Jean-Pierre Blackburn

[National Day of Mourning, April 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the importance of April 28, which has been declared a National Day of Mourning. Each year, on that day, we remember the workers who have been killed or injured on the job or who suffer from occupational diseases.

Last year, I was among the families and co-workers honouring the people who had died as a result of workplace accidents. We gathered on that day of mourning to remember. One event particularly touched me and made me more aware of the importance of such a day. As I was giving my speech, I saw, in the crowd in front of me, a woman tenderly holding a photograph. When I finished speaking, I felt the need to go over and talk to her. After a short, emotional conversation, the woman handed me the photograph she was holding. It was a photograph of her son, a young man barely 20 years old, who had died in his workplace. I saw the enduring pain in the woman's eyes. It is impossible not to be affected by this sort of encounter. That woman gave me a better understanding of the impact an accidental death has on the victim's family and workplace.

A safe and healthy workplace is a productive workplace that benefits the workers, the employers and the economy. As Minister of Labour, I often talk about healthy workplaces that are free of racism, sexual harassment and psychological harassment. When a workplace is safe and healthy, society benefits: employees are happier and, consequently, more productive. The employer also benefits, and our economy and the workplace are better off.

I believe that the National Day of Mourning is a day for remembrance. It gives us an opportunity to express our condolences and sympathy for the victims, their families, their friends and their co-workers, and to remember that we still have a lot of work to do on workplace health and safety.

I have some statistics. In 2005, 1,097 Canadians died of work-related causes and another 337,930 work-related injuries and illnesses were reported. On January 25, I met with the ministers of labour from the provinces and territories in Fredericton to look at this issue, particularly how it relates to young people who have work accidents, and in some cases fatal ones. We noticed that more young people are having these types of accidents because they are receiving a little less training. There is perhaps also a little less awareness. The ministers of labour committed to promoting this issue and ensuring that it is talked about in schools, so that young people are aware of the importance of what they do, and so they realize that health and safety is important to them, to their colleagues, to their families, and to everyone.

I believe that the best way to honour the memory of those who have lost their lives is to work together to improve health and safety in all workplaces, thereby reducing injury, illness and death in Canada.

I would also like to take this one step further. Who is responsible for workplace safety? The minister brings in legislation, of course. We are doing everything we can to eliminate such incidents in the workplace. Of course, employers and union leaders are also responsible for workplace safety, but there is more to it than that. Every one of us is responsible for safety every day. At home or at work, when we see something dangerous, we must stop and take action. We must not pass it by and tell ourselves that it is not serious and that someone else will take care of it. No. Each one of us is responsible for informing the person in charge that something dangerous is happening.

In our society, both groups and individuals are responsible for taking action.

I would like to give one of my favourite examples about safety in the home. Almost everyone has climbed up on a chair to change a light bulb with no thought to the consequences of a fall. What would be the consequences for our wives, our children, and ourselves? What if we had to take time off work? We must be aware of the risks every day and take personal responsibility in our everyday lives.

On this day of reflection and commemoration, I would like to invite you to join me in working to promote safe and healthy workplaces.

[Business of Supply, April 24th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in this House. I would like those who are watching us to know what is in the motion before us. It says:

That the House call on the government to set fixed greenhouse gas reduction targets as soon as possible so as to meet the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol, a prerequisite for the establishment, as expeditiously as possible, of a carbon exchange in Montréal.

It was the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie who introduced this motion.

When we talk about the Kyoto protocol, what are we talking about? In short, in 1997, Canada and 160 other member states of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change met in Kyoto, Japan. Under the Kyoto protocol agreed to at the time, Canada made a commitment to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 6% below 1990 levels. It is now 2007 and we have to reduce the emissions by 6% of what they were 17 years ago, by 2008 and no later than 2012.

However, we have to consider the reality. After the inaction of the previous governments over the past 10 years, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions have not stopped increasing, such that they now exceed 35% of our Kyoto protocol targets. In other words, to achieve our targets, starting next year Canada would have to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 33% on average for every year of the Kyoto protocol reporting period. To achieve this draconian reduction in the next eight months, Canada would have to strictly impose severe measures that would have serious repercussions on the country's families, jobs and economy.

We wanted independent economists to analyze the situation. I would like to share with you the names of those who participated in the analysis. Don Drummond is the senior vice president and chief economist of the TD Bank Financial Group. Jean-Thomas Bernard is an economics professor at Université Laval. Christopher Green is an economics professor at McGill. Mark Jaccard is a professor at Simon Fraser University's School of Resource and Environmental Management. Carl Sonnen is the president of Informetrica Limited. These people analyzed the situation.

Before getting into what could happen, I would like to add that if this were easy, if this were not a problem for our economy, why would we not go ahead with the Kyoto protocol? Why would we not propose an even better Kyoto protocol plus? If this were easy, why would we not do it? We know it would be popular. Here are the reasons why we are not doing it.

The report considered repercussions on Canadian families. If I am not mistaken, 275,000 Canadians would lose their jobs between now and 2009. That is the equivalent of the entire Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region. Electricity bills would go up by 50%. The price of gas would rise by 60%, and natural gas for home heating would double in price. Some say the Canadian economy would shrink by over 4.2%. That would mean a deep recession in Canada in 2008, that is, next year. That would mean a recession as bad as the one Canadians experienced in 1981 and 1982, the worst one we have had since the second world war. Canadians still remember that one.

If this were easy, if it were good for Canada, why would our government not go ahead with the Kyoto protocol? Why would we not go ahead with a Kyoto plus plan? Because the economy would be devastated.

However, we will not stand back and do nothing. We have said that we want to take action and move forward. In the coming days, the Minister of the Environment will set greenhouse gas reduction targets for industry.

I would also like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to add my remarks to those of my colleagues in response to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, calling on the government to set targets for greenhouse gas reductions.

From the beginning, our government has made it abundantly clear that we are committed to creating a cleaner, healthier environment, an environment that will improve the lives of Canadians. In our economic statement last fall, “Advantage Canada”, our government told Canadians that we were seeking achievable results to create a healthier environment for our generation and future generations.

In the past, Canadians have heard a great deal of talk—as I said earlier—but have seen very little in terms of concrete measures. This has meant that we are a long way from reaching the targets set 17 years ago.

In this year's budget, our government took concrete action to preserve our environment and improve the air we all breathe. We have already begun setting this out in the budget. For the first time, the government's program on air quality will include Canada-wide regulations on greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution created by key sectors of industry.

Our air quality program moves away from voluntary approaches and the patchwork of regulatory processes that exists across the country. The voluntary approach, advocated by the previous Liberal government, would not allow us to achieve the results that Canadians expect.

Finally, I would like to quote the Leader of the Opposition who stated when he was Minister of the Environment, “We know that agreements can work when they are voluntary”. He did say “can” and not “will”. And now for the results: we know that we are far from the target of 6% below 1990 levels. Our government is focussed instead on a national framework that will be compulsory and will achieve concrete results, while respecting the Canadian economy and maintaining jobs for Canadians, and ensuring that our economy can continue to grow while meeting the objective of reducing greenhouse gases.

Furthermore, as part of the program, the government will soon announce short-term greenhouse gas and air pollutant reduction targets for the main industrial sectors. These targets will be reached through the concerted efforts of businesses in all sectors of the economy and all—

[Public Safety, April 24th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, obviously this is an important question. Canadians across the country have asked us to take concrete measures against crime and that is what we have done.

Among other things, our government introduced legislation that will ensure heavier consequences on dangerous and high risk offenders at the time they are sentenced.

If Bill C-27 were currently in effect, a person found guilty would see their peace bond extended from 12 months to 24 months. They would have much harsher restrictions and conditions in terms of supervision, and they would be required to get treatment. But for that, we need support from the parties—

[Railway Continuation Act, 2007, April 17th, 2007]

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.

[Railway Continuation Act, 2007, April 17th, 2007]

moved that the bill be read a third time and passed.

[Railway Continuation Act, 2007, April 17th, 2007]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

[Railway Continuation Act, 2007, April 17th, 2007]

Mr. Chair, I would like to move another amendment to clause 2. It reads:

That Bill C-46, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 23 on page 1 with the following:

“Union, or any other trade union certified by the Canada Industrial Relations Board to represent the employees.”

[Railway Continuation Act, 2007, April 17th, 2007]

Mr. Chair, were you talking about clause 2? If so, I would like to present two amendments.

The first amendment reads as follows:

That Bill C-46, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 1 with the following:

December 31, 2006 and the BC Rail agreement referred to in the protocol signed by representatives of the employer and the union on February 24, 2007, and includes any related;

[Railway Continuation Act, 2007, April 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, during this dispute between the two parties, we made our conciliation services and then our mediation services available, providing the parties with the best people we could offer. They worked hard and an agreement was reached between the representatives of the union and of Canadian National. However, perhaps because of a dispute between unions—this is the right of the workers—the workers decided they were not satisfied with the agreement. They had a 3% annual increase, they had a $1,000 signing bonus and they had one year to discuss. They refused this.

Balance is important here. It is extremely important. One party cannot crush the other. Both parties must come to an agreement that is in the best interests of everyone, to keep the country running smoothly. With this in mind, we must now take—

[Railway Continuation Act, 2007, April 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Canada Labour Code allows employees to strike. It also allows employers to order a lock-out. That is the principle of balance enshrined in the act. When there is a strike, which the unions are entitled to engage in, and which they call, we have an opportunity to conduct conciliation, followed by mediation and, ultimately, arbitration. At present, that is in the law and that is what we are going to do. We are going to allow the parties to do it. We are going to force them to bargain so that they can reach an agreement.

If one of the parties wants to abuse its powers, thinking that it can force the other to come around to its view, then it risks hitting a bump in the road. Why? Because under our legislation, after three months, if the parties have not agreed, if they have not reached an agreement, they will have to submit their offer. The union will submit its offer based on what it wants, CN management will submit its own offer, and the arbitrator will decide. The arbitrator will select offer A or offer B, but not something between the two.

No one wants to find themselves in that situation. We believe that it is in the parties' interests to sit down, bargain and come to an agreement, while keeping our economy functioning. That is what our legislation does, it provides for our system to function properly.