Peter Milliken

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

Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I wonder if you might seek consent that we suspend the sitting of the House now until the royal assent, which we anticipate later this day, on the understanding that the House would reconvene only for the purpose of attending for the royal assent. The House would adjourn immediately thereafter until tomorrow.

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

Madam Speaker, in that case, I move:

That the House do now adjourn.

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

Madam Speaker, millions of Canadians are waiting for this strike to end and for this bill to pass. I invite the opposition now to join us to see if we can pass the bill this afternoon. I ask for unanimous consent to proceed with third reading immediately.

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

Or the workers. On Wednesday we had the bill for second reading. We asked for consent to put it through all stages. That was refused. Therefore we used time allocation and got the bill through second reading. We used time allocation again to get it through the committee. It was not obstructed Wednesday night in committee.

We had it reported on Thursday and what did we do on Thursday? We asked for unanimous consent to pass the bill on Thursday. It was refused. We asked for consent to pass it on Friday. It was refused. We asked again on Friday.

Fortunately because the members of the Bloc were not here in sufficient numbers we fortunately got the right to sit on Saturday and Sunday to deal with it more quickly than we otherwise would but that was a stroke of luck on our part.

I am sure it was not deliberate on their part that there were only 13 here when there should have been 25. I am glad that there were not 25 here.

Here we are on Saturday debating report stage. When we have completed the votes on report stage and dealt with all the amendments, the 42 amendments the members of the Bloc Quebecois have moved, we will have the opportunity to proceed with third reading.

I urge members opposite to consider the situation of all those who would rather be working today. It is important for them that we vote at third reading as soon as possible and I hope that members opposite will give their consent today, so that we can vote at third reading this afternoon.

The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot has the best interests of the workers of Quebec and Canada at heart. If he does and if he considers their plight, he knows in his heart of hearts the best thing he could do today is vote to put them back to work; not just the people who are on strike but those who have been laid off as a result of the strike because that is the most unfair part of all.

Through no fault of their own other Canadians, thousands of them, are losing money because of the rail strike. It should be ended. It should have been ended several days ago.

The Bloc Quebecois through its obstruction and delay has denied these Canadians the right to earn a living. It is unfair. I invite it to join us today to end this strike.

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

Madam Speaker, I feel I must contribute to the very important debate taking place here in the House today, because the official opposition has shown that it is unable to take a just and fair decision on issues of importance to all Canadians.

We have faced a serious strike situation for over a week now, a strike that is costing Canadians millions of dollars and causing thousands of Canadians to lose work, time and money. The only reason this loss is continuing is the obstruction of the official opposition.

I want to make it perfectly clear in all my remarks that the blame for the obstruction rests squarely with the official opposition. It has prevented the House from dealing with this bill in a manner that is normal in situations of this kind; that is, in an expeditious and fair way.

I know the Reform Party has assisted the government to the extent that it has supported the legislation and has agreed to time allocation in respect of various stages of the bill in order to expedite passage. I appreciate that support very much and acknowledge it.

On the other hand, the hon. member for Lethbridge in his speech this morning sought to criticize the government. When the government has acted so well it is difficult to find a way to criticize. He was really stretching things by arguing that somehow the government should have acted last week.

Let us go back to the situation of last week. I remind the hon. member that while there was a strike by a few workers with CP, CP service was virtually continuous. It was working. Deliveries were still be made. CP was still running.

The hon. member knows that. Surely he is not expecting the government to step in and legislate an end to a modest strike of that kind. The hon. member in his speech this morning was doing his best to make it appear that somehow the government was at fault for this strike when he knows that is not the case.

The government has acted extremely well. It has done exactly what it should have done. When it became apparent that there was a national strike the first thing it did was give notice of intention to introduce this bill by issuing a special notice paper last week, or asking that one be issued. He knows that one was issued on Sunday morning. If it were not for that we would not be able to complete the bill as quickly as we are moving. I regret it is as slow as it is.

The hon. member knows that I on behalf of the government and the ministers of the crown who have been in the House have tried all week to get the official opposition to abandon its rather ridiculous policy of obstructing this legislation and allowing the bill to proceed.

Last Monday, the members of the Bloc Quebecois decided to obstruct this bill and they have continued to obstruct it all week. If they had had more than thirteen members in the House Thursday morning, we would not have had this debate today or Sunday. This bill will perhaps be passed Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. Another three terrible days for Canada. What is the point of all this?

The hon. members opposite should really be ashamed of the position they have taken in obstructing this. I recognize their right to oppose this legislation and speak against it and vote against it if they want to do so, but instead they have used the rules of procedure in the House to full advantage to obstruct the passage of this bill and put Canadians out of work. That is a disgrace.

Always in the past when this kind of legislation has been introduced in the House-I remember we had some when we were in opposition and I have sat where the hon. members opposite are sitting today-we would make our objections very clear and very plain, and so did the NDP. In the end we allowed the legislation to go through in an expeditious manner because we recognized the public interest demands that when there is a national strike of this kind paralysing industries across Canada Parliament must act to bring the strike to an end. We allowed Parliament to act and make its decision in a rapid, responsible way.

Hon. members from the New Democratic Party obstructed the bill on Monday with some glee, as one would expect from that group. As one of the editorials I was reading this morning said, they are bought and paid for by the labour movement so we would expect they might object to this. We support labour as well. Many people who are members of unions work and support the Liberal Party.

The members of the Bloc Quebecois say that they have a monopoly on this sort of support, but that is not the case. Many workers belonging to unions in Quebec vote for the Liberal Party and the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, who finds this so amusing, knows very well that it is the truth.

I do not like to cross the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot at all times. He tries his best. He knows these people are voting Liberal for a very good reason. We are providing good leadership and good government.

Most of these people want to work. Most of the people who are out on strike do not want to be earning $3 a day in strike pay. They want to be working and making money. Before the strike I had occasion to speak with various employees of VIA Rail in my travels.

They said if there is a strike, for heaven's sake legislate them back quickly, they do not want to be out for long. The Bloc Quebecois is obstructing and holding these people from their work and their jobs.

What does that do for those Canadians? What does it do for their annual salary? It reduces what they can make in a year. The members of the Bloc Quebecois should be ashamed of themselves for this obstruction.

I want to deal with the New Democratic Party briefly. The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and the Minister for International Trade want to hear about the New Democratic Party.

I do not see the hon. member for Winnipeg-Transcona but I know he is here in spirit. He was quite concerned on Monday that we not proceed with the bill. He refused consent. By Tuesday those members were silent. By Wednesday they were saying get it done. They have been saying it ever since. They at least saw the light.

I invite hon. members of the Bloc Quebecois to have a little look around them. Look for the light. Then the members will say yes to this bill right away. There is no point in holding this up any further. They have obstructed the bill all week. We tried on Monday to introduce the bill and get it passed. We tried on Tuesday. We had the bill introduced and asked for unanimous consent to deal with it in all stages. That was refused at least twice during the day.

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

I cannot imagine that.

[Questions On The Order Paper, March 24th, 1995]

I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[Business Of The House, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, there are no amendments on the Order Paper, either from the hon. member or any of his colleagues. I am unable to answer the question directly. I must, however, point out that the government does not want any changes made to the bill as it stands.

[Business Of The House, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the official opposition the opportunity to continue to sit today to end this strike that has cost so much to Canadians and caused many of our fellow citizens to lose their jobs.

I move:

That notwithstanding any standing order, the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-77, an act to provide for the maintenance of railway operations and subsidiary services may be taken up today, provided that no divisions requested during the aforementioned business may be deferred to another day; and provided that the House shall not adjourn today until the third reading stage of the said bill has been disposed of.

I seek the unanimous consent of the House for this motion.

[Committees Of The House, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have two motions to propose to the House today. The first deals with travel by committees.

I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That six members of the Standing Committee on Transport be authorized to travel to Washington, D.C. from April 3 to 4, 1995 for the purpose of holding hearings in relation to the committee's consideration of marine policy; and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.

(Motion agreed to.)