Debates of April 17th, 2007

Railway Continuation Act, 2007

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

That is not what I said.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That is not good enough if somebody dies on that train that goes over the embankment.

I wish everybody was here to hear all the moans and groans at the suggestion that people could really be hurt. When a train derails that is a big deal because an awful lot of heavy metal is moving uncontrollably. How many have we seen this year alone?

I hear from my friends who deal with these issues every day that derailments have doubled this year in January. I know these have been read out but I want to read them again.

On January 4 in the Fraser Canyon a locomotive plunged down an embankment. Why are they not laughing? That is a funny line according to the guys opposite. They think a derailment down in an embankment is funny.

How about January 8, that was a real joke when 24 cars of a 122 car freight train derailed in Quebec. That is pretty hilarious.

How about March 1. Here is a real knee-slapper. A CN freight train derailed in Pickering. I will bet the people living in Pickering are not laughing very hard when they think about what has happened and what it means.

On March 4 grain was spilled near Blue River, B.C. I do not imagine farmers were very happy to see their grain going over the side, insurance or not.

On March 10 train traffic along Canadian National's main freight line through central New Brunswick was disrupted by a 17-car derailment. Although I know we have heard it, one still has to say it with amazement that for this wonderful accomplishment, this great safety record, the CEO of CN makes $56 million a year, more than $1 million a week.

My colleagues calculated it out. I stopped after I got to the $9,000 an hour part. Wait a minute. We have these skilled workers responsible for the trains in Canada. We have safety issues to the point where derailments are doubling and we are now putting populations at risk. We have a corporation that thinks its top boss is doing so well that he deserves $56 million a year to provide such fine derailments.

What is most aggravating about this situation for many of the workers and certainly for the union is the process. I mentioned earlier the final offer selection, the means that the government has put on the table, is not fair.

There are ways to settle disagreements and labour disputes that do not involve only two parties. It is not unusual to have a mediator play a role or a conciliator play a role and sometimes the parties will agree that they are so stuck that they need help. Often, to break the log-jam, they will send it to an arbitrator, make their case and then live by the decision. There are two main ways of doing that, interest arbitration and final offer selection, but there are others.

The difficulty with the one chosen here is that it is usually done where it is mainly money in dispute. One can bring in all the market comparisons, similar job comparisons, market studies and other collective agreements and one makes the case and then the arbitrator makes a ruling on what he or she thinks is fair.

However, in this case, this is where there are two complete offers on all the outstanding issues. The arbitrator picks one and that is it in its entirety or he picks the other one. It is win-win or lose-lose situation. It is not the best. If we had to go down a road that involves another party, would it not make sense that the process would be one that both parties want, not just management? We know management wants this. We know that the United States owners of CN want this but this is not what the workers wanted. All they want is fairness, so at the very least the government could have put in an interest arbitration.

Why does it matter so much? To come back to the bill that I was waving and saying that it was pretty thin but that it has great power, guess who gets to appoint the arbitrator? Is it the union? No. Is it the customers? No. Is the farmers or small business? No. The government appoints the arbitrator. The government gives all the power to the arbitrator. The government is on the side of its friends in big business. We know that. Somehow the government expects that the workers at CN and their families are supposed to believe that somehowm through all of thism they will get a fair shake. We do not see it.

Hunter Harrison, the CEO, made $56 million in 2005. He has made more than that since then I am sure. He gets $9,000 bucks an hour. The skilled CN workers, by an industrial average, make decent money. They have a lot of responsibility and have had a lot of training. Depending on their seniority and the job they do, they can make between $70,000 and $90,000 with some overtime. That is a decent wage, but it is not $9,000 an hour. However, it is certainly not too much. If my daughter is on that train, I want to ensure there are skilled workers who are focused on the job, who feel valued, who know they are professionals and are treated that way. That is the kind of person I want taking care of the safety of the trains, not people who feel they are being shafted at every turn by management, supported by their own government.

At the end of the day, this is wrong for the workers. Ultimately it is wrong for CN because it will allow it to continue to deny important maintenance money and other health and safety money as it focuses on the bottom line, not to mention ensuring that it clears at least $56 million so it can take care of the CEO.

The process chosen within this rather draconian bill does not even offer a crumb of democracy or fairness by picking a process that the union could at least live with even if it did not want it. Instead, it went with the final offer selection.

There is nothing here for the workers at CN except the spectacle of their own government turning on them, joining management on the other side of the table and denying them their democratic right to negotiate a fair wage for the work they perform on behalf of both their employer and Canadians in terms of the safety of the rail system in this nation.

It is a bad bill. We are proud to stand here and oppose it. It would be better if the government would take it back, fix it and bring real democracy, real choice and a final resolution to this, which would pave the way for a successful CN and a successful job creation world where people would feel safe. The bill falls far short of that.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke very passionately about the rights of workers and he focused exclusively on the rights of the workers of one company. The reality is the Minister of Labour has given CN management and the union enough time to resolve this dispute themselves. He has stepped in at the last minute, at a time when he has to step in, so they do not cause some serious damage to the economy.

We already lost $1 billion and that affected workers in hundreds of other industries across the country. My colleague named the other industries.

Another industry is the auto industry. One in seven jobs in the country is tied to the auto industry. As the member from Ontario should know, the auto industry operates on just in time delivery. It relies on CN and CP and other trains to get its goods just in time. Sarnia in Ontario is affected as well. Industries out west are affected.

The chemical products industry and the plastics industry rely upon the train system. Those workers and their families depend on the train system. The forestry industry relies upon the rail system for getting products to and from companies.

People working in the retail sector, in which case most are not unionized, are trying to raise their families on a smaller income. These families rely upon the rail sector to get their goods to and from their sectors. Food and consumer product industries as well as the textile and apparel industry are affected.

As was mentioned earlier, farmers depend on the rail system.

The fact is the NDP, with its actions tonight and by listening to one union, is ignoring the rights of thousands of workers across the country. That is why this government is acting. That is why the NDP is dead wrong on this bill and this issue.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I heard a question in there, but I will be pleased to respond regardless.

Let me first suggest something to the member. If what I said before upset him, let me give him something to really get upset about. We took a look at this and wondered why the Conservatives were doing this so soon. It has only been the better part of last week since this started. Why so quick? One of the things that comes to our mind is the government wants to leave the options open for a potential election call in a couple of weeks hence. Some think it has cooled down.

I hear them roaring up. The best defence is a good offence. We do not know for sure. There is a lot of Orwellian doublespeak, but in this case it is in the bill, not in my speech.

However, we wonder whether it was a matter of getting this out of the way because the Conservatives could not pass this law if the House were not sitting. If there were an election, they could call us back for an emergency session, but that really would muck things up. Would life not be a lot neater for the Conservative caucus? And of course that is all why we are in Canada, to ensure the Conservative caucus is happy.

Maybe what the Conservatives want to do is get this out of the way this week so they have the flexibility, which once again would show that workers to the government are mere pawns to be moved around as it suits the needs of the politics of the governing party, or at least the currently governing party.

I appreciate the member for Edmonton—Leduc listening and taking the time and effort to stand. Let me give him a serious answer on what I think was a serious, if not question, statement. A lot of people lose during a strike, but those that lose the most are the people who are on strike. For all those who talk about the power of the unions and say that they have too much power, let me tell them this. We are not talking about some gang of union goons. We are talking about ordinary everyday Canadians who do a job and happen to belong to this union.

For all the massive disruption the member is concerned about, make no mistake the disruption is meant to put pressure on management so it will cave and come to the table. The pressure that is on the strikers is a lot more. For as long as these strikers will have to stand out there and fight and are given the right, Mr. Hunter, with his $56 million a day, will not be hurting. However, the workers who are on that picket line are paying an enormous price, most of whom are living paycheque to paycheque.

In every one of the industries that the member for Edmonton—Leduc mentioned there is unionization to one degree or another. If there is a strike, it can cause a domino effect that puts a lot of pain and pressure on others. Fortunately, 95% of all the negotiations are settled without a strike. We are not in constant turmoil. These things can work. All we need to do is give the legislation that we have a chance to work and ensure that the government provides a fair, open, just process for workers in all these sectors. Then we will go on to continue having a strong Canadian economy and also ensuring the people who do the actual work get a decent living wage out of it in the process.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to again try to bring the case for the farming community to the House. Hopefully, we can bring some reason to the NDP in its assault on Canadian farm families.

There is no question that farm families are suffering, and maybe I can give a bit of information to the NDP on the situation when it comes to the Peace country.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Put the boots to the Wheat Board.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

There is no question the members over there are talking about supply management and the Wheat Board.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

You have a lot of nerve talking about the farm family.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Every person who I have talked to who has worked for the Wheat Board has said the most important thing to have happen right now is for CN to get work--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Order, please. The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster has been recognized before. Now I am listening to the hon. member for Peace River. If I cannot hear him, it is not of much good. That is the rule of the thumb. I would like to hear the one I have recognized. After that, I will listen to the answer.

The hon. member for Peace River has the floor.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise to me that the NDP has tried to overrun the voice of the farmer. It has happened consecutively, it happens continually and I am fed up with it. I am fed up with the NDP's total ignorance of the farm family and the crisis that it is facing. There is no question—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I cannot stand here and have our party accused of being ignorant of farmers. We work with farmers all the time. I would ask the member to retract that.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Order please. The hon. member for Hamilton Centre should know that when I get up that means he sits down.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I was not on my feet.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Thank you. I just heard a point of debate and we are now ready for the reply from the hon. member for Hamilton Centre.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

First, Mr. Speaker, to clarify again, I was not the one on my feet. I will take my lumps when it is my turn, but that did not happen this time.

I will say to the member for Peace River, through you Mr. Speaker, as best I can from that rant, which really was not much different than the rant he was providing while I was trying to speak earlier and while other colleagues were trying to speak. I think he has a lot of nerve to get on his feet and talk about any kind of assault on anything. After what this government has done to the Wheat Board and to the farmers who support the Wheat Board, do not talk to me about supporting farmers. We will do that just fine.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is the one whom I should have referred to earlier. He has 30 seconds to ask his question.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I will be very quick, Mr. Speaker. We are talking about CEOs making $56 million a year. That is $9,000 an hour. For the folks back home, that is $216,000 a day. If we have a CN derailment every three days, that is $648,000 for a derailment.

We have been talking about safety and the fact that the government refuses to—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The member for Hamilton Centre has 30 seconds to respond.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question for the simple reason that much of this is about health and safety. That is why choosing the final offer selection is so wrong headed. It is not going to deal with what are the working conditions.

Let us keep in mind, whether we talk about people who work on the railway or whether we talk about them working on our airlines, anywhere where public safety—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate.

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the question to dispose of the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-46 is deemed put and the recorded division is deemed demanded.

Call in the members.

Before the Clerk announced the result of the vote:

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. The hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier on a point of order.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ensure that my vote is clearly recorded. I am against the motion.

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

Vote #154