Debates of March 25th, 1995

Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Blainville—Deux-Montagnes, QC]

The current rail crisis would never have hurt the country's economy and poisoned, as it is doing, labour relations in the railway sector for long, if the Canada Labour Code had contained some of the provisions in Quebec's Labour Code, which are aimed at settling this type of dispute while keeping damage to a minimum. It is easy to imagine what would have happened, at least in Quebec, if our province had jurisdiction over the railways, or better yet, if Quebec was sovereign. Let us imagine, for the sake of comparison, how the current rail crisis would have been handled in a sovereign Quebec if the current provincial legislation had still been in effect.

Let us suppose, first of all, that, in both Canada and the State of Quebec, railway unions decide to go on strike after negotiations reach an impasse. In Canada, after giving notice, the unions go on strike, leading to immediate confrontation. Other unions are locked out. In the State of Quebec, however, things would not degenerate so quickly, Madam Speaker.

In the State of Quebec, after assessing a strike's potential risks to the public, the government issues an order-in-council.

With this order, the onus is on both parties to negociate, before going on strike, what we call essential services, that is the basic services to be provided during the strike in order for the users to be somewhat disturbed by the dispute. After all, it is a matter of a balance of power and not a complete stalemate.

Then you have different possible scenarios and various steps, and I will not go into the details, but at the end of the day, the government has the final word. In light of a report prepared by the board of essential services which was established to that effect, if the government considers the agreed services are not sufficient, it can suspend the right to strike until both parties agree to their satisfaction or the unions submit unilaterally a list of services that the government finds satisfactory. Then the strike is authorized and may start. That is the end of the first step which is aimed at humanizing the strike to come, a step that does not exist in Canada.

So, now there is a strike in the State of Quebec. But it is a civilized strike, if I may say so, within a well defined framework. Of course users are not pleased but their activities are not totally disrupted. What if the unions do not respect their commitments? What if the agreed services are not provided? The government will then suspend the right to strike and, in case of violation, submit the matter to the Attorney General to obtain an injunction, possibly.

The use of civilized dispute settlement mechanisms prescribed by the Quebec law does not exclude firmness, if required. Negotiations would continue throughout this civilized strike. The government might be forced to legislate in the end, but the right to strike would not be undermined and the economy would not suffer as much.

This is how things would be done in a sovereign Quebec or, if you prefer, not to prejudge the matter, if the Canada Labour Code contained some of the clauses in the Quebec Code. The outcome would be different if, instead of the confrontation made inevitable by the Canada Labour Code which is brutal and basic, we had more civilized exchanges which would allow for the inclusion of some of our own legal clauses, which are based on the need in a real democracy to reconcile the citizens' right to strike and the employers' and users' right to essential services.

In fact, the Canadian law practically led inevitably to the current confrontation and only by agreeing to the principle of mediation, which was proposed Monday by our party, could this House end the conflict without hitting very hard the workers who will not forget. How can we avoid a tragic situation in a country where, in case of a labour dispute within a public utility, the government-after 24 hours of strike by workers-has, under the terms of its legislation, no choice but to allow the strike to go on and nearly bring to a standstill the economy and operations in some sectors or deny the workers' right to strike by unilaterally putting an end to the strike after 24 hours?

The die is cast, as far as the current dispute is concerned. If this can be of any consolation to you, this assembly will soon have the opportunity to avoid similar disputes in future by amending the Canadian Labour Code in such a way that labour disputes could from now on be settled in the same civilized and efficient way as is done in Quebec.

Indeed, my colleague from Manicouagan just presented a bill-Bill C-317-to introduce in the Canada Labour Code provisions similar to those we have in ours. This bill provides for the maintenance of all essential services in case of a strike and for the creation of a board to this end. In turn, it prohibits as in Quebec an employer from using the services of a person not usually in his employ during a strike or a lockout.

The current crisis in this country will not have hurt workers, employers and users in vain, if it makes us aware of a terrible deficiency of the Canadian Labour Code and if it leads us, in order to remedy it, to enact Bill C-317, introduced by my

colleague for Manicouagan. If we indeed enact that bill, Canada-when Quebec has become a sovereign country-will have nothing to envy it as far as labour legislation is concerned.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I feel I must contribute to the very important debate taking place here in the House today, because the official opposition has shown that it is unable to take a just and fair decision on issues of importance to all Canadians.

We have faced a serious strike situation for over a week now, a strike that is costing Canadians millions of dollars and causing thousands of Canadians to lose work, time and money. The only reason this loss is continuing is the obstruction of the official opposition.

I want to make it perfectly clear in all my remarks that the blame for the obstruction rests squarely with the official opposition. It has prevented the House from dealing with this bill in a manner that is normal in situations of this kind; that is, in an expeditious and fair way.

I know the Reform Party has assisted the government to the extent that it has supported the legislation and has agreed to time allocation in respect of various stages of the bill in order to expedite passage. I appreciate that support very much and acknowledge it.

On the other hand, the hon. member for Lethbridge in his speech this morning sought to criticize the government. When the government has acted so well it is difficult to find a way to criticize. He was really stretching things by arguing that somehow the government should have acted last week.

Let us go back to the situation of last week. I remind the hon. member that while there was a strike by a few workers with CP, CP service was virtually continuous. It was working. Deliveries were still be made. CP was still running.

The hon. member knows that. Surely he is not expecting the government to step in and legislate an end to a modest strike of that kind. The hon. member in his speech this morning was doing his best to make it appear that somehow the government was at fault for this strike when he knows that is not the case.

The government has acted extremely well. It has done exactly what it should have done. When it became apparent that there was a national strike the first thing it did was give notice of intention to introduce this bill by issuing a special notice paper last week, or asking that one be issued. He knows that one was issued on Sunday morning. If it were not for that we would not be able to complete the bill as quickly as we are moving. I regret it is as slow as it is.

The hon. member knows that I on behalf of the government and the ministers of the crown who have been in the House have tried all week to get the official opposition to abandon its rather ridiculous policy of obstructing this legislation and allowing the bill to proceed.

Last Monday, the members of the Bloc Quebecois decided to obstruct this bill and they have continued to obstruct it all week. If they had had more than thirteen members in the House Thursday morning, we would not have had this debate today or Sunday. This bill will perhaps be passed Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. Another three terrible days for Canada. What is the point of all this?

The hon. members opposite should really be ashamed of the position they have taken in obstructing this. I recognize their right to oppose this legislation and speak against it and vote against it if they want to do so, but instead they have used the rules of procedure in the House to full advantage to obstruct the passage of this bill and put Canadians out of work. That is a disgrace.

Always in the past when this kind of legislation has been introduced in the House-I remember we had some when we were in opposition and I have sat where the hon. members opposite are sitting today-we would make our objections very clear and very plain, and so did the NDP. In the end we allowed the legislation to go through in an expeditious manner because we recognized the public interest demands that when there is a national strike of this kind paralysing industries across Canada Parliament must act to bring the strike to an end. We allowed Parliament to act and make its decision in a rapid, responsible way.

Hon. members from the New Democratic Party obstructed the bill on Monday with some glee, as one would expect from that group. As one of the editorials I was reading this morning said, they are bought and paid for by the labour movement so we would expect they might object to this. We support labour as well. Many people who are members of unions work and support the Liberal Party.

The members of the Bloc Quebecois say that they have a monopoly on this sort of support, but that is not the case. Many workers belonging to unions in Quebec vote for the Liberal Party and the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, who finds this so amusing, knows very well that it is the truth.

I do not like to cross the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot at all times. He tries his best. He knows these people are voting Liberal for a very good reason. We are providing good leadership and good government.

Most of these people want to work. Most of the people who are out on strike do not want to be earning $3 a day in strike pay. They want to be working and making money. Before the strike I had occasion to speak with various employees of VIA Rail in my travels.

They said if there is a strike, for heaven's sake legislate them back quickly, they do not want to be out for long. The Bloc Quebecois is obstructing and holding these people from their work and their jobs.

What does that do for those Canadians? What does it do for their annual salary? It reduces what they can make in a year. The members of the Bloc Quebecois should be ashamed of themselves for this obstruction.

I want to deal with the New Democratic Party briefly. The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and the Minister for International Trade want to hear about the New Democratic Party.

I do not see the hon. member for Winnipeg-Transcona but I know he is here in spirit. He was quite concerned on Monday that we not proceed with the bill. He refused consent. By Tuesday those members were silent. By Wednesday they were saying get it done. They have been saying it ever since. They at least saw the light.

I invite hon. members of the Bloc Quebecois to have a little look around them. Look for the light. Then the members will say yes to this bill right away. There is no point in holding this up any further. They have obstructed the bill all week. We tried on Monday to introduce the bill and get it passed. We tried on Tuesday. We had the bill introduced and asked for unanimous consent to deal with it in all stages. That was refused at least twice during the day.

[An hon. member]

They do not care about Canadians.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Or the workers. On Wednesday we had the bill for second reading. We asked for consent to put it through all stages. That was refused. Therefore we used time allocation and got the bill through second reading. We used time allocation again to get it through the committee. It was not obstructed Wednesday night in committee.

We had it reported on Thursday and what did we do on Thursday? We asked for unanimous consent to pass the bill on Thursday. It was refused. We asked for consent to pass it on Friday. It was refused. We asked again on Friday.

Fortunately because the members of the Bloc were not here in sufficient numbers we fortunately got the right to sit on Saturday and Sunday to deal with it more quickly than we otherwise would but that was a stroke of luck on our part.

I am sure it was not deliberate on their part that there were only 13 here when there should have been 25. I am glad that there were not 25 here.

Here we are on Saturday debating report stage. When we have completed the votes on report stage and dealt with all the amendments, the 42 amendments the members of the Bloc Quebecois have moved, we will have the opportunity to proceed with third reading.

I urge members opposite to consider the situation of all those who would rather be working today. It is important for them that we vote at third reading as soon as possible and I hope that members opposite will give their consent today, so that we can vote at third reading this afternoon.

The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot has the best interests of the workers of Quebec and Canada at heart. If he does and if he considers their plight, he knows in his heart of hearts the best thing he could do today is vote to put them back to work; not just the people who are on strike but those who have been laid off as a result of the strike because that is the most unfair part of all.

Through no fault of their own other Canadians, thousands of them, are losing money because of the rail strike. It should be ended. It should have been ended several days ago.

The Bloc Quebecois through its obstruction and delay has denied these Canadians the right to earn a living. It is unfair. I invite it to join us today to end this strike.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, before giving the speech I had prepared, I would like to comment on some of the allegations made by the hon. members opposite.

Someone said a moment ago that the new Minister of Labour is to be commended for taking dynamic and aggressive action immediately upon assuming her duties. Indeed, we could not help but notice ourselves that the big companies and the rich and the powerful did not take long to recognize that she was on their side. In no time they were putting in their order: "Please, Madam Minister, bring in special legislation because we are unable to reach a compromise through the civilized and democratic negotiation process that normally characterizes labour relation".

So, the new Minister of Labour is perfectly comfortable with her new Liberal persona. She has adopted the Liberal philosophy that says that when one cannot get something according to democratic means, one imposes it. That is exactly what the Liberals did with the patriation of the constitution. It is nothing new.

Hence the comment by a member opposite that the support the Bloc gives workers proves that a sovereign Quebec would be governed by unions. A sovereign Quebec would be governed by ordinary citizens. And if there are only ordinary people in the unions, well it is just too bad for the opposition because it is ordinary people who, democratically, will govern Quebec.

We are being accused of defending unions because, they say, unions are separatist. But who are the Liberals defending? Why do they support so many large companies in this dispute? Why have they asked these companies not to go too far in the negotiations? They told them not to worry, that if they did not succeed, the government would pass a bill.

That is what you get from being a friend of the Liberals. Maybe some of these large companies make hefty contributions to the Liberal Party election fund.

The Minister of Labour has named many companies. She gave a list of companies that are threatening to close down because of this labour dispute. But did we hear her mention one worker, any one of the 30,000 workers who are affected too by this strike?

Mr. Boudria said earlier-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I must remind the hon. member that he should refer to a member using the name of the constituency.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

I am sorry, Madam Speaker. The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell said earlier that one of his constituents called him. It is another one, not the one mentioned earlier, he was not the right one. So, another of his constituents who is on strike complained that he could hardly live with a $3 a day strike pay. Let him find comfort in the fact that the legislation the government is trying to pass and that he will have to live with for at least two years is not worth a nickel.

The government's contentions are hogwash. We have to put an end to that strike, they say. We are willing to put an end to the strike, and we agree that we could have done it before. But we feel that we should not do it at all costs.

With its special legislation, the Liberal government wants to put the train back on the track as fast as possible, with no thought to the consequences. If the train, meanwhile, runs over the employees, that is too bad; so be it. The train must keep moving, no matter who suffers. In the long run, a return to work under such conditions will doom the railroad companies to several years of completely deteriorated labour relations.

We keep saying to the government that it can still reach an amicable settlement and that if it wants to resolve this conflict this afternoon, we will not object, provided that it agrees with the very humane amendments which we have proposed to solve the issue.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

It being 12:51 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier this day and under the provisions of Standing Order 78(2), it is my duty to interrupt these proceedings and put all questions necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The question is on Motion No. 1. 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 of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(8), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

We shall now proceed to the second group of motions which includes Motions Nos. 4, 9, 13, 18, 23, 27, 32, 37 and 41.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise to ask for clarification. You have not put the question to the House with regard to the second group of motions. What is the procedure? We want to vote on this, we want to give our point of view. Naturally, we support Mrs. Lalonde's motion.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

First I read each motion in the second group, and then I put the question.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

moves:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-77, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 30 to 44, on page 5 and lines 1 to 5, on page 6, with the following:

"(3) The employer and the union may agree on the appointment of a person as Chairperson, but where they do not agree on a Chairperson, the Minister shall, after obtaining the agreement of the official opposition in the House of Commons, appoint as Chairperson a person whom the Minister considers to be qualified.

(4) After the employer and the union representing the bargaining unit have each appointed a person to represent them and the name of the Chairperson is known, the Minister".

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-77, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing lines 32 to 37, on page 7, with the following:

"the need to establish good labour-management relations and to that end it shall promote terms and conditions of employment that take into account the experience and knowledge of employees and the economic viability and competitiveness of a coast-to-coast rail system."

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-77 be amended by deleting Clause 16.

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-77, in Clause 32, be amended by replacing lines 22 to 41, on page 14, with the following:

"(3) The employer and the union may agree on the appointment of a person as Chairperson, but where they do not agree on a Chairperson, the Minister shall, after obtaining the agreement of the official opposition parties in the House of Commons, appoint as Chairperson a person whom the Minister considers to be qualified, and the person so appointed shall be deemed to have been appointed by the employer or the union, as the case may be.

(4) After the employer and the union representing the bargaining unit have each appointed a person to represent them and the name of the Chairperson is known, the Minister".

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-77, in Clause 34, be amended by replacing lines 25 to 30, on page 16, with the following:

"the need to establish good labour-management relations and to that end it shall promote terms and conditions of employment that take into account the experience and knowledge of employees and the economic viability and competitiveness of a coast- to-coast rail system."

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-77 be amended by deleting Clause 38.

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-77, in Clause 54, be amended by replacing lines 12 to 31, on page 23, with the following:

"(3) The employer and the union may agree on the appointment of a person as Chairperson, but where they do not agree on a Chairperson, the Minister shall, after obtaining the agreement of the official opposition in the House of Commons, appoint as Chairperson a person whom the Minister considers to be qualified, and the person so appointed shall be deemed to have been appointed by the employer or the union, as the case may be.

(4) After the employer and the union representing the bargaining unit have each appointed a person to represent them and the name of the Chairperson is known, the Minister."

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-77, in Clause 56, be amended by replacing lines 11 to 16, on page 25, with the following:

"the need to establish good labour-management relations and to that end it shall promote terms and conditions of employment that take into account the experience and knowledge of employees and the economic viability and competitiveness of a coast- to-coast rail system."

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-77 be amended by deleting Clause 60.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The question is on Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?