I was not on my feet.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 46% of the vote.
Railway Continuation Act, 2007 April 17th, 2007
I was not on my feet.
Railway Continuation Act, 2007 April 17th, 2007
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.
Railway Continuation Act, 2007 April 17th, 2007
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.
Railway Continuation Act, 2007 April 17th, 2007
I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I thought you were referring to the name of the president, which I think is in order, but in this release was the name of a member. You are absolutely right and I apologize. It does not change the argument but the point is taken.
Mr. Clancy goes on to say:
There is no compelling need for the government to intervene. The strike has been declared legal by the Canadian Industrial Relations Board...and the parties should be left to resolve their differences through the collective bargaining process.
At its core that is what we are asking. All we are asking is that the government recognize there is a democratic negotiation taking place right now between two parties. A legal strike is underway. That, in and of itself, is not the end of the world. They were rotating strikes. I would put to members that a union that conducts rotating strikes, as opposed to a general shut down, is merely trying to make its point and put pressure on management to come to the bargaining table and negotiate a fair collective agreement.
If the union wanted to wreak the kind of havoc that the Conservative backbenchers are suggesting, it would have just taken a vote. It has huge support of, I believe, 70% or 75%. The workers could have taken that mandate and shut the system down but the workers did not want to do that.
What the workers want is to get a collective agreement. We must remember that at the end of the day this is supposed to be about getting a collective agreement. When there is a strike or it is imposed, we are breaking down the process. The strike is okay because it is within the confines but when the government starts dictating what the terms will be then it completely denies the union its legal right to represent those employees in the bargaining process.
In addition, if the union had wanted to do all this damage and it was so evil in listening to the Conservative backbenchers, it would have included commuters. If the union really wanted to crank up the heat, it could have done that. If it was all about an exercise of power, the union had the ability to do that.
However, the union is not seeking to do that, which is why this is so heartbreaking today. The legislation gives absolutely no recognition for the rights of the workers in this.
A colleague continues to mention the farmers. Fair enough. They are a part of the equation but to do this will not help the farmers.
This takes me to my next point, which is the safety issue. It does not do people an awful lot of good if all their products are on a train that goes over the cliff.
I want everyone to listen to this. If we wait long enough it starts to come out. Another one of them pipes up with a squeak here in the background, “well, that's what insurance is for”.
Railway Continuation Act, 2007 April 17th, 2007
Here we go with the laughing and heckling from the Conservative benches. Anybody inside the National Union of Public and General Employees, NUPGE, who wants to know who is laughing while I am reading its national president's statement, just call the NDP office. We will be glad to give the names of those who think this is funny.
In the news release, the national president of NUPGE, James Clancy, said this about what is happening right here:
This is another regrettable example of Canada abrogating labour and human rights obligations....
We have a duty as a country to honour these conventions and treaties that our governments have signed over the years with the United Nations (UN) and the International Labour Organization (ILO).
Canada's “new government” is behaving in the old discredited way that governments in the past have behaved by violating our international obligations to respect the rights of workers.
This makes a mockery of Canada's signature on international labour and human rights conventions and treaties. The Harper Conservatives are behaving no better than the Liberals did, Clancy argued.
Railway Continuation Act, 2007 April 17th, 2007
In spite of the heckling, I am going to continue. If members do not want to listen, they do not need to listen but the workers will have their say while the Conservatives railroad them into an agreement or a law that takes away their rights. I have news for the members of the Conservative caucus. The NDP will stand here and defend those workers' rights today and every day that we need to.
The last one is the point about “resolve matters remaining in dispute”, which is just a nice way of saying that the government will jam it down their throat and they will just have to live with it. Basically, that is what it says.
Let me put on the record what one of Canada's foremost national labour leaders had to say about this.
Railway Continuation Act, 2007 April 17th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate this evening. It is interesting that often the size of a bill is not necessarily reflective of the power or impact that it will have. This is one of those cases.
Bill C-46 is not that lengthy a document. It runs but six pages. However, contained in it are incredible weapons, weapons that working Canadians are going to perceive have been turned on them by Parliament, their own government.
While it may be a debate for some members here, for individuals who are either walking the picket line now or are still out on the rails doing the best they can to provide, not just the best level of service for the customers of CN, but also for the safety of themselves, everyone else on the train and everybody who is affected by the incredible escalation of derailments that have taken place across this country, this is a powerful bill that goes in exactly the wrong direction.
The summary of the bill states:
This enactment provides for the resumption and continuation of railway operations and imposes a final offer selection process to resolve matters remaining in dispute between the parties.
That sounds nice and simple. The NDP has three huge problems with that sentence alone. First, to say that this act provides for the resumption and continuation of railway operations, it also means that free Canadians who, through a free and democratic vote, decided to exercise their rights to withdraw their labour and put pressure on their employer to cough up a better collective agreement are being denied those rights. If this bill passes, those Canadian citizens lose their rights.
Second, it imposes a final offer selection process. I see a couple of government backbenchers nodding their heads up and down nicely as if they were in the back of the car window. The fact is, I say to the hon. member now that he is actually listening, that this is not a fair process for the workers involved. That may not matter to the backbenchers but it matters to a lot of Canadians and their families.
Third, the summary says “resolve matters remaining in dispute”.
Railway Continuation Act, 2007 April 17th, 2007
You had your turn.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police April 17th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, fair enough but I would just say that there is no defence for inaction in this case.
Sam Steele must be spinning in his grave. The government's ad hoc investigation cannot compel or protect witnesses. It will not report to Parliament and it is not even public. Yesterday, former Commissioner Zaccardelli acknowledged that the appointed head of the investigation had numerous professional relations with senior RCMP officers in the past. How can this be considered neutral?
Will the government launch a proper inquiry or is this just one pension-gate cover-up piled on top of another?
Royal Canadian Mounted Police April 17th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Defence has an awful lot of nerve standing in his place today and saying that the reason he is running roughshod over a proper, democratic, full public inquiry is because he wants answers quickly. In fact, he said that he wanted answers “right away”, answers “quickly”, answers “now”. If he was so interested in moving so quickly, why did it take him two weeks to appoint the head of this investigation?
Yesterday, the standing committee said that this ad hoc approach would not work. The committee is asking and calling for the minister to bring forward a full public inquiry. Will he agree with the committee today?