House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was vote.

Last in Parliament September 2008, as Liberal MP for Westmount—Ville-Marie (Québec)

Won her last election, in 2006, with 46% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Rail Transportation March 20th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, my first reaction to the work stoppage at CN and VIA Rail was to meet with the parties, that is, the three companies and all the unions, yesterday at 3 p.m. in Montreal, to try to convince them to settle the dispute themselves by telling them very clearly that it would be much better for them to solve the problem themselves than to let the government legislate.

We still believe that it would be much better for both the employers and the unions to find their own solution to the problem, and I hope that they still have time to do so before we legislate.

Business Of The House March 20th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give members of this House the background which I feel is important regarding the negotiations in the railway labour dispute. As you know, most of the collective agreements, with very few exceptions, expired on December 31, 1993. Therefore, we have been without collective agreements per se since December 31, 1993, and negotiations have been ongoing.

We have tried to help the parties to find a solution. First, a conciliator was appointed, and then, in November 1994, my predecessor, the Minister of Human Resources Development, appointed a conciliation commissioner, Mr. Hope, to work out a solution with the parties. He submitted his report to the parties in February 1995.

Since then, negotiations have continued, but they have been strained, and, as you know, the unions decided to concentrate their efforts on pressuring Canadian Pacific. Fortunately, last week, three unions, representing approximately 3,000 people, reached an agreement in principle and Canadian Pacific was able to continue all of its other activities.

Unfortunately, last Saturday, there was a full work stoppage at Canadian National and VIA Rail. Following this work stoppage, I called all of the parties, that is the three companies and the union representatives from these companies, to a meeting. I met with them yesterday afternoon and I asked them to resolve all of the issues in dispute, or, at the very least, to reach an agreement

on the process which will lead to a solution to the dispute, which will be binding on the two parties.

I told them that the current government has faith in the collective bargaining process and, therefore, that we would regret being obliged to step in if the parties were unable to reach an agreement. I even advised them that it would be in the best interest of both parties, as much the companies as the unions, to agree at the very least on the process to be used to resolve the dispute, which would be binding on both of them.

Unfortunately, the parties did not come to an agreement, so that we find ourselves in this House at 12.30 p.m. on a Monday without any CN or VIA Rail services in operation as we speak, although some operations are still under way at CP. Even though some operations are affected, some others are still being carried out.

What is the impact of a complete work stoppage as we speak? Let us first look at the VIA Rail situation. The impact on the majority of passengers using VIA Rail services is, I think, quite obvious. I would remind the members of this House that VIA Rail serves at least 500 communities from coast to coast, which means that all its passengers have been paying the price since Saturday, especially those who commute to work by train. This morning, we witnessed the possible consequences for the population, especially in densely populated urban areas.

True, there are other means of transportation but when we look at what is happening, for example, around Toronto and Montreal, it is clear that not all passengers can be accommodated by public bus or even private car transportation. On this Monday morning, all these passengers, all these people were penalized by the work stoppage. I think that we should allow VIA Rail workers to go back to work as soon as possible, so that these people are no longer penalized.

It is true that the situation is different at CP Rail. Canadian National is not an operation serving the public but rather providing transportation services essential to the Canadian economy.

Needless to say this will have tremendous financial implications for the various train transportation users and industries that ship their goods by train. Many Canadian industries depend on the railway system. The impact of this withdrawal of transportation services may vary from industry to industry depending on the availability of alternate means of transportation.

Of course, bulk commodity shippers in general-commodities such as sulphur, potash and grain as well as mining companies, major electrical household appliance manufacturers and car manufacturers-are the main users of the train system. Many transport companies and associations, including the Canadian Industrial Transportation League, the Canadian Wheat Board and several car manufacturers, have indicated that a prolonged work stoppage would be extremely prejudicial to their operations.

It is clear that at the industry level, in various sectors like Western grain, this work stoppage may have a very major economic impact. As we speak, we are told that Canadian National is losing between $9 million and $10 million per day.

We can see right away how serious the situation is and how it can compromise this country's credibility as a reliable supplier, even on the export market. The impacts are tremendous. On the one hand, you have impacts affecting the public at VIA Rail and, on the other hand, economic impacts for several industries.

While we regret having to bring in back-to-work legislation-I repeat, regret, because we continue to believe that a negotiated settlement would be better-the government must assume its responsibilities and take action. That is why I hope that the opposition parties will realize what is at stake and give consent so that we can debate this bill today.

Business Of The House March 20th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, the paralyzing effect of the national railway strike requires urgent action by Parliament. Pursuant to Standing Order 53, I move the following:

That the forty-eight hours' notice be waived in order to permit the Minister of Labour to introduce immediately a bill entitled an act to provide for the maintenance of railway operations and subsidiary services; and

That the House not adjourn this day except pursuant to a motion by a minister of the Crown.

Labour March 16th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we had the opportunity to explain very clearly the difference between these labour disputes. We also took a first step, with the support of the opposition parties, towards the settlement of the conflict affecting west coast ports.

As for railways, negotiations are taking place today with Canadian Pacific. The situation at the Montreal harbour is completely different and I proposed a mediator to the two sides.

As I said yesterday, each situation must be reviewed on its own merits to ensure that an appropriate solution is found. As a government, our goal is to have the two sides agree to negotiate.

West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995 March 15th, 1995

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with conviction that I rise again in this House to introduce the 1995 legislation on west coast port operations. As you know, the purpose of this bill is to end the current dispute between two parties.

I have already explained at length all the details surrounding this dispute which, in my opinion and in the opinion of many Canadians, cannot go on. Until now, the government had pro-

vided all the assistance it could to help solve the problems. First, we appointed a conciliator.

Then we appointed a conciliation commissioner, whose report was submitted to the parties. Unfortunately, we face a situation which requires government action. Believe me, it is with regret that, as the Minister of Labour, I must table this bill before the members of this House. It would be much better-and we all know it-for the parties to negotiate a collective agreement together, and that is our basic policy.

However, all port operations on the west coast have now come to a stop and the economic consequences are such that the government must act. This bill provides for the immediate resumption of operations and the appointment of a mediator-arbitrator, who, I hope, will bring the parties closer.

In closing, allow me to thank all the members of this House for their co-operation on this bill. This shows, I think, that we all care about this country's economic development.

West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995 March 15th, 1995

moved that Bill C-74 be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995 March 15th, 1995

Mr. Chairman, I repeat that each situation is assessed on its merit.

As for the railway situation, it is now 9.15 p.m., so it is premature to talk about back to work legislation. I would not want to base my opinion on assumptions, but we will assess each of these situations. I am happy to see that negotiations were going on, today, in the railway sector. Once again, the main purpose of the minister of Labour is to help parties reach an agreement and to legislate. When we do that, it is because we do not have a choice any more.

West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995 March 15th, 1995

Mr. Chairman, with respect to the port of Montreal, why is the situation there not included in this bill? Well, I would say that the situation in the port of Montreal is completely different.

I said earlier that we evaluated each situation on its merits. That is what we have done in the case of the port of Montreal. As you know, there is a labour relations problem there too, but all the other ports in the province of Quebec are now also in operation. Trois-Rivières, Sorel and Quebec City come to mind. Therefore the impact or consequences are not as great compared to the situation in Western Canada. That is my first comment.

My second is that, in the port of Montreal, we have seen over the years that the parties are very often able to reach an agreement. I believe that we have not had a general strike in the port of Montreal for over 20 years. At this point I have complete confidence that the parties can still come to an agreement in the port of Montreal. It is also very clear that I am making them a formal offer of mediation, precisely for the purpose of reaching such an agreement. Under these circumstances, I would consider legislative intervention completely premature.

As for the second question, regarding the possibility of a final offer, I would like to say that the complexity of this year's debate, compared to last year's, is completely different. Last year, there was only one element involved. If I remember correctly, the issue then was whether or not to allow an increase from 65 to 70 cents. The question was very simple: yes or no? The issue was a very straightforward one.

The situation before us today is much more complex. That is why we have opted for mediation-arbitration. If there is a final offer, the decision will be up to the arbitrator.

West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995 March 15th, 1995

Mr. Chairman, the government assesses each situation on its own merits.

West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995 March 15th, 1995

Mr. Chairman, in response to the question asked by the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois, I will remind him that clause 11 of the bill before us allows the parties to amend any provision of the collective agreement, including those that will be imposed on them, other than the term of the collective agreement, of course. Clause 11 gives a fair bit of flexibility.

Second, I would tell my colleague from the Reform Party that the government has already made a decision on all the problems that he has raised. First, it will solve the problem very quickly through this back to work legislation but also by setting up an industrial inquiry commission that will review the collective agreement structure.

I do not know whether the investigation commissioner will draw the same conclusions as the hon. member from the Reform Party, but I think that we should analyse the situation as a whole and that is why we will appoint an investigation commissioner.