Mr. Speaker, I will try to pick up where I left off. I said that I would ask the government some questions and ponder some of the issues out loud.
The first issue is the government's faith in Canadians. I was talking about the right to strike. Do I have to point out that striking is a legal and democratic way to exert what I would call pressure on negotiations to formulate a collective agreement? Why not give the parties time to reach an agreement? The government should support negotiations, not tie the parties' hands by interfering with the natural balance of power that is so critical to true negotiation.
Time and the prospect of financial losses for both parties, whether due to a strike or a lockout, help to bring about a quick negotiated settlement. In this case, the government's tendency to almost systematically discredit the negotiation process strongly suggests that it intends to sideline the parties to the dispute.
This interference is an insult to those who, for months, have been working to find a fair and acceptable solution for everyone and to protect the working conditions of Canadian Pacific workers. The government seems to think that labour law is not up to the task. It is short-circuiting the usual dispute resolution process and imposing terms that it alone wants.
Furthermore, I have not heard anyone—either the CP workers or management—asking the government for immediate help to resolve this dispute. The government took it upon itself to interfere in the dispute. This seems to suggest that the government resolutely sides with one of the two parties in any dispute, rather than encouraging or helping the parties to reach a settlement.
Another question that transcends parliamentary procedure, but is basically at the heart of the problem, and one that we must ask the members opposite directly is this: what values does this government espouse? What interests and what development model does it want to impose on Canada?
I listened carefully to the reasons given by the hon. Minister of Labour for introducing this bill for the continuation and resumption of rail service. She said, and I quote, “We are fortunate in our country to have some of the best working conditions in the world.”
I agree with her in part on this, but I would caution the minister and her government. These excellent working conditions did not come as a result of draconian and hasty interventions by the federal government in collective agreement negotiations. Rather, they are the result of numerous negotiations during which both parties agreed that it was important to regard quality of life at work and quality of life in society as essential to progress and prosperity.
Unfortunately, the government and its partisan policies are taking us on a downward spiral by bringing back the spectre of cheap labour and increasing job insecurity.
The excellent working conditions the minister referred to are also the fruit of co-operation between workers, employees and management in our country, with respect for everyone's rights and for the time it takes to reach an agreement.
I would like to emphasize this point. By forcing the debate, the Conservatives are attacking an essential aspect of the functioning of Canada's economy, that is, the trust that the stakeholders need to have in each other.
By hurriedly attempting to resolve a collective bargaining problem, the Conservatives are gradually destroying labour relations at a private company. The victory that the government anticipates by forcing a return to work is in fact a sword of Damocles that will certainly hang over many future negotiations. The government is, little by little, paving the way for the problems of tomorrow, rather than guaranteeing solutions for today.
But let us come back to the question. What is the Conservative government trying to tell us by moving this motion and introducing a bill that hurts Canadian Pacific employees? That it is concerned about Canada's productivity? That it wants to protect Canadian jobs and our economy? We all want these things, but not at the expense of Canadians' and workers' rights.
Economically advanced countries that only consider the productivity of their companies do so to the detriment of workers' conditions and quality of life.
In other words, not everything can be justified by economic considerations, especially not the actions of the government. My colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie has already highlighted the paradox. Indeed, he said that the Conservative government—which argues all day long in the House and committees in favour of a hands-off approach by the state and non-interference in economic matters—is suddenly in a rush to legislate the moment a company takes its time resolving its internal problems and workers demand rights and make their voices heard.
In their economic theory, have the Conservatives forgotten that workers are an essential and fundamental cog in the economic machine? Why intervene in these negotiations and not when a private company relocates jobs or does not meet its obligations?
I will move on quickly to my conclusion, and I will try to explain why this government is making a twofold mistake by introducing this bill.
To begin with, the government is discrediting the work done by members. We are in this House to build a country, not to force workers to return to work when they are negotiating their working conditions, quality of life and future according to a set of well-known and accepted rules.
The government is making members of the House of Commons play the role of the bad guy. Unfortunately, this is not the first time this has happened.
As a result of this motion, the government will end up poisoning the social climate in Canadian companies. Will management negotiate in good faith in the future, knowing full well that each threat to strike will result in authoritarian interference by the federal government?
