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.