Debates of April 17th, 2007

Railway Continuation Act, 2007

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek knows what he is talking about. He is speaking from his own experience of what these health and safety issues are for railway workers. I thank him for--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Davenport.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier on, the issue we are dealing with today is one of last resort. There are times when it is clear that action is necessary to protect the interests of Canadians, which is, after all, the most preeminent responsibility that we have in this House. This is why we find ourselves in a position where government intervention is required in relation to the Canadian National Railway strike. This has the potential to significantly impact the lives of Canadians across the country, as well as our economy, and there is very little option but to intervene. It is indeed a last resort whose time has come.

Our reliance upon our national railway system is undisputed. The railway is an integral part of this country's success, both as a nation and economically. On looking back over the beginning of this strike, we cannot help but wonder how anyone could be surprised as to how the strike has come to this point where a government intervention is unavoidable. The strike is impacting Canadians and our economy. It is that simple. The interests of Canadians must come first. Back-to-work legislation, as I have said, is really our last and only resort.

Governments over the years have clearly recognized the importance to our country of the railway industry both for the personal economic interests of Canadians.

Quite frankly, we support this legislation because Canadians and the Canadian economy cannot continue to prolong this strike.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin with an apology because I was quite heated in my last intervention but the reality is that I have spent time around the rail yards and around the activities where people, on a day to day basis, put themselves in jeopardy with the moving equipment,. When the moving equipment comes together it causes significant damage, particularly if a person is trapped. I was speaking on that a moment ago.

What I am concerned about is that we are being told by the people, through their negotiation process, that there are serious problems. They told us that they chose to go on strike because they tried to use the collective bargaining process to draw those particular concerns to the government and to their management.

I must again apologize because this is so close to my heart, but the reality is that there is a question of safety across this country that must be addressed. Some would like to dismiss it and say that bargaining is not the place to do it. Where else do the workers have the opportunity to put forward their case and to bring it before the Parliament of this country and before the government of this country?

The reality for those workers is that their lives are in jeopardy. The reality, as well, are the derailments that we have heard about repeatedly here today. One need only look south of the border where it deregulated the rail lines down there and then look at the mess it has and at the communities that have had explosions--

[An hon. member]

Just before, the NDP member was saying that he was--

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

It gets a little frustrating here, Mr. Speaker, when we are constantly having someone speak when we are trying to make our best case for a situation.

The reality is that this is an issue of safety--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Davenport.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, obviously we are all concerned about the issues involving CN employees. We value these employees because of the great contribution they make to our country's economy.

The reality is that many factors are at play. It is not just the issue that the member has raised. There were issues that prolonged the strike with the dispute between the international union and the local unions. At one time it was very difficult to even know who in fact was in charge of some of the unions that were at the bargaining table and whether that process at the end of the day would have been respected by the union membership.

We obviously are concerned with the way this came about, the government's handling of this issue and the whole issue of CN's role in this. I was also disappointed with the way CN went to the Canada Industrial Relations Board and did not designate any services or any personnel as essential. I believe that was a fatal mistake. I also believe it was a fatal mistake for the unions to agree to that decision. The Canada Industrial Relations Board decision was in fact problematic and I think that has led us to where we are today. Maybe CN wanted the back to work legislation.

There has been a fundamental flaw throughout this whole process. The minister could have actually brought the two parties together to try to hammer out a deal. It is unfortunate that we need to do this but I do not think there is any other choice but to proceed.

If the hon. member of the New Democratic Party were to say that there are issues but that we will give them another week or two and then we will bring in back to work legislation, that is a different debate. However, the reality is that this gives the union carte blanche to dispute this indefinitely. If the unions want to go on strike for the next year or two there would be no problem with that because they will never support back to work legislation. It is the ultimate in hypocrisy and irresponsibility.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, this is costing the potash mines in my riding a lot of money. A lot of jobs are counting on us to put this rail back on its tracks.

I would have assumed that the NDP members would have agreed with us because I am speaking about Saskatchewan, which is where their counterparts are located, and they are very concerned about this. I would be ashamed if I were them. They should be calling their counterparts in Saskatchewan to find out that potash is not moving. My riding has five potash mines, plus we are the wheat and barley capital. Saskatchewan is suffering because of this rail strike. We are losing millions of dollars a day, at least on demurrage costs, and by not being able to get our grain to the port. We are also losing markets.

I think it is time to close this debate down.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure there was a question there. It was more of a comment by the member as to how long this debate is going to last.

She raised concerns about her riding. All of us have looked at the different sides. One of the reasons that we will be supporting the legislation is that it is not just about taking one side of this whole equation. It is also about looking at the whole perspective of issues around the table, analyzing them carefully and realizing that there are issues about railway safety and workers' rights. At the same time, there are also economic issues and issues about ensuring that the railway system is operational in this country. It is a real concern to Canadians because they do not know with certainty how long this strike will last. The economic uncertainty for many communities of a prolonged strike is very disconcerting. That is a real fear.

In my discussion with labour unions, they basically were saying that they needed another week or a few days but that was a month ago. This strike could easily go on for another two or three months or even longer if we do not bring in back to work legislation. We see an escalation of the rhetoric and an escalation of the action by both sides and we need to bring some sanity.

There are some provisions within this legislation to bring in an arbitrator. The arbitrator could in fact rule on some of the concerns that labour has and look at those issues. There is a mechanism in place within three months to have a decision by the arbitrator, which is probably the proper way to go and that is one of the reasons that we will be supporting this legislation.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. I know the member well and I have great respect for him. We served at the municipal level at overlapping times. However, I must say that we are having a great deal of difficulty on this issue when we listen to that kind of speech.

Unless there has been a change, he is the labour critic. This is a question of taking away strikers' rights. There is no room for Liberal fence sitting. The Liberals are either on the side of the workers tonight when it matters or they are not.

I would like to know how the member could stand up and say that his caucus and his party cares about workers when it is easy to talk the talk and why they are not prepared, when it really matters, to stand up and walk the walk.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do have respect for the member but, if I remember correctly, he is the same member who was a member of a government in Ontario that also took away a lot of workers' rights.

We all fundamentally agree with and believe in workers' rights but there is a time when we need to look at a variety of issues at play here within our society and our economy and we need to look at putting the interests of Canadians first. which is what he legislation does and we are supportive of it as well.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize the fact that the Bloc Québécois is opposed to this back to work legislation for the railway sector. Above all, we ask ourselves this question. How is it that this House should be asked to consider such return to work legislation? How did we wind up in such a mess? First, how is it that this Parliament is today legislating a return to work when the Minister of Labour himself boasted many times in committee and even in this House that return to work legislation was no longer required since anti-scab legislation was adopted in 1999?

He said that, as a matter of fact, in his own opposition to anti-scab legislation, and he found that it was a very good argument: Look, we no longer need back to work legislation! Well, that is not so. As I have told him time and again, it proves once again that his 1999 anti-scab legislation is not working and is certainly not the great success he claims.

On the other hand, if we are dealing with this back to work legislation today, it is precisely because there is no anti-scab legislation. If there had been such a law, CN management would not have adopted such a hare-brained and twisted strategy. It would not have said that it would try to break the union; that it would hire replacement workers; that it would call back retired employees and hire American workers to do the work of union members out on strike.

Obviously this strategy proved unworkable. CN was not able to replace its unionized workers. CN management will have to learn to negotiate with its unions. That is what anti-scab legislation does. It introduces some balance between the two parties, management and the union. They learn to sit down and negotiate together, without bringing in new players, such as replacement workers. CN management must learn not to be arrogant in dealing with its workers. It must also learn to avoid confrontation with its unions. In addition, it must learn not to scorn the work that employees perform and also stop neglecting their safety, which is extremely important. Once it has finished with this legislation, the government should give serious attention to the matter of safety in the railway sector. That is extremely important. We have often sounded the alarm on this issue.

Something else is just as surprising about this Conservative government. Why does it want to intervene here anyway? The industry minister never stops telling us that market forces will reach a balance. According to my notes, he says that he is just going to let things go; things will take care of themselves; market forces mean that everything usually reaches a balance; and if companies are good enough, they will do just fine.

Finally, a government that supposedly believes that the spoils go to the strongest is going to end up intervening in a dispute between two parties. That is really surprising. Why do this? The labour minister told us this morning that his office had received 78 calls—that is not the end of the world for a minister’s office, I hope—from business leaders who had called to complain. I cannot understand why the minister did not just stand up to this pressure and deflect it onto CN management in order to push it into negotiating. That too would have been showing leadership. It is not enough just to tell the House that he has received 78 calls and special legislation needs to be passed.

The Bloc Québécois is far from oblivious to the logistical and economic consequences of this labour dispute. So far, though, the consequences have been rather minor. For example, the transportation systems in the greater Montreal and Toronto areas have continued to operate. The union has given the company verbal assurances that it will continue to exempt the commuter trains in both these areas from its rotating strike.

Rather than immediately imposing an arbitration procedure that will probably please no one, the labour minister should take advantage of this opportunity to put the emphasis on mediation efforts and provide more support for them. In any case, the labour minister is coming in pretty late with all this mess.

He should have shown leadership much earlier and forced the parties to negotiate and reach an agreement.

The government has a responsibility not just to get involved but also to foresee what is happening and take the necessary steps to avoid the kind of messes that it is making today.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for some advice from member.

There has been a lot of talk about workers tonight. Has she some suggestions perhaps for the Conservative government that will be saying to workers that they have no choice in what the solution will be? Also, what might the government say to those spouses who are up all night worrying because they do not believe that their spouses will be safe? They have not had enough sleep to function properly, or they work on cars that have not had proper maintenance on time or adequate maintenance.

The families of those workers worry day and night about their the safety of their family members. Does she have any advice for the Conservative Party members about what they might say to the families of those workers, where they are disregarding their rights?

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question.

I started to quickly mention it earlier during my speech. At CN, there are some serious safety concerns. The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities saw this when people came to speak.

In my opinion, the Minister of Labour should ask himself some questions and participate as closely as possible in the work of the committee so that he realizes that there are very serious safety concerns at CN. During negotiations, the unions tried to warn management about this. However, CN management did not seem to want to listen. It did not seem very aware of what was going on within the company.

On February 8, CN managers appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. The senior vice president and chief legal officer made some very particular statements that show he is out of touch with reality. For example, he was opposed to the anti-scab legislation, and said, “This would mean a return to a system where any nationwide railway work stoppage would inevitably require government intervention.” I hope he is not an astrologer, because he is not very good.

He also said, “First, the commuter rail service in Toronto and Montreal would quickly grind to a halt—”

Obviously, he is not very good at astrology. He lacks vision, and lacks an understanding of the issues. He does not understand consequences and repercussions.

He went on to say, “In some cases, depending on which union is striking, VIA Rail service could largely stop.”

We can see that CN management is out of touch with reality. The Minister of Labour should call it to order as quickly as possible and ask it to focus on the safety of workers. First and foremost, it must sit down with the unions and negotiate properly.

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to take part at this stage of the debate that is now drawing to a close. I would like to correct certain remarks made by the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.

With the anti-scab legislation that they recently proposed to implement, on February 24, when an agreement in principle was reached between the union and Canadian National, the employees would have been unable to return to work. We would have had to wait for another two months. A 14-day strike alone represents $1 billion in lost exports for our economy. We can imagine the state of our country with another two months of a CN strike. There would be no transportation from one end of Canada to the other, no delivery of goods and no delivery of essential services to remote communities. It would be an economic disaster.

There is a second point. The legislation before us tonight allows for negotiations at any time. Canadian National and the union can reach an agreement. If there is an agreement between them, that agreement will prevail.

However, since the parties do not seem willing to agree and we cannot see a light at the end of the tunnel in the short term, we believe the Canadian economy should be our first concern. That is why we have introduced this back to work legislation, with the provision of what is called final offer selection, after the arbitrator has tried to work with the parties to reach an agreement within the next three months. If there is no agreement in three months’ time, the arbitrator will ask the two sides to submit their final offers and the arbitrator will choose one or the other. It is our belief that this method of making a final offer is more positive, and that, under the circumstances, each side will take its role very seriously.

At the same time, I would like to remind the members of the Bloc Québécois that they will have to assume full responsibility for their decision tonight to set aside the economic health of our country in their desire to cozy up to the union, thereby failing to maintain a balance between the two sides.

In conclusion, I believe we are dealing with an excellent piece of legislation tonight. It is a serious bill that allows for negotiation and it will also enable our economy to continue to function. It is that light that we see this legislation tonight.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his comments.

However, I must repeat—and I hope he will understand—that if we had replacement worker legislation, CN management would not have adopted such a twisted strategy based on the fact that it did not need unionized employees anyway because it could just hire replacement workers from the pool of retired employees and American workers. Without that option, CN management would have sat down with the union and negotiated. I hope that the Minister of Labour understands that much at least. I have mentioned it to him a number of times. I think it is very clear.

Replacement worker legislation would not have resulted in the catastrophe the minister is talking about because what is happening right now at CN is exactly what would have happened over the past few weeks. Managers and supervisors would have been able to work. That is what they are doing now. They are filling in for essential services and the most importance services.

That being said, I would reiterate that the minister failed to show leadership. He should have intervened earlier.

[An hon. member]

He was scared.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

According to section 87(4) of the Canada Labour Code, he could have intervened before the strike.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I salute the leadership of the Minister of Labour and I have a question for my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.

Obviously many workers from Quebec and Canada may suffer because of this strike. There will be job losses, gas shortages, as was the case recently, workers will lose income and all workers will suffer financial losses.

Will the member agree this evening to remove the threat hanging over the Quebec and Canadian economies by supporting this bill? Is the Bloc member prepared to defend Quebec workers rather than continuing to say one thing and doing the opposite?

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this member is insulting the intelligence of those listening to us at present and his arguments are nothing but rhetoric. The safety of workers is the important thing in this dispute between CN and the United Transportation Union. That is what is at stake in the negotiations. When serious safety problems arise, it will be too late to cry over the member's rhetoric.

What is presently at stake with this back-to-work legislation is the breakdown of the balance of power between the union and the employer. That is what is at stake and it must be re-established.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate. Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the question to dispose of the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-46 is deemed put and a recorded division is deemed demanded.

[An hon. member]

On division.