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.