Jean-Pierre Blackburn

[Railway Operations Legislation, April 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, what did the parties agree to in February? They agreed to a 3% increase and a lump sum of $1,000 and they were going to take a year to negotiate their collective agreement. The employees, the union members, have the right not to accept this offer and to decide that it does not satisfy their expectations.

However, what should we as parliamentarians be thinking about? We have to consider that we cannot be in a situation where one morning one area is shut down and the next morning it is another, and the day after that, another, and so on, indefinitely. We have to take action. We are not requiring anything in terms of a collective agreement. The two parties have to sit together at the table and come up with an agreement that works for them.

This is what we are saying: if after three months the parties still do not have an agreement, the arbitrator will ask each side what it wants and he will choose one of the two proposals, not up the middle, but either A or B. The parties can certainly agree. If they come to a mutual arrangement then there is no problem; in fact, that is preferable. However, our responsibility is to ensure that the trains are running, that they are delivering goods to businesses, that our seaports are able to export and that things are operating smoothly from end of the country to the other.

Allow to name a few of these businesses. Yesterday alone we received 78 phone calls from business people and businesses asking us to take action. It has been like that for a few days now, since the decision was made to have rotating strikes. They included Superior Propane in Calgary, Western Grain Elevator Association in Winnipeg, Nutrinor in Saint-Bruno, Keystone Agricultural Producers in Winnipeg, Tembec in Abitibi, Campotex in Saskatoon, Canadian Federation of Agriculture in Ottawa, Canadian Grain and Oilseed Exporters Association in Winnipeg, the Port of Halifax, and the list goes on.

I understand why the Liberal Party is supporting us because, indeed, everyone comes to realize that it is our responsibility to take action. That is what we are doing in the best interests of the employees, of our economy and of railway operations in Canada.

[Railway Operations Legislation, April 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, hon. members must understand that the parties have now been in talks for 19 months. Along the way, we organized our team of mediators to assist the parties. In February, an agreement was reached between Canadian National and the United Transportation Union with the help of our mediators.

Once the agreement was signed, the employees went back to work immediately. We appreciate that they did this, and it is entirely to their credit. However, when the union members democratically decide not to accept the agreement bargained by their leaders, the government cannot allow the economy to be paralyzed every day because of a rotating strike happening in one place or another. When there is a rotating strike in one place, that place is not the only one that feels the impact. In fact, it has a Canada-wide impact.

On Saturday, the parties continued to bargain, and no light can be seen at the end of the tunnel. In the circumstances, it is the responsibility of the members of this House to take action, and to enact a law, because they can see that the parties are not able to reach an agreement at this time. The parties will still be able to bargain. Over the next three months, if they reach an agreement, that agreement will prevail. If there is no agreement, our arbitrator will ask each party to state its position regarding the agreement. Our arbitrator will then decide between A and B, with no middle ground. He will decide between A and B. We believe that this is what we have to do to solve this problem.

The Canada Labour Code was revised in 1999. Parliament did not have to step in again in any way to enact back-to-work legislation. In 2000, Canadian National ratified an agreement. It ratified another agreement in 2003. At present, that does not seem to be possible. In February, there were 14 strike days, an extremely long time, all because of a conflict between an American union and the Canadian union that the two parties do not agree on. Who has paid the price for this problem? The Canadian economy, and the employees whose wages were not paid.

The law we will enact is in the interests of our country's economy, in the interests of the employees, and in the interests of the proper operation of our rail service. It will also mean that the United States and other countries will be able to see that this country is operating properly and that they can count on a fully functioning transportation system.

[Railway Operations Legislation, April 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the principle of free collective bargaining is accepted by all parliamentarians. However, when a 14-day strike at Canadian National paralyzed Canada's economy and our exports dropped by $1 billion in February as a result of the dispute between CN and the United Transportation Union, our government had a responsibility to act when it saw that the parties did not seem to be able to reach an agreement. Hon. members will recall that after Bill C-46 received first reading, the parties reached an agreement in principle.

However, the members voted nearly 80% not to ratify this agreement, and workers are now holding rotating strikes across the country. We have heard from a number of companies that are affected by these strikes and are afraid they will not be able to move their own goods within their company.

Under the circumstances, how long should we wait? Should we wait until 5, 10, 20 or 30 rotating strikes have taken place? How long should the government wait and let the economic situation deteriorate before taking action? We told the parties that the government would do what it had to do, given that an agreement did not seem possible. We are going to proceed with this bill.

There is nothing preventing the union from reaching an agreement with management. Even though the bill will come into force, the parties can still reach a settlement, in which case it will take precedence. But we are determined to protect Canada's economy.

[Rail Transportation, April 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member should know that when we are talking about strikes in the transportation sector and at Canadian National, that is the responsibility of the labour department. Our government has been very active in trying to help the two parties reach a negotiated settlement in this labour dispute.

Unfortunately, the discussions on Saturday did not produce the desired result. We have said several times in this House, and our government has been very clear from the start, that our responsibility is to protect Canada's economic stability and the reliability of the railway system for Canadians and our trade partners, and we are going to act.

[Rail Transportation, March 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on February 24, an agreement was reached between the members of the United Transportation Union, who are employed by CN, and their employer of course.

The results of the vote will be made known on April 10 . I nevertheless wish to be clear: Bill C-46 is still on the order paper, and the government would quickly take action if railway services were once again disrupted by this labour dispute.

[Saint-Hubert Airport, March 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member once again that she wants us to take one-third of the regional economic development budget and use it to repave the runway of her airport in Saint-Hubert.

I want to remind the House that good regional economic development means being proper and fair to all the regions in Quebec. There are 14 regions here. That is the situation in which we work. The Blackburn plan and the six actions that we have taken have been very well received in the regions of Quebec.

[Saint-Hubert Airport, March 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we do not need lobbyists from the Bloc Québécois to do our work with the companies. We are quite capable of dealing directly with stakeholders, and we do plan to speak with the management at Pratt & Whitney.

There is no way, however, that my department will pour one third of its budget allowance into a single file. I say no to that.

[Saint-Hubert Airport, March 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the hon. member is aware of what this government is doing for the regions of Quebec and for the aerospace industry as well. In December, Minister Michael Fortier announced an investment of $350 million to help Pratt & Whitney. I repeat, $350 million to help Pratt & Whitney. This goes to show that our support for the aerospace industry is strong.

Moreover, my own department has increased by 61% what goes to the Montérégie region. That is 61% better than what the previous government did for that region.

[Saint-Hubert Airport, March 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, when the Bloc Québécois was elected to this House, it promised to protect the interests of all Quebeckers and all regions of Quebec. Now, instead of doing that, the leader of the Bloc Québécois wants to focus on one single issue. He wants to allocate one third of my department's funding to make the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert happy. We introduced six new tools to help struggling regions in Quebec. We are working to help all of the regions, not just one project.

[Saint-Hubert Airport, March 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, does the leader of the Bloc Québécois have a clue about regional economic development? In Quebec, 14 regions share a $200 million envelope. The leader of the Bloc Québécois is asking me to invest $70 million—one third of the regional economic development envelope—in a single project in the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert's riding. Perhaps the leader of the Bloc Québécois could give me a list of the regions in Quebec from which he believes we should take money so that we can do as his member asks.