Bill C-39 (Historical)

Restoring Rail Service Act

An Act to provide for the continuation and resumption of rail service operations

This enactment provides for the continuation and resumption of rail service operations and imposes a binding arbitration process to resolve matters remaining in dispute between the parties.

Restoring Rail Service Act

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Labour]

moved that Bill C-39, An Act to provide for the continuation and resumption of rail service operations, be read the second time and referred to a committee of the whole.

Mr. Speaker--

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. We will start the debate now and if members wish to carry on conversations I would invite them to do so on either side of the chamber in one of the lobbies.

The hon. Minister of Labour has the floor.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was just north of here, in Bonfield township, where the first spike was driven into our national rail system back in 1880. In the 132 years since, this transcontinental link has become a defining feature of our nation. Indeed, our country's history is linked to our railway system. From the shores of the St. Lawrence River, across the endless expanse of the Canadian Shield and the Prairies, through the majestic Rockies and over the rugged terrain of British Columbia, it has been the ribbon of steel that binds our country together.

Our government understands the historic connection that so many Canadians have to our rail service, but it is not just part of Canadian heritage. Much more than historical significance, Canada's rail system continues to be an integral part of our country's economic, trade and transportation needs.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I hate to interrupt the hon. minister once again but it is very difficult for the Chair to hear what she is saying and some members are having similar difficulties. If members who wish to remain in the chamber could just keep their conversations until later or, if they feel the need to converse with their colleagues, they can do so in either of the lobbies conveniently located on either side of the chamber.

The hon. Minister of Labour has the floor.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians may not even realize just how great the railways impact on the economy. I want members to consider these facts. Canada has the third largest rail network in the world and it handles the fourth largest volume of goods in the world. Two-thirds of Canada's rail traffic moves transborder and overseas trade. In fact, 40% of Canada's exports rely on rail transportation. With no trains running, the implications of this strike are widespread.

Let us take a look at Canadian Pacific Railways book of business.

Transport Canada reported that in 2010 CP Rail handled 74% of all potash, 57% of all wheat, 53% of all coal and 39% of all containers within Canada. In terms of revenue on an annual basis, this represents $5 billion worth of potash, $11.1 billion worth of grain and $5.25 billion worth of coal.

In addition to moving the potash, the wheat and the coal, the bulk commodities, this work stoppage is also impacting the manufacturing sector, the auto industry specifically. Auto parts are the third largest container import good that enters Canada through the west coast ports. This work stoppage is preventing these parts from being shipped to manufacturers here in Ontario.

Along with some members of our caucus, last evening I met with representatives of car manufacturers who told me that without the parts they need, assembly lines will slow down or stop, resulting in lost production and, depending on the duration of the work stoppage, possible layoffs affecting all auto manufacturers.

In regard to container traffic, $200 million of cargo is traded through the port of Vancouver alone every day. That cargo is destined for Canada's economic trading partners and the homes of hard-working Canadian families.

The economic impact stretches even further as Canada's rail companies paid $787 million in fuel last year, property taxes, sales and other forms of taxes in 2010, and over $2.5 billion annually in wages and benefits. That is the money that circulates through the entire Canadian economy. I think members can understand why our government is so concerned about the work stoppage at CP Rail and the fact that activity has been ground to a halt.

I want to be clear. Resorting to a work stoppage is not the norm for labour relations here in Canada. In fact, it is just the opposite. When the labour program is engaged through mediation and conciliation officers, 94% of negotiations and disputes are actually resolved without a work stoppage. We do see this, undoubtedly, as the better option.

When parties choose to resolve their differences, both the employers and the unions carefully consider the importance of maintaining the strength, the viability and the competitiveness of their operations. When parties choose to resolve their differences, they are recognizing that work stoppages and labour instability leads to long-term and generally detrimental impacts on the future of their company, on job prospects for new employees, on the customers they serve and on the national economy. However, that has not happened in this case and we are on day seven of a work stoppage.

There is no denying that negotiated agreements work. As we have always said, the best and the longest lasting solution to any labour dispute is when the parties come to an agreement at the table. However, there are instances when the parties are just too far apart to reach a compromise.

Let us look at the current dispute. In the case before us between CP Rail and the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, there have been repeated efforts to break the impasse and the parties have tried to reach contracts for all the people who are involved. The TCRC, the teamsters, and the CP Rail representatives actually started negotiating in October and November 2011. The main issues in this round of bargaining for both units are important. They are pensions, health care benefits and working conditions.

However, by mid-February of this year I received notices of dispute from the employer for both units indicating that they needed some labour intervention. We provided the parties with the services of two conciliation officers for both unions' bargaining units. It made sense to have the same conciliation officers for both units so that we could have some consistency in the process.

Unfortunately, reconciliation was not achieved and, quite frankly, things have not progressed toward negotiated agreements. As such, the parties were released from conciliation on May 1.

On May 16, I met with the representatives in Calgary where I proposed a five point plan that would have provided extended mediation services for 120 days to the parties, as well as have a third party expert in pensions at the table, which would have delayed the possibility of a work stoppage. This was in recognition of the difficulties the parties had in terms of negotiations. Unfortunately, the union rejected this offer and the work stoppage began on May 23.

Even after the strike commenced, we provided assistance to the parties every single day.

However, on Sunday, May 27, the mediators tabled draft terms for voluntary arbitration that represented, in their view, a compromise solution to help address the impasse and avoid back-to-work legislation. In very short order, in under an hour, both parties rejected this compromise voluntary arbitration.

As a result, the officials from Labour Canada withdrew their services because, in their opinion, they determined that the positions of both parties were so entrenched that no forward motion was possible.

In situations where no resolution is in sight, where a strike is ongoing and the lives of Canadians and the health of the economy are being affected, the government has no option but to act. Indeed, the government has an obligation to act, which is why our government is introducing Bill C-39. It would end the work stoppage but it would also provide the parties with an interest-based arbitration process to help them resolve their conflict with the help of an arbitrator.

I can assure my hon. colleagues that this was not our first choice. Members on this side of the House do believe in the right to collective bargaining and would much prefer to see labour disputes resolved by the parties involved, as it is done a vast majority of the time. Our government only intervenes in situations where the public interest is seriously threatened, which is the case today.

History will show that, in 1995, the Liberal government at the time was faced with the same economic situation as a result of a rail labour dispute. It was during the debate on the back-to-work legislation in 1995 that the Liberal labour minister, Lucienne Robillard, stated in the House of Commons:

We would be lacking in our duty to the people of Canada if we allowed a work stoppage in the railway sector to threaten the stability of our economy and the jobs of the thousands of workers affected by this dispute.

It is this duty to Canadians and to our economy that I am asking for this House to support Bill C-39, an act to provide for the continuation and resumption of rail service operations. It is because there is so much at stake for individual rail workers, the company, businesses and their employees who depend upon CP's services and, quite frankly, ultimately, the economic recovery itself.

I would ask hon. members to ask their constituents, particularly the businesses in a constituency. I know what they will hear. They will hear that we cannot afford an extended work stoppage in one of Canada's most important transportation systems. The risks to jobs, to corporate profits and Canada's global competitiveness, frankly, are too great. Like other industrialized economies around the world, Canada is coming out of a difficult economic period.

While our government is proud of our record of sheltering Canadians from the worst effects of the downturn and laying the foundation for recovery, we all read the papers every day.

We all know our country is not immune, however, to currents in the world economy, events beyond our borders over which we have no control. We have uncertainty in Europe at the moment, and there very well could be more turbulence in the days and months ahead. Therefore now is not the time to risk our economy, especially considering that we are making steady progress in creating jobs and restoring consumer and investor confidence.

I do want to remind my hon. colleagues that as of April 2012 our unemployment rate has dropped to 7.3%. That is a definite improvement over last year. That is no wonder, because we added 58,000 new full-time jobs last month alone. However, to maintain this progress and to promote economic growth we need to be vigilant. We cannot afford to allow labour disruptions to continue in a major industry so crucial to domestic trade and our international exports. A labour stoppage in this key sector of our economy would be a serious impediment to our recovery and growth, because quite frankly, the domino effect throughout the economy of a prolonged work stoppage at CP Rail could mean major losses at home or abroad.

What needs to be understood is this. There is much more at stake here than issues on a bargaining table. The employees represented by the Teamsters want to be treated fairly and they want our respect for their rights under the Canada Labour Code. Our government clearly understands this. However, Canadians have rights too and Canadians gave us a strong mandate to protect the economy. This strike affects more than CP Rail and its workers. It affects Canadian businesses, Canadian exporters, Canadian farmers, Canadian miners and Canadian ports, and it affects Canadian families. A prolonged strike puts other people's livelihoods at risk. It is those people's interests that we are acting for in proposing this legislation.

In opposing the bill, the opposition is putting its pro-union ideals squarely ahead of two things, common sense and the national economy. Its vision is narrow and it only stands up for special interests. I urge all hon. members to pass this bill as quickly as possible.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to take this brief opportunity to respond to the speech made by the Minister of Labour, who praised the values of the railways in Canada and told us just how important they are, how wonderful they are, how great they are, and how much they are loved.

In the NDP, the official opposition, we also love the railways, but we would like the workers who make them run and keep the freight trains rolling to be treated with a little more respect.

The first thing that comes to my mind is “Oops, I did it again”. The Conservative government is incapable of restraining itself from interfering in things that are none of its business: labour relations and collective bargaining, which have to be conducted freely. This is the third time. There were Canada Post and Air Canada and its pilots and mechanics, and now the people at Canadian Pacific are paying the price of the Conservatives’ ideology. The question I want to ask the minister is quite simple.

Does this government recognize the right of working people in this country to associate and bargain freely? With its laws forcing workers back to work and imposing terms on them, is this Conservative government in the process of subtly, under the table, changing the rules that govern collective bargaining in Canada?

Essentially, is what you want to do to change the Canada Labour Code to take the right to strike away from working people?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I remind all hon. members that they must address their questions to the Chair.

The hon. Minister of Labour.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Labour]

Madam Speaker, I will start from the beginning. Should the government be involved in this matter? The answer is absolutely. We are acting in the best interests of the national economy and the Canadian public. To facetiously say that it is something we did by mistake is completely incorrect and quite insulting, frankly.

We are here on a mandate from the Canadian people to protect the economy. We take it very seriously, and sometimes we have to make tough choices and tough decisions. We have to balance the interests of the whole versus the individual. That is exactly what we are doing in this case.

In terms of changing the Canada Labour Code, there is no desire, no underhanded device in order to do it. We are very clear on 60 years of parliamentary precedence in railway strikes. We are intervening on behalf of the Canadian public and on behalf of the national economy.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Madam Speaker, one thing we all know is that back-to-work legislation really indicates failure, not success.

One thing that has been well publicized in past pieces of legislation that have been tabled by the minister is that they were tabled contrary to advice received by senior department officials, and we know the past legislation tabled has resulted in two charter challenges and two extended court battles.

I ask the minister if in this case there was any such representation from her senior officials. If so, what ramifications of this legislation do we anticipate down the road?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I'd like to correct the alleged facts that were brought forward by the member for Cape Breton—Canso. Indeed, what he said with respect to officials providing advice is incorrect. In fact, the advice I am provided by officials is very professional advice based upon the facts on the table, and I act on the advice of the officials in the best capacity I can.

That being said, this is different legislation. It is interest-based arbitration and it is tailored to fit the needs of the parties in this current dispute specifically. It is on the advice of officials, it is from within the discussion of the cabinet and it is very much appropriate for the situation we have right now.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, we are here debating the procedural motion, which allows for the quickest possible passage of the restoring rail service act. There are some members who argue we should let this go on and on, who knows for how long, for further bargaining between the two parties, which has already been shown to be not very effective.

Can the Minister of Labour please explain the necessity to expedite the passage of this bill?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Madam Speaker, indeed, we are on day seven of a work stoppage, of a strike, and it is incredibly important to make sure we get the CP Rail trains moving as quickly as possible for the national economy.

The ministers of industry, natural resources, agriculture and transport have all heard from their stakeholders, and we've heard from our stakeholders here in the country that it is getting very tight concerning the ability to move cargo and to receive cargo in the country, and that is going to have an effect on their business operations and on their employees.

We are on day seven. Traditionally, in the past, we have seen severe economic circumstances develop after seven to nine days, and indeed, I hope we will be able to deal with this matter expeditiously so we do not face that situation.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Madam Speaker, the problem with this government's special legislation is that Canadian workers invariably end up worse off in terms of salaries, pension funds and working conditions.

How can the Conservatives claim that this legislation is good for Canadians, when the Canadians working for these companies are being systematically penalized? Are they not active participants in the economy too?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Madam Speaker, indeed they are, and they are an incredibly important part of the economy, and CP Rail is as well, but the point is that these parties had the ability for the last eight to nine months to negotiate their own deals. They also had the ability in the past eight to nine months to recognize, if they were asking for difficult concessions at the table and they were not going to receive them, that they should find their own way to an arbitration process, to a mediation process. We in Labour Canada have offered both an extended mediation process and a conciliation process, and all these things have been rejected by CP Rail and by the workers.

The effect of the strike is ongoing, and the effect of the strike is on the national economy. It is the obligation of the government at this point to take a look at the greater good for the economy and the greater good for the national interest and to act appropriately. In this case, acting appropriately is introducing this legislation and having quick passage.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am really beginning to question the sincerity and genuineness of the intentions of the government with this legislation. I say that for two reasons. One is, if this were such an essential service to Canadians, then the minister would designate rail service as an essential service, by which would accrue a number of rights to the employees.

Number two is that the minister and the government are only emboldening the railway company. The reason I say that is they have had the rail service review since March of last year. They have been comatose on the file and have done nothing about it. That is hurting farmers, and I am convinced that their only interest is supporting the railway companies.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will remind the member not to question our sincerity and genuineness because at least we stick to the same script, whereas his party flip-flops all over the place. In 1995, it introduced back-to-work legislation. In 2007, it supported back-to-work legislation in the rail industry. Today, all of a sudden, it has a different beat on it. What gives?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to rise in this House this evening to defend the fundamental rights of the workers of this country. Today, those rights are being threatened, I could even say violated, by this bill that, once again, we must now study in this expeditious, but unfortunate way.

At the same time, I rise with very deep concerns about the direction that, day after day, this government is imposing on the House and therefore on our society and its communities. The Conservatives' vision and direction are frankly authoritarian and show a thinly veiled contempt for the workers of this country, for its ordinary men and women who, every morning, get on the bus and, every evening, make their lunches and their children's lunches, so that they can go and earn their living by the sweat of their brows. This government has an outrageous soft spot for those who run the big companies and the big banks in this country.

This government is completely out of touch and unapologetically ideological. It keeps telling us that the invisible hand of the market will solve all of society's problems. According to their ideology, simply encouraging individuals working in isolation to achieve their own ends is the way to achieve the common good. As progressives and social democrats, that is not a vision we share.

Deregulation, privatization and liberalization in other countries have failed miserably. Among the more recent examples is that of the “Celtic tiger”, the European dragon, Ireland, which for years adopted a neo-liberal approach and now lies in ruin while a neighbouring country, Iceland, consulted its citizens and took a different approach that was in the best interest of its people.

Last summer, around this same time, shortly after the historic May 2 election, I had the honour of rising in the House with my new colleagues, particularly our friend and former leader, Jack Layton, to fight for the rights of postal workers. The government conspired to lock them out. They were the very first victims of the government's wrong-headed, backward and anti-worker policies.

I am proud of the fact that I rose in the House back then along with all of my NDP colleagues, because that is the real reason we were elected. We were elected to stand up for people, and that is what we are doing today as New Democrats and progressives in Parliament.

We have to stand up to protect everyone from this right-wing government's attacks. A year later, little has changed in the House. Unfortunately, this government keeps doing the same thing over and over again. If it were as harsh with itself as it is with repeat offenders, we might be headed in a better direction right now.

This is the third time in a year, or the fourth if we count the two different groups of Air Canada employees. That is quite extraordinary. This government has a laissez-faire attitude, but it intervenes directly in a bargaining process and disrupts the existing balance when it comes to negotiating a collective agreement.

It intervenes to tell workers at a private company that they cannot collectively decide on their working conditions or negotiate them. This right is recognized not only under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but also by the Supreme Court. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that collective bargaining is a fundamental aspect of Canadian society. Today this fundamental aspect is being attacked by the Minister of Labour and the Conservative government.

I would like to make an aside, because it is important to put Canada's legal and international obligations into context.

Together with the International Labour Organization, Canada signed Convention 87 on the freedom of association and protection of the right to organize.

This convention recognizes the right to free association and bargaining.

I will cite the opinion of Michael Lynk from Western University in Ontario on this freedom of association. The quote is in English because the original version is in that language.

The right of unionized employees to strike through the peaceful withdrawal of services in order to defend their economic and social interests has been widely accepted as one of the pillars of the freedom to associate, along with the right to organize and the right to collectively bargain. Although the right to strike is not explicitly stated in either Conventions Nos. 87 or 98, the caselaw developed by the Committee on Freedom of Association and the cumulative reports of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations have read the right to strike into the meaning of the freedom of association. A leading ILO study that reviewed the jurisprudence of the two Committees has stated that: “the right to strike is a fundamental right of workers and their organizations;” “strike action is a right and not simply a social act;” and “the right to strike is essential to a democratic society.” The Committee on Freedom of Association has ruled that: the right to strike [is] one of the essential means through which workers and their organizations may promote and defend their economic and social interests.

The government's violation of the constitutional right to strike and the freedom of association has already been challenged twice in the case of Canada Post and Air Canada. It is quite likely that this evening's bill will be added to that black list.

Government intervention hurts relations between workers and management. Once again, the government is unwise to meddle in an area that is none of its business. It is interfering in the collective bargaining process, and, it bears repeating, it threatened to pass special legislation not 24 hours into the strike. The government is going to create a situation that will spoil labour relations at Canadian Pacific. This will leave scars. People will no longer be motivated at work. They will be upset and frustrated, and rightly so. That is what this government is about to do. That is unfortunate.

Experts representing managers, workers and unions all agree that interfering in free collective bargaining will worsen the already tense relations between employers and employees.

George Smith—who is now at Queen's University, but who was a negotiator for Air Canada and CP in the past—has pointed out that the government is naive to believe that it can legislate peace in labour relations and is actually making the situation worse. He said:

Naively, the government thought it could legislate certainty and legislate peace, and neither of those things have resulted.

You’re mortgaging the future, and not knowing how much that mortgage is going to cost. In spite of the appearance of labour peace, there is no such thing.

The Conservative government continues to make bad decisions.

Not only does the government propose bad solutions, not only does it act when it should step aside and leave it up to the two parties to negotiate freely, but when the government is asked to act to save jobs, it is asleep at the wheel. The government was incapable of enforcing the Air Canada Public Participation Act on behalf of Aveos employees when 2,400 people were mercilessly laid off, including 1,800 workers in the Montreal region, where I have the honour of representing the residents of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

We have a government that stays sitting on its hands, that does nothing, that does not lift a finger to save people who had good jobs, were well paid, and contributed to the economy. In the case in question, the government did not want to get involved because it stated that it was not its business, that it was a matter for the private companies themselves. Yet, when the private company is Canadian Pacific and it is having problems at the bargaining table, it takes less than 24 hours for the sword of Damocles to be brandished by the Minister of Labour and for that sword to be placed above the heads of Canadian Pacific workers. We in the NDP find that unacceptable because it demonstrates a lack of respect for workers.

One should not be too surprised, however, because this very same government is also directly attacking Canadians' and Quebeckers' pensions. Yet barely a year ago, during the election campaign, the Conservatives never came clean about their intention to increase the eligibility age for old age security.

Yet before an audience of billionaires in Switzerland, the Prime Minister saw fit to announce that he was going to make changes. Now, he never mentioned this to Canadian voters, which very clearly demonstrates a lack of respect and a contempt for Canadians. Moreover, it is an attack that will affect the poorest workers, those of most modest means, which is unacceptable, just as it is unacceptable to attack the employment insurance system. This will hurt temporary workers, contract workers and seasonal workers.

This government does not care about people, does not care about the little guy, does not care about workers; it just wants to force down wages. The Conservatives know one direction and one direction alone when it comes to pensions and wages: down, down, down, except in the case of their corporate fat cat friends.

We need to say it frankly and stop beating around the bush. I believe that this is the first time in history that we have ever had a government that hates the government so much, meaning that the government detests the state that it leads. It does not like the state. It does not like social programs or the redistribution of wealth. And yet, it is running this country, while trying to smash it up and diminish it. It can readily be seen that it is an authoritarian government that feels deep contempt for our parliamentary and democratic institutions. It is a government that prefers intimidation to discussion. It is a bulldozer of a government that gagged parliamentarians more than 20 times in a single year. It is appalling, using closure more than 20 times.

Once again, debate is being limited on a special law that forces a return to work at Canadian Pacific. It is unacceptable. Members want to discuss and exchange ideas and to debate them, but the Conservatives do not like debates.

I am going to refer to two numbers, because I like to use numbers from time to time. The three readings of the current bill have been limited to three and a half hours of debate. For an act that is going to affect 5,000 families in Canada, this is completely unacceptable. Later on, when we meet in committee of the whole, one hour has been scheduled for discussion, when there are 308 members in this House. I took out my calculator and did a little math. If every member in this House were given the opportunity to speak, each would be able to do so for 11.7 seconds. Eleven seconds is what the Conservative government is offering us to discuss this bill in committee of the whole. This is unacceptable and appalling. It is beginning to be rather obscene. It is obscene to see this government destroy the legacy of social programs and institutions that were established with a view to a better society, a more just society in which people live in dignity through good jobs.

Workers are the ones who fought to abolish child labour. Workers fought for a weekend off—except, it would appear, the workers at Canadian Pacific—and for a 40-hour week, instead of having to work 12, 14 or 16 hours a day, as they used to. It is workers who fought for an employment insurance system and for health and safety protections. None of this fell from heaven. People fought for these things. It was not bosses or the government who decided all of a sudden one fine morning that it would be very nice to offer these things.

Let me provide my colleagues with some context by explaining why people at Canada Post, Air Canada and Canadian Pacific are so angry. They certainly have a right to be angry. The 100 most highly paid CEOs in Canada earned $44,000 in the first three days of 2012. They earned $44,000 between January 1st and 3rd. That is the average salary of a Canadian worker, the average annual salary. The CEOs pocketed the same amount in two days. On average, the 100 elite CEOs in Canada make 189 times more than the average Canadian worker.

Take one as an example. The CEO of Canadian Pacific earned $6.5 million in 2011, in one year. That may seem like a lot, but compared with his severance pay, it is peanuts. He quit his job and is no longer the CEO of Canadian Pacific. His severance was $18 million. These are the same people who are targeting the pension plan of 5,000 workers, who had the effrontery to ask them to slash their pension benefits by 40%. That is money they themselves have put aside. Today, management is trying to twist workers' arms and shove unacceptable cuts to their pension scheme down their throats.

Pension plans are under major attack everywhere in Quebec and Canada. We in the NDP are going to stand up and defend workers' pension plans.

I have a hard time understanding how a company that made a profit of $570 million last year, made a profit of $142 million last quarter and for the last four quarters has paid its shareholders a significant dividend is a company in difficulty. How come this company has to launch an attack on the pension plan of 5,000 Canadian families? How did we as a society get to that point today? Why is this Conservative government like the tower of Pisa? It always leans the same way, and never towards Canadian workers. It is unacceptable.

Why is it that Canadian Pacific cannot resolve the problem of worker fatigue? This has been a problem for years. The workers' requests and demands are rather simple. Since they are always on call, since they are always available and their vacation disappears all the time, they simply want to have the assurance that they can be at home with their families for two 48-hour periods per month. And they were told no by a company that made $142 million in profit in the last quarter. Is that the Conservative government's vision for Canada? CEOs get an open bar, while everyone else has to beg for scraps. Is that what the government wants—golden parachutes for bankers and attacks on workers' pensions? These attacks are very real.

A 50-year-old employee with 30 years of service at CP would lose $9,900 a year if management's demands are accepted, and that employee would have no other options. A younger employee, for instance someone who is 30 and has 10 years of seniority with CP, would lose $30,000 a year with the changes that management is demanding. That is unacceptable.

It is completely appalling that in a country as wealthy as Canada, the gap between the rich and the poor is only growing. Even people who are working are forced to seek assistance and turn to food banks, for instance. Since 2008, the number of people in the greater Montreal region who are turning to food banks has increased by nearly 40%.

By introducing special legislation—as in the case of Canada Post, Air Canada and now Canadian Pacific—this government is sending a clear message that employers can attack the working conditions of their employees, negotiate in bad faith—as is the case at Canadian Pacific—and their Conservative bodyguards will come to their rescue whenever they need help. The message being sent to employers is that they no longer have to negotiate. The Conservatives are always there to help them along and impose repressive legislation.

This has resulted in a serious imbalance in our labour relations regime, which is based on free bargaining by management and the union, where one party can exert economic pressure on the other. When a special law is imposed, the balance of free collective bargaining is upset. As we heard earlier, this is vital to our bargaining regime and has resulted in more peaceful labour relations and civility in our society.

Now we have a government that is already moribund, after being in power for just one year, and that has added insult to injury with its Trojan Horse. This mammoth bill amends 69 existing laws and is more than 450 pages long. The government also imposed closure on this bill. And what does the bill contain? It contains even more sustained and vicious attacks against workers, despicable changes to employment insurance and old age security, and the repeal of the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. What we see here is perfectly aligned with the Conservatives' policies.

In closing, when it comes to the challenges of pension plans, the challenges of Canadian Pacific employee fatigue, and the challenges of employment insurance—with the pressure to reduce the salaries of seasonal, temporary, contract and self-employed workers—the picture looks pretty bleak. However, I would like to finish on a more positive note. I would like to finish with a message of hope for Canadian and Quebec workers.

The NDP will always be there standing beside workers and fighting the Conservative government's regressive policies. It will be there proposing real change and an alternative way of doing politics.

Our brand of politics will support the majority of the population, 99% of workers. We just need to be patient a little longer and continue to fight for a better society.

There will be an election, and together we are going to oust this government, which does not care about the concerns of Canadian workers.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I just listened to my colleague's speech.

If we were to follow his logic, there would be no more mail in Canada. In his opinion, that is not important. There would be no more planes in the sky. In his opinion, that is not important. There would be no more trains on Canadian tracks. In his opinion, that is not important either.

If there are no more trains, there will be no more parts for cars and trucks. As a result, sooner or later, there will be no more cars and no more trucks.

I would like my colleague to tell me what his vision is of the Canadian economy given the current circumstances. What is his vision for the Canada of 2012, 2020 and 2030?

I would like the member to give me a coherent response.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to answer this question, because the NDP's vision is a long-term vision; it is a vision for the world, a vision for people, a vision for the environment, and one that respects workers. That is our vision; that is what we are proposing.

When my colleague states that Canada Post would no longer exist, I am trying to understand what he means. I think that he means we fought for the workers at Canada Post.

If this government had really wanted the mail to be delivered, it would have done the simple thing that was being asked of it: it would have lifted the lockout. There is nothing complicated about that, in my opinion.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to compose myself. I hear the Conservatives talking about how they are fighting for jobs. I am sure the 19,000 federal civil servants who are receiving separation slips over the next couple of months will be inspired by the comments coming from the government tonight.

One thing that recent history has shown us is that back-to-work legislation in no way guarantees peace and harmony within the labour sector. We have seen two charter challenges arise from past actions of this government. We have seen two court battles arise as a result of back-to-work legislation from the government.

I ask my friend from the NDP this question: does he think that this will go anywhere at all towards making the CP Rail work atmosphere and work environment any more peaceful and productive?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague asked an excellent question.

The Minister of Labour's decision to introduce back-to-work legislation for Canadian Pacific employees was unwarranted, hasty and irresponsible. Furthermore, she is basically putting off finding a solution to the real problems.

We have always believed and maintained that the objective should have been a negotiated solution and not back-to-work legislation. The parties should have had the opportunity to continue their talks. I do not understand why threats to bring in special legislation were made when not even 24 hours had passed since the strike began and the workers were exercising a right recognized by the charter, the international community and the Supreme Court of Canada.

Putting off problems until tomorrow, as our Conservative friends are wont to do, will not result in good labour relations and ensure that people are able to work together and move forward.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague must think, as I do, that workers do not enjoy a strike. Striking is a last resort. The same is true of employers, although some enjoy strikes: a lockout ought to be a measure of last resort.

Special legislation forcing people back to work ought also to be a last resort. This government can be seen, and it has even said as much, in connection with Canada Post, Air Canada, and now Canadian Pacific, to have been using it as a first resort, which is unacceptable and appalling.

The minister did not answer my colleague’s question earlier when he asked her whether she simply wanted to abolish the right to strike. I think that this government is not only taking away people’s right to strike, the right of workers to strike, but even denying them ordinary pressure tactics. It amounts to killing a fly with a bazooka. That is what this government is doing. In terms of labour relations, this attitude is sending out a horrible message.

I would like to hear my colleague’s comments about this.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do indeed share my Quebec colleague's concerns and apprehensions.

In fact, even though there has not yet been any speech or bill that shows us that the right to strike is being attacked, the repeated use of back-to-work legislation amounts to successive attacks against the exercise of this right. In the Conservatives’ view, the right to strike only applies if it does not disturb anyone. That is not how pressure tactics work. Of course people are disturbed, just as people are disturbed during a lockout, which deprives workers of their wages and their income. What exists between employers and unions is a balance of power.

Now, we have the impression that every time workers governed by the Canada Labour Code attempt to exercise their right, the Conservative government is there to take it away from them. We find this unacceptable. That is not how you treat people.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie on his extraordinary speech. He has always stood up for the rights of workers, and we will support him. We are proud to see that he is carrying the torch in the fight against Bill C-39 today.

He said something extremely important about industrial peace.

It is essential in labour relations. This peace was never given a chance, either in this situation or in those involving Air Canada and Canada Post. By the way, I want to point out that the Conservative Party has lost the support of tens of thousands of workers who, I promise you, will remember.

This industrial peace is essential to a healthy work environment. What will happen in three or four years when people come to the bargaining table to bargain in good faith? What will happen then?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my New Democrat colleague has asked an excellent question.

Yes, it does create tense and poisoned situations. It is easy to imagine how pleasant it must have been for the last few months to be working for Canada Post or be a pilot at Air Canada. Now it is Canadian Pacific’s turn.

There is reason to be worried for the future, because when people try to exercise their right and have it taken away from them, that causes frustration and anger that can blow up later on. If legal methods do not work because the government takes away a constitutional right and shackles and stifles the expression of demands, what is left? What message is the government sending? It is telling workers to shut up and take what they get. Is it inciting them to do something illegal?

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has talked several times about defending workers. Many of the workers in my riding are part of the auto industry. The auto industry in Newmarket--Aurora, across the GTA, and in much of southern Ontario depends on rail service to get parts back and forth. Tens of thousands of jobs are wrapped up in that industry.

When we are in such a fragile economic time, I wonder first why the member would want to risk our fragile economy. Second, I wonder how he justifies saying that he is defending workers when the workers in my riding will be out of work when there is no rail service to transport their products. Could he comment about the fragile economy he is creating?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite interesting to hear my Conservative colleague.

There is a kind of paradox among the Conservatives. Every time working people organize to use pressure tactics or exercise their right to strike, it is dangerous because the economy is really fragile. I would like her to tell that to the Minister of Finance or her Prime Minister, who are constantly saying that the Canadian economy is in very good shape and they are creating gazillions of jobs. It is one or the other. It cannot be both at the same time.

I think working people throughout Canada were not threatened by the CP strike when it had been going on for 20 hours. Once again, this was a premature, unjustified decision that upset the balance of power at the bargaining table and took away any incentive or motivation on the part of the employer to bargain in good faith. That is what the Conservatives have done.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Vancouver Centre.

Once again we are faced with back-to-work legislation. Canada Post, Air Canada, and the list goes on—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I have to interrupt the hon. member. As the hon. member may know, at this stage of the debate members would need the unanimous consent of the House to share their time, this being the third round of speeches.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to share my time with the member for Vancouver Centre.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, by its actions the government has telegraphed to Canadian businesses that they do not need to bargain in good faith with their unionized employees.

All businesses have to do is let time run out, leaving workers with no option but to withdraw services. Then, like a white knight, the government will ride to the rescue and force the workers back to work.

The Teamsters negotiators understand that the world economy has suffered and that the Canadian economy, while in a better position than most, is still fragile. Teamsters came to the bargaining table willing to work with Canadian Pacific in order to come to a fair and equitable contract, a contract that was fair for Canadian Pacific and its shareholders and fair for the men and women whose work ensures that Canadian Pacific earns the profits necessary to continue to pay its shareholders the highest premiums in 30 years.

Canadian Pacific has taken advantage of the government's willingness to play white knight. Its negotiators refused to negotiate with the union. Its position on all issues has been, “This is what we want; take it or leave it. The government will legislate you back to work.”

Canadian Pacific was counting on the government to step in. The government's willingness to introduce back-to-work legislation has become the elephant at the negotiating table. Management can make unreasonable demands, say no to reasonable negotiation proposals and bargain in bad faith. There is no incentive for the company to negotiate.

The government must let corporate Canada know that it will not solve all its labour problems. The government must let corporate Canada know that trampling on workers in the name of corporate greed will not lead to back-to-work legislation. The government must tell corporate Canada, “It is up to you to negotiate a fair and equitable collective agreement with your employees, not the government.”

When it became clear that the only option for the union was the withdrawal of work, Teamsters indicated that in order to ensure that commuters in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver were not affected, it would continue to operate the commuter trains. They said their disagreement was not with the Canadians who were trying to get to work so that they could support their families, it was with Canadian Pacific.

Canadian Pacific's reaction to this offer was a flat “no”. Canadian Pacific was willing to make thousands of Canadian commuters suffer because it was not willing to bargain in good faith. Thankfully saner heads ruled, and Canadian Pacific finally agreed to allow the commuter trains to operate.

Many Canadians are probably asking themselves what the issues are and why the two sides cannot come to an agreement. I can answer the first one. The issues are pensions and fatigue management. I will have to leave the answer to the second question up to fair-minded Canadians to judge for themselves.

Canadian Pacific is asking the men and women who operate our trains and ensure that they run safely to take a 40% cut to their pensions. It is asking a 30-year-old employee with 10 years' service, who has another 25 years to work before getting a pension, to take a pension cut of $30,000 a year. Is that fair?

There are over 2,000 Canadian Pacific non-unionized management employees who are members of the CP Rail defined benefit pension plan. These non-unionized employees pay less money into the pension plan and receive a larger pension income than the unionized employees.

These employees are not being asked to take a 40% cut in their pensions. In fact, the non-unionized employees are scheduled to receive an increase at the end of this year. Is that fair?

The clawback of the unionized employees' pension benefits will put this money into the hands of Canadian Pacific. This is not money that Canadian Pacific earned; it is money that the employees earned. This windfall for Canadian Pacific will be paid out to shareholders that are now dominated by an American hedge fund investor. This is corporate greed at its very worst. This is not fair.

A tired worker is not a safe worker. We have learned this the hard way in both the trucking and air industries. I was parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport when the issue of fatigue management in the trucking industry was raised, reducing the 18-hour work day to a 13-hour work day.

I had the pleasure of getting in one of the Teamster trucks and going from Montreal to Ottawa to Toronto. It took us 18 hours. By the time we came back, the driver was exhausted. The same thing that applies to the people who are driving our trucks and to the pilots who are flying our planes should be applied to the people who are driving our locomotives.

That trip earned me a lifetime membership in Teamsters Canada. A good friend of ours who sits in this room, from Vancouver, is also a Teamster. Therefore, we have a union of two. Maybe we will start a local here.

While the 13-hour workday is not perfect, it is much better and safer than the 18-hour workday.

The House has spoken on the issue of worker fatigue and how it affects the safety of the individual workers and Canadians at large. We have defined hours of work in transport and in air.

Earlier this month, the Railway Safety Act received royal assent. The House spoke in one voice. We need to have defined hours of work in the rail industry. We need to have fatigue management incorporated into the rail industry.

The Teamsters' negotiating team proposed a fatigue and fitness clause that incorporated a successful pilot project, which was conducted in eastern Canada from 2007 to 2011. Canadian Pacific refused to consider this proposal.

Last Saturday, I had visited the Teamsters members at the McCowan rail yard when they were striking. I spoke with one of them. He told me that when he was called out to work, he was away from home for up to 53 hours, either working, or on call, or taking the legislated rest periods. Due to the maintenance on the tracks, a 6-hour trip can take up to 10 or 11 hours. He then has downtime. If he is lucky, he can get on the train to bring him back home to Toronto if it is ready. Unfortunately, this is not often the case. Therefore, he must wait. However, he must be ready on two hours' notice to get on the train to bring him back home, which is another 10- or 11-hour trip.

Canadian Pacific requires all of its employees to be fit and rested for duty at one time they are called to work. However, Canadian Pacific does not permit its workers to report that they are unable to work because of fatigue without threat of disciplinary action.

The workers are asking for two 48-hour periods of rest per month to help manage fatigue and to assist in the recovery of sleep deprivation. This proposal would allow employees to sleep in their own beds on two consecutive nights, twice a month. This is not unreasonable.

We should never have a strike on the issue of worker fatigue.

Canadian Pacific has thumbed its nose at the House and has said, “We don't care what you think about worker fatigue. We will do what we want”.

It is time for the government to tell Canadian Pacific that Parliament makes the rules, not CP.

I ask the Minister of Transport to ask his department officials to immediately begin the necessary fatigue science studies so that regulations can be prepared as soon as possible. It is time to ensure that the men and women who operate our trains have reasonable, defined hours of work.

Teamsters Canada has filed a bad faith bargaining complaint with the Canadian Industrial Relations Board. It believes that Canadian Pacific has not bargained in good faith, but has relied on the government to legislate the workers back to work.

I believe that all fair-minded Canadians also believe that Canadian Pacific bargained in bad faith. That is why we are in the position we are today.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my friend's comments although, quite frankly, he was entering into details of collective agreement negotiations when all this legislation would do is refer those matters to arbitration, where I am quite certain that an intelligent and reasonable resolution would be reached.

One thing we know for sure is that all around the world economies are in trouble and are faltering and we are walking on eggshells. We want to ensure that the Canadian economy remains strong and remains vibrant. Every time we have a major national disruption, the opposition votes to continue it. It refuses to support our efforts to limit damage to the economy.

I would like to know why the member opposite does that when the parties have been unsuccessful in their talks for so many months, since late last year.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague across the way realizes that one of the issues we are talking about is worker fatigue.

I live in a constituency that has right beside it Agincourt Yard. The trains go back and forth. It is up to the employees, especially the Teamsters, when they drive the trains, to ensure that nothing happens. Should a derailment happen and dangerous goods are involved, my constituency would be in harm's way.

Therefore, it is up to us, this House, to ensure that employees' rights are not trampled upon. The government is allowing Canadian Pacific's corporate greed to enter into it and is legislating the employees back to work. That is all it is doing. It does not care about negotiations. It does not care about unions' right. It says, “Let's trample upon them. Let's throw them away. Let's support Canadian Pacific.”

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to congratulate the 4,800 workers who are currently on strike and who have continued to provide services, whether in Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver.

For those workers, the government talks about the need to protect the economy. What would the economy be without working people? What are universities without students? There is no possibility of doing anything without workers. There are alternatives, like Canadian National, that can offer services and other options.

Can the member explain why he thinks they are so intent on not bargaining directly with the workers?

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, negotiations were in place. Canadian Pacific all of a sudden decided to thumb its nose at the Teamsters union and walked away. What happens? The Conservative government steps in to legislate them back to work.

It is interesting. I met workers on the line in Toronto, Scarborough and in Winnipeg. I heard the same story, that should something happen while they were driving the train if they did not have the appropriate sleep or rest, who would stand up and take the risk? Who would step up and be responsible? They are responsible, but when they go in and say that they cannot do the shift, Canadian Pacific steps up and says that it will take care of them later on.

Therefore, negotiations have to take place and the government should stop being on the side of Canadian Pacific, with the greed of the company.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as we look back at what has taken place with the back-to-work legislation put forward by the government over the last number of months, it is like several bad episodes of Hell's Kitchen, where preparations may be ongoing, but when it comes time, the government has one temperature over there and it is on fry. What it has done is just toasted the relationship between workers and the company. We have seen that with Air Canada, Canada Post and we see it again here.

What is at risk is that for other corporations and federally-regulated industries, this will become common practice, that they will rag the puck. They will come down to a decision time and know that the minister will be coming in with back-to-work legislation. I would like my colleague's comments on that.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, in one year three unions will have been legislated back to work: Canada Post, Air Canada and now the Teamsters.

If we look at what happened with the post office, there was such a big wedge driven in between the employees and Canada Post that relations, even after almost a year, have not gone back to normal. It is the same with Air Canada. There are pilots today who are looking at options. They are saying that they were forced back to work and are using work to rule in order to not fly a plane.

I can assure my colleague that not only the Teamsters and Canadian Pacific will be at odds for a long time, but other companies in other jurisdictions will say that they have the government to protect them, that those people will legislate anybody back to work. That will be the history and the morality of the Conservative government of today.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to talk about this from a different perspective. I want to talk about the back-to-work legislation from the point of view of what I see as abuse of power.

As we sit in this very privileged place, all of us who have pensions, medical and dental benefits and work in a safe environment, it is easy for us to talk in the abstract about the economy and what it needs, forgetting that an economy must be sustained by workers. If workers are not there to make corporations survive and therefore make profits, then they will soon die. It is cyclical. We cannot do one without the other.

That is why negotiations are so important and why a responsible government would not enter into the business of negotiations unless it believed it had come to a point where things had to be handled because they had gone awry. We saw that in 1995, when we had three rail strikes going on at the same time. The whole country was crippled. No one could go anywhere. The government was then forced to step in and the NDP supported us in our back-to-work legislation.

However, one has to allow that to take its time. One has to allow negotiations to occur. Negotiation and the psychology of it builds trust between employers and employees. It creates a sustainable environment in which employees work productively to the benefit of the company. That is psychology 101, not rocket science.

When a government intervenes, it plays a hand that it should not play. As we have heard everyone in the House say before, it is signalling to the employer that it is prepared to step in at any time. The employer then does not negotiate in good faith, the employees become mistrustful, angry and frustrated, tensions occur, we see strikes happen and then the government steps in.

This is a great short-term solution. Sure it gets people back to work. Certainly, it makes everyone think that the economy is doing well. However, in the long term it creates such a toxic labour environment that companies and workers can no longer sustain each other and have to break apart. There will be workers who will no longer want to work in certain sectors even though that is the only skill they have, mainly because they know the minister will intervene in those sectors so they will not have their constitutional right to bargain.

The idea of a constitutional right to bargaining goes back to something else I want to mention, and that being the slow bleeding of democracy in this place. A democracy adheres to the rule of law. The Constitution is the major umbrella law by which any government governs itself and its country. When a government decides that it can turn over and ignore the Constitution any time it wishes to, that again is not only an abuse of power, it is a flouting of the rule of law. The government knows that the rule of law is an important principle to any democratic country. Here we have the government again abusing its power, flouting the rule of law and the constitutional rights of its citizens.

Today we heard about the economy. The point is the economy will not survive unless in the long term there is some kind of trust, peace and a relationship between employers and employees. The government is ensuring that in the long term that will no longer occur and we will have continued decades of labour unrest and businesses not being able to thrive. That is the long-term blow to the economy about which the government talks.

Let us talk about the specifics. My colleague talked about the issue of safety. I am not surprised at all that the issue of safety is ignored by the government. Look at what it has done. It has been cutting back on Coast Guard rescues and food inspections. It seems to think that everything that deals with the safety of Canadians is not worthwhile and disregards it, playing instead into the hands of companies, corporations and businesses and ignoring the safety of the public. Safety is an issue.

Over the last four years, an average of 1,198 accidents have occurred on railroads. That is 1,198 accidents, 61 main-track derailments in a week on an average, 210 at crossings, 160 accidents involving dangerous goods in any one year, 81 fatalities in any one year over the last four years. This is about the safety and security, not of workers but of the communities through which the railroad passes and in which the railroad crossings are located. This is an important issue. Do we think the economy is more important than that? On the issue of fatigue, this is a short-term solution and it actually ignores the safety of Canadians once again.

We sit here very privileged. We have pensions. We have medical and dental benefits. We can sit here on our high perch and talk about what other people need. There is a huge gap in this country between the rich and the poor. The middle class, which is a solid indicator of a good democracy, no longer exists. The way we would go with EI, in which we would force people to take low-wage jobs and the way we would treat workers, in which we would force them to take lower-wage jobs and not negotiate with them appropriately for pensions, means the state would have to take on the burden of caring for every person who is in the low-income bracket, as we would see rising poverty and the rising number of low-income workers.

At the end of the day, the state would have to be responsible for the pensions and the health care and the well-being of our seniors. It is not long-term sense. It does not add up. It is not good math. It does not show the outcomes as very feasible and helping the well-being and benefit of this country on the whole in the long run. Then again, the government does not seem to care about that.

I will talk about the fact that when we look at the responsibility of government it should be not only to take care of this country immediately and in the short term, but to prepare a path in the long term for a strong economy, a strong social system and a strong society in which all people are able to pull their weight and build an economy. When people are in low-paying jobs or do not have jobs and are dependent on the state, who is going to pay the taxes to enable the state to support the people who are dependent on it? If anyone does not see that the government is turning what should be a virtuous cycle into a vicious cycle, this is exactly what the government is doing.

Here we are. If the government thought it won in the five times it intervened in labour negotiations in the last year, we now see it has created chaos that continues. It has created bitterness, long-term anger and unrest. We have two court challenges. The pilots' union is carrying on a court challenge and Canada Post carried on a court challenge.

Finally, I will refer members to what the judge who looked at the court challenges under Canada Post had to say. He said that the minister “would like the exercise of ministerial power...to be unobstructed, unguided or not subject to any criteria of qualification or competence for the arbitrator. In other words, the Minister would merely have to act in good faith and deem the person qualified for it to end the Court's judiciary review exercise.” He also said that “this is not indicated by common sense, case law, the economy of the Act or the specific labour relations context that govern the parties to the collective agreement”. In other words, the minister is interfering and not allowing justice and negotiations and the citizens to have their rights in this instance. This is bad for Canada in the long run.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague speak to the issues that are before us tonight. One thing she avoided mentioning was the amazing cost to the economy of this ongoing strike. We talk about it in terms of the weekly cost of roughly $0.5 billion to the economy, but more important is the local cost to our ridings. I have heard from people in my area who have indicated that unless they are able to bring raw materials into their company within a few days, their company is in jeopardy and the jobs of the people that the company employs are in jeopardy.

Does my colleague not care that if this strike continues there would be many more hundreds of people, or probably tens of thousands of people, out of work?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, maybe the hon. member nodded off at some time during my speech because I did say that the economy was important. I did say the government had a responsibility to ensure that the economy was strong, but not on a short-term basis. It is like, as a physician, my patient walking in and me not really caring about the long-term survival of the patient, but putting on a Band-Aid and saying “look, the bleeding has stopped, everything is fine” and sending the patient home. That is not how we deal with problems. They have to be thought out because the economy will suffer in the long run.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. Liberal member a question.

In this kind of intervention, does she not see a parallel with the undue use of antibiotics in the world of medicine?

This is like using a sledgehammer to swat a fly. Large companies are used to this kind of reaction now. They are used to the government's interventionist attitude.

This government's greatest sin, in my view, is having a short-term vision. The result of constantly prescribing various antibiotics for toothache is that the antibiotics no longer have any effect.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to quote George Smith, who, ironically, was a former labour relations director for both Air Canada and CP Rail on the employer's side. He stated that the government is “worsening employee relations at federal employers by their constant interventions”. He went on to say “you cannot legislate labour peace” and that the government’s intervention brings long-term instability and distrust between the employees and employers that are ultimately unpredictable and unproductive and harm the economy in the long run.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, one thing I have picked up from the questions being posed by the Conservatives throughout the evening is that they are not sensing that in each piece of back-to-work legislation that the minister has brought forward, including this case, even before the legislation is tabled, she tips her hand well in advance. She told the parties that she was going to introduce back-to-work legislation.

I am sure the executives at CP Rail spent the weekend on the golf course. As they knew that the legislation was coming, they did not have to focus on any negotiations so they could get 18 or 36 holes in. It was a great weekend. Why not? These are the actions we have seen time and again from the minister. Would the member like to comment on that?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right, which is what we have all been saying. When the minister tips her hand before the process even begins, she wonders why nothing comes of it. She wonders why the negotiations have not come to a resolution. The reason that they do not is because she has tipped her hand. She says, “It really doesn't matter what you do. I will come in like Supergirl and fix everything for you”. The bottom line is that she is not fixing; she is harming.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is one group of workers that I have not heard her speak to. I was a carpenter in another life, but I have not heard her talk about forestry workers, mine workers, automotive workers and farmers. She mentioned a very large sector of our economy, but failed to mention those huge sectors of employees.

Although you referred to union employees, you certainly did not talk about these workers in any favourable terms. I am curious about your position on these folks.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I would remind the hon. member to direct questions and comments through the Chair.

The hon. member for Vancouver Centre.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about CP Rail at the moment, so I am sorry if I did not spend my time talking about all the workers. Indeed, the government is now beating up on the seasonal workers in the farming communities and the agricultural sector. It is beating up on the construction workers who can only work at certain times of the year. How do I feel about those workers? I think that they are getting the short end of the stick from the government.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-39, an act to provide for the continuation and resumption of rail service operations. Our government has received a strong mandate from Canadians to protect our economy and create jobs and we are delivering on that commitment.

Statistics Canada confirmed that in April employment—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle is rising on a point of order.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier you said that the unanimous consent of the House was needed to share speaking time.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Well, we are now in the fourth round. After the first three rounds, it is possible for hon. members to share their time with someone else.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada figures confirm that in April of this year employment increased by 58,000, mostly in full-time work. This was the second consecutive month of notable gains on the jobs front for Canadians. Moreover, confidence among Canada's business leaders, a leading indicator for future economic growth in job creation, edged up in the first quarter of 2012. According to The Conference Board of Canada, business leaders showed increasing optimism over the future performance of their firms and the Canadian economy.

We can add to these glowing statistics the support for our economy contained in the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act recently introduced by the Minister of Finance. As a result of our government's efforts, Canada has an economy that is the envy of many other countries in the western world. At a time of global financial uncertainty, at a time when sluggish world demand is impeding job growth, why would we allow anything within the boundaries of our own country to jeopardize our economic prospects? Why would we deliberately undo the good work that has protected our economy so far?

Canadian Pacific Railway is one of the iconic components of Canada's vast transportation system. Founded in 1881, the railway itself is a phenomenal engineering feat. It is one of the reasons we exist as a nation, uniting Canada from coast to coast.

In the 21st century CP Rail remains a crucial player in Canada's economy. Each year CP Rail moves freight in Canada valued at approximately $50 billion. According to Transport Canada, CP Rail annually carries about $11.1 billion worth of grain, $5 billion of potash and $5.25 billion of coal.

I would like to tell the House how the CP Rail work stoppage is harming Canadian businesses. In October 2009 the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management report estimated that four key Canadian bulk shipping industries, oilseed and grain farming, coal mining, wood products manufacturing, and pulp and paper and paper products manufacturing contribute more than $81 billion to the Canadian GDP each year and account for close to 1 million jobs.

I find it staggering to contemplate the losses these four sectors of our economy will suffer as a result of the disruption in CP Rail shipping services. These services are very essential for these key sectors of our economy.

It is no mere metaphor to describe CP Rail's 22,000 kilometre network as a lifeline of our nation's economy. Moreover, its capacity for facilitating trade within Canada and other nations is enormous. This is a rail network that operates in six provinces and 13 states. It extends to the U.S. industrial centres of Chicago, Newark, Philadelphia, Washington, New York and Buffalo. Agreements with other carriers extend CP's market reach east of Montreal within Canada, and throughout the United States and into Mexico. By moving freight to and from Canada's west coast ports, CP Rail is also a vital link to the markets in Asia through the Asia Pacific gateway.

This work stoppage is preventing our ability to keep products moving in and out of Canada and undermines Canada's reputation as a reliable place to do business. This is a setback from which it could take years to recover lost business and lost investments. Is the House prepared to stand by and allow a vast number of Canadian businesses to continue to be harmed as a result of the CP Rail work stoppage? As with any company, every lost day of business could weaken a firm that is already coping with reduced revenues.

A rail work stoppage has created an unsettling business climate. Businesses do not like uncertainty. When businesses do not feel confident about the future, they may postpone opportunities to expand, or change their shipping suppliers altogether. They may even lay off some of their employees. At a time when we want to build jobs and nurture our economic recovery, can we actually sustain this risk? Do we want this stoppage at CP Rail to jeopardize our work and achievement to date and put our recovering economy in peril?

The answer must be a resounding no. The time for action must be now. The legislation will end the work stoppage at CP Rail and provide the parties with an interest-based arbitration process to help them resolve their outstanding issues. The failure to reach a collective agreement has not been for lack of trying. The Government of Canada has done its utmost throughout the negotiation process to encourage the parties to reach an agreement. However, despite assistance from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, the parties have been unable to resolve their differences.

I would like to take this opportunity to commend the Minister of Labour and the mediators and conciliatory officers from the labour program for their efforts to assist the parties under the Canada Labour Code.

Canadians can take pride in the fact that 94% of labour negotiations in this country are settled without a work stoppage ever taking place when the labour program's professional mediators and conciliatory officers get involved. This would definitely be the preferred option for resolving the disputes under consideration today. Sadly, this preferred option is not one that was chosen for this dispute between CP Rail and its running trades employees and rail traffic controllers.

I will emphasize again that intervening in these disputes is not the option we would choose if circumstances were otherwise. The Minister of Labour always encourages parties to work together to find mutual solutions to their differences. Most regrettably, it would seem that the will to come together for such a resolution does not exist with the parties in this case.

Our government fully recognizes that free collective bargaining is the basis for sound industrial relations. This is also clearly stated in the preamble of the Canada Labour Code. That code gives the parties the right to strike and lock out. Intervention is only in situations when the public interest is negatively affected. This is true, for example, when the national economy is affected by a work stoppage, as it is in this case.

Let us keep the statistics that are crucial in mind. CP Rail handles 74% of potash containers, 57% of wheat containers, 53% of coal and 39% of other containers in this country.

I would like the House to reflect on just a few questions. First, can we afford to let Canadian businesses and our economy continue to suffer? Second, can we let down the people of Canada who are counting on us to act? Third, can we deliberately undermine our enviable position of being one of the few nations in the western world to weather the global economic downturn?

To my mind, the answers to these questions are self-evident and that is why we must act now. I urge the members of this House to join me in doing the right thing. Let us give our full support to Bill C-39 to protect our economy.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the comments that were made. However, we are seeing over and over again that the Conservative government does not seem to understand that unionized workers are actually our neighbours, brothers, sisters and fathers, and they play an important role in our society. They are our service providers as well.

With respect to CP Rail, I wonder if the member is aware that the whole issue here is the government taking away the rights of the workers. It is a collective bargaining right, where there is an equilibrium for the employer and employee. By forcing this back-to-work legislation, the government is actually siding with the employer, an employer who seems to forget that for the last 108 years these CP workers have been paying into a pension, which they are about to lose.

I wonder if the member could actually consider that in her deliberations and realize that it is about protecting the workers' pensions, wages and well-being because of the hours they have to work.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reason the government is acting now is that it is in the best interest of the Canadian public.

In my riding of Simcoe—Grey, we have the largest Honda plant in the country. Right now it is in a position where it will have to start asking workers not to come to work because it actually cannot move its product.

I say to the member opposite that we have allowed the opportunity for these two parties to come together. In fact, on May 22, the minister offered an additional 120 days and the parties said no.

So let us be very clear. The parties are unwilling to come together. They are entrenched. We need action now to make sure the Canadian economy is protected. That is why we are putting forward this legislation.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for my colleague across the floor.

We hear an awful lot about the economic rationale and justification for this intervention. Following that logic, can the member please stand and tell Canadians who are watching the debate this evening in what instance the government would not intervene?

There are work stoppages that occur on a regular basis. These, of course, have an impact on customers, on inventory and on deliveries. The government has already intervened repeatedly in a single year four or five times: Air Canada, Canada Post, CP Rail.

Could the member please inform the House in what instance the government would not interfere in collective bargaining?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, 94% of disputes that come forward are actually resolved before there is any work stoppage. In this case, this has a huge impact on the national economy, more than $540 million per week. In the case of this ongoing work stoppage, it represents an increasing loss to the Canadian economy, not just affecting rail but affecting the forestry industry, the auto industry, coal and grain seeds. We have heard from farmers.

Let us be honest here. This is about acting in the interests of the Canadian public. That is what we are doing. That is why we have brought forward this legislation. That is why we are acting now.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if this were the first piece of back-to-work legislation in the House, I might take a different view of it. We do know that CP is an important service provider. We do know the rail needs to move.

As my colleague from Ottawa South just mentioned, we have now seen repeated interventions that are undermining the fabric of collective bargaining rights in Canada.

If the hon. parliamentary secretary and her government believe that Air Canada is an essential service, that Canada Post is an essential service and that CP rail workers and the Teamsters Union are an essential service, then why do they not declare them essential services?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rose in the House yesterday and I presented earlier today as well about how the Minister of Labour has been listening, and listening not just to unions and big union bosses but actually listening to Canadians.

What Canadians are most concerned about is our fragile economy and making sure they have a job. That is why we are moving forward with respect to this back-to-work legislation to make sure the rail is moving, to make sure jobs are protected and to make sure we can grow the economy.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, a responsible government must show leadership and act in the best interest of the majority. This means that it must occasionally make difficult decisions and take necessary measures to resolve specific situations. That is what we are doing tonight.

We are overcoming the impasse in the labour dispute between Canadian Pacific Rail and the two Teamsters Canada Rail Conference bargaining units, one representing running trade employees and the other rail traffic controllers.

The government introduced Bill C-39 to ensure the continuation and resumption of Canadian Pacific services. Why? Because Canada's ongoing but fragile economic recovery simply cannot withstand the impact of a prolonged Canadian Pacific work stoppage.

Allowing the dispute to get out of hand would deal a severe blow to our economy, which is just now getting back on its feet. If there is one sector in which a work stoppage can have serious economic repercussions, it is the rail transport sector.

In a country with an area of almost 10,000 km², railways have been and continue to be a preferred means of transportation, especially when it comes to transporting freight. Agricultural products, forest products, chemical products, metallurgical products or everyday consumer goods—a host of industries rely on the approximately 22,000 km of railway that Canadian Pacific uses to transport and deliver the materials needed to manufacture those products and take them to markets. Any interruption in the Canadian Pacific services has an impact on other sectors and their workers.

As an article in the Canadian Press from January 26, 2012 said, and I quote, “The Canadian Pacific Railway transports coal, fertilizer, grain, vehicles, consumer goods and other products across North America. So it is commonly viewed as a barometer of economic health.”

In a very competitive and increasingly interdependent global market, all inputs count, all deadlines are critical and jobs are fragile. Without our intervention to ensure continued service, a growing number of businesses and workers would be affected.

It has to be remembered that Canada is one of the countries in the world that relies most heavily on international trade. We depend on international trade to ensure our prosperity.

Think about it. By virtue of its geographical position, our country is a crossroads between North America and the burgeoning economies, such as those of China, India, Korea, and Japan.

The rapid, safe and uninterrupted flow of goods along our supply chain and transportation network is a decisive factor in ensuring the vitality and success of our trade.

Most of Canada's bulk commodities and a lot of our manufactured products are transported by rail to their export destination. According to Transport Canada, in 2010, Canadian Pacific alone transported 74% of the potassium, 57% of the wheat, 53% of the coal and 39% of containers across Canada. Moreover, our railways are used to transport many imported products.

For example, the major increase in shipping trade over the past 15 years, especially by container, has been largely driven by Chinese exports. These containers are shipped to destinations in Canada and the United States through efficient intermodal gateways and corridors, which are a key factor in competitiveness.

The Canadian Asia-Pacific gateway and corridor offer world-class maritime, rail, road and air transportation infrastructure.

These are important assets, and we have set ambitious goals regarding this gateway and corridor with a view to bolstering Canada's economic outcomes.

However, the success of these initiatives depends on cooperation by all partners, including CP Rail. When a single link in the chain is broken, everything grinds to a halt. A work stoppage means that Canadian Pacific's activities cease, thereby blocking the flow of goods through the Asia-Pacific gateway and corridor.

To give listeners an idea of the importance of Canadian Pacific to our transportation infrastructure and supply chain, the value of freight transported by the company is estimated at approximately $50 billion. Clearly, any extended work stoppage at Canadian Pacific would foil our efforts to make the Asia-Pacific gateway and corridor a reliable segment of our transportation infrastructure, which would be extremely damaging to our economy and our reputation globally.

One thing is certain, an economy in which goods do not flow properly would be quickly compromised, and the alternatives are extremely limited. There are only two class 1 railway freight transportation companies in Canada: Canadian Pacific and Canadian National.

What is a class 1 railway? It is one of the largest goods piggybacking services based on operating revenue. For those like me who are unfamiliar with railway vocabulary, let me explain specifically what piggybacking is. It is the process of transporting truck trailers on special railway flat cars. CN has confirmed that its capacity to increase traffic would be very limited.

For example, for grain, CN could only handle no more than 10% of Canadian Pacific's freight. As for VIA Rail, well, it could not mitigate the negative impacts of a work stoppage at Canadian Pacific, because it is designed for passenger travel. A work stoppage would also have a negative impact on VIA Rail activities, because some of its trains travel on tracks that belong to Canadian Pacific. No trains could travel on these tracks without the approval of the rail traffic controllers.

We are here debating the merits of this bill because the very stability of railway traffic and the future of our economy are at stake. Negotiations between Canadian Pacific and the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, which began in October and November 2011, are at an impasse because of major differences.

The collective agreements for the running train employees and the rail traffic controllers units expired on December 31, 2011. On February 17, 2012, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service received a notice of dispute from Canadian Pacific. Shortly thereafter, two conciliators were appointed to work with the parties—one for each unit—to ensure that the process was consistent.

For those unfamiliar with the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, it was established to help employers and unions subject to the Canada Labour Code resolve and prevent disputes. It therefore makes conflict resolution services available to employers and unionized employees in the form of assistance from conciliators and mediators.

The mandate of these third parties is precisely to help the parties reach agreements. It is true that it would have been preferable for these parties to have been able to resolve their dispute themselves. Everything possible was done to bring them closer together. Unfortunately, there are no signs of a favourable outcome.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from the Quebec City region said this was a difficult decision to make. If the decision were all that difficult, then it would not be made so often. This is the third time the government has introduced special legislation. Despite its so-called goodwill, it says it is difficult to come to an agreement.

How can the Conservatives hope to come to an agreement when they ask the workers to give up 40% of their pensions, to give up the chance to balance work and family life and to give up the chance to simply see their salary indexed to the rate of inflation?

After that, the government says it tried to come to an agreement where the employees sacrifice everything, where all the sacrifices were one-sided. The government says that it will come and make a decision, but as usual, it always decides against those who do the work and not those will come out $17 million ahead.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we were elected to make decisions in the interests of all Canadians. As I said in my speech, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service was established to provide dispute resolution and dispute prevention assistance to trade unions and employers under the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Code.

The service offers employers and unionized employees tools for dispute resolution through the services of conciliation and mediation officers. These are third parties whose mandate is to assist both parties in reaching an agreement.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the parliamentary secretary is going to win any Oscars tonight. We are going to have a little chat about important matters.

He wants to tell me about the economy. I want to tell him about fatigue and about safety. I am not saying that he tires me out; fatigue is just what I want to talk to him about. Let us consider an employee who is on call around the clock for seven days a week and who, with two hours notice, may be called on to work 36 hours in a row. But there is no way to deal with the situation because that bunch at Canadian Pacific does not want to hear a word about fatigue management.

If he is so close to those who elected him, would the parliamentary secretary be willing to explain to them that there might be a safety issue because Canadian Pacific was unwilling to follow up on what the employees want? Fatigue management looks simple to me. We will not talk about pension funds yet; we will talk about them later because the employees are being robbed. But fatigue management is directly related to the safety of Canadians.

Is the hon. member waiting for a derailment? He wants to pass his special legislation. What does he have to say about fatigue?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me respond to the future mayor of Montreal, because I am sure he is tired of being here in this House.

Our government is responsible and we have been elected to make decisions in the interest of all Canadians.

We have made a commitment to them to promote job creation, growth and long-term prosperity in Canada. That is what Canadians are expecting from us. That is why we have to have the courage of our convictions.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is it relevant when someone is reading something that he does not understand and when he is not answering my question?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I am not sure that is a point of order.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this type of question, this type of comment in the House, does not deserve an answer.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that I will probably be the last to speak to this before we have to see the reaction on the other side.

Over and over again tonight, we have heard varying comments. I think the member for Simcoe—Grey had one of the best ones that I heard tonight when she said, “We allowed them to come to an agreement”.

This is collective bargaining between an employer and the employees and she is trying to tell us that the government allowed them to try to come to an agreement. However, within 20 hours of a strike deadline, the government decided it would start talking to them about imposing back-to-work legislation, back-to-work legislation that favours the employer.

The government seems to forget who unionized workers are. Unionized workers are real people. They are not aliens or diseases, as the government would like people to believe they are. It is unbelievable what it tries to depict workers as.

Since the last election, we have witnessed over and over again the government abuse its powers to attack workers, workers' pensions and workers' wages by ramming back-to-work legislation through. We just have to think of Air Canada and Canada Post. Now it is after CP.

We cannot help but wonder who is next. The government just keeps favouring the big corporations over workers and it is trying to race to the bottom. One would think it was a Walmart.

All these workers want is a fair deal, a fair deal that they cannot get under a government that continues to stick its nose in collective bargaining. They want a fair deal so they can actually support their families and support their communities. These are who the real workers are. These are who unionized workers are. They are our brothers, fathers, neighbours and service providers. Their rights are being violated, rights that were recognized by the Supreme Court as being charter rights.

The government keeps talking about the economy. We are the ones who know the direction the economy has been taking. The government did not even believe we were going into an economic crisis until we were there. Now what is it doing? It is putting 19,000 federal workers out of work. Those are federal jobs that will be gone.

The government is attacking the workers' support network, EI. We heard the Minister of Labour talk about the fact that there are fewer people on employment insurance but what she is not telling us it that it is because people cannot access employment insurance.

Instead of putting in training dollars and ensuring there are proper support networks so people can actually get through the phone lines at employment insurance, the government is closing down offices that help support workers. It is laying off people. Then it is attacking seniors and their pensions. Why is it that the government keeps wanting to race to the bottom?

I do want to talk about the CP workers from Chapleau in my riding, people like Brian Ferguson, Michael MacDonald, Jason McKee and Robin Robitaille. They have sent me letters. I have a whole pile of letters here that I hope I will be allowed to table, such as the letter from Diane Tangie Labranche.

What they are talking about is the fact that the attack is basically on their pension and the government is allowing the employer to attack their pension and to reduce the type of pension they will have when they retire. Some of these people have 30 years of service.

Diane Tangie Labranche writes:

As our Member of Parliament we need your support to retain the pension plan that has been funded by our members for over 108 years since its existence at Canadian Pacific Railway.

It is 108 years that they have paid into this pension, a pension where the employer mismanaged the investments and now there is $1.6 billion deficit. In order for these workers to retire with enough pension to live they will need to pay for the next five years $107,000 or $21,000 annually during this five year period. It depends on how long they have been there. The more conservative alternative investment strategy considered by the company would have cost only $2,300 annually over a 15-year period, a far more desirable outcome for all parties and one that would negate the current pension concession demands.

Meanwhile, the outgoing CEO would now have a severance package of $18 million. Can we imagine that?

Meanwhile, instead of protecting the workers' pensions and instead of protecting the workers' wages, they are attacking the workers.

Here is something else that they tell us:

Many of the employees who would be affected by the pension demands made by our employer stand to have the pensions they have worked many years to achieve dramatically reduced, some of these potentially affected employees have worked for CP for 30 plus years. As a running trade employee I work long hours which frequently occupies 60 or more hours a week away from home working in this heavily regulated environment.

I do not know about other members, but I have seen these railroad workers, and I can tell members that not only do they work long hours but they also do very hard work.

They go on to say:

The nature of my employment requires me to base my work attendance on 2 hours notice to work, this places considerable demands on lifestyle and families. The existing negotiated pension benefits is one of the primary reasons that I have remained a committed CP railway employee.

What members should also know is that during their bargaining, these employees actually ensured that they were going to have good pensions. They decided that they would pay more for their pensions.

Brian Ferguson writes:

The company wants us to degrade our pensions to levels in place at CN. The 2 pension structures are totally different from each other.

They paid higher premiums and they gave a concession that they would work longer in order to ensure that they would keep a good collective agreement, which is about to disappear.

As I am terminating here, I would like consent to table all of these letters that I have received, because they show that these are real people, these unionized workers, and the letters show the government the concerns that they have and everything that they have done and worked so hard to get.

The people from Chapleau, the people from White River, the people from all over Canada who are working for CP are there because they want to make a living for their families, not because they are just unionized workers.

I would hope that we all vote down this legislation.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 10:48 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #231

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

I do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of the whole.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Denise Savoie in the chair.)

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I would like to open this session of the committee of the whole on Bill C-39 by making a short statement regarding the proceedings.

Pursuant to an order made earlier this evening, not more than one hour shall be allotted for the consideration of the committee of the whole stage. At the expiry of this period, any proceedings before the committee of the whole shall be interrupted, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the stage under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment. No division shall be deferred.

During the consideration of the bill during committee of the whole the general rules of debate are as follows. Members shall speak for not more than 20 minutes at a time and are not permitted to split their time. While there is no formal period for questions and comments, members may use their time to either speak or ask questions and the responses will be counted in the time allotted to that member.

Finally, members may speak more than once and need not be in their seats to be recognized.

The committee will now proceed with the clause-by-clause study of the bill. Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), the study of clause 1 is postponed. I am now going to open clause 2 for debate.

The hon. Minister of Labour.

(On Clause 2)

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Labour]

Madam Chair, in an ideal world parties in a dispute would settle their differences quickly and amicably. They would work hard to understand the other's point of view. Moreover, they would appreciate that their disagreement could have far-reaching consequences for people not directly involved. Armed with this knowledge and insight, they would compromise for the mutual benefit of all concerned.

Unfortunately, our world is far from ideal. Despite months of negotiations between the parties, we are now in the midst of a work stoppage at CP Rail. This strike is resonating far beyond the confines of the rail industry as well.

Given its impact on our economy, the government is acting today in the national interest. However, our actions have generated a predictable course of objections. We have been accused of misusing our powers and undermining the right to collective bargain. We have been told that we are moving too quickly. Finally, it has been suggested that the problem is not serious enough to warrant back-to-work legislation. None of the objections hold water.

Since 1950, the Government of Canada has consistently intervened with back-to-work legislation in the railway industry where there is a work stoppage. Our actions today follow the time honoured footsteps of many previous governments, governments that were equally concerned about the impact of shutting down all or part of our rail industry.

I have been asked if I think the government is undermining the collective bargaining process many times by people in the opposition. Quite frankly, the answer is clearly no. I would like to make it perfectly clear that this government remains firmly convinced that collective bargaining is a far better way to resolve disputes than emergency legislation. It is significant that there is nothing in the legislation to prevent the parties from modifying any provision in the collective agreements, either new or changed.

It has been almost five months since the expiration of the collective agreements covering rail traffic controllers and the running trades employees. Like all concerned, the government hoped that CP Rail and the two units could reach agreements and settle their differences, but that has not been the case.

On February 17, I received notices of dispute for CP Rail for both units. Subsequently, on March 2, the labour program appointed the same two federal conciliation officers for both units to ensure consistency for the process. In other words, far from undermining the collective bargaining process, the government has taken steps set out in the Canada Labour Code to help the parties try to resolve the differences. Despite these efforts, the parties remain at an impasse. Therefore, on March 1, they were released from conciliation.

I met with the parties twice in May to offer them extended mediation to help them reach agreements or at least move forward on some of the remaining issues from the bargaining table. At the bargaining table, there were serious issues such as pensions, wages, benefits and working conditions. Regrettably, the assistance was not accepted and on May 23 the strike began.

Unfortunately, the parties did not manage to reach an agreement. As a result, they have caused serious economic problems in our country by initiating work stoppages. As the government, we took the necessary steps and acted for Canadians and our economy.

This government respects the rights of unions to strike and the right of employers to lock out their workers as is set forth in the Canada Labour Code. We would most assuredly prefer not to interfere with affairs of CP Rail, but we are not prepared to stand idly by as a work stoppage cripples vast sectors of our economy.

To the question from the opposition on moving too quickly with the legislation, I think not. I realize that the parties have tried to settle their various disputes, but this government is faced with a situation that requires immediate and decisive intervention.

The parties have had ample time to reach an agreement and they have received help from experts in mediation. At this point, we cannot expect that they will see eye to eye any time soon. We cannot wait any longer, not when our economy hangs in the balance.

The Leader of the Opposition said today that he believed it was not even a question of acting too soon. He would prefer not to act at all but that we encourage both sides to continue negotiating, even during a work stoppage with their talks halted.

Why is that? I submit that is because he does not understand that this work stoppage is a real threat to others outside the rail industry. I hope he does not believe that in our globalized economy, where markets can turn on a single tweet, that freight rail has become a relic because we completely disagree with that.

CP Rail has grown into a vast network of some 22,000 kilometres operating in 13 American states as well as six of our own provinces. For many farmers and miners, freight rail is the mode of choice to get their products to market and CP Rail is the company to which they most frequently turn. In 2010, according to Transport Canada, CP Rail transported 74% of our potash, 57% of our wheat and 53% of our coal. All totalled, the value of freight moved by CP Rail in Canada is nearly $50 billion, each and every year.

In 2009, a report by the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management indicated the important role played by four Canadian bulk shipping industries that used freight rail. Oilseed and grain farming, coal mining, wood products manufacturing and pulp and paper and products manufacturing contribute together more than $81 billion to Canada's GDP. Moreover, they keep one million Canadians at work. In other words, freight rail remains indispensable to our economy.

It is not just important to the 15,000 or more people who work at CP Rail. It is also clearly vital to the farmers, miners and forestry workers who depend upon rail to move their products across the continent and beyond and to all those whose jobs are linked directly or indirectly to the rail industry.

If this work stoppage is prolonged, it will translate into further job losses. With no trains running, the implications of this work stoppage are widespread. In addition to affecting farmers, miners and forestry workers, it is also impacting auto workers. Auto parts are the third largest container import good that comes through Port Metro Vancouver. This work stoppage, this strike, is halting the shipment of these parts to manufacturers in Ontario. Without these parts, assembly lines will slow down or stop and that will result in lost production and layoffs.

Do not forget that through partnerships with other modes of transport like shipping or trucking, the silence on train tracks can vibrate far beyond our own waters and our own borders. CP Rail is a vital link in moving freight to and from Canada's west coast ports, which are such an important part of the Asia–Pacific gateway. This work stoppage is preventing our ability to keep products moving, it undermines Canada's reputation as a reliable place to do business and it is a setback from which it could take years to recover lost businesses and lost investments.

We have two class I railways in our country and it is true that Canadian National does have some capacity to move freight. CN estimates were that it could pick up nearly 10% of CP Rail's grain traffic, but probably less for other sectors. However, the fact remains that about 20% of CP traffic simply does not have direct access to CN's rail network.

We cannot count on CN to pick up the slack during this work stoppage and VIA Rail cannot help fill the void because it is designed to transport passengers, not freight. Most important, we cannot rely upon a speedy conclusion to negotiations that have dragged on without success and finally broke down this weekend. We must act.

First, there is 60 years of parliamentary precedent for a government to introduce back-to-work legislation in a rail industry work stoppage.

Second, the bill does not circumvent the collective bargaining process, especially considering all the support we have given to help these two parties reach a solution.

Third, we are not acting too quickly. The stakes are much too high to wait for the parties to have a change of heart.

Finally, the rail industry is not a self-contained sector that we will simply leave to its own devices. It is an integral part of the economy, it is linked to other modes of transportation and the producers who depend on rail to deliver their goods demand our respect. The work stoppage at CP Rail is having serious repercussions and this government is not prepared to let it continue.

There is no question it is best for parties in a labour conflict to resolve their differences, but the parties in the CP Rail dispute have been trying now for some time without success and there is no reason to think they will be successful in the days ahead.

In this time of global economic uncertainty, Canadians have given our government a strong mandate to protect the national interest. When we look closely at the implications of a strike at CP Rail, we see billions of dollars and more than a million jobs hanging in the balance. Therefore, in the best interests of all Canadians, the government is acting. We are asking for support to pass Bill C-39, which will end the work stoppage and also provide the parties with an interest-based binding arbitration process to help them resolve their conflict without a strike.

It is not an ideal world, yet I still urge hon. members to set aside their differences for the benefit of all Canadians and join with us to give this bill a rapid passage.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Chair, the first thing I would like to note at this late hour is that this is the 25th time that debate on a bill in this House has been squashed and shut down. This is an affront and an offence to all parliamentarians, and the first thing I want say is shame on the government for yet again trying to shut down debate on a very important matter in the House of Commons here in the Canadian Parliament.

I heard earlier, in the drive-by second reading debate, I might call it, that the minister said the government is only interested in intervening where the public interest is threatened. Let us take a look at what the public interest is really about and what the Conservative government is actually supporting.

CPR is a profitable private corporation. Its net income profit in 2011 was $570 million. In fact, the last four shareholder dividends have been the highest in the last 30 years. What is really interesting, though, is that the CPR board of directors, in a recent shakeup as a result of American-based hedge funds, is now moving in. We all know how much it represents the public interest. I would like to place a wager that this shakeup had only one goal, that being to increase the shareholders' return or profits by seeking to extract the maximum value they could. As is so often the case in these money grabs, someone else had to pay and it is no surprise to learn that in this case, as in many other cases, it is the employees of CPR.

Unfortunately, it is no surprise either that the employer is making a beeline for the hard-earned pensions of these workers. I would like to give a couple of examples of that. This is what some of the demands of CPR will mean for workers in that company.

A 50-year old employee with 30 years employment in CPR will lose $9,000 every year. A 50-year old locomotive engineer with 30 years service who lives and works in British Columbia, who has 5 years left to work before being able to retire will see his pension reduced by $9,000 every year, should CPR be successful in its demands. This worker has invested his entire adult life into this career. He is preparing to retire and has absolutely no alternative to replace the pensionable income that CPR wants to take away from him. This worker has paid a higher contribution than at any other railway company. He has paid for his pension benefit and now the government, through its actions, will advantage the employer in its efforts to extract a significant concession from working Canadians at CPR.

Here is another example. A 40-year old employee with 20 years of employment at CPR will stand to lose $27,000 a year. A 30-year old employee with 10 years of employment at CPR will stand to lose more than $30,000 every year.

Members can begin to see the very real impact of what this employer is trying to do to its workers in taking away their hard-earned pensions.

Sadly, CPR is not alone in its haste and enthusiasm to rob Canadians of their hard-earned pensions. It has a powerful ally in the Conservative government, which is leading the way in destroying income security programs for Canadians. How ironic that only today Parliament debated Bill C-25, the pooled registered pension plans act at third reading, yet another—

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

They may clap, but this is an example of another private pension scheme that helps virtually no one but the big financial institutions.

Where is the public interest that is being upheld? Does it lie at the corporate boardroom table and the profit margins of a profitable company like CPR, or does it lie with making sure that there is a level playing field and that the collective bargaining process is given a fair chance to work?

The public interest is also about ensuring safety on our rail lines. I find it astounding that we have a Conservative government that purports to uphold safety and indeed continually seeks to divide our society into the simplistic division of criminals versus victims, yet when it comes to the safety of workers it is willing to use the sledgehammer of back-to-work legislation to uphold corporate interests and not something as basic as the safety issues that these CPR workers are facing.

I would like to reference the government's own Fatigue Management Plans: Requirements and Assessment Guidelines revised in March 2011, which spells out, and I quote:

Transport Canada recognizes that fatigue is one of the most critical safety issues facing the railway industry today. There is no doubt that fatigue has a detrimental impact on human performance and safety. While solutions to fatigue exist, there is no ‘one size fits all’ solution, which will easily solve all fatigue-related problems. One counter measure alone is not enough, nor is the sole reliance on legislated maximum hours of work.

This is a significant issue for these railway workers who are on strike, this issue of safety and fatigue, and I would argue that it definitely represents a broad public interest in maintaining and strengthening the safety of our rail system. The employees of CPR hold enormous responsibility for the safe transport of goods and people across the vast network of lines across Canada.

Does the minister even know what these basic issues are about? We know from the workplace that employees in freight service are called by phone to work on a two-hour notice. Employees are on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. There are no traditional days off. Until called the employees are often unaware of their destinations or when they will return home, and employees can be away from home for up to 36 hours.

The union proposal is designed to allow employees the opportunity to have two consecutive nights in bed twice a month. That is their proposal, and it is certainly in line with the government's own report guidelines.

Surely this is a fair and significant issue for these workers, yet it and other issues get swallowed up and quashed by the heavy-handed approach of the government. When we see a government in a headlong sprint to legislate back to work not once, not twice, but three times, we can only conclude it has no respect for collective bargaining and the important role unions play in our society. If at every opportunity the Conservatives choose legislation over proper process, if at every opportunity they seek to divide people and to scapegoat unions as we have seen their members do with Bill C-377, we can only conclude, contrary to what the minister says, that they do not represent the public interest. In fact, they despise any—

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I am going to interrupt the hon. member for a moment.

There is too much noise in the House. I am asking for a little bit of order and respect while the member completes her intervention.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would point out there is too much noise on one side of the House. Those members are disrespectful even of debate in the House. In fact, they despise anything public about the public.

I am proud to be here tonight, no matter what the hour, no matter what the circumstances of this gag debate, no matter what the votes, to speak out with my colleagues in the NDP, who are not afraid to uphold the public interest of fair labour practices, safety for workers and their families and safety for Canadians overall.

As the member for Outremont and leader of the official opposition said, “With every piece of back-to-work legislation—and every ideologically driven change to our laws—the Conservatives are chipping away at what Canadians have worked so hard to build”. We are standing up tonight against the bill, clause by clause, line by line, because we believe in something quite fundamental, the basic premise that in a free and democratic society, workers have the right to collective bargaining and the right to dignity and respect.

The Conservatives choose the corporate board rooms and are quite happy to put their feet up on the table with ease and comfort with their corporate buddies. We do not.

The CPR executives are raking in millions at the expense of their employees. The government has tilted the scales heavily in favour of the employer. We choose to keep the scales in a fair balance and to ensure that the rights of workers in Canada are upheld and respected.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Madam Chair, if there is one thing Canadians can recognize, it is the emergence of a bit of an overall demeanour, a policy development demeanour on the part of the Conservative government. When I say policy development demeanour, I mean when it develops policy its belief is “da meaner, the better”.

In this case, in dealing with organized labour in this country, we have seen that approach, the meaner, the better. When it comes to collective bargaining in this country, our party believes in fair and honest collective bargaining, something I have seen over the course of this debate that separates us from the Conservative Party. What we have seen is no example whatsoever of any kind of belief.

The Conservatives like to talk the talk, but the walk is not there. The actions they have undertaken certainly show no respect for collective bargaining. Canadians do not have to take our word for it; there are enough experts in this country.

I would like to quote David Doorey, from York University's School of Human Resource Management, a lecturer at London School of Economics, speaker at Osgoode Hall—

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order. I will interrupt the hon. member again. I would like to ask all members in the House for a little respect while this member is speaking. I am hearing comments from different sides of the House that are very disturbing.

The hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate your intervention.

Professor Doorey weighed in on this highly interventionist federal legislation restricting collective bargaining and the right to strike and lockout in this country. Really, he directed his comments more so at the minister:

[The minister] always tells the media that the government wants a voluntary deal reached by all parties themselves. However, most everyone who knows anything about collective bargaining argues that she is in fact discouraging this from happening by promising employers that the government will step in with back to work legislation designed to prioritize the employers' interests.

We have seen that time and time again.

There has been reference made through the course of the debate here today on legislation that a Liberal government put forward in 1995. I would like to set the record straight on this because several Conservatives have made that point here today and, certainly, the circumstances were completely different. In that case, not just CP but CN and VIA Rail were all involved in various stages of work stoppages.

Rolling strikes had started at CP on March 8, CP locked out employees on March 13, CN employees went on strike on March 18, and VIA got pulled in there, making any kind of rail traffic in this country grind to a halt. Rail service ceased to exist in this country.

So, the minister at the time, Lucienne Robillard, did not tip her hand prior to that. She put together back-to-work legislation, for March 21. The Liberals were in a majority government, but she brought that legislation to the Reform Party--the Bloc was the official opposition at the time--and the Reform Party supported it.

The NDP, at the time, only had nine members in the House. It was not an official party. However, she went to the NDP. Bill Blaikie, who is a respected parliamentarian, I think we can agree on that, came forward with amendments and put forward two reasoned amendments that Madam Robillard agreed to.

Now, that was a majority government that knew that in this place, in order to be successful and in order to serve Canadians, there was an opportunity if parties worked together. Again, this is foreign to the current government.

Bill Blaikie and the NDP supported this back-to-work legislation. Negotiations had gone on late Wednesday. Let me just read a couple of quotes. “Blaikie won from Robillard two concessions” and would end all strikes, not just the CN strike, and “the arbitrators appointed to settle all the issues at nine different bargaining tables would be chosen from the judiciary”.

So, there were two reasoned amendments that Mr. Blaikie put forward and they were accepted.

Mr. Blaikie also recognized that the country-wide dispute certainly had an impact on the economy at that time and he offered his support. So, we saw all party support on the back-to-work legislation, with the exception of the Bloc.

[An hon. member]

Then what happened?

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Then what happened was the Liberal government balanced the books and recorded surpluses and these guys came in and blew it all. That is what happened. Only after they added $100 billion to the national debt.

My colleague from Vancouver East talked about this being the 25th time these guys have used closure with their legislation. I want to share another statistic. In the last 62 years, back-to-work legislation has been used 37 times. In the last 62 years, back-to-work legislation has come to the chamber 37 times. These guys have brought it forward five times in the last year. I am not sure what the prize is for that, but they should be hanging their heads. They will get their prize from organized labour when the next election comes.

The government's record has been one of intervention and favouritism. Instead of being neutral and fair, the government has been just the opposite. It prepares back-to-work legislation even before a strike is due or a lockout occurs. It appoints inappropriate arbitrators and enacts back-to-work legislation that imposes even worse conditions than the parties themselves had agreed to. We saw that with the Canada Post situation. It came forward with legislation that offered a lower wage increase than Canada Post had already agreed upon. It is amazing.

It uses the Canada Industrial Relations Board as a pawn. It throws everything into the Canada Industrial Relations Board. We have seen the government's interference and interventionist actions in labour relations in the past. It has done nothing but poison the well of relations between companies and employees instead of cooling parties off. It is like consecutive episodes of Hell's Kitchen. With every preparation, it has one temperature over there for cooking, and that is burn and scorch. That is what it has done to relations between management and organized labour in this country. It has scorched relations.

George Smith is former director of labour relations at Air Canada and vice-president of human resources at CP Rail. He has been on the other side of the table, on the management side. He stated:

This has all the appearances of the federal government doing what’s best for the country but really it’s a disaster... If you are negotiating a difficult labour contract, the process is being taken out of your hands and the government will do it for you. The “showdown” element which hurts in the short run but results in a fair settlement is gone.

We would not dare believe that the government would listen to experts. It has not shown any kind of respect at all for the Parliamentary Budget Officer or any of those people. The minister does not even listen to her own officials. I asked her about that in an earlier exchange. On the legislation on the first Air Canada lockout, her officials advised against it. The officials stated:

This is an option to be used only in very extreme circumstances where there is a serious impact on the national economy – in this instance it would appear to be more of an inconvenience to travellers who would have to rely on other modes of transportation.

I questioned the minister about the advice she was getting from her senior officials this time around. Since she ignored the advice in the past, I asked if she was getting similar advice this time and ignoring it as well. Is this a crisis? The Conservatives have been in government six and a half years and had a crisis in the skills gap, a crisis in the fishery, a crisis in the environment. They should have a department of crises because they seem to manufacture crises. That is one thing they are good at: manufacturing crises.

Let us look back at the Canada Post dispute. The government legislated a lower wage rate. It forced an arbitrator to look at the financial considerations of the company and not the workers. That is another example of legislation undertaken by the government which benefits management and corporations as opposed to workers.

The minister was taken to the woodshed over the back-to-work legislation with Canada Post. She received a scathing rebuke from Federal Court Justice Martineau, who ripped the minister for her involvement. The minister wasted no time in sticking her nose into the collective bargaining process in the cases of Canada Post and Air Canada and used the threat of back-to-work legislation that hurt the process. Everyone knew that this would be the case this time as well, and therein lies the problem. The union and the company both knew the minister would not miss an occasion to try to grab the spotlight and introduce back-to-work legislation immediately.

The tabling of the legislation was one thing but the signalling of the tabling of the legislation last week is another. I am sure that the execs at CP were out golfing this past weekend because they knew what was going to happen. They knew what was inevitable this week so they probably had the weekend off. They probably managed to get in 18 or 36 holes.

When this happens it becomes a problem because the government becomes the centre of the dispute and both parties stop negotiating. It is bad for the union, it is bad for the company, it is bad for government and it is bad for the country. Yet this is a new labour relations model for the government. It is one that every expert on both sides of the issue believes is wrong.

I am going to quote George Smith again because ironically, as a former labour relations director for both Air Canada and CP, his opinion should mean something to the government. He has been unique in his perspective on how the government has dealt with both of these disputes. He said repeatedly that the government is worsening employee relations at federal employers by its constant interventions. He wisely said, “You can't legislate peace” and that the government's intervention brings long-term instability and distrust between the employees and employers that are ultimately unpredictable and unproductive.

The mess the government has created in one year of labour relations will take years to undo.

Canadians are reasonable and fair people. We can start to see that Canadians are losing trust in the government. From the F-35 fiasco to the robocall scandal, Canadians are seeing the true colours of the government. The majority reform government is taking off the sheep's clothing. I have a feeling however there are still a few progressive Conservative MPs who are feeling quite uneasy about how the government is abusing its power, whether it is against the poor and vulnerable in our society, against seniors or against the enshrined rights afforded to workers.

With the way the government has treated workers over the last year and the incompetence it has shown in handling labour relations at Canada Post and CP Rail, I cannot with good conscience support the government's legislation. Back-to-work legislation should never be seen as a success. If it represents anything, it represents failure. The action of the government has time and time again been a failure.

If the government even dreams that it is legislating peace and harmony at CP, it had better wake up and apologize to organized labour in our country.

We have seen the results. We have seen two charter challenges. We have seen two court cases. Time after time, the government has made a mess of labour relations.

We will stand with the union on this particular bill. We will stand shoulder to shoulder with the teamsters on the bill and we will vote against this back-to-work legislation.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Madam Chair, I rise this morning, which is after midnight here in Ottawa, to support Bill C-39, An Act to provide for the continuation and resumption of rail service operations.

Each of us is aware that our economy is still recovering from the events of the last several years. We continue to fare better than many others through the global economic downturn, true, but when it comes to our ongoing recovery, we are still not completely out of the woods. In fact, it would be simple arrogance for any country to assume that it is untouchable. In times like these, a disruption in a key industry is a simple ripple that can quickly turn into a tidal wave. The strike at CP Rail is having serious consequences for our economy.

Even while we sit here this morning discussing legislation, it is still our hope that CP Rail and the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, the TCRC, can find a way to settle their differences. As the House knows, according to Transport Canada, CP Rail moves almost $50 billion worth of freight every year. The House must do what it can to help find a positive solution for everyone involved.

Efficient rail services are essential for us to play a competitive role in the world's economy. Rail brings products from across the country to and from our ports, and from our ports we send goods to locations around the world.

According to Transport Canada, in 2010, CP Rail handled 74% of potash, 57% of wheat, 53% of coal and 39% of containers within Canada. This represents $5 billion worth of potash, $11.1 billion worth of grain and $5.25 billion worth of coal. Clearly, the issue we are discussing here this morning is bigger than us. It is about our place in a worldwide trade network. The railway was once hailed for connecting the country and now it connects us to the world.

I will take this opportunity to bring this back to a company in Brockville in my riding of Leeds—Grenville. It is not just about a company in Brockville. It is about companies across the country that are being impacted with the strike. I will talk specifically about the company in Brockville called Canarm. It is a global marketer and manufacturer of lighting, air moving and related products supplying residential and agricultural markets. The company has five satellite manufacturing plants in Ontario, as well as a distribution centre in Montreal. It is a privately owned company and it has over 300 full-time employees. I heard from the company last week, even before we got into this strike. What the company has been telling me over the last few days is that it is very concerned about what is going on. I will read what they sent me. It says:

On the distribution side of our business we currently have 10 containers, representing $600,000 in sales on rail with CP and not moving. We have 25 containers in Port in Vancouver which represents $1.500,000 in sales that cannot move now because of the strike. This product is all seasonal product (ceiling fans) on their way to retailers for summer promotions to Canadian consumers. Every day represents lost sales that we are not able to get back. If the strike progresses too long the retailers will be moving in to fall products and we may be forced to take the product back because it was not delivered on time. We would also be forced to lay off workers at our Montreal distribution facility because of lack of work for them.

Further, we also import component parts from the orient which are assembled in our Brockville manufacturing facility. This product is industrial commercial ventilation equipment used in the construction of condominiums and office buildings. Should the strike continue beyond the 2-3 week mark we would also be looking at layoffs here, which could put up to 75 or 80 people temporarily out of work.

Jim Cooper, the president of Canarm, said:

It is difficult enough to be a successful manufacturer in Canada today without the distraction of a national rail strike. In order to be successful we must have all elements of our supply chain working in sync. This rail strike is extremely disruptive to our business and we need to see our product moving on the rail as quickly as possible in order to continue to meet and fulfill our obligations to our customers.

The fact is that we need to move as quickly as possible so that we are not having companies like Canarm laying off employees.

As I said before, it is not just about Canarm in Brockville. It is about companies across this country that are relying on supply chain operations and the smooth movement of goods.

Here is the situation as it stands now. I want to reassure the House that the labour program has been involved throughout the process. The TCRC represents 4,200 running trades employees and about 220 rail traffic controllers. Running trades employees include locomotive engineers, conductors, baggagemen, brakemen, car retarder operators, yardmen, switch tenders, yard masters, assistant yard masters and locomotive firemen

Last fall, the TCRC and CP Rail representatives started negotiations for both units. On February 17, 2012, the Minister of Labour received notices of dispute from the employer for both units. About two weeks later, on March 2, the labour program appointed two conciliation officers to help the parties work through the process. The parties were released from conciliation on May 1 and on May 16 and on May 22, the Minister of Labour met with the parties but to no avail. On May 23 of this year a strike began.

The parties have been unable to resolve their differences even with the help from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. That is why our government is proposing Bill C-39. It would end the work stoppage and provide the parties with an interest-based binding arbitration process to help them resolve their conflict.

Today, the world's economies are interconnected. I have already spoken about how this is impacting a company, a major employer, in my riding. Yes, the flow of products and goods is a crucial part of keeping our economy strong, but it is also about keeping the world economy strong.

We are but one link in a global chain. Think about our contribution to the Asia-Pacific Gateway and trade corridor. Without rail transport, our link is weak, more than weak. Without rail transport, the chain is broken. Simply put, without rail transport our economy suffers.

Canadians want responsible leadership from their parliamentary representatives. The sooner the bill is passed the sooner Canadian businesses and investors will be reassured. I call on my fellow members to support this bill.

I also have a few questions for the minister.

We have heard from other members. We have heard from the member for Vancouver East and the member for Cape Breton—Canso. I would like to ask the minister to comment on the speeches by those members and how she felt about what they had to say.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Madam Chair, as we are in committee of the whole, I thought perhaps we would talk about some of the clauses that are in the bill. I think if people understood the legislation they would have a clearer image as to what the process is that follows.

In response to the member for Vancouver East, I have actually heard the speech before because I spent 30 hours at the table with the union. Ironically, it is the same thing they said to me at the table that the NDP said this evening here in the House. I wonder as well whether the NDP members took the time and effort, as we did on this side of the House, to consult with all parties on the issue. Did they speak to CPR management on its topics and the matters that pertain to it? That is certainly what we did in the labour program in coming up with the back-to-work legislation and helping them through the collective bargaining process.

With respect to the member for Cape Breton—Canso, I guess that not all experts and not all academics are in agreement with the position that he put forth. I can quote from Ian Lee from Carleton University's School of Business. He said, “What I'm arguing is that the government has intervened because of the huge impact it has, the externality impact it has on other industries, other communities, other workers in other parts of the country that are not a party to collective agreement negotiations. The government is quite rightly saying, 'Look, the people in these communities that are dependent on railroads, the agricultural community and resource-based communities in northern Ontario and western Canada, cannot sustain strikes because it shuts down their ability to make a living'. Parliament and the government of the day is elected to achieve the greater public good. They are weighing, I believe, the greater public good of the damage it may be causing to the particular individual relationship in that company with the union versus the greater public good of the millions and millions of Canadians across Canada who are profoundly affected”.

That is why we included clause 8 within the bill which sets out a very fair and balanced means of arbitration for the parties to come to their own decision on their collective agreements in their own time.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Madam Chair, something that I did not get an opportunity to address is the VIA Rail track issue. VIA uses CP tracks between Ottawa and Brockville, which connect Ottawa with Toronto in terms of their service, which is a very important part of their service.

As it sits right now, VIA is not able to use the CP track between Ottawa and Brockville and it is disrupting services which is impacting my riding once again. We all talk about how important rail is to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. This is just another effect of this strike where passengers are not able to use that particular service.

We all know that we are here debating this bill tonight and expect the possible passage of the restoring rail service act. However, there are some members who argue that we should allow this strike to go on longer. I am sure, from my comments already, members know I am not one of those. There are also members who believe that we should allow further bargaining between the two parties.

Could the minister please explain the necessity to expedite the passage of this bill and how important it is to the Canadian economy?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Madam Chair, what I can say is that the time to act is now and we must pass this bill as quickly as possible.

We are now entering into day eight of the strike. As such, the economic effects will pile up more and more and the effect on the national economy will become more and more severe. That is exactly why we are sitting here tonight at the time and the hour that we are sitting here, to ensure that we have passage of this bill.

We have explained very clearly what the economic effect is and we have also indicated very clearly that we are acting in the greater good of the Canadian public in ensuring that we pass this legislation and we have the trains rolling again soon.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Madam Chair, we heard from some members across the way who thought it was very important that they were standing up at this hour.

However, I think it is important that I am standing up here at this hour for my constituents and the jobs in my riding, which, as I said before, are representative of jobs across this country and how important they are.

I will take this opportunity to speak a little about the Forest Products Association. The Forest Products Association of Canada wrote to the minister to outline the following:

As most of the industry’s mills are located in remote areas where rail service is the only viable transportation mode, other forms of ground transportation are either too costly or unavailable to provide our companies with relief, making our sector particularly vulnerable to even the shortest disruptions in service.

It goes on to say, “In addition, the industry does not have the capacity to stockpile finished product nor can it continue production without certain input materials. As a result, any service disruption will undoubtedly lead to the industry incurring significant costs and will quickly result in mills shutting down temporarily”.

Given that we are here debating the passage of the restoring rail service act, it is clear that we need to bring an end to this strike before it can further damage the Canadian economy.

Would the minister explain what effect this work stoppage is having and will have on the fragile economic recovery?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Madam Chair, I thank the member for pointing out the effects on the forest sector. We have the same information.

I know the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Industry, the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Transport have all been contacted by their stakeholders on these very important issues, because it is just indicative of how widespread an effect the rail strike is having on our economy.

In the forest sector, as indicated, there is at least six pulp and paper mills that are captive to CP Rail, four of them are in B.C. and two of them are in Ontario. Of those six mills, it is quite likely that some mills will need to shut down as this progresses, if this is to be a prolonged work stoppage, because they are running out of storage space. In these small resource-based towns, the shutting down of such mills would have a devastating effect on the communities and the workers.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Madam Chair, I have a few more quotes. This one is from the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers of Canada and the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers Association. They jointly wrote:

CP Rail plays a vital role in the shipment of both parts and components into Ontario vehicle manufacturing facilities, as well as a significant role in the shipment and distribution of finished vehicles from ports of entry to local dealerships across the country.

Their industry is presently experiencing a positive but fragile recovery. Any disruption in CP's rail service will have an immediate and dramatic impact on their collective members and their operations in Canada.

The Western Grain Elevator Association wrote that this work stoppage will have a significant impact on the grain industry. Many of their elevator locations are serviced only by CPR. In the event of a work stoppage, these elevators will have no options available to them in the transportation of grain products. This will lead to the inability to supply international customers and prohibit producers from delivering to those facilities. If this product cannot be moved in a timely way to customers, the associated lost opportunities and added costs will be significant.

Once again my question is for the minister. Could the minister please describe to this House the impact of a rail stoppage on vital industries such as the Western Grain Elevator Association and the automotive industry?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Madam Chair, I can give members some great granularity on the exact effect it is having on the automotive sector. Indeed, CP and we have been informed by both Toyota and Honda that they would be facing plant closures starting tomorrow in Alliston, Woodstock and Cambridge.

These are serious matters. People depend upon those jobs to feed their families and to ensure they can look after their families, their houses and their lives. It is important that we act quickly to ensure the passage of this bill in a fast manner so that we can avoid those kinds of third party unintended consequences from a work stoppage.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

It being 12:33 a.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the committee stage of the bill.

(On clause 2)

Shall clause 2 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Clause 2 agreed to)

(On clause 3)

Shall clause 3 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Clause 3 agreed to)

(On clause 4)

Shall clause 4 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Clause 4 agreed to)

(On clause 5)

Shall clause 5 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Clause 5 agreed to)

(On clause 6)

Shall clause 6 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Clause 6 agreed to)

(On clause 7)

Shall clause 7 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Clause 7 agreed to)

(On clause 8)

Shall clause 8 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Clause 8 agreed to)

(On clause 9)

Shall clause 9 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Clause 9 agreed to)

(On clause 10)

Shall clause 10 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Clause 10 agreed to)

(On clause 11)

Shall clause 11 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Clause 11 agreed to)

(On clause 12)

Shall clause 12 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Clause 12 agreed to)

(On clause 13)

Shall clause 13 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Clause 13 agreed to)

(On clause 14)

Shall clause 14 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Clause 14 agreed to)

(On clause 15)

Shall clause 15 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Clause 15 agreed to)

(On clause 16)

Shall clause 16 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Clause 16 agreed to)

(On clause 17)

Shall clause 17 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Clause 17 agreed to)

(On clause 18)

Shall clause 18 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Clause 18 agreed to)

(On clause 1)

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Shall Clause 1 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Clause 1 agreed to)

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Shall the title carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Title agreed to)

Shall the bill carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Bill agreed to)

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Shall I rise and report the bill to this House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole has considered Bill C-39 and has directed me to report the same, without amendment.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Bill reported)

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that we proceed immediately with the vote.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #232

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of compelling reasons to end the strike at Canadian Pacific Rail. Count among them the fact that the company employs roughly 15,000 employees and only about a quarter of them are members of the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference who are currently on strike. That means the majority of the company's employees are being affected.

It is important that members of the House are aware that the annual average earnings in the rail business, at more than $79,000 a year are among the highest in Canadian industry. These are good jobs. With the CP Rail system shut down, a significant number of workers, and a lot of money as a result, will be taken out of the economy.

There are 1,100 Canadian communities that are served by CP, which operates in six Canadian provinces as well as thirteen U.S. states. The company's rail and intermodal transportation services provide a network covering 22,000 kilometres. CP Rail serves all the principal business centres across Canada, from Montreal to Vancouver, and has direct links to eight major ports, extending essentially its reach to every corner of the globe. The railway also feeds directly into the U.S. heartland.

The company transports bulk commodities, merchandise, freight and intermodal traffic. On the bulk side these commodities include grain, coal, sulphur, fertilizers. Merchandise freight consists of finished vehicles and automotive parts as well as forest, industrial and consumer products. Intermodal traffic consists mostly of high-value, time-sensitive retail goods in containers that can be transported by train, ship and by truck. In short, CP ships a large portion of everything that Canadians harvest or manufacture.

Factor in the value of freight moved by CP rail in Canada each year, which is just shy of $50 billion annually.

The sectors that use rail transport contribute significantly to our economy. A 2009 report prepared by the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management estimated that four key Canadian industries, oilseed and grain farming, coal mining, wood products manufacturing and pulp and paper and paper products manufacturing, contributed over $81 billion to Canada's GDP each year. Equally noteworthy, these four sectors account for close to one million jobs, jobs of Canadians all across the country that are being adversely affected by this work stoppage.

My colleagues in the House are certainly aware that a major disruption in Canadian railway operations can have great consequences on various sectors of the economy, and we have talked about those very much in the last three days. I have just illustrated how important CP rail services are to the Canadian economy.

It is never the government's first choice to proceed with back-to-work legislation and it is not something that I take lightly. I really had hoped that we would be able to avoid a work stoppage and avoid introducing legislation. However, there are no other options left to consider without causing irreparable damage to the economy and the economic recovery. It is necessary for the government to act decisively and to do it quickly.

Canadians want the government to protect our national interests in a period of ongoing economic uncertainty. Canadians expect it and we are obliged to act.

While Canada's economic performance remains strong relative to many other industrialized countries, the current global recovery is fragile. As stakeholders involved in the 2011 rail freight service review panel noted, Canada's international reputation as a reliable supplier suffers as a result of these disruptions. In today's highly competitive marketplace that can quickly lead to lost clients and lost markets.

The review panel also heard that rail labour issues were disruptive to the flow of goods in the logistic chain. That is because rail-based logistic systems involve a range of stakeholders, including shippers, railways, terminal operators, transloaders and ports. Problems incurred by any one of the players causes system congestion and it can take weeks for operations to recover afterward. This is precisely the situation we are facing today in day eight of an ongoing rail strike.

Canada's rail system in general does not have the capacity to pick up any slack from a CP Rail work stoppage. I want to remind the House that there are only two Canadian class I freight railways. One is CP Rail and the other is Canadian National Railway, or CN. Roughly 20% of CP traffic does not have direct access to CN's network and CN is already operating at full speed at any rate. At best it can only absorb a very small percentage of the additional load. More to the point, CP Rail and CN have an agreement whereby CP operates all trains of both railways from the Fraser Canyon to the south shore of the Port Metro Vancouver. Therefore, the CP Rail strike is affecting the flow of goods going into and coming out of the Port Metro Vancouver and CN's activities as well.

VIA Rail simply cannot help. It is designed to transport passengers, not freight. Therefore, we can see there are no other options and the economy can only be protected by the quick passage of this legislation.

Contrary to assertions from the opposite side, we have done our utmost best to avoid this situation. The government has worked hard and we have provided assistance to the parties to prevent this work stoppage. From the outset, I encouraged all parties to reach agreements through the negotiation process.

CP and Teamsters started negotiating in October and November 2011. They represent 4,200 running trade employees and 220 rail traffic controllers with full collective agreements expiring December 31, 2011.

By mid-February of this year, I received notices of dispute from the employer for both units. To try to break the impasse, the labour program provided the parties with the services of two conciliation officers for both of the union's bargaining units. Having the same conciliation officers for both units helped to ensure consistency in the process.

In spite of the efforts of the conciliators, who had many years of experience both on management side and on the union side, they could not help the parties find common ground. Things did not progress to a negotiated settlement and, as such, in accordance with the Canada Labour Code, they were released from conciliation on May 1.

On May 16 and May 22, I met with the parties myself but to no avail. On May 23 the strike started.

Labour officials worked with the parties for the first five days of the strike to try to reach a settlement or to try to find a voluntary arbitration process for the parties, but the parties rejected outright the compromise position that labour officials provided to them. As a result, labour officials withdrew their services because the impasse was great and the parties were entrenched in their positions and there was no prospect for a deal or a voluntary arbitration agreement.

I tried to give hon. members a quick rundown on events that took place over the span of eight months. However, the situation we are now facing, despite assistance provided on a massive scale to the parties, is one in which we have a strike affecting the national economy. We have tried diligently to avoid any disruption in railway transportation and its consequences for Canadian producers and manufacturers whose economic survival depends on this mode of transportation.

As I mentioned, I met with both parties on two separate occasions in the weeks leading up to the strike for over a period of about 30 hours. I acknowledge their efforts in attempting to achieve a resolution through their respective differences, but I was firm in my expectation that the parties were to do everything in their power to reach a deal of their volition. It is the responsibility of the parties for their own labour relations and it is the responsibility of the parties to conclude a collective agreement.

I ensured that the parties were aware of the serious concerns I had about the economic damage that would be inflicted on the Canadian business and agriculture sectors as a result of a possible work stoppage. I offered the parties an extended mediation period and asked them to continue to bargain and make every effort to achieve an agreement. My officials offered a compromise position.

I wanted to avoid the need for legislative intervention on the part of the government. Unfortunately, the parties failed to reach an agreement on either content or on process. Therefore, we are left with no choice but to assume our responsibility to the Canadian public and bring this dispute to a conclusion.

For all the reasons I have already outlined, this government is committed to doing what it takes to protect the public interest. The federal government has introduced back-to-work legislation in the railway industry in governments on eight occasions since 1950. We do not want nor can Canada afford to allow the strike to continue, especially at a time when the global economy remains in a precarious state.

I urge all members to swiftly pass the bill to get CP trains rolling again and enable the Canadian economy to continue to create jobs for the benefit of all Canadians.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would say that I hope historians take particular note, when they are reviewing this period of Canadian history, and factor in the implications of a government that is prepared to turn the whole House of Commons upside down, run roughshod over workers' rights and questionably violate the rights workers have under the charter, all in the interest of making sure the trains run on time. Historians should note that the minister shouted “hear, hear” on that comment. It must be late. Not many got that reference, but they ought to think about the fact that this is all about making the trains run on time. That is the priority.

The minister mentioned the amount of legislation that has been used, but since 1950 this kind of legislation has been used, on average, once every two years. The Conservatives have done it four times in the first year. Four times in the first year they have already brought in back-to-work legislation, denying workers their right to stand up and fight for their rights in a democratic fashion, exercising those charter rights.

What is interesting is what the government did not do in terms of bringing in back-to-work legislation. The government allowed in my home town, for instance, U.S. Steel to buy Stelco. Supposedly, the government found there was some net benefit to Canada, and yet not long after it bought Stelco and entered into negotiations, U.S. Steel did not like the way the negotiations were going and locked the workers out. We implored the government to step in and do something. If it wanted to bring in back-to-work legislation, we wanted it to bring that legislation in and put those Hamiltonians back to work, who did absolutely nothing wrong. They were locked out and, as a result, their pensions have been gutted and they have lost rights. That is the track record of the government in terms of workers' rights and workers' right to bargain collectively.

If we listen to the government, the union is so evil. It wanted so much, was greedy and selfish. That is the implication. I see the minister shaking her head no, no, no. Yet her colleagues are quite willing to throw around “union bosses” at a drop of a hat. Nobody is fooled by any of that. What is the strike really about? It is about pension rights. Is there a Canadian right now who is not frightened and worried about pension rights and willing to do anything, including standing up and fighting and exercising his or her right to strike?

Two of the issues are fatigue management and rail safety. How many derailments have there been in the last while? Rail safety is an issue, and a lot of changes have been advantageous to the railways. When the railways are unsafe, just like when classrooms are dirty, which is not just where people work but where children learn, public safety is at risk when there are fatigue issues in terms of the people who are running those trains. Why is that so wrong?

One of the last items was work rules. Trying to get fairness in terms of rules at work ought not to be seen as some kind of revolutionary tactic that brings down the weight of the entire federal government on people's heads because they want to have some decent and fair work rules.

Those are the three main issues. Why are they not mentioned by the government? Why does the government not have some sympathy for the workers who stand to lose tens of thousands of dollars in pensionable income and earning income in the ensuing years? Why has anybody not talked about that over there? Why has anyone over there not talked about managing fatigue as a public safety issue? Conservatives rant and rave about law and order and public safety. This is just as much a public safety issue as any other that the justice minister may bring forward. Yet the government wants to run roughshod over that, too.

Ten hours after the strike began, the government sent out a signal that it was prepared, if necessary, to step in with back-to-work legislation.

We do not need to have years at the bargaining table to guess what happened at that point. The negotiations broke down. The company is sitting at the table with its workers saying that it wants to negotiate a fair agreement but then it gets some help from its big buddy in Ottawa who says, “Hey, don't worry. If it doesn't go well we'll just order them all back to work.” Well, at that point bargaining is done. It is over. It is dead.

No one should be surprised that is what happened because that is what the government wanted to happen. Every employer in this country right now believes that they have a friend in the government, particularly when it comes to going after their own employees. Why? Because they can make more profit if they take away people's wages. That would be a fair trade-off as far as the government is concerned.

We have already heard that it is a profitable private corporation engaged in fair collective bargaining and after 10 hours the government effectively killed bargaining at that table. The government is responsible for where we are today, not the union. The current government brought us to where we are today.

It is interesting to mention that the government, from time to time, when it is necessary, will say things like, “We respect collective bargaining”. Sometimes it even goes so far as to recognize that it is a right that Canadians have. Canadians have that right because the Supreme Court has ruled that the charter provides that protection. What the government cannot stand is not Canadians who have rights, it is Canadians who would dare to stand up and demand those rights. That is what the current government cannot stand.

In my last two minutes I will mention that the official opposition, under the leadership of the member for Outremont, was here in this place every time the government attacked workers, and today is no different. We will continue to stand up and fight for the rights of Canadians to have a decent income, especially when it is a profit-making corporation, and to have decent pensions that they can count on. This business of taking people's pension rights away, sometimes just a few years before they are about to retire, is disgraceful. It is disgraceful to do that to Canadians.

However, we ought not be surprised. We just need to look at what the government did with OAS. The Prime Minister said, “Oh, we won't touch pensions. We'll just kind of kill them a little bit.” And somehow that is okay.

The fact that pensions were on the bargaining table to be negotiated is something the government would see as almost evil. How dare anyone go against the government when it is trying to lower pensions. Anyone in Canada who has any other ideas, except its buddies over there, had better forget about it because, if necessary, look where we are, one o'clock in the morning and we are ramming through back-to-work legislation so that the government can do the bidding of the people who called upon it to do it. In every one of those cases where the government ordered workers back to work, that is what the corporation wanted.

In the case of U.S. Steel, the corporation wanted those workers outside because it locked them out. We sure were not standing here at one o'clock in the morning debating legislation to order them back to work. It is not going to happen because the corporations are setting the agenda and Canadians are beginning to catch on as to who will pay the price at the end of the day.

If it takes until one o'clock in the morning, three o'clock in the morning, five o'clock in the morning or 24/7 standing beside workers and defending their rights to free collective bargaining, then Canadians can count on the fact that the NDP, the official opposition in Ottawa, will be there and will take on the government every time.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves once again, as a House, debating a question of back-to-work legislation. It has become an extraordinary habit on the part of the government.

I want to try to talk to the House, if I may, from a perspective that is different from the perspective we have heard either from the government or the official opposition, and I know there will be a lot of heckling and other things.

We all recognize that there is public interest in both senses of the word. There is a public interest in the negotiation and discussion process between the workers and the employers. We decided that, in our economic system, we would let the parties make every effort to find solutions to their problems. We recognize the importance of these rights, whether it be at the federal or the provincial level.

It is also important to note that the Supreme Court of Canada also recognized the importance of the process, the importance of negotiations, the importance of making an effort to find solutions and the fundamental importance of recognizing that, in a democratic society, workers and employers will have differences of opinion from time to time and that, yes, there will be strikes.

We do not want a strike. We do not want any disruptions to the economy. We recognize that this is difficult for the economy, workers and employers. However, the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that people have these rights and we recognize that it may cause inconveniences when workers or employers exercise their economic and social rights. That is the law in Canada. That is the social situation in Canada.

We also recognize on our side of the House, and I am sure there are some members, at least in the New Democratic Party, who understand it because of their involvement in various governments at the provincial level, that there is also a public interest in the economy and a public interest in ensuring that at critical times the public interest must be maintained. Therefore, yes, as the minister has said, from time to time governments have introduced back-to-work legislation of various kinds.

I have to say to the minister that the back-to-work legislation she has introduced on previous occasions, and the way in which she has exercised her discretion with respect to the appointment of arbitrators, has shown a bias toward employers and a bias toward simply exercising an authoritarian practice by the government, which is shameful.

It is also the case that when the collective bargaining is still going on and people are still at the table and the minister ventures out to the microphones and says if the parties are not able to reach an agreement very quickly the government will be ordering them back to work, we all have to understand what that does to the balance of the discussion. What that does is this. If an employer knows that the government is going to be there ordering people back to work, not at the end of the day but at the end of the hour, there is no incentive on the part of the employer to reach an agreement. That is the problem we have with the approach that has been taken.

My colleague from Leeds—Grenville spoke in the House, and I appreciated his comments very much and the comments the minister has made where the formula is this: the economy is fragile, the economy is interconnected, it is our competitiveness that is at stake, we simply have to intervene, we have no choice. If that is the case, before the other side applauds, why even pretend there is such a thing as collective bargaining? Why even pretend there is such a thing as a right to withdraw labour? Why even pretend there are in fact democratic rights that do from time to time create an inconvenience? Why not just abandon the whole process and set up an authoritarian structure where the government and the employers get together and establish what the pension rules are going to be, establish what the wage rates are going to be and forget about the democratic rights of the people who are working for a living?

That is the problem with what we see coming from the government. We do not deny for a moment that the government has an economic responsibility. What we deny is the competence of the government. What we deny is the fairness of the government. What we deny is the sense of balance of the government. That is why we will be voting against this legislation and the way in which its power has been exercised.

There is a very serious issue which is now raised by the rhetoric of the minister and raised by the minister and members who were speaking in favour of this legislation. It is the same issue that we had with respect to the Canada Post legislation, it is the same issue that we had with respect to Air Canada, and the way in which it has exercised its discretion to appoint arbitrators and the way in which it has exercised its discretion to intervene.

That is, what is the future of labour relations in the federal jurisdiction in this country, if at every moment and at every time that workers exercise their rights to defend their pensions, to defend their job security, to defend their health and safety, the government is there telling the employer, “Do not worry, we are on your side. We are not on the side of the workers. We are going to be making sure that people get back to work right away”?

All sense of balance is lost. At the end of the day, what really matters in this House and what really matters with respect to legislation is this critical sense of balance. We in the Liberal Party of Canada do not deny for a moment that of course there are times when governments have to intervene. We recognize that. We have done it. We have seen it. We have been there.

It is not a question of “Do we have the right to intervene?” It is a question of “How do we intervene, what is the sensitivity with which we intervene, what is the balance that is struck when we intervene, and how do we ensure that the work of the employer, the work of the workers, both sides are respected and both sides are taken?”

I do not think there is disgrace in the fact that CP Rail makes a profit. It is a good thing that CP Rail makes a profit. The question is not whether it is a profitable company or a private company, the question is, “Do we have a government, today, that is prepared to recognize the need for balance, the need for fairness, and, yes, the need for justice, as well as the needs of the economy?”

Right now we do not have that government. That is the reason the Liberal Party will be voting against this legislation.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It being 1:14 a.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question 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.

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that we proceed immediately with the vote.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #233

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the member for Ottawa—Orléans came into the House after you began talking about the motion. I would like you to confirm that his vote has not been recorded.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

As I recall it, the member had taken his seat before I had started. I can review the video but I did see him sit down before I actually started reading the question.

The hon. government House leader is rising.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have one very important piece of business. I move:

That the House do now adjourn.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

(Motion agreed to)

This House stands adjourned until later this day at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 1:26 a.m.)