Debates of March 25th, 1995

Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Secretary of State (Parliamentary Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the House that an agreement has been reached by the majority of the parties in the House with respect to an allocation of time to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-77. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 78(2), I move:

That, in relation to Bill C-77, an act to provide for the maintenance of railway operations and subsidiary services, not more than three hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage of the said bill and not more than one hour shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the said bill and, at the conclusion of the final allotted hour of consideration of each of the said stages of the said bill, any proceeding before the House shall be interrupted and every question necessary for the disposal of the stage then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I declare the motion carried.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-77, an act to provide for the maintenance of railway operations and subsidiary services, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

There are 42 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-77, an act to provide for the maintenance of railway operations and subsidiary services.

Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39 and 40 will be grouped for debate.

A vote on Motion No. 1 applies to all the other motions in the group.

Motions Nos. 4, 9, 13, 18, 23, 27, 32, 37 and 41 will be grouped for debate but voted on in the following way:

(a) the vote on Motion No. 4 will apply to Motions Nos. 18 and 32;

(b) the vote on Motion No. 9 will apply to Motions Nos. 23 and 37;

(c) the vote on Motion No. 13 will apply to Motions Nos. 27 and 41.

Motions Nos. 14, 28 and 42 will be grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 14 applies to Motions 28 and 42.

I will now submit the motions in the first group to the House.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I move that all the motions be taken as having been read. That will leave more time for the debate.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-77, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 14 and 15, on page 1, with the following:

""Commission" means a Mediation Commission established under this".

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-77, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing lines 35 and 36, on page 3, with the following:

"8. (1) During the mediation period,".

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-77, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing line 22, on page 4, with the following:

"a Mediation Commission shall be".

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-77, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing lines 46 to 48, on page 6, with the following:

"11.(1) Within fifty days after its establishment, each Commission shall".

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-77, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing lines 5 to 14, on page 7, with the following:

"was established, endeavour to mediate all the matters referred to it and to bring about an agreement between the employer and the union on those matters;".

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-77, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing lines 20 and 21, on page 7, with the following: c ) submit a report to the Minister who shall lay the report before the House of Commons within ten days

(i) unless the parties have reached an agreement within that period; or

(ii) where no agreement is reached, the parties may, by mutual agree-ment, submit their dispute to arbitration or shall recover their rights under Part I of the Canada Labour Code, once the ten days have expired."

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-77, in Clause 11, be amended by deleting lines 22 to 30, on page 7.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-77, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing lines 40 to 46, on page 7 and lines 1 to 6, on page 8, with the following:

"for the purposes of the mediation referred to in subparagraph 11(1)( a )(i), all the powers of a conciliation commissioner under section 84 of the Canada Labour Code.''

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-77 be amended by deleting Clause 14.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-77 be amended by deleting Clause 15.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-77, in Clause 25, be amended by replacing lines 9 and 10, on page 11, with the following:

""Commission" means a Mediation Commission established under this".

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-77, in Clause 30, be amended by replacing lines 1 and 2, on page 13, with the following:

"30. During the mediation period,".

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-77, in Clause 31, be amended by replacing line 14, on page 13, with the following:

"a Mediation Commission shall be".

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-77, in Clause 33, be amended by replacing lines 38 to 40, on page 15, with the following:

"33.(1) Within fifty days after its establishment, each Commission shall".

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-77, in Clause 33, be amended by replacing lines 45 to 47, on page 15, and lines 1 to 7, page 16, with the following:

"was established, endeavour to mediate all the matters referred to it and to bring about an agreement between the employer and the union on those matters;".

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-77, in Clause 33, be amended by replacing lines 13 and 14, on page 16, with the following:

"(c) submit a report to the Minister who shall lay the report before the House of Commons within ten days

(i) unless the parties have reached an agreement within that period; or

(ii) where no agreement is reached, the parties may, by mutual agreement, submit their dispute to arbitration or shall recover their rights under Part I of the Canada Labour Code, once the ten days have expired."

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-77, in Clause 33, be amended by deleting lines 15 to 23, on page 16.

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-77, in Clause 35, be amended by replacing lines 33 to 41, on page 16, with the following:

"for the purposes of the mediation referred to in subparagraph 33(1)( a )(i), all the powers of a conciliation commissioner under section 84 of the Canada Labour Code .''

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-77 be amended by deleting Clause 36.

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-77 be amended by deleting Clause 37.

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-77, in Clause 47, be amended by replacing lines 3 and 4, on page 20, with the following:

""Commission" means a Mediation Commission established under this".

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-77, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing lines 30 and 31, on page 21, with the following:

"52. During the mediation period,".

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-77, in Clause 53, be amended by replacing line 2, on page 22, with the following:

"a Mediation Commission shall be".

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-77, in Clause 55, be amended by replacing lines 24 to 26, on page 24, with the following:

"55.(1) Within fifty days after its establishment, each Commission shall".

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-77, in Clause 55, be amended by replacing lines 31 to 40, on page 24, with the following:

"was established, endeavour to mediate all the matters referred to it and to bring about an agreement between the employer and the union on those matters;".

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-77, in Clause 55, be amended by replacing lines 46 and 47, on page 24, with the following:

"(c) submit a report to the Minister who shall lay the report before the House of Commons within ten days

(i) unless the parties have reached an agreement within that period; or

(ii) where no agreement is reached, the parties may, by mutual agree-ment, submit their dispute to arbitration or shall recover their rights under Part I of the Canada Labour Code once the ten days have expired."

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-77, in Clause 55, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 9, on page 25.

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-77, in Clause 57, be amended by replacing lines 19 to 27, on page 25, with the following:

"for the purposes of the mediation referred to in subparagraph 55(1)( a )(i), all the powers of a conciliation commissioner under section 84 of the Canada Labour Code.''

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-77 be amended by deleting Clause 58.

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-77 be amended by deleting Clause 59.

Madam Speaker, it is because the official opposition takes its role seriously that, right on Monday, proposals were made to the government, proposals that would have served a dual purpose: to bring about a speedy resumption of work and also a meaningful settlement, a negotiated settlement to this serious situation that impacts on the Canadian economy.

I should point out that, instead of accepting our offer, the government decided-I call it as I see it-to capitalize on the circumstances, the difficulties created by this strike, as any strike. Strikes are never fun, neither for the strikers-who feel this is something they are forced to do-nor for those who suffer the consequences.

The government took advantage of this situation to sort out its problem, and that is to have working conditions imposed on rail workers.

It is important to remind the House that a two-stage mediation-arbitration process was recommended to the government in the Hope report, and this recommendation was made for the very simple reason that the companies have already tried to obtain concessions in the past.

What is unusual is this statement: their demands are so controversial and provocative because of the partisan role taken by the government-the word is mine-who supports the position of the railway companies and because of the tenacity with which the companies have stuck to these demands.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Order. I would ask hon. members who want to have private conversations to please step out.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

This is a momentous event in the history of the Parliament of Canada. Without taking too much of my speaking time, I would just like to say that we realize this is emergency legislative action and it is being taken for the second time in a short time.

All week long, we have been guided both by the proposals tabled this morning and the need to bring about a meaningful settlement. The government sabotaged the Hope report's recommendations. Commissioner Hope recommended steps be taken to bring both sides together to allow them to negotiated settlements, these being the only way out of this difficult situation in which the companies claim to be.

Let me read you a paragraph of the Hope report which gives hope-no pun intended-and we want to give this hope a chance.

We can read this on page 72: "During the commission's proceedings, it was rather obvious that it would be possible to negotiate settlements if freight carriers were prepared to accept the fact that they will probably not win on all fronts, and that they will have to pay for the changes which they want, regardless of the settlement process. Similarly, if the unions recognized the fact that both companies are confronted with a financial reality which requires that some arrangements be made in the interest of all the parties, they might be more willing to negotiate an acceptable compromise".

We can see the possibility for a settlement. This is what Commissioner Hope looked for. He provided the government with tools to reach a negotiated settlement. But instead, the government chose to impose one, without giving the parties time to meet face to face and express their respective views on the problems and the future of the railway industry.

We wanted to give the parties a real chance, and this is why the series of amendments brought forward this morning propose mediation commissions which would report to the minister who, in turn, would have ten days to table a report to Parliament which would become a public document. If agreements were reached within that ten-day period, the report would not go public. Otherwise, at the end of this process, the parties would either mutually agree to go to arbitration or, if they have not reached a settlement-but we think they would-the Labour Code provisions dealing with their rights would apply once again.

Another way of doing things must be found when you do not rely on a power struggle. In Quebec, we spent a lot of time looking at these issues and workers now have the right to strike, even in the health sector, provided essential services are maintained.

In Canada, the Labour Code provides the right to strike, but that right is completely taken away by the government, when it should come into play.

As I said repeatedly:

If the Canadian economy and politics cannot afford the Canada Labour Code, there is a big problem because it means that the problems will never be settled.

And when problems are not really solved, they resurface and then they are much worse. This is what Commissioner Hope explains in his report.

We want to make it clear to those who are listening, and who may have suffered some inconvenience, that these workers are exercising a right which is provided in the Labour Code. They want a negotiated settlement, not an imposed one; they stated that they are prepared to accept a compromise.

Commissioner Hope clearly showed that the companies' hard-nosed attitude was due to the fact that they have the government's support. Today, this House has an opportunity to concretely show that the country is headed for new labour relations, and not only where unions exist. The government must be a role model. It must define the kind of labour relations which will prevail in this country. However, the government is not fulfilling its role when it is not paving the way to a future which includes not only companies, but also every individual.

It is because we highly respect our role as the official opposition that we want to stress here in this House how essential it is for Canadians and Quebecers to realize, through this conflict, that a new direction is necessary, so that new economic conditions can indeed be taken into consideration but, more importantly, that we do not sacrifice, as is now so often the case, the right of every individual to be treated with respect.

I invite the government to support the spirit of our amendments. Rather than taking us back to the days when labour conditions were dictated only by the prevailing economic forces, these proposals seek to lead us to a climate of respect between the employers and the workers.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

Madam Speaker, the purpose of the amendments presented this morning by members of the Bloc Quebecois and, more specifically, by the hon. member for Mercier, is to remove the entire concept of arbitration from the bill and to limit the bill to a mediation process.

The approach taken by the Bloc Quebecois may be a sign that they did not follow the progress of negotiations after the collective agreement expired. As you know, the parties tend to start negotiating before a collective agreement expires. The agreement expired on December 31, 1993, so that the parties started negotiating several months before that date. Subsequently, we appointed a conciliator to help the two parties negotiate.

When this did not produce tangible results, we appointed a conciliation commissioner who again for several months, tried to get the parties to negotiate and conclude an agreement. It has always been and always will be the position of this government to help the parties negotiate and reach an agreement. Actually, most collective agreements in federally regulated sectors are concluded without intervention by the government as such and without the need for legislation.

The proposal made by the Bloc Quebecois this morning would mean that negotiations would be continued for 60 days. First 50 days, then a report to the House, and if the mediation process fails, employees and companies will again be in a position to strike or impose a lockout. That means that exactly 60 days from now, we could be facing the same situation. Today is March 25, and we might be back in this House on May 25, with a nation-wide work stoppage in the railway sector.

I do not think the proposal is realistic. There would have to be evidence that there is a good chance of succeeding through mediation alone, and that is not the case. Both parties have reached an impasse at this point. Neither party has asked for mediation.

The parties want to go back to work, that is quite clear. They want the system to work, but both parties have reached an impasse.

I heard a representative for the unions who appeared before the Senate this week, and it was interesting to hear his response when the senators asked if the people who act as mediators do arbitration as well, and whether we should not separate mediation and arbitration. Do you know what he told the senators? He said: "You know, when we have a mediator, and we know that if we do not agree, it will be up to the same person to make the decision for us, well, when the mediator looks us in the eye and begs us to reach an agreement, we know perfectly well what that means, and it makes us negotiate a little harder so he will not have to make the decision himself". This was said in the Senate by a representative from one of the biggest unions in the railway sector.

It is quite clear that each situation must be assessed on its merits. I appointed a mediator in the Port of Montreal, but the situation was entirely different. First of all, the Port of Montreal has a long tradition of successful collective bargaining. It has been more than 20 years since we had a general strike in the Port of Montreal. Second, the parties were amenable and really wanted to reach an agreement. These are prerequisites for mediation. Third, it should be clear that the economic repercussions of the strike in the Port of Montreal, compared with the

economic repercussions of the strike throughout Canada's railway system from coast to coast are not the same.

Not long ago, the House passed back-to-work legislation which imposed a mediation-arbitration process on the ports on the west coast of Canada. Oddly enough, Bloc members did not react the way they are doing now. Does this mean that the members of the Bloc are not the official opposition and are not concerned about what happens on the west coast of this country? Why is it that today, they are criticizing the principle of mediation-arbitration, while last time, although mediation-arbitration was involved as well, there was no discussion of the principles at stake as there is today. What is going on? Do we really have an official opposition that is concerned about Canada's economy from coast to coast? I wonder. I am really amazed at this change in the position of the Bloc Quebecois.

Since last Sunday we have tried to obtain the consent of the Bloc Quebecois for the passage of the bill before the House. If these amendments are the only thing they can come up with after five days, A am sorry to say that we cannot accept them, because we need results, and above all, we do not want to be faced with exactly the same situation in two months' time.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Madam Speaker, we just heard the Minister of Labour questioning whether the Bloc was the official opposition. It is the official opposition and the Reform Party is the national opposition.

The Bloc mentioned the noble conception of its role. I disagree with that. I do not find anything about what it is doing with regard to the legislation noble. I find the actions of the Bloc Quebecois selfish and the most unconscionable I have seen in Parliament. It has held up this legislation. It refused to waive the 48 hour notice necessary to get this in and debated quickly. It has used every procedural tactic at its disposal to further delay the passage of this bill.

We have to question what it is trying to accomplish. We know the legislation is going to pass. The Bloc knows the legislation is going to pass. It knows the CP, CN and VIA workers are going to be legislated back to work. The Bloc is costing them extra pay, costing the company extra revenue and costing companies all across Canada a great deal of income.

Why is it doing this? Why is it selfish? The reason is the port of Montreal. That is the sole reason we are all here today on the weekend debating these delaying tactics offered up by the Bloc.

When the port of Montreal went down it happened that the Standing Committee on Transport was in Halifax. Halifax was booming. Everyone was walking around with a great smile on their face because they had a tremendous amount of business coming their way. It was pointed out to the member of the Bloc who sat on that committee: "You had better go back and tell those people in the port they are really making a big mistake because some of the traffic diverting to Halifax is not going to go back when the strike is over. That is the way things operate".

The Bloc took that to heart because we did not see too much of it for a while after that. There were lots of telephone calls back and forth. Then this great saving situation happened, the rail strike. All of a sudden Halifax cannot get a lot of the goods to load on the ships being diverted there. This played right into its hands.

I wonder why there is so much emphasis on the port of Montreal. This is not an action on behalf of Quebec, which the Bloc is really supposed to represent because it is certainly not representing the rest of Canada. This is costing manufacturers, importers, people all across the country huge sums of money. The total loss is expected to run in the range of $3 billion to $5 billion and that does not end when the strike is over.

This is not costing B.C. companies or Saskatchewan companies. It is companies all across Canada, including companies in Quebec. Bloc members are hurting the economy of their own province. They are hurting it at a time when they know full well the legislation is going to be passed in any case. This is nothing more than a simple tactic.

As was mentioned by the Minister of Labour during her speech this morning, there was not a peep out of Bloc members when the same legislation was brought in on dock workers in Vancouver. Why? Because they did not care. It was the very same principle but it did not matter to them then. It was not the port of Montreal.

The Bloc is trying to take every tactic to ensure that the rail stays out until after the port of Montreal goes back to work. That is all they are interested in.

The Liberals are not totally innocent in this either. We brought this up long before the strike ever came in. We brought it up last year when legislation was brought in for the dock workers in Vancouver. Our economy is far too fragile and far too interwoven to allow something this massive to go on. We have to find alternatives and no action has been taken by the government to do so.

During the first week of the strike I attempted to contact the Minister of Labour numerous times. I was promised a return call. My intention was to find ways to work with the government to bring the matter back so that we could get it settled. We were

quite prepared to co-operate. I know the minister was extremely busy at that time, as well being relatively new in the portfolio. I understood that.

Appointments were made for the return of my phone call and they were never kept. The Liberals had the opportunity to use broader legislation at the time they legislated back the Vancouver dock workers. It only took them two days to do that. Why has it taken them so long in the case of the rail strike? The reason probably is that they had to wait to make sure that CN was fully involved in the strike so that they could bring CN into the scope of the legislation as well.

The government's real target is CN. It wants to bring in legislation that includes binding arbitration for CN. That is the only part of all the tactics of the Bloc I have some agreement with.

One problem in the legislation is the arbitration clause. It says with regard to CN that there will be one member from the union; one member from the company, which is the government; and one member appointed by the government. We have a vague idea about how the arbitration will come out.

The only alternative in this case is the Liberal solution used in the case of the dock workers' strike last year. Why did they use it last year and not now? I am talking of final offer selection arbitration which gives the company and the union the chance to get much closer together. It puts a lot more pressure on them to be as close as possible and to take the most reasonable position possible. It will allow them to settle outstanding issues and try to reach a total agreement. In the end it will be one side or the other. Whoever is the more unreasonable of the two will be the loser.

That is a fairer operation than the type of arbitration that has been brought forward. We have to go with the legislation because we have to get the country back to work. That is the bottom line. That is the most important part of the whole legislation.

I ask the Bloc to start acting like a national opposition party, be responsible, put the country back to work and put the economy back on its feet.

[Roy MacLaren, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Madam Speaker, the debate today is against a background of Canada's burgeoning export records, the extraordinary successes that Canada has achieved in its export trade which are being jeopardized by the present strike of the railway.

The amendments before the House this morning would attempt to resolve that strike through mediation. Mediation, however, would require yet another 60 days of deliberation and would not bring any early conclusion to the severe disruptions in our export trade resulting from the prolonged strike.

If we have arbitration we can have an early resolution of the problem that faces us. It is for that reason that we on this side of the House oppose the amendments and intend to support the rapid implementation of the bill now before the House.

The rail strike today is causing all sorts of disruptions in our export trade which, as I said a moment ago, has reached record levels in 1994 and again in the first month of 1995.

Canada recorded an annual trade surplus with the world of over $17 billion in 1994, up almost $8 billion over the previous year. Our trade surplus with the United States was $28.4 billion or $8.7 billion higher than in 1993. In addition to those formidable achievements, Canada has recorded a record merchandise trade surplus with Japan of over $1.3 billion.

In the case of Japan and Europe, as well as in the case of the United States, the success of our trade achievement depends on the ability of our railways to deliver our products directly or to ports for shipment.

As a result of the strike we found that severe disruptions were already occurring. In the automotive sector, the Ford Motor Company has had to curtail its production, reduce its assembly line operations. In the pulp and paper industry in the province of Quebec, the large company Repap Enterprises will shortly have to close its operations altogether since it cannot have access to its natural resources nor have the opportunity to ship its products to markets where there is demand for Canadian exports.

I draw the attention of the House to the fact that in the January Canada recorded a trade surplus of some $2.4 billion in that one month, up by $285 million from December 1994. In January 1995 Canadian exports stood at a record level of $22.5 billion, up by $1.3 billion over December 1994.

In those circumstances we have a situation where Canadian exports to the United States and American exports to Canada total $1 billion a day, every day, day in and day out all year round. It is imperative that rail services be available to ensure that our goods reach the markets that have expressed such demand for Canadian products.

We have already seen a situation arise where as a result of the rail strike rail cars have been retained in Canada when they should be moving goods and services across the border to the United States. As I noted a moment ago, the products for overseas are being detained because of an inability to reach our ports. All this is against a background of increasing liberalized trade, of freer market access that provides Canadians with the opportunity to ship their products across the globe.

Through the evolution of the North American Free Trade Agreement and our commitment to free trade in the western hemisphere we have seen new opportunities for Canadian products in our own hemisphere.

The growth of the markets in Asia is know to all of us. We have seen the so-called Asian tigers come forward as promising new markets for Canadian goods and services. We have a highly profitable market available to us in Japan, markets that will only be enhanced by the commitment that all member countries of the Asia Pacific Economic Co-Operation have made to trade liberalization, indeed free trade, within 25 years throughout Asia and the Pacific.

In the case of Europe the growth of the European Union, its deepening and its expansion to additional countries have led to greater opportunities for Canadian exports.

In a world of increasingly liberalized trade, especially with the new World Trade Organization that came into being on January 1, there are ample opportunities, promising new opportunities, for Canadians. We have achieved such remarkable success in ensuring the sale of Canadian goods and services abroad that we cannot allow the situation in our basic rail system to continue.

There must be a resolution to this obstacle to our further growth in international trade, to the achievement of yet greater levels in 1995, and to the achievement of a permanent and more satisfactory method of resolving disputes and differences within our rail system.

[An hon. member]

Team Canada.

[Roy MacLaren, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

It is evident to everyone, as one of my colleagues reminds me, that Team Canada must have as an underpinning the assurance of an efficient and reliable transport system. Team Canada is the combined efforts of the provinces and of the federal government to ensure that there is a concerted effort, that all the energies of Canadians provincial and federal are directed toward the achievement of our export goals. Nowhere is this more evident than in our combined efforts to ensure that small and medium size businesses are fully involved in the export successes that have marked the Canadian economy over past years.

Our efforts to promote small and medium size enterprises in the export world, including our vigorous efforts to ensure that small businesses in Quebec also enjoy those opportunities, can only be hindered by the absence of a reliable and efficient rail system. It is for that reason we oppose the amendments that have been brought forward this morning and look for an early resolution of the rail strike that is causing such disruption to our export trade.

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

Madam Speaker, I think it is highly significant that the second speaker for the government, the Minister for International Trade, spoke for ten minutes without mentioning labour relations for one single second. He said nothing at all about the situation of the workers affected by this bill. I think this is a clear indication of the government's true objectives.

The bill before us and the series of amendments are the clearest indication of the government's real objectives. The aim of the bill is not a return to work. If it were, the dispute would have been resolved four days ago. We offered the possibility Monday, we offered it Wednesday. Everyone agrees on a return to work. The disagreement lies in the fact that special legislation imposes a new type of relations on the parties concerned in the rail sector.

Let us have a look at the amendments. First, commissions were set up with the power to arbitrate and a biased mandate. The proof is in clause 12. I think it is important for all Canadians and Quebecers to understand this. The government's bill provides that:

1. Each Commission shall be guided by the need for terms and conditions of employment that are consistent with-economic viability and competitiveness-taking into account the importance of good labour-management relations.

This is the first time I have seen a government put improvement of the economy ahead of agreement between the parties, in a bill. With this clause, the government decided to do a job on the entire rail sector. As the negotiators failed to reach an agreement, the government wants to ensure the transformation of the rail sector with clause 12 and force the commissions to do the job.

When the members of the commission see an interesting proposal from the union, their hands will be bound by this clause, which says to them: what the union is proposing will not lead to the economic viability and competitiveness of the rail system, which is the first requirement of the legislation, therefore you will not be able to accept the proposal. We are proposing a much more reasonable clause in keeping with the longstanding spirit of labour relations in Quebec and Canada. The aim of this proposal is not only to protect the workers, but also to make the future interesting in this sector and prevent people from getting into labour relations problems in the coming years.

I think this proposal comes from our added experience in Quebec of working together, of taking an approach to labour relations that permits each side to come out a winner. This is the essence of labour relations. It is nothing like arbitration, which creates a winner and a loser, because in the years following arbitration, the loser prepares to win the next time, with griev-

ances and all sorts of unacceptable situations arising as the result. It seems to me that the government should understand this.