Lisa Raitt

[Continuation and Resumption of Rail Service Operations Legislation, May 29th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, if the member would like to look at the actual legislation, he will see that we have put together legislation that does not predetermine any issue, does not favour either side and, indeed, one could say that interest-based arbitration tends to favour the status quo.

In the back-to-work legislation that we have introduced, each party will have an opportunity to present its case and the arbitrator will have the ability to combine the two to create a collective agreement or, indeed, help the parties reach their own collective agreement themselves.

[Continuation and Resumption of Rail Service Operations Legislation, May 29th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, from the government's perspective, we looked at the effect of a strike and work stoppage. We also calculate how its effect on the economy can be balanced against the right of workers to strike. Indeed, history has shown that when it gets to seven to nine days of a rail strike, it has a grossly disproportionate effect on the entire economy. We made it clear to the parties that history shows that they will probably be looking at a process forced upon them by the government if they do not agree.

It was equally important to let businesses know that the government was aware of what was happening at the table and, indeed, the government would take out of the way procedural hurdles that would have to be undertaken prior to being able to introduce back-to-work legislation. All of those things were done because we want to protect the national economy and we stand on the side of Canadian public interest.

[Continuation and Resumption of Rail Service Operations Legislation, May 29th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I would invite the member to look at the legislation. The legislation that we are proposing and will be debating this evening does not predetermine any issue that is in dispute with the parties. In fact, we have put in place a neutral process with an arbitrator who can listen to both sides and see what is still in dispute. If they still cannot come to an agreement themselves within those 90 days, the arbitrator will have the power to take part in or come up with his or her own way of establishing a collective agreement.

What we are saying is that the rail strike cannot continue. It is having an effect on the national economy and it will get worse as each day goes by. We need to act this evening in order to ensure that Canadian Pacific and the teamsters can collectively go back to work on Thursday.

[Continuation and Resumption of Rail Service Operations Legislation, May 29th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I too worry about the after-effects of a government imposing a process for the parties to find their own deal, because history will tell us that it does not help the employees and it does not help management. That is why it is their problem and their responsibility to get a deal at the table. However, if they cannot get a deal at the table, especially with respect to rail, there cannot be a prolonged work stoppage that affects the national economy.

When I was at the table with the parties during the negotiations, we made it very clear that they knew the history of this sector. As a result, we indicated to them that if they were having difficult discussions on very important topics such as pensions, they needed to find a process of their own to go forward. We provided that to them on Sunday, prior to any kind of back-to-work legislation, and both of them rejected it outright.

[Continuation and Resumption of Rail Service Operations Legislation, May 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in an ideal world everything would go as planned, as with what happened with respect to the BCMEA and the longshore in Vancouver. What happened in that case was that the parties remained at the table and were diligent in negotiating. It took two years for us to get to the point of a deal, but they did their own deal, with the help of Labour Canada and myself. They ended up with a fantastic deal. It was good for management and good for employees, and there was a great renewed sense of importance for the Asia-Pacific gateway. That is a true measure of success.

Ending a process by having to introduce and pass back-to-work legislation is not a measure of success. What it indicates is that the parties could not find a deal at the table, and because the strike would have an effect on the national economy, the government needs to step in. That is not what is supposed to happen. We much prefer to be on the side of facilitating the parties in collective bargaining and making sure that they find their own way to a deal or, if they cannot, to a process.

[Continuation and Resumption of Rail Service Operations Legislation, May 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the year was 1995 and the government was Liberal.

[Continuation and Resumption of Rail Service Operations Legislation, May 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in 60 years of parliamentary precedent, rail strikes have occurred ten times, and ten times the government of the day either asked and ordered the workers to go back to work or the companies to end the lockout, the reason being that we balance the workers' right to strike. We recognize it in the Canada Labour Code and there are rules and regulations around it, but we need to balance that against the greater issues of the national economy and the Canadian public interest.

That was measured in 1995. It was measured in 2007. It was measured in 2009, and prior to that in the 1960s and 1970s. It is the same set of circumstances that cause us to come to the conclusion that back-to-work legislation needs to be introduced. The effect on the national economy and the effect on the Canadian public interest is so great from a work stoppage that we have to balance it against the rights of the workers to strike. That is why we are announcing back-to-work legislation.

[Continuation and Resumption of Rail Service Operations Legislation, May 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe in free collective bargaining. The bulk of my work as Minister of Labour is to support it and to help provide parties with the space to do that.

That said, I have to commend both the Teamsters, who were first to offer to provide the commuter services—which was a very great gesture—and CP Rail, which at the end of the day also agreed to provide the commuter services.

The parties did work diligently at the table and attempted to find a way, but they were unable to or did not want to. As a result, we are here today to introduce and debate back-to-work legislation so that the trains can commence on Thursday.

[Continuation and Resumption of Rail Service Operations Legislation, May 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question specifically focusing on the economic aspect.

A report in 2009 out of the Rotman School of Management indicated that just in terms of the four bulk carrier areas of oil, oilseeds and grains, pulp and paper products, and coal, a cessation of rail service that would cause these products not to move would entail a weekly cost to the economy of $540 million. That is the cost associated with just those four areas.

Car parts come in through the port of Vancouver each and every day. They are needed for the assembly plants in southwestern Ontario. That is extremely important to our economy. The effect in 1995 is untold, but economists have put it very close to the $3 billion to $5 billion range.

[Continuation and Resumption of Rail Service Operations Legislation, May 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this back-to-work legislation today is a fair and balanced approach. It does not predetermine any issue and it provides the parties with a resolution to their matter, but from our perspective it also provides something equally important: it provides resumption of the service. In this way the national economy can continue to prosper and grow and the Canadian public's interests are upheld.

Collective bargaining is enshrined within the Canada Labour Code. We do all that we can in Labour Canada to support it, but there is a point in time when the greater balancing has to happen. As government, it is our obligation to ensure that we act on behalf of the entire nation and the economy on which we rely.