Madam Speaker, first of all I may recall that whatever hon. members opposite may have said, the reason we are here today and the trains are still not running is not because of the Bloc Quebecois but because the government refuses to accept a universal labour principle: mediation.
They want to impose arbitration, they want to impose terms and conditions of employment and give the public the impression that the Bloc Quebecois is to blame, although from day one, on Monday and the day after, the Bloc Quebecois, through its leader, offered to settle the dispute immediately if the government accepted mediation. We in the Bloc are just as aware as you that this is a serious matter. We realize, as you do, that the workers must get back to work as soon as possible. But that is not the point of this debate.
Today's debate is about the fact that the government absolutely wants to prescribe arbitration and impose terms and conditions of employment, not about mediation, a mechanism that works very well. Just this past week in the Port of Montreal, negotiations led to a settlement, acceptable to both parties, that will provide for good labour relations.
I speak here as a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development which examined this bill clause by clause on Wednesday, under a gag order. This is the first time in the history of this Parliament that a government imposed time allocation on the consideration of a bill in committee. And we only had four hours to consider it. We nevertheless proceeded to clause by clause consideration.
Also and above all, I speak as the member for a riding that has a high concentration of railway activity. I want to talk about the railway centre in Charny, created mainly because of that activity. I regularly meet people who work in this town. I visit them regularly, almost daily, although perhaps a little less, of late, because I have to be in Ottawa several days a week. I speak on the behalf not only of the rail workers but of the people whose livelihood depends on the railways. In my riding, there is no problem. Business people realize that the railways are important. The government obviously does not, since it let this dispute deteriorate.
Without wishing to make this a personal crusade, I want to say that I listen to what my constituents have to say and represent their concerns. CN workers in my riding are so concerned about the future of a business to which they are very much attached that they made the president of CN a purchase offer. Is this evidence of bad faith, when people believe so strongly in the business they work for that they want to buy it? They want to keep their company alive, unlike Mr. Tellier who ever since he was appointed has been doing a job on CN.
The hon. member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans said earlier that Mr. Tellier is now the highest paid public servant, with an annual salary of $345,000 plus a personal expense allowance of $51,000. He also asked his company for an interest-free loan so he could acquire a house in Westmount. He even said in the paper that if CN had not agreed, he would have turned down the job. Poor Mr. Tellier.
Last year, he came to Charny to explain to workers the reasons for cutbacks and job cuts. The workers told him they did not see why he was cutting positions because conductors were working overtime, were always on standby with a pagette and sometimes worked 14 days running.
Why cut jobs under these circumstances? It would be much better to have more people working in order for everyone to have better working conditions and a better quality of life. But no, he did not listen. Mr. Tellier is not the only one causing problems at the CN level. Some senior officers, though not many, have left, and each time it ended with an agreement of several hundred
thousands of dollars. In some cases, the amounts even came close to $600,000 in addition to pension benefits. Is that the sort of example to give when workers are being asked to tighten their belts? My constituents say no, and do not accept such poor service. I believe that if people knew what is going on at the CN, they would not accept it either.
What is lacking is information. But if you want information from the CN-I sat on the transport committee last year. Six months later, the president of the CN still has not given any answers to the legitimate requests made by the opposition in committee. He has not answered his employees either.
The amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois today relate mainly to mediation and seek to eliminate the word "arbitration", the process that the government wants to impose. The main problem is clause 12, which we want to amend in such a way that the commission it refers to will be guided by the need for good relations between the employer and unions and, to this end, promote terms and conditions of employment that take into account both the workers' acquired rights, the economic situation and the competitiveness of the whole Canadian rail system. But the government refuses to support such a balanced approach, which would take into account both the needs of the workers and the economic situation. No CN employee wants to hurt the economy, quite the opposite. But we can see that the government, that wants to privatize the CN, is eager to sell it off, bit by bit, to companies whose interests sometimes do not match those of the rail industry. We have seen people in that situation in the case of Murray Bay for example. Those people are truckers. What interests are they promoting?
There is no enthusiasm whatsoever. I have been saying it over and over again and I have been in contact with people in the rail industry in my region for many years. The poor labour climate imposed by management drags on and on. Unfortunately, the same executive team which was in place under the Tories is still there to finish the dirty job. This government said that it wanted to put an end to this situation, but in actual fact, through its decisions, it continues to implement the policies of the Conservative Party. People in Quebec have trouble understanding why it is so. There is something else Quebecers have trouble understanding. In Quebec, like anywhere else, there have been strikes, yet people have come to accept the principle of the right to strike. People understand the importance of mediation, and of negotiating working conditions. This creates a better climate and this is a more productive way of doing things. Recently, at MIL Davie, workers accepted the working conditions which had been negotiated that way, because they understood how important those conditions were for their company, its survival, and also its improved operations.
People balk at the working conditions the government wants to impose. The government is refusing to enforce appropriate legislation. There is a labour dispute at Ogilvie, which has been dragging on forever. Scabs have been allowed in, even though this is happening in Quebec. Why? Because of the federal legislation.
To conclude, I will say that Quebec is a distinct society. In Quebec, we refuse to work in a climate of confrontation. From now on, we want working conditions in Quebec to be democratically negotiated.
