Nathan Cullen

[Business of Supply, April 24th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his motion on climate change, especially concerning the carbon exchange. This concept is really necessary for our country, which should make an immediate commitment to emission trading. Otherwise, it will be impossible for Canada to meet the Kyoto targets and to continue discussions with the rest of the world.

The government is somewhat confused because I believe that the government will support this motion. However, it is possible that the confusion is caused by language. The French version contains some very specific elements that do not appear in the English version. Therefore, we should closely examine the French text today. First, there is this sentence:

Que la Chambre invite le gouvernement à établir au plus tôt des cibles absolues de réduction des gaz à effet de serre permettant d’atteindre les objectifs du Protocole de Kyoto—

The words “cibles absolues”, or “absolute targets” are very important, and they are the reason that the NDP will support this motion.

The English version has a slightly but important different expression that is important for us to rectify here today. I know members in the House will work with us to perhaps fix this.

The motion reads:

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--

The language around the mechanisms in Kyoto is very specific in its use and phrasing. In English, the government may be reading in some cover for its intensity based targets because the word “absolute” is not applied. In the language of Kyoto, absolute targets mean an absolute cap. That is the common reference that we use when talking about large industrial polluters.

It is also the language that we use when we talk about an absolute target for countries, not a moving target, not a target associated to energy intensity, which was previously supported by the current leader of the Liberal Party and his party in the former Parliament. This intensity based target was supported actually by the current leader of the Liberal Party all the way through his leadership campaign. These are the same criticisms the Liberal Party is now vaunting upon the Conservatives, that an intensity based target was the way to go.

Let me explore this topic for a moment because it is important for Canadians listening to understand the differences between an absolute target and an intensity based target.

Intensity allows a country to set intensity based targets. That means if a country becomes more efficient in its business processes and industrial process, if that intensity improves over years, then that country gets credit for having improved when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions.

The problem with an intensity based target is that it can allow, under an expanding economy, and as we have seen in Alberta that attempted this in its provincial targets, an improvement of 19% in intensity over a 10 year period, but an increase of almost 40% in the absolute greenhouse gas emissions for the province.

When countries come together at international conferences to talk about reducing our impact on the planet and the planet's atmosphere, what they are always talking about is an absolute reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. That is the only conversation held. It does not matter one's political perspective on the topic, right, left, American, Australian, or Canadian. They are talking about seeking a way to lower the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that are sent out by our industrial processes. That is the critical component of this.

This issue seems to have been a bit of a moving target over the last number of weeks. The government says we are within the Kyoto protocol, but we are not going to meet the targets.

Now, it is suggested that we support the Bloc motion to have absolute targets for reduction of greenhouse gases. The words “absolute targets” are very, very clear. They establish a very strong connection with the Kyoto protocol and Canada’s international commitments. It is also necessary to establish a carbon exchange in Montreal, or a general carbon exchange, wherever it may be located.

In the context of all this, as we have heard in the speeches from the environment critics and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, the parties will take out their natural barbs and hooks for each other around the issue of the environment, which has become increasingly important for Canadians.

There has been almost a seismic shift in the consciousness of Canadians who are interested in the affairs of government and their nation to say that the environment, and climate change in particular, has become one of the leading issues for our country.

I would strongly suggest the government did not get elected on an environmental platform. I clearly remember the platform document the Conservatives ran on. I think there were three phrases in the entire document devoted to the environment. It was a platform piece. The Conservatives were vague. There was something in it about clean air and clean water, and a third one that has since been forgotten.

Now arriving in government, those members find themselves in a bit of a predicament, having spilled much ink in their brochures and pamphlets about the evils of international obligations like the Kyoto process, and are now faced with a population that wants something done.

To take some small pieces in lessons from history, when the Conservatives introduced their clean air act last fall, there was much excitement and anticipation by many in the Conservative cabinet at least, but I am not sure about the Canadian public. Minister after minister came to me and said how impressed I was about to be with what was going to be called the clean air act.

It was the clean air act. According to them it was very strong, very specific and very generous.

At the end of the day we found out that the act was wanting in specifics, deadlines and lacking in efficacy. We were unable to support the act and were able to encourage the other opposition parties in the House to do the same because there was almost no moral ground to stand upon in pushing off serious action in respect to climate change for another 20 years, 30 years or 40 years. That was not responsible.

What is responsible is to recommit to our international obligations, a legally binding document which we have not heard a murmur from the government on how it is going to square this circle in being signatories, which it is in representing the Canadian people, to this protocol that has built-in penalties for countries that do not abide by that signature or their targets.

The government is trying to square the idea that it can both be in the protocol, adhere to international obligations, and yet not meet those obligations. It is fundamentally flawed and intellectually dishonest at worst.

When the act was introduced, it was dead on arrival. It was disappointing and frustrating because the legacy that the Liberal Party had left behind in government was known throughout the land as being a record of an over concentration and focus on media and optics, spin and announcements, and little to do with concrete action.

The sad part of this conversation for Canadians, and there is a great deal of skepticism in the public when the government makes announcements, is that they have some justification for the skepticism when looking at the so-called new government because after some 13 months or 14 months, some incredibly long feeling period of time short on the calendar but long when we look at the amount of delay, we are still waiting for serious action.

It may feel beyond even 10 years for some in the Liberal Party who are not quite used to the feelings of what it is not to be able to control the media's spin cycle. However, when we look at the principles of their bill, we realize that the bill as proposed was dead in Parliament.

I remember the leader of the NDP, the member for Toronto—Danforth standing in his place, two weeks after the bill was introduced calling upon the government and the other parties to work together, to form a special committee, give us a forum to bring the best ideas forward, and to rewrite the bill from top to bottom in order to include within it things that are called for by the motion from the Bloc today, and other motions that have come from Conservative and Liberal members.

It was a fascinating experience and important because Canadians heard stories of parliamentarians attempting to work together, of finding common ground. Looking through the record, as I have, for the various votes cast for this particular piece of legislation, I found members from the Conservatives, Liberals, Bloc and New Democrats voting for many aspects of it. They did not agree with all of it, but they say the principles of a good negotiation are always based upon each party giving up something. No one gets it all.

As much as the Prime Minister would like to wage a war of attrition and decide that whatever he writes is law, he must come to the realization that he is working within the confines of a minority Parliament. This is the House that Canadians constructed for us and most clearly want us to work together, particularly around issues that we have said from all four corners of the House go beyond narrow partisan interests because it is the future of the environment, the climate and future prosperity of generations to come.

We rewrote the bill and adopted aspects of the bill that were written initially. Much of the actual air pollution sections, the air quality sections, were modified but adopted by the various committee members. We included new pieces, leading edge ideas, that have been accepted by the parties and no one party voted for every one and no one party voted against every piece. It was a mix.

To my perspective, and I believe the perspective of many Canadians, that is the sign of a healthy Parliament, a healthy debate, when people are able to give their input and have various coalitions form around the table on any given day. As members from that committee know, there were various votes cast. Some things were defeated and some things not. To make Parliament work, to make Parliament deliver for Canadians on the environment, that is what the NDP was focused on. That is what the member for Toronto—Danforth, the leader of the NDP, was entirely focused on through the process and he has received proper credit for his work there.

I will now break down the notion of a carbon exchange market.

It is very important to understand to what extent this tool is good for Canadian companies and for everyone, and that it will make it possible to advance this concept of greenhouse gas reduction.

I will quote a brief extract from the testimony of Mr. Bertrand, the president of the Montreal Exchange, on the subject of absolute targets. In response to a question from the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, Mr. Bertrand stated the following: “We think that an intensity-based system would add another element of uncertainty to the market.”

All the business witnesses said that it was impossible to invest in the reduction of greenhouse gases with a system that creates uncertainty. The concept of intensity targets does not work for Canadian companies or for our country’s Kyoto targets. It is not possible for the Conservative government, on one hand, to say that intensity targets are sufficient and, on the other hand, to support the motion of the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie which begins, “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—”.

That is the intention of Bill C-30. They have changed the name because it is a very important bill that deals not only with air quality, but also with climate change. That is the reason that the NDP will support the motion. It will support the effort to put more pressure on this government. It is necessary to ensure the passage of Bill C-30 concerning climate change and Canada’s clean air act, as it has been called by the government.

For Canadians watching who are not familiar with carbon exchange markets, it is a very simple concept based fundamentally upon market concepts that exist. Canadians invest in the markets every day, for their retirement, for businesses to secure enough capital to make the investments, create an economy, hire more people and put Canadians to work. The market based system, the exchange of value for future promised value that is the basis of the Toronto Stock Exchange and other stock exchanges around the world is the same concept that was borrowed from those trying to fight this climate change process.

A very wise witness came before the committee and said not to think of the Kyoto process as an environmental negotiation as much as it is an economic negotiation because this is changing some of the fundamentals of our economy. It is demanding that at long last the polluter must pay. This is a concept that has been bandied around in this Parliament and others for far too long. It is simple. The concept says that those who pollute, in this case those who emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, must pay for that pollution, otherwise we invoke the greatest tragedy we have ever known. Who is responsible for the atmosphere, who is responsible for the quality of the air if not those who are contributing to the ruination of the atmosphere and the quality of air?

It seems to us and to many others that this market based approach is one of the most effective tools that government can apply in setting up the terms of reference, in setting up clear rules and regulations so that companies can compete. It will allow industries to choose the lowest cost solutions to reduce their pollution and have a net overall benefit to our atmosphere and our economy.

At the end of the day, in order to achieve the short term targets that are outlined in the Kyoto protocol, and to which Canada has obligated itself, unless the government plans on tearing up the protocol, which it may be doing quietly but has certainly not publicly said it will do, then we need this tool. Businesses which are unable to make the transition in three to four years, which is Kyoto's requirement now because we have wasted so much time in the 13 years previously and in the almost year and a half with the present government, need this tool.

We have made some shift with the government. There has been some release of the ideology in small ways. I can remember the minister coming to the committee and when asked about the clean development mechanisms and other trading mechanisms that are available within the protocol, he said absolutely and definitively no.

At the time I thought he may have misspoke himself. It was not until we saw business representative after representative come before the committee and say they want access to these tools. The oil and gas sector, the coal fired energy sector are saying they want access to these tools and mechanisms because they think it is important and useful for their business. They need to be able to factor into their spreadsheets and costs of doing business the concept of pollution, the concept of greenhouse gas emissions. The notions of a carbon exchange allow them to do that and they want access to it. Why would the government deny them? They are supposedly much of the government's support base, certainly within the Alberta energy sector. They asked for access to this market. It becomes a question of who the government is defending from these tools. It is certainly not the companies that are most involved with the process, the large polluters in this country.

The government made an absolutely false and almost silly presentation on the cost of these international obligations to which we have committed. The minister was out trumpeting that last week. That needs to be set aside once and for all. We can no longer have this pitched battle of ideology between doing things for the environment and doing things for the economy. That debate for many Canadians is long since over. If the government continues to wage this campaign and die on this hill, I believe both politically and personally the Conservatives will be punished for it because it is a false debate. We have moved well beyond that. Our international competitors have shown us that.

Canada runs the desperate risk of being left in the dust in innovation, new energy production, and a more sensible and sane policy for this country and for our economy.

We will be supporting this motion and look forward to the support of all parties. We look for support from all parties to finally move forward the so-called clean air and climate change legislation, so that we can get the solutions on the table that will allow industry and Canadians to engage with government and not have a government in direct opposition to those efforts.

[Business of Supply, April 24th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Bloc for moving this motion and for his question to my hon. Conservative colleague. It was a very clear and specific question. Perhaps I will ask it in the other official language and we will have a clearer response.

Does my colleague's party favour an absolute target, or does his party favour intensity based targets? The reason he and his party need to provide a clear answer on this question is because the whole premise of not just the motion that has been presented to us today but the premise of emissions trading, of exchanges, that was suggested by the Montreal group, used in Chicago, and predominantly used in Europe, is only based on absolute targets.

We simply cannot support intensity targets, which I know his party has said it supports many times in public and in testimony and also support an exchange as has been described in Montreal at the same time. It is like saying we support the Geneva Convention and then hand over prisoners for torture. We cannot support the two things at the same time.

The government has said it will support this motion. Certainly, my hon. colleagues sound like they are supportive of it. If we look at this particular motion, absolute versus intensity are two completely philosophically and practically different options for the country.

My last point is that the companies and the witnesses the member spoke of told us very clearly that they need clear rules in order to do the investments required to reduce greenhouse gas production. Without those clear rules, they simply will not make the investments.

I have a very clear question for my colleague. Does his party favour absolute targets, yes or no? If yes, maybe he can describe what those are.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Timmins—James Bay experiences first-hand what happens when the rails go wrong. It is not often that some of these noxious substances go barrelling through the middle of Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver. They tend to travel on other routes to market. They tend to go through smaller communities to get there. It is just how the rail was set up.

That is all well and good, except when people no longer have confidence in the train coming through town. It is not just a noise disturbance people are worried about. They are worried about being able to drink the water after the train is gone and the cleanup. When the ability for people to live where they have always lived is jeopardized by the simple passing of a train, one wonders what is next.

We have been hammering away on this so Canadians can understand. If we measured this company's success by the pay packet it offers its CEO, we would think the company is doing fantastically well. The externality, as they say in business, is what is being applied. These trains have jumped tracks and spilled toxic substances into rivers, as they did in Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. I wonder if we can start a list of provinces which have not had a toxic spill happen within the last year or two. It would be a very select club. Perhaps Yukon or the Northwest Territories have been safe so far, but they should not hang on to that too long.

I would love to see an amendment to the bill, and maybe we can work on one in the next couple of hours, that would direct the negotiators to ensure that the CEO's pay packet was tied to the company's safety record. I am sure they will decide what reasons to give him more and more dividends and share value, but if every time another train left the tracks, he would be docked a little pay. It would be a fascinating approach. I am sure it is one the government will advocate for because clearly safety is important to the government. It has said it time and time again.

If it were so important to this company, which has left in a sense any semblance of control from within this national interest that we proclaim to hold in this place, it would not sign on to any such contract. The record is so terrible right now that the investors are clearly worried about the next quarter. When only fixated on the next quarter, the value of shares are able to move around so quickly in our marketplace that the longer term investments in safety and the investments in the rail grade itself are no longer seen as worth it, so they are not being made. The audit conducted by the federal Government of Canada showed us that.

Lo and behold, the workers come forward and say that they are not sure it is safe to go on the rail any more, and I will speak to one example in my riding recently. I will not mention the fellow's name, although knowing him I am sure he might appreciate it.

A train left the rail in February in the course of the strike. Prior to that the Liberal government had slipped a small amendment into the Labour Code which did not allow rail workers to not cross the picket line. It forced them to cross the line, unless they were under threat. There had been a strike in a northern town, a legal and perfectly well conducted strike. A man got to work that morning and said that, as a fellow unionist, he would not cross the picket line. Immediately the company was there with a copy of the legislation, as signed by the Liberals and endorsed by the Conservatives. It said that he had to cross the line. In response he said that he would not, that it was against his convictions.

The only way an individual is able not to cross is if that person makes an accusation that he or she has been threatened by one of the people on strike. The RCMP will then be called in to arrest that striking person. That was the condition he was given. At some point this moves from the absurd to the ridiculous.

The notion is that people can have an unsafe working environment under laws that were constructed by Parliament and legislatures across the country, present evidence that their workplace is unsafe. MPs would not even sit in these chairs if they were not sure the legs were solid. They would refuse and demand another chair, never mind going to work, getting on a rail not being sure if it will stay on the rail by the end of the shift and then being asked to work beyond safe hours that have also been proven unsafe. Suddenly the government says that is an infringement upon the rights of others in the country.

We in the NDP will defend the rights of workers across the country for safe working environments. We really thought we were already there. We thought the legislation was in place, that the codes had been worked out and signs posted on the wall in all work environments, which allowed people to work safe and enjoy income and receive it in a safe way.

Lo and behold we see, when push comes to shove, the government falls over with the effort. It cannot stand up. By invoking this and knowing this was always in the back pocket, it has skewed the negotiations, it has crippled them and has made it impossible for the union and the company to come to a fair and reasonable resolution. This was always waiting, and the company knew it. That, therefore, made the lowest class of negotiations come forward, which is what the government advocated for and is now accepting, pushed by the Liberals and supported by the Bloc.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with some reluctance that I join this debate, simply because the need for this in this day and age should not still exist. One would hope in 2007 that reasonable minds using legislation that this country has agreed to would be able to resolve disputes, yet somehow we find ourselves in this situation. Workers are conducting a legal and authorized action. They have serious and legitimate concerns, health and safety and otherwise. Many members of Parliament would also wish to have the ability to affect their immediate environments in their workplace, the ability to make sure that safe and fair working conditions are applied here. Certainly any of the MPs in their own self-interests would wish for the same thing. Yet here we are facing a forced negotiation at the end of a gun barrel, Bill C-46 it is called. I think there are a few terms we have to establish before we can even move further beyond.

The actual name of this bill that has been cobbled together quickly by the government is an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of railway operations.

I have tried to find in the title or the substance of the bill some mention of the main issue that has been brought forward by everyday average ordinary workers on the line, which is around rail safety based upon evidence, audits, that have been done by the government itself. Safety is the issue. Safety is one of the critical issues that has been brought forward as a reason for this dispute and this draconian piece of legislation that was introduced to stop the dispute does not mention it in the title. It would be interesting if the title were an act to provide for the continuation of safe railway operations, but the government could not do that because right now the operations are not safe. There would be no resumption of any type of safe operations because we have the audited reports that say otherwise. The records have become worse as the profits of the company have gone up.

Surely there is a way to operate a rail system in this country that is both safe and profitable, but it seems that unfortunately or otherwise that CN does not feel that those two things can actually go together and exist in harmony. It will tell us that they do but then we see a news report of another train off the tracks lying beside or in a river, and we know that not to be the case. There has been an explosion of unsafe rail practices and we also know it because the workers have told us so.

There is another term that is important for us all to realize. Because I was not sure, before entering into this debate I asked some of my colleagues what to call the company, CNR or Canadian National Rail. It has since changed its name. It reminds me of Kentucky Fried Chicken having to change its name to three letters, KFC, in order to avoid any association with chickens because it was not actually serving chicken any more. In this case, we cannot call the company Canadian National Railway because it is no longer Canadian.

Not only did it change its name, which is well and good and perhaps it was for brevity's sake, and there are a lot of syllables when we spell it out, but it forbade the workers from actually referring to it as Canadian National. They have to refer to it as CNR, and are not allowed to call it Canadian any more.

These are small but important things and are symbolic of what we are seeing take place in an industry and an operation that is at the very heart of this country. It is one of the few things that Canadians can absolutely hold on to and identify with. Different from others was the creation of this majestic dream, and it was dreamt up in this very place, to create a national railway system to connect us from coast to coast, as part of our national identity. It enabled the west to open up. It enabled all Canadians to be part of this massive country. This experiment of some peacefulness between the French and English cultures was critical.

We know the historical roots. We can walk into the foyer just outside the House of Commons and look above the sculptures. Represented there as one of the primary industries of this country is the rail industry. Clearly, it is in our DNA. It is in the very soil of our country.

Here we have an operation which by all accounts, by the audit reports, by the workers working on the line every day and by the communities that live beside those lines is no longer a source of pride. It is a source of worry. It is a source of contention, controversy and conflict.

I need to talk for a moment about my riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley in the northwest corner of the province of British Columbia. It has one of the increasingly most important rail lines in the country. It is part of the government's laudable efforts to open up the Asia-Pacific Gateway. It is receiving a significant amount of funding that we negotiated with the previous government and ensured with this government. We are proud of being able to leverage that funding for the container port in Prince Rupert. There is also some significant funding by CN itself along the rail.

Here is an interesting thing to note. There are hazardous products that travel along this rail line that stretches right across northern British Columbia. Some months ago CN sent a letter to all of our predominantly volunteer fire departments. CN said that if there was any major spill of toxic chemicals along the line, the volunteer fire departments, which neither have the equipment nor the training to deal with such a toxic spill, should just hold the fort for 12 hours until CN got a skeleton crew up there to deal with it. This is in a letter. CN actually put it in black and white and sent it out to these noble volunteer fire departments and said that just for their information, CN would show up half a day later, once the train was in the river or on the side of the tracks. This is what a so-called responsible corporate citizen is offering to people who live cheek by jowl, right beside many of these lines, whose livelihood depends on the conservation of our environment, particularly the rivers.

Those who have visited the northwest have seen some of the most stunning scenery right from a passenger rail car because the rail runs right on the very edge of many of our most stunning and magnificent rivers. The road is on the other side. The access to these places, unfortunately, I have to say, once a train derails, based upon anecdotal and the audited experience of this company is seriously impeded.

There is no mention of safety in this bill. There is no mention of the technique being used, this heavy-handed approach that allows for final offer selection. The two sides present their cases and an arbitrator will then pick one or the other. It is a system that can or cannot work, depending on the various labour disputes.

Clearly, by not mentioning any aspect of safety in the bill, the government is sending a clear signal to the company that it does not have to negotiate on the safety concerns of the workers and the communities that they have placed in the public eye. That is not a concern to the government and it certainly will not be for the company when it is negotiating. And the legislation does not name an arbitrator.

It is important to understand that once this legislation passes and it seems doomed to pass, if I can use that term, because the Liberals, Conservatives and the Bloc for some bizarre reason have decided to ram it through by invoking closure and that is democracy in action, but once this bill passes, the government can pick any arbitrator it wants, anyone. It allows anybody to finally decide upon a contract that will be imposed upon the workers in the company.

For those who have followed labour disputes across the country and the history of CN and the UTU, this is not a combative organization. I have met with the workers in my riding, both formally and informally. I met them around a coffee table just a few days ago when I was in northern B.C. I sat down with a worker, an honest, hard-working average Canadian who is just doing his job. When this labour dispute first came up in February he had had enough. He had been working on the rail for 25 years.

Anyone who has spent a day on the rail will have a sense of the working conditions. The workers work 12 hours, maybe 16 hours plus. There is forced overtime. Rattling around on the rail is hard work. The workers all knew what they signed up for and they are willing to do it, but that worker had had enough. Time and time again he had gone to his supervisors and pointed out a safety concern and said that a piece needed to be replaced because it was broken and it was part of the safety system, and he was told to just leave it be, leave well enough alone.

No longer was there a culture of care and concern that had been built up in that organization over many years to ensure that no matter what the trains would run on time and they would also run safe. That can no longer be said. That is a tragedy not just for the symbol of what CN and rail are for this country, but it is also a tragedy on other levels, and I would like to talk about a couple of them.

We have talked much about the environment and the litany of derailments. Oftentimes CN does not have to prepare any kind of a manifest. There is no legal obligation to tell communities down the line what type of products will be moved through those communities.

We have all been around this country and know that some trains move right through the very heart of communities. There is no manifest created and some of these substances are of the most toxic nature imaginable, the belief being that it is better to move them by rail than by truck, because the incidence of accidents traditionally has always been lower by rail. If a toxic substance has to be moved from a chemical plant, as is often the case, or the oil and gas industry, to another site, it is best to do it by rail, as the chance of an accident or incurring any sort of harm to the environment or human health is lower.

Can we still safely say that? On March 12, 2007, some 3,000 VIA Rail passengers were affected. On March 10, 2007, CN's main freight line through central New Brunswick was disrupted because of a 17 car derailment at Plaster Rock. On March 1 there was a grain spill from a CN freight train derailment in Pickering. In February 2007 there was a hydrochloric acid spill. On January 14, 2007 in northern Ontario there was another derailment and 30 cars went into a swamp.

Time and time again, when dealing with issues of the environment, we know it is always easier and cheaper to not have the pollution happen in the first place. Here we have a clear case of what it would mean to have a little more protection, a little more understanding up front about the types of chemicals and noxious substances that are being moved, and how much better it is from every measurement to make sure that they do not tip out somewhere along the way, never mind the human concern.

I was in Sudbury recently and there had been another derailment north of that town, reminiscent of one that had occurred the year before. All sorts of noxious substances were being pumped out of the river and lakes systems. I talked to the member of Parliament from that area. The people in Sudbury have done so much to try to remedy the damage done by previous historical practices in the industry. We all know about the moonscape and that NASA uses the area around Sudbury as a practice area for its astronauts. The damage had been severe in terms of the environment. Sudbury has dedicated itself on many levels to clean up the mess, and once a year there are trains tipping into its river and lake systems.

Canadians are concerned and they have a right to be concerned. I would hope there is not a member of Parliament who would dispute the right of Canadians to be concerned when they read their papers and turn on the evening news and see that another train has tipped over. The workers have come forward and said where they think the problems are, and they are ignored by the company.

An audit was ordered by the previous government as a third party investigation into what was happening, with no vested interest, so the union bashing going on by some of the government can stop. It was a third party audit which the government conducted in 2005. It finished in 2006 and then the government sat on it. It was not until a journalist with the CBC filed an access to information request that the findings were released.

One would have to suppose that if the audit had said that things were fine, that the Canadian public should not worry, that everything was all right, the government would have trumpeted it out. It would have had a press conference, announced it and given every detail of how wonderful it was, but we know that is not what the audit said. The audit came out with findings that 54% of the locomotives showed serious defects. More than half of the things that are responsible for moving and stopping the trains that are going through our communities, and in British Columbia in particular, up and down mountains showed serious defects.

That is why the government sat on the audit. That is why the government has now removed from this bill the concept of triggering any sort of negotiation around safety for workers. We have to understand that the whole concept of workers' safety, the whole concept of safe locations in which to work in this country, was one that initially was resisted by industry as an extra expense when it was done years ago. It has now been adopted and it is trumpeted by industries, the progressive ones in particular, that they have a safe working environment.

The lumber mills in my community, the good ones in particular, show on their signs that visitors are welcome to such and such a lumber mill, and they show many safe days and accident-free days they have had because they know it is good for business. They know it is good for worker morale when people are not getting hurt. They know it is good for absenteeism, obviously, when people are not getting hurt, and just ethically it might be a good thing, too, to not have a system or workplace set up where people are likely to get hurt.

We have had an audit come back that says the crossings and some of the bridges had faulty beams. Workers died two years ago in British Columbia because a bridge failed. Workers were coming to me prior to this saying that people were going to die. They said this flat out because they had looked at the trusses. They had looked at the structure of the bridges. They had known the upkeep had not been done, but who was watching the henhouse? Clearly it was the fox.

The reason for this legislation, the reason to force these folks back to work even though the Labour Relations Board has said that this is a legal and legitimate strike, has often been talked about. One assumes that the company thought it had this in the bag, that it could just go to the Labour Relations Board and it would order the workers back from strike immediately.

Even though this is a legal strike, it has been rolled out time and again that this is an economic catastrophe waiting to happen. Even if the government and the official opposition had the courage to stand up and speak to the legislation, which they do not, it has been pointed out by the few who have that this is an economic catastrophe waiting to happen in this country and that we need to force these workers back to work and impose a contract on them so that Canadian business can move again, because we are an exporting nation.

We would contend that this short term, poorly managed fix will lead to economic disaster in the medium term and the long term, as there is a clear indication to the railway to continue with business as usual.

A lot of the shippers in my region are completely stressed out. These are people who need to get their products to market. The cashflow is essential to their operations. They work on very fine margins and they want products to move.

However, they have also lamented to me over the last number of years that they cannot get reliable service from CN. When a train goes off the tracks, guess what? They cannot run another train right by it. There are days and days of delay and then an investigation, and then the train has to be fixed in the shop and there are fewer cars on the tracks.

It causes problems, but clearly someone within this organization has done the calculation and has figured out that it is worth the cost of business and that there are all the so-called savings they make by having people work longer and longer hours. We know as a result of studies that, like a student studying or a worker in any workplace, once past a certain point, effectiveness and clarity drop off demonstrably and in a significant way.

As soon as people go beyond the 8 to 12 hours, their ability to pay attention, to focus and to do as good a job as they were doing in the first 8 hours goes down. What CN wants to do is continue pushing people the limits of what we know to be safe when it comes to the people who are at the switch. Right now those workers are meant to be away from home for as many as 40 hours a week or 160 hours a month. CN wants them to be away more. CN wants them to work longer periods each and every day. They are working 16 hours right now. I am not sure exactly where CN would like them to go, and how someone in their 17th hour of work is meant to be performing as well as in their first or eighth seems ridiculous. It even seems counterintuitive.

A number of Canadians would be quite worried if they knew that train carrying hydrochloric acid and barrelling through their town in the middle of the night was being driven by someone in the 17th or 18th hour of work, someone who has been doing that consistently over the last number of weeks and months. How is the government meant to assure Canadians that everything is okay, that these workers are not asleep at the switch, so to speak?

When it comes to our environment and the idea that in this day and age we will knowingly operate an unsafe system and keep pushing the boundaries into places that have been proven through the government's own audit not to be safe, it is intellectually dishonest. As for the idea that somehow the government can paint itself green and run about the country claiming some sort of adherence to environmental principles and priorities when at the same time it is taking actions like this, actions that threaten exactly the heart of the clean air and clean water it purports to be defending and are unable to do so, it is intellectually dishonest. It is intellectually dishonest of the government, the Liberals and the Bloc to suggest that they are doing their jobs in this case.

A lot of MPs are pushing for this heavy-handed tactic and are trying to position one set of working families against another. It is a good old tactic that does not die out easily. The workers in my region of northern British Columbia are very much connected to the same people. The rail workers are exactly the same folks whose kids are in soccer and who go to Rotary and all the rest of it in our communities, exactly the same as the people who need to ship the product, the same workers who are just down the line at the mill or at the smelter looking for consistent rail service in order to feed their families. They are deeply connected.

They understood back in February when the strike first erupted, as they do now, how serious it is when they say that things are this unsafe and that the relationship between the company and the workers has broken down so much they are seeking to strike. They understand the consequences more than any member of Parliament does and certainly more than any of the fat cats on the frontbench of the Conservative Party do. They understand deeply what the consequences are of their actions and they are committed to them. Eighty per cent voted to reject the very deal that the government now wishes to impose on them.

It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that using such a technique somehow will allow for any sort of labour peace or harmony in the workplace or betterment of service, whether it is the protection of our environment and Canadians' health from fewer derailments or better service by just being on time and actually picking up the freight that CN, not Canadian National, has promised to.

This is going to be trumpeted by the government and those supporting it as a salient approach and a quick fix to getting the rails back on line and the trains running on time. What I will suggest to the House, to Canadians and to people in my riding is that we need labour peace. We need a drastic improvement in the way CN operates, the way it treats its workers and the way it treats the safety of Canadians on either of these rail lines, because the situation cannot go on as it is, and this bill exacerbates it. That is why I am proud to be here as a New Democrat opposing it to the nth degree.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for my colleague. She touched on this generally, but I think it is important for people to establish as well that in the midst of a negotiation, the two sides in this case will use various leverages and tactics in order to get the things that they are looking for and things that they want to achieve, understanding hopefully that neither side will get all that they want.

However, I am wondering that with this hatchet looming over the entire process, CN knows full well it has the government in its pocket and it will introduce back to work legislation at a moment's notice, which is happening.

How does it affect the actual negotiations that are ongoing? Does it destabilize them or make things less fair that are happening between the two parties that are meant to be happening in some good faith?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her words and her experience when it comes to properly settling disputes between management and labour.

Our country has had a long and turbulent history over this, but I think many Canadians would have expected that we would have evolved to a certain point, that we would have been able to use the law available to us that had been fought for year in and year out. A good friend of mine, Jim Sinclair, the head of the B.C. Federation of Labour, said that working folks in this country have never received anything they did not fight for.

Fighting for fair laws governing the unionized workforce has been a long and steady fight for many years. Over the last number of years we seem to have lost ground through these deaths by a thousand cuts under the Liberals and now the Conservatives. We are now at a point where a legal strike is happening and workers have fair concerns about safety at their workplace, and that is what has been presented. That right seems to have been put into question almost immediately.

My question to my colleague is very specific. When a technique like this is used, and I give Bill C-46 too much credit by calling it a technique. It is a bludgeoning action on a fair and legal labour dispute to say workers simply do not have rights if they happen to work in this particular work environment. Based upon her experience and the experience of others in labour disputes, what is the affect on the short and medium term conditions within that workplace? By using something like this bill, by using something like this practice, as odious as it is, what is the affect on the short and medium term conditions within that workplace?

We have now seen that the Conservatives, the Liberals and the Bloc will all team up on these workers who are exercising their legal right. What is the result on the workplace? What is workplace productivity like? What are safety conditions like? In the eventual creation of a culture in that workplace, how does using something that the government is imposing on these negotiations affect the average worker going to work and that experience once they get there on a daily basis?

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

We will not reference Tiny Tim yet, but it might come later in his answer to my question.

The important issue being raised by the CN workers that live in my riding in northwestern British Columbia, CN being one of the main rail lines and an increasingly important one, has been consistently in respect of safety. The member talked about what came forward from the report that had been sat on and not addressed by the current government and the issues we raised in the last Parliament when his party was in government. Consistently we were hearing from the ground, from the drivers and engineers, that this was a problem and that there would be consequences to these cutbacks in safety, not just consequences in terms of the environmental and human costs but also consequences economically.

The shippers in my region have consistently and with growing concern raised the issue of inconsistent rail service. Freight traffic is delayed. The member talked about the auto industry. One of the leading complaints from the auto industry with respect to rail to this point is that it just cannot get good service as the profits for this company have soared over the last number of years and the personal profits of its CEO have certainly soared to some $50 million a year.

My hon. colleague clearly cares deeply and passionately for the workers, their families, their children, their children to be and generations past and forward, but if one of the issues being raised by workers is that the safety standards have fallen so low, as has been reported, then clearly that is the issue they have raised at this moment with the government. Instead, his party has chosen to support railroading and bulldozing them and saying, “Those just simply do not matter. Figure it out. We will talk about it later”.

How can he reconcile these two absolutely opposite views of the need to have a safe and dependable rail service in this country both for our economy and the families that depend on that economy?

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

Mr. Speaker, I had the fortune, or misfortune, of being at the not so recent Liberal leadership convention and there was not as much emotion or energy put forward by many of the speakers there as has been encapsulated in the last 20 minutes. I lament the fact that the octaves used, the approach and the passion on this one issue, never mind the ambition toward the leadership, was absent. It is too bad that the delegates and Canadians watching missed that type of performance. It was Parliament on the Thames. It was remarkable in terms of the depth and misinformation which was wrapped in the deep worry for the children and orphans as was almost alluded to in my hon. colleague's speech.

There are two important questions.

[The Environment, March 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the governor of Montana has requested this of the minister. Now the people of British Columbia are demanding this and the minister is away on the file.

When will the Conservatives learn that everyday Canadians expect leadership when it comes to the environment, not spinning and further delay?

The government has made a travesty of the Canadian international reputation on climate change. It has already lost a minister. It has lost control of its only environmental bill.

When are the Conservatives going to do something for a change and do something about this open pit coal mine being proposed in British Columbia? Will he order the assessment, yes or no, now?

[The Environment, March 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it has come as no surprise to Canadians that the government has become a follower rather than a leader when it comes to the issue of the environment.

The Conservatives should be thoroughly embarrassed by their handling of the climate change file, regulating air pollution, and now they are being scolded by American governors about polluting our waters. The governor of Montana, hardly one known for his tree-hugging ways, has demanded that the environment minister conduct an environmental assessment on an open pit coal mine in British Columbia.

Will the minister immediately order an assessment on the project, do his job and get the job done for once?