Debates of March 22nd, 1995

Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Speaker]

Call in the members.

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

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

moved that Bill C-77, an act to provide for the maintenance of railway operations and subsidiary services, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Maintenance of Railway Operations Act, 1995. The primary aim of this bill is to put an end to the work stoppage paralysing the railway industry and to permit the resumption of activities in this sector. The bill also provides a solution, through a mediation-arbitration process, to the matters remaining in dispute between the companies and various unions.

My colleagues in the House are certainly aware that a major disruption in Canadian railway operations can have grave consequences on various sectors of the economy and on the thousands of railway passengers.

I had hoped we could avoid such a measure, but the government hardly has a choice anymore. Government intervention in this dispute has become unavoidable. 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.

During negotiations between the railway companies and the unions concerned, it became clear that because of the position taken by the employers that substantial cuts in labour costs were necessary, it would be a long and arduous process. To cut costs, the railway companies are seeking major concessions with respect to job security and more flexibility in the distribution of tasks.

Negotiations between the employers and the unions have been going on for more than a year, and in most cases, the parties were assisted by a conciliator and a conciliation commissioner. My predecessor, the Minister of Human Resources Development, appointed Mr. Allan Hope as conciliation commissioner for the purposes of collective bargaining on eleven agreements involving the three railway companies. The report prepared by the conciliation commissioner was transmitted to the parties on February 22, 1995. This report proposes ways to reach a final settlement on issues on which the parties have failed to agree.

As I said earlier, the issue of job security was central to the concerns of the employer during these negotiations. If we look at the situation in the three railway companies concerned by the bill before the House today, CN and VIA Rail have proposed a gradual phasing out of this benefit, while Canadian Pacific suggested restructuring the provisions on job security so as to restrict employee eligibility.

The unions expressed their frustration with the emphasis placed on this issue during the bargaining process and were quick to point out that, from their point of view, job security was an advantage that had been obtained through collective bargaining in return for various concessions and trade-offs. The representatives of the unions, who see this advantage as a way to protect employees against loss of employment due to structural and technological change, maintain that the employer wants to remove this protection at a time when the job security of their members is threatened.

On the other hand, agreements concluded recently by Canadian Pacific with three of the unions that represent smaller bargaining units within the company are a clear indication that the process can work. The three unions-the Transportation Communications International Union, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the Rail Canada Traffic Controllers-managed to agree with the company on wage increases, conditions relating to job security and a number of improvements to social benefits.

I have tried to give hon. members a quick rundown on the events that have taken place so far and the situation we are now facing, despite assistance provided on a massive scale to the parties, in an attempt 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 hon. members may be aware, I met with representatives of the rail companies and the unions in Montreal on Sunday afternoon. At that meeting I acknowledged their efforts in attempting to achieve a resolution of their respective differences.

I expressed concern over the economic damage which was being inflicted on the Canadian business and agricultural sectors as a result of the work stoppages. I asked the parties to give the negotiation process one final push in order to achieve either tentative settlements of the issues in dispute, or agree on a binding process to solve their differences and avoid the need for legislated intervention on the part of the government.

Unfortunately the companies and the unions have failed to reach any type of agreement on these matters. We are left with no choice but to assume our responsibility to the Canadian public and bring this feud to a conclusion.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill entitled Maintenance of Railway Operations Act, 1995, is to ensure that railway and subsidiary services continue or are forthwith resumed at Canadian National, Canadian Pacific and VIA Rail.

With respect to the dispute resolution process, the bill before my hon. colleagues calls for a mediation-arbitration commission to be established in respect of each bargaining unit prescribed. Each commission shall consist of one representative appointed by the employer, one representative appointed by the union and a chairperson appointed by the Minister of Labour.

Within 70 days after its establishment or such longer period as the minister may allow, each commission must endeavour to mediate all the matters referred to it, then hear the parties on the matters on which it was unable to bring about an agreement and render an arbitration decision on these matters. It must also fix a date for the termination of the new collective agreement, which date may not be earlier than December 31, 1997.

To ensure that each commission carries out its mandate with impartiality, the bill requires each commission to be guided by the need for terms and conditions of employment that are consistent with the economic viability and competitiveness of a coast-to-coast rail system in both the short and the long term, taking into account the importance of good labour-management relations.

I am convinced that this bill will not make all parties involved happy, but I know that it provides for a dispute resolution process that is both fair and speedy. With this legislation, the government sends a clear message to the railway companies and the unions. It is telling them that, while believing in the collective bargaining process, it is not prepared to let work stoppages in the railway sector interfere with the normal operation of the Canadian economy. I urge all hon. members to support this position by ensuring that this bill is passed as quickly as possible.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that we currently bear a heavy responsibility, but it is because the Bloc Quebecois takes its role as the official opposition very seriously that it cannot support a special piece of legislation that denies both the right to strike and the right to negotiate. On Monday, we proposed amendments that would have allowed the employees to go back to work without undermining the ability to negotiate for those who exercised their right under the Canada Labour Code.

Why must this special bill single out the workers and some of the strikers? Why must it undermine negotiated settlements by outlining a general and drastic worsening of working conditions? Why is the government itself not acting on the substance of the report by Commissioner Hope, who was appointed to advise the government and did so by working hard and producing a comprehensive report? Why did the government actually undermine the significance of the Hope report? Why is it satisfied with a hollowed-out Hope report?

The Minister of Labour's position is certainly not impartial and I will show that. Is the minister acting like a sorcerer's apprentice because of inexperience, ignorance or bad faith? Let us at least put the question.

The government is in a hurry, but it has difficulty hiding the fact that it is taking advantage of a serious situation to protect interests which are not the economic interests it is referring to. The government does not care about establishing conditions which would promote co-operation. It imposes a bludgeon law which does not even leave room for mutually agreed settlements. The government also treats differently the three companies, at the expense of the workers affected by the strike and the lockout.

The proposal which we made on Monday seeks to preserve the future: everyone goes back to work; mediation takes place according to the Hope formula; a public report is released and recommendations are made to this House to try to restore a balance which was destroyed for workers by the action and inaction of this government.

Since the strike started, its settlement has become a national issue. We feel that, in the context, the two sides may have a new desire to reach a settlement. Such an example of conditions promoting fair and healthy work relations would be a definite asset for the future of the country that this government claims to want to build. However, in the meantime, what Canadians and Quebecers see, is a government taking advantage of a serious

situation to promote its partisan interests. That is not from me: it is from the Hope report.

We had to protect the interests of Canadian workers who used their right to strike, as provided in the Labour Code. I said it on several occasions:

If the Canadian economy cannot afford the Canada Labour Code then it should be said and something should be done in order to avoid the sort of mess we are in. The workers will be the ones who will pay and we know many persons who are not responsible for that. The government and the House cannot have blind eyes on that.

The right to strike is a fundamental right in every democratic society. In the context of labour relations, it plays a major role in bringing about a settlement between the parties, a mutually satisfactory settlement through which the level of productivity sought by companies and workers, and society as a whole, can be achieved.

Never has forced settlement brought about innovative ideas to deal with new situations. Solutions imposed on the parties only repeat patterns that cannot be adapted any more to particular situations. But there are no short cuts when it comes to looking for solutions together. Every time we failed to do so-and, as we know, this has been a problem in the public service-we ended up paying a much higher price in terms of loss of productivity, because it becomes impossible under such circumstances to finds mutually acceptable solutions.

This is not an attack on companies, on the contrary. But businesses worthy of the trust the public puts in them must know that they cannot claim to be reorganizing in order to compete if they do not take their employees into account. There are no short cuts.

It is extremely unfortunate that the new so-called "labour" minister's second move since taking office is to undermine any chance of real corporate reorganization by putting in place mechanisms, traditional mechanisms, that have already proven ineffective in reforming the system. With these mechanisms, the minister condemns Canada to live through situations we had hoped never to live through again.

I am telling you this as a Bloc member, because we take our role of official opposition seriously. After all, we could rejoice over the fact that a position perpetuating problems and making them worse can be put in place this way. But no, we are here to play a positive role as long as we remain in this country and look after the interests of the workers as well as the companies who depend on a satisfactory settlement.

The Hope report contains a wealth of information. I will try to give you a brief outline of the highlights that should have guided the government in preparing its bill, if it had really sought what it claims to be seeking. First of all, I will outline the main elements of the Hope report. The report says this: "In summary, the dispute revolves around extremely complex collective bargaining issues raised under circumstances that do not lend themselves very well to negotiated solutions. Given the circumstances, the purpose of this report is to determine the possibility of initiating an ongoing process that would allow the parties to deal with these very complex issues through binding mediation or arbitration maximizing the parties' involvement in setting the conditions".

Mr. Hope took on the difficult task of defining the conditions in which solutions can be found despite the difficult situation. He reviewed the available literature on labour relations and administration, after stressing the labour department's basic tradition of neutrality and objectivity. That is what Mr. Hope himself said. I think he would be disappointed in the current situation. He noted that, according to the unions, the government, through the Minister of Transport, delayed the collective bargaining process, and that both the employers and the government seem ready to attack the rail employees' working conditions.

It says that, in fact, the companies have already made demands of this kind in the past. They have already tried to obtain similar concessions during past rounds of negotiations. Their demands are so controversial and provocative because of the partisan role taken by the government, which supports the position of the railway companies, and because of the tenacity with which the companies have stuck to these demands. And, he says, their points of disagreement are complicated because we are now in a period of economic recovery and in a situation which management, the management of companies, has let fester for several years.

Having said this, what did Mr. Hope propose in his report after reviewing the situation? He said that we could have let the strike go on. Because we find ourselves before two reconcilable parties. The minister says that there have been hours and hours and hours of negotiation, but what she really means is that people have been sitting at the same table for hours and hours and hours. Anyone who has ever been involved in negotiations knows that people can sit down face to face, side by side, yet negotiate nothing, put nothing on the table, because the parties refuse to put anything on the table as long as they are uncertain whether they will come out winners when they play their cards.

It is true that the government has intervened so many times in the railway industry that the employers, and in some cases the unions, are just waiting for the government to step in. This undermines the effectiveness of a strike.

By the way, the Hope report says that a strike cannot be stopped just because of interruptions in service; the right to strike can only be suspended in extremely serious cases. The report states that the worst case scenario for the unions would be if the government found itself forced to impose the railway companies' demands as a prelude to the rationalization process outlined in the reports.

We now find ourselves in this worst case scenario. Why? Once the government decided to intervene, instead of following the recommendations contained in the Hope report, it decided to use a process which has already proven unsuccessful. In fact, what does the Hope report have to say about the government legislating employees back to work? The report indicates that dispute arbitration must be avoided at all cost, because such arbitration cases have prevented us from addressing the problem and often led us to copy old systems instead of looking for new solutions and making progress.

Under what conditions could we allow the parties to break the current deadlock without a strike? We agree that the only means of settling the real issues is the right to strike.

Mr. Hope arrives at the following solution-he says there could be other ones, but this is the one he proposes: first, a mediation-arbitration stage to allow the parties involved to reach a consensus on what he calls the parameters but that I would describe as the overall situation of the companies.

Let me explain. Workers are convinced that the companies make profits, but that they are mismanaged which results in waste, that Paul Tellier's salary does not allow him to teach lessons to others, that the government's plan-they hear about it-to streamline operations is a threat to them, that the Minister of Transport supports the companies and that he made offending comments, to say the least, when he said that railway employees with a grade eight or nine education should not be blamed for negotiating overgenerous collective agreements.

[Some hon. members]

Shame.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Real negotiations require that the parties meet. However, for the unions, the situation is the one which I just described. The unions feel threatened and they feel they have been had. They made major concessions in the previous collective agreements to preserve job security, since everything else was in jeopardy. Now, the companies show no regard for that right, acquired quite recently in some cases, and they want to eliminate it. In some cases, this job security, which is said to threaten the survival of the companies, was gained in 1992.

Ultimately, and not just for the workers and the companies but for all Canadians and Quebecers, the claims made by railway companies should be thoroughly examined. They claim that competition is fierce and that they can no longer continue to operate under the current conditions, that something must be done.

The Hope report says that this issue should have been discussed first. Discussions should have taken place first, with an arbitrator, the workers and the employers, on the survival of the companies and on their competitiveness, taking into consideration the workers' demands. In other words, the parties involved should have tried to agree on the information. Again, in the labour relations sector, whether through strike action or through other means, if you cannot agree to share information, you cannot negotiate.

The first phase of the mediation-arbitration process, which commissioner Hope expected to last two months, and which should have included a real debate to allow the workers to make their complaints and claims of waste, lack of organization, and to provide some explanations-because they got all the blame-was totally skipped. Had these discussions taken place, the workers might have agreed that, in some cases, some action was required, thus paving the way for true negotiations.

The second phase proposed in the Hope report provided 120 days to implement, in the various mediation-arbitration commissions, the parameters agreed on. The legislation only retains the second part of the proposal made in the report. It does not provide any means to try to reach a consensus, as proposed in the first part. Certainly not, because what constitutes one of the most serious attacks against the unions, who must feel that the employers and the government are both out to get them, is section 12. For some reason, the minister was very proud of this section, but I think this is just another indication of her lack of experience in labour relations.

I will read it to you. Section 12 says: "Each Commission shall be guided by the need for terms and conditions of employment that are consistent with the economic viability and competitiveness of a coast-to-coast rail system in both the short and the long term, taking into account the importance of good labour-management relations". That sounds pretty good, or does it? Anyone with any experience in labour relations knows this provision has at least two major effects. First, it does away with the arbitrator's customary mandate to abide by the jurispru-

dence. Basically, this paragraph is a substitute for the two months of research to clarify the state of the railway system.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

This is because the government is in a hurry, for the reasons mentioned during Question Period. It is in a hurry because it wants to sell CN and can only sell CN if it makes drastic changes in the terms and conditions of employment. And because the government is in a hurry, it will not give the process designed by Commissioner Hope a chance to succeed. First, it says: You as arbitrators will have to ensure that terms and conditions of employment are consistent with employability in the short and long term.

For decades the railways have been allowed to deteriorate, and now in a single collective agreement, as a result of section 12, employees will have to pay for the disorganized approach and irresponsibility of the companies and the government. This is outrageous. Those who would blame us for the impact on small businesses and workers who suffer as a result of this right to strike should realize that the real culprit is a government that uses the situation to deal with problems it created in the first place, at the expense of the workers.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

The Liberals are to blame.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

But that is not all, it is not just by stripping all power from the mediation-arbitration commissions in clause 12 that the bill completely sabotages the Hope report, on the contrary. It is worse than that because there is a mandate and, instead of doing what is customary and leaving the decision to one arbitrator, who can exercise judgment and refer to the jurisprudence, we teeter on the verge of the ridiculous either by being totally oblivious to the Hope report's contents or by acting in bad faith when we say that we accept the report. That is why I call it the ghost of the Hope report-the two do not even resemble each other.

The second objection is that everything must be settled within 70 days. The Hope report would give 60 days to hammer out an agreement on the difficult basic conditions and 120 days to apply them. But we are saying that the whole agreement should be signed, sealed and delivered in 70 days, just like that! Why the haste? Is it because we absolutely must have negotiated settlements? We are creating conditions which make that impossible. We are creating conditions under which arbitration will be carried out by a commission which has no real power and to which the government will appoint the arbitrator.

The workers would not even be consulted on the choice of arbitrator. So, what other clauses of this bill are utterly unacceptable? Just imagine being so confident that the process will be encouraged and adopted-by the way, a basic condition for even having an arbitration commission is that both management and the union appoint a representative to it-that if the parties neglect to name a representative, the government, the minister will intervene in their stead and name a competent person.

Words fail me to describe such a situation. And that is not all, that is not all. There is the issue of deadlines. I already said this, but I must stress that the commissioner gave 60 days plus 120, and he took care to stipulate that he is limiting it to six months because it will be easier for the parties to come to an agreement once they have agreed on the parameters. In the bill, 70 is the total maximum. This means that the government wants a settlement to be reached quickly, and once again I ask why? I will finish on this note, Mr. Speaker.

Other provisions of this bill are also unacceptable. Among others, there is the fact, and I must stress it, that the three companies are not treated equally and, as a consequence, all of the workers are not treated equally. Why? First, let us try to find out. Take the first party, CN. It gets an arbitration commission, 70 days, a clause 12 which makes no sense, and a concluding clause which says: "This Part- shall come into force on the expiration of the twelfth hour after the time at which this Act is assented to".

What about Canadian Pacific and Via Rail? "This part shall come into force by order". This means that, at CP, where there is a strike and a lockout, more importantly, at this point in time, workers or those who obeyed the picket lines have been laid off temporarily, punished, and the unions are no longer having their dues deducted because workers crossed the picket lines. And there is more: no one is saying that the working conditions will return to normal and that the workers will be rehired. No. No one is saying that.

No one said that because the company arranged to maintain operations. It is working at 80 per cent of its capacity. At 80 per cent. I will read you part of a notice I received today sent by the company to its customers. It thanks them considerably for their patience and understanding. It goes on to say that 12,888 railway workers are working non stop. These railway workers include some 2,888 managers, supervisors and other, non-unionized employees, who were given special training to replace striking workers.

Canada has no anti-strikebreaking legislation. This means that Canadian Pacific, which took steps and is operating at between 60 per cent and 80 per cent capacity-there is no agreement on the exact figure-is not subject to such legislation. There are examples of this in history. In 1987, in a similar situation, 400 workers who had been locked out and were therefore subject to a similar provision, waited four months without being called back to work. This means that the workers who were on strike were called back within 12 or 15 hours, and those who had been locked out were not called back for four or five months, since the company could operate. I have confirmation of this here from the unions concerned. This means that, when we say, by order, we let the company carry on.

As for VIA Rail, the minister says they are close to agreement. No, before looking at VIA Rail, I have other news on Canadian Pacific. Just a few small items.

In 1991 or 1992, when the company closed the Angus shops, there was a serious problem, workers were in danger of losing their jobs. So, in order to shut down the Angus shops, the company promised, in a memorandum that was not part of the collective agreement, but that seemed to be ongoing in application, because otherwise it would have been meaningless, that the workers would indeed be paid but that they would remain in Montreal.

Now, the Canadian auto workers who are negotiating with Canadian Pacific have been told-and I have confirmed this with the company-that if they do not agree to the 250 workers in question being moved to Calgary, first, that these workers will lose their job security, and second, that the company will not sign any agreement with the other workers. The workers in the rest of Canada are being pitted against the workers in Montreal. They want to find a solution to the dispute, but they say they want to restore order in the rail system, and we see what the conditions are.

And finally, VIA Rail. The minister said that everything was fine at VIA Rail, that the negotiations were continuing. The union leaders tell me that there is no more negotiation going on here than anywhere else. They tell me that their biggest worry is that this would be done by order in council, because everyone knows that for reasons that are historic and that are explained in the Hope report, the passenger rail system is operating at a deficit, and that in reality when VIA Rail is not operating, it is losing less money than usual.

So, on the one hand, the government is saying: "This is terrible, we cannot provide service to passengers". But, on the other hand, it does not ensure that the legislation makes it possible to take action when something terrible happens.

All we hear is: "This is terrible, simply terrible! We must bring in legislation". But those who are supposed to make the terrible situation go away are not covered.

[An hon. member]

Incredible.

[An hon. member]

Terrible.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

It is terrible. But that is not all. This is not a simple matter, either, because some of VIA Rail's striking workers belong to the same local as some CN union members. Therefore, if CN resumes operations but not VIA Rail, VIA Rail workers on the same seniority list as their CN colleagues will do what union members do in similar circumstances, that is, engage in picketing. Just think about the consequences.

I can therefore strongly emphasize, once again, that the government has used with malicious intent the dramatic situation that some people are going through. A strike is never a pleasant experience. It is not pleasant for the strikers, who are at the end of their rope, nor for those who must suffer the consequences.

Instead of seeking permanent solutions-even if we take more time, as the Bloc Quebecois recommends-, the government is using the situation to resolve its own problems, which Commissioner Hope refers to as "its partisan problems".

If we, in the Bloc Quebecois, dared to stand up at the risk of being unpopular, it is because we have a high opinion of what politics is, of what a country is, and even of what Canada is, as long as we are part of it.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe it was Yogi Berra who said, and if it was not Yogi I am sure he will not mind if I attribute it to him, it seems like déja vu all over again.

Last week it was back to work legislation for the port of Vancouver and this week it is for most of the railways. I suggest the time has long past for the government to get serious about labour issues and come up with a long term solution that does not rest on the usual crisis management approach of back to work legislation.

We can draw some comfort from the fact that Bill C-77 does contain a guiding principle which allows the commissioners to look at long term solutions. I am pleased to see that clause in the bill. However, since they have 70 days to file a report, I hope their suggestions are acted upon faster than those contained in the Fraleigh report, the Hope report, or even the long delayed and never seen Fraser study.

Perhaps I am beginning to sound like a broken record. I have said it so often in this House, and I think it bears repeating. I want to impress upon this government that we have to look to the future and find better ways to deal with work disruptions.

I want the House to know that the Reform Party is concerned and that is why my colleague, the member for Lethbridge introduced Bill C-262. That bill was specific in that it would have applied to the grain industry but the principle of final offer arbitration is one that can be applied in any labour dispute.

When the bill came up for a vote on Monday, we discovered that the government has made an new ally with the Bloc and even the NDP, the very people who are responsible for holding up speedy passage of this bill, and as a result shot down Bill

C-262. I was disappointed by the coalition that was formed against that very sensible bill.

As is evidenced in Bill C-77, the government is putting its agenda first and perhaps labour issues second. The difference in the coming into force provision of CN, CP and VIA Rail, perhaps indicates that the government is more concerned with protecting the government's interest in CN than helping Canadian shippers, manufacturers, farmers and workers. The cost to the economy is maybe secondary. Securing a positive atmosphere for the sale of CN might be the primary goal here.

Does it not matter as much that VIA is losing $1 million a day or that passengers are inconvenienced? Does it not matter that the transportation of goods in this country is paralyzed? Does it not matter that our international trade reputation is in jeopardy, suffering another blow that perhaps we cannot recover from this time?

As we speak, container vessels are steaming out of Canadian ports and off to U.S. ports. The whole time the Bloc and the NDP are stalling, ports throughout Canada including Quebec are losing port fees and pilotage charges. The American longshoremen have been collecting the wages that Canadians are missing.

The trucking companies are missing out on business that helps them and their workers to survive, to pay their bills and to feed their families. Our balance of payments with our free trade partner are tipping further in favour of the U.S.

Now let us look a little closer at the real impact of this work stoppage. On the east coast the port of Halifax estimates that it has lost $1.25 million so far in this strike alone. Eight ships have already left for New York. We all know that the economy of eastern Canada just does not need nor can it sustain this kind of setback.

On the west coast the port of Vancouver was just recovering and getting back on stride after back to work legislation when this disruption came along. Now the port of Vancouver is effectively grinding to a halt again. At the moment 22 ships are at berth in the port of Vancouver, four of which are grain vessels waiting for loads of grain. Ten more are at anchor, three of which are grain carriers. British Columbia coal miners are anxious to see their four coal carriers now at dockside loaded so that mines can keep operating and miners can keep working.

The strike has tremendous spinoff and domino effects. It is not only the people on strike who are suffering or all the industries that depend on that form of transportation. The potash industry will soon slow down if the two ships waiting at anchor cannot load their cargoes.

Why is it that we still cannot get unanimous support to provide speedy passage of the bill? Of course it is inevitable. It is just delaying the inevitable to hold up the bill.

Vancouver's loss is Seattle's gain. Halifax's loss is New York's gain. Job losses are the order of the day in manufacturing. If car manufacturers cannot get their parts they have to lay off workers. If they are not supplying cars, dealers do not have cars to sell and have perhaps been laying off people in their dealerships.

Farmers are extremely vulnerable to the whims of the transportation system. The only option they have is to hope the situation will be alleviated before it gets worse and worse. About all they can do at the moment is hope and sit back and watch their hard-won international contracts go down the drain, contracts that may be impossible to get back. After all, why would a buyer renegotiate a contract with a Canadian who could not guarantee the product will be delivered for the promised date? Buyers will go elsewhere, all because the government was slow to react and because the Bloc and the NDP did not care about the average Canadian worker.

We were asking for the legislation a week ago. If it had been introduced a week ago we would be further down the path to having it passed and assented to than we are at this point.

It is inevitable. I understand my colleagues in the opposition making a political statement. I suspect the statement has been made now. The real loser is the Canadian worker who gets laid off from his job simply because the system is backed up.

We are putting the government on notice that the Reform Party will be watching to make sure it has the best interests of Canadians in mind and that it is not just out to protect and fortify the sale of CN.

We want to know what criteria the minister will apply to her ministerial order to put CP and VIA workers back to work. Will she put them back to work when she thinks the levels of services have dwindled, or will she listen to the people who actually use the services such as the shippers and the Canadian Wheat Board? Will she be listening to those people? We will be watching to see that she does.

We expect she will take into account the impact continued stoppage will have on the wheat board, car manufacturers, small business people, grain producers, coal miners, lumber producers and kids who will not get a new pair of shoes because their parents have been laid off from their jobs. Many people are having a very difficult time with their payments. Even a week off work can be catastrophic to them.

As a Montrealer I am sure the minister can appreciate the problems faced by travellers and workers who are having difficulty getting themselves and their goods in and out of that city. When Toronto commuters are inconvenienced or late for work, their business, productivity and families are affected.

We are prepared to give the minister the benefit of the doubt. We are prepared to believe the minister will do the right thing, that she will order CP and VIA back to work before there are any devastating disruptions if there have not already been some.

The Reform Party intends to support the bill. I suggest the other parties in the House have made their political statement and have made their political point. Now we should all get behind the bill and do what is right for Canada.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, as a Canadian I am disappointed that the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP have not seen fit to support the legislation. Perhaps they do not realize the economic impact of their stalling from coast to coast to coast. It is affecting the daily lives of Canadians. The economic condition of the country is deteriorating mainly because a party interested solely in the separation of Quebec is not acting appropriately. It is important to note that in this process.

I will give some examples of the economic impacts Canadians have experienced in various sectors of the economy. The shutdown of CN paralyses approximately 60 per cent of the country's freight traffic. The country's freight traffic capacity is further reduced by the disruption at CP Rail, where services are maintained with workers not on strike and 2,000 managers and staffers at approximately 60 per cent of normal capacity.

General Motors and Ford Canada employ some 21,000 workers in the greater Toronto area. Two Ford plants have been closed, putting 3,000 employees out of work. Others are operating at half capacity due to a shortage of parts for their production lines. Further layoffs are likely if the strike continues.

It takes approximately five trucks to replace one freight car. Ford Canada indicates that there are not enough trucks available to replace the shortfall in railway services.

The core manufacturing sector is being affected to the tune of $200 million to $500 million in economic losses per week. A spokesman with the Canadian Manufacturers Association estimates production losses to the economy if the strike continues to the tune of $3 billion to $5 billion.

Numerous companies that rely on rail transportation to ship both goods in the resources and manufacturing industries across Canada are suffering. The economic impacts of the rail shutdown are enormous.

I mentioned the major auto manufacturing locations in Ontario. Some of the companies affected are in the province of Quebec. Kruger Paper in Trois-Rivières is shutting down Tuesday due to the lack of wood chips coming in. There is a loss of $1 million a day and 500 workers are affected. Stone Consolidated in Port Alfred was shut down on Monday. Petromont in Varennes will shut down on Wednesday. Shell in Montreal is burning the equivalent of four tank cars of liquid gas daily. Port of Bécancour will shut down on Wednesday. Several aluminium plants are experiencing a slowdown in production: Alcan in Chicoutimi, ABI, Reynolds and Lauralco in Baie Comeau.

This is the message that the Bloc Quebecois should be paying more attention to instead of playing petty politics.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 4.54 p.m., pursuant to the order made earlier today, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 78(2) it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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