House of Commons Hansard #175 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was workers.

Topics

Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

10:30 a.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear.

Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

10:30 a.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC

We are proposing in this regard that the commission be guided first by the need to establish good union-management relations and, to this end, that it promote working conditions reflecting both the rights of the workers and the economic viability and competitiveness of the coast-to-coast rail system. And the way it is written means that we think that human resources is what is most important. It is what we hear in speeches around the world right now about globalization. What will make us competitive is the way we treat our human resources, not putting workers in no-win situations. Both workers and management must come out winners. Was management in favour of getting everybody back to work at the beginning of the week? Do you think they would agree with that? Go ask the management of the companies.

I think that this vision of government is dangerous and that it is important for all of the citizens of Quebec and Canada to go beyond this way of looking at things and to see the government's relationship with society evolve. The government is going to systematically decide who is right in society. The government is going to decide who is right and wrong, and the next in line for the snow job that railway workers are getting now will be the unemployed. The next victims after that will be another social category, and it will always be done under the pretext that we absolutely need to do such and such a thing for affordability, to emulate the American way, and that is why the official opposition is against this way of thinking. I think that we have nothing to learn from a party that has five members present in the House when we are dealing with special legislation.

Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

10:30 a.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear.

Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

10:30 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

I would ask the hon. member not to remark on the presence or absence of other hon. members.

Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

10:30 a.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC

Thank you, Madam Speaker. At any rate, Canadians can see what happens during votes and see who is there to vote and who is not.

Therefore, I think that this series of amendments contains an interesting proposal, and it is important for Canadians to understand that we are not opposing this bill to prevent people from returning to work, we are doing it to ensure that, in the future, two, three, five, ten years down the road, that there are good labour relations in this sector, that people have choices, that part of the network will be sold. That will have to be negotiated anyway with the unions, and because we have put them in a situation where they cannot trust their employers, they will continue to distrust them and we will have problems. When Parliament has to bring in three special labour relations acts in one year, that is a sure sign that there is a volatile situation in Canada, and that it is one that would be better dealt with by some means other than a government gag order.

I think it is important for Canadians to hear how the government is going against the recommendations of the Hope report.

According to the Hope report, there are a number of major points on which the parties could agree and we could then proceed to the more technical points and, if need be, resort to arbitration for some of these technical points. The government held its nose and decided to ignore that part.

What saddens me a little is that I feel they are taking advantage of the fact that a new minister has been appointed. She must be briefed on the issues while fulfilling an economic mandate, although the labour relations mandate is not necessarily to settle economic problems but to ensure a good labour relations climate. This is a basic element on which we should agree.

I sincerely believe that the amendment proposing that the commission be guided by the need to establish good labour relations as a top priority is the first step in a successful approach that would allow the whole railway industry to see its future in a different light.

Let us assume that, in two years, CN wants to sell, for example, part of its line to people in eastern Quebec, the Eastern Townships or the Maritimes. With a binding decision like that one, the unions will never feel formally bound by the outcome of the negotiations, which will show at every phase of the talks with the new employers. The employer faced with these new situations will keep in mind that he could win through a decision such as this special act of Parliament.

The employers in these situations may not want union accreditations to be adjusted to the new employers. Are there ways for these employers to ensure preferential treatment from the government? Ensuring economic viability by taking away workers' rights? This is the wrong way to see the debate, as I see it.

In conclusion, you can be sure that, in labour relations, if we do not see to it that there are two winners, the unions and the employers, one of the parties will always have its moment of truth in catching up later.

Shortsighted decisions such as this bill can only be corrected by achieving a balance between the parties. Parliament's responsibility is not to impose a different way to look at railway development through special labour legislation. If we want to change the railway industry, we should do so openly through bills to that effect, but not on the backs of Canadian workers because, at the end of the day, it is not only railway workers who

will pay, but all those whose livelihoods depend on this industry and all train users across Canada.

I hope that the government will finally decide to listen to our arguments.

Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

10:35 a.m.

Ottawa South Ontario

Liberal

John Manley LiberalMinister of Industry

Madam Speaker, first of all, I welcome this opportunity to mention that our new Minister of Labour has done an outstanding job regarding this strike.

It is not often that a new minister finds herself or himself with such a heavy agenda so soon after being made a member of the government. The fact that our Minister of Labour has acted so quickly and effectively in dealing with this strike is a great tribute to her.

I have a problem with the Bloquistes opposing this bill. I find it quite strange that, last week, when we legislated the resumption of work on the west coast, they did not seem to be very interested.

I also noticed that the hon. member for Longueuil dissociated himself from his party. He said his phone had been ringing off the hook with nothing but calls of support and that he even received calls from staunch sovereignists and mayors who wanted to congratulate him. Clearly, this is clearly how the people of Quebec feel because the economic impact the strike is having on Canada and Quebec is extremely serious.

I wonder why the members of this political party, who claim that definitely the only thing they were prepared to agree to as a party was sovereignty for Quebec, all of them but one agree with this strike action. Clearly, they are now sending to the people of Quebec the signal that a sovereign Quebec would be run by the unions. They do not care what the ordinary people of Quebec think.

The effects in Quebec and the effects across Canada of this strike have to be dealt with. There is an old African saying that when the elephants fight the grass gets hurt.

It is just fine for these people to come in and talk about the sanctity of labour relations. We think that is important too. In fact nothing would have been more desirable for the government than to see the parties to this dispute find their own resolution of it. That is why we waited; it was in order to see that the best possible efforts could be made.

In the face of a national rail strike, the Bloquistes know that governments in the past have always been obliged to act. The effect on the economy is such that we simply must act in the interests of all Canadians whose jobs and livelihoods depend directly and indirectly on the rails. Listen to the impact.

One of the main industries being affected is the aluminium industry.

The aluminum industry is the most important industry for the economy of Quebec, particularly for its rural areas, and it depends on rail transport.

Thirty thousand people are employed in that sector. It produces $8 billion annually in shipments. Two-thirds of all outbound shipments of aluminium are shipped by rail. Over three-quarters of the industry's inbound shipments, such as the chemicals that are used in the industry, are transported by rail, 90 per cent of the shipment by rail and $4.5 billion annually comprising exports to the United States. Alcan and Reynolds are now operating at only 70 per cent of capacity. Their plants are in the province of Quebec.

In the automotive sector, earlier this week Ford had to lay off 3,500 workers at Oakville; 2,500 at St. Thomas; and 400 at Windsor due to the strike. Most of them are back now but operating at half capacity. All the auto manufacturers are experiencing difficulty moving finished vehicles. Trucks are used to bring in most inbound shipments, 85 per cent, although rail is used for some essential bulk inputs such as body metal and plastics. This industry itself accounts for over $50 billion annually in output and employs about 150,000 people.

The chemicals industry, especially commodity chemicals, is a major user of the rail system. Seventy per cent of outbound shipments, about $15 billion annually, is sent by rail from Alberta to Ontario and British Columbia, from plants in Ontario and Quebec to the United States, to maritime ports for shipment overseas. Chemical shipments amount to about $20 billion annually. The industry employs 80,000 Canadians.

The fertilizer industry, potash and chemical fertilizers, is a major rail user. Two-thirds of the fertilizer shipments, about $1.25 billion annually, travel by rail. The industry is located mainly in Alberta and Saskatchewan with 6,000 people employed and shipments worth $2 billion annually.

The pulp and paper industry, another very important industry for Quebec, also depends on rail transport.

Along with aluminium it is probably the most vulnerable to disruption of rail service. It employs 100,000 Canadians in all parts of the country. Shipments are worth over $20 billion a year.

The effect of a prolonged rail strike on this industry is crucial. There is one very simple thing we have to understand. I have other statistics. I could keep reading them but it is important to

conclude on this thought. We have built a very prosperous country. Our prosperity has come to a very great extent from the ability we have to extract natural resources, whether from the forests, whether agricultural, whether from the mines or in the past from the sea, and selling them to the world as price makers.

That is no longer so easy for us. Competition on resource prices is extreme. The difficulty we have in getting our goods to market contributes directly to our competitiveness not just in the manufacturing sector but in the natural resource sector.

In the past it was easy for us to collect the rents from our natural resources. The world was willing to pay the prices we wanted and pay for the transportation costs built in. We built a railway in times when transportation costs were not a big factor in the price we could charge for the goods we sold. That world has changed. We are in a world of extreme competitiveness.

The Bloc should understand how important it is to our overall economy that we be competitive not just in the manufacturing sector but also in the transportation sector, and in a real way.

That is the issue we are going to have to deal with over the weeks and months to come in the resolution of this labour disruption. The competitiveness of our transportation system is a crucial element in the competitiveness of both our natural resource and our manufacturing sectors in the world at large.

In container traffic to eastern Canada bound from the Pacific we are only attracting 40 per cent of that traffic on the Canadian rail system. Sixty per cent is using the U.S. rail system. That is a competitiveness factor. We have to understand that other countries get their natural resources to ocean bound vessels with less distance involved than we face. The competitiveness of our transportation sector is crucial.

Time has come for Canadians to deal with the issue of competitiveness in our transportation industry. It has been dealt with in our manufacturing sector. People in Quebec, in Ontario and elsewhere have faced the necessity of difficult downsizing, of coming to terms with needing to rationalize manufacturing facilities, plants, acquiring new equipment, all for the purpose of being able to ensure the continuing prosperity of their firms, their regions, their provinces and this country. Now is the time for the transportation sector as well to deal in a real and continuing and lasting way with this serious issue.

Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

10:45 a.m.

Reform

Jake Hoeppner Reform Lisgar—Marquette, MB

Madam Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to speak to the bill today.

I have heard a few comments about the ability of members to count. I know they can go to five. I am wondering if they have ever read the story in the Old Testament about David and Goliath and what happened to the giant. I am very proud today to stand here and see the confidence our leader has that the five members here will handle the giants on both sides or all around us.

I have heard a lot of insults thrown around this morning. It is a little discouraging to hear some of them. This problem has been around for 25 years. It was not created in the last situation between labour and management.

Fifteen times governments have legislated people back to work and said they have solved the problem. We have never solved any problems and the simple reason is governments have been buying people to get elected.

I am pro labour. I am pro management. If I can get small business or large business, I will get a vote. I will go to the House and run the country. This is why were are here again today trying to resolve an issue.

I will tell the House a story about labour management relations and I hope members will listen. During the break I was asked to visit a plant in my riding which is a branch of a multinational corporation. I knew most of its products were shipped into the U.S. I felt that this was probably another situation where I would get the news that it was either going to downsize or close.

The news was it was going to expand by over $17 million. I said what is going on here, everybody is shutting down and this one is expanding. The plant manager said: "I started in this plant as a floor sweeper. I left home at 16 and had to fend for myself. I came back to get into the community. Now I am plant manager". I asked: "What did it to you? How did you show that kind of confidence to your superiors to get this job?"

"When I took over this plant were were operating in the red and it looked as if it were going to be shut down. I went over the books and said I am unionized, I am going to lose my job here if things do not turn around. I called in the people and told them we were going to have a different type of management. I am going to be supervisor and you are going to run this plant. I am setting up four committees, one is going to do the hiring and firing; one is going to look after efficiency; one is going to work on problems, labour relations".

"After a year you would not believe the increase in productivity in this plant. I have not hired a man. I have not fired a man. It is all done by the union. But I make sure when there is profit that my people get a fair wage increase. I know we are competing with the Americans and the head offices have given me the go ahead to increase production because this plant can survive".

That is labour management. That is how the country should be run, instead of the way it is right now. We had an opportunity a week ago to do something that would have set us in that direction. The House defeated Bill C-262, the motion of my hon. colleague. I do not think I will ever have an experience again such as I had this week when I sat with the forum of young

Canadians at its dinner. Since we were busy working on this legislation and I was on House duty, I could not be there for first part of the dinner. I came back to the House for about 45 minutes and had to leave again. Our whip had not been able to stay there either.

We discussed this situation with the students. One asked me whether I get a little discouraged when I see all the problems and work from maybe 8.00 a.m. until 10.00 or 11.00 p.m. and accomplish very little.

I said not really. At times I feel like going home but I think the 35th Parliament will go down in history as the turning point in our country, that finally it will make some decisions that will benefit the country, not destroy it.

Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

10:50 a.m.

An hon. member

The red book.

Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

10:50 a.m.

Reform

Jake Hoeppner Reform Lisgar—Marquette, MB

The red book. The right start but we need the green book to cover the red book.

I pointed out to these young people what our problems were when we discussed job description and what was taking place on the Hill. I said I was actually proud to be part of the 35th Parliament. One young student said her generation will also set a precedent and be recorded in history. She said for the first time in history her generation is going to be asked to take a reduced standard of living, a lower standard of living.

She is probably right with all the cuts coming, with all the social program cuts. I asked her how she felt about it. She said it hurts but they know it is reality and are willing to make that sacrifice if it will do something for their country.

I felt like saying send all the MPs home and let the kids run the country. They will make the decisions that have to be made. They are not interested in a multimillion dollar pension plan. They are interested in saving the country, bringing it back to what it was years ago.

We sit here throwing insults back and forth and we think we are doing our job. We are playing politics and politics is what has brought the country to where it is. I hope we realize that today, whether it is the Bloc, the Liberals or the Reform. The next generation is not going to be putting up with the politics we have seen in the 35th Parliament. The bright spot in our future is that we have kids willing to make sacrifices.

When I think of the first and second world wars, I see how many young people laid down their lives to protect this country and make it great. They left everything. They had no chance. What have we done in the last 25 years? We have put the country into debt by $550 billion. We have an unemployment rate of around 10 per cent.

What has politics done for the country? We have left our kids a legacy they will have to deal with. I hope and pray they have the guts to do it because my grandchildren and future great-grandchildren will not have the opportunities I have had.

I hope it is serious enough in the House today that instead of throwing insults at each other, we buckle down, go to work and finally form some type of legislation that will put the country back on the road to recovery and make it the great country it can be.

Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

10:55 a.m.

Liberal

Nick Discepola Liberal Vaudreuil, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to be able to say that I am proud to take part in this debate, but, unfortunately, such is not the case.

It is always preferable in this sort of dispute for the employer and the union to attempt to resolve their differences on their own. But, as we speak, after months and months of talks, the dispute drags on. Despite this government's efforts to resolve the conflict as quickly as possible, there is still one political party that prefers grandstanding to finding a solution to the crisis facing Canadians across this country.

Millions of workers are affected daily by this dispute. In the Montreal and Toronto areas alone, 70,000 workers who must get to their place of work every day are affected by this strike.

It affects not just large companies, but also small and medium size businesses, who depend on the railways for their survival.

As we speak, Canadian Pacific is paralyzed and Canadian National and VIA are for all practical purposes completely shut down. There are also automobile manufacturing plants in the Windsor area that have had to lay off 3,000 employees temporarily. The manufacturing sector is losing close to $500 million daily. In other words, if the strike drags on, the loss to our economy, according to their estimates, will be somewhere between $3 and $5 billion dollars.

The Reform Party suggested that the Bloc Quebecois was not worried about the dispute at the Port of Vancouver because it did not concern them. I would like to point out to them the economic effect of this dispute on Trois-Rivières, in Quebec.

In Trois-Rivières, the Kruger paper company is losing a million dollars a day. Five hundred employees are affected. Also affected are Stone Consolidated in Port-Alfred, Pétromont in the Verchères region, the Shell refineries in the east end of Montreal, the entire Port of Vancouver, Alcan, ADI, Reynolds, and I could go on.

I ask myself if there are other brave souls like the member for Longueuil, who told his own party that what they are accusing us of doing is not true. The Bloc Quebecois is accusing us of flexing our muscles. On the contrary, if anyone is being heavy

handed, it is the Leader of the Opposition, who always takes this approach when someone, including the member for Longueuil, does not agree with him. He told his own member that he would have to live with the political consequences of his action.

I would like to quote the member for Longueuil, who said: "I do not see why my constituents would take it out on me. In fact, the opposite seems to be happening. We have a major problem when the transportation system breaks down. People must return to work". This is why this dispute must be resolved as quickly as possible.

We have to ask why the Bloc Quebecois has taken this position. It claims to be the defender of workers in Quebec. This is not quite the case, because I myself have had calls from CN and CP railway workers in Coteau and Kirkland who are not happy that this dispute has still not been settled.

The economy, workers, everyone is affected, but still the Bloc Quebecois persists. It persists, in my opinion, for purely partisan reasons. They have said that we could have resolved this dispute as early as Monday. Again, this is not the case, because another 60 days would have gone by before the dispute was settled. Why does the Bloc see itself as the defender of workers? The main reason is because under Quebec law unions represent workers. It is no accident that the CNTU, the FTQ, in fact all the unions, support the separatist position. This is the sole reason for the Bloc's partisan politics today.

Thus far, at least the Reform Party is supporting us and even the NDP has seen the light. We have the support of the member for Longueuil and also of other members not brave enough to rise and vote against their party. Even the Quebec Minister of Transport has told us that this dispute must be resolved as quickly as possible.

But not the Bloc Quebecois. The Bloc wants to stall the process; it is not in its best interests to see things improve, because it does not want to show that federalism works. It really does not care about those affected by this conflict, including the small businesses that cannot get their raw materials or imports.

So, here we are today. We could have settled this conflict a long time ago. But no, we have to sit on a Saturday. I am told this is the fourth time, and it has not happened in years.

Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

11:05 a.m.

An hon. member

That is what we are paid for.

Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

Nick Discepola Liberal Vaudreuil, QC

The hon. member said that is what we are paid for. Sure, but every hour spent in this House today costs the taxpayers an extra $25,000. All this because, during an opposition day, the Bloc members insisted on talking about the CBC and the Department of National Defence, rather than try to solve this conflict.

I will conclude by referring to a comment made earlier this week by the Leader of the Opposition, who said that the referendum should be held as soon as possible.

Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

11:05 a.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear.

Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

Nick Discepola Liberal Vaudreuil, QC

The sooner the referendum is held, the sooner the Bloc Quebecois will have to decide. Does it really want to play its role of official opposition and look after the interests of all Canadians, or rather pick and choose the issues, as it has already shown it is doing?

It is important to get this conflict settled as soon as possible, and not at the expense of the workers as the Bloc Quebecois would have us believe.

The government has always preferred to let conflicts be settled between the two parties involved. We have tried. The minister in her new role has tried in vain. We are at the point now where the economy is paralysed and companies are closing down. The government, contrary to what the Bloc Quebecois says, has decided to act.

Let us get the economy back on track. Let us get the trains running. Let us have the referendum as soon as possible. Then the Bloc will have to decide whether it wants to remain the opposition or resign and let the Reform take over.

Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

11:05 a.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC

Madam Speaker, following the failure of the Meech Lake Accord, the then Quebec Premier stated that, regardless of what was said or done, Quebec was and always would be a distinct society.

Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

11:05 a.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear.

Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

11:05 a.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC

Those are the only fine words spoken by former Premier Robert Bourassa. Today, we have yet another clear demonstration of that, and I want to tell the member for Vaudreuil and the federal Minister of Industry that, as far as democracy is concerned, Quebec has nothing to learn from these individuals. Let me explain.

Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

11:05 a.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

11:05 a.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC

Madam Speaker, could you ask the hon. member for Nickel Belt, the young pup from Nickel Belt, to go yap outside the House?

Section 53 of the Quebec Labour Code provides for parties to begin and pursue their negotiations diligently and in good faith. Again this goes to show that the Quebec Labour Code is more progressive than the Canada Labour Code, which does not include any such provision. I want to point out to the House and to the people who are watching us that, contrary to what Liberal members may have said, the Bloc is not made up of unionists only. For 17 years, I was involved in labour relations on the

management side in Quebec, but there is one thing I have always respected and that is the workers' right to strike.

I support management, I am proud of it, but I have always recognized the workers' right to strike and the employers' right to lock them out. Having made this clear, let us turn now to the Hope report. On the issue of good faith, I want to quote from page 58 of the Hope report, paragraph 1, where it says: "In brief, the unions are faced with proposals put forward by the railway companies which they cannot accept, so they must choose confrontation as their only alternative to these unacceptable demands". Unacceptable demands made by management.

Also on page 58 in the Hope report, paragraph a), it says: "The dispute resolves around the companies' demands which can be described as controversial and provocative."

Further down on page 58, the report reads: "Their demands-that is the companies' demands-are so controversial and provocative because of the partisan role taken by the government"-this is Commissioner Hope speaking-"the partisan role taken by the government"-which is, until further notice, the Liberal government-"which supports the position of the railway companies, and because of the tenacity with which the companies have stuck to these demands". This quote can be found on page 58 of the Hope report.

Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

11:10 a.m.

Bloc

Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

This is only a huge charade on the part of the government, to score political points.

Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

11:10 a.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC

I would ask the Canadians and Quebecers who are watching us today from their living room or their kitchen to remember-Quebec has a fine motto: "I remember"-that the Bloc Quebecois exposed the fact that the president of CN, Paul Tellier, who has a yearly salary of $345,000 plus a $52,000 a year expense account, received a $300,000 interest-free loan to buy a house in Westmount.

Let us ask ourselves if it is normal, if it is realistic, in 1995, that a senior civil servant paid with our taxes, the taxes of Canadians and Quebecers, benefit from such perks. I do not care if these advantages are offered to the president of CP or the president of General Motors of Canada. If these companies want to share their profits, they have the right to do so. However, when the president of CN benefits from such perks and we are paying for that through our taxes, it is a different matter. Do the viewers who are watching us today pay their mortgage each month?

Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

11:10 a.m.

Bloc

Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Yes.

Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

11:10 a.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC

We pay our mortgage, and the president of CN, who is a government official, should pay his mortgage like everybody else.

Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

11:10 a.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear.

Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995Government Orders

11:10 a.m.

An hon. member

He has negotiated good working conditions for himself.