic.
They
10998
are outrageous but there are two sides to that story. There are
two sides to every story.
He conveniently forgets about the 600 employees on full
salary who are not working under the current arrangement. If CN
needs 250 employees in Calgary, not one of the 600 fully
salaried, non-working employees in the east can be moved to
Calgary to fill those jobs.
An hon. member: Industrial relations.
Mr. Keyes: There are two sides to every story, I say to the
hon. member.
It has been established that such labour provisions could end
up costing CN $77 million over the next five years. I repeat, the
best job security an employee can have is to work for a company
that makes a profit.
The example given by the Bloc transport critic and the
example given by me just now have brought negotiations to an
impasse. I appeal to the members opposite to end the petty
politicking.
Almost two years of negotiations have produced no progress
on any of those major issues. The Bloc wants another 60 days of
mediation, which neither side in this dispute wants, only to
eventually and most probably bring us full circle back to where
we are at this moment in the House.
I ask the Bloc Quebecois, I ask the official opposition, to think
of their constituents who must bear the economic burden of the
Bloc's opposition to Bill C-77. Think of the many workers
across the country who are waiting, who are praying to get back
to work. There is nothing to be gained by waiting but there is
much that is being lost.
(1145)
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Madam Speaker, first of all I
may recall that whatever hon. members opposite may have said,
the reason we are here today and the trains are still not running is
not because of the Bloc Quebecois but because the government
refuses to accept a universal labour principle: mediation.
They want to impose arbitration, they want to impose terms
and conditions of employment and give the public the
impression that the Bloc Quebecois is to blame, although from
day one, on Monday and the day after, the Bloc Quebecois,
through its leader, offered to settle the dispute immediately if
the government accepted mediation. We in the Bloc are just as
aware as you that this is a serious matter. We realize, as you do,
that the workers must get back to work as soon as possible. But
that is not the point of this debate.
Today's debate is about the fact that the government
absolutely wants to prescribe arbitration and impose terms and
conditions of employment, not about mediation, a mechanism
that works very well. Just this past week in the Port of Montreal,
negotiations led to a settlement, acceptable to both parties, that
will provide for good labour relations.
I speak here as a member of the Standing Committee on
Human Resources Development which examined this bill clause
by clause on Wednesday, under a gag order. This is the first time
in the history of this Parliament that a government imposed time
allocation on the consideration of a bill in committee. And we
only had four hours to consider it. We nevertheless proceeded to
clause by clause consideration.
Also and above all, I speak as the member for a riding that has
a high concentration of railway activity. I want to talk about the
railway centre in Charny, created mainly because of that
activity. I regularly meet people who work in this town. I visit
them regularly, almost daily, although perhaps a little less, of
late, because I have to be in Ottawa several days a week. I speak
on the behalf not only of the rail workers but of the people whose
livelihood depends on the railways. In my riding, there is no
problem. Business people realize that the railways are
important. The government obviously does not, since it let this
dispute deteriorate.
Without wishing to make this a personal crusade, I want to say
that I listen to what my constituents have to say and represent
their concerns. CN workers in my riding are so concerned about
the future of a business to which they are very much attached
that they made the president of CN a purchase offer. Is this
evidence of bad faith, when people believe so strongly in the
business they work for that they want to buy it? They want to
keep their company alive, unlike Mr. Tellier who ever since he
was appointed has been doing a job on CN.
The hon. member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans
said earlier that Mr. Tellier is now the highest paid public
servant, with an annual salary of $345,000 plus a personal
expense allowance of $51,000. He also asked his company for an
interest-free loan so he could acquire a house in Westmount. He
even said in the paper that if CN had not agreed, he would have
turned down the job. Poor Mr. Tellier.
Last year, he came to Charny to explain to workers the reasons
for cutbacks and job cuts. The workers told him they did not see
why he was cutting positions because conductors were working
overtime, were always on standby with a pagette and sometimes
worked 14 days running.
(1150)
Why cut jobs under these circumstances? It would be much
better to have more people working in order for everyone to have
better working conditions and a better quality of life. But no, he
did not listen. Mr. Tellier is not the only one causing problems at
the CN level. Some senior officers, though not many, have left,
and each time it ended with an agreement of several hundred
10999
thousands of dollars. In some cases, the amounts even came
close to $600,000 in addition to pension benefits. Is that the sort
of example to give when workers are being asked to tighten their
belts? My constituents say no, and do not accept such poor
service. I believe that if people knew what is going on at the CN,
they would not accept it either.
What is lacking is information. But if you want information
from the CN-I sat on the transport committee last year. Six
months later, the president of the CN still has not given any
answers to the legitimate requests made by the opposition in
committee. He has not answered his employees either.
The amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois today relate
mainly to mediation and seek to eliminate the word
``arbitration'', the process that the government wants to impose.
The main problem is clause 12, which we want to amend in such
a way that the commission it refers to will be guided by the need
for good relations between the employer and unions and, to this
end, promote terms and conditions of employment that take into
account both the workers' acquired rights, the economic
situation and the competitiveness of the whole Canadian rail
system. But the government refuses to support such a balanced
approach, which would take into account both the needs of the
workers and the economic situation. No CN employee wants to
hurt the economy, quite the opposite. But we can see that the
government, that wants to privatize the CN, is eager to sell it off,
bit by bit, to companies whose interests sometimes do not match
those of the rail industry. We have seen people in that situation
in the case of Murray Bay for example. Those people are
truckers. What interests are they promoting?
There is no enthusiasm whatsoever. I have been saying it over
and over again and I have been in contact with people in the rail
industry in my region for many years. The poor labour climate
imposed by management drags on and on. Unfortunately, the
same executive team which was in place under the Tories is still
there to finish the dirty job. This government said that it wanted
to put an end to this situation, but in actual fact, through its
decisions, it continues to implement the policies of the
Conservative Party. People in Quebec have trouble
understanding why it is so. There is something else Quebecers
have trouble understanding. In Quebec, like anywhere else,
there have been strikes, yet people have come to accept the
principle of the right to strike. People understand the
importance of mediation, and of negotiating working
conditions. This creates a better climate and this is a more
productive way of doing things. Recently, at MIL Davie,
workers accepted the working conditions which had been
negotiated that way, because they understood how important
those conditions were for their company, its survival, and also
its improved operations.
People balk at the working conditions the government wants
to impose. The government is refusing to enforce appropriate
legislation. There is a labour dispute at Ogilvie, which has been
dragging on forever. Scabs have been allowed in, even though
this is happening in Quebec. Why? Because of the federal
legislation.
To conclude, I will say that Quebec is a distinct society. In
Quebec, we refuse to work in a climate of confrontation. From
now on, we want working conditions in Quebec to be
democratically negotiated.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1155)
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by the
member opposite and I am wondering if he has read, like I did,
what one of his own colleagues, the member for Longueuil, said:
I receive lots of congratulation phone calls. I only got calls of praise. Even
good sovereignists and some mayors called me to pledge their support.
He was speaking of the fact that he sided against his party, the
Bloc Quebecois. A bit further on, when some people threatened
to penalize him for the stance he had taken, the member for
Longueuil said:
I do not see how voters could penalize me. It seems to me that exactly the
opposite is happening. We have a major problem because transportation is
almost at a standstill. These people must go back to work.
This is what the Bloc member said of his colleagues-at least,
he was a member of the Bloc Quebecois when this interview was
made. The member for Rosemont must know that.
This strike is damaging all parts of Canada, all across the
country. We must put a stop to it. I received calls from
constituents and also from striking railway workers. In a
specific case, a friend of mine told me-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Boudria: Perhaps this concept is beyond the hon.
members across the way, but sometimes voters are friends with
their MP. I realize this does not happen often with the Bloc
Quebecois members.
You know, at the risk of boasting, when I received 80 per cent
of the votes in my riding, some of them at least were by friends.
So, this voter called me to say it was impossible to live on $3 a
day strike pay. The hon. members opposite do not live on $3 a
day. No, they get their full salary. And so they should, but they
should remember that some people are not as fortunate as they
are.
11000
[English]
Let us look at some of the effects of this. General Motors and
Ford employ around 21,000 people in the greater Toronto area
and their plants have shut down. They cannot ship all the cars
they are selling and get all the parts to keep those plants running
by truck traffic alone. It is impossible. They need the rail sector.
That is why it is there.
[Translation]
The Canadian Manufacturers Association said that the strike
cost the Canadian economy between $3 billion and $5 billion a
week. I have just heard the Bloc Quebecois finance critic.
Perhaps he was hoping that no one would hear him. He said that
this was more than Canada's GDP. I hope Canadians in the
manufacturing sector heard the words of the Bloc Quebecois
finance critic.
We cannot go on like this. I beseech the hon. members across
the floor to do their duty and vote with the government to end
this strike. Otherwise, if they want to vote against it, I will
respect their decision to do so. But I would ask them to please
stop blocking-even though they are Bloc members-the entire
country as they are today. They can vote against the bill, but they
must allow it to be passed.
Even in Quebec, Kruger in Trois-Rivières, Stone
Consolidated Inc. in Port-Alfred, Pétromont, Shell in Montreal,
the port of Bécancour, Alcan, ADI, Reynolds and
Lauralco-they all need rail service. These people need us to
end the strike today.
(1200)
A few minutes ago, I telephoned the St-Isidore de Prescott
farmers' co-operative, in my riding of
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. The hon. members opposite
who take the 417 highway to get home will undoubtedly
remember passing by the lovely community of St-Isidore in my
riding. Workers at the St-Isidore farmers' co-operative told me
today that soya beans cost 20 per cent more this week.
Some hon. members: No, no.
Mr. Boudria: Oh, no? Well, I am telling the members
opposite to dial the following number: area code (613)
524-2828. Ask the people at the St-Isidore co-operative. They
will tell you: farm products now cost 20 per cent more in my
riding because of the Bloc's actions today, because of the Bloc
members' failure to fulfil their public duty.
[English]
And if that was not enough, we are sitting in the House of
Commons today. Of course all of us work full time in this
business. If we were not here doing this, presumably we would
be home meeting with our constituents. So either way we would
be working.
In order to keep the House of Commons sitting today it costs
the taxpayers of Canada $17,125 an hour more than what it
normally costs. I repeat, $17,125 an hour more. Tomorrow if we
sit, it will be more like $25,000 an hour. I say to the MPs across,
if by some misfortune, some unlikely proposition they were to
refuse unanimous consent later on today to do third reading of
this bill-
Mr. Milliken: I cannot imagine that.
Mr. Boudria: I cannot imagine it either, but if they do, they
are going to cost the taxpayers of Canada another $100,000.
When people are brought in it is for a minimum of four hours.
Therefore it will cost another $100,000 to prolong their ego trip
for one more day. It is going to cost another $100,000 to the good
people of Canada who are paying the salaries of the members
across the way along with the rest of us in this House.
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Why are you afraid of our
amendments?
Mr. Boudria: I would like to say to the hon. members
opposite, who have not stopped making a ruckus, that I
understand their agitation at this moment; they may be a little
embarrassed. The hon. members opposite are finally beginning
to see the light, and that makes them restless. They look like
they are on the defensive.
An hon. member: What was the number again?
Mr. Boudria: 524-2828. I repeat for the information of hon.
members opposite that is the telephone number for the
St-Isidore farmers' co-operative. And that is but one of the
farmers' co-operatives in my riding. There are others, farmers
in my riding which the Bloc purports to defend from time to
time, Canadian farmers. I say to them: Wake up. Help the
Canadian farming industry. Help Canadian industry in general,
from coast to coast. Help everybody who takes commuter trains
to get to work, be it in Montreal, Toronto or elsewhere. They too
want to have transportation to get home and see their families.
I say to the hon. members opposite and to the leader of the
Bloc that hundreds and hundreds, even thousands of people in
Toronto and Montreal would like to be like everybody else and
go home, but are unable to do so at present. Why? Because of the
strike which could have been ended a week ago, had the hon.
members opposite given their consent.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): We could have ended it a
week ago.
Mr. Boudria: Why did they not consent?
[English]
It is because of the ego trip they are on. That is the only
reason. Instead of doing what is right, they did what a handful of
people asked them, told them or ordered them to do, instead of
doing what their constituents want. That is the sad reality. That
is what the Bloc Quebecois has been doing for the last week,
11001
initially supported by the NDP just in case some Canadians had
forgotten. But even the NDP came around. That tells us that even
the people in the NDP finally got some common sense. Well, I
hope the Bloc Quebecois gets some now.
(1205 )
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Reform
Party with regard to these amendments.
[Translation]
Mr. Gauthier: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, at the
invitation of the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, we checked at the telephone
number he gave, and everything is fine.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Does the hon. member
for Rosemont have a point of order?
Mr. Tremblay: Madam Speaker, could the hon. member be
asked to retract what he said, since the facts were wrong?
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I called from the lobby. I was
told that soya beans cost 20 per cent more today.
Mr. Bouchard: We just called.
Mr. Tremblay: Madam Speaker, the hon. member did not
retract what he said, although a mistake was clearly made.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Order.
Mr. Bellehumeur: I just made the call myself.
Mr. Boudria: They cost 20 per cent more.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Order. Order, please. I
would remind all of the members who rose on the point of order
that it was a point of debate. I now recognize the hon. member
for Lethbridge.
[English]
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Madam Speaker, looking at the
situation before us we can say that the delay is unfortunate for
all Canadians to a great extent. The responsibility today
certainly lies with the Bloc Quebecois as its members come here
and go through a lot of political gymnastics in an attempt to
prove something to Canada. That is absolutely wrong.
The amendment before us asks for what is called a mediation
commission. If there was sincerity behind that amendment I
would buy it. However, when I listen to the Bloc present its case
to this House, the case is one of political expediency. It is not to
change the law of the country nor to bring about a common sense
solution to the problem. Therefore I do not buy it, nor do my
Reform Party colleagues.
It is unforgiving for a political party to play with our
economy. Ministers of this government have outlined situations
that are costing Canadians billions of dollars. My colleagues
have given examples where industries are hurt, where factories
and a variety of businesses which are very dependent upon
shipping in this country are hurt to a significant degree. And
politics are being played in this House to delay the inevitable,
that the workers must go back to work and that we must get the
transportation system back on track.
That is where we are today. As a common sense political
party, we believe it is time to act. The Minister of Labour has
brought legislation before the House. We are prepared to support
it and move it as quickly as possible through the final stages.
(1210 )
I know we have been critical of the Minister of Labour.
However, we have also generalized it to government saying that
the government should have acted sooner and not only brought
in back to work legislation but also put in place a long term
solution to the problem.
The Minister of Labour, as I listen to her in her new
assignment, is committed. We are going to hold her accountable
for this on behalf of the Reform Party. We will also hold her
accountable as the representative of the Liberal Government of
Canada. From what I understand, the commission which is going
to be established will bring about a long term solution to the
problem. We want that to happen.
I have heard other comments in the House today that would
only support that general direction of government, the
somewhat commitment of government. I hope it is a real
commitment. I hope it is not just political statements for
expedient reasons at this point and then six months to a year
from now we have no action by government toward a long term
solution.
As I listened to the Minister for International Trade today he
said: ``Rail services should be available so that our goods can
reach our ports and move across the U.S.-Canadian border''. We
agree with that. That is the way it should be. The minister also
went on to say that we need a more satisfactory way to resolve
disputes in our rail system, which is absolutely true. We support
that. That is a statement of commitment by the minister as I read
it. I hope that minister will follow through and with the Minister
of Labour will bring about a long term solution.
The minister for trade also went on to say in his remarks to
this assembly: ``Early resolution of the rail strike which is
causing such problems to our rail system is certainly
necessary''. We agree with that as well. That is why we are here
today.
That is the position of the Reform Party. We want action. We
want action immediately to deal with this matter.
11002
It is my hope that the Bloc Quebecois will reconsider delaying
this debate until tomorrow so we can forgo further expense. The
government whip has indicated there are enormous costs in
continuing the operation of this assembly, not only for Saturday
but on Sunday as well. These unnecessary costs are being placed
upon Canadians because of one political party that wants to play
a political game, which is completely unsatisfactory.
Where are we then as the Reform Party? What is our position?
What do we think should be done at this point?
First, we are prepared to support the current legislation, Bill
C-77, that will put the workers back to work and our
transportation in operation as of this coming Monday.
Second, we are concerned that the government did not put the
legislation in place at an earlier date. There were many signals.
My colleague, the critic for labour, indicated in his remarks that
the signals were there and that the government should have put
in place legislation upon which we could have acted more
quickly.
Third, we think there is a long term solution to this problem.
Bill C-262 was voted on in this House earlier this week. A
principle in that bill is supported by a number of groups across
Canada. We said clearly in Bill C-262 that there should be
binding arbitration in place to bring about a conclusion to a
dispute. The two parties in that process would each place their
final offer on the table, the arbitrator would choose, and our rail
system would continue to work.
Some people say that is the wrong way to handle the problem,
that we violate some basic principles of the collective
bargaining process. I do not believe that is true. In this
circumstance there is a difference.
(1215)
In collective bargaining circumstances we have management
and employees. They bargain back and forth through the process
and reach a point where there can either be a lockout or a strike.
Under most circumstances that is acceptable.
However, when we are looking at the transportation system of
the country there is a third party that loses its rights, that does
not have any say in the process but pays the bill. The most
obvious example is the agricultural community, the agricultural
producer or the processor of agricultural products. We are
required as farmers or agricultural producers to ship our goods
via the railway. When there are no other options we must place
the goods on the railway, get them to port, into the hold of the
boat and into the international market.
If we cannot have a reliable transportation system there will
be a huge economic impact on the agricultural sectors. We have
seen that some 15 times in the last 25 years. Billions of dollars
have been lost in that industry. The third party, the producer, was
the victim. He had no say but paid the bills. That is
unacceptable.
With Bill C-77 we will have binding arbitration in place that
will be the solution to the problem. It has been the solution to the
problem some 14 or 15 times in the last 25 years. It has been the
only way to settle the problem. It has been satisfactory to
management and employees. Government has had no other
alternative but to knee-jerk and bring in special legislation to
put people back to work.
Our recommendation as the Reform Party is that we should
have that mechanism in place on a permanent basis so that when
the two parties get to a point where they have to settle a dispute
arbitration kicks in and the solution is there for the problem.
[Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
must admit that I am saddened today to see that we are unable to
reach an agreement on a serious problem which is hurting the
country and its citizens so much. I would have thought that when
faced with such a big challenge, we could have given each other
a hand and have found a solution that would make everybody
happy. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
That is sad, because the strike costs $500 million a day. By the
end of the strike, say the workers come back on Monday, we will
have lost $5 billion. Just break that figure down into how much
each citizen of the country lost. It is a huge sum.
Obviously businesses and stores almost everywhere in
Canada are affected. Obviously Canadians are all affected. It is
having very, very dire and, in some cases, brutal repercussions
for people. We often forget that workers are also affected. Not
only those on strike, not only those who are locked out, but also
those prevented from working because of what is going on. I
find that so sad.
You have all heard that the Bloc is touting itself as the
defender of workers' rights. But we have to ask ourselves one
basic question. Which workers are they defending?
(1220)
Is it the workers of the industries listed here: the Himont
petrochemical plant in Varennes, where production has dropped
by 25 per cent; ICI, a petrochemical plant in Dalhousie, with a
33 per cent drop in production; Donohue, a pulp and paper plant
in Saint-Félicien, Quebec, now closed, with 100 people out of a
job; Donohue, a pulp and paper plant in Clermont, slated to close
down, laying off 75 employees; Franceau, in Chambord, where
190 employees stand to be laid off; Univers, in Val d'Or, which
will throw 16 employees out of work; Forpan Inc., in Val d'Or,
11003
where 146 employees could be out of work; Panval Inc., in
Soyabec, slated to close down, laying off 238 employees; or
PanFiber, in Mont-Laurier, where 101 employees could be laid
off? Are those the people the Bloc Quebecois seeks to protect?
You know as well as I do that what they are trying to do, of
course, is to disguise their true intentions. Why is it that the Bloc
said absolutely nothing when the government forced the
longshoremen to resume work in Vancouver? They did not say a
word. Why is that? It is obvious. They have a big problem. They
went too far. They did not understand. They have not been
sensitive enough to the rest of the country. Now, they are
looking for a way to put that behind them. They made a bad
move; it was poor judgment on their part.
Let us look at the damage done by this strike. I will quote from
an article published yesterday, March 24, in The Ottawa Sun. I
want to make sure I quote it correctly.
[English]
It is the height of irresponsibility for Bouchard to stall back to work
legislation.
The strike is costing industry $500 million a day in lost production and sales.
By the time the legislation is eventually passed by Parliament on Sunday, the
strike will have cost the economy $5 billion.
The dispute has delayed shipments of potash, grain, coal, ore, forestry
products, heavy industrial components, processed food, chemicals,
manufactured products and other goods.
For Canada's farmers, the strike could not have come at a worst time. It is the
busiest time of year, with nearly 25,000 rail cars on sidings waiting to deliver
the rest of last summer's harvest.
If we were to ask my colleague from Brandon-Souris how
the people in his riding are affected, he would corroborate that it
is disastrous for the farmer and certainly the western Canadian
farmer.
The articles continues:
Tens of thousands of workers across the country have been laid off because of
the disruption, while many more are being forced to work half shifts.
At least 70,000 commuters in Toronto and Montreal face the inconvenience
of finding other ways to get to work.
The stalling tactics are certainly linked to supporting the
referendum. Referring to the province of Quebec the article
states:
The strike has hurt the province's manufacturers, aluminium industry and its
pulp and paper companies.
For example, forest giant Repap Enterprises faces imminent shutdowns and
layoffs affecting 5,000 workers that could paralyse entire communities.
One of the reasons why Bouchard is being obstructionist is to keep good
relations with Quebec's militant unions, which are big boosters of
independence.
Clearly, Bouchard feels he can't afford to anger the unions which are one of
the few organized groups in Quebec willing to jump over the cliff to reach the
separatist dream.
The article is a little harsh and goes on to state:
Bouchard has demonstrated to Quebecers that he's clueless about bread and
butter issues. If he doesn't know the impact that the strike is having in Quebec
then imagine what would happen if the province ever separated from Canada.
How can Quebecers put trust in his lofty claims that there won't be any
economic fallout if Quebec separates?
Obviously they can't if he isn't able to see the consequences of a rail strike
which is essential to the entire Canadian economy.
That is what the article states. It is a condemnation of the
actions of Bloc Quebecois members. They show quite clearly
that what they are trying to do is take advantage of the situation
for their own political gain.
(1225)
[Translation]
There are two basic principles to consider. We all agree that,
as far as possible, work agreements should be negotiated, that
labour disputes should be settled through negotiation. Ideally,
we all wish it could be so. But do you not think there is another
principle that is equally important and sometimes more
important here, namely the protection of the public, the
protection of this country's economy to which we owe the
quality of life we enjoy in Canada at this time? That is what we
are doing today. It is not that we do not want workers to reach an
agreement with their employers. We gave them time and no
agreement was reached. Now, in the face of the damage done by
this strike, we have to take action. We have no choice.
Many Bloc members mentioned that the bill will be used in
other sectors in the future, because of what we are doing today. I
agree and I challenge them by asking: Why not begin to
co-operate in an attempt to settle this situation? Let us put
Canadians back to work and let us co-operate in looking for
solutions that will ensure that the situation never occurs again,
either in the railway industry or elsewhere. How can we
simultaneously protect our workers and our people? That is the
challenge.
I conclude my speech by commending the Minister of Labour
for her excellent work. Well done, Madam Minister! The job has
not been easy. We are not enjoying this. We believe that
agreements and labour disputes should be negotiated. But the
time has come to give priority to the country and its people.
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ):
Madam Speaker, we had no choice but to agree immediately to
the request courteously expressed a few minutes ago by our
colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, who said that we
could verify what he said by calling the co-op he referred to. We
hastened to do so and I can now reassure this House, which was
needlessly alarmed by my esteemed colleague's remarks. First
11004
of all, this co-op is not out of stock. Second, soy prices did not
rise this week but dropped by 10 cents a bushel as of last night.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Mercier: There are reassuring news which completely
contradict the comments made by the hon. member across the
way, which suggest he was badly misinformed, if I may use this
euphemism. I have every reason to believe that other alarmist
information we have been given on the consequences of the
strike is in the same category.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Mercier: The current rail crisis would never have hurt
the country's economy and poisoned, as it is doing, labour
relations in the railway sector for long, if the Canada Labour
Code had contained some of the provisions in Quebec's Labour
Code, which are aimed at settling this type of dispute while
keeping damage to a minimum. It is easy to imagine what would
have happened, at least in Quebec, if our province had
jurisdiction over the railways, or better yet, if Quebec was
sovereign. Let us imagine, for the sake of comparison, how the
current rail crisis would have been handled in a sovereign
Quebec if the current provincial legislation had still been in
effect.
Let us suppose, first of all, that, in both Canada and the State
of Quebec, railway unions decide to go on strike after
negotiations reach an impasse. In Canada, after giving notice,
the unions go on strike, leading to immediate confrontation.
Other unions are locked out. In the State of Quebec, however,
things would not degenerate so quickly, Madam Speaker.
In the State of Quebec, after assessing a strike's potential
risks to the public, the government issues an order-in-council.
(1230)
With this order, the onus is on both parties to negociate,
before going on strike, what we call essential services, that is the
basic services to be provided during the strike in order for the
users to be somewhat disturbed by the dispute. After all, it is a
matter of a balance of power and not a complete stalemate.
Then you have different possible scenarios and various steps,
and I will not go into the details, but at the end of the day, the
government has the final word. In light of a report prepared by
the board of essential services which was established to that
effect, if the government considers the agreed services are not
sufficient, it can suspend the right to strike until both parties
agree to their satisfaction or the unions submit unilaterally a list
of services that the government finds satisfactory. Then the
strike is authorized and may start. That is the end of the first step
which is aimed at humanizing the strike to come, a step that does
not exist in Canada.
So, now there is a strike in the State of Quebec. But it is a
civilized strike, if I may say so, within a well defined
framework. Of course users are not pleased but their activities
are not totally disrupted. What if the unions do not respect their
commitments? What if the agreed services are not provided?
The government will then suspend the right to strike and, in case
of violation, submit the matter to the Attorney General to obtain
an injunction, possibly.
The use of civilized dispute settlement mechanisms
prescribed by the Quebec law does not exclude firmness, if
required. Negotiations would continue throughout this civilized
strike. The government might be forced to legislate in the end,
but the right to strike would not be undermined and the economy
would not suffer as much.
This is how things would be done in a sovereign Quebec or, if
you prefer, not to prejudge the matter, if the Canada Labour
Code contained some of the clauses in the Quebec Code. The
outcome would be different if, instead of the confrontation made
inevitable by the Canada Labour Code which is brutal and basic,
we had more civilized exchanges which would allow for the
inclusion of some of our own legal clauses, which are based on
the need in a real democracy to reconcile the citizens' right to
strike and the employers' and users' right to essential services.
In fact, the Canadian law practically led inevitably to the
current confrontation and only by agreeing to the principle of
mediation, which was proposed Monday by our party, could this
House end the conflict without hitting very hard the workers
who will not forget. How can we avoid a tragic situation in a
country where, in case of a labour dispute within a public utility,
the government-after 24 hours of strike by workers-has,
under the terms of its legislation, no choice but to allow the
strike to go on and nearly bring to a standstill the economy and
operations in some sectors or deny the workers' right to strike by
unilaterally putting an end to the strike after 24 hours?
The die is cast, as far as the current dispute is concerned. If
this can be of any consolation to you, this assembly will soon
have the opportunity to avoid similar disputes in future by
amending the Canadian Labour Code in such a way that labour
disputes could from now on be settled in the same civilized and
efficient way as is done in Quebec.
Indeed, my colleague from Manicouagan just presented a
bill-Bill C-317-to introduce in the Canada Labour Code
provisions similar to those we have in ours. This bill provides
for the maintenance of all essential services in case of a strike
and for the creation of a board to this end. In turn, it prohibits as
in Quebec an employer from using the services of a person not
usually in his employ during a strike or a lockout.
The current crisis in this country will not have hurt workers,
employers and users in vain, if it makes us aware of a terrible
deficiency of the Canadian Labour Code and if it leads us, in
order to remedy it, to enact Bill C-317, introduced by my
11005
colleague for Manicouagan. If we indeed enact that bill,
Canada-when Quebec has become a sovereign country-will
have nothing to envy it as far as labour legislation is concerned.
(1235)
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I feel I must contribute to the very important debate
taking place here in the House today, because the official
opposition has shown that it is unable to take a just and fair
decision on issues of importance to all Canadians.
[English]
We have faced a serious strike situation for over a week now, a
strike that is costing Canadians millions of dollars and causing
thousands of Canadians to lose work, time and money. The only
reason this loss is continuing is the obstruction of the official
opposition.
I want to make it perfectly clear in all my remarks that the
blame for the obstruction rests squarely with the official
opposition. It has prevented the House from dealing with this
bill in a manner that is normal in situations of this kind; that is,
in an expeditious and fair way.
I know the Reform Party has assisted the government to the
extent that it has supported the legislation and has agreed to time
allocation in respect of various stages of the bill in order to
expedite passage. I appreciate that support very much and
acknowledge it.
On the other hand, the hon. member for Lethbridge in his
speech this morning sought to criticize the government. When
the government has acted so well it is difficult to find a way to
criticize. He was really stretching things by arguing that
somehow the government should have acted last week.
Let us go back to the situation of last week. I remind the hon.
member that while there was a strike by a few workers with CP,
CP service was virtually continuous. It was working. Deliveries
were still be made. CP was still running.
The hon. member knows that. Surely he is not expecting the
government to step in and legislate an end to a modest strike of
that kind. The hon. member in his speech this morning was
doing his best to make it appear that somehow the government
was at fault for this strike when he knows that is not the case.
The government has acted extremely well. It has done exactly
what it should have done. When it became apparent that there
was a national strike the first thing it did was give notice of
intention to introduce this bill by issuing a special notice paper
last week, or asking that one be issued. He knows that one was
issued on Sunday morning. If it were not for that we would not
be able to complete the bill as quickly as we are moving. I regret
it is as slow as it is.
The hon. member knows that I on behalf of the government
and the ministers of the crown who have been in the House have
tried all week to get the official opposition to abandon its rather
ridiculous policy of obstructing this legislation and allowing the
bill to proceed.
[Translation]
Last Monday, the members of the Bloc Quebecois decided to
obstruct this bill and they have continued to obstruct it all week.
If they had had more than thirteen members in the House
Thursday morning, we would not have had this debate today or
Sunday. This bill will perhaps be passed Tuesday or Wednesday
of next week. Another three terrible days for Canada. What is
the point of all this?
[English]
The hon. members opposite should really be ashamed of the
position they have taken in obstructing this. I recognize their
right to oppose this legislation and speak against it and vote
against it if they want to do so, but instead they have used the
rules of procedure in the House to full advantage to obstruct the
passage of this bill and put Canadians out of work. That is a
disgrace.
Always in the past when this kind of legislation has been
introduced in the House-I remember we had some when we
were in opposition and I have sat where the hon. members
opposite are sitting today-we would make our objections very
clear and very plain, and so did the NDP. In the end we allowed
the legislation to go through in an expeditious manner because
we recognized the public interest demands that when there is a
national strike of this kind paralysing industries across Canada
Parliament must act to bring the strike to an end. We allowed
Parliament to act and make its decision in a rapid, responsible
way.
Hon. members from the New Democratic Party obstructed the
bill on Monday with some glee, as one would expect from that
group. As one of the editorials I was reading this morning said,
they are bought and paid for by the labour movement so we
would expect they might object to this. We support labour as
well. Many people who are members of unions work and support
the Liberal Party.
(1240)
[Translation]
The members of the Bloc Quebecois say that they have a
monopoly on this sort of support, but that is not the case. Many
workers belonging to unions in Quebec vote for the Liberal
Party and the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, who
finds this so amusing, knows very well that it is the truth.
11006
[English]
I do not like to cross the hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot at all times. He tries his best. He
knows these people are voting Liberal for a very good reason.
We are providing good leadership and good government.
Most of these people want to work. Most of the people who
are out on strike do not want to be earning $3 a day in strike pay.
They want to be working and making money. Before the strike I
had occasion to speak with various employees of VIA Rail in my
travels.
They said if there is a strike, for heaven's sake legislate them
back quickly, they do not want to be out for long. The Bloc
Quebecois is obstructing and holding these people from their
work and their jobs.
What does that do for those Canadians? What does it do for
their annual salary? It reduces what they can make in a year. The
members of the Bloc Quebecois should be ashamed of
themselves for this obstruction.
I want to deal with the New Democratic Party briefly. The
hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and the
Minister for International Trade want to hear about the New
Democratic Party.
I do not see the hon. member for Winnipeg-Transcona but I
know he is here in spirit. He was quite concerned on Monday
that we not proceed with the bill. He refused consent. By
Tuesday those members were silent. By Wednesday they were
saying get it done. They have been saying it ever since. They at
least saw the light.
I invite hon. members of the Bloc Quebecois to have a little
look around them. Look for the light. Then the members will say
yes to this bill right away. There is no point in holding this up
any further. They have obstructed the bill all week. We tried on
Monday to introduce the bill and get it passed. We tried on
Tuesday. We had the bill introduced and asked for unanimous
consent to deal with it in all stages. That was refused at least
twice during the day.
An hon. member: They do not care about Canadians.
Mr. Milliken: Or the workers. On Wednesday we had the bill
for second reading. We asked for consent to put it through all
stages. That was refused. Therefore we used time allocation and
got the bill through second reading. We used time allocation
again to get it through the committee. It was not obstructed
Wednesday night in committee.
We had it reported on Thursday and what did we do on
Thursday? We asked for unanimous consent to pass the bill on
Thursday. It was refused. We asked for consent to pass it on
Friday. It was refused. We asked again on Friday.
Fortunately because the members of the Bloc were not here in
sufficient numbers we fortunately got the right to sit on Saturday
and Sunday to deal with it more quickly than we otherwise
would but that was a stroke of luck on our part.
I am sure it was not deliberate on their part that there were
only 13 here when there should have been 25. I am glad that
there were not 25 here.
Here we are on Saturday debating report stage. When we have
completed the votes on report stage and dealt with all the
amendments, the 42 amendments the members of the Bloc
Quebecois have moved, we will have the opportunity to proceed
with third reading.
[Translation]
I urge members opposite to consider the situation of all those
who would rather be working today. It is important for them that
we vote at third reading as soon as possible and I hope that
members opposite will give their consent today, so that we can
vote at third reading this afternoon.
[English]
The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot has the best
interests of the workers of Quebec and Canada at heart. If he
does and if he considers their plight, he knows in his heart of
hearts the best thing he could do today is vote to put them back to
work; not just the people who are on strike but those who have
been laid off as a result of the strike because that is the most
unfair part of all.
Through no fault of their own other Canadians, thousands of
them, are losing money because of the rail strike. It should be
ended. It should have been ended several days ago.
(1245 )
The Bloc Quebecois through its obstruction and delay has
denied these Canadians the right to earn a living. It is unfair. I
invite it to join us today to end this strike.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Madam Speaker, before
giving the speech I had prepared, I would like to comment on
some of the allegations made by the hon. members opposite.
Someone said a moment ago that the new Minister of Labour
is to be commended for taking dynamic and aggressive action
immediately upon assuming her duties. Indeed, we could not
help but notice ourselves that the big companies and the rich and
the powerful did not take long to recognize that she was on their
side. In no time they were putting in their order: ``Please,
Madam Minister, bring in special legislation because we are
unable to reach a compromise through the civilized and
democratic negotiation process that normally characterizes
labour relation''.
11007
So, the new Minister of Labour is perfectly comfortable with
her new Liberal persona. She has adopted the Liberal philosophy
that says that when one cannot get something according to
democratic means, one imposes it. That is exactly what the
Liberals did with the patriation of the constitution. It is nothing
new.
Hence the comment by a member opposite that the support the
Bloc gives workers proves that a sovereign Quebec would be
governed by unions. A sovereign Quebec would be governed by
ordinary citizens. And if there are only ordinary people in the
unions, well it is just too bad for the opposition because it is
ordinary people who, democratically, will govern Quebec.
We are being accused of defending unions because, they say,
unions are separatist. But who are the Liberals defending? Why
do they support so many large companies in this dispute? Why
have they asked these companies not to go too far in the
negotiations? They told them not to worry, that if they did not
succeed, the government would pass a bill.
That is what you get from being a friend of the Liberals.
Maybe some of these large companies make hefty contributions
to the Liberal Party election fund.
The Minister of Labour has named many companies. She gave
a list of companies that are threatening to close down because of
this labour dispute. But did we hear her mention one worker, any
one of the 30,000 workers who are affected too by this strike?
Mr. Boudria said earlier-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I must remind the hon.
member that he should refer to a member using the name of the
constituency.
Mr. Laurin: I am sorry, Madam Speaker. The hon. member
for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell said earlier that one of his
constituents called him. It is another one, not the one mentioned
earlier, he was not the right one. So, another of his constituents
who is on strike complained that he could hardly live with a $3 a
day strike pay. Let him find comfort in the fact that the
legislation the government is trying to pass and that he will have
to live with for at least two years is not worth a nickel.
The government's contentions are hogwash. We have to put an
end to that strike, they say. We are willing to put an end to the
strike, and we agree that we could have done it before. But we
feel that we should not do it at all costs.
With its special legislation, the Liberal government wants to
put the train back on the track as fast as possible, with no thought
to the consequences. If the train, meanwhile, runs over the
employees, that is too bad; so be it. The train must keep moving,
no matter who suffers. In the long run, a return to work under
such conditions will doom the railroad companies to several
years of completely deteriorated labour relations.
We keep saying to the government that it can still reach an
amicable settlement and that if it wants to resolve this conflict
this afternoon, we will not object, provided that it agrees with
the very humane amendments which we have proposed to solve
the issue.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 12:51 p.m.,
pursuant to an order made earlier this day and under the
provisions of Standing Order 78(2), it is my duty to interrupt
these proceedings and put all questions necessary to dispose of
the report stage of the bill now before the House.
[Translation]
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The question is on
Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed to the
motion will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76.1(8), the recorded division on the proposed motion
stands deferred.
We shall now proceed to the second group of motions which
includes Motions Nos. 4, 9, 13, 18, 23, 27, 32, 37 and 41.
Mr. Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I rise to ask for clarification.
You have not put the question to the House with regard to the
second group of motions. What is the procedure? We want to
vote on this, we want to give our point of view. Naturally, we
support Mrs. Lalonde's motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): First I read each motion
in the second group, and then I put the question.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) moves:
11008
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-77, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 30 to 44, on page 5
and lines 1 to 5, on page 6, with the following:
``(3) The employer and the union may agree on the appointment of a person as
Chairperson, but where they do not agree on a Chairperson, the Minister shall,
after obtaining the agreement of the official opposition in the House of
Commons, appoint as Chairperson a person whom the Minister considers to be
qualified.
(4) After the employer and the union representing the bargaining unit have
each appointed a person to represent them and the name of the Chairperson is
known, the Minister''.
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-77, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing lines 32 to 37, on page 7,
with the following:
``the need to establish good labour-management relations and to that end it
shall promote terms and conditions of employment that take into account the
experience and knowledge of employees and the economic viability and
competitiveness of a coast-to-coast rail system.''
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-77 be amended by deleting Clause 16.
Motion No. 18
That Bill C-77, in Clause 32, be amended by replacing lines 22 to 41, on page
14, with the following:
``(3) The employer and the union may agree on the appointment of a person as
Chairperson, but where they do not agree on a Chairperson, the Minister shall, after
obtaining the agreement of the official opposition parties in the House of Commons,
appoint as Chairperson a person whom the Minister considers to be qualified, and
the person so appointed shall be deemed to have been appointed by the employer or
the union, as the case may be.
(4) After the employer and the union representing the bargaining unit have each
appointed a person to represent them and the name of the Chairperson is known, the
Minister''.
Motion No. 23
That Bill C-77, in Clause 34, be amended by replacing lines 25 to 30, on page
16, with the following:
``the need to establish good labour-management relations and to that end it shall
promote terms and conditions of employment that take into account the experience
and knowledge of employees and the economic viability and competitiveness of a
coast- to-coast rail system.''
Motion No. 27
That Bill C-77 be amended by deleting Clause 38.
Motion No. 32
That Bill C-77, in Clause 54, be amended by replacing lines 12 to 31, on page
23, with the following:
``(3) The employer and the union may agree on the appointment of a person as
Chairperson, but where they do not agree on a Chairperson, the Minister shall, after
obtaining the agreement of the official opposition in the House of Commons,
appoint as Chairperson a person whom the Minister considers to be qualified, and
the person so appointed shall be deemed to have been appointed by the employer or
the union, as the case may be.
(4) After the employer and the union representing the bargaining unit have each
appointed a person to represent them and the name of the Chairperson is known, the
Minister.''
Motion No. 37
That Bill C-77, in Clause 56, be amended by replacing lines 11 to 16, on page
25, with the following:
``the need to establish good labour-management relations and to that end it
shall promote terms and conditions of employment that take into account the
experience and knowledge of employees and the economic viability and
competitiveness of a coast- to-coast rail system.''
Motion No. 41
That Bill C-77 be amended by deleting Clause 60.
(1255)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The question is on
Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76.1(8), a recorded division on Motion No. 4 stands
deferred. This vote applies to Motions Nos. 18 and 32 as well.
The next question is on Motion No. 9. Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76.1(8), a recorded division on the motion stands
deferred. This vote applies to Motions Nos. 23 and 37 as well.
11009
(1300)
The question is now on Motion No. 13. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76.1(8), a recorded division on the motion is deferred.
The vote will apply to Motions Nos. 27 and 41 as well.
The question is now on Motions Nos. 14, 28 and 42.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) moves:
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-77 be amended by deleting Clause 18.
Motion No. 28
That Bill C-77 be amended by deleting Clause 40.
Motion No. 42
That Bill C-77 be amended by deleting Clause 62.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The question is now on
Motion No. 14. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76.1(8), the recorded division on the motion stands
deferred. The vote will apply to Motions Nos. 28 and 42 as well.
[English]
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
divisions at report stage of the bill now before the House.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 181)
YEAS
Members
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Bélisle
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Deshaies
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Mercier
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rosemont)-40
NAYS
Members
Alcock
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Discepola
Duhamel
English
Finestone
Flis
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Gouk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Hanrahan
Hickey
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
11010
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Patry
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Skoke
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stinson
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young -133
PAIRED MEMBERS
Members
Allmand
Asselin
Bellemare
Bernier (Gaspé)
Brien
Cannis
Canuel
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Dupuy
Easter
Marchand
Payne
Peric
Picard (Drummond)
Ringuette-Maltais
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
(1325)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare Motion No. 1
negatived.
Therefore, I declare Motions Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12,
15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36,
38, 39, and 40 negatived.
The next question is on Motion No. 4. The vote will apply to
Motions Nos. 18 and 32 as well.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I wonder if you would be so
kind as to seek whether or not the House is prepared to give its
unanimous consent to apply the vote taken on Motion No. 1 to
Motion No. 4 which is now before the House?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The House has heard the
suggestion. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): We do not have
unanimous consent.
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 182)
YEAS
Members
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Bélisle
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Deshaies
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Mercier
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rosemont)-40
NAYS
Members
Alcock
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Discepola
Duhamel
English
Finestone
Flis
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Gouk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Hanrahan
Hickey
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
11011
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Patry
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Skoke
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stinson
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young -133
PAIRED MEMBERS
Members
Allmand
Asselin
Bellemare
Bernier (Gaspé)
Brien
Cannis
Canuel
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Dupuy
Easter
Marchand
Payne
Peric
Picard (Drummond)
Ringuette-Maltais
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
(1330)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare Motion No. 4
negatived. Therefore, I declare Motions Nos. 18 and 32 also
negatived.
The next division is on Motion No. 9. The vote on this motion
also applies to Motions Nos. 23 and 37.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I think if you were to seek it,
you would find unanimous consent to apply the vote taken on the
preceding motion to the motion now before the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See List under Division No. 182.]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare Motion No. 9
negatived.
Therefore, I declare Motions Nos. 23 and 37 also negatived.
The next division is on Motion No. 13. The vote on this
motion also applies to Motions Nos. 27 and 41.
(1335 )
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, if you
were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent to apply the
vote taken on the previous motion to the motion now before the
House.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 182]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare Motion No. 13
negatived.
I declare Motions Nos. 27 and 41 negatived.
[Translation]
The next vote is on Motion No. 14. The vote on this motion
also applies to Motions Nos. 28 and 42.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I think if you were to ask it,
you would find there is unanimous consent to apply the vote
taken on the previous motion to the motion now before this
House.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 182.]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare Motion No. 14
lost.
[English]
I declare Motions Nos. 28 and 42 negatived.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.) moved
that the bill be concurred in at report stage.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion, the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Call in the members.
11012
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I think you would find there is
unanimous consent to dispense with the bells and to take the
vote immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is there unanimous
consent to take the vote immediately?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 183)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Discepola
Duhamel
English
Finestone
Flis
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Gouk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Hanrahan
Hickey
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Patry
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Skoke
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stinson
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young -133
NAYS
Members
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Bélisle
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Deshaies
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Mercier
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rosemont)-39
PAIRED MEMBERS
Members
Allmand
Asselin
Bellemare
Bernier (Gaspé)
Brien
Cannis
Canuel
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Dupuy
Easter
Marchand
Payne
Peric
Picard (Drummond)
Ringuette-Maltais
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
(1340 )
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare the motion
carried.
When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): At the next sitting of the
House?
Mr. Milliken: Madam Speaker, millions of Canadians are
waiting for this strike to end and for this bill to pass. I invite the
opposition now to join us to see if we can pass the bill this
afternoon. I ask for unanimous consent to proceed with third
reading immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is there unanimous
consent?
[Translation]
Mr. Gauthier: Madam Speaker, in answer to remarks that
were made I simply wanted to say that we have been making
settlement offers since Monday and they have been turned
down. The government decided that we would sit Saturday and
Sunday and we will comply.
11013
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, in that case, I move:
That the House do now adjourn.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 1.45 p.m.,
pursuant to an order made Thursday, March 23, 1995 the House
stands adjourned until Sunday, March 26, 1995 at 1 p.m.
(The House adjourned at 1.45 p.m.)