Madam Speaker, I must admit that I am saddened today to see that we are unable to reach an agreement on a serious problem which is hurting the country and its citizens so much. I would have thought that when faced with such a big challenge, we could have given each other a hand and have found a solution that would make everybody happy. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
That is sad, because the strike costs $500 million a day. By the end of the strike, say the workers come back on Monday, we will have lost $5 billion. Just break that figure down into how much each citizen of the country lost. It is a huge sum.
Obviously businesses and stores almost everywhere in Canada are affected. Obviously Canadians are all affected. It is having very, very dire and, in some cases, brutal repercussions for people. We often forget that workers are also affected. Not only those on strike, not only those who are locked out, but also those prevented from working because of what is going on. I find that so sad.
You have all heard that the Bloc is touting itself as the defender of workers' rights. But we have to ask ourselves one basic question. Which workers are they defending?
Is it the workers of the industries listed here: the Himont petrochemical plant in Varennes, where production has dropped by 25 per cent; ICI, a petrochemical plant in Dalhousie, with a 33 per cent drop in production; Donohue, a pulp and paper plant in Saint-Félicien, Quebec, now closed, with 100 people out of a job; Donohue, a pulp and paper plant in Clermont, slated to close down, laying off 75 employees; Franceau, in Chambord, where 190 employees stand to be laid off; Univers, in Val d'Or, which will throw 16 employees out of work; Forpan Inc., in Val d'Or,
where 146 employees could be out of work; Panval Inc., in Soyabec, slated to close down, laying off 238 employees; or PanFiber, in Mont-Laurier, where 101 employees could be laid off? Are those the people the Bloc Quebecois seeks to protect?
You know as well as I do that what they are trying to do, of course, is to disguise their true intentions. Why is it that the Bloc said absolutely nothing when the government forced the longshoremen to resume work in Vancouver? They did not say a word. Why is that? It is obvious. They have a big problem. They went too far. They did not understand. They have not been sensitive enough to the rest of the country. Now, they are looking for a way to put that behind them. They made a bad move; it was poor judgment on their part.
Let us look at the damage done by this strike. I will quote from an article published yesterday, March 24, in The Ottawa Sun . I want to make sure I quote it correctly.
It is the height of irresponsibility for Bouchard to stall back to work legislation.
The strike is costing industry $500 million a day in lost production and sales. By the time the legislation is eventually passed by Parliament on Sunday, the strike will have cost the economy $5 billion.
The dispute has delayed shipments of potash, grain, coal, ore, forestry products, heavy industrial components, processed food, chemicals, manufactured products and other goods.
For Canada's farmers, the strike could not have come at a worst time. It is the busiest time of year, with nearly 25,000 rail cars on sidings waiting to deliver the rest of last summer's harvest.
If we were to ask my colleague from Brandon-Souris how the people in his riding are affected, he would corroborate that it is disastrous for the farmer and certainly the western Canadian farmer.
The articles continues:
Tens of thousands of workers across the country have been laid off because of the disruption, while many more are being forced to work half shifts.
At least 70,000 commuters in Toronto and Montreal face the inconvenience of finding other ways to get to work.
The stalling tactics are certainly linked to supporting the referendum. Referring to the province of Quebec the article states:
The strike has hurt the province's manufacturers, aluminium industry and its pulp and paper companies.
For example, forest giant Repap Enterprises faces imminent shutdowns and layoffs affecting 5,000 workers that could paralyse entire communities.
One of the reasons why Bouchard is being obstructionist is to keep good relations with Quebec's militant unions, which are big boosters of independence.
Clearly, Bouchard feels he can't afford to anger the unions which are one of the few organized groups in Quebec willing to jump over the cliff to reach the separatist dream.
The article is a little harsh and goes on to state:
Bouchard has demonstrated to Quebecers that he's clueless about bread and butter issues. If he doesn't know the impact that the strike is having in Quebec then imagine what would happen if the province ever separated from Canada.
How can Quebecers put trust in his lofty claims that there won't be any economic fallout if Quebec separates?
Obviously they can't if he isn't able to see the consequences of a rail strike which is essential to the entire Canadian economy.
That is what the article states. It is a condemnation of the actions of Bloc Quebecois members. They show quite clearly that what they are trying to do is take advantage of the situation for their own political gain.
There are two basic principles to consider. We all agree that, as far as possible, work agreements should be negotiated, that labour disputes should be settled through negotiation. Ideally, we all wish it could be so. But do you not think there is another principle that is equally important and sometimes more important here, namely the protection of the public, the protection of this country's economy to which we owe the quality of life we enjoy in Canada at this time? That is what we are doing today. It is not that we do not want workers to reach an agreement with their employers. We gave them time and no agreement was reached. Now, in the face of the damage done by this strike, we have to take action. We have no choice.
Many Bloc members mentioned that the bill will be used in other sectors in the future, because of what we are doing today. I agree and I challenge them by asking: Why not begin to co-operate in an attempt to settle this situation? Let us put Canadians back to work and let us co-operate in looking for solutions that will ensure that the situation never occurs again, either in the railway industry or elsewhere. How can we simultaneously protect our workers and our people? That is the challenge.
I conclude my speech by commending the Minister of Labour for her excellent work. Well done, Madam Minister! The job has not been easy. We are not enjoying this. We believe that agreements and labour disputes should be negotiated. But the time has come to give priority to the country and its people.
