Francine Lalonde

[Unemployment Insurance, March 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the minister cannot ignore the fact that a StatsCan report indicates that the proportion of unemployed covered by the UI program went from 77 per cent, in 1990, down to 53 per cent, in 1994. There are fewer recipients, even though more people are out of work.

Will the minister finally recognize that, if the number of UI recipients decreased so drastically, it is not because the number of jobless dropped significantly, but because more and more of them are excluded from the UI program and have to join the welfare ranks?

[Unemployment Insurance, March 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. According to the monthly report published by Quebec's income security department, during the month of March, over 800,000 Quebecers had to rely on social assistance. In spite of the recovery, this increase is a source of real concern, particularly since the under-25 group accounts for 40 per cent of the new welfare recipients.

Will the minister finally recognize that this increase in the number of young welfare recipients is the direct result of his UI reform, which excludes young people from the program, and will he admit that these young people are the first victims of UI cuts?

[Railway Industry, March 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, by stubbornly making working conditions worse for railway employees, the federal government could be shooting itself in the foot.

As Jean-Robert Sansfaçon wrote in today's Le Devoir : ``The current option of mediation-arbitration denies the right to strike without ensuring a satisfactory settlement. This approach could even aggravate the crisis in the railway industry and prevent the privatization of CN''.

By trampling the rights of workers, being inflexible and refusing to make the slightest concession regarding the arbitrators' mandate, the government may have done what it should have avoided at all cost, namely causing labour relations at CN to deteriorate on the eve of this company's privatization.

[Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995, March 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have two things to say. The first is that in life as in labour relations everyone finds himself at one time or another in the role of third party. Let me tell you a story.

One day I picked up a worker who was furious because the subway was not running outside peak hours, because in Quebec we have essential services during a strike. This health worker said to me: "I hope this is over soon. When we go on strike, people want to see us back at work as quickly as possible". We are always the third party in somebody's eyes. It is important that we remember this when it comes to labour relations. That is my first reply.

My second is that there should be an anti-strikebreaking law in Canada because 75 per cent of workers in other Canadian provinces are covered by one.

And thirdly-

If the Canadian economy cannot afford the Canada Labour Code, then there is a problem. The government should say so and do something about it.

[Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995, March 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that at that time the hon. members opposite had voted against this measure. I also believe that, when they were elected, they gave not the slightest indication that if this sort of situation arose this is what they would do.

As for the reasons behind the evolution of the Leader of the Opposition, I can tell you that I know, and he has said so himself, that he has evolved in many areas, and that he has no problem defending himself.

And I know that those members who are now laughing promised not to do what they are doing. And they are supposed to be "liberals".

[Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995, March 26th, 1995]

It is regrettable and deplorable. I think that Quebecers will also remember this when they have to make important choices regarding their future. They will remember that the woman the government chose to lead the referendum fight was forced to use strong-arm tactics, was put in a situation where she could not even choose to be impartial, which was what we expected her to be.

[Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995, March 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak for a few minutes on this very important matter. I want to say that Canada needs new labour relations and it needs a government capable of imposing leadership in this regard. Leadership in this regard means that it must establish that employers have rights, and so they do, but that employers must respect the rights of their employees.

In Quebec, we can say that we entered a new era of labour relations some ten years ago. This happened because we went through a major crisis and because employers and employees realized that they needed each other and that each had to respect the other so they could come to terms with the new economy.

The federal government could have shown the way today in this time of crisis, because this transformation in the economy is a time of crisis. It is showing the way backwards, back to a time before labour laws empowered workers to counterbalance this extremely powerful economic force ever so slightly.

We are entering an era where the economy seems to be the sole force. Only states, governments and parties would seem to be able to stop the relentless march of the force to globalize the economy that is sweeping everything in its path.

This is why we consider it so important right now for the government, for the government of this country we live in, to assume its responsibilities and affirm that there is more than just the economy. Yes, the economy is important, but people too are important and respect for people is important. It is true today for the unions, but tomorrow it will be true for individuals, who are not entitled to unionize or have no opportunity to do so; they too will be swept aside by the relentless advance of this force to globalize the economy.

People will have to stand up and let it be known that there is more than just the economy. The economy is important, but other things are important too.

The Minister of Labour had the opportunity to show that she considered the need for railways to be viable and competitive.

But, at the same time, she could have given the judge the mandate of looking at what the workers had gained over the years and of trying to reach a balance, so that when the workers returned to work, when they started to look to their future, they would envision co-operation between them and management.

Instead, she gave one mandate: short and long term viability and competitiveness, while keeping good labour-management relations in mind. Anyone with any knowledge whatsoever of labour relations knows that giving such a mandate to a judge, who has the last say, constitutes a major change of course.

I am sad to see that, instead of giving workers a minimum guarantee in one of her first laws, the Minister of Labour chose to give in to the government's commercial and financial demands.

[Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995, March 25th, 1995]

moves:

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-77 be amended by deleting Clause 18.

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-77 be amended by deleting Clause 40.

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-77 be amended by deleting Clause 62.

[Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995, March 25th, 1995]

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.

[Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995, March 25th, 1995]

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

This is a momentous event in the history of the Parliament of Canada. Without taking too much of my speaking time, I would just like to say that we realize this is emergency legislative action and it is being taken for the second time in a short time.

All week long, we have been guided both by the proposals tabled this morning and the need to bring about a meaningful settlement. The government sabotaged the Hope report's recommendations. Commissioner Hope recommended steps be taken to bring both sides together to allow them to negotiated settlements, these being the only way out of this difficult situation in which the companies claim to be.

Let me read you a paragraph of the Hope report which gives hope-no pun intended-and we want to give this hope a chance.

We can read this on page 72: "During the commission's proceedings, it was rather obvious that it would be possible to negotiate settlements if freight carriers were prepared to accept the fact that they will probably not win on all fronts, and that they will have to pay for the changes which they want, regardless of the settlement process. Similarly, if the unions recognized the fact that both companies are confronted with a financial reality which requires that some arrangements be made in the interest of all the parties, they might be more willing to negotiate an acceptable compromise".

We can see the possibility for a settlement. This is what Commissioner Hope looked for. He provided the government with tools to reach a negotiated settlement. But instead, the government chose to impose one, without giving the parties time to meet face to face and express their respective views on the problems and the future of the railway industry.

We wanted to give the parties a real chance, and this is why the series of amendments brought forward this morning propose mediation commissions which would report to the minister who, in turn, would have ten days to table a report to Parliament which would become a public document. If agreements were reached within that ten-day period, the report would not go public. Otherwise, at the end of this process, the parties would either mutually agree to go to arbitration or, if they have not reached a settlement-but we think they would-the Labour Code provisions dealing with their rights would apply once again.

Another way of doing things must be found when you do not rely on a power struggle. In Quebec, we spent a lot of time looking at these issues and workers now have the right to strike, even in the health sector, provided essential services are maintained.

In Canada, the Labour Code provides the right to strike, but that right is completely taken away by the government, when it should come into play.

As I said repeatedly:

If the Canadian economy and politics cannot afford the Canada Labour Code, there is a big problem because it means that the problems will never be settled.

And when problems are not really solved, they resurface and then they are much worse. This is what Commissioner Hope explains in his report.

We want to make it clear to those who are listening, and who may have suffered some inconvenience, that these workers are exercising a right which is provided in the Labour Code. They want a negotiated settlement, not an imposed one; they stated that they are prepared to accept a compromise.

Commissioner Hope clearly showed that the companies' hard-nosed attitude was due to the fact that they have the government's support. Today, this House has an opportunity to concretely show that the country is headed for new labour relations, and not only where unions exist. The government must be a role model. It must define the kind of labour relations which will prevail in this country. However, the government is not fulfilling its role when it is not paving the way to a future which includes not only companies, but also every individual.

It is because we highly respect our role as the official opposition that we want to stress here in this House how essential it is for Canadians and Quebecers to realize, through this conflict, that a new direction is necessary, so that new economic conditions can indeed be taken into consideration but, more importantly, that we do not sacrifice, as is now so often the case, the right of every individual to be treated with respect.

I invite the government to support the spirit of our amendments. Rather than taking us back to the days when labour conditions were dictated only by the prevailing economic forces, these proposals seek to lead us to a climate of respect between the employers and the workers.