CONTENTS
Sunday, March 26, 1995
Bill C-77. Motion for third reading 11015
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 11023
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 137; Nays, 39 11024
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 11025
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 11027
(Motion agreed to.) 11027
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 2.55 p.m.) 11027
(The House resumed at 5.15 p.m.) 11028
11015
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Sunday, March 26, 1995
The House met at 1 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.) moved
that Bill C-77, an act to provide for the maintenance of railway
operations and subsidiary services, be read the third time and
passed.
She said: Mr. Speaker, the current dispute in the railway
sector requires firm intervention by the government to ensure
the resumption or continuing, as the case may be, of railway
operations and subsidiary services.
It is also important to provide a process to resolve matters
remaining in dispute between the parties. The bill before the
House today, the Maintenance of Railway Operations Act, 1995,
orders the resumption of operations at Canadian National,
Canadian Pacific and VIA Rail, and provides for establishing
mediation-arbitration commissions in respect of each of the
bargaining units of the three railway companies.
As hon. members are aware, negotiations in this dispute have
been extremely difficult. They covered a number of complex
issues including employment security, occupational flexibility,
extended routes and the two-tier compensation system for train
crews. Despite efforts to reach an agreement which went on for
several months, the parties failed to agree on these crucial
issues.
Both the unions and the employers agreed that Canada needs a
viable and competitive railway system. Even the Bloc
Quebecois admitted as much in its motion in amendment of
section 12. The matters remaining in dispute must be resolved if
the parties are to start establishing relations that will help them
meet the challenges of the future.
I believe the dispute settlement process provided under this
legislation will help them defend and reconcile their interests
dispassionately and objectively. It did not take long for the
impact of work stoppages occurring in the railway sector to be
felt across the country. The disruption in railway operations has
affected certain industries, which are now unable to obtain the
parts and supplies they need for their operations and cannot ship
their goods to destinations on domestic or the world markets.
Many businesses that depend on railway freight services are
being forced to lay off workers. The economic repercussions of
a prolonged work stoppage in the railway sector are very serious
and cannot be tolerated for very long. The same applies to the
impact on passengers who normally take VIA Rail and are now
deprived of those services.
I realize that the parties have tried to settle the various
disputes, but the government is faced with a situation that
requires immediate and decisive intervention. Consequently,
last Tuesday, I had to table the Maintenance of Railway
Operations Act, 1995. This legislation consists of three parts.
Part I concerns the Canadian National Railway Company; Part II
concerns the Canadian Pacific system and Part III concerns VIA
Rail Canada.
All three parts of this legislation shall come into force 12
hours after the bill has received royal assent. Under this
legislation, the disputes will be quickly resolved, thanks to a
mediation-arbitration commission that will have 70 days to
carry out its mandate. The mediation-arbitration process gives
the parties one last chance to reach an agreement with the help of
the commission. If at this stage the parties are unable to reach an
agreement, the commission will have the power to make final
and binding decisions on the matters remaining in dispute.
In its work, the commission shall be guided by the need for
terms and conditions of employment that are consistent with the
economic viability and competitiveness of a coast-to-coast rail
system in both the short and the long term, taking into account
the importance of good labour-management relations. In the
course of the debate on this bill, we have heard different
interpretations of sections 12, 34 and 56 from the employers, the
unions and the Bloc Quebecois, and I would like to clarify the
legislator's intent in this respect.
The best job protection that workers can have is the certainty
that their employer is competitive. In this context, it is
increasingly clear with successful companies that
competitiveness depends on good human resources
management, which includes harmonious labour relations. We
realize as well that various
11016
internal and external factors may affect a business'
competitiveness, including such things as quality of
management, efficient financial management and, in the case of
railways, appropriate regulations, not to mention the economic
environment the business is in.
There is another factor we must not forget, however, and that
is labour costs. In the present case, we want both parties to come
to terms with these facts. Accordingly, the legislator must
express the commissions' mandate clearly. We are not requiring
the commissions to achieve specific results in terms of job
security clauses or any other working condition of the railway
workers.
The unions and the companies will have ample time to tell the
commissions what working conditions they consider consistent
with economic viability and good union-management relations.
No specific results must be achieved. We have simply indicated
the factors the commissions are to take into consideration in
their deliberations.
(1310)
Moreover, it is only if the parties fail to reach an agreement on
these matters during the mediation period, that the commissions
will have to reach a final decision. All in all, this is a fair
approach to resolving the disputes between the parties.
I would like it to be perfectly clear that the government
remains firmly convinced that collective bargaining is a far
better way to resolve disputes than emergency legislation. It is
significant that nothing in the legislation prevents the parties
from modifying any provision in the collective agreements, new
or changed, except for the provision on the term of these
agreements.
Furthermore, should the parties reach an interim agreement or
concur on the approach to resolving the matters in dispute, the
establishment of the mediation-arbitration commission could
be deferred.
The facts speak for themselves. Considerable effort has gone
into resolving the various disputes between the three railways
and the various unions, but to no avail. The bill before us gives
the parties one final chance to agree through mediation, before
the outstanding issues are submitted to arbitration.
Since the start of negotiations, the parties have indicated that
they were opposed to legislation to put an end to the dispute, and
I agreed with them on this point. Unfortunately, they have not
managed to reach an agreement and, as a result, have caused
serious economic problems in the country by initiating work
stoppages. As the government, we took the necessary steps and
tabled the Maintenance of Railway Operations Act, 1995.
I therefore ask my hon. colleagues to support this measure so
that it may be adopted.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, regarding this issue, the Bloc deplores the
government's simplistic position and its extravagant if not
biased speeches.
The government has always stressed the negative
repercussions of the strike and its real economic impact, of
which we all are aware, and really went overboard on the issue.
It kept on repeating that factories were closing everywhere in
Canada, coast to coast, particularly in Quebec, since the Bloc
Quebecois was the government's main opponent in the House on
the issue. Very few economic sectors in Quebec were spared the
threat of imminent closures, yet nothing of the sort actually
happened.
The government tried to terrorize and brainwash people by
exaggerating the economic consequences. I do not want to
minimize the consequences, but I think that a government
dealing with such an extensive labour dispute, like the one
currently affecting the country, should be more reserved,
impartial and objective. The government should not upset
people; it should reassure them while trying to find a solution.
The government did the opposite. We were witness to an
incredible demagogic offensive, we were bombarded with a
slew of disastrous predictions, which did not turn out to be
accurate.
We must nevertheless acknowledge that considerable
economic interests and jobs are at stake, not only in the sector
directly affected, but also in the sectors spinning off from it.
We are not oblivious to the economic impact of the strike. We
proved this by proposing to the government, as early as last
Monday, a classic solution of the sort normally used to settle this
kind of dispute.
With such an important issue, it is not only necessary to look
at the economic impact, but also to be nuanced. So, this is an
example of the kind of issue debated in the Parliament of Canada
where we need to examine all facets, if we are to debate it wisely
and carefully, in the interest of all.
(1315)
One of them is also, of course, that there are important issues
and interests at stake that immediately call into question
Canadian democracy, Quebec democracy and parliamentary
democracy, and this has been forgotten in the debate.
What we in the Bloc Quebecois wanted to do was to situate the
dispute, and the resolution mechanism, in the perspective of a
balance to be achieved between the right to negotiate and peace
on the labour front, for all of this was at stake. It is not true that
because a strike has broken out that an illegal act has been
committed. It is not true that because a strike has broken out that
it is necessary to push the panic button, to bring out the big guns.
11017
And it is not true that because a strike has broken out that the
opposition can be prevented from speaking about it in this
House. Events have taken a very strange turn this week.
The Bloc has been vilified for wanting to recognize rights that
exist in law, in legislation passed not by a foreign Parliament,
but by the Parliament of Canada, legislation that provides for the
right to strike, that recognizes the existence in Canada of this
fundamental democratic right.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bouchard: In a democracy such as ours, in a country in
which we have often been faced with labour disputes and in
which we have acquired some experience in resolving this sort
of conflict in a civilized and competent manner, it is vital that
we take this opportunity to examine the need to maintain some
sort of balance.
Mr. Speaker, I believe I am disturbing the people across the
way who are speaking.
[English]
The Speaker: Order. Colleagues, this debate is so important
that we are sitting on a Sunday. It is a very historic sitting. I
would ask all hon. members to have the courtesy to please hear
out the person who has the floor at this time and all other
members who will be speaking in this debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, we have a system of law. We live
in a society governed by laws. We have a parliamentary
institution, and a government, charged with enforcing existing
legislation. The entire Canadian legal system as it relates to
labour relations is based on the freedom to negotiate, on the
objective of ensuring peace between the parties to an industrial
dispute and the harmonious operation of the factories and
workplaces once the dispute has been resolved. I believe that the
freedom to negotiate is a key element in all of this.
The freedom to negotiate is dependent on the balance between
two powers: the very important economic power wielded by the
employer, which is countered by the union with its own brand of
power, given to it under law in the form of the right to strike. It is
a legislated right.
One would think that, generally and normally, when both
parties exert pressure, when they act in good faith without
anyone trying to disrupt the process, when they are willing to
make concessions, with common sense prevailing, an agreement
will eventually be reached. The legal system and government
services are designed to help reach an agreement because
everyone understands that the best and only effective solution is
a negotiated solution.
What happened in this case? They may well criticize the Bloc
Quebecois for being the only party in this House which defends
the legal system of free collective bargaining. Well and good,
but they forget that the main culprit in this dispute is the
government, in particular the Minister of Labour, who turned
into an employer in this matter.
They will say that, the opposition being the opposition, it will
attack the government and try to bend the truth a little. It is
common practice in politics.
(1320)
Instead, let us read the report and conclusions of an impartial
witness, conciliation commissioner Hope, whose job was to
observe, minute by minute, the progress of the negotiations.
This report contains devastating comments on the behaviour
of the government and the Minister of Transport. In this matter,
the government, far from favouring settlement and protecting
against any external disruptions the progress of the usual
settlement mechanisms whose results are based on free
collective bargaining, sought to disrupt and destroy this balance
by siding with the employer. I would even say that it became an
employer. The government behaved like an employer in this
matter. I would go so far as to say that it prevented the official
employers from negotiating.
Let us suppose for a moment that we are all CN
presidents-we would be happy in some respects, of course, as
this would be a remarkable promotion-and that our
representatives, reporting on the discussions, tell us that we
ought to make concessions on our demands to drop
non-monetary clauses, that if we make no concessions, the
resulting strike would hurt us and that the public may not
appreciate our behaviour during the negotiations, so that we
must make concessions.
Normally in such conditions, an employer makes concessions
and uses some common sense to reach a compromise with the
union, which is also under pressure. But why would an employer
negotiate when, like the president of the CN in this case, he has
the government's assurance that it supports his position, as
denounced in the Hope report, when he knows that the
government is 100 per cent behind him and that, in the event of a
labour dispute, the government will take out the bludgeon to
quash immediately the right to strike and pass special
legislation providing for a third party to impose working
conditions? There is no motivation to do so.
In fact, the employers did not negotiate in this case. They did
not negotiate because they relied on the complicity, I would say
the collusion, of the Minister of Transport, expecting him to
make sure that back to work legislation would be tabled in this
House within hours of the start of a strike or lockout.
So, what was bound to happen did: the employers put on the
table major clawback demands and, according to Mr. Hope,
refused to negotiate. They even refused to consider the
possibility that their demands be discussed or revised in any
way, or that reservations be made about them. They did not even
take part in
11018
discussions on their demands. It was a take it or leave it
proposition.
So, of course, this lead to a conflict. Barely 12 hours into this
conflict-and this illustrates what I just said-the Minister of
Labour, who is new to the issue, sets in motion a process to break
the strike through special legislation. The Minister of Labour is
therefore a major player in this issue. We must recognize
however that there was not much she could do because, as the
saying goes, the scene was set. All she now had to do was follow
the script. The scene was set thanks to the great producing
abilities of the Minister of Transport.
What could she do except become the employer herself and
ensure that the strike could be quashed immediately, while at the
same time setting the working conditions? I think that a Minister
of Labour worthy of the name would have borne in mind that she
or he has a job to do and is not accountable to the Minister of
Finance-who wants to privatize CN-but is responsible for
social peace and to the parties. Her role involved trust and
confidence.
The Minister of Labour should tell her colleague for transport
that, while he had been able to reach the agreements he wanted
with his friends, the employers, she, as Minister of Labour,
could not take sides, that she was responsible for social justice
and fairness. What should she have done then?
(1325)
I am not saying that the government should tolerate the
negative effects of a strike indefinitely. It would have been
appropriate to table this special legislation on Monday and get
the parties back to work. It is at this level that the Minister of
Labour could have played an important part in cabinet. She
could have enlightened her cabinet colleagues and told them:
``Yes, we will get these people back to work to avoid the
negative effects of the strike, but we will also ensure that the
parties can negotiate without interference, while it is still time
to do so. For the first time in this conflict, we will put in place
conditions such that the parties involved can negotiate in good
faith and find a solution to their problems. We will force the
employer to negotiate by not giving it the assurance that the
government will impose back-to-work legislation and thus
serve its interests''.
The Minister of Labour knew what to do very well. She was
very familiar with the usual solution in such a conflict. This is
something that people involved in labour relations learn
quickly. The minister knew what to do: go to mediation. She
knew it so well that she did so in another conflict, in Montreal,
which had persisted for 25 months. In this case, it has been 18
months, but in Montreal, it had been 25 months. So what did she
do? Following the wise counsel of her senior officials, and
assuming her responsibility as Minister of Labour, she decided
that there would be mediation in the Port of Montreal conflict, to
force the parties to conduct true negotiations under appropriate
conditions, so that a negotiated solution might be reached. The
process proved to be successful in the days that followed.
Considering that the solution is known and that it gave very
positive results in Montreal, why does the Minister of Labour
decide to go all out in the case of the railway work stoppage and
pass a piece of legislation imposing working conditions?
I want to be clear. We are not opposed to back-to-work
legislation. We believe it is legitimate to resort to such
legislation and we would have agreed to do so as early as
tomorrow, so that by Monday evening the act would have been
passed in this House. However, we do not accept the fact that
this situation be used as a smoke screen. After all, what do you
think is the goal of the government in this issue?
Some hon. members: Hear. Hear.
Mr. Bouchard: The comments I just made raise a question.
Those who may be listening to us on this lovely Sunday
afternoon may ask themselves: What did he just say? Why
would the government do such a thing? Why would a decent and
responsible government do that? Why would a government team
up with the employers to distort the conflict resolution process?
This is a good question, but we have the answer.
The answer was provided by the Minister of Transports. The
Minister of Transport himself told us in this House last week, I
think it was on Thursday, but I could be wrong, any way he told
us on Wednesday or Thursday in answer to a question put to him:
``Yes, but the truth is that our goal is to get rid of some
provisions in the collective agreements''. They do not like these
collective agreements, so they are going to change them, to do a
hatchet job, to scrap them.
Once this is done, they will be able to soothe the employers
and sell the CN. They will sell the CN and make a lot of money
out of it, because they will do so at the expense of the workers
and of their rights and entitlements. They will shave down the
collective agreements and then hand a very nice package to the
private companies interested in buying the CN. This is the goal
sought by the minister. He has said so in this House. We thought
that was what he was trying to achieve, in fact, we were quite
sure of it, but now he has admitted it.
An hon. member: Shame!
Mr. Bouchard: I think the government was swayed by the
interests of the employers in this issue. You can tell just by the
way it has handled it, if only at the parliamentary level. Will
people not find it strange how eager the government was to
muzzle the opposition, to use tactics which had never been used
before in this House? For the first time ever, a gag was put on
committee proceedings. That is really something. Was there an
emergency? Was there an imminent political crisis? Was there a
11019
state of war? No. But the government was eager to fulfil its
commitments to its friends in the railway companies.
D (1330)
The government wanted to do a job on the CN collective
agreements, in order to be able to sell the company for less. This
is the goal it was aiming for and that is why, throughout last
week, the government did things I really did not like. One of our
hon. colleagues, the government whip, even stated yesterday
that the Bloc was costing the taxpayers $17,000 a hour, all for
nothing. We, in the official opposition, were blamed for having
these sittings. We, in the official opposition, in a democracy,
were blamed for making Parliament work. Here was someone
complaining because we have a Parliament. With this kind of
arguments, we will soon be without a Parliament at all, we will
just have to close shop.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bouchard: What are we debating here this weekend? I
understand that the government is very unhappy to be working
on Saturday and Sunday-maybe not as unhappy as NDP
members, our allies in the defence of social causes, who have
not shown up at all during these two days-but are we not
dealing with some important issues? We did not come here this
weekend to talk about trivial things. We came here to talk about
Canadian democracy. We came here to try and find a way to
reconcile two fundamental rights, namely the right of citizens to
have access to public services, in this case rail transport, and the
right of unions and workers to negotiate their own working
conditions instead of having these conditions imposed on them
by the government or by an arbitration commission.
Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the Bloc Quebecois is proud
of the way it has defended the rights of workers in this dispute.
Even if we were the last party left in this House to defend the
rights of workers, and it seems to be the case, we would be proud
to do so. It is a tribute to Canadian democracy and I think that we
should be recognized for doing this job for and in the place of the
Liberals who have abandoned their traditional creed and who,
just like the New Democrats, frightened by the right wing wind
that has been blowing in this House since the arrival of the
Reform Party, have caved in to the pressure in a situation which,
normally, would not have warranted this course of action.
All the Liberals who are here have made speeches in the
House in the past to defend the very same viewpoint that we are
defending today. I am sure that they feel bad and that they regret
giving in to the pressure from the Reform Party because soon
there will be only one party in Canada apart from the Bloc, and it
will be the Reform Party and what it stands for.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bouchard: Of course, there will be consequences. The
government may have conducted fifteen polls over the last
week-a government has money to conduct polls-and these
polls may have shown that people in English Canada support the
Liberals' position, but it has to be careful not to be shortsighted.
This situation will have far-reaching effects and the
government, having chosen to have working conditions imposed
by a third party, will find itself in an awkward situation when it
is all over.
I wonder how the government will be able to sell CN if the
labour relations climate in that company is what it could become
after this move by the government. I hope not, but the climate
may not be very good. When employees are legislated back to
work and, especially, when they know that their terms and
conditions of employment will be determined by a third party,
that nothing will be up to them to decide and that vested rights
will be dropped, the climate may not be very conducive to
efficient privatization.
Furthermore, this government feels it made a tremendous
concession by promising, and in fact this is in the bill, to have
judges chair the arbitration commissions. I have every respect
for judges. I am a lawyer, and I know we have the best judges
anyone could wish. The integrity of our judicial system is
beyond question, and I am glad to have an opportunity to say
this, but because of that integrity, our judges will act according
to the mandate they are given.
What will that mandate be? If we look at clause 12, we see that
the arbitrators will have an extremely narrow mandate to work
with. The arbitrators have no flexibility because they will have
to make their decisions strictly on the basis of economic
viability and competitiveness in the short and longer term. This
means, and I refer to the people who accept these appointments,
that their hands are tied, and I know several people who will
refuse to sit on these commissions. There are decent people who
will refuse to sit under those conditions because they do not
have enough latitude to hand down a fair judgment. I am not
saying that those who do accept are any less decent, and I have
every respect for them, but they will be working within a very
restrictive framework where they will have no flexibility and
will have to more or less accept the employers' arguments, one
by one.
(1335)
They are going to change the role of the arbitrators as well, or
at least try, by turning them into the employers' allies. The
Minister of Transport probably had something to do with that as
well.
I wish the Minister of Labour, in her initial performance as
minister, had been more impervious to the power-hungry
demands of the Department of Transport's appetite for power.
11020
We can only hope that everything will turn out well. I hope
so. But the trouble with this debate is that the government tried
to suppress it. The government tried to suppress the debate.
This government does not like debate. It does not like
dissenting opinions. This government will only give in to its
own impulses.
In concluding, we will vote against this legislation, of course,
and we hope that in the future, the Department of Labour will
take a more objective stand and will act more responsibly with
respect to its obligations to the parties, both employees and
employers, because there are not only employers, there are also
employees.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we are sitting here today on a Sunday, I am told, for the
first time in the history of Parliament at a cost of $25,000 an
hour.
Why are we here? We are here because of very vindictive,
narrow minded, malicious partisan politics brought on us by
members of the Bloc Quebecois. They have done it for two
reasons.
They have done it, and it seems appropriate, to try to get their
separatist movement back on the tracks. It seems they do not
care what else they derail in the process of doing it. Also they
have done it to hit the Liberal Minister of Labour in her home
area of the Montreal docks. This is the kind of vindictive
partisan politics that makes this place something less than the
public has a right to expect. That is the reason we are here this
weekend.
The reason we are here at all, however, is that the Liberal
government did not act as quickly on the matter as it could and
did not act long before it happened to prevent it from happening
in the first place.
The reason that we come to Parliament is twofold. First, it is
to bring solutions for new problems such as the drunk defence. It
was something that was not anticipated but it came about and
requires legislation to repair it. Second, we come here to provide
solutions to all problems brought forward by the parties and
people of the past, problems such as the budget.
We try to find permanent solutions to different problems, not
stop gap ones. It does little good to sit in Parliament and come up
with a solution that will have to be repeated year after year. The
solution to the transportation problem has to be a permanent
one. The Liberals have failed to do it in the past and their current
legislation fails to address the permanent need for a solution as
well.
Transportation strikes are not new. Turning to recent history
the Vancouver port was out in 1994 and back to work legislation
was brought in. What was wrong with the legislation? There
were two things wrong. First, as in this case it took too long to
come forward. There was a lot of economic pain and suffering
by people far beyond the port of Vancouver. We will never
recover from some of that damage. Second, the Liberals brought
in something relatively new by way of settlement, final
settlement offer legislation.
(1340 )
That is something I favour but it was wrong in the way they
did it in that specific case, the reason being that the two parties
had bargained on the basis of an old system. When they were
given the new system they were not given the opportunity to go
back to the table to try to resolve the problem using the benefits
of the new type of settlement. The concept was good but the
method in which it was done was not as good as it could have
been.
Then there was another Vancouver strike in 1995. That time it
took only two days for the Liberals to act to get the port, which is
very crucial to the entire Canadian transportation structure,
back to work.
What is interesting is that we have the Bloc Quebecois sitting
down the way, these brand new saviours of the labour movement
in Canada. These were identical situations. In neither case did
we hear a single word from the Bloc Quebecois. I reject its
rationale for being the great voice of labour this time. It is
nothing but petty partisan politics.
Now we have a rail strike affecting all of Canada. The Liberal
legislation that is coming forward does not resolve the short
term wrong because of the method of arbitration. The Liberals
have gone back on the solution they used in Vancouver in 1994
and have gone to straight binding arbitration. Hopefully the two
parties will be able to get together during the mediation period
and resolve some of the differences. However the most
outstanding issue, that of job security, is unlikely to be resolved
through regular bargaining across the table.
When it comes time to move to the arbitration settlement we
have an arbitration council set up with one representative of the
union, one representative of the company which is owned by the
government, and one representative selected by the government.
Is there anyone in the House who has any doubt about how the
arbitration will come out?
The whole way in which labour negotiations are carried out is
unbalanced and unfair in our modern society. If the employees
of a whole chain of grocery stores in the Ottawa area including
all the surrounding communities went out on strike or were
locked out for some reason, it would be primarily between the
employees and the owners of the store. People would be
inconvenienced but they have alternatives. Life would go on.
The general economy would not be hurt.
However it is absolutely unthinkable that we would have the
police standing by watching someone being mugged or raped
because the police were out on strike. It is equally unthinkable
that we would have a fireman standing by on a sidewalk
11021
watching a house burn, perhaps with a small child inside,
because the firemen were out on strike.
For 22 years I was an air traffic controller. During that time
there were two strikes, both of very short duration. In both cases
the controllers were legislated back to work. In both cases when
the controllers were on strike they did not picket because they
recognized that a relative handful of people had too catastrophic
an effect on the entire air transportation industry and it would be
unfair and unrealistic to put up a picket line.
It ended up that air traffic controllers to this day retain the
right to strike but each and every controller is designated in the
event of a strike to provide minimum safety services. It has been
decreed and declared in court that those minimum services are
everything they do. The reality is that they can go on strike but
they still report to work, the only difference being that their
contract is null and void. They are in great jeopardy of having
something legislated that bears no resemblance to their old
contract.
We penalize certain groups of people in society because they
are important. We have to come up with some kind of alternative
so that we can fairly deal with people who are important. If we
can come up with something that is fair and equitable, why
should we not look at broadening the type of system it replaces?
Long ago in the history of mankind people lived in caves.
They had no fire for a long period of time. They got their food by
going out with clubs and hunting down wild animals. We have
progressed from that. We progressed into the Middle Ages when
there was slavery and continuous ongoing wars. We evolved
further and developed North America. Still there were very
tough times. There were winters when many peopled starved to
death. There were diseases for which there was no treatment.
There was a lack of help for people in any situation. The changes
that have taken place are evolutionary. This is the way we
progressed and evolved into the society we have now.
(1345)
Unions started in the 19th century because companies were
oppressive. The managers and owners of certain big industries
were absolutely brutal in their unfair treatment of workers. That
was the origin of unions. Then we got into the process we have
today, this concept of negotiation and strike when agreements
could not be reached.
That started in the 19th century. As we approach the 21st
century is it not realistic to think there should be some evolution
in the process of trade unionism and in labour/management
negotiations? It is time for evolution to take place in that area as
well.
Most collective bargaining ends up in a settlement. I have
talked to many unions and they believe this happens because
they always have a hammer, the option of a strike. We must
reinvent the hammer. The new hammer, unless someone has a
better idea, which I have not heard anyone bring forward, is final
offer settlement arbitration; the very hammer the government
used for the legislation to settle the Vancouver port strike in
1994.
When given the proper time to be dealt with, this tends to
settle most if not all of the differences between the two parties.
It then brings the parties as close as possible on all the remaining
issues so that each party can get into the most reasonable
position so that position will be selected during the final
arbitration.
The government needs to carefully design legislation to deal
with a new form of labour settlement. The loss we have
experienced in this strike goes beyond the transportation
industry and beyond the strike itself. There are many types of
transportation that will be set up now that will shortcut our
ports. They will get goods as quickly as possible across the
border into the United States and be sent from there. There are
also many ships that have now found that instead of dealing on
the east coast of Canada they can deal more reliably on the east
coast of the United States.
Rail unions and their companies, other companies, workers,
farmers and Canadians have paid a very heavy price for this
strike. Let it not be in vain.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to continue the debate on Bill
C-77, the Maintenance of Railway Operations Act, 1995, in
order to ensure the country is not deprived of vital rail services
essential to the economic well-being of Canadians.
My riding of Windsor-St. Clair is the beginning of the
Quebec-Windsor corridor, or the end depending which way you
look at it. In Windsor we think it is the beginning.
Thursday night and Friday morning I was in Windsor. I went
to the VIA rail station, to the CN yards and to the CP yards. I
spoke to the people on the line. I spoke to the people who have
been telephoning my office and who have been asking to return
to work.
The Ford plant in Windsor was slowed down. The Ford plant
in Talbotville just east of my riding was closed, all because of
the rail strike. People in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada are out
of work. People in Quebec are out of work. These people are out
of work and the Leader of the Opposition stood here today and
told us that suddenly he is filled with the milk of human
kindness for collective bargaining.
Where was he on December 15, 1989? Where was he when the
cabinet and Parliament enacted the Government Services Re-
11022
sumption Act? The parties were the Treasury Board and the
Public Service Alliance of Canada. The Leader of the
Opposition was in the cabinet.
(1350)
There were two conciliation boards established and there
were enforcement procedures, binding arbitration on the public
sector. Where was the Leader of the Opposition?
[Translation]
The Leader of the Opposition was here. He voted yes to back
to work legislation providing arbitration for public sector
employees.
[English]
He was here. He voted yes and he put the public servants back
to work. Where is he today? He is voting no. I ask why. All
Canadians should ask why. The people of Quebec should ask
why.
Could it be that he is trying to curry favour with the unions in
Quebec? Could it be that he thinks they are so foolish, so naive,
so stupid they will vote for separation because he turned his
back on what he voted on in 1989? Could that be? I think not.
The people of Quebec who are out of work want to go back to
work. The people in Windsor who are out of work want to go
back to work. The people of Canada want to go back to work.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to be able to speak for a few minutes on this very
important matter. I want to say that Canada needs new labour
relations and it needs a government capable of imposing
leadership in this regard. Leadership in this regard means that it
must establish that employers have rights, and so they do, but
that employers must respect the rights of their employees.
In Quebec, we can say that we entered a new era of labour
relations some ten years ago. This happened because we went
through a major crisis and because employers and employees
realized that they needed each other and that each had to respect
the other so they could come to terms with the new economy.
The federal government could have shown the way today in
this time of crisis, because this transformation in the economy is
a time of crisis. It is showing the way backwards, back to a time
before labour laws empowered workers to counterbalance this
extremely powerful economic force ever so slightly.
We are entering an era where the economy seems to be the sole
force. Only states, governments and parties would seem to be
able to stop the relentless march of the force to globalize the
economy that is sweeping everything in its path.
This is why we consider it so important right now for the
government, for the government of this country we live in, to
assume its responsibilities and affirm that there is more than just
the economy. Yes, the economy is important, but people too are
important and respect for people is important. It is true today for
the unions, but tomorrow it will be true for individuals, who are
not entitled to unionize or have no opportunity to do so; they too
will be swept aside by the relentless advance of this force to
globalize the economy.
People will have to stand up and let it be known that there is
more than just the economy. The economy is important, but
other things are important too.
The Minister of Labour had the opportunity to show that she
considered the need for railways to be viable and competitive.
(1355)
But, at the same time, she could have given the judge the
mandate of looking at what the workers had gained over the
years and of trying to reach a balance, so that when the workers
returned to work, when they started to look to their future, they
would envision co-operation between them and management.
Instead, she gave one mandate: short and long term viability
and competitiveness, while keeping good labour-management
relations in mind. Anyone with any knowledge whatsoever of
labour relations knows that giving such a mandate to a judge,
who has the last say, constitutes a major change of course.
I am sad to see that, instead of giving workers a minimum
guarantee in one of her first laws, the Minister of Labour chose
to give in to the government's commercial and financial
demands.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Lalonde: It is regrettable and deplorable. I think that
Quebecers will also remember this when they have to make
important choices regarding their future. They will remember
that the woman the government chose to lead the referendum
fight was forced to use strong-arm tactics, was put in a situation
where she could not even choose to be impartial, which was
what we expected her to be.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to make, of course,
regarding an event in ancient history, December 14, 1989. Let us
go way back when, back to an era where the hon. member for
Lac-Saint-Jean championed different causes than those he
defends today.
On December 14, 1989, this House adopted Bill C-149,
bringing public servants back to work.
An hon. member: Who did this?
Mr. Boudria: A Conservative government. Just look at what
was forced on recalcitrant workers at the time: a fine of $500 to
11023
$1,000 per day for each worker; $10,000 to $50,000 per day for
union representatives; $50,000 to $100,000 per day for union
bosses.
Would you like to know which parliamentarians voted for
such draconian measures way back then? Here is the list of those
who said yes to such a bill. The hon. member opposite knows all
about voting yes. I will read off a few names: Atkinson, Beatty,
Blackburn, Bosley, whoops! Bouchard, Lac-Saint-Jean. Just
look what I discovered.
(1400)
The Speaker: The hon. chief whip for the government has
only a few seconds left to conclude his remarks, after which we
will allow the hon. member for Mercier to reply.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I had almost forgotten who
exactly was responsible for imposing arbitration on public
servants, with the same type of bill as this one. Who am I talking
about? The Conservative members sitting at the time. And as I
said a moment ago, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, in an
earlier incarnation as a Conservative, also voted at that time in
favour of similar measures.
I would ask the member opposite what brought about this
sudden conversion of the member for Lac-Saint-Jean. Perhaps
she can explain to us the virtue by which the member for
Lac-Saint-Jean and his colleagues are now possessed, but by
which it seems they were not troubled on December 14, 1989?
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I believe that at that time the
hon. members opposite had voted against this measure. I also
believe that, when they were elected, they gave not the slightest
indication that if this sort of situation arose this is what they
would do.
As for the reasons behind the evolution of the Leader of the
Opposition, I can tell you that I know, and he has said so himself,
that he has evolved in many areas, and that he has no problem
defending himself.
And I know that those members who are now laughing
promised not to do what they are doing. And they are supposed
to be ``liberals''.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
The Speaker: In keeping with the letter and spirit of the law,
the hon. member has approximately 90 seconds. The hon.
member for Lethbridge.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to state the case in one question for the hon. member for
Mercier.
We are discussing back to work legislation for the purpose of
protecting a third party which is being injured, the exporters, the
shippers. What has happened in this House is that the Bloc
Quebecois has attempted to move the discussion into the future
of collective bargaining. No one is talking about that. That is not
the purpose of this debate.
We are not saying it should be done away with. All the Reform
Party has said and what we are saying in this debate is that a third
party is being injured. The Leader of the Official Opposition did
not mention and was not even concerned about the economy or
the exporters and farmers, the people who are being hurt. He was
not one bit concerned.
It is time for the Bloc Quebecois members to admit whether
they are concerned in the least about the third party we are
talking about here, the people who are being injured, and
Canada's broad economy. They are being injured by this delay,
this nonsense and politics which are going on by the Bloc
Quebecois.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have two things to say. The first
is that in life as in labour relations everyone finds himself at one
time or another in the role of third party. Let me tell you a story.
One day I picked up a worker who was furious because the
subway was not running outside peak hours, because in Quebec
we have essential services during a strike. This health worker
said to me: ``I hope this is over soon. When we go on strike,
people want to see us back at work as quickly as possible''. We
are always the third party in somebody's eyes. It is important
that we remember this when it comes to labour relations. That is
my first reply.
My second is that there should be an anti-strikebreaking law
in Canada because 75 per cent of workers in other Canadian
provinces are covered by one.
And thirdly-
[English]
If the Canadian economy cannot afford the Canada Labour
Code, then there is a problem. The government should say so
and do something about it.
The Speaker: It being 2.03 p.m., pursuant to the order made
Saturday, March 25, 1995, it is my duty to interrupt the
proceedings and put all questions necessary to dispose of the
third reading stage of the bill now before the House.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
11024
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 184)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Barnes
Beaumier
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Easter
English
Flis
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Gouk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Hanrahan
Hart
Hickey
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
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
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Payne
Penson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Rompkey
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Skoke
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Young -137
NAYS
Members
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bouchard
Bélisle
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Mercier
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)-39
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Bellemare
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Canuel
Chamberlain
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Gaffney
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Marchand
Peric
Peterson
Sauvageau
Zed
(1425 )
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I wonder if you
might seek consent that we suspend the sitting of the House now
until the royal assent, which we anticipate later this day, on the
understanding that the House would reconvene only for the
purpose of attending for the royal assent. The House would
adjourn immediately thereafter until tomorrow.
[Translation]
Mr. Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, before giving consent, I would
like to speak to the motion, as we are allowed to do at this stage
on motions such as this one.
(1430)
The Speaker: With unanimous consent, we can do anything
we please in this House. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Roberval has the floor.
11025
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to
speak, he will have to deal with the motion we will be moving
in this House. I suggest therefore that the Orders of the Day
be called.
[English]
The Speaker: I did call Orders of the Day. I was looking for
unanimous consent to the motion put forward by the member. I
am going to ask once again.
A motion was put forward by the hon. member for Kingston
and the Islands asking for unanimous consent. Did I
misunderstand? That is the motion that I put to the House. It is
very simple. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, we just finished giving third
reading to this bill providing for the resumption of work by rail
workers.
[English]
The Speaker: I see I am going to have to put the motion first,
if the hon. secretary of state will excuse me.
* * *
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.) moved:
That, immediately following the adoption of this Order, the sitting shall be
suspended and shall be reconvened for the sole purpose of attending a Royal
Assent;
Provided that, immediately upon return from the said Royal Assent, the
House shall be adjourned to the next sitting day;
Provided that if the House has not been reconvened for the purpose of
attending a Royal Assent by 10 a.m. on Monday, March 27, 1995, it shall, at that
time, be reconvened for the sole purpose of being adjourned until 11 a.m. March
27, 1995.
[
Translation]
He said: The purpose of this motion is to suspend the sitting of
the House while the other place passes this bill and ensure that,
by tomorrow, railway operations will have resumed in our
country, so that, for instance, the people from the suburbs of
Montreal who commute by train can do so tomorrow.
The other day, the Leader of the Opposition congratulated the
Minister of Labour on having resolved the conflict in the port of
Montreal. But now the port of Montreal is cluttered with
containers and, if trains could get rolling as soon as possible,
they could be shipped out. This way, factories would get the
parts they need and workers could keep working.
That is why, for the last time, we ask the opposition to give
consent to suspending the sitting of the House to allow this
legislation to be enacted today and railway operations to resume
tomorrow. I know that my colleague, the House leader of the
opposition wishes to speak, but I hope that after he has done so,
the sitting of the House can be suspended to ensure that this
legislation be given royal assent before the day is over.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Members opposite
have no need to worry about my wish to speak to this motion,
Mr. Speaker. I have no intention of beating, or even getting close
to, the recent parliamentary record for the longest speech on a
motion, which was set by the current Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans in the last Parliament when he spoke for three hours on a
fisheries bill. Despite the Deputy Prime Minister's invitation, I
have no intention of beating this time record, far from it.
Some matters must be clarified before we agree to adjourn.
(1435)
Last Monday, when the government and the opposition faced
off on the rail transportation problem, we had no idea that we
would sit until today, Sunday, before solving this serious
problem. We were prepared from the first and sincerely believed
that it was possible to settle this matter very quickly with a
minimum of co-operation.
This past week was certainly not democracy week in Canada's
Parliament. In fact, the government set parliamentary rules
aside four times in order to pass this bill. This week, they set
aside the rights of CN workers as well as the very rule of free
collective bargaining in Canada. This was certainly not the most
glorious week for the government and the new Minister of
Labour.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gauthier: This was neither democracy week nor a very
good week for the Minister of Labour, who will go down in
history as the ultimate trigger-happy minister, who rejected all
the recommendations in the conciliator's report, who refused to
discuss the matter with the opposition, who refused to keep an
open mind in this debate, who refused to co-operate with the
people on this side in order to settle the labour dispute.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gauthier: During this debate, and particularly at third
reading, members opposite referred to previous debates during
which the Leader of the Opposition or other members may have
held different views. But we are quite comfortable with that.
After all, let us not forget that the Prime Minister and leader of
this government fought tooth and nail against free trade, leading
an extraordinary charge which lasted for months and which was
also part of his leadership campaign. Back then, all the members
opposite were against free trade, whereas today they extoll the
virtues of NAFTA.
11026
If the Liberals want to talk about changing one's views, that
is fine with us. Remember when they lambasted the previous
Conservative government for making cuts to the UI program.
Canadians and Quebecers are not stupid. The Liberals blasted
the Conservative government regarding these changes to the UI
program. Yet, as soon as they took office, the Liberals set out
to do twice as much damage as the previous government had
done.
Before adjourning, let us remember how hard these Liberals
fought to protect social housing in Canada. Now that they form
the government, they cut all the budgets for social housing.
These are the people we are dealing with, across the floor.
We, as well as Canadian and Quebec workers, will remember
the Minister of Labour and her government, which imposed four
special motions to suspend the normal rules of Parliament. The
first one, on Wednesday, March 22, 1995, was a time allocation
motion limiting to one hour the debate at second reading. For
those who are listening to us, the debate at second reading
consists in examining the principle underlying the bill.
(1440)
When we are preparing to change the rules of the labour
relations game, following the conciliator's report, it seems
rather presumptuous to us, to say the least, not to allow
Parliament to speak for at least a few hours on the principle of
this bill. Only one hour to discuss the principle of the bill.
Secondly, on March 22 as well, a second motion on the
allocation of time, unheard of in Canadian Parliament, limiting
the work of the committee to four hours. Why? Why not allow
the committee a few hours to discuss the bill as a whole? It had
only four hours and was obliged to stop its deliberations at 9
p.m., when it could easily have carried on until 10 p.m. or 11
p.m.
This is the strongest evidence that the government and the
Minister of Labour never had the intention of listening to what
the opposition had to say.
At 10 a.m., on Thursday March 23, even before the House
began its proceedings, with no discussion between the
government and the office of the Opposition House Leader and
without any prior negotiations, the government decided, by
tabling a particular motion here in this House, that we would sit
Saturday and Sunday. It was not the opposition that decided this.
It was at the government's request, and it is in the Hansard.
A fourth time allocation motion, on Saturday, March 26,
again limited the work of the House, this time to three hours.
How in all seriousness can they have so little respect for
workers' rights? How can they not want to listen for one second
to what duly elected members want to say to the government? At
no time, it must be said, did the opposition take a stand outside
the rules of Parliament. We simply refused to suspend the rules
of this House. We wanted the debate to take place in the same
way as most, if not all, parliamentary debates, that is, through
the normal process of discussion.
At no time did I ever say to the government, to the press or to
the electronic media that we wanted to filibuster this bill. On the
contrary, I have always reminded the government and citizens
that the opposition realizes that we have to resolve the railway
dispute quickly yet responsibly and without contravening
parliamentary rules, in order to avoid the economic problems
associated with a lingering dispute.
Although there was no indication whatsoever that we wanted
to delay the work, no indication whatsoever that we wanted to
put the bill off until later, the government decided to introduce
no less than four special motions, one of which, need I remind
the House, was to sit Saturday and Sunday.
I was surprised. I was disappointed yesterday when the hon.
government whip said that this was something absolutely
unusual and wrong, and that we should not be sitting Saturday
and Sunday, because it costs $17,000 an hour to run Parliament,
and a little more to do it on Sunday. As if democracy did not
warrant Parliament's decision to run as long as it sees fit, as long
as it takes to solve problems affecting the citizens of this
country.
It is utterly unacceptable that a debate on a point as basic as
the right to strike or the right of workers to have their say on the
issue comes down to a question of how many thousands of
dollars it costs an hour.
(1445)
As for the Deputy Prime Minister, she called members of the
opposition stupid-what gall-because we talked about
workers' rights. I have never seen such a thing. In the eight and a
half years that I have been a parliamentarian, this is the first
time that I have seen a Deputy Prime Minister stoop to so low an
insult in describing the attitude of the opposition, which never
did any filibustering, but merely wanted to ensure that
parliamentary rules, the rules imposed on us by members
opposite, were respected.
Mr. Loubier: Insult is the weapon of the people.
Mr. Gauthier: Before agreeing to let the House adjourn, I
just wish to remind you and the population that, during the
debate on this matter, the Minister of Labour refused to make the
slightest concession allowing the workers not to disrupt rail
transportation but to return to work and be heard. As even the
conciliator admitted, the workers were not given the opportunity
to be heard.
We asked the government to give the workers a chance to be
heard by imposing a return to work. We agree that they should go
back to work, but they should be given a chance to be heard
without the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. The
Minister of Labour rejected this minimum demand by the
11027
opposition, which would have allowed us to settle the whole
dispute as early as Monday.
Do not forget that, instead of agreeing to or discussing this
demand, the Minister of Labour and the government adopted a
hammer-like approach in conducting parliamentary
proceedings this week. This is not democracy week; it is a
record for a new minister recently elected to this Parliament to
flout parliamentary rules four times in order to speed up debate
and settle this matter as quickly as possible without any respect
whatsoever for those involved.
Furthermore, I would remind you that the Minister of Labour
made a statement in this House which was quite surprising,
coming as it did from a new member of Parliament who, we
personally believed, wanted to advance labour relations. On
March 22, the Minister of Labour said this:
Let us be realistic: Kruger is closed, while Bécancour, Alcan and Petromont are
in the process of shutting down. Let us do something, Mr. Speaker.
That is what the Minister of Labour said. Are those the words
of a serious-minded person? Who would make such alarmist
remarks, when Alcan never ceased operating, Bécancour never
shut down, Kruger was closed for no more than 24 hours and
Petromont remained open? Is it the responsible thing to do for a
government minister to use scare tactics to settle a dispute?
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gauthier: Not only is this minister the bludgeon
minister, but she is the minister of economic terrorism. This
gives a good idea of what to expect in the Quebec referendum
debate.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gauthier: Imagine the Quebec referendum debate, in
which she is supposed to represent this government. She was
called in because the government wanted to have a credible
spokesperson in Quebec. No sooner is she in that her first move
as Minister of Labour is to violate the rights of the workers. How
so? Through economic terrorism.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, we cannot suspend the sitting of
this House without first giving the people of Quebec this piece
of advice: remember what the Minister of Labour did. Workers,
whether unionized or not, do not forget how she handled her first
labour relations assignment. Remember how she tried to scare
people. Remember her arguments, arguments that turned out to
be untrue. Remember that the Minister of Labour is to blame for
the worst week we have gone though since we were elected to
this Parliament.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1450)
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Reform Party and my colleagues here today support the motion
before us because we want to get on with the job. We want this to
move to the Senate and we want to have royal assent today. That
is the responsible thing to do at this time.
I also want to talk about democracy. The House leader for the
Bloc Quebecois tries to epitomize democracy in the House. If
members listen very carefully they will see his definition of
democracy. One moment he talks about being for the worker.
The next moment he talks about fighting for the economy of
Canada. The next moment he is saying something about
management. Very soon he is talking about the responsibilities
of the Minister of Labour and how she should be involved.
He is all over the place. I cannot understand any kind of
definition of democracy in these guttural utterances. It is a
delaying tactic in dealing with some very important legislation
before us that must move to the other place.
I would like to say to the Bloc Quebecois that democracy is
representing those who need representation in an emergency
situation. This is demonstrated by the legislation before us.
We have had a group of people who needed immediate
representation. There are the shippers, the exporters, the
farmers and a number of other people who are innocent third
parties who cannot be involved in the collective bargaining
process. They are in need of representation in a democracy so
that they have equal opportunity. What we have done in moving
third reading is say those people are going to be represented in
our system and are not going to be injured in any way. It is time
to recognize that is an important aspect in this democratic
process.
On that basis we urge the support for the motion before us,
that the House rises until the call of the Chair, that we resume
and give royal assent so that tomorrow the transportation system
is operating and taking its rightful responsibility.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Speaker: Is it the wish of the House to suspend the sitting
to the call of the Chair?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 2.55 p.m.)
11028
The House resumed at 5.15 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House
that a message has been received from the Senate informing the
House that the Senate has passed certain bills, to which the
concurrence of this House is desired.
_____________________________________________
11028
THE ROYAL ASSENT
[
English]
The Deputy Speaker: Order. I have the honour to inform the
House that a communication has been received as follows:
Rideau Hall
March 26, 1995
Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Antonio Lamer, Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Attorney
General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 26th day of March, 1995,
at 5.15 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to several bills.
Yours sincerely,
Anthony P. Smyth,
Deputy Secretary, Policy, Program and Protocol
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the
Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the
immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the
honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the
Senate chamber.
[Translation]
And being returned:
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House
that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber the Deputy
Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name,
the Royal Assent to the following bills:
Bill C-59, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax
Application Rules-Chapter 3.
Bill C-60, An Act respecting an agreement between Her Majesty in right of
Canada and the Pictou Landing Indian Band-Chapter 4.
Bill C-47, An Act to amend the Department of External Affairs Act and to
make related amendments to other Acts-Chapter 5.
Bill C-77, An Act to provide for the maintenance of railway operations and
subsidiary services-Chapter 6.
Bill C-216, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act-Chapter 7.
It being 5.32 p.m. the House stands adjourned until 11 a.m.
tomorrow.
(The House adjourned at 5.32 p.m.)