But that is not all, it is not just by stripping all power from the mediation-arbitration commissions in clause 12 that the bill completely sabotages the Hope report, on the contrary. It is worse than that because there is a mandate and, instead of doing what is customary and leaving the decision to one arbitrator, who can exercise judgment and refer to the jurisprudence, we teeter on the verge of the ridiculous either by being totally oblivious to the Hope report's contents or by acting in bad faith when we say that we accept the report. That is why I call it the ghost of the Hope report-the two do not even resemble each other.
The second objection is that everything must be settled within 70 days. The Hope report would give 60 days to hammer out an agreement on the difficult basic conditions and 120 days to apply them. But we are saying that the whole agreement should be signed, sealed and delivered in 70 days, just like that! Why the haste? Is it because we absolutely must have negotiated settlements? We are creating conditions which make that impossible. We are creating conditions under which arbitration will be carried out by a commission which has no real power and to which the government will appoint the arbitrator.
The workers would not even be consulted on the choice of arbitrator. So, what other clauses of this bill are utterly unacceptable? Just imagine being so confident that the process will be encouraged and adopted-by the way, a basic condition for even having an arbitration commission is that both management and the union appoint a representative to it-that if the parties neglect to name a representative, the government, the minister will intervene in their stead and name a competent person.
Words fail me to describe such a situation. And that is not all, that is not all. There is the issue of deadlines. I already said this, but I must stress that the commissioner gave 60 days plus 120, and he took care to stipulate that he is limiting it to six months because it will be easier for the parties to come to an agreement once they have agreed on the parameters. In the bill, 70 is the total maximum. This means that the government wants a settlement to be reached quickly, and once again I ask why? I will finish on this note, Mr. Speaker.
Other provisions of this bill are also unacceptable. Among others, there is the fact, and I must stress it, that the three companies are not treated equally and, as a consequence, all of the workers are not treated equally. Why? First, let us try to find out. Take the first party, CN. It gets an arbitration commission, 70 days, a clause 12 which makes no sense, and a concluding clause which says: "This Part- shall come into force on the expiration of the twelfth hour after the time at which this Act is assented to".
What about Canadian Pacific and Via Rail? "This part shall come into force by order". This means that, at CP, where there is a strike and a lockout, more importantly, at this point in time, workers or those who obeyed the picket lines have been laid off temporarily, punished, and the unions are no longer having their dues deducted because workers crossed the picket lines. And there is more: no one is saying that the working conditions will return to normal and that the workers will be rehired. No. No one is saying that.
No one said that because the company arranged to maintain operations. It is working at 80 per cent of its capacity. At 80 per cent. I will read you part of a notice I received today sent by the company to its customers. It thanks them considerably for their patience and understanding. It goes on to say that 12,888 railway workers are working non stop. These railway workers include some 2,888 managers, supervisors and other, non-unionized employees, who were given special training to replace striking workers.
Canada has no anti-strikebreaking legislation. This means that Canadian Pacific, which took steps and is operating at between 60 per cent and 80 per cent capacity-there is no agreement on the exact figure-is not subject to such legislation. There are examples of this in history. In 1987, in a similar situation, 400 workers who had been locked out and were therefore subject to a similar provision, waited four months without being called back to work. This means that the workers who were on strike were called back within 12 or 15 hours, and those who had been locked out were not called back for four or five months, since the company could operate. I have confirmation of this here from the unions concerned. This means that, when we say, by order, we let the company carry on.
As for VIA Rail, the minister says they are close to agreement. No, before looking at VIA Rail, I have other news on Canadian Pacific. Just a few small items.
In 1991 or 1992, when the company closed the Angus shops, there was a serious problem, workers were in danger of losing their jobs. So, in order to shut down the Angus shops, the company promised, in a memorandum that was not part of the collective agreement, but that seemed to be ongoing in application, because otherwise it would have been meaningless, that the workers would indeed be paid but that they would remain in Montreal.
Now, the Canadian auto workers who are negotiating with Canadian Pacific have been told-and I have confirmed this with the company-that if they do not agree to the 250 workers in question being moved to Calgary, first, that these workers will lose their job security, and second, that the company will not sign any agreement with the other workers. The workers in the rest of Canada are being pitted against the workers in Montreal. They want to find a solution to the dispute, but they say they want to restore order in the rail system, and we see what the conditions are.
And finally, VIA Rail. The minister said that everything was fine at VIA Rail, that the negotiations were continuing. The union leaders tell me that there is no more negotiation going on here than anywhere else. They tell me that their biggest worry is that this would be done by order in council, because everyone knows that for reasons that are historic and that are explained in the Hope report, the passenger rail system is operating at a deficit, and that in reality when VIA Rail is not operating, it is losing less money than usual.
So, on the one hand, the government is saying: "This is terrible, we cannot provide service to passengers". But, on the other hand, it does not ensure that the legislation makes it possible to take action when something terrible happens.
All we hear is: "This is terrible, simply terrible! We must bring in legislation". But those who are supposed to make the terrible situation go away are not covered.