I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I thought you were referring to the name of the president, which I think is in order, but in this release was the name of a member. You are absolutely right and I apologize. It does not change the argument but the point is taken.
Mr. Clancy goes on to say:
There is no compelling need for the government to intervene. The strike has been declared legal by the Canadian Industrial Relations Board...and the parties should be left to resolve their differences through the collective bargaining process.
At its core that is what we are asking. All we are asking is that the government recognize there is a democratic negotiation taking place right now between two parties. A legal strike is underway. That, in and of itself, is not the end of the world. They were rotating strikes. I would put to members that a union that conducts rotating strikes, as opposed to a general shut down, is merely trying to make its point and put pressure on management to come to the bargaining table and negotiate a fair collective agreement.
If the union wanted to wreak the kind of havoc that the Conservative backbenchers are suggesting, it would have just taken a vote. It has huge support of, I believe, 70% or 75%. The workers could have taken that mandate and shut the system down but the workers did not want to do that.
What the workers want is to get a collective agreement. We must remember that at the end of the day this is supposed to be about getting a collective agreement. When there is a strike or it is imposed, we are breaking down the process. The strike is okay because it is within the confines but when the government starts dictating what the terms will be then it completely denies the union its legal right to represent those employees in the bargaining process.
In addition, if the union had wanted to do all this damage and it was so evil in listening to the Conservative backbenchers, it would have included commuters. If the union really wanted to crank up the heat, it could have done that. If it was all about an exercise of power, the union had the ability to do that.
However, the union is not seeking to do that, which is why this is so heartbreaking today. The legislation gives absolutely no recognition for the rights of the workers in this.
A colleague continues to mention the farmers. Fair enough. They are a part of the equation but to do this will not help the farmers.
This takes me to my next point, which is the safety issue. It does not do people an awful lot of good if all their products are on a train that goes over the cliff.
I want everyone to listen to this. If we wait long enough it starts to come out. Another one of them pipes up with a squeak here in the background, “well, that's what insurance is for”.