House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2006, with 46% of the vote.
Singer June 1st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, within the labour program of the Department of Human Resource Development, we always work to make sure that the rights and responsibilities of workers, as well as employers, are respected, and in so doing, we apply the Canada Labour Code with respect to the parties involved. That is the day-to-day job of the labour program officials.
Singer June 1st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, all the federal regulations have been applied in this matter.
Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995 March 26th, 1995
moved that Bill C-77, an act to provide for the maintenance of railway operations and subsidiary services, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker, the current dispute in the railway sector requires firm intervention by the government to ensure the resumption or continuing, as the case may be, of railway operations and subsidiary services.
It is also important to provide a process to resolve matters remaining in dispute between the parties. The bill before the House today, the Maintenance of Railway Operations Act, 1995, orders the resumption of operations at Canadian National, Canadian Pacific and VIA Rail, and provides for establishing mediation-arbitration commissions in respect of each of the bargaining units of the three railway companies.
As hon. members are aware, negotiations in this dispute have been extremely difficult. They covered a number of complex issues including employment security, occupational flexibility, extended routes and the two-tier compensation system for train crews. Despite efforts to reach an agreement which went on for several months, the parties failed to agree on these crucial issues.
Both the unions and the employers agreed that Canada needs a viable and competitive railway system. Even the Bloc Quebecois admitted as much in its motion in amendment of section 12. The matters remaining in dispute must be resolved if the parties are to start establishing relations that will help them meet the challenges of the future.
I believe the dispute settlement process provided under this legislation will help them defend and reconcile their interests dispassionately and objectively. It did not take long for the impact of work stoppages occurring in the railway sector to be felt across the country. The disruption in railway operations has affected certain industries, which are now unable to obtain the parts and supplies they need for their operations and cannot ship their goods to destinations on domestic or the world markets.
Many businesses that depend on railway freight services are being forced to lay off workers. The economic repercussions of a prolonged work stoppage in the railway sector are very serious and cannot be tolerated for very long. The same applies to the impact on passengers who normally take VIA Rail and are now deprived of those services.
I realize that the parties have tried to settle the various disputes, but the government is faced with a situation that requires immediate and decisive intervention. Consequently, last Tuesday, I had to table the Maintenance of Railway Operations Act, 1995. This legislation consists of three parts. Part I concerns the Canadian National Railway Company; Part II concerns the Canadian Pacific system and Part III concerns VIA Rail Canada.
All three parts of this legislation shall come into force 12 hours after the bill has received royal assent. Under this legislation, the disputes will be quickly resolved, thanks to a mediation-arbitration commission that will have 70 days to carry out its mandate. The mediation-arbitration process gives the parties one last chance to reach an agreement with the help of the commission. If at this stage the parties are unable to reach an agreement, the commission will have the power to make final and binding decisions on the matters remaining in dispute.
In its work, the commission shall be guided by the need for terms and conditions of employment that are consistent with the economic viability and competitiveness of a coast-to-coast rail system in both the short and the long term, taking into account the importance of good labour-management relations. In the course of the debate on this bill, we have heard different interpretations of sections 12, 34 and 56 from the employers, the unions and the Bloc Quebecois, and I would like to clarify the legislator's intent in this respect.
The best job protection that workers can have is the certainty that their employer is competitive. In this context, it is increasingly clear with successful companies that competitiveness depends on good human resources management, which includes harmonious labour relations. We realize as well that various
internal and external factors may affect a business' competitiveness, including such things as quality of management, efficient financial management and, in the case of railways, appropriate regulations, not to mention the economic environment the business is in.
There is another factor we must not forget, however, and that is labour costs. In the present case, we want both parties to come to terms with these facts. Accordingly, the legislator must express the commissions' mandate clearly. We are not requiring the commissions to achieve specific results in terms of job security clauses or any other working condition of the railway workers.
The unions and the companies will have ample time to tell the commissions what working conditions they consider consistent with economic viability and good union-management relations. No specific results must be achieved. We have simply indicated the factors the commissions are to take into consideration in their deliberations.
Moreover, it is only if the parties fail to reach an agreement on these matters during the mediation period, that the commissions will have to reach a final decision. All in all, this is a fair approach to resolving the disputes between the parties.
I would like it to be perfectly clear that the government remains firmly convinced that collective bargaining is a far better way to resolve disputes than emergency legislation. It is significant that nothing in the legislation prevents the parties from modifying any provision in the collective agreements, new or changed, except for the provision on the term of these agreements.
Furthermore, should the parties reach an interim agreement or concur on the approach to resolving the matters in dispute, the establishment of the mediation-arbitration commission could be deferred.
The facts speak for themselves. Considerable effort has gone into resolving the various disputes between the three railways and the various unions, but to no avail. The bill before us gives the parties one final chance to agree through mediation, before the outstanding issues are submitted to arbitration.
Since the start of negotiations, the parties have indicated that they were opposed to legislation to put an end to the dispute, and I agreed with them on this point. Unfortunately, they have not managed to reach an agreement and, as a result, have caused serious economic problems in the country by initiating work stoppages. As the government, we took the necessary steps and tabled the Maintenance of Railway Operations Act, 1995.
I therefore ask my hon. colleagues to support this measure so that it may be adopted.
Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995 March 25th, 1995
moved that the bill be concurred in at report stage.
Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995 March 25th, 1995
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.
Rail Strike March 24th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the government still believes in the collective bargaining process. If the hon. member from the Reform Party believes in a much more drastic solution, that is not our policy. We still believe in this process. Indeed, the majority of labour disputes in Canada are settled through collective agreements.
True, the normal collective bargaining process is difficult to apply in the railway industry. However, since we are currently reviewing the Canada Labour Code, we will surely have to propose solutions to this kind of problem in the future.
Rail Strike March 24th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois seems to think that it was the one who appointed a mediator in the Port of Montreal. They have a real identity problem. They really have a problem, I must say.
I decided to appoint a mediator in the Port of Montreal because the circumstances so required. I have already said that we consider each particular situation in the railways on its merits. All these discussions and negotiations have been taking place for more than a year. Unfortunately, we have reached an impasse. And at least one member of the Bloc Quebecois agreed, the hon. member for Longueuil.
Rail Strike March 24th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the members of the Bloc Quebecois to stop playing politics with the Canadian economy. Millions of workers are affected because the railways are not operating. Do we realize that? What does the Bloc Quebecois hope to achieve by obstructing this bill? This week, we heard the Leader of the Opposition say "on with the referendum". Now, Mr. Speaker, let us get on with this bill.
Rail Strike March 24th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, does the Bloc Quebecois realize that since last Sunday it has been obstructing back-to-work legislation that has a major impact on the Canadian economy from coast to coast? Is it aware of the repercussions of its decision not to co-operate on the passage of this bill?
We had to table this bill in the House as a last resort. We did because we saw it as our duty to do so, and today, we would ask the Bloc Quebecois to act accordingly.
Rail Strike March 23rd, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat that Mr. Fraser's mandate is not over; therefore, he has not yet tabled his report.