Debates of March 20th, 1995

Business Of The House

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

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.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Debate is allowed for a period of not exceeding one hour.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Saint-Henri—Westmount, QC]

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.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I simply want to clarify a point. Pursuant to Standing Order 53, the debate may not exceed one hour. No member may speak more than once, nor longer than ten minutes.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to passing that legislation today. We are aware of the impact of a work stoppage in a sector such as railway operations. The minister said that Canada must be a reliable supplier and she also pointed out the economic consequences of such a conflict. However, she did not say anything about the plight of those who-and they did not do it for the fun of it-had to walk out under very unpleasant conditions.

As far as I know, Canada has a labour code. If back-to-work legislation is tabled every time the Labour Code is invoked by workers who have no other means to negotiate a settlement, this means that the mechanisms required to ensure strict and fair labour relations do not exist.

What this bill really does is prove the employers right. I wish that were not the case, but just take a look at the newspapers and read the recommendations made by commissioner Hope, who reviewed the issue. He says that the employers were very uncompromising and that, in fact, the unions' demands were never taken into consideration.

It is very easy to speak against a given union or union member. However, let us not forget that company managers and

executives often enjoy personal benefits, salaries, bonuses and stocks which do not make any sense and which do not exist in other countries. I always think of Japan, where the gap between employers and employees' salaries is much narrower than it is here.

Canadian workers are in a difficult situation. No one mentions the fact that, over the years, they waived many rights to preserve a single one: the right to a job. It is important that these workers can tell all Canadians that they made concessions, but that they are not prepared to lose the essential in an industry which needs skilled workers.

It is important to remember, although this is not necessarily popular, that workers have acquired certain rights and that, at the very least, they have the right to exercise this kind of pressure-not an easy thing to do-to show that they exist and to avoid being crushed by the system.

I would have liked to hear the minister talk about people. If the government decided to intervene every time certain behaviours were found to be harmful to the economy, it would often have cause to do so, not only in labour disputes. It would intervene in the case of companies whose practices do not promote productivity. Workers are not pawns, they are people. If a company is to be productive, workers must have working conditions that reflect a minimum of fairness, otherwise the cost will be far greater than that of a strike that does neither party any good.

Yes, some workers are on strike, but others have been locked out. And others were swept along because they refused to cross picket lines. All things considered, we are not very happy about the situation.

However, this does not mean we should deny these workers their rights. Canadians should at least be told about the conditions they gave up for the sake of one, and that these workers should have access to a fair and equitable settlement. Today, we should confirm their right to use pressure to defend their position and to engage in free collective bargaining. Otherwise, if employers can always count on the government to deal with their problems, they will never agree to a fair settlement.

Sure, they have certain constraints. Sure, these constraints are genuine. But in a situation like this, there are always two parties, and employers cannot take the position that only their interests should guide Parliament and the government. For these reasons, because we want to encourage free collective bargaining, because we want workers to be able to stand up for their rights and because we want Parliament to respect its own legislation-I am referring to the Canada Labour Code-we will not agree to fast tracking this legislation today.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today. The whole transportation system in Canada being tied up is a matter of pressing concern.

These services are never considered to be essential until after the services are withdrawn. We are not talking strictly about a strike. We are talking about a work stoppage. A work stoppage can be brought about whether it is a strike or a lockout. Whenever I refer to this situation I am talking about the work stoppage. People will understand we have work stoppages taking place in two separate areas. One is the withdrawal of services and the other is an area where the people are actually locked out.

These work stoppages result in a lot of lost jobs. My friends in the government party have campaigned vigorously on restoring jobs. This is certainly an opportunity for them to put up in this case, put their best foot forward and come up with legislation that will put these people back to work.

This is a stop gap measure. This is not a solution for the long haul. My party has been encouraging the government to come up with some long term solutions. For labour and management to have the possibility of back to work legislation constantly a threat they do not exactly sharpen their pencils and come to their best position. A case in point is where we have these contracts expiring up to 27 months before the actual work stoppage takes place. That is not collective bargaining at its best. That is not the process working.

In the House on March 3 I asked the minister what she was prepared to do in order to come up with some long term solutions. I was assured the collective bargaining process was working wonderfully and could expect it to work that way in the future.

Obviously it has not. Here we are once again trying to get unanimous consent from the House. I hope we do so we can get the parties back to the table, the rolling stock moving on the rails again, the passenger trains running again and the freight moving to its customers. That is of utmost importance. It is not just that we are looking at losses to farmers. We are looking at losses to farmers, huge losses, but there is a great spinoff of lost jobs as well.

Once these jobs are lost it will be impossible to get them back. Once the buyers of our services and our goods have decided they can get them from other sources it will take a lot of negotiation and a lot of proving that we will not put up with this kind of labour disruption in the future to prove to them that we are a reliable supplier of goods and services.

The people in the Bloc seem not to support the notion of introducing this legislation. It is of utmost importance to introduce this legislation today. I call on my colleagues from the Bloc to give their consent to this legislation so that we can debate it properly and get the parties back to the table and the freight moving again. To do otherwise is partisan politics at its worst, not looking at Canada's overall benefit.

Our colleagues in the Bloc could easily dismiss this as one of Canada's problems. After all, their ultimate goal is to separate from Canada. They could implement any kind of labour legislation they like. I would plead with them to support the introduction of this legislation today.

I assume me colleagues in the NDP will not support the introduction of this bill today. It would be extremely difficult for them to justify to their constituents how they could hold up a bill for another 48 hours which would effectively bring to the market the goods their constituents are producing. This is an extremely costly situation. It is not just the direct jobs, but the spinoff jobs. The long term effect of this has not been addressed.

Many customers of Canada's goods in the past have put up with disruptions of this type and are counting on back to work legislation. If this is not dealt with, to get these people back to the table and to get these parties talking again and the stock moving at a reasonable pace, our customers will say this is the last time they are prepared to put up with this kind of here today, gone tomorrow freight service. They will start looking for alternate routes to ship their goods.

Mr. Lorne Hehn, chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board, said we cannot afford to shut down a multibillion dollar industry for the sake of a few people. These services are never considered essential until after they have been withdrawn. Suddenly these are essential services.

When will this government come up with legislation to deal with these problems over the big picture, rather than this crisis management attitude?

At the moment crisis management is something we must consider in order to get us over this hump. I implore the government to come up with similar legislation to what it so very efficiently defeated here, presented by my colleague in Bill C-262.

The senior grain transportation committee voted on October 14, 1994 to support a system of final offer arbitration for all labour negotiations affecting grain movement. I have heard some of my colleagues in the Bloc say this effectively bans the collective agreement process. This is absolutely ridiculous. It is an augmentation to the collective bargaining process. This is not something imposed on the partners in the collective bargaining process from on high. It is something either one of the parties can invite.

It induces those parties to come up with a reasonable offer, their best offer to begin with. Instead of having negotiations or pseudo negotiations for 27 months, as in the case of one union, they could get their heads together and figure out their final position and present that position to begin with, rather than to parley back and forth for 27 months without getting anywhere.

This is a controversial bill and some of my colleagues in the House are philosophically opposed to having this bill presented. I implore them to allow it to be presented. I passionately ask they allow first reading of the bill so we can at least debate it and get it on the floor of the House where it belongs and to do what we can to begin to replenish or regain our reputation as a reputable supplier of goods.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the Reform Party members who have already indicated they would further support this bill. I would ask the Bloc Quebecois members to think a bit before maintaining the position they have taken.

I could talk to you today of the disastrous effects this crisis is having on large businesses such as General Motors, Hoechst Canada, Canadian Celanese, Ford and others, but who in this House is speaking on behalf of all Canadians, not just those in my own riding, who have no means of defence?

As we talk, Canadian National is, to all intents and purposes, closed down; so is VIA. Canadian Pacific is operating at barely 85 per cent capacity.

With each hour we waste, the impact grows more serious. Certain grain exports have frozen. Last week, the minister tabled a bill for a return to work in the port of Vancouver. It seems to me that the political stand taken by the Bloc Quebecois members will hamper the settlement of this dispute and an eventual return to work.

With the tabling of the budget, last week, I got barely one phone call in my riding. With this dispute, however, which has gone on for months already, I have received calls from all sorts of people, including ordinary businessmen and businesswomen who are unable to go and collect the raw materials they need and whose business, therefore, could well close tomorrow, because the production line is stopped. It seems to me the problem is serious, serious enough for us to give thought to it and to put an end to the dispute.

Bloc Quebecois members accuse us of robbing these people of the right to negotiate. The bill that we are introducing today does not, as they claim, violate their freedom to resolve this dispute, when we consider that they have been trying to work their problems out for fifteen months now. It is true that they were

unsuccessful, however, this bill does not rob the various parties concerned of their freedom to go back to the bargaining table.

The minister herself made many personal attempts. Last night, she met with the three unions. Last night, the three parties admitted themselves to the media that they have come to a dead end. Is it advisable to wait another day or two? Is it advisable, as the New Democrats and the Bloc Quebecois advocate, to vote against this bill simply in order to forestall the inevitable?

I would like to speak for the average Canadian who is affected, whether as a commuter on the Rigaud line or the Deux Montagnes line to Montreal, who relies on the rail service to get to work every day and who does not have the benefit of a second or a third car. Who speaks for them? Who speaks for the small entrepreneurs who are trying to get their imported goods off the docks in Montreal?

It is very easy to convene a press conference when you are General Motors or Ford Motor company. It is for those small business people that I feel we have to solve this problem.

It is true this has a tremendous economic impact, not only for the large rail companies but for the local economy in the Montreal area for which I speak with great vigour. The port of Montreal has paralysed shipments and the railway has paralysed shipments across Canada. I take my hat off to the Minister of Labour who has only been here a short while but has certainly been indoctrinated very quickly. She has done an excellent job and has introduced two very difficult measures.

As the minister said in her preamble, as a government we would have preferred not to introduce back to work legislation. It is always more desirable when both parties can agree. But both parties have not been able to agree. They have been trying for almost 15 months.

I would like to quote a report in this morning's Gazette by the federal conciliator, Mr. Allan Hope, who is quoted as saying: All three railways have tabled extremely controversial and provocative demands that they see essential to their financial health and viability''. He wrote in February:It would be difficult to conceive of an bargaining initiative more likely to provoke an impasse''. The parties have tried. Right now we are at a standstill. It is not going to get any better.

From talking to various people and watching television reports yesterday with stranded commuters about the threat of the possible shutdown of suburban railways, people will have more difficulty getting to work. I would ask all members on both sides of the House to support legislation so we can adopt it as quickly as possible.

It may not solve the deep rooted, underlying problems in the railway industry which we have discussed before. But I hope that despite this return to work legislation that all parties on both sides will continue to try to solve the long lasting dispute, put aside their differences for the betterment of the country, for the establishment of a reliable service that Canadians, importers and exporters, that small as well as large businesses can rely on. We do not have a law-

-like we have in Quebec, an act on essential services. It would be ideal if the federal government had similar legislation, but it does not.

For example, when there are municipal disputes, basic services still have to be provided.

In this case we cannot provide a reliable service where there is ongoing, continual labour conflicts. It puts in jeopardy not only the economic viability of the country but the local economy as well. The local economy in Montreal has suffered enormously.

In closing, I would like to ask my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois to reconsider the impact which this dispute has already had and will continue to have on the province of Quebec and on the Montreal region especially and perhaps decide to vote in favour of this bill.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to register my objection to the process that is unfolding here this morning. I do so on the basis of the fact that the government has had an alternative in this regard for some time, ever since its election in October 1993. The government could have been moving on the policy front toward a transportation system or policy which would have reassured people working in the railways that there is a future for them and the railways in this country.

If rail workers had that assurance and did not feel that in some ways the rail industry was not targeted for total extinction or anything quite like that, but nevertheless not being enhanced by the appropriate policy decisions and therefore suffering over time continuous decline, then perhaps rail workers would feel more confident in their negotiations with the company in the context of negotiations about job security and employment security and a variety of other things. Because they feel that one decision after another seems to point to an increasing downsizing and diminishing of the role of rail transport in our overall transportation policy they are obviously not willing to accept that when push comes to shove it is their particular economic self-interest that has to be sacrificed.

I will go back to something I said last week when we were debating back to work legislation. If there was a capital strike in this country, as there sometimes is in various ways, would we have an emergency debate? Would we have an emergency motion? Would we have long and sober debates on trying to make capital pay attention to the national interest and to the needs of the Canadian economy? It would be quite the contrary.

We are forever exalting such decisions as good business decisions that we have to somehow appease, the decisions that investors make, money speculators make, currency traders make or others make when they do not take the national interest into account and when they do things that destabilize the economy, put people out of work or advocate a high real interest rate policy that maybe causes people to lose their homes. All kinds of things happen because of the decisions that other people make in their economic self-interest and we simply say: "That is the way it is. That is the marketplace. That is life so get used to it. Let us see if we cannot do something to give these people what they want so they will not make these kinds of decisions".

When working people strike we see how important they are to the economy, do we not? The whole thing depends on day after day people getting up and doing their jobs, whether it is running trains, maintaining the tracks or whatever the case may be. But when working people strike all of a sudden the full force of the law is brought to bear on them.

Opposition members of Parliament are expected to walk freely into the tent, consult with the government and then do whatever the government wants them to do. Two weeks ago if I had had an opinion on railway concerns I might as well have spoken it into the great white telephone, for all the attention I would have received from the government.

Now the government wants me to agree. Now it wants workers to agree. In the meantime it has no qualms about getting rid of the Crow rate, or deregulating, or privatizing CN or doing all kinds of things like that. That is okay.

It is in protest of that and not just on some kind of a principle having to do with back to work legislation that I object to the process this morning.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since I am a former FTQ trade unionist, I must rise to tell you that compulsory back-to-work legislation does not solve the problems. I was active in the FTQ for 19 years. Despite the many laws passed at both the provincial and federal levels, the problems continue to exist and sometimes even get worse, because this is not the way to resolve labour relations problems, especially since this goes against the principles adopted by the government and supported by both union and management.

The right to negotiate, which has been recognized by the International Labour Organization, the Government of Canada, the provincial governments, the employers and the unions, must be fully exercised. I think that until now, the unions did not have the opportunity to negotiate with the employers. I think that the companies have acted in bad faith toward the employees in these negotiations. The companies have tried to dictate the issues to be negotiated, to impose their strength and arrogance on the unions. The unions are not responsible for the negotiations dragging on, because it is the companies that want to go against the basic principle of job security.

No union or employee in the world can say yes to employers who want to cut thousands and thousands of jobs in an attempt to make mobility one of their labour relations goals. Workers want a certain level of job security and some protection with regard to their job descriptions. Of course, all strikes present disadvantages, but the right to strike is a universal right which is exercised in every country, including the U.S.

Disadvantages are part of the rules of the game which, again, have been recognized by international organizations, the employers, the government and the unions. I was surprised that the minister would make a speech on her bill but not say a word about the workers' legitimate demands or to condemn companies for trying to impose their views knowing that the government will protect them, this Liberal government is behind them.

We want these 7,000 workers on strike or lockout to also be afforded representation, to have someone speak on their behalf in Parliament. That is what we, the Bloc Quebecois, are doing and we do not want to debate this back-to-work legislation today. Even Commissioner Hope said, in his report, that the companies did not bargain in good faith. He did not use these very words but when he said that the companies are trying to impose their own agenda and ignore union demands, that is what he meant.

I am surprised that the hon. minister did not say a word about labour relations in the rail transportation industry, not mentioning that problems exist and that the government has neglected to deal with them because the collective agreements expired on December 31, 1993. That is why I fully support the remarks made by our critic in this area, the hon. member for Mercier.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to stand in support of the government on this measure.

It is very interesting that we should get this impassioned defence.

[An hon. member]

Why did you not vote on the other bill?

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

I did not vote for that bill because this is a much better bill. If the member will read them both, he will see it. Perhaps that may be a difficulty for him.

At any rate, with regard to this legislation and the response of the official opposition, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, may I say that it is very interesting. I stand here as the member for Halifax, the city with the great port which needs the railway to ensure that the port continues to bring prosperity to the people of the metropolitan Halifax area, to Nova Scotia and to Atlantic Canada.

It is very interesting that we hear from the members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition all this rant about the workers. The hon. member for Bourassa who just spoke chose to come to this country and we are so glad he did. While we are glad he chose to come here in one way or another, the answer too is that he obviously chose Canada because of the way we do protect workers but we protect the peace, order and good government of this country as well.

A rail strike such as this is not the kind of protection or the kind of activity that means this country will continue to be prosperous. Look at a few of the things that are taking place because of this industrial action.

There is the loss of $10 million per day to Canadian National alone, a permanent loss of rail traffic to truck, therefore sapping the financial viability of our rail system. As one of the members opposite actually said-and I agree, do not faint-once these jobs are gone, it is very difficult to get them back. There is also the adverse image of Canada as a reliable supplier to world markets, Japan, for example.

As I said before, the problems of the ports and most particularly the port of Halifax in my estimation is something we could no longer let go by the boards.

May I offer my congratulations to the Minister of Labour who has certainly come through in an amazing way. She has had her baptism by fire as a new member in this House. We on this side are very proud of the minister. We want to congratulate her. I certainly want to congratulate her on behalf of my constituents and the people of Nova Scotia.

She has been a lucid voice in an otherwise overly emotional debate. The minister stood up this weekend and prior to it and asked people to do the right thing, to think of the country as a whole and to come back to the table. Only when all else failed did she say that the answer was back to work legislation.

The minister met with representatives of all companies and unions to urge them to resolve their disputes, or at least to agree on a binding process to resolve their disputes. When the parties reported that they were unable to reach such an understanding, when they reported that collective bargaining negotiations had reached an impasse, she knew that nothing could be gained by further delay.

Most of these collective agreements expired on December 31, 1993, well over a year ago. For some others it was as long ago as December 31, 1991. Extensive federal assistance has been provided to the parties including the assistance of conciliation officers and a conciliation commissioner. The process has been going on for well over a year.

This government acted and will continue to act in the best interests of the people of Canada. It does not act with a hidden or secret agenda. It is absolutely necessary that the railway business continues, that it goes on for the proper commercial work to be done in this country. Whether one lives in my riding of Halifax with a port, or anywhere across this great country, the railway has been and will continue to be an absolutely essential link in the commerce of Canada.

To do this is not in any way, shape or form-as has been suggested in a manner I find distasteful-contrary to the interests over the long term of Canadian workers. It is not so and cannot even for a moment be considered to be so because the health and prosperity of this country is the first and foremost concern of this government, beginning with the Prime Minister and working down to everyone who sits on this side of the House.

Action on the railway bill is absolutely urgent because CN is shut down, VIA is shut down, and CP is operating at 85 per cent capacity or less. The impact grows with every day and every hour. That impact is bad for every Canadian from coast to coast.

Grain shipments are compromised. Auto plants depend on just in time deliveries that will not make it. Layoffs can be expected to start today. That is not very good for the workers of Canada. I would like to know what my hon. friend on the other side would say to that.

Raw materials movement will be minimal while this goes on. As I said before, our reputation as an exporter is at stake. That is certainly not good for anyone who works in this country, be it someone who labours in the particular field or be it a member of Parliament. People are affected, especially commuters around Toronto and Montreal. With 50,000 who use commuter rail every day, the result is traffic chaos in two of our major cities.

Is there any value to waiting any longer? The process between the parties is at an impasse. Negotiations, as I have said, have gone on in the shortest of cases for over a year, in the longest for over three years. There have been conciliation officers and a conciliation commissioner. The minister has listened and has

made a decision. The government and members on this side of the House support her decision and we will continue to do so.

This is an absolute necessity for the people of Canada, for the health of this country. I am proud to stand and support this legislation, to support this government, and most particularly to support our newest Minister of Labour.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed by the hon. member's comments to the effect that the member for Bourassa was not born here, but came to Canada later. She wondered if he was aware of the working conditions here.

I believe he was very aware of those conditions; in fact, he probably knows them better than she does. It is deplorable that such a distinction be made by a member of this House.

As regards the port of Halifax, I want to point out that the Bloc Quebecois took the same stand in the case of both Vancouver and Montreal harbours. I did not hear the hon. member allude to the port of Montreal, where a lockout has been in effect for some ten days now. Is this because it was just fine with the people in Halifax? Some of her Liberal colleagues told me: the strike or lockout in the port of Montreal can go on because, in the meantime, Halifax is doing very well. Things were going well, but this is no longer the case.

In Montreal, the union proposed to go back to work if a mediator was appointed. Last Wednesday, the labour minister promised that such a mediator would be appointed, but she has not done so yet. Part of the problem in Montreal is that one employer, Calmar, which belongs to CP, refuses to let normal activities resume in the port of Montreal.

[An hon. member]

Is that so?

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Yes, they are opposed to the resumption of normal activities in the port, something the longshoremen are prepared to do with a mediator. It has been 20 years since there was a labour dispute in the port of Montreal. A tradition of good bargaining. At Canadian Pacific, the current attitude to labour relations has been to take a hard line and let labour disputes fester without resolution and then ask for special legislation.

I heard the chairman of the Quebec Liberal Caucus say earlier: "But there are no essential services". And why not? Do you know why? Because there is no anti-scab legislation. There are no anti-scab provisions in the Canada Labour Code. This government came to power a year ago. It promised to introduce legislation but it never did. It was in favour of such provisions when it was in the opposition but not any more. We have seen nothing so far. Sure, a working paper was distributed with several proposals for anti-scab legislation where it would take 60 per cent and scabs would become legal. Quite something. They call it anti-scab legislation, but they would allow scabs under this proposal.

One last comment, since my time is almost up. I agree there may be emergencies and I agree that from time to time we may have to consider legislating workers back to work. But after 15 hours, in one case, and 24 hours, in the other? Let us get this straight: Either they have the right to strike or they do not. If we want no more strikes, we should pass legislation accordingly, but we should not give the parties the impression that this right exists-if they have that right, they should exercise it-while resorting to special legislation. We cannot have it both ways. Either the right to strike exists and it may be exercised, or it does not. Let us stop resorting to special legislation. Let us put our cards on the table and be logical instead of pretending to support public service employees during the election campaign and then doing what they are doing now.

This party talks like the New Democratic Party during the election campaign and acts like the Progressive Conservative Party once it is in power. That is the Liberals for you.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I was not proposing to take part in this debate. However, since there is time, I am quite happy to say something in response to the ridiculous comments we have heard from opposition members as to their excuse for not supporting this urgent and important legislation that really should be dealt with in this House.

Many of my constituents are gravely inconvenienced by this strike. They are more than just inconvenienced. The question which arises in respect of this strike is the economic loss to our country as a result of the failure to ship the things that have to get to port to be exported from Canada. This country is going through an export boom. To have a serious disruptive strike, whatever the problems that may have arisen to cause it and whatever the reason, is a serious economic loss to Canada at this stage in our economic cycle.

The Minister of Finance recently tabled a budget. Clearly, the success of that budget depends in part on the export growth that is booming in Canada today and which should be supported by every member of this House. We have an obligation to see to it that Canada's prosperity is not obstructed by some serious work stoppage which is preventing one of the most important things in our country, that is, exports which are going on at this moment and every hour of every day. They are being blocked because the opposition is unwilling to bring an end to this strike through some lawful means.

We proposed a fair solution to it. Members may not like it but it is a fair solution. Opposition members know that perfectly well, yet they persist in obduracy and say they will not allow us to change the rules in respect of this bill. They allowed the rules to be changed last week and I grant that, but they will not do so with respect to this bill to ensure that these people are put back to work so that jobs are not lost to Canadians.

We believe in creating jobs in this country. That is part of the philosophy of the Liberal government. I am surprised the opposition does not share that philosophy. One of the ways we create jobs is by exports. This strike is stopping exports. It is costing Canadians jobs. We should end it right away and the faster the better. The opposition knows it perfectly well.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 53, the period of one hour has expired.

It is now my duty to ask all members who object to the motion to rise.

And more than 10 members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Ten or more members having risen, pursuant to Standing Order 53, the motion is deemed to have been withdrawn.

(Motion deemed withdrawn.)

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-73, an act to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 1995, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, for Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those opposed will please say nay.