Mr. Speaker, we are speaking today on motions to amend Bill C-19. This bill provides for changes to the Canada Labour Code and the opposition parties have put forward a number of amendments, in fact eight groups of motions to amend the bill, and there are a few motions in each of these groups.
Now we are speaking to Group No. 6. There are four motions in this group. The first two motions essentially add to the grounds for prohibiting the cutting off of services in the event of a strike. The bill provides for continuation of service in a strike situation if public health or safety is endangered. The amendments that we have brought forward would also provide for continuation of service to protect the national economy.
I listened with great interest to the comments of the member for the New Democratic Party on this series of amendments. What was so interesting to me was that the member really did not address at all the substance of these amendments or argue that the national economy, in the short term, could not be affected, so therefore we do not need the amendments. There was none of that.
The total tone of his speech was attributing motives. He talked about the deep bitterness of Reformers against workers, many of whom support the Reform Party, so I am not quite sure why we would be anything but approving of that.
There is a labelling, an attributing of motives and a real agenda here. I assure Canadians watching this debate that the agenda of the official opposition in putting forward amendments and in speaking to this bill is simply to protect Canadian workers and the well-being of Canadians in our labour legislation and in the way labour and business operate in our country. We are dependent on good economic results from the activities that take place. That is our motive and that is what we want to do in a very balanced, sensible and thoughtful way.
I urge members of the NDP and other parties to stick to the practical issues being raised and not to continue with their agenda of suspicion, conspiracy and some of the other things they seem to think are happening in this debate, because that is not the case.
There has been no disagreement that services should be continued in federally regulated sectors if public health and safety could be endangered by services being cut off. No one is disagreeing with that. We would argue that danger to the national economy should also be a consideration. Health and safety are immediate dangers and immediate harm could be caused by services being cut off. The danger and harm to a national economy can cause every bit as much pain and hardship. It can contribute every bit as much to the poverty of Canadian families as cutting off services in areas where health or safety is immediately impacted.
We need to think a little more broadly and long term when we give carte blanche to strikes and lockouts that impact people's livelihoods, their businesses, their incomes, their ability to pay their rent and mortgage, and their ability to put milk on the table for their children. We have to think of those things. We cannot just look at some immediate danger. We have to look at the impact over a little longer period of time that can be equally devastating. That is the intention of this amendment.
There is a cost to Canadian families and to Canadian workers in particular. Many of these workers are barely making ends meet as it is, thanks to the taxation policies of this government and the cost of living in Canada. They depend on the viability of the whole local economy and a strike can be critical in impacting their short term and long term well-being.
This motion is designed to protect the national economy and thereby to protect regular Canadians with their day to day bills, their day to day need for income and their day to day need to make sales in their little businesses in the towns where they work. We need to think about these things. We need to protect the Canadians of this country. If services are cut off in an area due to a strike or a lockout, and if it happens federally across the country, the industrial relations board needs some ability to determine what is going to be the impact on the national economy and thereby on the families and workers of Canada and those who are dependent on economic activity for their well-being.
This is a very sensible amendment that looks at the bigger picture. It tries to protect people from some of the so-called unintended consequences of labour unrest and labour shutdown. We need to look in a very balanced and logical way at whether this ought to be done. We should not close our minds and shoot the messenger, we should deal with the message and its merits.
I would urge all members to think about what is best for Canadians. That is why we are here. That is why we get the big money. That is why we get the airtime. We need to be very focused on what is best and look at the proposals on their merits. I think this proposal has a great deal of merit.
We also, of course, as a number of my colleagues have said, urge that other commodities be protected from disruptions in shipping besides just grain. There are farmers who have interests in different commodities. We know that some of the wheat pools support this legislation because grain is protected. But again we have to think more broadly, not just in a narrow sense. There are some very clear concerns about unintended consequences if only grain is protected from disruptions in shipping.
A number of people who work in the sector say that labour unrest and disputes will be extended and enhanced if only grain can be shipped because, in a sense, that commodity will be used to subsidize strike activities that hold up other commodities. Some income would come in from that one narrow sector, but the other sectors will still be disrupted and there will be less incentive to settle those disputes because they are not as harmful to the participants.
Our amendments are designed to look at the big picture, to look at other products that need to be shipped, such as coal, lumber, chemicals, potash and other commodities. I would ask that my hon. colleagues in this House look at these proposals on their merits. I believe then they will be soundly supported.