1987-08-27

[Stage Direction]
A message from Her Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates (B) for the financial year ending March 31, 1988, was presented by Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.

Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to the first report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General, and a review of the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67(2) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, two copies of the report drafted by my Department and entitled Grants and Contributions Expenditures Control Study, and Report to the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion of the Government of Canada on the Grants and Contributions Expenditures Study prepared by Price Waterhouse, as well as the document pertaining to recovery measures, Financial
Management of the Grants and Contributions Budget (Vote 10) of the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. These documents may be referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Industrial Expansion.


INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the Seventh Report of the Canadian Section of French Language Association of Interparliamentarians.


IMMIGRATION ACT, 1976 PRESENTATION OF REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON BILL C-84
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976, and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof.


MAINTENANCE OF RAILWAY OPERATIONS ACT, 1987 MEASURE TO ENACT
Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-85, an Act to provide for the resumption and continuance of railway operations and for the settlement of disputes respecting terms and conditions of employment between railway companies and their employees.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?

August 27, 1987
Business of the House


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, in view of the failure in the final mediation attempt, and considering the public interest, I would suggest that the House Leaders meet immediately in order to discuss when this Bill should be read a second time. Hopefully the House Leaders will agree that we can proceed as of three o'clock this afternoon through all stages.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to meet with my counterparts to pursue the suggestion of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux). Obviously we will want to look at the Bill. We received an unofficial draft of it about 10 minutes before the House opened. We are studying the Bill now but we will certainly want to look at the situation in light of the over-all public interest as well as in an effort to be fair to those concerned, particularly the workers involved in this difficult situation.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my caucus, the New Democrats, we are certainly prepared to meet as quickly as possible with the other House Leaders to examine the legislation. As the House Leader for the Liberals just indicated, we received a draft copy of the Bill a few minutes ago and it is being considered now. We will study and examine the legislation and look forward to meeting with the House Leaders as soon as possible.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Government, we are ready to meet as soon as my colleagues have had an opportunity to examine the Bill to decide whether or not we can go forward at three o'clock. I would hope in the interests of moving ahead quickly that we can proceed at three o'clock.
I am ready to discuss the matter with them at any time.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the circumstances, it would be appropriate for the House to give the Chair consent, on the basis that there be unanimous consent that debate will proceed later this day. 1 make it very clear that that is on the basis of unanimous consent.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing here with an important matter and it is essential that we have goodwill on all sides of the House. The House Leaders can meet. I do not think unanimous consent has to be given, and I think we will proceed in due course. We have to have some faith in the
process and give the people here in the House some understanding. 1 do not see the need for unanimous consent to do what we have proposed to do. I really do not understand what we are doing here.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the intervention of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). The position of the Chair was to make it very clear to both the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party that, because there will be some discussions aimed at bringing on this matter later today, the Chair feels that that is what will happen, on the assumption, of course, that there is unanimous agreement as a consequence of these discussions. That was the only point I was trying to make. I did not want to put the Opposition in a position of being automatically caught up in a debate later today because the Chair received the unanimous consent of the House. That debate will take place if the Government and the two Opposition Parties can agree as to the terms. I think that is the understanding the Chair was trying to get across. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (B), 1987-88 REFERENCE TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 83, I move, seconded by the Hon. Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Cote):
That Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31,
1988, laid upon the Table earlier this day, be referred to the Standing
Committee on Regional Industrial Expansion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Cowichan- Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly):
That the final report of the Special Committee on Child Care presented to
the House on Monday, March 30, 1987 be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, last March, following the tabling of the report from the Special Committee on Child
August 27, 1987

Care, 1 submitted a request on behalf of the New Democratic Party for a motion of concurrence to the House. This was for the purpose of discussing the proposed report and its recommendations, along with our own minority report which we feel provided a very much better alternative for Canadians who urgently require child care. We have waited and waited for a government response.
We hoped that there would be a substantive response by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to the special committee majority report, the report of the Conservatives, but the Minister has not even had the courtesy to respond to the majority report of his own Members who were on that committee.
As I said yesterday in a question to the Minister, we feel that that is quite appalling, and it is an indication that the Government does not put a high priority on child care, together with the many delays that have taken place. I refer, of course, to the June 30 deadline when the Minister was supposed to have tabled the government response. Following that he asked for a further extension. Then by the back door- it was not even tabled in the House-we had a Dear Shirley letter two weeks ago which went to the Clerk of the House. We eventually got a copy of it but that letter really said nothing at all as to what was the Government's intent. It referred to certain strategies but did not indicate what those strategies would be. It did not even begin to spell out the Government's objectives for a national program for child care.
Yesterday I raised this matter again in the House. The Minister disagreed with my challenge that this was a lack of intention by the Government to take child care seriously and give it priority. But he has not come forward with any proposals, and he has told the provinces that there will be further delays. Why are there these delays, Mr. Speaker? What is the necessity to wait for so long? Why have we not had child care objectives tabled in this House so that the Parliament of Canada, particularly those of us who travelled across the country and heard so many witnesses, could respond to what is needed in the way of a real child care policy for the first time in the history of Canada?
One can speculate why there are the delays. It is very evident there has not been agreement in Cabinet. It is evident that there is a difference of opinion between the Minister of National Health and Welfare who hopefully advocates a very comprehensive child care system that is affordable, quality and available in all communities, and his colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), who undoubtedly does not want to put any money forward to proceed with the commitment made repeatedly by the Minister and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
We see this as another broken promise. Words are not enough. Prior to the last election campaign the Prime Minister made a major commitment on child care to women's groups, as
Motions
did the Leaders of all Parties. He has repeated this promise, and in fact has said several times that he will see that the Conservative Government commits substantial funding to the development of a national child care program, and he has used the term "national child care program".
We have not heard from the Minister responsible for the status of women who should surely be an advocate of child care. When we challenged her on this many months ago, she said that we do not need to throw money at this problem, we want to know what the needs are. The Special Committee on Child Care spent a year and a half working, listening and documenting these needs and doing considerable research into them. Daycare advocacy groups from across the country, groups with a great deal of expertise, provided considerable information to the committee. We know what is needed. We need action that will provide a comprehensive national child care program in co-operation with the provinces.
I believe the Meech Lake Accord has made us much more aware of how important it is that the federal Government spell out national objectives for a child care program. This is the first social program that will be administered under the new Accord, and that Accord provides that the federal Government establish the national objectives and that if the provinces do not go along with direct funding for a program, they must at least have something in place that is comparable.
We believe it is very important that we debate these national objectives right now. We have also said repeatedly, long before the latest committee hearings, that the Government should put at least $320 million into child care services so that the present crisis can be dealt with, so that existing child care centres can be stabilized, so that fees can be reduced a bit making it affordable and so that trained child care workers can, for the first time in history, receive the decent wage which they certainly deserve.
We would also like to see a community initiative and a child care development fund. This is something the committee advocated, something that would provide new initiatives and would respond to special initiatives.
We know that it will take time to negotiate cost-sharing arrangements with the provinces. It is particularly important the the poorer provinces and the northern regions use a different cost-sharing formula.
Members of the New Democratic Party have advocated that the two levels of Government should share the cost of child care fifty-fifty in the next few years and that parents' fees should be 50 per cent. We realize that Provinces like Newfoundland are just getting started in this field, as are northern regions and particularly the territories. It is important that the federal Government put in more than its 25 per cent in those regions. We advocated a formula of 40 per cent and 10 per cent, so that there will be variable cost sharing.

August 27, 1987
Motions
The problem would really not be that difficult if the federal Government would accept the fact that it must take a leadership role. We do not want a child care program that is geared to the lowest minimum standard. If the Government continues the approach it has been taking with the provincial Ministers and tells them to decide what the national program should be, we will have a program of the lowest common denominator. The provinces will cut back on services that are essentially needed and that should be expanded and made affordable.
I know that people are concerned about the costs of child care and we want to take a look at that. The Conservative members of the Special Committee on Child Care made a pretty generous recommendation. They recommended that $700 million be made available initially for a child care program, but their child care program was not just a program. Most of that money would go to tax incentives and a very token allowance of something like $200 a year for a parent who would wish to remain in the home. That will not give a parent who wants to remain at home and do his or her own parenting any real choice.
That proposal also called for additional deductions in the form of tax credits for the cost of child care, but the problem is that it will not give parents any choice. If the services are not funded and if they are not of quality, accessible and flexible, there will be no real choice. The money Conservative Members of the committee would allocate would go primarily to informal kinds of child care that may be good in some cases but in other cases may be very unreliable and even damaging to children.
We do not agree that $700 million should be spent primarily on tax incentives. We have recommended not $700 million but $320 million. I would like my Conservative colleagues to take note of that because they are always saying that the NDP are the big spenders. We want the money to be invested directly into quality child care services. Making $320 million available to the provinces as quickly as possible would stabilize the present system, would help bring wages up and fees down and would also create 25,000 new spaces. It would mean that for the first time, children in certain regions would have available to them trained care-givers and licensed child care services. In areas where there are already developments, these would be improved and there would be quality non-profit services.
The Conservative Members of the committee would end capital funding for day care by 1990 so that there really would not be any incentive for expanding spaces. Yet under the recommendation made by Conservative Members of the committee, $1 billion would go to tax measures alone by 1992. This would go primarily to informal child care services. We feel that that would be money misspent.
Under our proposal, $600 million would be available by 1992 as opposed to $1 billion. It would be made available for quality, licensed, non-profit child care services that are flexible and adaptable to the needs of parents and developed at the grassroots level in local communities.
What then should be the long-term goal? Child care policy is really family policy and we desperately need family policy at the national level. We think that this policy should look not only at short and mid-term developments but should have a long-range goal. If we feel children are important, and I am sure we all do, we must plan for the real world in which we live today.
We know that the majority of women in the workplace who have young children need child care and we also know that that situation will not change. We know that the number of single-parent families usually headed by mothers is on the increase. These mothers desperately need reliable child care or they will have no choices at all and will remain on welfare for a good part of their lives if not forever.
It is vital that we plan now for child care and that the federal Government play a leadership role. It is vital that we have a national objective for child care that is clearly spelled out. Of course, the provinces have to develop standards. That is in their jurisdiction. We are talking about the broad principles as outlined in the Canada Health Act.
Let me take a moment to stress what we would like to see in the way of national objectives. A federal program should be comprehensive. Funding should go to encourage a broad range of services, including those for infants in some cases, family daycare homes, group care, and also support services for parents who are not in the workforce part-time. The federal Government must insist on quality. All services must be licensed and regulated. We found in the Northwest Territories, for example, that there was no licensing. I think they are bringing it in now; I certainly hope so. My colleague from the Yukon will agree that there, where we have an NDP Government, they were making strides, despite the desperate economic situation, to put territorial funding into good quality day care services.
Another principle is that services must be affordable. Cost must not be a barrier to access. We can do this initially by having a sliding scale fee system. It is hoped in the long term we will have a child care program as accessible as our health and education services. As in Scandinavian and many European countries, we see this as a very important service for families that should not be left to chance but planned with considerable government input.
Another principle is that services should be accessible. That is not compulsory, but accessible. There must be an appropriate service in rural communities. Native communities must be able to develop their own services and train their own care givers and do it in a way which reflects a good degree of cultural content.
Flexibility is another principle. Services must be adapted so that they meet the needs of working parents. We found timing was very important and that care has to be available for parents who were on shift work, for example. Most important,
August 27, 1987

and this ties in with quality, federal government shared funding should go to non-profit services. Research was done for the special committee which proved that the non-profit services were of a much higher quality than commercial services. We are not saying that profit-making services should not exist. We are saying that federal funding should go to nonprofit services because they are of a higher quality and are not skimming off money for profits. The money goes directly to paying the wages of care-givers and usually at a much better rate than profit-making centres.
Then we have the question of accountability. There must be regular monitoring and provincial standards spelled out-we hope the standards are high, not the minimum-along with financial accountability. We want to see parents very much involved in the related boards and committees so that they and the local communities have a real say in what is going to be suitable for them.
There are many other things I could deal with. We heard today that the provinces are very anxious about this, as are we. Manitoba and Ontario have their contributions ready to go and are just waiting to start on a good program. As I said before, and 1 cannot stress this enough, we must have national objectives. It does not cost one cent for the Minister to stand in this House and tell us what the federal government policy is on child care. What are the federal national objectives for child care? It is most important, yet he does not really seem to feel that this is necessary.
Another thing that we feel is very important, and we hope he would be working on it, is legislation. I think all Parties recommended through the special committee that there should be special child care legislation which would spell out the policy objectives of a national program. We would outline a financing formula and provide for a national secretariat. Everyone on the committee agreed that that was needed. There would also be a special fund for new initiatives and training of child care workers. We need the legislation. I hope all Parties will work together to ask the Minister and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to make sure that before this session ends we have tabled for debate the objectives of a national program.
As well, there should be some up front money based on the existing system in the provinces, if necessary. 1 guess it would be necessary if they do not have programs developed in certain provinces. However, we would like to see that $320 million up front and made available now so we do not have to delay any longer. We could get on with stabilizing the present situation at least.
I appeal to all Parties to support us in this endeavour. Let us get on with something for Canada's children. Fall is coming and parents are going to be in urgent need of good quality, licensed child care.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments? Resuming debate.
Motions


Mr. Jean-CIaude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate on the Government's commitments and the report on child care.
First of all, I want to say that unfortunately, my colleague the Hon. Member for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin) was unable to be in the House to speak to this subject, although she worked very hard on this Committee. She is in hospital, and I can inform Hon. Members she is doing very well and there is no cause for concern. She has therefore asked me to take part in this debate.
1 agree with the Hon. Member who just spoke on behalf of the New Democratic Party that the Conservative Government is to be censured for its attitude to our Canadian families. Considering the fact that, for three years, this Government has been promising-the House will recall that in the Prime Minister's speech, the family was the cornerstone of Canadian society ... In every Throne Speech, this Government has promised to improve child care and to do something to help our families. However, after three years nothing has been done about child care, despite the hard work done by all members of the Committee who studied all aspects of the subject. Representations were made by Canadians, by people from across this country, by organizations and by people involved in child care. Even now, nothing has been done. Today, the Globe and Mail reports that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) told his provincial counterparts that he was not yet ready to table his national child-care plan.
Despite the various positions being taken today, the parties concerned have made their decision on child care. I believe that the reason the Hon. Member for Outremont submitted a minority report, dissenting from the position taken by the Conservative majority, was that the proposals made by the Committee, that is the proposals made by the Conservative Members on this Committee, failed to respond to the needs and expectations of Canadians with respect to child care.
Look at the situation today. Less than 10 per cent of our children have access to day care in Canada. I suggest Hon. Members look at their ridings, and whether the riding happens to be my own, Sainte-Marie, or in Vancouver, the Maritimes or Ontario, in one of our urban centres or the Yukon or rural areas, every time we met with community groups, and this was clear from their testimony, we were told there was a lack of daycare services and also a lack of quality standards.
The Liberal Party's position is very clear in this respect. We wanted the Government to table its plan immediately and start a negotiating process with the provincial Governments, because this is very important-we are talking about provincial jurisdiction-the Government must immediately table a comprehensive plan for child care in Canada, with the condition-and this is where there is a difference between the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party-that parents

August 27, 1987
Motions
must have a choice. We absolutely object to what the New Democratic Party is proposing which would prevent parents from choosing where they send their children for daycare. The New Democratic Party is strictly proposing an institutionalized child care plan. In practical terms, this would mean that a person in the riding of Sainte-Marie who has a job and who wants to let the third neighbour down the street look after her child, will not be entitled to financial compensation to pay the cost of having this third neighbour providing this care. She would have to send her child to a government-run day-care centre. I think all Canadians must be against this proposal by the New Democratic Party.
The proposal made by the Liberal Party is clear, precise and simple, and meets the needs, expectations and demands of various interested groups and the Canadian people generally. First of all, through refundable tax credits, it makes it possible for Canadian families and women who want to continue their career to choose between sending their children to a well-organized public daycare centre, or to a private one, or even entrust them to the next door neighbour. Moreover, it is absolutely essential, in order to increase the number of openings-simply adopting the principle without making sure that the number of openings is there to meet the demand would not be enough-that the federal Government should release large amounts of money, for this Conservative Government did not hesitate to use $1 billion to help a number of banks facing bankruptcy.
Now, Canadian families and taxpayers are asking the Government for help. Canadian women want to continue their careers and be provided with effficient, fair and high quality daycare services, making it possible for them to continue to work and raise their children. To achieve this goal, the federal Government should provide the provincial Governments with large amounts of money to improve and expand the daycare systems which exist in the various provinces. But minimum standards should be established by the federal Government and accepted by the provinces. Nothing would prevent, in Provinces such as Quebec, as the Bourassa Government has just announced, the Minister responsible for the status of women to set higher standards.
In its assistance program, however, the Federal Government should provide funding and set criteria not only on the number of openings, but also on the quality of locations, to avoid being simply provided with a daycare network, without any security or education guarantee, and without enough money to provide facilities to meet the needs of growing children.
Together with the Provincial Governments, the federal Government should initiate as soon as possible an awareness and financial assistance campaign to set up daycare networks in the workplace.
It is essential that Canadian employers who often ask for tax credits, whether it is the large financial institutions, multinationals or various government levels, launch an action plan. There lies the power of leadership, such is the request made by the Liberal Party, by my colleague from Outremont. The federal Government must suggest and urge that steps be taken, set up criteria, sensitize employers as well as employees, either
large corporations where possible and also allow small and medium-sized businesses, where it may not be as easy, to set up childcare services. This is the reason why a free choice policy is essential.
Unfortunately, the committee report submitted and concurred in solely by the government majority is rather mitigated. It contains pious hopes. It does not meet the needs and expectations of our Canadian families and the concerns of women in that area.
On the other hand, we cannot over-emphasize the warning against the proposal made by the New Democratic Party. Once again, I say those positions about childcare services, either that of the New Democrats, the Progressive Conservative Party or the Liberal Party clearly show their leanings. In the report, the Tory Party does not really believe in child care. However, a program must be offered, one is announced but in fact they hope nobody will use it. It is more or less the same situation as with public housing assistance programs the Conservative Government now has in place. Those programs exist, but your heart is not in them because they cost so much. It is obvious .. . The Conservatives put forward proposals that are watered down and half-hearted because they have no choice politically, but let us not forget they previously agreed to de-index family allowances, lower the income that made one eligible for the full child tax credit, and authorized the Government to take away more than $1 billion from Canadian families to reduce the deficit or bail out banks, nor must we lose sight of the recommendations made by Conservative Members and the Government's inaction in that area. The social injustice minister, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, did absoluting nothing.
It was more of the same when time came to protect the interests of senior citizens. He was nowhere to be found. That is another matter he is holding up. The implementation of a good daycare program is not held back by the provincial Governments but by the internal quarrels between the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). Surely there is someone else mixed up in this who does not know what he is doing.
The NDP stands at the opposite end; they have suddenly decreed that all children should be treated the same way. They must be kept in the same square box and educated in the same manner.
This is unacceptable and the Canadian public will not accept this recommendation. We have to fight against this because it certainly seems simplistic to have a free universal system. It might look fine, but you have to think about what it means. For instance, in the Gaspe Peninsula, in rural regions, you can have 10 families in the same sector and only one person who has to drive to work in another village. It would be unrealistic to organize a daycare centre to take care of two children in one region or village where there are about ten families. This is why it is essential to maintain freedom of choice and the tax credit for people in such regions.
August 27, 1987

What possible objection could the New Democratic Party have if a mother decides to place her child in a popular daycare centre in her own area or with a private sitter? She has the right to choose. She would be refused reimbursement because she has decided to go to a private daycare or to leave her child with a neighbour three doors down, maybe with a single mother with two young children who cannot go to work herself. Receiving some money to take care of the child of a neighbour would help her and help her neighbour too. Why should there be any objection to that? We have to oppose such a concept, and I trust that the NDP will change its position in this regard because I find it just as unacceptable as its position on defence.
Madam Speaker, in my opinion, the proposal of my colleague for Outremont, who has been working very hard for three years, travelling throughout the country and consulting people, is very clear and specific. This proposal would meet the needs and the expectations of the public and would be a practical and realistic way of meeting our objective of having a quality national daycare service under the jurisdiction of the provincial Governments. This proposal would provide tax credits for low and middle income families, maintain freedom of choice, and most important, increase the number of places available in daycare centres.
The debate is now open, but there is a very real fear, as my colleague for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) was telling me. There are popular daycare centres in his constituency and he told me that he met those responsible and that they need money for equipment and to meet educational requirements. They need funding to improve the premises and this is where the Canadian Government for three years has not been meeting that need. There are still other families in the constituency of Papineau, in the constituency of Montreal- Sainte-Marie or others, in Montreal districts. There is no room and no money, the province does not have enough money to open up another daycare centre in an expanding district where there is a need for some 60 child care places. Everyone is waiting unfortunately-everyone either believed erroneously or was misled by this Conservative Government-everyone is waiting for the famous policy.
The Government stated in a Throne Speech that family is important, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) told Members of Parliament they would have to discuss the implementation within the shortest timeframe of an effective child care policy, but some three years later nothing is forthcoming, so we are getting fed up. And today we learned the Minister of National Health and Welfare is still postponing a decision with provincial Governments on that issue. This is something I had not thought of. My colleague for Saint-Denis brings to my attention that this is because Tory Members refuse to accept a change in our society. This boils down to what I was saying at the beginning of my remarks. Reading the majority report by
Motions
Conservative Members, they referred to child care centres because they had to. But for them it would be better not to put a cent in that-left to themselves, they would not bother about it. They could not care less.
Thank God, 1 know Conservative Members are not all of that brand! it is therefore my hope that those who have a minimum of social conscience will wake up and speak to their Minister about social injustice in Canada, they will tell the Minister of National Health and Welfare: look, this has to move. It has to move urgently, because every day lost, every month lost, and we are now talking about every year lost may jeopardize mothers' career plans. Each time they delay increasing the number of child-care services to meet the needs, well every time, perhaps one single-parent mother in some area, whether Vancouver, the Atlantic Provinces, Ontario, Quebec, or my constituency, that person, because she cannot find child care, quits her job, loses one or two years, and after that everyone knows it is difficult to return to the labour market, to retrain.
This is why I think the situation is really urgent. 1 think that indeed in the Meech Lake negotiations there is a meeting with provincial Premiers. I suggest that the federal Government was wrong, for it should have been prepared to co-ordinate this action with the provincial Governments; in Quebec, Premier Robert Bourassa has already set up a daycare system to which he has announced improvements.
1 conclude, Madam Speaker. If the federal Government continues to make cuts in its equalization payments, Quebec will have to reduce its health services and will be unable to go ahead with its daycare scheme. The Quebec Minister of Finance, Mr. Gerard D. Levesque, had every reason to trust the Prime Minister. He should have listened to me; I could have told him right away to be very careful. He thought he was going to get money under the policy announced by the Prime Minister.
As you are signaling that 1 have already run out of time, Madam Speaker, I will conclude by saying that 1 wish the Conservative Members would exert pressure so that... It is absolutely necessary ... It is simple. In case there are Conservative Members here who do not know what to say to the Minister, they should simply tell him this: Take and implement the Liberal policy, and our children will be well taken care of, our women will pursue fine careers and everybody will be happy.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards).


Mr. Edwards:: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member. He is in favour of a so-called free-choice policy. 1 noticed a leftist tone in his speech. It is not surprising. He said a simple and distinct policy and perhaps-

August 27, 1987
Motions
[DOT]	(1150)

1 think what we have before us is a piece of social engineering that is an endorsation rather than free choice, put forward by the Liberal Party. Has the Hon. Member studied with any care not only the statements of the Minister on the matter but also the recommendations of the committee on child care?
We recognize the changing nature of the family unit. I do not think anyone denies that changing evolution in our society, and whether or not we judge it is immaterial because we have to recognize it as a reality. Does the Hon. Member recognize that the fundamental principle laid down by the committee on child care in its majority report, and as embraced by the Minister himself, permits maximum free choice?
For example, does the Hon. Member not acknowledge that the committee recommended replacing the child care expense deduction by a 30 per cent child care expense credit, increasing the ceiling for claims from $2,000 to $3,000? Did he not notice that this committee, with the majority of members from the government side, proposed to introduce a refundable child care tax credit for families with children under six years which are not eligible for the expense credit of $200 for the first child, $100 for the second child and $50 for each additional child?
Did the Hon. Member not endorse, or even notice, that there was a proposal to replace maternity benefits with parental benefits and to increase the benefit period from 15 weeks to 26 weeks on a gradual basis over the next five years? Does he not also acknowledge that there was a proposal to introduce an initiatives and research fund, that a new child care secretariat be established?
[DOT]	(1200)
Does he not acknowledge that the putting in place of these excellent recommendations will require much delicate and involved negotiation with the provinces and with all the experts in the field so that the end product will not only provide the maximum of free choice for Canadian parents and children, but also a system which responds in the ultimate to the requirements of various regions of this country? Thus it is truly humane, truly generous, yet one which the country can afford. I would appreciate the Hon. Member's response to those questions.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the Hon. Member's questions. First, on the matter of being somewhat to the left or calling for social measures, I do not feel at all ashamed to be somewhat to the left, to call for social measures, and I am proud Liberals established a social program and a universal health care system which benefits the people, a drug plan and pension plans. I am proud of that, and I will always fight Conservatives who want to de-index or cut those programs, as I think we have shown.
On the other hand, I am pleased with the enumerations concerning the report. That is part of the proposals put forward by the Liberal Party. Maybe he did not know it had been proposed by Liberals. But what he is forgetting, what is being ignored, the essential aspect in my view is that we are in agreement on freedom of choice. I agree with him that the NDP opposes freedom of choice, they oppose parents having a choice, they support dictature from the top, but where I disagree with Conservatives on the matter of freedom of choice is this: You have freedom of choice, but there is nothing to choose. What is lacking is the political will, the complete program, the funding-funds are needed to increase the number of people's child care networks. If funding is provided for the premises, the physical facilities, this will mean that in order to provide people with freedom of choice, there must be enough places in terms of the people's child care networks, if you want, that would be managed in the form of co-operatives, in terms of private networks, plus adequate tax credits. On that I think we are in agreement as to the tax credit formula for those who want to keep their children at home.
I will conclude by repeating that I disagree with the Hon. Member mostly because the recommendations do not provide sufficient funds to increase the number of places. What the Government deserves to be blamed for however-and I invite the Hon. Member to blame his Minister and Prime Minister at his earliest convenience-is the slow pace of negotiations. When an elected government, a majority government, a government that is in charge wants things done, it wastes no time in tabling a plan before the provincial governments and telling them that, on the basis of consultations across the country, Canadians want child care services. When the time came to negotiate unemployment insurance or medicare, there was a Liberal Government in power capable of leadership. There were some who opposed those measures, some New Democrats who wanted to go further to the extreme left, some Conservatives who pulled to the right, but someone showed leadership and took the common sense, middle-of-the-road position, the one the people wanted.
So we sit down at the table, we discuss with the provinces and we come to an agreement, as the Liberals managed to do. But nothing is moving right now, they are just going through the motions and the Government has yet to show unmistakable, clear and definite resolve. Had there been any kind of resolve at the bargaining table, the Prime Minister of Canada would have stated: Here is what we have in mind for the people of Canada in terms of daycare. This is negotiable, but that is not negotiable. The best example I can give you relates to the tax reform. Everybody is in favour of tax reform. You people are saying: There is an option, maybe we will tax bread, milk and butter, but we are not quite sure yet. We Liberals say: We support the tax reform, but there can be no question of taxing bread, milk and butter, no way. That is clear. That is leadership, and that is what is lacking on the Conservative benches.
August 27, 1987


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I am very interested to hear the Hon. Member recommending to the Conservatives that they use the Liberal pamphlet for a program for child care. It does not seem to me that the Liberal proposal is very much different from the special committee report, except that it is much more confused; it is very confused indeed. I would just like to give a few examples, as I recall them. I do not have the pamphlet before me.
The Liberals talk about wanting to have a national child care program. Yet, like the Conservatives, they want to put most of the money into taxes. We know that if most of the money goes into taxes, there will be no money for developing a very sound quality child care system across this country. The Liberals also want federal dollars to go for profit-making child care. They want it to go for commercial child care. All the groups that know about child care programs have said this would be a very unsound expenditure.
The Liberals are also confused about what provincial jurisdictions are. They want the federal Government to impose standards. The Province of Quebec, I am sure, would be the first to object to that. That is not the role of the federal Government. The federal Government should have a policy and a national objective. The provinces should develop standards.
The Liberals want to have a new Crown corporation. I cannot understand what on earth that is all about. They want to fund through a Canada assistance plan and keep daycare a welfare service rather than making it available to families regardless of income. I would like the Hon. Member to talk about this and to explain what the difference is between his Party's policy and the Conservative's policy, except that it is much more confused.
Again, I would like to challenge the Hon. Member. Since he does not have any real positives on his side, all he can do is attack the New Democratic Party. I fully documented that we are for very flexible, comprehensive child care programs that give considerable choice, and which are developed by parents and communities according to their own needs. To say that the NDP is against free choice is a lot of baloney.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the Hon. Member.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Indeed the time allotted for questions and comments has expired. Still I will give the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) one minute to conclude his remarks.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Madam Speaker, in view of the lapse of time since then, I can understand that my colleague may not recall what I have said at the time. If she reads Hansard, she will find out that she has misunderstood the Liberal position. I can give her a document which explains our position quite clearly.
Motions
Contrary to what she has said, we want to finance the agencies directly so that they can improve their equipment. We trust the parents. I am not blaming the NDP Member for not having confidence in the parents, but she would rather trust the institution. This is what the NDP would rather do. However, we in the Liberal Party believe that it is up to the parents to choose. The money should go to the daycare centres, but I believe that the NDP Member ... I would be willing to go to her constituency and find out for myself, but the population will never accept that the parents be told where they must place their children.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak to the motion before the House, that is the follow-up of the child care report. There are a few things I would like to review.
As the committee put together its report, it was careful to draw to the people's attention that we are very keenly aware of provincial and territorial jurisdiction with respect to families and children, and of the provisions and regulations of child care services. As the people of Canada know, as our Confederation was put forward, questions of health and education come under provincial jurisdiction and it is the federal Government's role to assist in financing where it can.
The Minister and Cabinet are deliberating to put together our response to this matter. This means that the Minister has to work with his counterparts in each of the provinces and territories. For this reason it will take a little longer in terms of putting a reply together.
Our friends in the NDP would have us believe that it is very simple to put together new policies. But when we are dealing with a matter involving something as important as children we must ensure that we are careful. We also must make sure that our policies will assist parents, since the responsibility of bringing up children in Canada is the responsibility of parents-it is not a responsibility of the Government. The Government is an extension of the people of Canada. But what should be done with children is the responsibility of the parents themselves.
As we travelled across the country we did not find a consensus as to how a solution should be brought about. People did suggest that they wanted to be able to have a say as to what will happen with their children. Our Liberal counterpart was quite right in pointing out that the New Democrats said that the Government should be doing these things and that the Government is the one that knows best. We know that the Government would not do a very good job of bringing up children, if that was left entirely up to it. Thus the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) does a disservice to the House and to the people of Canada, particularly those who have put together child care in their homes and who have made it their career. The Hon. Member does those folks a

August 27, 1987
Motions
disservice to say that they are inferior to the non-profit organizations.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Read your own research.


Ross Belsher: There was no evidence to show us that their care was inferior to that of the care given by non-profit organizations.
I would like to review some of the recommendations that are in the report. I will give some reasons why the recommendations were phrased and put forward in the way that they were.
One of the main recommendations is to replace the child care expense deduction with a 30 per cent child care expense credit and to increase the ceiling with respect to claims from $2,000 to $3,000. This will assist people who are able to make these claims and who have receipts for the care that they have obtained for their children. An expense deduction allows equal treatment for all people. It does away with having a greater influence for one person as opposed to another.
In replacing the maternity benefits with parental benefits we have recommended that the benefit period be extended from the present 15 weeks to 26 weeks but that this be done on an ongoing basis. It would take several years for it to accrue to that. We realize that businesses have to adapt to this over a period of time. Whenever we talk about operating grants or giving grants these would go to licensed child care givers. The reason we say licensed child care, as has been pointed out this morning, is that licensing is a responsibility of the provinces and the territories. We did not specify that it had to be to nonprofit organizations. That is something the provinces could do themselves, or they could choose not to do it.
Nevertheless, as we went across the country we discovered that in several provinces more than 50 per cent of the child care that was already in place in those provinces was given in private centres and not furnished by non-profit centres.
The informal child care used by a great many parents where one of the homemakers is working part-time is something that is used extensively across Canada. At the moment much of that care is not part of the licensed system. However, we recommend that where people want to avail themselves of the various programs which fall under the jurisdiction of the provinces or the federal Government that licensing is essential.
In putting together our recommendations we wanted to make sure that the federal Government was cognizant of the needs of the children of Canada and, also, that we shared in the responsibility of supporting the roles of the parents. We wanted to ensure that we did not usurp the role of the provincial and territorial Governments in terms of their taxing and spending powers. Therefore we recommended that the existing child care expense deduction be replaced by a child care expense credit of up to 30 per cent.
For parents who choose to stay at home and who, 1 should add, have never asked for any help from the Government, we recommend that an alternative refundable child tax credit in
the amount of $200 for the first child, $100 for the second child and $50 for each subsequent child be introduced for families with children up to five years of age. This is to provide financial recognition to families in which one spouse remains at home to care for the children.
These two items alone would cost the federal Government over $400 million per year, but is directed to parents who are taking on the responsibility of looking after their own families, those who are not looking to the Government to provide services for them.
Another principle established by our committee is that we should continue to share the cost of child care regardless of the care style chosen by the family. Once again, it must be recognized that families are the primary care-givers. After all, it is the family which knows how the needs of its children can best be met.
Another principle we encouraged is the development of flexible child care options. Again, this is to give parents a choice.
In order to improve the quality of child care we recommended that a new secretariat be established within Health and Welfare Canada to administer the family and child care legislation and to monitor the implementation of the Government's response to our recommendations and to work with the public in private and non-profit sectors to encourage initiatives in the field of child care.
Throughout our tour across Canada people came forward from many different stations of life. Above all, what they said was, "Please, do not recommend a universal fully-funded daycare system for all the country". They expressed the feeling that this would be detrimental to the welfare of our country. This recommendation is made so that the flexibility of how parents care for their children not be usurped by the Government placing tremendous amounts of money into that sort of a system.
The Cooke task force report was brought in last spring. It recommended a very elaborate system which would cost the federal Treasury up to $11 billion a year when fully implemented. Our New Democrat friends state that their recommendations were not costly. But they would lead to real cost. As we wait for the response of the Minister and the Government on how they will deal with this, working in conjunction with all of the provinces, and making sure that we respect the roles of the provinces and the territories, we can rest assured that all these considerations will be taken into account.
I applaud the Minister for not rushing in, giving a quick, snappy response on something that is so vital to the country.


Mr. Taylor:: I wish to compliment the Hon. Member who just spoke on his excellent address. In my view, he was speaking for the majority of people in Canada.
August 27, 1987

I believe that the best care a child can receive is from the mother and the father in the home. If that is impossible, then I have no objection to using public money to look after the children of those who have to go out to work and who cannot afford to do anything else. That is a logical, proper use of public money. I have no sympathy at all for the idea of providing child care for the rich at public expense. Those people can well afford to look after their own children. We are not giving half enough attention to the mothers and fathers who stay at home and look after their own children.
I wish to ask the Hon. Member to comment on the consideration given by the committee to the mothers who stay at home, look after their children, and in so doing provide a tremendous service to this nation.


Ross Belsher: 1 thank the Hon. Member for his pertinent question. We recommended that approximately half of the money go toward the people who are caring for their own children. One of the main parts of our recommendation was $200 for the first child, $100 for the second child, and $50 for the third child. That sum goes to anyone who does not claim the other deductions, the people who are caring for their own children. We estimated that that could cost the Treasury up to $400 million.
The Hon. Member points out a very important part of the recommendations, something that people across the country exhorted us to do, that is, if at all possible, to assist those who wish to care for their own children.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I have two questions, Madam Speaker, but first I wish to comment on the last point of the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). The Hon. Member objected to child care for the rich. Does the Hon. Member realize that the child credit of $200 per year for the first child, and $100 for the second will go to the rich? This recommendation will cost millions and millions of dollars. It will go to the bank manager's wife; it is a universal recommendation. That seems to me to be contrary to the usual Conservative philosophy. It goes to all parents regardless of income. It costs $400 million, which is a great deal of money. We say that it is nice for all families to have an extra $200 a year, but perhaps a better way to do this would be by reindexing the family allowance.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I will have no chance to answer what the Hon. Member has stated. The Hon. Member should be directing her questions to the Member who spoke, and not making comments on questions that other people have asked.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Perhaps the original speaker would like to comment on that point.
The question that I wish to ask the original speaker goes back to my comments about where we presently are with child care. I know the Hon. Member is extremely sincere and concerned, as we all were on that committee, that there be some movement forward, and that the federal Government
Motions
which has made such a strong commitment through the Prime Minister take a major leadership role.
Does the Hon. Member feel that there should be national objectives spelled out? If so, has he talked to the Minister about this? What does he think should be in those national objectives which, under the new Accord, will be essential for funding a national social program?
Does the Hon. Member feel that there should be a child care act? What is he doing with the Minister in attempting to have some action in order that this can be tabled in the House and we can debate it? That would still give time to work out the details with the provinces.


Ross Belsher: The two main points are whether or not the federal Government should go ahead and act on its own, and not worry about what it can work out with the provinces. I feel that it is better for the federal Government to work out, in concert with the provinces, what will happen in child care, rather than saying to the provinces, "Here it is, take it or leave it". A consensus on what can be done by the provinces and the federal Government collectively will be a far better method.
The Hon. Member asked whether I feel that there should be a child care act. Yes, I feel that eventually there should be. We should be adding to what is in place with regard to the CAP system, that part of it which is now under the Department of National Health and Welfare that does not have any ceiling in the way that it can be used. Every province has access to it. Every province can bill the federal Government for the 50 per cent share that it has expended on child care. That is already in place and those parts can be built on.
In the provinces I would also like to see a phasing out of the "all or nothing" situation that exists when a person is using the CAP system. In that manner, if a person has a job which is at the lower wage scale, that person does not lose all of the ability to claim for child care expenses, and possibly will lose only a portion.
Presently, care-givers, and particularly parents from singleparent homes, must choose whether it will pay them to take a job and lose the child care expense credit that they are able to claim. We have had many cases where people came forward and clearly demonstrated to us the hardship they suffered by having to make that type of choice. I would like to see greater flexibility in the use of that system.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young).


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: At the outset I wish to express my appreciation to the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) for giving the House an opportunity to discuss this extremely important matter by placing the motion before the House. Of course, from our point of view it would have been far more productive to be debating proposals put forward by the Minister, which we expected to be doing much earlier than

August 27, 1987
Motions
this, rather than the motion of the Hon. Member for Vancouver East which she felt she had to put on the floor to get this discussion going.
The Hon. Member for Vancouver East was a member of the Special Committee on Child Care, and she has been raising the issue in the House and requesting the Government to respond to that report in a concrete and positive manner. The last time the Hon. Member raised the matter in the House was on August 12 of this year. Again she was calling on the Government to bring forward a national strategy on child care, and at the very minimum to advise the House what that strategy was likely to be.
The Minister, unfortunately, has still not responded to that, except by a letter provided to the chairperson of the Special Committee on Child Care, which is really not a response at all, Madam Speaker. It could probably be described as a political letter in which the Minister says absolutely nothing that would bring a national strategy on child care any closer to reality than it has been since the International Year of the Child, which I believe was in 1979. Not only this Government's response but the previous Liberal Government's response to that report are shocking, to say the least, because not one Government since that report was tabled in the House of Commons has given it adequate attention.
1 am sure you and people listening to this debate, Madam Speaker, will be interested in hearing what the Government's response has been to date, notably in this letter forwarded by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to the chairperson of the Special Committee on Child Care. It starts, "Dear Shirley". I will skip the first part, the niceties, and get into the meat, if you can call it that. It reads:
At the time of the tabling of the Report, the Government indicated its appreciation for the work of the Special Committee. Having had an opportunity to study the Report carefully, I would like now to reiterate this support for the Committee's contribution to the consideration and development of a child care policy in Canada. As a result of this work, I believe many Canadians and the government have a better understanding of the key issues and concerns in child care as well as possible avenues for reform. Moreover, the Committee's Report and research have assisted us greatly in the development of the government's National Strategy on Child Care.
At the present time, this National Strategy is undergoing extensive Cabinet consideration and is intended to be finalized for announcement soon.
This Strategy will reflect a number of the recommendations of the Special Committee. It will also reflect the views of our provincial-territorial counterparts, as expressed in an intensive round of bilateral consultations with the provinces which occurred earlier this year. The Strategy will be subject to further negotiations with the provinces and territories. I am, therefore, not at liberty to reveal the details of the National Strategy on Child Care at this time. However, a comprehensive announcement, which I assure you will respond to many of the recommendations of the Special Committee, is expected early in the fall.
In closing, 1 would like to confirm for the House and for all Canadians that this government is strongly committed to the economic equality of women and families, and to establishing a comprehensive, quality child care program for our children.
Yours sincerely,
The letter is signed by Jake Epp.
When I read that letter it reminded me of the television program "Yes, Minister" which has a top bureaucrat who is a master at putting forward that kind of gobbledegook in order to confuse not only the issue but anyone who wants to have some kind of a response from the Government. I do not know whether that chap is presently working for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but if he does not, he sure has some kind of a clone working in that Department because the letter says absolutely nothing. It sounds good, but it says absolutely nothing. It certainly does not indicate that the Government is prepared to move on bringing forward a national strategy on child care.
In The Globe and Mail this morning, Madam Speaker, there is an article under the heading, "A new delay by Ottawa on child care irks provinces". The Minister is talking in that letter about carrying on extensive negotiations with the provinces. When I read this newspaper report, I was left with an impression that no one has told the provinces. Let me give you a few quotes from the article:
Muriel Smith, Minister of Community Services in Manitoba, has replied to
Mr. Epp's telex-
Which I assume was similar to this letter.
-with one of her own stressing the urgent need for child care in Manitoba
and calling on the federal Government to give priority to the day care issue.
"I think there must be a great debate going on in the federal Cabinet," Ms.
Smith said yesterday.
Ms. Smith said she is concerned that further delay is feeding "great
apprehension that we are not going to get a sound program."
The article goes on to express some concern by the Ontario Minister of Community and Social Services who has recognized, although he has done absolutely nothing about it either, that there is a great need for child care services in this country.
I have to say to you that while the Government seems to be giving token support to a national child care strategy, Madam Speaker, we do not see too many concrete results coming out of these nice statements the Government is prone to giving us.
The challenge facing the Special Committee on Child Care was to respond to the obviously urgent need of Canadian families for reliable care for our children. The recommendations of the government majority simply do not respond to the concern in the majority report that was tabled in the House of Commons. In fact, I think it is indicative of the work of that committee that there was controversy during the committee hearings considering its final recommendations to the House. There is absolutely no question, based on letters that I saw from the research staff-one of them resigned from the committee in protest-about the process being applied in that witnesses who came before the committee were not having their concerns addressed by the majority. In fact, most of the witnesses, if not all of them-I believe about 90 per cent who appeared before the committee-argued strongly in opposition to what the majority on that committee recommended. They did not feel that the recommendations being put forward by
August 27, 1987

the majority reflected what the witnesses had been saying about what was required in a national daycare program, or would, if implemented, adequately provide the kinds of programs which they felt were not only needed but in great demand.
The Conservative majority has given priority to subsidies through the tax system and is proposing that this be in the area of some $400 million. All of us who have studied the report have found that the high quality child care services, which are much needed in Canada, will simply not come about.
I listened with great care to some of the questions being asked of previous speakers by members on the government side who hang their hats, as they like to put it, on giving parents free choice on the kind of child care services they want for their children. At the present time, most families do not have a choice; the choice is not there. There are literally several million kids in Canada who need daycare and who cannot have it because the space is simply not available.
The report of the Government's majority does not address that. It does not address the numbers of families who are at the low income end of the scale who simply cannot wait 12 months before they receive some kind of assistance from the Government under the tax proposals made by the majority on this committee. It is extremely difficult to live from day to day on say $10,000, $12,000, $15,000 a year. We should not ask families in that position to expend money on child care that would otherwise be used to feed the kids, put clothes on their backs and provide shelter. Some cannot do even that on that kind of income. They must spend additional money for child care in order to be allowed to participate in the workforce. Then they have to wait 12 months or even longer to get that money back. Actually, by the time they have filed their income tax returns and then waited for the Government to send the money back, we are talking probably a year and a half before they would receive any rebate from the Government under the majority recommendations of the committee. I think that is a totally unrealistic response.
It sounds good when the Government says it wants to give Canadian families a choice on the kind of daycare they want for their children. So do members of the New Democratic Party, but we want good child care and we propose to provide that good child care in a much better way than that proposed by the majority.
1 listened with great care to what my good friend from the Liberal Party had to say. What did he say? Lie said they did not have a policy so they took little pieces from the NDP policy, they took little pieces from what the majority on the government side announced as policy and put it all together to make the Liberal policy. What kind of policy is that? They say, "If you want this, we will give you that; if you want a little bit of this, we will give you a little bit of that", but they do not have a clear stance.
Motions
I have yet to hear what Liberal Members think about this issue. All they can talk about is what we or what members of the Conservative Party have proposed. I have yet to hear what specific proposals the Liberals would put forward and I would like to hear that at some point in this exchange.
There is another matter at issue which falls outside of the usual notion of child care. The debate on this has been around for some little time, but it is now becoming more and more obvious that child care must mean a little more than what we usually think of as child care. I am dealing here with parental leave.
There was an issue raised in Toronto about a fellow whose wife had a child and was confined to hospital for some period of time because it was a difficult birth. This couple has other children and the husband was required to stay at home to look after them. Of course, since his own employer did not have a plan to provide him with an income during this difficult period in his life, he looked to the Unemployment Insurance Plan to see if he could receive any kind of income while he was in this difficult position. The Unemployment Insurance Commission told him that he could not. That to me seems to indicate a certain weakness in the Unemployment Insurance Act. If the Government is serious about the importance of the family in Canadian society, surely it has an obligation to enable parents to ensure that their family plays an important role in society.
One of the proposals put forward by the Hon. Member for Vancouver East in her minority report entitled "Caring for Canada's Children, A Special Report on the Crisis in Child Care", was the specific recommendation that beginning in 1987, the 15-week benefit period available to natural mothers be extended to 17 weeks, by dropping the two-week waiting period, and that the level of benefits be increased to 66 2/3 per cent of salary up to the maximum insurable earnings. She went further and recommended that, beginning in 1988, the benefit period be extended to 26 weeks, that either parent be eligible for this additional nine-week parental leave and that the level of benefits be increased to 75 per cent of salary up to maximum insurable earnings.
The Hon. Member made that recommendation because of strong representations that were made to the committee, not only for parental leave for natural parents but also for those parents who adopt children. When a family decides to accept the social responsibility of entering into an adoption process to give a child a decent home and the love that only parents can give a child, surely to goodness that contribution to society should also be recognized. It is not a drain on the taxpayers' money or on the public treasury.
As all Hon. Members know, individuals and their employers contribute to the Unemployment Insurance Lund. People pay for that kind of insurance. They buy it, if you will, and when they need it, surely to goodness the Government should get rid of its ideological blinkers and do something to help meet this need that is not being filled under present arrangements. We are suggesting that that help could best be provided through

August 27, 1987
Motions
the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and that is not an unreasonable suggestion.
Societal attitudes change over the years based on the needs of society. While it may be a new concept to provide this help,
I do not think it should be a particularly difficult one to come to grips with. I think it is perfectly reasonable.
1 would like to express my appreciation which I am sure is shared by Members on all sides of the House for the opportunity the Hon. Member for Vancouver East has given us to explore, discuss and debate the various ideas surrounding the need for a national child care strategy. I see that I have a minute or so left, but I know that the chairperson of the Special Committee on Child Care wishes to say a few words to the House. I think I will end my remarks to give her an opportunity to do so. I look forward to hearing what she has to say.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I will make my question very brief because 1 too would like to give the chairperson an opportunity to speak. 1 would like to ask the Hon. Member who is from the Province of Ontario what his views are on the proposals of the Liberal Party, both provincially and federally, that child care should be paid for primarily through the Canada Assistance Plan in view of the fact that this plan is really a welfare program for low-income earners.


Neil Young: Madam Speaker, I personally think that providing funding under the Canada Assistance Plan would be the wrong direction to take. If we believe in the institution of the family, then we have to recognize that all of us collectively have a responsibility toward the family to lend what assistance we can.
My fear would be that if we were to provide money under the Canada Assistance Plan, we would stigmatize child care as something that could only be supported through the welfare system. I think that would be the wrong thing to do, not only because of the difficulties in finding adequate funding, but also because of the attitude that that would foster toward child care.


Mr. Halliday:: Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young). He and I worked together for many years on other committees and 1 have a great deal of respect for him and the reasonable approach he takes to most subjects.
I recently received a proposal from a rural constituent who did a study in the County of Oxford and three neighbouring counties on the needs of rural children. It is a very interesting proposal and I want to get the Hon. Member's comment.
It is proposed that to serve rural children, who are often neglected, there be a licensed, non-profit, private home care agency established. It received some initial funding from COMSOC in Ontario. It was also proposed that once the agency has become incorporated, funds would be solicited
through local service clubs, churches, agricultural groups, local businesses, and through the newspapers. Fund-raising activities would also be conducted.
Would the Hon. Member's Party agree there is room for funding from those sources in the community, bearing in mind the strong feeling the NDP has for the importance of the family and the community? Or, does he feel they should depend on funding from Governments alone?


Neil Young: Madam Speaker, what the Hon. Member has said is indicative of the problem we have in day care. I had an opportunity several years ago to meet with some people in the farming community in Bruce-Grey. Child care was very much a part of the farmers' concerns. It was quite enlightening because I always considered child care to be an urban rather than a rural problem. Yet when you think about it, child care for the farming community is crucial. Many farm wives are deeply involved in running the farm.
While I think it is regrettable that this has to be done, I can appreciate the initiative of those people to fill an obvious need. I know where the Hon. Member is coming from because he and I have had lots of discussions on funding of various programs over the years, but I do not know how else to answer the question. I would hope in order to provide real assistance to that kind of group, with a national daycare strategy in place, perhaps some kind of community funding program could be encouraged. 1 think the Hon. Member for Vancouver East proposed that in her minority report.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Further questions or comments? Resuming debate.


Mrs. Shirley Martin (Lincoln):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate even though only six minutes remain before we adjourn. There are many things I would like to say about what this Government is doing, but I would rather take the time to speak to some of the comments made by members of the opposition Parties regarding what we have not done. I think it is important that these statements be corrected because they leave a false impression.
First, this Government has acted. Our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that child care was of great concern to our Government and action would be taken. The first parliamentary committee ever formed to study this issue was undertaken by an all Party committee. The committee sat longer than expected because of the number of people across the country who wanted to be heard. Even before we tabled our report on March 30 the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) had started to work with the provinces. His department and the provincial departments across the country started working towards a comprehensive approach to the needs of our children.
The comment was made that it should be on the table now. My colleague from Fraser Valley East (Mr. Belsher) talked about working with the provinces. I think the time spent working with our provincial counterparts and arriving at rules,
August 27, 1987

standards and objectives, will mean that when the response is tabled a lot of the work will have been done. It can then be implemented far more quickly than would be the case if we took a broad brush approach without the required detail.
My friend from Vancouver East said that by leaving it in the hands of the provinces we will have the lowest minimum standards rather than the highest possible. That comment is very unfair to the provinces and the people in those provinces who have worked towards providing child care. Certainly there is a need for improvement in the standards, but saying that the lowest minimum would be put in place if we left it in the hands of the provinces is being unfair. This is a big country, but in the last three years we have brought it together with a good understanding between the provinces. The Meech Lake Accord is a perfect example of that. What other Government has been able to bring the 10 Premiers together and arrive at a consensus on a very important issue?
As well, the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) talked about the fact that our recommendations did nothing to help people who had to pay for child care and then wait to get the tax refund at the end of the year. He talked about very low-income families and how they could not find the money to pay for child care. Had he looked into the report he would have found that low-income families do not have to wait because child care is paid for either totally or partially. A family in Ontario can earn between $18,000 and $27,000 a year and have child care paid for. A family in the Province of Manitoba can earn up to $19,000 a year and have child care paid for under the Canada Assistance Plan. That method is in place and low-income families have the child care paid for and do not have to wait for their tax refund. In addition, the committee recommended that CAP should be used more to help low-income single parent and two working parent families. Working parents who pay for their own child care receive tax benefits. For example, a family earning $40,000 a year paying for child care receives $544 in tax benefits. Under the committee's proposal, changing the current tax deduction to a tax credit, that same family would get $900.
There are recommendations for low and middle-income families, and recommendations to recognize those who by choice and by sacrifice decide to stay home and look after their own children because they believe they are the best people to bring up their child, to instil values. All parents in Canada deserve and are entitled to that right and the Conservative Government will make sure that that right is recognized and protected.
Another suggestion by the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) is that we failed to sensitize the public to the problems of child care. We held hearings in 31 cities, heard over 1,200 witnesses orally with an additional 800 written responses. We had newspaper coverage from coast to
coast, in every province and territory. Those stories told the people of Canada what the problems were and what was being done. We have sensitized the people to the problem.
I might say as well that there has been a proposal from the Orient to start six new child care centres in British Columbia. The cover on their proposal is the cover from Sharing the Responsibility. That is where they got the idea and that is why they are coming to Canada to set up daycare centres.
I see it is one o'clock, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the time.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until 2 o'clock this day.
At 1.00 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, as you know, tropical rain forests cover approximately one-sixth of the earth's surface and are home for 50 per cent of all existing plant and animal species. One billion people depend on the rain forest ecology for their food, water and livelihood. Tropical rain forests provide one-third of the world's oxygen and trap one-half of the world's rainfall.
The rain forests are being logged and cleared at an alarming rate. Their destruction causes flooding, droughts and extensive soil erosion in tropical countries. In addition, their loss may affect global rainfall and contribute to the greenhouse effect. Scientists do not know how much longer we can continue to clear the rain forests before the effects are serious, global and irreversible.
During International Rain Forest Week, September 7 to 13, the Government of Canada should press the Canadian International Development Agency, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to promote and adopt policies which will protect tropical rain forests for the well-being of present and future generations.

August 27, 1987
[Translation)



ROLE OF UNIONS

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow a major event in the history of our labour unions will be celebrated in Jonquiere. All workers at the Jonquiere Alcan plant will pay special tribute to their founding President, Mr. Joseph Edmond Tremblay, who 50 years ago obtained the first union accreditation in the aluminum industry for employees at the Alcan plant in Arvida. This historic event has marked and shaped the economy and labour relations in our region.
These men, these pioneers joined forces in 1937 to improve working conditions and defend their interests. There have been some difficult times for workers and their families over the years. There were the strikes in 1957, 1976 and 1979. Whether the goal was wage increases, improved job security or better working conditions, over the years the unions have had a role to play and indeed have become major intervenors in our social and economic life. One may be for or against the unions, but they have become part and parcel of our economy and of Canadian society.
I want to pay tribute to these men and women at the Jonquiere plant who defended the interests of their co-workers and fought to improve their working conditions.



ECONOMIC COUNCIL OF CANADA


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a very serious objection to make with regard to the politicization of the Economic Council of Canada by the Prime Minister's office. We certainly remember the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) telling the House on Wednesday that "the report of the Economic Council of Canada indicates that a free trade agreement with the U.S. would produce 350,000 new jobs in Canada". Yet a look at this report shows that it is not an Economic Council report but a discussion paper prepared for the Council by three staff members.
Further, an inside page of this study contains the following disclaimer: "The findings of this study are the personal responsibility of the authors and, as such, have not been endorsed by the members of the Economic Council of Canada". The Chairman of the Economic Council made the same point clear in her statement.
Clearly this support for free trade is not yet the Council's position which I understand is in preparation and is far more balanced than this particular study. Yet the Prime Minister
went on to talk about "the impartiality and professionalism of the Council over the decades".
I suggest to him that if the Council is so easily manipulated in the face of the Government's free trade crusade, its impartiality is suspect and the organization may well have outlived its usefulness.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask Hon. Members to remember that there is a 60-second limit on statements.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Walter Van  de Walle@Pembina: Mr. Speaker, the rail strike is crippling the nation's economy. A prolonged strike will result in many businesses having to close their doors causing unemployment. The strikers are placing their own future in jeopardy as well as threatening the jobs of thousands and thousands of fellow workers in factories, mines, mills, manufacturing and processing plants, and shops. Daily tens of thousands of commuters are affected.
Seventy per cent of the railways' volume is in the handling of bulk commodities such as minerals, lumber and grains in western Canada. Think of the adverse impact the strike is having on the mining, forestry, and agricultural industries.
Farmers are having enough problems without having a rail strike. The Port of Prince Rupert is virtually out of grain. There is a heavy movement of grain scheduled for the West Coast. Canada stands to lose her reputation as a reliable supplier.
I commend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) for his unceasing efforts to keep the trains rolling. Workers, businesspeople and farmers in the Pembina constituency do not take kindly to strikes. The decisive action of the Government to introduce back-to-work legislation is timely and appropriate. Let us keep the Canadian economy rolling.



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the shipbuilding industry in Nova Scotia is crumbling before our eyes. In July of 1984 the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised to support the shipyard industry in Halifax, Nova Scotia.
August 27, 1987

Well, he got those votes because the people of Nova Scotia delivered.
Now, three years later, the Prime Minister has yet to deliver on his promises to support the industry. What's new?
The fact of the matter is that over 1,000 people are out of work and the shipbuilding industry is going down the drain because three years ago the shipbuilders put their trust in the Prime Minister and got duped. To add insult to injury, the Prime Minister sent the weak and meek Member of Parliament from Halifax in the spring to announce refitting programs which would begin in November, 1987. Now it has been changed to November, 1988.
On the other hand the Prime Minister has taken care of shipworkers in Quebec by pumping $750 million into their shipbuilding industry since 1984. Does the Prime Minister not realize that for his own questionable credibility-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired.


David Charles Dingwall: -he should deliver on this promise?

[ Translation]



PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY


Ms. Carole Jacques (Montreal-Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, I just cannot understand the negative attitude of the Liberal Senators which goes against the economic development of Quebec in the pharmaceutical industry. Are they not concerned with investments in scientific research? We are talking here of over $1.4 billion for Canada and $600 million for Quebec, which would result in the creation of 1,500 jobs in the Montreal area.
Mr. Speaker, I join with my Government, the Quebec Government, the City of Montreal, as well as our universities, Chambers of Commerce and the Canadian people whom we represent to indicate that we definitely support Bill C-22. As elected representatives, we are not going to let ourselves be intimidated by the Senators and this arrogant Senate with excessive power which the people have not elected.
On behalf of the Canadian youth, therefore, I urge Liberal Senators and my colleagues in the House to support Bill C-22.



SMALL BUSINESS


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, native groups, organizations and communities across Canada are struggling to achieve economic self-sufficiency and cultural self-reliance. Integral players in this process include native firms and native organizations embarking on new business ventures with the support of agencies, including the Federal Business Development Bank, Employment Canada, and the Native Economic Development Program.
The Native Economic Development Program ought to be providing not only financial support but also taking a leadership role in encouraging new native economic enterprises.
However, many proposals under the NEDP have been held up in the approval system, with bureaucrats contradicting each other as to whether or not funds for native projects are available or whether those funds are frozen.
The Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Valcourt), who is responsible for NEDP, has indicated there is no freeze. I call upon him now to show leadership and unplug the log-jam of proposals by taking special measures to move the various native business proposals into becoming business realities. Native people are anxious to get on with doing business.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, the current strike by workers of the Associated Railway Unions is already having a detrimental effect on our economy.
In British Columbia, container traffic that we worked so hard to get going in the Port of Vancouver may be lost to the Port of Seattle and this time it might be even more difficult to recover. Train loads of bulk commodities such as sulphur, coal and potash are being held by shippers or at railway terminals.
Coal mines which are operating on close margins may have to shut down and lay off staff. These are but a few examples.
The main issue of contention seems to be the unions' demand for further lay-off protection. Already those who have worked eight years or more are protected against lay-offs resulting from technological, operational and organizational changes. I tend to agree with railway officials who say that further protection would be economic suicide.
Railway companies that are able to make a profit are better guarantees of jobs than a few words on a piece of paper. Let us get the trains moving again.



[Stage Direction]
August 27, 1987

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, it is just that kind of speech made by the Hon. Member who preceded me that would give railway workers anxiety about what the Government has in mind through its present back-to-work legislation.
Railway workers and this Parliament are being asked to accept a pig in a poke. We are being asked to accept the idea that everything be consigned to compulsory arbitration when we do not know who will be the arbitrator.
The Government has abdicated any leadership when it comes to social and economic justice. It has set no guidelines, no minimums, no guarantees, and no instructions regarding the process. The Government has certainly indicated that very low on its list are the concerns the workers have expressed over the course of these negotiations, so I think we can expect that this back-to-work legislation will come in for a great deal of criticism.



PUBLISHING


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, very soon will start in Quebec the so-called International Francophonie Summit. I would like to remind Hon. Members in this House that at the bi-annual Convention of French-speaking Parliamentarians held in Marrakech, it was proposed that at the coming Summit, where all Frenchspeaking nations in the world will be present, the agenda include the establishment of co-publishing mechanisms to enable French-speaking publishers from every country to obtain funding and to distribute and circulate books in every country, including France.
Moreover, Quebec proposed at the AIPLF's General Assembly in 1984 that the establishment of an International Francophone Fund for books and school, scientific and technical textbooks be discussed at that second Summit.
Mr. Speaker, it is my hope the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), to whom a copy of the resolution was made available on the occasion of that bi-annual convention, will act as a spokesman for all the people who attended that meeting.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, this morning our Government tabled legislation which, when passed, will end the railway strike which has paralyzed our country. I applaud the Government for its action. The people of Canada want a settlement to this problem and they want it soon.
The cost of this strike is enormous. In my constituency of Sarnia-Lambton, the petrochemical centre of eastern Canada, the losses are staggering. Two companies, Dow Chemical Canada and Polysar Limited, with Canadian head offices in Sarnia-Lambton, have informed me that, combined, their losses are well over a half a million dollars a day. Even more upsetting is the inability of Polysar and Dow to ship product which is causing critical problems for their employees and customers.
This strike could not come at a worse time. The petrochemical industry has just begun to recover after a period of severe downsizing and rationalizing. This situation presents another major setback to this industry which can be an engine of growth to Sarnia-Lambton and Canada. All the employers and employees of Sarnia-Lambton implore the opposition Parties to co-operate with the Government in enacting this legislation for a quick resolution of this very troublesome problem.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the people of the Tsawout Indian Band at Saanich-ton, British Columbia, on Vancouver Island, signed a treaty with Governor James Douglas over 100 years ago. In that treaty the band gave up certain of their rights in exchange for a promise they would have certain rights in perpetuity, including the right to fish.
The bay that fronts their village is now the site for a proposed marina which will devastate their traditional harvest of seafood. The band has applied to the Government for funds to fight against this proposed marina.
The funds the Government has given to the Tsawout Indian Band are miniscule. They do not begin to cover the court costs these people are facing. If the Government believes in the sanctity of treaties which were signed many years ago, it has a moral obligation to provide adequate funds so that the people
August 27, 1987

of the Saanichton area can continue to preserve their historic heritage.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, if the freedom of the press is limited or restrained, so is the liberty of the people who are denied some of the news. Behind the Iron Curtain the Communist Government controls the press and so the liberty of the people is likewise reduced. Here in Canada some media are themselves limiting the freedom of the press by editorializing the news or leaving it out altogether.
We saw an excellent example of this on Parliament Hill this week. Hundreds of Canadians marched and sang, carrying a multitude of placards, for the purpose of telling the people of Canada and the legislators that they supported Bill C-22. But CBC limited the freedom of the press by ignoring the story and thus reduced the liberty, the right to know what was happening, of the people of Canada.
As a matter of record, CBC has for a long time mocked the freedom of the press by featuring socialism and everything the socialists are doing, and thousands of Canadians are fed up to the teeth with financing CBC and receiving only the leftist side of the news, or no news at all.




Mr. Stan Graham (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, the biased reporting of the publicly funded CBC is showing again. Yesterday on Parliament Hill the massive demonstration by Canadians in support of the Government's drug Bill, Bill C-22, rose to 5,000 people plus. For the second straight day CBC TV totally disregarded its mandate of fair, accurate, unbiased reporting and instead chose again not to broadcast this national event.
This deliberate attempt to withhold information from Canadians is irresponsible, deceitful, and totally reprehensible. It appears that CBC TV will only cover issues which promote their own socialistic beliefs.
This irresponsible and biased approach to reporting is totally unacceptable. This lack of accountability and fairness falls squarely on the shoulders of the President of the CBC, Mr. Pierre Juneau. For this reason I again demand his resignation.




Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, our democracy must be defended by public manifestations, but the CBC remains silent. Why is this? Canadians must know that the President of the CBC, after Cite litre, and after a defeat as a Liberal in a by-electidn, was rewarded by a series of appointments including that of President of the CBC, which position he has held for seven years.
On March 5, 1987, I asked the following questions to Mr. Juneau at the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture. What do you think about the distribution of political and operational responsibilities at the CBC? No comment. Does your corporation operate from a programming budget? Answer: Does not know and refers to the Vice-President, Mr. Cotsman. Has your corporation provided remedies for the $57 million deficit found by the Auditor General? Have you developed a parallel accounting system to avoid such incidents in the future? Answer: I do not know. Mr. Cotsman replied that no parallel accounting system had been developed. Does your corporation operate from a zero-base budget system? The President did not know and the Vice-President replied that it does not.
Mr. Speaker, not a single privately-owned corporation in North America would wait any longer before firing President Juneau as an incompetent and a parasite of the political system.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his allotted time has expired.



THE PRIME MINISTER

Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, it looks as if Conservative Members have become somewhat paranoid. They are now starting to blame the CBC for their troubles. It is obvious that today the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has directed his back-benchers to start criticizing the CBC because it is not broadcasting what the Prime Minister wants it to broadcast.
If there is a problem with the Government it is with the Prime Minister himself. He always tends to blame the media when there is a dip in public opinion. Rather than blame the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which is famous worldwide, perhaps Conservative back-benchers should start blaming their own Prime Minister for the dismal state they are in.

August 27, 1987
Oral Questions



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, when a small anti-government demonstration takes place on Parliament Hill it is always big news on CBC TV. Not so if it is a progovernment demonstration. For some strange reason there was no CBC TV coverage of the thousands who demonstrated here on Tuesday and Wednesday in support of the Government and Bill C-22.
Many of yesterday's demonstrators came from my riding. They support Bill C-22. Ortho Pharmaceutical on Greenbelt Drive has committed to spend $10 million to research new therapies, and the Upjohn Company on York Mills Road has committed to spend $30 million on research in biotechnology and another $22 million on capital expenditures if Bill C-22 becomes law.
My constituents do not understand why CBC TV ignores them. According to a survey by Professor Peter Snow of Western University's Graduate School of Journalism, 37 per cent of Ottawa's press gallery feels closest to the NDP-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired. Oral Question Period.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
In the last number of days we have been trying to get some precision from the Prime Minister as to where he stands on the Senate. The results have not been rewarding. In the last two days the Prime Minister's answers on the Senate have added nothing but further confusion. Today I will try another subject and see if my luck is a little better with the Prime Minister. My question is on the free trade negotiations.
Would the Prime Minister tell us clearly what his parliamentary timetable will be for review of any agreement with the United States, for provincial meetings, and for the release of the background documents upon which the Government of Canada based its case?
We know already that some provincial Premiers find that what they know of the timetable is unacceptable. Would the Prime Minister now tell us how he intends to proceed?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, if indeed Ambassador Reisman and his colleagues are able to conclude a free trade arrangement pursuant to directives from Cabinet, then, as I have indicated, it will be brought forward for consideration by Parliament. There will be ample and full occasion for debate and consideration of it.
I have also indicated to the First Ministers, and I think we have established our bona fides in that regard, that there will be full consultation with them. The last meeting with the First Ministers lasted in excess of seven consecutive hours. All of them expressed satisfaction with the intensity of the discussion and the thoroughness of the briefing. Of course, I will make sure that the same opportunity is provided to all Members of the House, beginning with my friend, the distinguished Leader of the Opposition.


TIMETABLE FOR CANADIANS TO ANALYZE FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Americans will have three months to analyze a free trade agreement with Canada whereas, as things now stand, Canadians and Members who represent them here in the House have no idea of what the parameters of these negotiations might be. The Prime Minister has been refusing all along to make the basic documentation public, we are not in a position to weigh the pros and cons, and perhaps we too will just have to wait until October 5.
Will the Prime Minister now assure all Canadians that time will be set aside for the House and a parliamentary committee open to the public to analyze the agreement which will be unveiled on October 5? Will he also assure us that he will launch a public debate here in the House and refer the whole matter for parliamentary committee study once the agreement with the United States has been announced, if indeed there is an agreement?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, if we are in a position to sign a free trade agreement, the House of Commons will have full opportunity to examine, analyze and debate the document in depth. First of all, it will be an important document which will deserve the full attention and care of all Members of this House.
As for the Premiers, we have already provided for meetings to consider each point. Some of the studies have already been made public. Quite recently, there was a study by the Economic Council of Canada which suggested that a free trade agreement would result in the creation of 350,000 new jobs in Canada. The Leader of the Opposition may have another opinion on the matter based on different studies, but he will be able to bring them out in due time, and I can assure him of the full co-operation of the Government. If there is an agreement, it will be put before Parliament and debated fully and vigorously.
August 27, 1987


APPEARANCE OF WITNESSES BEFORE PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, several provincial Premiers have already undertaken to the citizens of their provinces that there will be an opportunity within the Legislatures or the committees pertaining thereto for a full and complete legislative hearing, and for the Canadians who live in a province to appear with their reactions to any agreement.
Will the Prime Minister allow those hundreds of thousands of Canadians who will be affected by any arrangement with the United States, if that were to pass, and will he allow those Canadians who oppose such a deal, for example, farmers, auto workers, and those Canadians who are concerned about the independence and sovereignty of this country, to appear publicly before a committee of Parliament in order that this matter can be aired fully and fairly before he applies his majority to impose it?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I noticed the other day, for example, that the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Bourassa, said that in his judgment, and in the judgment of his Government, a free trade arrangement with the United States was vital for the welfare of Quebec and Canada, and its absence would result in an irreversible economic decline of Quebec. So Quebecers-for example, Quebec farmers, industrial workers, I suppose, and others- are supportive of what we are trying to do.
The question will arise if an arrangement is concluded will it be submitted to the House? The Government House Leader will be available and will be meeting with other House Leaders if an arrangement is concluded, and will work out a mechanism that I am sure will satisfy all Members of the House.
Whether we can find a formula that will allow everyone opposed to a free trade arrangement to appear personally, I do not know. We certainly couldn't find a formula that would allow everyone in favour to appear-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: That would go on for years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: What my hon. friend is speaking to is the core of democracy, and I can assure him that we will respond fully to his requests in that regard.


CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Prime Minister. It has been reported that seven American Governors have asked Washington to renegotiate the Auto Pact. Will the Prime Minister today
Oral Questions
stand firm on behalf of Canada and insist that the Auto Pact is working well for both countries and should not be negotiated either as part of the free trade negotiations or otherwise? Will he make that statement today on behalf of Canada and Canadian workers?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to do so. I might remind the Hon. Member, and 1 think it is important that we keep this in mind, that the Auto Pact itself has within it a negotiating procedure. Section 4 says that if one party or the other wants to discuss it, they must. Article 7 in the Auto Pact says very clearly that if one party or the other wants to cancel it, that party can with one year's notice.
The Auto Pact is not on the table. We have not asked for it to be on the table, neither have the Americans. We are not negotiating the Auto Pact.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I must say that the Parliamentary Secretary in spite of his efforts has not given a very reassuring answer.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Windsor West.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Will the Government make clear-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -that the Auto Pact has been responsible for hundreds of thousands of jobs in the United States as well as jobs in Canada and is, therefore, working equitably for both countries? Or, instead, is the Government ready to cave in on the Auto Pact as it has already on shakes and shingles and softwood lumber and as many Canadians fear it will on potash? Will the Government stand up for Canada and not laugh at Canadian workers and Canadian jobs? That is what it is doing. Speak up for Canada. Don't laugh at Canadian workers.


John Horton McDermid: I am sorry I wasn't clear in my first answer, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Horton McDermid: Maybe I should speak much more slowly for the Hon. Member so that the answer sinks in.

August 27, 1987
Oral Questions
The Hon. Member talks about softwood lumber. We had the predictions from the Liberals and the New Democrats that there would be thousands and thousands of jobs lost. Exports of softwood lumber this year are up 34 per cent over last year-to Japan 27 per cent. The price of lumber has gone up. Our lumber industry is not closing down. It is doing very, very well despite the dire predictions. We protected Canadian jobs and will continue to do so in all sectors of the economy.


THE SENATE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, he indicated that the Government wanted a parliamentary committee to examine the concept of Senate reform. I indicated that my Party would be prepared to seriously consider this proposal. Meanwhile, most Canadians, including even the parties here in the House of Commons, would like to see some aspects of the Senate's powers changed immediately.
Will the Prime Minister guarantee before the House that the Government's approach to this issue will include the resolution by the former Minister of Justice for a reduction in the powers of the Senate, before the Committee he referred to in his proposal is appointed?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, a procedure for Senate reform is already in place. But yesterday I also said and I would like to confirm this today, that the Deputy Prime Minister and Government House Leader is prepared to meet with the other House Leaders to consider immediately all the options for Senate reform.
I am informed the Minister was not able to do so yesterday because of urgent matters in the House. However, he is still available to meet with the Leader of the New Democratic Party.


REQUEST FOR PASSAGE OF RESOLUTION TO CURB POWERS OF SENATE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I understand what the Prime Minister was referring to by asking if it was possible for the House Leaders to discuss this matter. So that I am clear and so that all Hon. Members are clear, is the Prime Minister willing to consider, before the committee reports on the broad question of Senate reform, allowing the Parliament of Canada to have the opportunity to debate and quickly vote on a resolution that would have the effect of reducing the current powers of the Senate along the lines
proposed by the former Minister of Justice so that it could be acted upon by the First Ministers before the consideration of the Meech Lake Accord?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the matter that should, in the normal course of events as agreed upon, come before Parliament for consideration is the Meech Lake Accord. I think my hon. friend would agree that after full parliamentary hearings have taken place and a report is made to the House, there ought to be a debate and full consideration of that historic document by all Members of the House of Commons. That would be following the timetable that all Members have agreed upon. At the earliest possible moment, I would expect that there would be a report to the House and Members of Parliament will be invited to consider it further.
In regard to any action on the Senate beyond that, I advised yesterday that the Leader of the Government in the House would be happy to meet with the House Leaders of the NDP and the Liberals to consider this matter further and to see what we might do in the context of parliamentary reform. A lot has been accomplished in this area through the partnership of the three Parties, pursuant, for example, to the McGrath Committee report. It may very well be that this initiative will lead to co-operation in other areas, but I think my hon. friend would agree that the Meech Lake process of hearings and considerations by the House of Commons ought to proceed.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER SUBMIT RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL BY PREMIERS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I understand what the Prime Minister is saying about the agenda of the Parliament of Canada which has the Meech Lake Agreement being submitted following the committee's report to Parliament for consideration. My question pertains to consideration by the provinces of a potential amendment affecting the Senate before the Meech Lake Accord is subsequently discussed and presumably ratified by the provinces that have agreed to it.
The Prime Minister knows that before the Accord goes into effect only seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population would be required to amend the existing powers. Is the Prime Minister prepared to submit to the First Ministers an amendment under the present constitutional powers for approval by the provinces prior to their full consideration of the Meech Lake Accord?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend will know, it is complicated and challenging enough to get three political Parties from the House of Commons and 10 provincial Premiers representing four different political Parties to come together in the great national challenge which is to seek a formula which would bring Quebec into confederation. I thought and I still believe that that was the motive of Liberal, NDP and Conservative Members. It is important that that process, having begun and
August 27, 1987

having brought some considerable results, continue. It is now before Parliament. Parliamentary hearings are ongoing as we speak, I understand. A report will be made.
It is important that we as parliamentarians carry through on the most important part of that agenda which is the bringing to fruition, if Parliament so decides, of the Meech Lake Accord. That will have responded to the fundamental aspiration of all Canadians which is to make Canada whole and bring Quebec back into confederation. That has been my objective and I have undertaken it with the full support of the Leaders of both opposition Parties, for which I express my gratitude.


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to ask some questions arising out of revelations made by Senator Lowell Murray on Tuesday about the way in which the Government has been handling the Meech Lake Accord. Would the Minister responsible for the status of women confirm that women's groups have been coming to see her to express their concern about the impact of the distinct society clause on the charter? Does she agree that those groups do have a valid concern?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that I have met with some women's groups. In fact, I met with them on, I believe, July 30 the first time and, because of the concern about the charter which we on this side of the House take very seriously, I asked Senator Murray to join me and hear what they had to say. They met with him again and they will be meeting with me again on Monday.
At this stage I may say that from what I have seen, I do not share their concern that sexual equality rights in the Charter have in any way been diminished. However, they are seeking new opinions and I am prepared to take a look at them, and will continue to meet with them.


APPOINTMENTS TO SENATE AND SUPREME COURT
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, on another aspect of Senator Murray's revelations I would like to ask the Prime Minister about the fact that there is no provision for the Territories to submit lists of names for consideration for appointments to the Senate or the Supreme Court of Canada. Is that a decision which was made by the First Ministers or was it the result of an oversight? It was one or the other.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr Speaker, I think the Meech Lake
Oral Questions
Accord speaks for itself. Furthermore, the Hon. Member knows that the question of the position of the territories is a matter which is now before the courts. In view of the fact that the territories have asked for a judicial pronouncement on this matter, it would be inappropriate for us to comment on it on the floor of the House of Commons.
I have said that the document speaks for itself. It was a carefully crafted, well worked out document which represented the considered opinions of all participants. In our submission it is also one from which all Canadians will benefit.
v *	*


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. Yesterday I asked the Minister to meet with CN, CP and the affected unions prior to introducing back-to-work legislation. He did not do that. As a result, I believe the legislation is flawed.
Would the Minister now agree to meet with both sides in the dispute prior to appointing an arbitrator and doing that before the legislation passes this House?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I think we should deal with this situation one step at a time. When we are in the debate we could perhaps explore that possibility, but until then I think we should begin the debate.


ARBITRATOR'S POWERS-PROVISION IN PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, this is Question Period and I am asking the Minister a question. One of the clauses in the Bill will give the arbitrator such widespread power that he or she will be able to extend the agreement-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Mazankowski:: The question is out of order and you should know that.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has, I think quite correctly, stated that the mood of the House is that the Bill is important. The Hon. Minister invited Hon. Members to join in the debate later on this afternoon. There is of course a tradition that Question Period is not the time to go into detailed examination of clauses in a Bill when the Bill is before the House. I am sure the Hon. Member would want to co-operate. The Hon. Member for Bow River.

August 27, 1987
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


GRAIN FARMERS ACCESS TO PRODUCER CARS
Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board. The recent announcement by the Canadian Grain Commission to the effect that the number of producer cars will be reduced from 10 per cent to 5 per cent is worrying many western farmers. Is this cut going into effect and has the Hon. Minister any information on producer cars that will be of interest to western Canada?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, to clarify the situation, we have acted three times since we have been in government to increase producers' access to producer cars and also try to decrease the time producers have to wait. The Hon. Member should know that a producer can ship as much grain as he wants with board grain. Exporters at both Thunder Bay and Vancouver are required to take a minimum of 10 per cent of each shipment of canola from producer cars.
We have acted in three consecutive years to increase access to producer cars. We did it through consultation, which is a hallmark of this Government and the Prime Minister. That is in healthy contrast to what happened in the past, especially dealing with producer cars, when edicts were simply issued without contact or consultation with the groups affected.


SHIPBUILDING
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. In July of 1984 he promised Halifax shipyard workers that he would support their industry and come forward with innovative shipbuilding policies. There has been no policy and no meaningful consultation since that time. He must be aware that last week the Minister of Public Works indicated one or more shipyards in Atlantic Canada must be closed. That seems to be in direct contradiction of the Minister of Transport.
Who speaks for the Government of Canada? Is it the Minister of Transport? Or is it the weak and meek Minister of Public Works who is suggesting that shipyards in Atlantic Canada must be closed?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister whom the hon. questioner is now denigrating, is responsible for persuading me as Minister of Transport to arrange to have a major refit job on the icebreaker Louis S. St. Laurent done in the Halifax yard. The design plans for that are now being worked on and when they are finished that work will go ahead in the Halifax shipyard.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: We cannot proceed with reconstruction of that ice-breaker without first having design plans. I know that does not matter to the hon. gentleman because he never has any design in mind.
I suggest that the constituents in Halifax represented by the Minister should be considerably grateful for the fact that he has been able to accomplish this. He will be accomplishing a great deal more for them in the next year or two.


HALIFAX SHIPYARD-REQUEST FOR GUARANTEE OF WORK
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will know that in May of 1987 the Minister of Public Works announced a refit program for the Halifax-Dartmouth shipyard would begin in November, 1987. He has now flip-flopped and said he cannot honour that commitment. It may be honoured in November, 1988.
Can the Minister guarantee to the shipyard workers in the Halifax-Dartmouth area that their shipyard will not be closed and that he, in consultation with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, will provide to them the work involved in the rebuilding of the fishing vessel Hudson?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I can guarantee those workers that insofar as is possible for the Government to accomplish it, their shipyard will not be closed. However, the Government cannot accomplish these things alone. There have to be other buyers of shipyard services and ships in Canada. We are doing everything we can to keep Canadian shipyards going. In addition, under our new defence policy, nuclear powered submarines will have to be constructed in Canada. There are, I believe, another six frigates.


David Charles Dingwall: Twenty-five years from now.


John Carnell Crosbie: Not 25 years. This program has started. The Government has done everything it can to keep our shipyards operating and will continue, despite the nattering nabobs of negativism exemplified by the Hon. Member.


CHILD CARE
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Yesterday he reassured us that the Government still sees child care as a priority and we appreciate that. However, the provinces, particularly Manitoba and Ontario, have programs ready to go and are anxiously awaiting a federal initiative. When will the Minister present his proposals or plans to the provinces?
August 27, 1987


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member has stated correctly the Government's commitment on child care, and specifically the commitments made by the Prime Minister on behalf of the Government and Canadians in general.
This issue is under discussion. That is not a new answer but it is an honest answer. I think we can conclude those discussions reasonably early. I want to get to the provinces at an early date as well. That is the best I can tell her and my provincial colleagues, and I have expressed that to them.


NATIONAL OBJECTIVES
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister his views on the whole question of the national objectives for a child care program. Does he believe it is a federal Government responsibility to present the objectives to the House of Commons? Can he also give us some indication of what he thinks are the fundamental national principles for child care?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, any Member who has looked at the child care field, both at present and where we want to move to, will recognize there are many issues involved. For example, there is jurisdiction. How can we come forward federally and provincially, along with the public obviously, with programs which are in the provincial domain but in which the federal Government wants to show leadership as well as moving forward on its social policy agenda?
The points have been made very clearly regarding affordability, quality and accessibility, in the special committee report. All of us recognize that. However, with all respect, while these issues are being discussed in a very forthright way, I hope she and other Canadians will understand it is better to work very diligently to get these pieces put together rather than coming forward with a plan which is seen by some as being unilateral or failing to cover the needs of Canadians in the future.


INQUIRY WHY GOVERNMENT DOES NOT RESPECT ITS PROMISES
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I shall direct my question either to the Minister of National Health and Welfare or to the Minister of Finance. It concerns the national child care policy. For three years, this Government has promised us family assistance and child care policies. We have learned that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has written to his provincial counterparts telling them that, in view of the disagreements and the comments or restrictions of the Minister of Finance, the Government cannot introduce a national child care policy.
Oral Questions
Can the Minister of National Health and Welfare or the Minister of Finance explain the reasons for these disagreements? Why does the Minister of Finance not allocate the amounts necessary to meet the commitments of this Government after three years?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, that Hon. Member has made a practice of trying to sow fear in Canadian society and making allegations which are totally groundless. He has made another one on the floor of the House of Commons just now in the form of a question.
Cabinet is very unified on this issue. We will come forward with a policy which I will present to the provinces, the public and Parliament. This will be done in a responsible manner and not in the way the Member has suggested.
I suggest that if the Hon. Member is interested in social policy he ought to start being positive rather than using fear which seems to be a major tactic of his.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, we have just had an answer. There is no disagreement in the Cabinet. The Cabinet agrees to do nothing about the child care policy, just as it agreed to de-index old age security pensions. Whithout the Opposition, senior citizens would not have fully indexed pensions.


ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL POLICY ON CHILD CARE-GOVERNMENT POLICY
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is either for the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance. Is there a leader in that party? Mr. Prime Minister, you made a firm commitment three times with your hand over your heart to the principle that the family is the cornerstone of Canadian society. When will you introduce a national child care policy? When will you do so instead of fine-tuning it as you are now doing?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member thinks we are terribly impressed by the increasing decibels of his voice, the fact is that we are not.
He says that the Government has done nothing on pensions. The Government changed the spouses allowance for widows and widowers. He opposed that. He was opposed to the Canada Pension Plan changes. He is opposed to the RRSP changes and the RIF changes. He is opposed to everything, even that which is positive.
The policy on child care is coming forward. Would the Hon. Member start being a little positive rather than using fear as the only means which makes him tick?

August 27, 1987
Oral Questions


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Carole Jacques: Mr. Speaker, recently, several thousand workers in the pharmaceutical industry demonstrated their support for the Conservative Government and for the passage of Bill C-22 which will mean over one billion dollars in investment and the creation of thousands of jobs, especially in the Montreal area.
Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Does the Minister intend to maintain the present provisions of Bill C-22, considering the notorious, and I would even say immoral, obstruction of this Bill by the Liberal Senators?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As the House is aware, debate on the motion I put before the House last week should have continued this morning. However, the New Democratic Party decided to support the Senate. They are trying to delay passage of this motion. Mr. Speaker, I hope the New Democrats realize they will have to smarten up and take a position that reflects their policies.
* *
*


PRICE OF GASOLINE
[Stage Direction]
endorsed a joint communique with their federal counterpart, something which had not happened for eight years under the previous administration.
Second, 1 would remind my colleague that all the issues he is raising come under provincial jurisdiction, and I would be ill-advised to express my views in this respect.

Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, in February, 1987, the price of crude oil was $24 Canadian a barrel as it was in February, 1986. However, the price of gasoline in May, 1987, after a three-month time lag, was 45 cents a litre whereas in May, 1986, it was 41.8 cents a litre.
Why do Canadians continue to be gouged at the pump? Why does the Minister not think he has any federal role to play in protecting Canadian motorists? Is that not what being Minister of Energy is all about?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that the first responsibility of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is to enforce the relevant legislation adopted by the Canadian Parliament. None of the statutes passed by the Canadian Parliament empowers the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to intervene in connection with gas prices at the pump.
Second, this Government's policy is market-oriented and has borne fruits, otherwise gas prices would be much higher than they are now.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I would like to welcome him back to the House after his extensive and expensive travels.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: When the price of oil goes down it takes a long time to pass the lower gasoline prices on to motorists at the pump. Meanwhile the oil companies make lots of money on their retail profits. However, when there is a slight increase motorists pay increased prices at the pump very quickly, as is happening now.
Does the Minister consider that to be fair? If he does not, what will he do about it to protect the average Canadian motorist from being gouged by the oil companies?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to my colleague that I just came back from St. John's, Newfoundland, where I had an opportunity to meet with my colleagues, the provincial Ministers of Energy who, for the second time, unanimously


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Morrissey Johnson (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, more than 60 per cent of all Sea Cadets in Atlantic Canada are from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Due to this many people from the province, including myself, have been working hard to convince the Government to establish a Sea Cadet training facility in Stephenville.
1 would like to direct my question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Why has the Department accepted recommendations to establish the facility elsewhere?


Hon. Paul Dick (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the final decision was made between Stephenville and Cornwallis. A consultant's report showed that the initial capital costs would be 62 per cent higher in Stephenville and that the ongoing costs would be 52 per cent higher. Cornwallis
August 27, 1987

scored higher in eight of ten other areas as well and therefore the decision was made in favour of Cornwallis.


INVESTMENT CANADA
[Stage Direction]
SALE OF WEST KOOTENAY POWER & LIGHT COMPANY TO UNITED STATES CORPORATION
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Investment Canada is saying that the Minister's decision to approve the purchase of West Kootenay Power & Light Company from Cominco by Utiliticorp, an American corporation, was based on two things, Cominco's financial problems and Utiliticorp's business plan.
The Minister did not take into consideration at all the fact that Utiliticorp has violated Missouri laws by overcharging consumers and that Canadians are not allowed to own public utilities in the United States.
Why was the Minister in such a hurry to sell off Canadian public utilities that he did not even investigate the fact that Canadians could not own public utilities in the United States, something we were giving to the Americans, or do any kind of investigation whatsoever?


Michel Côté: First, Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to indicate to my colleague that this Investment Canada decision dates back to December, 1986. As it happened, we did review every aspect of this deal and, in light of the Investment Canada Act regulations, we tried to make sure that the net benefits to Canada are always taken under consideration in any proposed transaction.
In the case to which my colleague is referring, Mr. Speaker, the net benefits to Canadians were obvious.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, that was not taken into consideration at a meeting on March 13, 1987. Only those two points were taken into consideration.
1 want to mention to the Minister that Mr. Jim Hubay of Kootenay Okanagan Electric Consumers Association says that he received a letter from the Minister which says: "Thus, before a decision is rendered, care is taken to ascertain that all the facts are available".
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: 1 know that the matters the Hon. Member is referring to are important and form part of the general issue, but I would ask, especially considering the hour, that the Hon. Member put his question.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, care was not taken. Those facts were not taken into consideration. Why were they not taken into consideration, and why did the Minister not undertake his responsibility under the Act?


Michel Côté: I repeat, Mr. Speaker, we did examine every aspect of the deal. Better still, Mr. Speaker, I would point out to my colleague that the B.C. Public Utilities Commission also examined this transaction and found it to be in the best interest of all Canadians, particularly British Columbia residents. All aspect of the deal were indeed considered.


NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the report of the Intergovernmental Secretariat to the Action Committee on Western Canadian Low Sulphur Coal. Will the Minister indicate when that report will be made public? It has been promised for some time now. There are many people from British Columbia to Quebec who are interested in its recommendations. Will he indicate whether or not it will provide detailed plans that can be implemented by a government?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the Hon. Member's ongoing interest in this very important matter. I will be meeting with the coal industry on September 14. I think progress is being made.
As far as the release of the report which the Hon. Member has mentioned is concerned, I will look into it and get back to the Hon. Member as soon as I can.


TAX REFORM
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. On May 8 the Minister said in response to my question about whether food will be

August 27, 1987
Business of the House
subject to sales tax that his White Paper would be published on June 18 and, 1 quote from page 5890 of Hansard:
-that particular question will be answered fully.
Since the White Paper did not address that question, and the Minister declined to answer similar questions since, will he be kind enough to tell the House, especially now that his own caucus is asking the same question, when he will give information about his new sales tax?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member knows the answer to that question. I have made it quite clear. If she has read the White Paper on Tax Reform she will have seen that there is no proposal there to tax food. We have made a proposal for a change in the sales tax. We have put forward three mechanisms. We are now consulting with the provinces and others to decide what the mechanism might be. That process is taking place. I cannot give her a time as to when that process would be completed, but certainly it will not be too long.


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise the House that the time for Question Period has expired.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the tabling of Bill C-85 this morning, and the subsequent discussions that have taken place since then between the House Leaders of the other two Parties and the Deputy House Leader of the Government, I think you will find agreement for the following proposition concerning today's business, and specifically dealing with Bill C-85.
The motion is as follows:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, when the Orders of the Day are called later this day, the Order shall be the second reading and reference to a Committee of the Whole of Bill C-85, an Act to provide for the resumption and continuance of railway operations and for the settlement of disputes respecting terms and conditions of employment between railway companies and their employees;
Provided that:
1.	Bill C-85 shall be the only item of business before the House until all stages of the Bill are completed;
2.	This day's Private Members' Hour be suspended and the item scheduled for consideration this day be dropped to the bottom of the Order of Precedence;
3.	This day's "Adjournment Proceedings'* be suspended;
4.	Should any recorded division be demanded, the provisions of Standing Order 13(4) shall not apply; and
5.	The House shall not be adjourned until all stages of Bill C-85 are completed, whereupon the Speaker shall adjourn the House until the next sitting day.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Order reflects the consultations that were carried out earlier today. The Official Opposition is ready to agree to this Order.
While I am on my feet, I wonder if I could ask the Government House Leader to give a statement of government business that is ordinarily given on Thursday?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might do that after this matter has been disposed of.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, regarding this important matter and emergency situation, we are certainly prepared to support this resolution to begin the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mazankowski) have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, with respect to further business for tomorrow and the following day, I would hope that we might engage in some discussions with respect to the disposition of Bill C-71 which has been reported back to the House. That would be followed by Bill C-22 and Bill C-84, which has also been reported back to the House. We will not necessarily deal with those Bills in that order, but perhaps we can work that out through informal discussions.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Pierre H. Cadieux: That Bill C-85, an Act to provide for the resumption and continuance of railway operations and for the settlement of disputes respecting terms and conditions of employment between railway companies and their employees, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on second reading of the Bill now before the House, namely, the Maintenance of Railway Operations Act, 1987. The purpose of the Bill is, above all, to order a resumption of rail traffic so vital to the nation's economy.
August 27, 1987

As Hon. Members will be aware, four separate labour disputes involving the major national railway companies and unions representing their employees have recently reached a critical stage. One of these disputes has now culminated in a national rail strike.
The four disputes comprise the Associated Railway Unions which represent some 48,000 railway workers in nine separate unions who negotiate jointly with the Canadian National Railway Company and CP Rail; two smaller groups of railway shopcraft employees represented by member unions of the Canadian Council of Railway Shopcraft Unions which is negotiating separately with each of the two companies, and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers negotiating separately on behalf of its members employed by Canadian National.
It is perhaps obvious but nevertheless important to point out that this Bill would not have been necessary had the parties to the railway disputes been capable of meeting their responsibilities under the Canada Labour Code, Part V by renewing their collective agreements.
Despite considerable conciliation assistance provided to them by the Government, they were unable to do so without a work stoppage. This work stoppage, principally involving a strike declared by the Associated Railway Unions at midnight on Sunday, August 23, has paralyzed rail transportation and brought key sectors of the Canadian economy into jeopardy. As I advised the parties in a telegram on August 24, the Government cannot, and will not, tolerate a shutdown of the nation's major transportation systems.
I have concluded that there is no reasonable prospect for a negotiated settlement to the current work stoppage. Therefore, I have absolutely no hesitation in introducing the present Bill into the House.
In addition to ordering a resumption of work, the Bill provides for a means of settling the labour disputes between the parties. However, before dealing in more detail with the provisions of the Bill, I would like to emphasize to Hon. Members certain factors which have convinced the Government that rapid and decisive action is required to terminate the current strike and to restore rail services to the Canadian public and the national economy.

Other than Canada, there are few countries in the world where economic and social history rests so heavily on rail transportation. The establishment of the rail link was an enormous contribution to the development and expansion of this country in the last century, Madam Speaker, and in more recent times it has enabled Canada to rank among the world's major trading nations.
The railways built Canada in times past and they continue to be its economic mainstay.
Maintenance of Railway Operations

Despite significant advances in other modes of transportation, notably by road and water, Canada's railways still account for close to 40 per cent of all freight tonnage moved in this country. More importantly, the producers of some commodities are virtually tied to rail transportation in order to move their products to markets economically. Western grain farmers present an obvious example of primary producers who rely heavily on the railways as part of an integrated transportation network to carry their crops efficiently from the prairie elevators to domestic and foreign customers.
This Government has previously demonstrated its commitment to western farmers. This highly productive group faces uncertain and extremely competitive world markets. It does not deserve to have additional obstacles placed in its way.
The producers of other bulk products in western Canada and in other regions are also seriously affected by the disruption of rail traffic. Manufacturers, exporters, importers and just about every sector of the economy is in some significant way harmed by a cessation of rail services. Increasingly, commuters in our large urban centres have come to rely on rail passenger services to take them to and from their place of work.
In addition to the direct impact of the halting of railway transportation, there is immeasurable harm resulting from the so-called ripple effect of a rail strike. Industries which cannot obtain parts or ship their goods are required to shut down production and lay-off employees. It is this ripple effect of a rail strike which is perhaps the most damaging to the over-all economy. The longer a strike lasts, the more far reaching the impact on Canadians throughout the country.
Via Rail employees, who have renewed their collective agreements without work stoppages, have already been subject to lay-off. Seafarers on the Great Lakes system and in our coastal waters could be among the next groups to feel the effect as rail shipments cease to arrive at or depart from our ports and harbours. Longshoremen and other port workers will be similarly affected.
It may take somewhat longer for the impact to be felt in other areas of trade and commerce. However, the effect would inevitably spread throughout the production and distribution chain if a work stoppage is allowed to continue.

Madam Speaker, this Government has invested too much effort to build a solid foundation for sustained economic recovery to let Canadian workers, Canadian producers and Canadian businessmen be the victims of the consequences of a lengthy breakdown of rail transport services.
It should therefore come as no surprise, Madam Speaker, to the parties concerned in the railway dispute, the Members of this House and the Canadian people that this Government decided to act quickly and table this Bill in the House, in order to put an end to a work stoppage that might prove disastrous.

August 27, 1987
Maintenance of Railway Operations
It is only the fourth time in about 37 years that Parliament is being asked to put an end to a railway work stoppage. The last time was in August, 1973, exactly 14 years ago. At the time, Madam Speaker, despite numerous efforts to help the parties settle their differences, rotating strikes went on for nearly a month before they turned into a general work stoppage. After seven days during which the economy of this country suffered increasingly serious losses, the House was asked to intervene. This time, the Government did not wait that long. There were some local walk-outs in the Montreal and Toronto areas last week and also in Sarnia. A general strike was called to which we must put a stop.
Although we are acting quickly, Madam Speaker, one could hardly call our action precipitous. The parties had every opportunity to settle their differences and received all necessary help to that end.
[ English]
In the Associated Railway Unions dispute, the previous collective agreements expired on December 31, 1986. Following notices of dispute filed by the parties in January of this year, a conciliation officer was appointed who endeavoured to assist the parties in the resolution of the dispute. Despite the officer's efforts, no settlement was achieved. On March 4, I appointed Mr. Douglas C. Stanley as conciliation commissioner. In the ensuing months Mr. Stanley met with the parties in an effort to conciliate their differences. As was the case at the conciliation officer stage, Commissioner Stanley was unable to assist the parties to resolve their differences and he proceeded to write his report and recommendations.
On August 10, 1 released Mr. Stanley's report to the parties, as 1 am required to do under the provisions of the Canada Labour Code. The report was subsequently made available generally and I am sure those Members who have read the report will have found it comprehensive. It was definitive with respect to wages, rejecting the positions of both parties, and instead recommending a settlement package already agreed to in other segments of the railway industry, such as Via Rail and the Ontario Northland Railway.
In recommending two annual increases at 3 per cent in a two-year contract, the commissioner commented that such a settlement was not unreasonable in relation to wage settlements being achieved in free collective bargaining. He was similarly definitive in other wage-related areas, rejecting the concept of a two-tier wage scale as demanded by the companies and recommending an increase in the night shift differential.
In other areas, notably contracting out and employment security, the commissioner was less definitive. Nevertheless, he suggested certain constructive avenues for pursuing the compromises and trade-offs required for settlement.
The initial reactions of the parties to the commissioner's report were encouraging. Reports indicated they regarded Mr. Stanley's recommendations as a useful basis for further
negotiations. While the reported statements were guarded in some respects, it was reasonable to conclude that the parties found the commissioner's recommendations to offer a good framework for a possible agreement. These encouraging signs were enhanced when, on August 13, 1 was sent a joint request for a mediation assistance signed by the chairman of the Associated Railway Unions and the vice-presidents of the two railway companies responsible for labour relations.
1 responded willingly to this request and on August 14 I appointed Mr. M. K. Carson, an industrial relations consultant, as mediator, pursuant to Section 195 of the Canada Labour Code. Mac Carson is a veteran of railway labour negotiations. A former railway employee and trade union official, he has some 15 years experience with the federal mediation and conciliation service and is well respected by the parties in this dispute.
Mr. Carson commenced his mediation meetings in Montreal on Monday, August 17, and worked constantly with the parties throughout last week. Although significant progress was made earlier in the week, it became clear on Saturday, August 22 that a settlement would still escape the parties prior to the expiry of a strike deadline set by the unions for midnight on August 23. Mr. Carson regretfully adjourned the mediation meetings and returned to Ottawa.

As my colleagues would know, Madam Speaker, the moment the strike was called on Monday I sent a telegram to the parties to convene their bargaining committees for a last attempt at mediation. Besides again offering Mr. Carson's services to the parties, 1 asked my Labour Associate Deputy Minister Bill Kelly to take part in the negotiations. Madam Speaker, 1 should think there is no need to remind Hon. Members that Mr. Kelly is fully conversant with railway issues and very well known as the federal Government's chief negotiator.
Mr. Kelly and Mr. Carson met with the parties in Hull on August 25, 26 and 27. This week Mr. Kelly led the mediation talks in his own characteristic way, keeping labour and management negotiators working hard through the night on Tuesday, late Wednesday night, and again today. Every single option likely to lead to a settlement was explored during the sustained and exhaustive mediation talks.
Madam Speaker, notwithstanding the urgency of the situation, the parties were unable to benefit from this ultimate opportunity to settle their differences and put an end to their conflict.

The conciliation and mediation activities to which I have been referring relate to the main dispute involving the Associated Railway Unions and both national railway companies. This dispute now involves a national strike. As I indicated earlier, there are other labour disputes currently
August 27, 1987

affecting the railways. As in the case of the ARU, these other disputes involve renewals of collective agreements which expired on December 31, 1986.
While the ARU includes trade unions representing a large number of railway shopcraft employees, some shopcraft unions are negotiating separately with Canadian National and CP Rail under the auspices of the Canadian Council of Railway Shopcraft Unions. The Council has three member unions negotiating with Canadian National and five member unions negotiating with CP Rail.
Conciliation officer appointments were also made in January in these disputes. Again, no settlements were forthcoming at the officer stage and 1 appointed Douglas Stanley as Conciliation Commissioner in each of the disputes on March 4, 1987, the same date as his appointment in the ARU case. Mr. Stanley was not able to conciliate the disputes and I released his separate reports to the parties on Monday, August 17, with general release taking place the following day.
While the unions and the council have now acquired strike rights, they have not exercised them. Their members are now subject to lay-off as a result of the shutdown of railway operations.
A fourth dispute involves the International Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. While the brotherhood is negotiating as part of the ARU with CP Rail it has opted to negotiate separately on behalf of some 2,600 members employed by Canadian National. Again, the collective agreement in this dispute expired on December 31 last year.
A conciliation officer appointment was made last February and a dispute remained at that stage until Monday last, August 24, when the parties were informed that I would not be appointing a conciliation commissioner. The parties will acquire strike and lock-out rights at midnight on August 31.
1 have made this brief review of the status of the other current railway labour disputes because it is very relevant to the Bill currently before the House. The Maintenance of Railways Operations Act, 1987 has been drafted with separate parts applicable to each of the four disputes concerned.
In the case of the Associated Railway Unions, the appropriate part would come into force on the day following that on which the Bill is assented to. The other parts would come into force on days and times to be fixed by proclamation. I intend to explain this staged approach later. Before I do so, I would like to outline the principal features common to all four parts of the Bill.
Initially, the Bill provides that each affected railway company shall forthwith resume operations of its railway and subsidiary services. Every employee shall forthwith resume his or her duties when so required. Each affected union and officers or representatives of these unions shall forthwith give notice to their members to facilitate the required resumption of railway operations and of employment duties. No railway company or any of its officers or representatives shall impede
Maintenance of Railway Operations
an employee from resuming employment duties when required, or in any way discipline any employee for having been on strike prior to the coming into force of the Bill. These provisions are designed to fulfil the main purpose of the Bill, that is, to restore the railway service operations that are of key importance to our economy.
Beyond the resumption of rail operations, the Bill provides for the extension of each relevant collective agreement and for the settlement of the collective bargaining disputes by arbitration. Initially, each collective agreement is extended for a two-year period ending on December 31, 1988, with provision for this term to be extended at the discretion of the arbitrator for a period of up to one additional year.
I have just mentioned the term "arbitrator". Hon. Members will note that the Bill provides that I should appoint such a person following the coming into force of the Bill or its various parts. The arbitrator will be required to decide all matters referred within 60 days, with discretion vested in the Minister of Labour to extend this period if necessary. The report of the arbitrator shall be prepared in a form that will enable its incorporation into the appropriate collective agreements. The agreements as amended will be deemed to have effect on and after January 1, 1987.
Arbitration as a final dispute resolution method will be found in previous Acts which Parliament has adopted to terminate work stoppages in the railway industry. The present Bill requires the arbitrator to determine all matters that remain in dispute at the time of that person's appointment.
I am aware that there have been suggestions from the opposition that the resolution of at least one of these issues should be predetermined by the House. Frankly, I believe that such an approach would represent an abuse of this House. Parliament is not a labour court and the House of Commons is not an arbitration panel. The conciliation commissioner's reports made it quite clear that there are several interrelated issues in dispute, the resolution of which would involve tradeoffs. These issues cannot be severed or dealt with in isolation from each other. Any Member who believes that they can does not in my view understand these labour disputes or, indeed, the labour relations process.

It would, of course, be preferable, Madam Speaker, to make the collective agreements part of a negotiated settlement. However, the parties have shown they were incapable of reaching an agreement through the bargaining process. The decision-making powers the parties could have exercised in pursuing the requisite compromise to reach a settlement will now be handed over to a third party.
I would nevertheless urge the parties not to completely abdicate their responsibilities. It would be in their best interests to put forward a number of sound arguments to support their positions before the arbitrator I shall appoint and to co-operate fully with this person.

August 27, 1987
Maintenance of Railway Operations
This would be the best way for the parties to obtain an arbitration decision that would fully consider their respective needs and aspirations as they affect the issues on which a settlement has yet to be reached.
I mentioned earlier that the four parts of this Bill refer to four disputes in the railway industry. Once this Bill is passed, only the first part, which concerns the dispute between the conference of Associated Railway Unions and the two main railway transportation companies, comes into force. This is the only dispute where there is a strike at this time.
The other parts of the Bill, Madam Speaker, will not come into effect until after their proclamation.
At this time it would be unthinkable to remove, from the parties to the other three disputes, the prospect of freely negotiating their own settlements. However, it would be equally unthinkable for the House to ignore the potential for further disruption to the nation's rail services which these disputes present. The economic damage which the present strike is inflicting would also arise and, in fact, it would be magnified by its cumulative effect, if railway operations were to cease as a result of further work stoppages.
Consequently, the Bill provides for the future termination of any work stoppages that may arise, and for settlement of the three other collective bargaining disputes in the same manner as will be applied more immediately to the dispute involving the Associated Railway Unions.
I take no particular pleasure in introducing back-to-work legislation. However, I have a duty to protect the public interest when it is threatened by the inability of private parties to settle peacefully their labour disputes. The present strike is inflicting considerable damage on the people and the economy of Canada. The damage increases each day the strike lasts.
1 am sure that Hon. Members are receiving representations from those whose vital interests are being compromised by the current shut-down of rail services. They are demanding that the Government take decisive action to restore railway operations. The Bill that is now before us orders such a resumption of rail services.
It should come as no surprise to the parties that this Bill has been introduced. They have had sufficient time and assistance to settle their own differences. They have failed to do so. If they had any doubt as to the Government's resolve not to endure a damaging work stoppage, it should have been dispelled by the telegram that I sent to them on Monday.
The parties have proved to be unable to respond to that urgent call for common sense to prevail in a final attempt at mediation. As a general policy, the Government does not believe in interference in the collective bargaining process. However, the parties to labour disputes should be left under no
illusion as to our determination to intervene when the public interest so dictates.
When the facts are clear that the parties have abdicated their responsibilities to resolve their own differences, and a grave threat to the national interest ensues, the Government will act with all appropriate dispatch.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Madam Speaker, speaking on behalf of the Official Opposition in this House, I would like to say first of all that we intend to co-operate with the Minister, so that the Bill can be adopted as soon as possible and a strike that is paralyzing the Canadian economy can be stopped, also as soon as possible, and we can thus put an end to this economic bloodletting.
Second, 1 want to say that I sympathize with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux), who today has to table a Bill to pick up the pieces left by his colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie). 1 noticed the Minister of Transport was in the House during the Minister of Labour's initial remarks. He is the one who should have been tabling this Bill and who should have put in place the mechanisms required to protect both the Canadian railway companies and railway employees. What we are seeing today is the result of action that was ill-prepared and ill-conceived and basically a threat to the future of Canada's railway industry. I am referring of course to the transport industry deregulation which the Conservative Government and the Minister of Transport imposed on us without any guarantee or any safeguard for several sectors of our economy, and particularly without any protection for the workers in that industry. Quite clearly, this strike was to be expected.

It was absolutely no surprise; indeed, there was plenty of advance notice and warning. Because the strike came with plenty of advance warning, we on this side of the House, the Official Opposition, say that it could have been averted. It did not have to happen.
1 was listening to the Minister of Labour explain and describe the consequence of a strike. The Minister knew in advance that a strike was coming that would hurt and affect the economy. Indeed, he has received a number of representations which indicated to him that the strike was imminent, and that the strike should not be tolerated. 1 have a series of telegrams and letters sent to the Minister asking him to intervene, and intervene quickly.
I wish to quote a telegram sent to the Minister:
Regarding the rail strike. 1. Strike started this morning will be devastating to economy of Canada, especially western. 2. Obvious the parties cannot settle the differences between them. 3. The Government of Canada must intervene now and settle dispute. No point in waiting.
August 27, 1987

We know that there have been a number of Canadian companies that have indicated to the Government their displeasure at the manner in which the negotiation was going on. These companies knew that the inevitable was to come; it was a fix. The railways have almost been squeezed out of business by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) and his insistence in going ahead with deregulation. The two railways had no alternative but to try to save some money on the heads of the workers. They knew that by being tough and unreasonable with the workers, they would get the Government, which first of all made a big blow to the railway industry, to come forward and try to save them with back-to-work legislation. There were no negotiations. There was no good faith at all in the process.


John Carnell Crosbie: It's incredible.


André Ouellet: The Minister of Transport can laugh. At least he has an interest in something, he is laughing a little.


John V. Nunziata: It's no joke, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am laughing with pity at you.


André Ouellet: While we were discussing Bills C-18 and C-19 the Minister was absent. I am glad the Minister is here to listen to what we have to say, because we have repeated time after time that deregulation will be devastating to the railway industry, and the Minister did nothing about it. Today we are faced with a terrible strike.
I wish to cite what Dow Chemical had to say. They sent two letters to the Minister of Labour, and I am sure he has had a chance to read these letters:
The Western Canada Division of Dow Chemical Canada Inc. at Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta is a major exporter-1.5 billion pounds per year of chemicals. We are also a major supplier to Canada's pulp and paper industry which itself is a major exporter.
Western Canadian exporters have always had a tough time selling Canadian products abroad facing competitions from countries with ready access to ocean transportation lanes.
One ace that Canadian exporters have had was their reliability factor-our Government is stable and transportation interruption has been minimal.
Can we afford to lose this Ace?
Our customers for Canadian goods abroad are facing the same economic realities that Canadian industry faces, and that means they must have their orders on time. Our division will lose $300,000 every day this strike continues and several times that in sales, but when you look over a list of Canadian exporters, Canada stands to lose much more in terms of future sales.
This is but one company explaining quite clearly its problems and difficulties when there is a railway strike.
All of this, I am repeating, Madam Speaker, could have been avoided if the Minister of Transport had been a little more sensible. All that the Government would have been required to do was listen to the unions, which came one after the other when we were looking at Bill C-18. The Transport Committee of this Parliament travelled across Canada and
Maintenance of Railway Operations
heard witnesses in every city it visited. One after the other told us that if the Government went ahead with Bill C-18 it would be devastating for Canadian railways. They gave examples of regulations in the United States and what happened after the Staggers Act was implemented there, which had tremendous consequences for the workers.
[ Translation]
Of course the Government could have heeded these remarks since we were told quite clearly that deregulation of the transport industry would throw a lot of people out of a job. The workers told us that on the heels of deregulation in the United States American workers had been displaced, far from their families in many cases, just so they could hang on to their jobs, but that a great many of them ended up on the unemployment rolls.

But it was not surprising that the Conservative Government did not want to listen to union leaders. We know that it does not very often listen to workers. Conservatives prefer to listen to big companies. They gave billions of dollars to the oil industry. They gave away I do not know how much money through tax concessions to some big Canadian families.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Look at who is talking.


André Ouellet: The Conservatives gave away almost the whole of our generic drug manufacturing industry to please the multinational drug industries of the United States and Europe. Now we have the consequence of their actions to please big Canadian shippers. On the backs of workers, the Conservatives have imposed deregulation in the transportation industry to please some big Canadian shippers. We knew the Government was not going to listen to the workers, but at least it could have listened to CN and CP. Certainly the Minister of Transport could have listened to his own Crown corporations whose representatives appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport. They indicated quite clearly that the plan to deregulate our vital transportation industry would put thousands of workers in the railway industries out of jobs. They told the Government not to go ahead with its plan to give American railways the chance literally to grab billions of dollars worth of business in the Canadian market without at least ensuring that Canadian railways had the same access to the American market. The railways told us, the Minister of Transport and the Conservative Members on the Transport Committee, that jobs would be lost if Bill C-18 proceeded. CN and CP told us that they would have no choice but to reduce the labour component of their costs if they were to survive American competition.

Again, the Minister of Transport refused to listen. He turned a deaf ear to the two railway companies and the railway employees who appeared before our Committee. Interestingly, an American expert, an impartial observer, appeared before the Transport Committee and told us a few

August 27, 1987
Maintenance of Railway Operations
things that should at least have attracted the Minister's attention and made him more aware of the risk involved for Canada's railway companies. Let me quote what Mr. Dempsey, President of the Association of American Railways, came and told us at a sitting of the Standing Committee on Transport:

We do not have anything in the United States comparable, as you know, to your proposed competitive line rates. It might be, or it might not be, and I pass no value judgment on it, a good thing to have a rail system in the United States which is like the interstate highway system. It might be a good thing to have railroads compete with one another like supermarkets do. All that I can say about it without passing a value judgment is that it will wreck the system in the United States, it would just wreck it, that is all.
That is quite clear, Madam Speaker. The Minister of Transport with the advice of some officials, some-
[ Translation]
-theoreticians who were never exposed to the practice and realities of trade and competition, some officials who dreamt up a way to settle the problems of the railways and, sitting behind their desks, tried to convince people that Canada's railway system had to be completely overhauled.

Therefore, this Government stupidly bought Mr. Thompson's advice and created a terrible mishmash in the railway transportation industry. There is no experience of the comfortable line rate brought forward by the Government in any other country of the world. This is fiction, an imaginative thing of Mr. Thompson's that has been bought by the Minister of Transport and is now being implemented in Canada.
The President of the Association of American Railways said that if such a thing were implemented in the United States it would wreck the system. 1 am telling you, Madam Speaker, it will wreck the system in Canada, which we are now witnessing with this strike. It is a direct consequence of the irresponsible decision of the Minister of Transport to disorganize railway transportation in Canada. 1 blame the companies for being unable to convince the Minister to change the plans, but above all, I blame the Government for insisting on deregulation in the railway industry. Nobody-I say nobody-except the big shippers have asked for it. Everybody else who testified before the Transport Committee said, one after the other, that the plan was crazy. Today, because of the lack of action and lack of responsibility on the part of the Government, there is a strike.
1 would like to read from an article that appeared in the Toronto Star last week. It reads in part:
R. E. Lawless, President of Canadian National, warned recently that reduced rail services and lay-offs are "permanent and irreversible." But he also advocated compassionate treatment of employees who are the victims of deregulation. "There is no question" he said, "that we have to manage these changes properly and we have to treat affected employees generously."
But when the House of commons approved the transport deregulation package in June after a debate that attracted little national attention, the government ducked the problem of potential layoffs. Indeed, the Tories flatly rejected proposals by Liberal transport critic Andre Ouellet to give the victims of deregulation certain "last-resort" financial benefits available to other workers under the Labour Adjustment Benefits Act.
Surely it isn't too late for Ottawa to recognize the plight of railway workers who stand to lose their jobs due to deregulation and to reconsider some sort of safety net for them.

1 am not quoting this article for my own personal satisfaction. 1 am quoting it to point out that today's crisis, this railway strike, did not come out of the blue. It was predictable. In fact, we saw this coming last June, when we asked the Government to take action to prevent a strike. 1 quoted this article that appeared in the Toronto Star to put the present strike into proper perspective.
We Liberals say to the Government that the strike became unavoidable when the Conservative Government refused to include a safety net for the workers in its deregulation Bill. Since the beginning of this dispute, we in the Liberal Party have been telling the Government that if negotiations were to fail, any back-to-work legislation would have to contain provisions guaranteeing a certain degree of job security for workers in the railway industry.

I asked a question of the Minister of Labour, indeed pressed him to make sure that, if he cannot undo the wrongs of the Minister of Transport, then at least to be fair to the workers in this legislation. He is the Minister of Labour and it is his responsibility to take the side of workers.
I am surprised that I do not see some protection for the employees in the legislation. One good example of greater job security, which Liberal Members are sure would have been acceptable to the labour unions and which would not have imposed an unbearable strain on the railways, is the recent settlement covering about 1,200 workers at the Ontario Northland Railway.
There is a new clause in the collective agreement between the Ontario Northland Railway and its employees. Clause 7(a), which gives the employees a sense of belonging to an organization. If there are difficulties, they will not be treated as if they are dispensable. They will not be laid off without proper care being taken for them.


John V. Nunziata: After many years of service.


André Ouellet: That is right. My colleagues remind me that most railway workers have been devoted employees and have worked their entire lives for the CN or the CP. They deserve better than to be kicked out of their jobs because the Minister of Transport decided to deregulate the railway industry.
This new Clause 7(a) indicates that any employee with seven years' seniority, as a guarantee of employment, as long as the workers agree, could take another job with the railway.
August 27, 1987

In some cases, it might be difficult to find another job for the employee, but then the collective agreement says that, should no work be found, the employee is placed in a waiting status until such time as a vacancy occurs within his or her classification. During that period, the employee's unemployment insurance benefits or his or her outside earnings will be supplemented to a level equal to 80 per cent of his or her weekly base pay until such time as a job is found.

It is obvious that the Government has a responsibility, bringing pressure to bear as it did on Canada's railway companies by forcing them to accept deregulation. It simply cannot wash its hands off this situation. I find this all the more deplorable that there is nothing in this piece of legislation comparable to what the Liberal administration did in 1973, the last time a similar law was adopted to force the rail workers back to work. The then Liberal Government had shown enough decency, generosity, sense of fair play and understanding of the legitimate concerns of these employees to give specific directives to the arbitrator so he would pay particular attention to the unions' claims concerning job security. 1 will quote Subsection 16(3) of the 1973 legislation. Subsection (3) of Section 16 of that act reads as follows:
(3) An arbitrator appointed under subsection (1),
(a)	shall closely examine the job security demands of the unions and fully explore the feasibility of a job security plan based on the principle of attrition;
(b)	shall not alter or amend any existing work rules or practices in a manner that could have an adverse effect on rates of pay, earnings or employment opportunities, or safety;
(c)	shall, for the purpose of the arbitration, have all the powers conferred on a conciliation board under section 175 of the Canada Labour Code; and
(d)	shall in respect of wages specifically provide for the adjustment of wages to any increase or increases in the cost of living where the arbitrator is satisfied that such adjustment has not been previously or adequately provided.
It stands to reason that, when a Bill stipulates that all the collective agreement clauses which have not been ratified by both parties will be submitted to the arbitrator, that the decision of the arbitrator will be mandatory and binding on both parties, and that the Government fails to give any instructions to the arbitrator, the employees can indeed expect the worst. As it is now the Government washes its hands off the whole thing and says: The country has been thrown into economic chaos because the railways have stopped all operations and the Canadian economy is losing millions of dollars as a result of this rail strike. Well, we will take the hard approach. We will pass legislation and force the employees back to work. As to their wages, working conditions and job security, let the arbitrator do whatever he may feel like doing.
Well, I say this is not the way to proceed. In a similar situation in 1973, the Government at the time at least had the good sense to give certain instructions to the negotiator or arbitrator appointed at the time, to protect employee interests.
Maintenance of Railway Operations
I want to outline very briefly the fundamental differences between the 1973 legislation introduced by the then Liberal Government and that introduced today by the Conservative Government. In 1973 we, like the Conservatives, decided we could not allow a railway strike to go on any longer because of the consequences for the Canadian economy. Therefore, despite our best wishes and hopes we introduced in Parliament back to work legislation. Let us not kid ourselves. It is always better to have a negotiated settlement, but we imposed a settlement in 1973 because we felt we had to do so for the sake of the Canadian economy. I do not quarrel with the Government in this case and we will co-operate in passing this legislation because we think the economy of our country cannot be damaged by a railway strike.
However, when we deal with the legislation on a clause-byclause basis, I will have a number of questions to ask of the Minister. Indeed, I intend to introduce some amendments which could, to a certain degree, ease the fear and anxiety of the workers that such legislation is inappropriate. I hope the Minister in his wisdom will be able to give guarantees to the workers and hopefully accept some of our amendments which could certainly appease the workers under the circumstances.
In 1973 we put right into the Act a provision stating that some money was to be given to the workers immediately. Effective January 1 of the following year they would receive 34 cents per hour. In that way the workers, forced by legislation to go back to work, were not going back empty-handed. They had not won the collective agreement but at least they had won something. There was some incentive to go back to work and do good work. In this legislation there is nothing like that.
While I am not sure the Minister of Transport understands anything, I am sure the Minister of Labour realizes that when these workers are forced back to work they could slow down the process. There are many ways to do that. Their productivity could decrease. It is not in the interests of either the railways or the employees to see a situation like that develop. I would have thought, in a spirit of good faith, the Government would put at least some money on the line to induce the workers to accept the legislation and go back and do their jobs effectively as they are accustomed to doing. They may go reluctantly. They will be forced by law and they are law-abiding, but if they have no incentive at all, they might go back reluctantly.
Second, the 1973 legislation contained specific instructions for the appointed arbitrator. These included directions to come up with a feasible job security program. He was to recommend a fair wage increase. The present legislation contains no such directions.
Third, in 1973 no time limit was put on the arbitrator. We are dealing with a number of unions and different employers.

August 27, 1987
Maintenance of Railway Operations
This is a very complex issue. Yet this legislation puts a 60-day limit on the arbitrator to come forward with the package. I accept the fact that the Minister has the discretion to extend that time, but I am afraid a 60-day limit will force the arbitrator to look only superficially at the problems. Those problems include job security as well as other issues which had been raised in the negotiations so far. I do hope the Minister is in a position to say to us that he will not hesitate to use his discretion to extend that time limit if necessary.
The arbitrator will have an immense responsibility. I do not want to cast aspersions on the Minister. I know he has to decide on who is going to do conciliation work, but the list of people available is not the one he would like. However, 1 had been told that the appointment of Mr. Douglas C. Stanley as the conciliation commissioner was very surprising. Not that Mr. Stanley is not a good conciliator, but his experience with and knowledge of the railways is minimal.
Some very complex issues have to be looked at by the conciliator, and the feeling is that the conciliation report did not thoroughly and correctly address those issues. That might have been one of the reasons why there was no success between the parties; the commissioner left a number of issues unresolved or untouched. It was certainly not to the satisfaction of the employees. Therefore, I say to the Minister, whoever you appoint as arbitrator, you have to be sure it is a person with full knowledge of the industry, well known by the parties, and a reliable expert in this area.
As we know, very few things have been agreed to at the bargaining table. The arbitrator is literally going to write the entire collective agreement. Therefore, he has to be someone who knows the railway industry very well.
As well, in 1973 the Liberal Government guaranteed no wage reductions. That might sound funny. People say, well, surely the arbitrator is not going to order a wage reduction. I do not know. 1 do not think it is appropriate that this legislation does not have such a clause. Frankly, if the two parties cannot agree on a wage package, it is too bad, but I do not think one party should suffer more than the other. Therefore, the real minimum is the status quo. I do not understand why the Minister of Labour has not included a clause precluding wage reductions as we did in 1973. The employees already believe that-

-the dice were loaded, that the whole collective bargaining process was useless because the companies did not want to negotiate a new collective agreement, since they had the assurance that the Government, in the first few days following the beginning of a rail strike, would inevitably introduce back-to-work legislation. Some clauses of the Bill tabled by the Minister contain phraseology that is very close to the terms used by the employers, which makes it very tempting to consider the possibility that the employers themselves drafted the Bill. I hope that is not the case. 1 not only hope that is not the case. I also hope that later on, the Minister will be able to
give me not just the assurance but irrefutable proof that he will give the arbitrator instructions that employee salaries are not to be reduced.
Finally, I may recall that in 1973, there was no provision for a financial penalty in case of non-compliance with the legislation. I wonder why today the Minister is imposing such severe penalties for non-compliance. We are now talking about penalties of $20,000 and even as much as $100,000 per day. In 1973, we in the Liberal Party placed far more trust in the railway employees' ability to observe the law, and that is why we did not include penalties. I think the Minister of Labour, who as such represents the workers, should at least show the same respect and the same trust. In concluding, I want to say that the Bill before the House today is a most regrettable one, but that should not surprise us because we have to pick up the pieces left by the Minister of Transport.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, in speaking on this legislation I would like to state right from the outset that I am sorry that the negotiations broke down and no satisfactory settlement was reached. I think most Canadians feel the same way. We recognize that in such circumstances governments do have to act. However, the manner in which the Government dealt with this legislation and these negotiations proves its incompetence and shows why we must oppose this legislation. I will go into some detail later to explain exactly why 1 believe that to be the case.
However, let me start with what has happened in the House in the past week. We have been pushing the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) to act in a way which would help to resolve this dispute. We did not tell them to get into the negotiations themselves or to write every clause. We did, however, ask the Government to come forward with some policy on job security.
We explained the problems of people in the railway industry. We explained the obvious issue which was keeping the two sides apart. When we did that, the Minister of Transport got up and spoke about the present CN policy on job security and waxed eloquent, as he is wont to do from time to time, and did so passionately and wrongly, as he does quite often.
The present job security legislation has resulted in thousands upon thousands of people being laid off over the last number of years in our railway system.


John Carnell Crosbie: Which legislation?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Pardon me, the collective agreement. For the Minister to say that the collective agreement is wonderful and is guaranteeing job security for so many people when in fact those people are being laid off only helps to create problems for the negotiators and the people on strike.
August 27, 1987


John Carnell Crosbie: I did not say it, but point out where it is.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Yes, you did. It is right in Hansard.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, the Minister knows what he said and he knows what he did.


John Carnell Crosbie: Stick to the facts.


Rodney Edward Murphy: As a result of this legislation and of what has happened in this House this week, workers across the country feel that they are being picked on by this legislation. They knew that there would be back to work legislation if negotiations were not successful. They also knew that the negotiations were under the hammer of a Government in which the Minister of Transport had already spoken out in favour of the CN position. That in itself made the dispute very difficult to settle in a positive manner.
We will oppose this legislation. We will not prevent it from passing because of the numbers in the House of Commons, but we will debate it. We will point out in detail the problems with it. We will be moving the required amendments. I hope the Ministers responsible will be open to those amendments.
We want to give fair warning now that we know that there is no artificial rush to pass this legislation in the next couple of hours because we all know that the Senate is not even being called back to discuss this legislation until two o'clock tomorrow. Therefore, this House can in fact sit for some length of time and we can discuss amendments and ensure that we do not pass legislation in three or four hours only because there is a political desire among some back-benchers to do so.
It is apparent that government policy was the cause of the strike itself. It was the issue of job security which kept the dispute from being settled positively. That is the same issue that caused the labour dispute within Air Canada. That is the same issue that caused labour unrest at CBC, and the same issue that caused labour unrest at Canada Post. If the Government had a positive policy on job security for Crown corporations and other government employees, there could have been positive negotiation for its employees. However, that is not the case and the remarks of the Minister of Transport this week proved that to be the situation. Other governments have also dealt with technological change. They have dealt with economic setbacks. They have realized that people have not always been able to keep their current job.
It is important to realize that the workers at CN and CP were not asking to keep the same job until they retire. In fact, they were asking for employment security with CN and CP and that those corporations should do all that is possible to make that a reality. It is important to realize that.
It is also important to realize that in seeking this goal, those same corporations should not be contracting out work that was done by people who are now being laid off. If one has worked for CN or CP for the last 15 or 20 years and has been doing a
Maintenance of Railway Operations
certain job in a shop or in one of the running trades and suddenly it becomes CN policy, which is supported by the Government, that this work be shipped to someone or some corporation that has never worked in this area before, how can one feel that one's valuable work for the company year after year is being appreciated? How can one believe that this country's legislation or the collective agreement one has negotiated will provide protection?
Obviously, the lack of positive government policy on employment security and the fact that the Crown corporations negotiated in a vacuum has led to this labour dispute.
In addition, we know that deregulation has been cited not only by the employees as one of the reasons for the strike, but, despite what the Government has said, the employer has also indicated that deregulation is one of the reasons it will not act to provide employment security for its employees.


John Carnell Crosbie: They have not said that.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Again, the Minister of Transport says they have not said that. I wonder how much the Minister of Transport knows about what CN is saying? It is obvious that the Crown corporation has said that at the negotiating table. It is obviously what that Crown corporation has-


John Carnell Crosbie: You are quoting them. Where is your source?


Rodney Edward Murphy: The Minister of Transport wants sources. He will get those later on in the day.
Let me turn to the Bill itself and compare it to what was put in place not only in 1973, and also deal with some of the problems this legislation is causing. Clause 4 of the Bill requires that the railways resume operations forthwith. It also requires that "every employee shall, when so required, forthwith resume the duties of that employee's employment." This means that the employer must start operations and the employee, whenever he or she is called back, must also begin working.
In 1973, that clause stipulating "when so required" was not in the back to work legislation. That significant change proposed by the Minister of Labour, presumably supported by the Minister of Transport, means that those companies can call back only those employees whom it wants to call back. In effect, it can have a lay-off taking place as a result of this legislation.
This legislation does not return us to the status quo before the strike. It gives a new power to CN and CP to pick and choose which employees it wants back. Certainly, it may have to follow the seniority provisions in the collective agreement, but obviously it is not required to bring back those employees it had working prior to the beginning of the breakdown in negotiations.
That is a major error and a change which the Minister of Labour has brought forward. We want to know why and we will be asking him when we get to clause by clause study.

August 27, 1987
Maintenance of Railway Operations
I will not mention some clauses right now, but that does not mean we support them. I only have 40 minutes for my comments and want to deal with some of the main problems we see with this legislation.
Clause 6(1) states:
The term of each collective agreement is extended to include the period
beginning on January 1, 1987 and ending on December 31, 1988 and may be
further extended by the arbitrator to include the period beginning on January
1, 1989 and ending on a day not later than December 31,1989.
That clause gives the arbitrator the sole right to extend that agreement from two years to three years. What is the reason for that provision? The only thing that both parties in the negotiations agreed to in October, 1986, when they began their negotiations, was that they wanted a two-year collective agreement. No one has said since then that they wanted anything different.
If this Bill was simply back to work legislation, it would not be giving this very innocuous and powerful authority to the arbitrator. It has nothing to do with the dispute at hand.
The danger with this particular power is twofold: first, it reduces the power of the employees to negotiate at a time when they felt they had the power to do so; second, it means that if the clauses of this agreement have not solved the problems that occur in the railway industry they may have to wait one entire year longer before they negotiate.
The other problem is that the positions of the company and the union do not relate to a three-year agreement. The monetary clauses were based on a two-year collective agreement. The conciliation report was based on a two-year collective agreement. Some of the clauses that have been settled already, in open and honest negotiations, were based on a two-year collective agreement. Why would the Minister of Labour introduce legislation which gives an arbitrator the power to extend that legislation for one year at his or her whim? That clause must be eliminated.
Let us turn to Clause 8. The arbitrator, whom we do not know and who may not have any experience in collective bargaining or in the transportation industry, especially with railways, is supposed to solve this dispute within 60 days, although the legislation provides the Minister with the authority to give the arbitrator more than 60 days. However, this is a very complex set of negotiations.
We are not dealing with one employer and one union, but with two employers and many unions, involving many different situations and many different present collective agreements. Sixty days will not be enough, unless the arbitrator restricts himself or herself to a very limited investigation and role in determining what should be in a collective agreement. In that case, an arbitrator obviously cannot write a comprehensive and adequate collective agreement.
1 am also concerned that the issues in dispute are not itemized in Clause 8. That was done in the 1973 legislation, and while it may not seem important to some people, because
the disputes may seem obvious, there was a press release by the companies today saying that there are three items in dispute. The union is saying there are seven items in dispute. Obviously, there is a difference in numbers, and that is something about which we should be concerned. The legislation, based on prior history, should spell out what should be dealt with by the arbitrator.
The Government, in putting this legislation together, rejected the advice that I, among others, gave in the House of Commons. We suggested that the Minister of Labour meet with both the unions and the corporations prior to introducing this legislation. We were not advocating any further delay because we knew this legislation would be dealt with prior to the end of this week. However, we believed that if the Minister of Labour sat down with the parties, he could have at least had the advantage of recommendations based on the 1973 legislation with respect to the items still in dispute. Perhaps this legislation would then deal with the issues that both sides feel are the issues. He did not do that. As a result, some of the things I indicated earlier are problems and concerns.
In addition, the Minister has not met with the people who are not on strike at the present time, those people who are laid off as a result of the present labour dispute. This legislation affects these people as well. It affects the people in the shop crafts council and the locomotive engineers. For some reason it does not affect the railway controllers. That is an interesting question. We would also like to ask later on why that particular group was left out of this legislation.
The problem is that even those groups, or some of those groups who are not on strike at the present time, are affected by this legislation, and at any time the Minister wishes he can proclaim those parts of the legislation which say those people are now covered by the legislation. That is what I considered to be negotiating with an axe to your head.
This legislation is flawed. If the two sides ever had the ability to get together to resolve the items in dispute at the present time, that is now not possible because they know they have this blanket legislation hanging over their heads. The Minister should have at least consulted with the people who are not now on strike and ensured by his actions, and by the actions of this Parliament, that we are not put in a situation where we actually destroy any ability of those parties to come together by themselves and resolve any potential labour dispute.
With respect to the people who are not on strike, the shop craft workers and the locomotive engineers, this legislation gives the arbitrator the power to impose a three-year collective agreement even though they might be sitting down trying to negotiate a two-year collective agreement. It gives the arbitrator the power to decide what items should be in the collective agreement and what items should not be. It gives the arbitrator the power to take a position which is less than the
August 27, 1987

company offered and make that the final settlement. Again, to repeat the words of my Liberal colleague, that can happen.
I know it can happen because when I was a teacher in northern Manitoba it happened to me. The school board offered a certain settlement. The teachers turned it down, not because of the monetary aspect with which they were quite happy, but there were other conditions they wanted included in a collective agreement. They made that case very clearly to the arbitrator. They said that money was not the issue. They were quite happy with what was offered. But they wanted other clauses put into the collective agreement. The arbitrator said no to each of the items the teachers wanted, and then decided to give us less money than the school board was willing to give us. Thank God we negotiated a settlement the next year and the school board gave us the money back. That is the irony of open-ended powers given to an arbitrator.
An arbitrator not only has the power to stay away from anything in the conciliation report, because there are no guidelines in this legislation, but he has the right to ignore what both the parties think might be appropriate. Surely an arbitrator should not be able to go beyond the bounds of where the two parties are at the present time. That just does not make sense.
We must admit then that in 1973 the Liberals, who had a minority Government, put together legislation which was perhaps a bit stronger than they would have put together otherwise, but at least the legislation in those days had a wage guideline. It had other guidelines. It told Emmet Hall, who became the arbitrator, to deal with the conciliation report. All of those things were done. That is not happening here.
The workers are also being penalized because this legislation does not give them any immediate guarantee of money. Not only do they get no guarantee of money in the long run, but it does not even give them the money the companies have promised them. Why is that? The conciliation report indicated that 3 per cent this year and 3 per cent next year, presumably with a two-year collective agreement, would be a reasonable settlement. The companies have offered about half that. Arbitration may take longer than 60 days. I believe that if we are going to order people back to work, we should also ensure that they receive at least some of the money in the short run instead of having to wait what may be well over 60 days. It may be over a year or two years. It is known that arbitration awards are not settled quickly.
Madam Speaker, this legislation is extremely flawed. I am certainly going to reject any attempts by government Members to rush this legislation through the House. I hope that in the long evening in front of us the Minister of Labour and his Department officials, who will be up watching this debate, and his other officials will get in touch with CN and CP and will talk with the unions, because if this House does not rush this legislation through there may be parts of this legislation which could be improved with the concurrence of all parties. Again, I used as just one example the strange powers which have been
Maintenance of Railway Operations
given to the arbitrator to extend the collective agreement by one year when no one has asked for it.
We should be able to have a list of what is in dispute so that the arbitrator knows what he or she should be dealing with. It may well be that in order to ensure some peace at the work site, the companies might be willing to give some monetary increase at the present time. All of that is possible if the Minister and his officials make the attempt to contact the people involved.
One of the problems we have when we rush legislation through this House is that we do not allow for those who are affected by the legislation to participate in the legislation and to make that legislation not only relevant but as complete and as accurate as possible. Therefore, I think the Minister has a long evening in front of him and I want him in the House as much as possible. I also want him out in his government lobby talking to the people who are affected by this legislation to ensure that we do get the amendments that are necessary, because the legislation can be improved. The way it stands right now, we cannot support it. We have indicated all week that we would wait to see what the package was. We did not want to be in a position of saying we were against back to work legislation if it was good legislation. We wanted to give the Government a chance to provide adequate legislation if negotiations did break down. But that is not what has happened. This is weak legislation. It is flawed and vague. It is the Minister's job to fix it. If he does not, then we will.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I am intervening in this debate against what my preference would be. However, I have to intervene because of the silly allegations made principally by the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) who spoke earlier in the debate. As one would expect from him, most of his remarks were innuendo, non sequiturs, and nothing followed from one another. For example, I would like to deal with some of his platitudes and pitiful pettifoggery, which might, of course, bore the House. He claims-


John V. Nunziata: Come on, John, this is serious business.


John Carnell Crosbie: If the hon. gentleman will listen he will understand what the points are that I am making-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: No, he won't.


John Carnell Crosbie: He will at least have the opportunity to understand.
The Hon. Member for Papineau attempted to blame the present strike in the Canadian railway system on deregulation. How is it possible to blame this particular strike on deregulation when deregulation so-called, or the Canadian version of it, does not come into effect in Canada until January 1, 1988? Is this anticipatory? How can he possibly blame it on deregulation?

August 27, 1987
Maintenance of Railway Operations
Deregulation has not caused any loss of employment in the Canadian rail industry because we have not had deregulation. Of course, there has been a loss of employment in the rail industry in Canada caused by the changing nature of the transportation system. For example, in 1974 there were 107,569 employees in the Canadian rail system. In 1984, before we came into office, there were 81,710 employees working in the Canadian rail system, 25,859 fewer than in 1974. Is that to be blamed on deregulation when there was not even any deregulation at that particular time?
If we listen to the Hon. Member for Papineau, I suppose we should make it all retroactive-the blame is certainly retroactive. As a matter of fact, his Government was in office during all those years except for eight months. So the problem with the railway industry, and many other industries in Canada, particularly the smoke-stack industries, the heavy industries, is that the nature of our economy has changed. It has changed to a service and communications kind of economy. The smokestack heavy industries and the railways which depended heavily upon them have therefore suffered as a result. That is the problem that is faced by the railway industry.
The Hon. Member for Papineau suggested that when the committee was dealing with legislation passed earlier in this session leaders of the railway industry said that employment would be lost because of deregulation. 1 happen to have some of the quotations here, which is more than he did. He did not quote one. As usual, he made these slippery comments, old slippery-heels from Papineau, and he did not produce any quotations at all. I have here in my hand a quotation from Mr. 1. B. Scott, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of CP Rail. He stated:
We would have to adjust our workforce-but that is going to happen anyway. Those cost pressures are there for our customers in the market competition aspect of rate-setting, let alone the regulatory aspect.
That was Mr. Scott's evidence when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport, as well as when he appeared before the Senate committee.
On July 14 Mr. Morin, the Vice-President, Marketing, of CN Rail, stated:
The total amount of traffic in volume may not be different on each of the railways, but it will move at a much lower revenue. If that is the case, then there will not be any job loss because of it.
This is exactly contrary to what the Hon. Member for Papineau has said everyone from the railways was saying.
Mr. Lawless, who is the President and Chief Executive Officer of CN Rail, said on March 2:
Whether this Bill comes in or not, the railways have to rationalize their services and they have to find a way to reduce their costs or they will not be able to remain competitive in the market-place today.
That is what he said. It is in direct contradiction to what the Hon. Member for Papineau said.
The rail industry faces a difficult, competitive situation, not because of deregulation but because of fundamental changes in
the economy. They faced it in the United States. They face it in every other industrialized country in the world. It is because of changes in railway technology, not because of regulatory reform.
Since the passage of the National Transportation Act in 1967, rail employment in both these railways dropped 29 per cent. In CN and CP freight operations, rail employment dropped 19 per cent in the five years from 1980 to 1985. So deregulation has no more connection with the present impasse in collective bargaining in the rail companies of Canada than the man in the moon would have.
If this strike were caused by deregulation, then what caused the strikes of 1966 and 1973? What a silly suggestion to make. This strike is caused by the fact that the two parties involved, management and employees, have not been able to reach an agreement on various aspects of their collective agreement. We have a free collective bargaining system in Canada. It has some penalties as well as a great number of benefits.
This industry is important to Canada. It is important to our grain farmers and our resource industries. What is carried by rail today, by the way, is grain, which accounts for one-sixth of all the railway tonnage, bulk freight, coal, sulphur, potash, steel, chemicals and forest products, which comprise over one-half of rail traffic. The smaller, more valuable traffic has gone to the trucks and all the rest of it. Because it is so important, we have to intervene. We cannot allow the rest of the country, innocent third parties, to be penalized in this way for very long. That is why we have to intervene.
Rail handles only 27 per cent of all freight tonnage today. That is still very important, which is why we are intervening. But in 1984 the rail system handled 33 per cent. So one can see the declining situation with respect to the share of rail in our freight transportation and the competition it faces from trucks, ships and air.
To return to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Papineau, I am intervening to set the record straight. He claimed that we should have known that the strike was coming and that we should have intervened earlier. We all knew that there was the possibility of a strike. We all know in any set of collective bargaining that there is a threat of a strike. There is always the threat of a strike. That is the power, the weapon, that the employees have, and the employer has the threat of a lock-out. We all know what can happen when negotiations are not successful. But because we know that, are we supposed to intervene right from the start? Is that what the Liberal Government did in 1973 or in 1966? Of course it did not. It is a piece of errant stupidity to suggest that somehow we should have intervened any earlier.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) did everything he could through the use of conciliation and the use of mediators to try to assist these two parties to reach a settlement. Because they have been unable to reach a settlement the House has to intervene to see that the disruption in the rail system of Canada ceases. The only way to do that is by the appointment
August 27, 1987

of an arbitrator. This House cannot and should not arbitrate this dispute. We are not capable of doing it. We are not impartial, as we all know. We just heard the opening speaker, the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy). He is obviously not an impartial observer of the scene. He has already given his opinion that work should not be contracted out and so on. We are not even allowed to give the facts with respect to the present collective agreement that is in effect at Canadian National.
When I was asked questions in the House on August 24 by the Hon. Member for Churchill, he objected to my answers and tried to allege that somehow this shows some type of bias. I was only explaining that the Crown corporation, for which we are responsible, has one of the more generous systems in effect in Canada, and that the matter was now subject to mediation and collective bargaining. We are not even supposed to say that our own Crown corporation has a system of job security at present. It is one of the matters that has been discussed in this collective bargaining negotiation, because naturally the railway employees want a better and a more generous one, and the employer has to be concerned about its costs, competitiveness, and productivity. They have a different point of view.
We are not even allowed to give the facts in the House when we are questioned and when the motives and the actions of our own Crown corporation are impugned. But the Hon. Member for Churchill can stand up and take a position on all of the matters that are disputed in the present situation, and give his opinion that they should not contract out work. What is sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander. That is a typical NDP double standard. They think that they hold all the morality, and that all the rights are in the hands of the NDP. We all know how impartial they are. When the labour movement states that they are against free trade, the members of the NDP bob their heads and they are against free trade. If they are against deregulation, this crew bobs their heads and they are against deregulation.
I will say that the Hon. Member for Churchill put forward some relevant points on the Bill. They were of interest to hear. The Hon. Member for Papineau said that the railways have been squeezed out of existence by deregulation imposed by the Minister. How can they be squeezed out of existence by something that is not yet there? Deregulation does not start until January 1, 1988. How can the railways be squeezed out of existence in that manner? It is shocking. It is anticipatory squeezing. It is premature squeezology.
The Hon. Member for Papineau talked about labour adjustment. There are labour adjustment programs of Government. We are aware of the fact that the economy is changing and certain industries have to be assisted. There have to be adjustment programs. We have to deal with the problems of lay-offs and unemployment. My hon. colleague, the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), was
Maintenance of Railway Operations
dealing with that, and it has been dealt with by the present Minister. Of course there are a number of government programs for employment and training. Companies like CN also have programs. I will not comment on whether or not they are adequate. I think it would be fair to say that they certainly have programs that are among the best in the Canadian industrial scene. I am speaking on this point to defend CN, which is our Crown corporation, from unfair criticism from the Hon. Member for Papineau-prejudice, criticism, political, polemical, putrid attacks from the poltroon from Papineau. That is why I am speaking.
The Hon. Member for Papineau criticized the fact that there is no extra money for the employees in the Bill now before the House. That is because this is a Bill to send this dispute to arbitration. How could we intervene and take one or two aspects of the present impasse in the relationship between these groups and deal with that ourselves in the House? We do not think that is the way that the collective bargaining system should operate. Despite our best efforts, these parties have been unable to resolve this matter themselves. It is not for the House to say what the collective bargaining agreement between them should be. Now they have failed themselves, it is for some other impartial authority.
I ask Hon. Members to remember that any new agreement that is reached or imposed by the arbitrator will be retroactive to January 1, 1987. The parties can still agree on any items that they want to agree upon when they first go before the arbitrator. If they say to the arbitrator that we agree on X, Y, Z, this item, that item, or 30 items, the arbitrator will not bother to deal with the items that they agree on. There is nothing stopping the parties from agreeing on anything at the present time right up to the arbitration. Under the legislation, the parties can agree after the arbitration. They can change the agreement that the arbitrator imposes, if the arbitrator has to impose an agreement, by agreement afterwards, as you will see by reference to the Bill. They can change the agreement. They can change their present agreement now, and they can change any agreement that the arbitrator finds he has to impose, if they agree together. Their fate is in their own hands, which is where it should be, if there is to be a free collective bargaining system, as this country is supposed to have. That is how this legislation leaves it. It leaves the dispute largely in the hands of the parties, but if they cannot resolve it then the appointed arbitrator will resolve it.
The Hon. Member for Papineau also said this-a scurvy piece of business, that's the best way I could put it. I am trying to be statesman-like today. He did not say that the employers wrote the legislation, but he said it seems to some people, or it could be that-I forget the exact words he used-the employers wrote this legislation. The Hon. Member for Papineau did not make an allegation that the employers wrote this legislation. He did not make the charge that they wrote the legislation. He just suggested that it might be that they wrote the legislation, and if they did he was against it.

August 27, 1987
Maintenance of Railway Operations
What type of scurvy, dog in the manger, lack of backbone statement is that, Mr. Speaker? The Hon. Member for Papineau has not as much backbone as a rubber ducky.


John V. Nunziata: Big joke, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: He knows very well that the employers did not write the legislation. He knows very well that the employers had nothing to do with the legislation. He knows very well that the employers did not see the legislation any more than the railway unions saw the legislation before it was introduced in the House. He does not want to make a direct charge because he does not have any proof to back up a direct charge. He just mentions this in the hope that the press or somebody will pick it up and put it on the wire. The rubber ducky is not even here to listen to me.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It takes one to know one.


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. rubber ducky from Papineau.


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are dealing with some very important and serious legislation with regard to Bill C-85. I find it very offensive that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), as a Minister of the Crown, should make fun of this particular legislation, and in so doing use unparliamentary language and break parliamentary rules in order to criticize my colleague, the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet).


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I rise on a point of order. Through you, Madam Speaker, I would appeal to everyone here to take this matter more seriously. I know that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) has a talent for dragging down the level of a debate. The fact of the matter is that he is not supposed to reflect on the absence of Members from the House.


John V. Nunziata: And the Hon. Member for Papineau is right here.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: And the Member whose absence he did reflect upon is talking to the Member's own colleague, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux), presumably about the legislation.
Let us treat the matter a little more seriously, if we may.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. I am sure that everyone in the House realizes that this is a very important piece of legislation. I am sure that the Hon. Minister will refrain from mentioning whoever is and is not present in the House. The Hon. Minister should know better, and I know that he does.


John Carnell Crosbie: I would not dream of violating the rules any more than any of the Members opposite who constantly comment on who is and who is not present in the House.
I am not treating this Bill with any levity. I am treating the poor, tasteless remarks of the leading, opening speaker for the Liberal Party. It is better to treat them with levity than to treat them the way that you feel.
I will pass on to the Hon. Member for Churchill who says that the NDP Party will oppose the legislation. This is the usual hypocrisy. They are all for terminating the railway strike, but they will oppose the legislation that terminates it. Why? Because it does not contain the provisions they think it should contain in favour of one of the parties to the legislation. That is how impartial the Hon. Members from the NDP are. They are going to take stand, and it will not be an impartial stand. They say that the legislation is hanging over the heads of the parties. It is not hanging over the heads of the parties. It has been brought into this House so that the present strike will cease and the parties can bring the matters in dispute and present their arguments to an impartial arbitrator. As I said a few moments ago, there is nothing stopping them settling all or any of the items in dispute before they ever get to the arbitrator, including the question of wages.
We know there is a recommendation from Mr. Stanley on wages. I think he recommended 3 per cent and 3 per cent. It is quite possible for these two parties to settle that. Perhaps it is part of the dynamics of a labour collective bargaining negotiation that they do not want to do that. Normally it is a situation of "I will do this, if you will do that", and there is the to and fro on all of the issues. You cannot pick out just one issue. The parties do not want to pick out one issue and settle on one issue because they have a whole lot of other issues they are trying to get settled. That is the dynamics of the negotiation. They have no legislation hanging over their heads. The legislation is in this House today. If the Senate comes back, as it is supposed to do tomorrow at two o'clock, presumably the House will pass the legislation, and hopefully the Senate will, and the strike will be over tomorrow and the two sides will still be free to go forward and settle their dispute by themselves if they can or before an arbitrator if they cannot.
Society has changed. In the 1950s, the automobile started to become the predominant means of inter-city travel, as we all know, and the share of the freight transportation market held by the two railways was then around 60 per cent. In the seventies, it declined to 40 per cent, and today they are carrying 27 per cent of all goods shipped. If that is the case, how can the railways possibly have the same number of employees today as they had in the 1950s after this huge change in the nature of their business? Deregulation has nothing to do with this dispute. It may affect the attitude of the parties who are bargaining, but deregulation did not create this situation.
Our hope is that through deregulation the business of the railways will expand, that the market and competition will give them back a lot of the business they have had, and that in the future they will be able to employ more people, which is what happened in the United States in the trucking field and in the air field. Hopefully it will have a healthy effect here in Canada in the rail field as well.
August 27, 1987


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister. He has said repeatedly that deregulation is not responsible for the difficulties. Since deregulation is not in effect, it is not a factor in the fears of the workers that there will be further lay-offs.
I put it to the Minister that the whole purpose of deregulation-and the Government has said this all along-is to make transportation more competitive. The railways will have to compete much more with trucks than they have in the past. Obviously if the railways are going to be more competitive, they will have to cut costs. They will obviously have to accelerate as quickly as the regulatory agency will permit. They will have to get rid of branch lines, cut back on maintenance, and farm out to non-union workers as much of the work now done by railway workers as they can. They will accelerate as quickly as they can in the reduction of the number of employees who work for the railways because deregulation will require that for them to be as competitive as possible.
Why does the Minister keep on insisting, despite the claims of the unions, substantiated by the conciliator, that deregulation is an important factor and will lead to much more in the way of lay-offs?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I quoted from the leaders of the rail companies themselves as to the effect of deregulation. I would like to refer to the quotation again. Mr. Scott, who is the Chairman and CEO of CP Rail, stated:
We would have to adjust our workforce-
That is under deregulation.
-but that is going to happen anyway. Those cost pressures are there for our
customers in the market competition aspect of rate setting, let alone the
regulatory aspect.
It is not deregulation that is causing the problem, as I have tried to explain, it is the change in society. For example, if we take statistical information on the modal share of major Canadian exports to the United States, including fertilizers, newsprint and paper, wood pulp, steel products, chemicals and acids, the rail share of those exports to the United States in 1980 was 72.5 per cent. In 1985, it was under 60 per cent. The share of the trucking industry increased from 19 per cent to 28 per cent, while water's share rose from 7.5 per cent to 12 per cent. This is why the rail industry has had a significant reduction in the number of people who move in the rail industry.
In 1980, rail moved 17,033,000 tonnes to the United States. In 1985, rail moved only 15,148,000 tonnes. Although there was a larger movement, the total movement went up from 23 million to 25 million but the rail share went down. That is why they have these problems. That is why job security is important to people who work in this industry, not because of deregulation but because of the nature of the changes in society and in their industry in the last 15 or 20 years.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) is right when he says that the situation in which
Maintenance of Railway Operations
Canadian railways find themselves, or for that matter in which other railways in the United States find themselves, is not totally attributable to deregulation. All the things that the Minister cites are true. No one has claimed-he is setting up a straw man here-that the events and the reductions in employment that have occurred over the last 10 or 15 years are due to deregulation. The Minister is right when he says deregulation will not take effect until 1988. But it is also a fact, with a smidgen of intellectual honesty here, that the last year of the contract being negotiated is a year in which deregulation will be in effect. The only point we are trying to establish here is the connection, that deregulation is a factor in these negotiations. Therefore, it is related to government policy.
The conciliator himself on page 6 says that in their submissions to us the railway companies outlined their view of the future. They go on to note things which the Minister has already noted. They see little growth in their transportation stronghold, namely, bulk commodities, because of slack demand for Canadian resources. On top of this they see fierce competition in the 50 per cent of the market where they compete with the trucking industry. They see deregulation and relatively low wages giving trucking an edge in this competition. That is right from the conciliator's report, Madam Speaker. It is not something the NDP Members are making up. All we are trying to establish is a connection between deregulation and what is going on, the arguments which the railways are making, and the Minister has consistently denied this all week. For what reason, I do not know, because it is right there in the conciliator's report.
Will the Minister kindly explain whether Dr. Stanley is subject to all the accusations that he has made about us because we have tried to establish a connection, not the supreme connection but a connection between deregulation and what is going on?


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, let me try to alleviate the trauma under which the hon. gentleman from Winnipeg- Birds Hill is suffering. If he is saying that deregulation is a factor, yes.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It took a week to get you to say that.


John Carnell Crosbie: I was not asked that question. There is no answer to any question by me that indicates otherwise. I was answering the Hon. member for Papineau who tried to blame this whole strike and situation on deregulation in a most dishonest manner, certainly intellectually dishonest. He did not suggest that there was a connection. He said that deregulation and the Minister of Transport were the cause of the strike.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) has a bit more intellect and a bit more intellectual honesty. He said that deregulation was a factor. Certainly it was a factor-


John V. Nunziata: A big factor.

August 27, 1987
Maintenance of Railway Operations


John Carnell Crosbie: Not a big factor. I can quote from Dr. Stanley's report as well. For example, he says that certain proposals go against the rational foundation upon which the system was built, and he was dealing there with job security. He has made his report and has analysed the position.
Deregulation means that the railways will have to be, just as they have been before, as competitive as possible. That is a factor, but their problems started long ago. The big fall in employment in the railways came during the Liberal years.
Between 1974 and 1984, 25,000 people disappeared from the rail employment rolls. The hon. gentleman's Government was in power then and did nothing about it, presumably because there was nothing it could do about it. I might even concede that to the Government because that is the nature of changes in society. I was not here then to use any intellectually dishonest arguments to try to blame the situation on the Government. I did not try to blame the Government for factors such as that steel was no longer important, the railways now depending on bulk commodities, two-thirds of business now going to the West rather than the East, and the percentage carried by trucks, ships and airplanes. That is life and not the fault of any Government. I hope the hon. gentleman will withdraw all the remarks he made and admit that he was wrong.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I have only a few seconds at my disposal. I will just say that I guess the truth hurts very much. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), who was so silent and invisible during the debate on Bills C-18 and C-19, has now suddenly appeared and started responding to my constant objections to deregulation.
It is now clear that deregulation is badly hurting employees. We now have an example of this, and I am glad to see that the Minister is waking up to it. He does not like it but he is waking up to it. I think the Minister should take care of relations with France. He has a lot to do there and he should go back, concentrate on that and let his Parliamentary Secretary continue doing the job on his behalf.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: A final word from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie).


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my final word is bushwah.


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, before I begin my remarks on Bill C-85, I would like to point out that the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault), the labour critic for the Official Opposition, would have liked to have been here today to participate in this important debate. Unfortunately, his mother is seriously ill in Montreal and his presence is required at his mother's side.
In the last 45 minutes, Canadians had an opportunity to judge and assess the credibility of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) speaking on behalf of the Government of Canada. I am certain that the overwhelming majority of Canadians have concluded that this Minister is not a serious
Minister. They have concluded that he does not take this rail strike seriously. He has used the opportunity to make jokes about a serious matter affecting some 55,000 or more employees rather than to justify this back to work legislation. He is making light of a strike that is costing the railway companies $20 million a day, a strike that is costing private industry tens of millions of dollars a day.
What we get from the Government is a Minister of Transport responsible for the railway industry making joke after joke. 1 would like to tell the Minister of Transport that members of the Official Opposition do not treat this matter lightly. We do not believe it is a joke that tens of thousands of Canadians are affected in a very negative fashion by this legislation.
Having said that, I would like to now turn to Bill C-85, a Bill entitled an Act to provide for the resumption and continuance of railway operations and for the settlement, et cetera, et cetera. It is back to work legislation. By its very nature, back to work legislation is objectionable. It is offensive in a country that believes very strongly in collective bargaining. However, there comes a time when the Government must act in the best interests not only of the unions and the management but of Canada as a whole.
We are faced here with a national emergency. Parliament was recalled several weeks ago to deal with a so-called national emergency on refugees in Canada. We questioned whether or not that was a true emergency or a true crisis, but the situation Canadians are faced with today is a true national emergency, a true national crisis. If Parliament were not sitting, there is no doubt that it would have been recalled to deal with this legislation as it has been on several other occasions.
The public interest commands that we pass legislation today to get the railways running. As of tomorrow, the railways will be running, notwithstanding members of the New Democratic Party.
1 would like to comment very briefly on the position taken by members of the New Democratic Party. We in the Official Opposition believe that their position is totally irresponsible. The New Democratic Party through its main speaker said that it intends to oppose the legislation unless certain changes are adopted. It was not quite made clear whether or not, even if all the suggested amendments were accepted by the Government, the New Democratic Party would in fact accept the legislation.
NDP Members would rather have the rail strike continue. They would rather have the railway companies losing $20 million a day. They would rather have grain farmers in western Canada suffer in a very serious fashion because of the rail strike. Members of the New Democratic Party would rather have the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are affected directly by the railway strike continue to suffer. Is that a responsible position for a national Party to take? I conclude that it is not. Members of the NDP are up to their mischief again. They are speaking out of both sides of their mouths.
August 27, 1987

Today I had the opportunity to speak to several representatives of the unions affected. Members of the New Democratic Party say they represent unions in Canada. Several union people had some difficulty getting through to members of the New Democratic Party to express their points of view.
If members of the NDP had taken the opportunity to speak to the unions, the individuals affected by this strike, they would have known that the unions themselves will accept back to work legislation. They have concerns about who the arbitrator might be and about some of the matters raised by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), but when push comes to shove, they understand that the railway must run.
Members of the NDP take the irresponsible and naive position that if some minor technical changes to this legislation are not accepted by the Government, they will oppose it. If there were an NPD Government in Canada, heaven forbid, then the railways would be closed, shut down forever and a day. There would not be a collective bargaining agreement entered into between labour and management.
As the Hon. Member for Papineau pointed out, we in the Official Opposition will support the Government. We are prepared to work all night long. As you know, the Senate has been recalled and it will be in a position tomorrow to give royal assent to this legislation which will be followed by resumption of railway operations.
The Hon. Member pointed out some of the deficiencies in this legislation, but we believe that, notwithstanding the deficiencies, the legislation is supportable. Unlike members of the NDP, who are opposed to everything, we will try in a very constructive manner to improve the legislation.
What are the changes we would like? We are concerned, as are the unions, about several matters. Let me begin with job security. Approximately 54,000 railway employees are affected by the strike. We are talking about 54,000 families. Is it too much for those people to want some type of job security? I suggest it is not. It is fine for us who sit in this beautiful Chamber and collect a pay cheque every month not to be concerned about job security, but the Government must be concerned about job security for the workers. We believe very strongly that certain guidelines should have been entrenched in this legislation to address the whole problem rather than simply giving the arbitrator a mandate to come up with some type of settlement.
In 1973, the Liberal Government was required to legislate railway workers back to work. That legislation contained specific instructions for the appointed arbitrator. Those instructions included directions to come up with a feasible job security program, avoid amending work rules in such a way that they would harm workers, and recommend fair wage increases. There are no such instructions in Bill C-85. In 1973, no time limit was set. Under Bill C-85, the arbitrator must do
Maintenance of Railway Operations
his or her job within 60 days unless the Minister in his discretion decides to extend that period of time. We believe that the arbitrator should not be required to do his or her important job while being worried about time constraints. Once again, we will attempt to convince the Minister to remove that clause.
In 1973, there was a guarantee of no wage reductions. There is no such guarantee in the present legislation. It should have been made absolutely clear in this legislation that there would be no wage reduction. At the very worst, the arbitrator should be allowed to maintain the status quo. There is a reason for that.
The workers are being forced back to work by law. There are provisions for fines in this legislation if they do not go back to work. It will be an offence for an individual to contravene this legislation with a minimum fine of $10,000 per day and a maximum of $50,000 per day if they were acting in the capacity of an officer or representative of the railway companies. A union official who breaches this legislation will be fined a minimum of $10,000 a day. There was no such provision in the 1973 legislation. The Government is holding a gun to the heads of union officials. That is not conducive to discussions in good faith. It is obvious that the Government, perhaps inadvertently, is tilting the legislation in favour of the employers. We will work with the Government to eliminate that provision.
Individual workers are also subject to substantial fines, a minimum of $500 and a maximum of $1,000 a day. That applies to individuals not acting in their capacity as representatives of the union. It seems to me the workers might not go back to work in a very positive mood. It also seems to me there are ways of ensuring they will go back to work and put in an honest day's work, as well as ensuring that they work with management and the arbitrator in order to come up with a report fair to all sides.
As you know, the workers can be legislated back to work or, to use the wording in the Act itself, be forced to resume their duties. However, we all know about working to rule. They may go back to work but they may not do anything that is not required of them. As you know, working to rule could be just as devastating and negative as a full-scale strike.
We believe that in order to show good faith certain provisions should exist in the legislation. First, there should be guidelines for the arbitrator with regard to job security, fair wages, et cetera. In our view that would assist to provide the atmosphere for positive, good faith discussions and bargaining. We believe that a time limit would assist in setting the right stage for a fair agreement. We believe that there should be no wage reduction.
We will try to convince the Government at least to legislate an increase as proposed by the conciliator. Rather than the employees having to wait the period of time required for the

August 27, 1987
Maintenance of Railway Operations
arbitrator to report, we believe that at the very least the workers should receive an increase in their pay cheques in the amount the conciliator has recommended. We believe that will show good faith by the Government.
I would like to comment very briefly on the cause of this crisis, this national emergency. In between jokes the Minister of Transport denied that this strike was caused by deregulation. He admitted, upon being pressed on the issue, that deregulation was a factor in this strike. We know that Bills C-18 and C-19, the two pieces of legislation which will deregulate the transport industry in Canada, have had a profound impact on this strike. The Minister of Transport should assume a lot of the responsibility for this strike because he dealt with this legislation in the same joking manner as he dealt with Bills C-18 and C-19.
As you know. Madam Speaker, there was a Cabinet shuffle today. I suspect that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), in his wisdom, will have recognized the lack of credibility of the Minister of Transport and shuffled him not only out of the position of Minister of Transport but right out of Cabinet. Given his propensity to joke about very serious matters, it seems to me that the Prime Minister and his Government would be well served by removing the Minister of Transport and replacing him with someone who will accept his or her responsibilities in a more serious way.
This strike was anticipated by a great number of individuals and organizations. During committee deliberations on Bills C-18 and C-19 the Government was warned that there would be massive lay-offs in the transportation industry.
I note, Madam Speaker, that you have indicated that my time is about to expire. Therefore, I will conclude my remarks by reiterating the position of the Official Opposition. Our position, unlike that of the New Democratic Party, is that we support this legislation. This is a national emergency and we will work over the course of the evening and the morning to try to convince the Government to adopt some, if not all, of the recommendations that we are proposing. We believe that by tomorrow evening this legislation will become law. I hope the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) will be able to convince his colleague, the Minister of Transport, to consider our amendments in a very positive way.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, if there were laws in this country against intellectual pollution as there are against environmental pollution, the Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) would be one of the first to be prosecuted. He, better than anyone else, incarnates the current pathos of the Liberal Party, the well-deserved tragedy which is now coming upon that unlamented Canadian institution.
It would be funny, if it were not so offensive, to hear Liberal Members of Parliament making a case against deregulation in the course of this debate when we know that deregulation began under the Liberal Government prior to 1984 and that
many of the things which the Conservative Government has done would have been done by the Liberals had they survived the election of 1984.
We also know that during the course of debate in this Parliament about deregulation the Liberals played a very lacklustre part, both in the House of Commons and in the Senate. Quite unlike their behaviour with respect to Bill C-22 to amend the drug Patent Act, Liberal Senators moved no amendments and suggested no changes on deregulation. With respect, the Liberal position on deregulation, as it has been put in the House today with the concern that they have now developed about it, is probably one of the most hypocritical things I have witnessed here in a long time and, God knows, we have witnessed a lot of hypocritical things in the House of Commons. This ranks among the top 10, to be sure.
There are also funny things being said on the government side with regard to deregulation. We finally got the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) to admit that there is some connection between deregulation and this rail strike. Yet, after having admitted that, the Minister wanted us to believe that he never made any indefensible claim about deregulation.
I point to Hansard of August 25, 1987, where the Minister of Transport said, in reply to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), the following:
Mr. Speaker, this situation of the railways has no more to do with
deregulation than the hon. gentleman has to do with the moon.
That is not the sort of comment that Cabinet Ministers should be making in any event, but the Minister of Transport in effect withdrew that statement when he admitted to me this afternoon that deregulation is a factor. It is a factor because the last year of the contract which was being negotiated, 1988, is a year in which deregulation would already be in effect.
As I read into the record before, the conciliator himself, Mr. Stanley, notes on page 6 of his report that the railways see deregulation and relatively low wages as giving trucking an edge in this competition.
We are talking about the railways' attempt in this negotiation to anticipate the effects of deregulation. One of the effects of deregulation is that they will have to compete with the lower wages paid in the trucking sector. That means that railway workers will be asked, by virtue of government policy, to accept lower wages than they have traditionally been paid in order that the railways might fit into the deregulated framework that is being imposed upon the Canadian transportation sector by the Government. Lower wages for working families mean a reduced quality of life and reduced opportunities. It is not an exaggeration to say that deregulation was one of the biggest pieces of anti-labour legislation ever passed in the United States. We will come to see that deregulation in Canada will prove to be one of the biggest pieces of anti-labour legislation ever passed. We see the beginnings of that in this very dispute, in the way the railways have tried to anticipate the framework within which they will have to live after deregulation.
August 27, 1987

I do not say this to exonerate the railways because I think there are ways in which they can respond to the difficulties of deregulation without taking it out on their employees. For instance, they could have been more persuasive with the Government in making it realize the absolute lunacy of the policies that are being adopted as a result of deregulation.
Doctor Stanley says on page 6 of his report, again referring to deregulation, that all this leads to the railways' efforts to improve productivity to meet the competition from trucking and from the U.S. rail industry.
One factor, which is not unoriginated but comes right from the conciliator's report, is that one of the most ridiculous, unjust, unpatriotic unCanadian, and damaging steps the Government is taking is that of competitive line rates. Like no other country in the world, we will allow foreign-owned railways, in this case American railways, to compete directly for Canadian traffic that would normally be transported across Canada. Currently, traffic that might originate in British Columbia or Alberta would be transported across western Canada to points in eastern Canada or the northeastern United States. I find it incomprehensible that the Conservatives are making it possible this traffic which formerly made its way across Canada might cross the border from Alberta into Montana and be transported across the northern United States to points east.
This would eliminate the jobs of all the people who operate the trains, who maintain the trains, as well as the jobs of people in spin-off industries that the railway creates.
That is the Progressive Conservative regional development strategy for western Canada. It is eliminating all those jobs as a direct result of deregulation and Bill C-18. That is why the Government must take responsibility for creating the context in which this dispute has occurred.
Railway workers are not only arguing in favour of their own economic well-being when seeking job security and job protection from the effects of deregulation. They are on the front lines in the battle for the very transportation infrastructure of Canada. They are on the front lines fighting for the very nature of this country, if you like.
I hope we can finally put to rest any remaining contention that deregulation is not somehow involved in the present situation, whether it be negotiations, a strike, or back to work legislation.
1 have some concerns about the Bill itself. First, it is quite unlike the Bill that returned people to work in 1973. This is partly because the Bill in 1973 was passed by a completely different Parliament in which the New Democratic Party held the balance of power. We were able to have a much larger say in the kind of back to work legislation that would be passed at that time than we obviously will be able to have with the current Government. However, we have not given up hope that
Maintenance of Railway Operations
the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) will listen to some of our suggestions.
Furthermore, this Bill is quite different in detail and in tone, which is especially disturbing. The tone of this legislation and the remarks that have been made, not by the Minister but by certain other government Members in the last few days, have shown that there is a prejudgment on the part of the Government about who is making the most legitimate claims in this dispute. Yet it is my opinion from the conciliator's report that he is more severe with the companies than the employees.
Some of the details of the Bill, which again related to its tone, were mentioned by the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy). For instance, workers are to go back to their jobs when so required. What is the meaning of "when so required"? Is it when the company decides it wants them back, or could they decide not to require some people to come back and require others? I hope this wording is only a sign of sloppy drafting rather than deliberately inserting into the legislation a new power for the railways to play havoc with the lives of their employees.
The Bill in its present form provides no guarantee that everyone who went out on strike, believing it was his or her right under the usual circumstances, will even be called back.
However, this afternoon there was a call for return to work, but under quite different circumstances than what 1 am describing. Some local yokel at the CPR diesel shop at Winnipeg decided, to recall the employees at that shop. The employees at the CPR diesel shop who belong to the Canadian Council of Shopcraft Unions are not technically on strike. They were to report to work immediately and therefore be put into the position of having to cross the picket lines of their fellow workers. This created a potential for a very ugly scene but, thanks to the intervention of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), who made a few phone calls to people in authority at Canadian Pacific, wisdom prevailed and the decision of the local yokel at the CPR diesel shop at Weston was overruled.
Why can the Minister not agree to the suggestion by the Hon. Member for Churchill that there be an itemization of those matters in dispute placed in the Bill? Why leave open the possibility that during the course of the arbitration the items in dispute will not be those things now being negotiated? Why not ensure that what is in dispute will be the subject of arbitration, rather than creating chaos upon chaos? The Minister should follow the suggestion of the Hon. Member for Churchill that those matters which are in dispute be itemized so that there is no disagreement about what is in dispute.
In his telegram to the railways on Monday ordering the parties to have one last round of negotiations the Minister cited the conciliator's report as the context in which they should be conducting their negotiations. Yet this legislation sets no context in which to proceed. There is no mention of the conciliator's report or any other guidelines or instructions.

August 27, 1987
Maintenance of Railway Operations
I hope the Minister will explain why he left out any reference to the useful context that this report might have provided to the arbitrator in the process that the Minister is setting up. Why did he decide not to have any guidelines whatsoever, or any minimum conditions for that matter?
It has already been pointed out that, unlike the Bill that was passed in 1973, there is no guarantee that there will not be any reduction in wages. There is no guarantee of anything. Workers who are going back to work are being asked to sign a blank cheque and put all their faith in some person who has been given no particular instructions or guidelines and all authority in a piece of legislation in which there are no protections whatsoever. There is no protection against rulings by arbitrators, which may be completely out of line with any sense of justice or what is happening with the railways. So I hope the Minister will take that to heart and consider amendments in that direction.
There are some things that one just cannot understand unless one is close to the issues. What has happened in the railway industry is that there has been a complete breakdown of trust over the last five years to 10 years between labour and management. For many people in the community I come from, in Transcona, the railway they worked for and knew for decades, the railway their parents and their grandparents worked for, as is the case with me, has disappeared. What we have now is a completely different world in which management, for whatever reason-and they will be stimulated to be even more like this as a result of deregulation-is constantly looking for ways to get rid of jobs, to get rid of people.
We see this also in the way in which rules are being enforced. Employees are constantly in a position where they are damned if they keep the rules, because if one kept all the rules set down for operating a railway there is not a boxcar that would move. They are damned if they keep the rules. In fact some of them have actually been subject to harassment by the company for keeping the rules. But by God, if they break one of those rules and an accident occurs, they have to take the rap.
At one time it was understood that employees were in a difficult position with respect to these kinds of things as well as with respect to other situations, but this acknowledgment has completely broken down, and so nowthere is no trust.
Let us take an issue the conciliator addresses but does not understand, that is, the desire of the railways to have trainmen hook up hoses. These hoses comprise the break system on a train. The railways say all they want is some flexibility. When there is no carman available whose job traditionally is to hook up these hoses, they want trainmen to be able to hook them up so they do not have to go halfway across the yard to get a carman to hook up the hoses. They say all they want is flexibility. However, anyone who works for CN now knows full well that that is not the real reason. The real reason the
railways want to get permission for trainmen to be able to hook up hoses is that they want to be able to lay off about 50 carmen. That is why they want that flexibility. So there is a built-in dishonesty in the bargaining.
There is a built-in lack of trust because time and time again things which have been asked for on one basis are known to be motivated by something completely different. The houses are a good example. With all due respect to the conciliator, he missed that altogether. For whatever reason, he just did not know the full story behind that request.
Railway workers cannot be expected to continue to work cheerfully or productively if they know that at every turn the company is looking for a way to get rid of them, and if they know that at every turn, in terms of public policy established by this Government, their own federal Government is looking for ways to provide opportunities for American railways to take their jobs away. That is not exactly the kind of thing that provides people with a sense of security, well-being or confidence that there is anyone on the government side who cares about them at all.
There has been some argument about whether we knew the strike was coming. We all knew the strike was coming. We knew it was coming because we knew we had a Government that was unwilling to instruct its Crown corporation, Canadian National Railway, to abandon the kind of concession bargaining in which it was engaged. Because we know that railway workers are human beings, that they have some dignity, that they do not intend to live on their knees, and that there was no way in God's heaven they were going to accept such ridiculous demands, we all knew there was going to be a strike. As long as there were self-respecting railway workers around, there would be a strike. It is on the Government's head, not on the heads of the railway workers, that this strike occurred in the first place. If the Government had two brain cells to rub together, it could have figured out what was going to happen, but it did not. So all the people who are complaining about the effect of the strike on their businesses or whatever, can look at the Government opposite and not anywhere else for someone to blame.


Alan Redway: Madam Speaker, I was interested in the comments of the Hon. Member with respect to the impact of deregulation as a cause, or one of the causes, for the existing strike at the present time. He stated in fact that deregulation, which will be going into effect on January, 1988, is really the cause of the current strike.
I wonder if the Hon. Member could explain to us why it was that between 1974 and 1984, when there was no deregulation in the country and when the present Government, of course, was not in office, there was a reduction in the total workforce of the railways of some 25,000 people, something like a 29 per cent reduction?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I would be delighted to tell the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) because there
August 27, 1987

has been an implication here-and the Minister of Transport was basically following the same line-that somehow because there were significant reductions in the railway workforce prior to deregulation, therefore, any argument we make about how deregulation will reduce the numbers even further is somehow illegitimate. That is a complete non sequitur, as far as I am concerned.
Yes, there were significant reductions in the railway workforce prior to 1984 and it did not have anything to do with the deregulation. Big deal. So what? What bearing does that have on my argument that deregulation as such will make an already bad situation worse? The already bad situation we are in with respect to the reductions in the railway workforce has happened because of some factors over which no one had any control. I am quite willing to admit that. The use of hopper cars as against the traditional wooden boxcar, the reduction in the traffic of bulk commodities, the change in the economy from a less resource-based economy to a more service based economy, all had a bearing. However, just because there were legitimate factors involved does not mean we should be silent about the voluntary things that were done.
The things I just mentioned were involuntary. They were things no one could do anything about. But there are things that have caused the rail workforce to be reduced that people could have done something about, things which were a matter of public policy. For instance, the present Government refused to instruct the railways to abandon their policy of renting rolling stock by the thousands from the United States railways which put people out of work in Transcona, Moncton, Point St. Charles and right across this country. The Hon. Member has probably seen those yellow rail boxes on trains. The next time he is stopped by a train, he should count just how many rail boxes are on the train. Those are American cars. They are repaired in America, they are made in America and when it is all over they will go back to America, and every time the Hon. Member counts an American rail box, he can count Canadian jobs gone down the drain because this Government did not have the guts to tell the railways to make their own boxcars here in Canada and to use Canadian-made equipment.


Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga North):: Madam Speaker, we meet here today to deal with the suspension of the nation's vital rail operations which began on August 24, 1987, after many months of bargaining, conciliation and mediation. It is somewhat ironic that it is almost 14 years to the day since the last time the House was called upon to deal with a national rail strike.
I look around in the House and I see the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). I am sure that he remembers in 1973 as a new Member of Parliament the violence that went on during that rail strike. I am not naive enough to blame the Liberal Party for the violence that went on. The Liberal Party was in power but it in no way had anything to do with the violence. I blame the unions for the
Maintenance of Railway Operations
violence at that time. However, I do blame the Liberal Party of the day for the way it handled the strike. It took the Party 14 days before it started to deal with the problem. The Government of today is in charge. It knows that after eight days we are entering a critical period, when economic effects will be felt by the people of the country. People become very restless. We have moved on this, and we have moved substantially. We will settle the situation.
The last 14 years-indeed the last 20 years-have seen vast technological change, innovation and subsequent worker adjustment on the railways. The new competitive environment stemming from national and international forces requires that labour and management seek better ways to adjust to the changed economic circumstances. As has been emphasized by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux), this disruption of services has the potential to cause widespread economic loss in national and international trade, to an extent that would endanger the welfare of our nation.
The significance of rail transportation to Canada is reflected in the fact that about one-third of the total freight tonnage in Canada is moved by the rail mode. Many bulk commodities, of course, can only be moved economically by rail. Many manufacturing industries and our resource sector depend heavily upon the rail industry.
Rail passenger traffic continues to play an important role in Canada's passenger transport industry. It, too, is significantly affected. It is the interruption of this vital social and economic communications link that is the subject of my comments today.
Vital services on VIA Rail, GO Transit and the Montreal area commuter system have been disrupted by the withdrawal of operating crews and facilities provided by Canadian National and Canadian Pacific, the major companies involved in the present dispute. It is reported that about 30,000 Toronto area workers who use GO Transit daily and about 25,000 Montreal area commuters will have to seek alternate transport to and from their places of employment.
Let us think about the impact this will have. Tonight, later on, I will be flying to my riding of Mississauga. I have to drive into Toronto later on tonight. I am told that Queen Elizabeth Highway and Highway 401 are completely blocked, bumper-to-bumper. The people of this area are not going to sit at home. They are industrious people who want to get out and go to work, and they are going to work, but at great inconvenience.
The traffic congestion and general disruption to normal work schedules and associated travel can only have negative economic and social consequences for the many individuals and businesses dependent on these services. While alternate travel arrangements are being put in place for the commuters affected, the alternatives have reached the limits of their capacities. The situation in Montreal and Toronto is well beyond being a mere inconvenience. It must be resolved, and it will be resolved.

August 27, 1987
Maintenance of Railway Operations
It was only last year that VIA Rail celebrated the one-hundred-and-fiftieth anniversary of rail passenger service in Canada. VIA Rail, which employs some 6,000 workers in all regions of Canada, and operates 800 trains per week, carried 6,286,000 passengers last year. VIA Rail was established 10 years ago following a government decision to reorganize the rail passenger system and to create a single entity to deliver service to all Canadians.
In that 10-year period thousands of employees were transferred from Canadian National and Canadian Pacific and integrated into VIA operations. Station and maintenance facilities were acquired, while the new company endeavoured to modernize in an effort to retain existing rail travellers and to expand in the highly competitive passenger travel market. It is noteworthy that the transfer of workers from Canadian National and Canadian Pacific was accomplished with a high degree of co-operation between the railway companies and the many unions involved. Unfortunately, these co-operative efforts have been disrupted due to a work stoppage on our major railways.
The Government continues to be dedicated to the important goal of making VIA Rail an effective and efficient transportation system for all Canadians. It is crucial that the current railway strike not jeopardize VIA Rail's future potential in this respect. Canadians must not lose confidence in VIA Rail's ability to provide reliable, uninterrupted service across the country. The historic unifying role of the rail passenger system in Canada must be retained for the benefit of all regions.
1 would like to mention a few words about GO Transit. GO Transit carries daily 61,000 passengers to and from work, about 30,000 people. It has been my pleasure many times to meet with these people in GO train stations in Meadowvale, Streetsville, Erindale, Cooksville, Dixie, and others in the riding which I have the honour to represent. The GO trains also travel through Oakville, Clarkson and Port Credit. I know that these people are being very seriously affected. I know that they want to have their mode of transportation returned to them, and we plan to do that.
VIA Rail is making an effort, with the support of many train users and train lovers, to expand its role in the Canadian tourist and general travel industry. It is attempting to tailor and upgrade services for those thousands of Canadians who either prefer to use the train or who, for economic or other reasons, have no other viable alternatives. To many Canadians the passenger train is a vital link that has major significance for their personal lives.
In the interest of maintaining VIA Rail's contribution to this country's rail transportation system, I support Bill C-85, the Maintenance of Railway Operations Act, 1987. This back to work legislation is responding to a serious situation in which the railways and the nine unions involved in the Associated Railway Unions coalition have made every effort, with extensive third-party assistance, to resolve their differences. But they have not succeeded. We believe that moving in five
days is the way to go, and I know Canadians support us in that respect.
After the many collective agreements involved terminated on December 31, 1986, the parties engaged in direct negotiations among themselves in an effort to resolve their conflicting demands. As a result of requests under the Canada Labour Code, Part V, to the Minister of Labour for conciliation assistance, a conciliation officer was assigned. The officer's efforts were also unsuccessful.
Subsequently, an outside expert was appointed as a conciliation commissioner to aid the parties in settling the many contentious outstanding issues. When the report of the conciliation commissioner did not succeed in providing the basis for settlement, the Minister of Labour named a mediator to try to bring labour and management together. These efforts, too, ended in an impasse.
On August 24 the Minister of Labour directed his Associate Deputy Minister, Bill Kelly, to meet with the parties in a last-ditch effort to arrange a negotiated settlement. The union workers and railway management know that this Government has done everything possible to reach a settlement. All of these extraordinary efforts have been to no avail.
I listened with interest to the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) discuss the railway worker reductions over the past number of years. A few moments ago, the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) asked a pertinent question on how they could account for the fact that 25,000 railway workers lost their jobs between 1974 and 1984 when our Government was not in power. That is a reduction of 29 per cent, and they are trying to blame it on transport deregulation. That is absolutely ridiculous. The Hon. Member for Papineau was easily annihilated by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), who shot down his arguments with great ease.
Unfortunately, several important issues still divide these parties. A national strike has begun with significant economic and social consequences for the country. Swift action is needed to bring this disruptive national rail strike to an end.
I support this Bill which provides a means to resolve the many outstanding issues through final and binding arbitration. The arbitrator will be faced with several extremely difficult and divisive issues involving a means to improve railway productivity within a framework of suitable compensation and job security. This Bill will provide the means to resolve the outstanding issues, and get our railways running again.
In conclusion, I urge Hon. Members to support the Bill. The people of Canada deserve no less than the best rail system that we can provide. This Bill is a crucial component in ensuring that our railways return to full operation as quickly as possible.


Some Hon. Members:: 
David Orlikow: One could not either live in the City of Winnipeg, or be a Member of Parliament from the City of Winnipeg and not realize and understand how important the railways are to Canada, and how very important they are to the people of Winnipeg.
All rail traffic going from western Canada to eastern Canada, and all rail traffic going from eastern Canada to western Canada has to pass through Winnipeg. For many, many years there have been thousands of CPR and CNR railway workers living in Winnipeg. The CPR maintenance shops are located at Weston. The CNR maintenance shops are located at Transcona. Winnipeg is a major centre for alt the running trades and the workers who actually operate the trains as they travel both to eastern and western Canada.
When I was elected as a Member of Parliament in 1962, the railway unions represented more than 200,000 workers. Today they represent less than 70,000 workers. That should make it obvious to the most ignorant Member of Parliament that the railway workers of Canada and their unions are not Luddites. They have not opposed modernization, automation, and computerization. They have known for many years that times were changing, and that the changes would mean less employment.
1 listened with interest to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), because 1 know that he was correct when he talked about people living in his part of the constituency in Transcona who work for the CNR, whose parents and grandparents worked for the CNR, and who know that their children will not be working for the CNR. Exactly the same situation is true for the CPR workers who live in my constituency. They know that their children are not likely to work for the railways. They would not advise their children to try to work for the railways, because they know what has happened.
Neither the unions nor members of the New Democratic Party have said that all the reductions in the numbers of people who work for the railways are taking place as a result of deregulation. Deregulation has not yet come into effect, as the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) pointed out. It will not go into effect until January, 1988. Deregulation not only gives a message but an instruction to the railways that they have to be more competitive. That means that the railways have to be more mean and tough, because they have no alternative. After all, the railways are responsible for building, financing, and maintaining the railway lines. They are responsible for clearing the railway lines after a snowstorm, and for rebuilding the bridge that may be washed out when there is a flood. The railways have to compete with the trucks which travel on the public highways. Of course, their percentage of the traffic has gone down because it has been increasingly difficult for them to compete with trucks.
What deregulation says to the railways is that they have to be meaner, tougher, and more cost conscious than ever before.
Maintenance of Railway Operations
What do you do if you are the railway, especially if you are told that the days of deficits, if they are not gone yet, will be gone soon? You abandon branch lines as quickly as the regulatory authority will permit it. Given the approach of this Government, we will see a quickening of the rate at which branch lines are affected. That will mean a reduced number of railway workers.
1 do not know if my Conservative colleagues who represent rural constituencies can follow and understand this, but they should. When the railway worker loses his job because a branch line has been abandoned, the farmer's costs increase to get his grain to the market. Up until now he has delivered his grain to the local elevator, and now he will have to truck it probably 50, 60, or more miles.
We are looking at a continuing reduction in the number of people who work for the railways. We are no longer talking about what has happened up until now, which has been a fairly gradual reduction which the workers, their unions, and the companies could absorb almost in a natural way without too much difficulty.
The CNR has made it clear that in the next few years it expects to reduce its workforce by a quarter. The CNR has always been the good guy and if it is proposing to reduce its workforce by a quarter, we know, and the railway workers know even better than us, what the CPR will do. If the CNR can reduce its workforce by a quarter, we will see the CPR aim to reduce its workforce by a third.
It is not surprising that the workers and the unions tried to get improvements in their job security system. The Minister of Transport says that the railways have a good system, one of the best in the country. I will not dispute that. I do not think the unions will dispute it, but that is what they have had up until now. When they are looking at a proposed planned reduction of the CNR and CPR workforce by one-quarter, then that sort of normal gradual decrease will not continue. What we are going to have are very major disruptions in the lives of workers.
What does it mean when one-quarter of the workforce has to look forward to no longer having jobs? We will probably see workers who started to work for the railway at, say, age 20 who have worked for the railway for 25 years lose their jobs. I ask Members of Parliament, where will the worker who at age 45 or 50 loses his job, a job which was, as compared to most workers in this country, a fairly well paid, get another job? We have no answers for that kind of problem, Mr. Speaker.
Let us think about the problems of the workers who have 20 or 25 years experience and who do not lose their jobs. The reason that many will not lose their jobs is that people, workers in their kind of work in their craft for the railway, with less seniority will lose their jobs first. That is what the union agreements provide for, as they should. What happens to a worker who has a lot of seniority who lives in La Pas, or in

August 27, 1987
Maintenance of Railway Operations
Dauphin, Manitoba, one who works on the maintenance crew and is able to keep his job because somebody in Winnipeg with less seniority was laid off? That worker in La Pas or Dauphin, Manitoba, has to move to Winnipeg. What happens when the railway worker who lives in Quebec City in order to keep his job has to move to Montreal? What happens when the worker who lives in Ottawa has to move to Toronto to keep his job? Just think of the disruption to the lives of those workers. Let us think about some of the smaller towns.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) has quite a large railway community in the Town of Melville. When the workers in Melville lose their jobs or when, in order to keep their jobs, they have to move to Regina or to Saskatoon, that is a major disruption for them. They are not the only ones who suffer. What about the restaurant where they used to eat; the hardware store where they used to buy the things needed to fix their houses; the store where they used to buy paint and the school where their children used to go to school? We know how many towns have died when the grain elevators and the railway turnaround points disappeared. It is not surprising that the workers and the unions wanted improvements in the provisions in their contracts which guarantee them some protection.
That job security system is no longer going to give them the protection which they need in order to be able to continue to live with some kind of dignity and some kind of decent circumstances. As I say, changes have taken place and are going to continue, but the Government's deregulation policy, the program which will begin January, 1988, will accelerate that process of change in a way which none of us have seen.
Let us talk about some of the things which the railways have done. They have increased their contracting out. After all, if they have to be more efficient and if they have to cut their costs why, for example, would they get their maintenance work on the tracks done by workers who work for the CPR or the CNR? These are people who have belonged to unions for many years, who have been involved in collective bargaining agreements, and have been able to negotiate a relatively good rate of pay. Why would the railways want to continue employing their own staff when they can contract the work out to some small employer? The small employer will hire nonunion workers who will work for substantially less. They will not get the benefits of a pension plan or a health and welfare plan. These are the kinds of things which workers were determined to try to protect and improve. We heard the Minister of Transport today argue that deregulation would have no effect at all on employment. We heard him a few days ago answering questions, calmly assuming technological change has to come-and nobody questions that-and saying that really there is nothing one can do about that. But there is, of course, a great deal you can do about it if you have some concern about humanity and about the lives of people. There are all sorts of things which can be done to cushion the change. But this Government, which believes in untrammeled free enterprise, will not think about those kinds of problems.
What is going to happen to the many people who will be laid off, people who for many years have been able to work for a company which they thought would give them employment for their whole working life? They do not know. When we see the direction in which the companies are going and the direction in which the Government is driving the companies to go, we have no answers for them. I believe it was the Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) who suggested in his speech that because we said that we would vote against this Bill that we were intent on prolonging the strike. I have heard that Member make many ridiculous remarks but I don't think I ever heard one which was more stupid than that.
After all, members of our Party agreed that because of the importance of the question we are debating today, because of the tremendously serious effects that a prolonged strike will have, that the House should deal with this Bill through all stages to completion today, no matter how long it takes. The Bill will be completed in this House today and it will go to the Senate tomorrow afternoon at two o'clock. I am certain it will be completed there fairly quickly. Then the strike will be over.
Because we think that there are many defects and faults in this Bill, we propose to move amendments which we believe will improve the Bill, but because we are 99.9 per cent certain that the Government will not accept many and certainly not all of the amendments we think are necessary, we have made it clear that we intend to vote against the Bill. Our voting against the Bill will not delay for one minute the workers going back to work.
We will vote against this Bill because we say that it does not deal fairly or adequately with the problems of the railway workers.


Mr. Crosby:: What if you win the vote?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, we will win the vote after the next election because at least 100 of the Members across the way will not be here. When I say 100 of them will not be here, I am being very conservative.
As I indicated, we intend to vote against this Bill, but it will pass through all stages before this day is over.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: What a cop-out. This is the Party of principle?


David Orlikow: It is very interesting to hear the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) accuse us of copping out. If there ever was a Member who has forgotten many of the things he said when in Opposition, it is the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to ask the Hon. Member to talk more about the inconsistencies of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), but that is not really the issue that is before us.
August 27, 1987


Charles Joseph Clark: Name one.


Rodney Edward Murphy: One thing that is interesting is that in 1973, for example, the Tories sought to ensure that there were guaranteed minimums in the legislation. When in Opposition in 1973, Conservatives made amendments, some of which were accepted by the House.
Perhaps I could ask the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), who was a Member of the House at the time, if he can explain this inconsistency which is being assisted by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I was not a Member of the House in 1973. Perhaps he could explain to me why a Conservative Party in Opposition believed that back to work legislation must contain certain guarantees and protections for workers and why a Conservative Government with a vast majority will not give any guarantees whatsoever in terms of wages, job security or limitations on the arbitrator? It offers no guarantee that the arbitrator look at the conciliation report-


Charles Joseph Clark: You are not very comfortable in this fraudulent position.


Rodney Edward Murphy: It is very curious that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is still rambling on instead of making a speech. Why has the Conservative Party, which fought for minimum guarantees when in Opposition, not given any guarantees at the present time?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, it would be impossible for me to explain the thinking of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but my colleague from Churchill is of course correct. When the Conservatives were in Opposition, they were able to move amendments which would help the workers because they knew on the one hand that it made them look better to the workers involved and on the other hand that their amendments would not pass. Now they are in Government and they are much more conservative now than they were back in 1973.
It seems to me that Conservatives in Government have accepted the Goldwater-Reagan approach to Conservatism: just let the free-enterprise system go all the way, do not put any restraints on it. That was not the way of Sir John A. Macdonald and it certainly was not the way of Mr. Diefen-baker or Mr. Stanfield. However, it is the way of this Conservative Government.


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member said that there were no strings attached to the arbitrator. He outlined some of the problems that might come up through normal changes that will take place as businesses evolve. How would he see the arbitrator's hands being tied by legislation if the arbitrator is to be asked to arbitrate between two bodies? How can the Hon. Member ask companies to make guarantees when they do not have any guarantees as to the amount of business they will have, when the business will take place or at what time of the year they will get it? How can an arbitrator be made to work within those confines?
Maintenance of Railway Operations
In labour negotiations, we really want an arbitrator without his hands tied. We want him to be able to bring the two parties together and to arbitrate between them.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I will give the Hon. Member just two illustrations out of many. The rate of inflation is now running at close to 4 per cent a year. The conciliation report recommended increases for the workers of 3 per cent each year over the next two years. That is less than the increased cost of living.
It seems to me that the legislation could very well instruct the arbitrator, as it has on other occasions when railway workers were legislated back to work, that he should begin discussing the wage question with a minimum of 3 per cent in each of the next two years in mind.
The other illustration was referred to by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy). In the bargaining which went on between the employers and the employees, there was complete agreement that when an agreement was reached, it would be in effect for a period of two years. There was not one suggestion, as far as I have been able to find out, that the agreement should be in force for more than two years. This legislation gives the arbitrator the authority to impose a settlement not for two years but for three years. I suggest that that is completely unnecessary and uncalled for.
I would hope that the rate of inflation will not go up, but if the war between Iran and Iraq escalates and if the supply of oil is adversely affected, the price of oil may go up very substantially and that would have an immediate effect on the cost of living. I am not saying that that will happen but it could happen. Therefore, I ask why the legislation gives the arbitrator the right to impose a three-year settlement. Those are just two illustrations of the many defects we believe to be in the Bill.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the Hon. Member's presentation to the House. I understand that on second reading of the Bill, we debate the principle of Bill C-85; that is to say, whether it is right and proper in the circumstances to terminate the strike that has caused such harm across the nation, particularly in Atlantic Canada and especially in the Port of Halifax, or whether we should allow it to continue. I do not mean to give the Hon. Member a lecture. He is well versed in labour law. He knows the right to strike is granted by the Parliament of Canada under appropriate legislation. It does not exist in common law or in the normal course. It has to be granted.
If the Parliament of Canada gave the right to strike under certain conditions, then clearly it is capable of taking the right to strike away when that appears to be in the public interest. The Government believes it is in the public interest in these circumstances to take away the right to strike or modify it in the way it has in this Bill. What I and I am sure everyone wants to know is what is the NDP position on this issue? Do

August 27, 1987
Maintenance of Railway Operations
they agree with eliminating or modifying the right to strike in these circumstances in the public interest, or do they believe it ought to continue?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Redway):: We need a one-minute answer from the Hon. Member.


David Orlikow: 1 can give him a one-minute answer. When we agreed this Bill could be debated and passed through all stages, voted on and enacted by this House in one day, we recognized, one, the right of Parliament to do that and, two, the importance of dealing with this strike which has such major adverse effects on all parts of the country.


Charles Joseph Clark: What a contortion!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Redway):: The time for questions and comments has expired.
[ Translation)


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, 1 consider myself a relatively new Member of the House of Commons of Canada, and I thought the two socialists who made allegations concerning the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) gave us a rather sad spectacle. They attacked his policy, knowing full well that our procedure in the House would prevent him from responding. 1 think that Canadians-socialists or others-should show respect for one another and refrain from attacking a Canadian statesman who is gaining ever wider recognition on the international scene, especially when they know he cannot defend himself.
If the socialists care to listen to me, during the 10 minutes following my speech they will have an opportunity to question me on what I am about to say, keeping in mind the interests of Canadian generally. I urge you to question me and I will respond. But do not strike at those who cannot speak at this moment. That is the message I wanted to give you.
Mr. Speaker, not unlike most Members here I am very concerned about the striking railway employees in Canada. My concern also stems from the impact this conflict may have on Canadian industry as a whole, on potash workers, softwood lumber workers, coal workers, farm workers, just to name a few. I am sure this is what we have in mind as we seek a solution.
I am also concerned because my native town, Charny in my riding, happens to be one of the major railway centres on the south shore of the St. Lawrence, in the Province of Quebec. And that is where we find a large number of these employees.
I am very sorry we have to introduce back-to-work legislation in the House of Commons. It is not an agreeable task for a Government that, in order to expand the economy, has promised to put the economy on a sound basis and encourage private sector initiative.
Canada's big railway companies fulfil an important role in
providing a service to most of our other industries, and any
interruption in these services is also a major threat to the wellbeing of millions of Canadian workers working in those industries. The Government has tabled a measure that is decisive to ensure that the individual rights of the parties to the dispute do not abrogate or diminish the common rights of innocent third parties who have no say in the settlement of this dispute.
Mr. Speaker, we have known similar disputes in other vitally important sectors of the transportation industry that are subject to Division V of the Canada Labour Code. These disputes were also a threat to the national interest. At the time, various groups loudly demanded a major reform of our approach to the collective bargaining process, and invariably, some very well-intentioned people recommended taking away the right to strike or to declare lock-outs from the parties concerned. 1 say well-intentioned, Mr. Speaker, because these people are usually concerned about the impact of work stoppages on innocent third parties who have no say in settlement of disputes by which they are affected. They may be well-intentioned but I think they generally have a poor understanding of the complexity of labour disputes and the importance of the right to strike and to declare lock-outs as part of the labour relations practice that has developed over the years in Canada, the United States, Western Germany and other major industrialized democracies.
Division V of the Canada Labour Code provides measures to ensure that collective agreements are implemented and provides a comprehensive and flexible mechanism to facilitate the bargaining process.
Mr. Speaker, upon examining the provisions of the Code concerning the settlement of disputes, I was impressed by the flexibility these provisions offer for settling various problems in the collective bargaining field. We cannot expect a single policy or guideline to consistently resolve labour disputes. The flexibility provided under the provisions of the Canada Labour Code relating to the settlement of disputes is truly admirable and reflects one of the most sensible approaches developed over the years in the labour relations field. I feel the Canada Labour Code offers all the flexibility we need in an effective mechanism for settling disputes.
The right to strike or declare lock-outs exists only seven days after the Minister has exhausted every avenue provided by the conciliation process under the Canada Labour Code. Furthermore, the Minister may, at any time, in accordance with Section 195 of the Canada Labour Code, appoint a mediator to assist the parties to a dispute in settling the dispute.
Under Section 171 of the Canada Labour Code, the parties may, at any time before the Conciliation Commissioner or Conciliation Board makes his or its report, agree in writing that the recommendations of the Commissioner or the Board shall be binding on the parties. Briefly, Mr. Speaker, this procedure offers management and the unions all the resources of the conciliation and mediation process, to assist them when negotiations become deadlocked and also leaves them free to make use voluntarily of a mechanism that will help bring
August 27, 1987

about a final settlement of the dispute, a mechanism under which the parties agree to be bound by the recommendations of a Conciliation Commissioner or a Conciliation Board.
Mr. Speaker, the Government has tried to encourage private sector initiative in Canada to a far greater degree than before and to discourage resorting to government assistance to achieve economic and social ends. This attitude with respect to the role of the state gives individuals more responsibilities and, in the field of industrial relations, labour and management should feel some kind of obligation to settle their differences without government intervention.
As a matter of fact, this happens to be the purpose of the conciliation and mediation procedures provided under Part V of the Canada Labour Code: the first responsibility of the parties involved is to negotiate and resolve their conflicts. In certain cases they may need third-party assistance to shed light on complex negotiation proceedings. In this respect, conciliation and mediation procedures have been established to help labour and management achieve their ultimate aim, namely sign a collective agreement.
In that context the role of the state is to make things easier.
Although Canada Labour Code Part V sets the limits of the rights and responsibilities of the opposing parties, such limits obviously include responsibility for solving themselves the differences which come up during collective bargaining talks.
Mr. Speaker, these limits are prerequisite to what we sometimes refer to as free collective bargaining dynamism. In a way, the responsibility of the parties give them the driving force which enables them to seek common grounds, fair and reasonable compromises which reflect all available options, and to convey to their rank and file or to their senior management the outcome of the collective bargaining sessions.
The Labour Code strikes a balance between the rights and obligations of each party to the collective bargaining process. This framework paves the way for and promotes a renewed sentiment of mutual respect without which collective bargaining remains an idling mechanism.
Unfortunately, there are times when, for whatever reason, management and unions forget they have a responsibility to settle their dispute and try to shift that responsibility to a third party, usually the Government.
Mr. Speaker, both management and the unions must be discouraged from showing any inclination to abdicate their responsibilities in this way. We as parliamentarians cannot allow this institution to be transformed into a kind of labour tribunal by people who cannot or will not make use of the collective bargaining process. When the national interest dictates that we must intervene in a labour dispute as is the case today, Parliament must proceed with caution.
We must avoid any solution that would give the impression that one of the parties had an edge because it brought about Parliament's intervention in its dispute. This kind of solution
Maintenance of Railway Operations
would, in the future, make us vulnerable to pressures from any party or entity trying to achieve, through Parliament, goals it is unable to achieve through the collective bargaining process.
Mr. Speaker, since we are confronted here with a dispute that has truly disastrous consequences for the economy, I feel that the Maintenance of Railway Operations Act is a wise and appropriate solution.
I would urge my hon. friends to adopt the text quickly so that our railway network, which is indispensable to the economy of this country, will be able to start operating again without delay.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I listened to part of the Hon. Member's address. Is he prepared to recognize that part of the reason we are here today having this debate on legislation to remove the collective bargaining rights of rail workers is as a direct result of the policy of his Government which witnesses from the rail companies themselves have told the Standing Committee on Transport is forcing them to eliminate jobs, that being deregulation? Is he prepared to recognize that the Conservative Government of Canada has a responsibility for setting the stage that has created the unfortunate situation we are facing today?


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, I will try, if that is at all possible, to inform my Socialist colleague on both counts. First, he claims that this Government is removing the collective bargaining rights of 45,000 to 50,000 railway workers. Our Government is not, like the Socialist fringe would have us believe, a Government that considers private interests only. Our Government considers the common interests of all Canadians. If potash workers were involved, our colleagues opposite would be talking only about potash workers because they simply cannot bring themselves to imagine a wider perspective of the interests of Canadians. Our Government is protecting the 45,000 railway employees of the Crown corporation and of the other company. Our Government is also preventing tens of thousands of lay-offs among the workers from which this Party illegally collects dues, as Ontario Supreme Court Justice White said in his ruling. My colleague opposite is pushing on his own self-destruct button.
As to the deregulation policy of the Government I represent in this country-the Conservative Government and the Conservative team-they have failed to understand the message conveyed through this policy. They have failed to understand that Canadians now live in an international context, that Canadians are in a much better position to sustain, face and benefit from competition when each and every one of these Canadians is given the means to be productive and aggressive, to open up new businesses. They seem to think that decisions favouring Canadians are made in laboratories. They seem to think that Canadians are devoid of

August 27, 1987
Maintenance of Railway Operations
intelligence, that they must blindly follow the dictates of socialist laboratories, of Socialist International gatherings which the leader is so eager to attend every year with a few of his colleagues. We in this Government have faith in the creativity of each Canadian, and this is why we believe that our deregulation policy will make it possible to deliver our goods at lower costs, mainly to the United States, our best economic trading partner, but including as well the products we ship from the Pacific coast to Japan and the Pacific countries. A good many Canadians will find less expensive channels than a laboratory of socialists which can only thwart the development of Canada and drive us into bankruptcy within a few decades.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-85, the Maintenance of Railway Operations Act, 1987. It is not a very pleasant duty, however. The pleasure comes from the opportunity to question some of the things contained in the Bill, not from the certainty in my own mind that we have to pass this legislation this evening.
Having said that, I believe very sincerely that this legislation must be passed as quickly as possible because of the loss it is causing to the commerce and industries of the country. This cannot be allowed to drag on. However, there in itself lies a very serious problem. When there are negotiations with the knowledge that back to work legislation will follow, management has a very distinct advantage.
I do not think that has ever been more clear than in the negotiations which have gone on this year. That is very unfortunate. I strongly believe that management did not put its best foot forward in trying to reach an agreement on this. I believe that had it done so, we would have been able to study this legislation with the knowledge that many of the issues now outstanding had been resolved.
What is the future for this type of negotiation? Will this continue? Will negotiations between the railroads and the unions be a formality where all management negotiators will have to do is stay awake long enough to frustrate the mediator, break off negotiations, and have the Government run in with back to work legislation? I would like to think that this will not happen again, that there will be meaningful negotiations in the future. I say that very sincerely because I believe that the railroad worker is the forgotten entity in this legislation. It is even more tragic because I believe the railway workers, particularly Canadian National, have been forgotten for a long time.
Clause 4(b) of the Bill states:
every employee shall, when so required, forthwith resume the duties of that
employee's employment with a railway company.
Why do we need the phrase "when so required"? Either these men and women are employees of the railroads or they are not.
Do these words mean that people who are gainfully and steadily employed by the railroads may not be called back to work when the strike is over? Is the Government really aiding and abetting the insecurity that will be the result of this wording? I believe that would be most unfortunate.
The Government has no business putting wording such as this in a Bill to end a strike. The role of the Government is to try to bring both sides together and get the commerce of this country rolling again-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is what we are trying to do.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: -without placing the worker in a detrimental position. The Government must intend to scrap Bill C-87 and bring forward a Bill C-88. Of course, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) remembers my pleadings to him on behalf of railroad workers, particularly in Nova Scotia-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: And you have pleaded very well.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Thank you. 1 am still pleading.
The words "when so required" are really not necessary. Those working with the railroads when this strike began should be working with them when it ends. If there are to be any with lay-offs, then those lay-offs should be justified, and, not take place simply because the railroads were given the option by the Government in this legislation to not call back any more workers than it absolutely had to.
I ask the Government to consider that point because there is already too much unemployment with the railroads and with former CN family companies. These job losses most seriously affect the smaller communities which, in many cases, are one-industry communities. They include small communities in eastern Canada in my area of Nova Scotia and other Atlantic provinces, as well as farming areas of western provinces.
These jobs are important in those areas because they not only provide wages for the employee and his or her family, they provide an economic base for the respective communities in which these employees live. It is important to maintain these services in those communities. The downstream effect of deregulation will be a loss of service and a loss of jobs in many communities. The fact that they will no longer be able to offer railroad service will affect their opportunity to attract new industries.
Clause 6(1) of the Bill states:
The term of each collective agreement is extended to include the period
beginning on January 1, 1987 and ending on December 31, 1988 and may be
further extended by the arbitrator to include the period beginning on January
1, 1989 and ending on a day not later than December 31, 1989.
I object to that clause as well. It is not the Government's
role to bring a new aspect into the negotiations. I believe that
one of the key questions in negotiations would be the term of
August 27, 1987

the agreement. That is for both sides to agree upon and, presumably, negotiations have been going on in that regard. If the parties have not agreed on a term, that is an outstanding issue.
I suggest that it is beyond the scope of the Government's responsibility to ask Members of Parliament to allow the arbitrator to increase the term of this agreement from a two-year agreement to three years. That is beyond what the Government should be trying to achieve with this legislation, and I would ask it to delete that clause.
It is not its role to recommend points of negotiation to the sides in this dispute. It is not our role in Parliament to tell the arbitrator that he should be considering points that are not already being discussed between the parties in this dispute. It sets a very dangerous precedent for the Government to become involved in suggesting to the arbitrator that the term can be extended from two to three years. It represents the thin edge of the wedge, where the Government can then put anything into legislation that it believes the railways should have obtained but, in their knowledge of the situation, chose not to negotiate.
The Bill also includes stiff penalties for non-compliance, including lock-outs and strikes before December 31, 1988. These penalties are between $20,000 and $100,000 a day. There were no penalties in the 1973 legislation with which the former Liberal Government dealt. I believe it is better to leave that question to the arbitrator because there could be very good reasons why these penalties could be more or less than the ones suggested by the Government. It is not the Government's role to suggest the penalties.
I believe Clause 8 will have a great effect on the arrangement that will be achieved once the Bill is passed and the arbitrator has completed his or her task. Clause 8(1) states:
The Minister shall, after the coming into force of this Part, appoint an arbitrator and refer to the arbitrator all matters relating to the amendment or revision of each collective agreement that, at the time of the appointment, are in dispute between a railway company and a union and the further extension of the term of each collective agreement permitted by subsection 6(1).
Clause 8(2) states:
The arbitrator has, with such modifications as the circumstances require, all the powers and duties of an arbitrator under section 157 of the Canada Labour Code.
There are no guidelines provided for the arbitrator. There is nothing to compel the arbitrator not to reduce the benefits already held by the workers. There is nothing which would restrict the arbitrator from bringing new items into the negotiations.
I think it is important that the arbitrator has some guidelines, certainly as far as the workers are concerned. There are no legislated increases. In 1973 there were guidelines for the arbitrator. The 1973 legislation as well contained specific instructions for the arbitrator which included the direction to come up with a feasible job security program, not to amend
Maintenance of Railway Operations
any work rules that would harm workers and to recommend fair wage increases. I do not think it is asking too much to have those guidelines included in this legislation. As I say, we are trying to balance the rights of the workers against the rights and duties of the companies.
The companies already have a very strong advantage because they have had the knowledge that the Government was going to bring in back-to-work legislation, and they may have had some idea of what this back-to-work legislation was going to contain. I do not know that. I am not making any allegations, certainly, but it is a possibility. I do feel, however, that what the Government should be doing is helping the workers, trying to do something to safeguard the workers with respect to this legislation and the role of the arbitrator.
There were no time limits set on the arbitrator in 1973. This legislation sets a 60 day time limit which can be extended only at the Minister's discretion. While it is important and vital that the railways move again because the economies at the extreme ends of our country depend on the railroads, 1 do not feel we should be blinded in pursuing our goal of bringing the railways back into operation to the rights of workers. Too often that is done. I think we have only to look at the situation which has existed in our country over the last 10 years to see how railways have not only reduced their workforces but I think, to a large extent, reduced the relative position of the workers of the railway companies vis-a-vis other occupations in this country.
Workers for the railroads had every opportunity, for example, for a secure and valid pension plan, but too often railroads did not protect the older workers. For instance, a man who retired at age 65 with what he thought might be a satisfactory pension, found out at age 82 that the railroads had not added anything to his plan and that inflation had eaten away the benefits of that plan and he was really in one of the most unfortunate economic positions in the country. There are a great many workers today in that position. That is one aspect.
Another aspect is that quite often workers' benefits are given when it depends upon the urgency, political or otherwise, of the situation. I would like to mention as an example the situation of the Moncton shops.
I feel the workers of the Moncton shops were treated quite well. I would like to have seen them get jobs, but I thought the benefits that were offered were good benefits. However, a lot of people, particularly workers at CN in Atlantic Canada, although they thought the benefits were very good too, were upset because these benefits were not offered to them.
Take the case of a man who retires, for instance, at age 55. The workers at Moncton were able to take pre-retirement without any penalty at age 55. Other workers who were not working at the Moncton shops and were between age 55 and 60 had to accept a penalty for every year they were below the age of 60 when they retired. That was just because their layoffs in the downgrading of CN in their area did not receive as

August 27, 1987
Maintenance of Railway Operations
much attention as did those at the Moncton shops. I think that is unfortunate. 1 do not think that should be the case.
I think the treatment should be standard across the country, particularly in small towns where the job is at least as important as it would be in any other area. That person's job should be kept in mind and that person should receive the same treatment as a worker in a larger centre. I hope the Government will take this into consideration and try to do something.
The Government stated in the Budget that it is concerned about the older workers who are unemployed. 1 think fair treatment with respect to pre-retirement would do an awful lot to help these older workers.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, we have been asked today to consider Bill C-85 which orders the resumption of work by Canada's railways and provides for a mechanism to determine the final terms of settlement between the parties. It is perhaps obvious, but nevertheless important to point out, that this Bill would not have been necessary had the parties to the railway disputes been capable of meeting their responsibilities under the Canada Labour Code, Part V, by renewing their own collective agreements.
Despite considerable conciliation assistance provided to them by the Government, they were unable to do so without a work stoppage. This work stoppage, principally involving a strike declared by the Associated Railway Unions at midnight on Sunday, August 23, has paralyzed railway transportation and has brought key sectors of the Canadian economy into jeopardy. The Government cannot, and will not, tolerate a shut down of the nation's major transportation system. I am certain I share the sentiments of all Members in recognizing the critical importance to our national economy of the passage of this timely legislation.
As we consider this legislation, we will want to bear in mind that the present dispute is having immediate effects on various sectors of the economy and that decisive action by this House tonight is required under the current circumstances. I want to emphasize to the House, and draw out the particulars of the impact of this railway dispute on the western economy. Indeed, as we consider the legislation before us, we all want to bear in mind its immediate relevance to the grain farmers in the prairie provinces and in other provinces, including Ontario and Quebec.
The Province of Ontario and the Province of Quebec each have within their boundaries substantial acreage of grain production of various types, whether it be wheat, rye, flaxseed or corn. The grain economy in each of these provinces is affected by this railway dispute. In the western economy, the grain producing areas located in the prairie provinces are our richest endowment of domestically produced grain for domestic consumption and for export. The importance of the legislation before us in dealing with the devastating impact threatened by this present rail dispute certainly cannot be over emphasized.
I cannot stress enough the importance of this dispute to small businesses and to the small towns throughout the prairies which rely on the railways to transport grain, potash and other basic commodities that are the income base to the prairies and provide the source of livelihood for thousands of our citizens.
When we think of the western economy, and the vital importance to it of the grain economy, what comes to mind will most likely be the major grain terminal operations at Thunder Bay and the Lakehead and on the West Coast, Vancouver and Prince Rupert. This is as it should be, because it is at these points that the activities of approximately 2,000 primary elevators throughout the Prairies, as well as the trucking and railway transportation industries, are focused.
Thunder Bay and the West Coast ports are the focal points of the industries, as well as the major points at which grain is processed for shipment by water to our export markets, either directly from the West Coast or indirectly from the Lakehead to the numerous elevators. Most of our eastern-bound export grain is stored temporarily in transfer elevators at Montreal, Quebec City, Port-Cartier, and other eastern locations, awaiting shipment to our European markets.
It is this complex infrastructure of grain production and transportation that is affected by the railway dispute, a dispute between private parties which has brought to a halt the movement from the Prairies of more than 7,000 railcars of grain per week and which threatens a devastating blow to the western economy.
I want to make clear to Hon. Members my reasons for supporting this Bill and what I see as its necessity. The conditions under which prairie grain farmers compete in the international grain markets today reflect developments that have unfolded over a number of years. These are developments that have been clearly adverse to the pricing of internationally-traded grain and, consequently, to the dollar return to the farmers and the western economy of each bushel of grain produced.
One of the most significant developments in this regard is the increasing ability of some of Canada's international grain competitors to grow more grain. This has contributed to a growing world surplus and has led to further developments that have had some severe effects on our grain producers. I am referring here to the effect of the world grain surplus on grain prices and to the attempts by major market competitors, especially the United States and the European Economic Community, to expand their share of the world market by the use of export subsidies that have amounted to billions of dollars. The efforts of these countries to export their grain have been nothing short of formidable.
The decline in world prices has made it all the more important that Canada export a larger volume of grain to compensate as much as possible for the weakness in international grain prices. In this regard the crop year ending July 31,
August 27, 1987

1987 has been a year of success in that, according to the statistics of the Canadian Grain Commission, bulk exports of grain and oilseeds totalled a record high of 30.2 million tonnes, surpassing the previous record attained in 1983-84 of 29.9 million tonnes, and last year's exports of 23.7 million tonnes.
Canada's railway companies and the workers on their networks and in their shops have made a vital contribution toward the attainment of yet another record for the western grain economy. Their achievements need to be recognized. In doing so we must also underscore the necessity to the western economy of uninterrupted rail transportation services. Elundreds of thousands of workers in resource industries, including forest products, coal, potash, grain, as well as the chemical and fertilizer segments of the western economy, face lay-offs as declining sales and a rippling effect throughout the economy are threatened by this rail strike.
We have not had a national rail transportation stoppage in approximately a decade and a half. The stability of collective bargaining negotiations has been a positive factor in our grain export achievements during that period of time.
As 1 mentioned, western grain farmers are already struggling to survive in an era of collapsing world prices and overproduction. They desperately need the income which comes from a steady sale of the grain they produce. These farmers are vulnerable as well to the loss of markets, the loss of sales, which could result from a prolonged strike.
You know, Mr. Speaker, there is no shortage of grain available in the world. The subsidy war between the U.S. and the European Economic Community already threatens to erode traditional Canadian markets. Any difficulty getting Canadian grain to export ports is an open invitation to Canadian grain customers to turn elsewhere. Canada is a country dependent upon its railways for commerce, and we need action now.
1 would now like to talk a little bit about coal in western Canada. In 1985 the coal industry produced a record 60.7 million tonnes, 45 per cent for the export market and 55 per cent for the domestic market. The coal industry has become a direct source of economic activity for several provinces. Elowever, 93 per cent of Canada's reserves of minable coal is located in western Canada, especially in British Columbia and Alberta, with some in southern Saskatchewan. Development of coal deposits depends on many factors, but transportation is the main one.
The Pacific Rim is Canada's largest market zone. In terms of individual countries Japan, South Korea, Brazil, France, Hong Kong and Taiwan are the top six. Western Canada moved 32 million tonnes of coal in the year 1985 to all regions, that is, both domestic and export markets. Our export customers depend upon Canadian coal for its quality, its reliability and its security of supply. We must move the coal.
Tourism is another major industry for Canada. Alberta depends upon its rail service to attract and transport tourists
Maintenance of Railway Operations
into its two well-known parks. Banff and Jasper are indeed unique mountain park resorts that depend upon tourists for their livelihood. Over four million people visited these recreational areas last year, many via train.
Forestry is a number one industry in the Province of British Columbia, and it is a growing industry in Alberta, especially northern Alberta. The mining industry in central British Columbia and Saskatchewan relies on rail transport, as do all resource industries.
As I said before, because of its size and its geography, Canada is a country which must have rail service. And it must have continued, dependable rail service.
The level of economic activity in the western economy, as in our national economy, is vitally linked to the operation of our railways, as is the necessity of the legislation before us this evening. It is legislation which we must review and debate. I ask all Hon. Members to support Bill C-85 and to give it speedy passage here and now. It is extremely important for all of Canada, especially for western Canada.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, normally I preface my remarks by stating that I am pleased to contribute to a debate on certain legislation. Sometimes I agree with the legislation, sometimes I disagree, and sometimes I wish to see improvements. I must say that tonight it is with very little pleasure that I am required to make comments on Bill C-85, the back-to-work legislation to end the strike, particularly because of the manner in which it is being done.
As a Member of Parliament from Kamloops, British Columbia, a city, and a region, through which both the CN and CP railways pass, and I recognize the value the rail systems plays in my constituency in terms of the employment that is created, and the infrastructure provided for economic development.
Tonight we are dealing with something extremely serious; I think we would all agree, an emergency situation. When the rail transportation system of Canada is paralyzed, a good portion of the economy quickly shudders to a stop. It is unfortunate that in the latter part of August the unions and the two railways involved reached an impasse, and a strike was the result.
Because of the importance of this labour dispute and the fact that it touches the lives of so many Canadians, either directly or indirectly, one might get the impression that labour strife or strikes, or back-to-work legislation in the railways is a common phenomenon which takes place on a regular basis. Such is not the case. We have been blessed with relatively few railway disputes and national strikes. By and large there has been complete labour peace.
For many years labour and management have been able to negotiate their differences at the bargaining table. In the last 35 years there have only been three national rail strikes in

August 27, 1987
Maintenance of Railway Operations
Canada. That is a compliment when one considers the size of the operations, the thousands of employees, and the large number of unions involved. It is a compliment to the process of free collective bargaining. It clearly indicates that on balance free collective bargaining functions well. In the last little while such has not been the case.
I think it is important that we identify what we are doing here tonight. The Bill before us needs considerable improvement before I, personally, would feel comfortable in seeing it through to completion. Naturally, we plan to propose many amendments tonight or tomorrow morning as the debate continues. We are committed to being here in our places tonight, in the morning, or during the day, whatever it takes to complete thorough discussions and examination of this Bill and put forward what we consider to be the appropriate amendments.
It is also fair to point out that if we feel it is necessary to debate this issue all night and into the morning, the Senate has not been recalled until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon at which time it will be in a position to begin its stage of debate on Bill C-85, so nothing can proceed beyond that time. We do have ample opportunity to discuss the ways and means of improving this Bill which requires workers to return to work.
I think it is also useful if we ask why this strike occurred. When one looks at the facts, it does not seem to have anything to do with the unions or the companies involved. If we wish to identify the cause of this strike, it has to be the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and the Conservative Government. I wish to take a few moments to articulate why I believe that to be the case.
We all remember the hours and hours of debate on the transportation Bills that were commonly referred to as the deregulations Bills. The Government decided that it was time to deregulate the transportation sector, and particularly the railways. As those discussions continued it became clear to all people who were knowledgeable in this area that if the Government proceeded with the deregulation Bills the result would be massive lay-offs in the rail transportation industry. No one would dispute that fact. The evidence was clear, namely, the experience of the United States, where they have already gone through deregulation, and where tens of thousands of railway employees were tossed on the scrap heap. Countless witnesses explained that that would happen in Canada if the Government proceeded.
As a matter of fact, it was worse than that. The deregulation Bills introduced by the Government included provisions found nowhere in the entire world. These deregulation clauses are not found in any other jurisdiction. Experienced people came before us, and I remind Members that the president of a railway in the United States came up here and said that if this deregulation goes through it will actually wreck our rail systems. Those are very strong comments. In light of the evidence before us, the Government soldiered on with its
ideological commitment to deregulation. With the massive majority of the Government it was able to pass the legislation in the latter part of June.
As officials from CN and CP stated to each of us individually, and certainly collectively in the committees and in the various forums where we received information, this would result in a disaster for the railways, and that they would have to significantly cut back their labour force. The railways felt that on average they would lose $560 million a year. That amount would be knocked off their balance sheets. As the Canadian rail system was put in direct competition with the American rail system and trucking companies, the result would be massive lay-offs; the railways would be forced to cut deep and mean in order to maintain a competitive edge in the transportation market-place.
Who wanted deregulation? The railways and their employees certainly did not. The large shippers did. They got through to our friend and colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) and some of his associates, and presumably used their corporate muscle and decided that in the best interests of the country, the rail system, and what has made this country, which is our rail system, that they were going to go ahead and wreak havoc on the critical transportation infrastructure of Canada.
Now that is all history. The Government went ahead, as it said it was committed to do, and it deregulated. The important thing that we should recognize today is that the employees of the railways are the victims of this legislation. Those hundreds and thousands of men and women across the country are no longer employed by our national rail system. The victims of deregulation were the men and women who worked for the rail companies.
I am sure that most Members of Parliament have railways going through their constituencies. We know the rail workers, and know that they are committed, dedicated employees. These people seem to be a lot more closely associated and committed to rail transportation. They have a proud feeling working in this critical transportation sector. Fathers and sons, and sons of sons have worked for the CN or CP. That is a compliment in terms of the commitment shown by these employees to their type of work. How have they been treated? The Minister of Transport with his deregulation said that they were prepared to write off thousands and thousands of railroad employees. They may be victims on the scrap heap, but that is the way it is. That was the view of the Minister of Transport.
One would expect a little more from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux). After all, presumably he is concerned about what happens to labour on our rail systems and elsewhere. One would have thought he would have taken some steps to provide a safety net, so that when thousands and thousands of people lost their jobs the Minister of Labour would have an obligation, a responsibility to ease the pain and do something about the situation.
August 27, 1987

Some people ask what can be done; what options does the Minister of Labour have? What can we do in collective agreements, not so much in preserving jobs. 1 think job security is a misnomer. It is really employment security that we are talking about. In other words, if you have worked with a rail company for many, many years and that part of your work is being contracted out or technological change makes it redundant, you do not just take that employee and say " So long, Joe" or, "So long, Mary, you are on the scrap heap, you are on your own. Thank you for 20 years", or five years service or whatever. 1 think it is time that we showed some sense of compassion, some concern, some interest and took steps to provide some safety mechanisms.
I want to hold up as an example-it is not a perfect one, but it far ahead of where the Minister of Labour is taking us with this legislation-the Ontario Northland Railway. In its agreement with its employees there is a clause, 7(a) which says that anyone with more than seven years' seniority with that railway has guaranteed employment. Ontario Northland does not guarantee that job forever. That would be silly, but it says that after seven years of good employee performance that person is guaranteed employment. If that job is phased out through technological change, the company moves the individual or retrains him for another job within the Ontario Northland Railway. If there is simply no job at that moment for that man or woman with seven years seniority, then that person is put on waiting status through a variety of mechanisms and is able to collect 80 per cent of his or her regular pay until a job comes up in the company. It is done successfully and it is negotiated into the collective agreement.
There is no reason that we cannot do something for our employees. By that I mean CN's employees, the government run railway, and also for those of CP. There is no reason that major corporate railways like that could not have that type of employment security built into the contracts, as opposed to the present treatment, which is to boot out the people, and that is it.


John Carnell Crosbie: That is dishonesty.


Nelson Andrew Riis: In 1973 when we legislated an end to that rail strike there was a real difference. It was a Liberal minority Government, and I suspect because of that there was a little more sensitivity to the agreement. A number of things are absent in this legislation that were there in 1973, and that is the crux of the matter that we are debating tonight.
We are asked as responsible elected representatives to sign a blank cheque tonight, to buy a pig in a poke. This legislation says that we want you, Member of Parliament, to support legislation that will identify an arbitrator. Will it be Bill Kerkhoff in B.C., Peter Pocklington, or in all fairness, will it be Bob White or Jack Munro? Who will be the arbitrator? It is a very critical situation. It is imperative, since the arbitrator has only 60 days to resolve the issue, that the individual knows
Maintenance of Railway Operations
the transportation industry inside and out. He or she should be an expert and an individual respected for fairness in judgment; honesty and equity in decision-making. That is important. However, there is no reference to that in this legislation.
What are the guidelines? What is this arbitrator going to do? There is no guideline, no direction, and there is no suggestion. There is no blueprint or strategy. It is just, do whatever you want, Mr. Arbitrator. That is what the law is going to be and that is what the workers and the companies will have to accept. That is silly, Mr. Speaker. Who in their right mind fulfilling a responsible position as a Member of Parliament would support something so open-ended?
For that reason I want to remind the Minister of Labour that back in 1973, when similar legislation was introduced, it had guidelines for the arbitrator clearly laid out, guidelines in terms of what the wage settlement ought to be as well as a whole other set of guidelines. It laid out what were the issues to be resolved. It said, follow the basic recommendations in the conciliator's report. Members of Parliament could at least make a reasoned decision whether or not to support it.
Now we are asked to sign a blank cheque and to have faith in the system or in some individual to impose a reasonable settlement. That is really asking a little bit too much as far as I can see. We are expecting a lot when we say that the arbitrator must resolve this matter within 60 days, although there is a provision where the Minister can extend that time somewhat. We are talking about two major employers, many, many unions and thousands and thousands of employees right across the country. With only 60 days, we will need someone with an incredible amount of knowledge who is able to do an incredible amount of investigation very quickly, and I think that is a bit unrealistic.
There is no reference in Clause 8 to what are the disputed items. The union says that it has identified seven major areas of dispute. That was in the media today. The companies say that they have identified only three areas of dispute. Obviously there is some difficulty as to what is the problem at this point. Again, the legislation should have that included and it should also include something about general wage settlement areas. I know when our amendments as they come forward will suggest a four per cent range. That is the cost of living. In the conciliator's report there was general agreement that something over 3 per cent would be more than reasonable. I do not think anyone would say that the cost of living increase of 4 per cent for the first year is unreasonable. To indicate our good faith as elected representatives we feel that is a reasonable guideline for the arbitrator to pursue. We could go on and on.


John Carnell Crosbie: You have.


Nelson Andrew Riis: All of the discussions today have been that this is a two-year negotiated settlement. That was the goal. The unions feel comfortable with a two-year settlement-reasonably, at least. The companies thought two years was a reasonable goal, but the legislation says that if the arbitrator

August 27, 1987
Maintenance of Railway Operations
wants he can impose a three year contract. Where does that come from, Mr. Speaker? Three years has never been mentioned anywhere in the discussions in the last 18 months. Why three? Is it a reflection of legislation that has been hastily and inappropriately drafted? 1 guess at this stage of the debate we are talking about the principle of the Bill. We are not going through it clause by clause and I think it would be inappropriate of me to pursue that at this point. We will have ample time later this morning to do that.
I believe it is appropriate that we spend a lot of time today attempting to improve this piece of legislation. I think this back to work legislation is totally inappropriate, completely lacking in any substance. For us to sign this blank cheque, so to speak, would be irresponsible as Members of Parliament. At this point, unless there are significant changes, I, personally, and others in my caucus, will have to oppose the legislation. I am hopeful that sane heads will prevail and that there is a will on the other side of the House to say, "Yes, those are reasoned amendments and suggestions that make a great deal of sense".


John Carnell Crosbie: Where are they?


Nelson Andrew Riis: They are before us.


John Carnell Crosbie: No.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Yes, they are.


John Carnell Crosbie: 1 haven't seen a sign of them.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Rather than be distracted by my hon. friend, let me say that we hope that we can improve this piece of legislation as the evening wears on and the morning approaches. If not, it will be impossible for us to support legislation of this type.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Redway):: Questions or comments? Debate. The Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins).


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in the debate today on Bill C-85, particularly as a Member from British Columbia. The situation that we have been faced with over the past week has had a detrimental impact on British Columbia and if allowed to continue would have a devastating impact on our B.C.'s economy.
1 want to start by complimenting the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) and his cabinet colleagues for the very prompt, decisive and fair action they have taken to put an end to the railway strike in Canada. That is what the people want the Government to do, to act fairly, decisively and in a timely fashion. That is what they have done on this occasion.
As the Minister and some of my colleagues have said, no one
wants to intervene in a labour dispute. One would hope that
the regular negotiation process would be successful and that
parties to a dispute could find the answers themselves. Obviously, in some cases, as in this case, that has not been possible, despite the best efforts of all parties, so it is essential that the Government intervene and bring in this legislation today, and hopefully by Saturday morning the railways can be running and the freight moving across the country.
We know that 30 per cent of Canada's freight is carried by rail and has therefore been affected by this work stoppage. However, I want to point out the particular importance of rail in British Columbia. In British Columbia, 90 per cent of freight is carried by rail. Considering that fact, one recognizes how important it is that we get the railways back to work.
When thinking of British Columbia, one thinks of resources. Coal comes from eastern British Columbia to the ports and overseas. Potash comes from the Prairies to British Columbia ports by rail. Grain, which is just now coming to harvest, moves by rail to the West Coast and on to foreign ports. All this is totally reliant upon prompt and efficient rail movement.
Of course, lumber is not as totally dependent on the railways, but certainly for some parts of the pulp and paper industry rail is an essential component which enables those commodities to get to market. We talk about essential services. I cannot think of a service more essential to British Columbia's industries than rail transportation.
Over the last few days, I have read some of the commentaries in the Vancouver press and I would like to share these with some of my colleagues so they can recognize the concerns and feelings that exist in British Columbia.
The Vancouver Province ran an editorial two days ago headlined: "A long rail strike can't be allowed". The Vancouver Sun ran this headline: "Coal, timber, grain halt as freight strike starts". Again, The Province had these headlines: "Strike raises anger", and "Shutdown hurts B.C.". Yesterday, the headline read: "All eyes on Ottawa", because it was recognized that the representatives of the people of Canada and of British Columbia would now have to take action.
1 do not necessarily always agree with the editorial policies of my local newspapers, but I would like to share a few comments from a particular editorial with my colleagues as I think it does enunciate well the importance of what we are doing here tonight. It reads as follows:
The Mulroney government really can't wait very long before legislating an end to the national rail strike. This is essentially a strike against the nation and it can't be tolerated more than a few days.
Either the negotiators must find a voluntary settlement early this week or the government must bring in a back-to-work bill and have the dispute settled by arbitration.
A coast-to-coast transportation system may not be an essential service in the sense that life and limb are threatened. But a rail shutdown is different from any other-
-if it goes for long without its railway freight system, the national economy will, to a large extent, grind to a halt. The damage from a rail shutdown would affect too many industries, too many communities and too many people for us to allow it to go beyond this week-
The dispute should be sent to an independent arbitrator or arbitration board.
August 27, 1987

So the story goes. 1 think that enunciates very well the feeling that it is so important to bring an end to this strike through government intervention.
Indeed, on Monday of this week the Premier of British Columbia called for a legislated end to the labour strike. He indicated that he would be talking to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and he said the following:
-I will tell him that the country can't afford this strike, not when key
industries like wheat, potash, coal and forestry are affected. This is the only
means for transporting these products, and I would go so far as to say strikes
shouldn't be allowed in the rail sector to begin with-
Let us look at another aspect of the strike. Perhaps it is not as essential, but hundreds of British Columbia travellers are steaming mad because their plans have been derailed by a Canada-wide railway strike. That is a human aspect of the strike of which we are all aware.
There have been indications that a walkout of more than a week would cripple British Columbia because the provincial economy relies heavily on port traffic. I refer to both export and import traffic. The Vancouver ports will become stalled because much of the containerized traffic moves from the ships right onto the rail.
Indeed, we know of the excellent record of the Minister of Labour when earlier this year it was necessary to legislate the longshoremen in British Columbia back to work. What came about as a result of Mr. Weiler's findings was the elimination of the container clause, and that has certainly been a very important benefit to British Columbia. We appreciate that kind of support.
In the nearly four days since the strike began, these are the facts of life. In British Columbia, Westar Mining Limited is facing $10,000-a-day demurrage fees if the railways do not start operating today because it has ships that are due in at Westshore Terminals; it will not have the products to put on them and it will have to pay the penalty because it has already ordered the ships and it is too late to send them back. The Saskatchewan Potash Marketing Agency notified customers that it can no longer guarantee shipments. At least one producer in the province says that it may have to close. The Coal Association of Canada has said that the strike threatens Canada's international reputation as a reliable supplier of coal and petrochemicals. The Alberta Wheat Pool said that Ottawa should get the railways moving first and then deal with the labour issue. The Dow Chemical plant in Port Saskatchewan, Alberta, could lose $300,000 a day and will have to shut if the strike is prolonged. Ipsco of Regina will be forced to cut back steel production and lay off employees if rail services are disrupted for just a few days. CGTX Inc. of Red Deer, Alberta, a company that repairs railway tank cars, has issued layoff notices to 43 workers and may have to close in two weeks.
It is not only the 48,000 men and women who are directly involved in rail work who are affected, it is all the other men and women in the other industries who are beginning to be
Maintenance of Railway Operations
affected. Certainly all Hon. Members on all sides of the House agree that we cannot let a strike in the rail services continue. It must be brought to an end.
One of the other issues I feel is very important is reliability of service. Canada and British Columbia are dependent on exports, and our customers expect their products when they are promised. If we cannot deliver, there are a lot of alternative bargains to which they can turn.
We need only look at the example of what happened in Australia over the past few years as it developed a reputation of having strikes and being unreliable in delivering products. That has certainly had a tremendously adverse impact on Australia. We cannot afford to let that happen. We must keep those products, the wheat, the potash, the coal and the lumber, going through those ports. That is another very important aspect of the issue.
What has happened in the process leading up to the legislation we are dealing with today? It has been difficult but I compliment the Minister. I think he made a tremendous effort to achieve a negotiated settlement. In his remarks earlier he indicated that he approved a full range of third party assistance which is available under Part V of the Canada Labour Code, hollowing direct negotiations between the parties he appointed a conciliation officer in an attempt to assist both the railways and the unions in the resolution of their differences. When that approach was unsuccessful a conciliation commissioner was assigned to the dispute to provide additional assistance in an effort to achieve a mutually satisfactory settlement. When his report was provided to the parties there was a request for mediation assistance and Mr. Carson was appointed by the Minister. Despite his efforts, major differences remained and that blocked the achievement of a new collective agreement.
As a further indication of the commitment of this Government to the collective bargaining process, earlier this week the Minister appointed the Associate Deputy Minister of Labour, Bill Kelly, along with Mr. Carson, to make a final attempt to assist the parties in reaching an accord. We have seen it on television every night. They have been meeting around the clock. Certainly we know Mr. Kelly's tremendous reputation for obtaining settlements in these disputes, but with all his skills and expertise it was still not possible to reach a negotiated settlement. Thus the Minister gave notice to the House that we would have to bring in the legislation we are dealing with today.
There has been some concern expressed from the other side of the House that 60 days is not an adequate time for an arbitrator to come to a settlement. It certainly seems to me that within 60 days an arbitrator would receive the full range of views and should, indeed must, come to a settlement because both the railways and the unions are going to have to know where they stand. I think you need that sort of gun to the

August 27, 1987
Maintenance of Railway Operations
back to get things going and get it over with, and I fully support it. Indeed, it is very appropriate that in this legislation the Minister has seen fit to include provisions to deal not only with this particular work stoppage but any other stoppage resulting from the negotiations presently going on between the railways and other unions. We will not have to come back and deal with a different Bill each time.
I also believe it would be very foolish to put conditions on the arbitrator in the sense of telling him what he should be doing. It seems to me an arbitrator has to look at all the facts and proposals and come forward with the best combination. His or her hands should not be tied by this legislation.
I have really been quite amazed by the position of the NDP in this matter. They told us this evening they cannot support the Bill. Yet earlier this evening an NDP Member said that they know the Bill will go through and just because they are opposing it will not mean the railway workers will not go back to work. What hypocrisy. What does that tell the people of Canada? The NDP claim that they could form the next Government of this country. If they did, what would their position be in this situation? Would they order the railway workers back to work or would they let the strike go on with the resulting devastation to the economy? They cannot talk out of both sides of their mouth. The Canadian public will not take it. They are not that stupid. This is only one example of the NDP trying to fool the public and we are going to see many others. I hope they come to their senses and support this Bill and ensure that the railway workers get back to work.
1 know there are others who wish to comment on this Bill and we want to get it into Committee of the Whole as quickly as possible. Therefore I will conclude by repeating that there are, unfortunately, situations where collective bargaining fails and the Government, as the defender of the public interest and caretaker of the economy, must intervene and prevent irreparable harm to Canada. This is one of those situations. We all regret the necessity for parliamentary intervention in the collective bargaining process, but on this occasion, and I believe all my colleagues will share this view, we must do it. This in no way detracts from the resolve which I feel must be exhibited to deal with situations in the future, but in this situation we must move quickly to ensure that the Canadian economy proceeds on course and is not crippled.
I therefore urge all Members to give this legislation their full consideration and support, and promptly pass it so that the Senate can deal with it tomorrow. In that way the railways will get back to work and our goods will once again be moving across this country from Newfoundland to British Columbia and into our ports on Saturday morning.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Redway):: Questions and comments? Debate.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, first let me reassure the Hon. Member for Capilano
(Mrs. Collins) that the Canadian people are not so stupid as not to be able to understand the position of the NDP.


John Carnell Crosbie: You are a mugwump.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: I will repeat that for the understanding of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie). The Canadian people are not so stupid as not to understand the position of the NDP. It is unfortunate that the Hon. Member for Capilano does not share that same level of understanding. She has documented the obvious at great length. There is no question in the eyes of the NDP, nor, I think, in the eyes of any Member of this House, that a national railway strike constitutes a severe test, indeed a threat to our economy. There is no doubt that this country cannot bear a strike that would have such severe economic and human consequences as this strike would cause if it were prolonged. Let us dispense with the necessity for elaborating too much on the self-evident.
We are faced with a serious problem. However, when looking at the impact of this strike on the Canadian people and our economy it is necessary to do what the previous speaker failed to do, and that is look at the situation of those who have been driven to strike. I do not recall in my boyhood my father saying, "Oh, God, I am going to have to strike this week. 1 have been working too long, I want a couple of days off with no pay and no food". I do not remember anyone saying strikes were nice ways of bringing about settlements. I do not think most people on strike enjoy not answering the door when the bill collector calls. Let us make sure we understand that a strike is not an option easily chosen by those who strike. It is the ultimate weapon against economic power that ordinary workers must use as a means of ensuring that there will be seriousness at the collective bargaining table.
Let us also take note of a few additional facts, one being that the workers in the railway industry have looked around and, from time to time, noticed that one of their fellow workers is no longer working with them. Day by day fewer workers are employed in the railway industry. Others have pointed out the changes in transportation and our economy generally that have brought that about. However, the fact is that thousands have found themselves unprotected after years, indeed in many instances after decades of having worked faithfully for the railroads. When it is all over they find that they not do not have jobs, they have no hope of jobs.
I think that most of us who are not trying to make pretty television pictures for an audience in British Columbia understand that there are some severe human issues involved here. One of the most significant human issues, sometimes 1 think not seen in human terms, is the threat posed by deregulation. One would have to have a very short memory not to recall the consistent warning provided by this side of the House that mimicking the process of deregulation which has occurred in the United States would mean that thousands of workers
August 27, 1987

would lose their jobs in the transportation industry, most particularly in the railway industry.
There are a lot of factors operating in any case as 1 have previously enumerated. Superimposed upon that now is deregulation. Mr. Speaker, can you think of any rational human being or collectivity of rational human beings who would not try to protect themselves against a situation which is a threat to their very survival, their economic well-being and the well-being of entire families? Can they on the other side of the House not understand that that which is at issue here is fundamental to the lives of a great many people?
The New Democratic Party has said that it is opposed to this legislation. We believe that it is possible to take the human equation into account in an appropriate way, even when faced with the imperative of having to legislate back to work within the context of the overwhelming economic threat which it constitutes.
However, we will vote against this legislation because it is so typically Conservative. It is part of the pattern of this Government when facing a crisis to go to the most extreme measure, divorcing itself as much as possible from the human issues involved. If the Government truly shared, on the one hand, the concern about the need for urgent action and, on the other, the need for humane action, we would be able to sit down as three different political Parties and approach in a reasonable way the drafting of this legislation.
We have prepared amendments for presentation which would make the legislation at least acceptable. We know, of course, that the Government will reject them. We know that the Government will once more abuse its overwhelming majority and impose legislation that will fail to take into account all that should be taken into account in the circumstances. Therefore, we will oppose what surely will be voted on, that is, unamended legislation presented by the Government.
Perhaps the Hon. Member for Capilano does not understand what the New Democratic Party is saying, but I am sure there is sufficient intelligence out there in the real world to understand what 1 have just said and what the New Democratic Party is saying.
In referring to legislation passed in similar circumstances in 1973 we find guidelines for amendments that might be accepted; guidelines that would make this back-to-work legislation tolerable. The 1973 legislation provided minimum guidelines for wages. A direction to provide an award was given to the arbitrator. After so many months of negotiations and being faced with back to work legislation, the workers would have at least some financial improvement in their situation.
In fact, we have a conciliation report which recommends 3 per cent over each of two years. I do not understand why, if the Government wants a humane piece of legislation, it cannot accept an amendment which would do such a thing. I do not
Maintenance of Railway Operations
understand how the Canadian people could accept that; the Canadian people are not stupid, and they know what is reasonable and humane and what fails to take into account all sides, as the Government so consistently does.
There is another difference between this legislation and that of 1973. The legislation of 1973 returned the workers to work under the status quo. The legislation now before the House says that operations are supposed to resume forthwith, but with respect to workers going back to work it says that they will do so when so required. This could mean that any number of workers presently on strike may not be called back, in effect could be laid off. That is certainly not fair in a situation where the key issue is job security. We understand why that provision is there, because the Minister of Transport has already declared which side he is on with respect to job security.


John Carnell Crosbie: Be honest now.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: The wording "when so required" is a typical Conservative concession to the employer.
This is only a part of a fabric of failure by the Government to deal with issues affecting workers. One might have thought, job security having become such an important issue in Crown corporations generally, that the Government would have thought to adopt a policy with respect to job security and Crown corporations at least as a guideline by which it would proceed. Of course, we have deregulation without any such provision either.
If one asked me why we think it is necessary to respond to this strike in an urgent way while at the same time opposing this legislation-


John Carnell Crosbie: You are a mugwump.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: -I would say that we oppose this legislation because the Government so consistently fails to measure the fine aspects of humane responses to critical issues, just as it has done with Bills C-84 and C-55. I say this with great sadness because I had hoped that this would be a place where reasoned discussion would lead to reasonable action. It is not necessary that on every issue we confront one another like two armies across the bloody field.
*


John Carnell Crosbie: You invite it.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: We are faced with a national emergency. It should be possible, in those circumstances, for all three Parties to reach a reasonable consensus and not disregard the reasonable, helpful propositions advanced by the Liberal or New Democratic Parties in an effort to reach a consensus that the whole nation would accept and which would be in the interests of the workers as well as the economy. But no, we go on listening to often ridiculous speeches, stating the obvious-


John Carnell Crosbie: As we are now.

August 27, 1987
Maintenance of Railway Operations


Howard Douglas McCurdy: -avoiding the substance. The Minister of Transport awakes from his slumber every now and then to utter something that is as incomprehensible as it is illogical.
There is another element to this legislation that I must say 1 find completely weird. Even though both sides in this dispute have agreed that a two-year contract is appropriate, right out of the clear blue sky the Government decides to give the arbitrator the power to impose a three-year contract. Madam Speaker, 1 notice you are picking up the legislation to see if it is really true. I can assure you that it is.
This is a government that does its thinking off the top of its head. The issues in this labour dispute are serious, as I have indicated before. There are many workers who are worried about their futures and families who are worried about their security. They are not asking for hand-outs, they are not asking for a sinecure in the jobs they presently occupy. They are not asking that there be no change in technology. They are asking that if their jobs cannot be maintained, there be jobs or a means available by which they can maintain the security of steady employment.
The railways say that they are themselves having to face deregulation and that they will have to streamline and cut back the number of employees because there will not be enough work to go around. How does that square with the fact that one of the issues in this dispute concerns contracting out? The railways will lay off the workers presently working for them because there is not enough work, yet it will contract out work to other companies. Surely that requires very careful examination in order to understand it even to the slightest degree, it indicates to me that management lacks the kind of recognition and concern for the loyalty of its employees that would allow decent people to find ways to ensure that the concerns of their employees would be met in the form of new security provisions in the contract.
1 hope that a good contract for the employer and employees will be gained from all this. I hope the contract will result in a different kind of labour-management relationship which will make it possible for workers and management to plan together for a changed future, and that will recognize the economic as well as the human imperatives.
I hope that within this industry a new beginning might be made in the social democracy of the workplace. Quite frankly, I believe that is what is lacking here. There have been too many confrontations. There are too serious impacts on society whenever a dispute of any significance arises.
1 know that the kinds of hope and aspirations that I and my Party have for a new kind of relationship between labour and management cannot possibly be assured by a government that would propose the kind of back to work legislation that is before us, which is so lacking in any effort to go even a little distance in recognizing that there are workers in this dispute as well as management.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I wish to make a comment because every now and then in this debate we have to try to bring the New Democratic Party down to the ground. We must ask ourselves, if the members of the NDP formed a government what kind of solution would we have to the present situation tonight. Every speaker from the New Democratic Party has taken a stand in this issue. Each of them has argued the case for the union. We heard the Member who just spoke do the exact same thing. What kind of impartiality and evenhanded treatment could the people of Canada expect from a New Democratic Party government if they were in the same majority position as we are tonight? They criticize the Government if we even explain, for example, what the provisions of the previous collective agreement are with respect to job security. If we happen to say that these are among the most advanced contracts and provisions in Canada in that area, we are accused of being biased. We are not even supposed to outline the provisions of a collective agreement into which one of our Crown corporations has entered. That is supposed to be nefarious.
However, members of the New Democratic Party get up and speak in a biased manner in favour of one side in this collective bargaining dispute. According to those Members, there is no free collective bargaining system. The only collective bargaining system there can be is one that favours the people whose support they look to for election. They are like the dogs of a Canadian Labour Congress Pavlov; they are the dogs and when that Pavlov says "salivate", that crew over there salivates.
We are not hearing an impartial discussion of how to end this dispute. They want to solve the dispute themselves. They want to be the arbitrators and set the terms. They do not want the matter referred to arbitration. The 33 nattering nabobs-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Of negativism.


John Carnell Crosbie: Not of negativism, of "interferism", interventionism, of partiality. That group of 33 want to determine what the collective agreement should be.
Do they or do they not believe in a collective bargaining system in this country? Do they believe that the NDP have all the wisdom and they are to decide these issues, or do they believe with us and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) that these are matters that should be left to an impartial arbitrator?
Certainly, members of the New Democratic Party are not impartial. They are the most partial people in the House. Every one of them who has risen today has taken a position in this matter. They are for absolute prohibition of contracting out, they are for x, y and z. They support anything for which the unions are asking. Then they have the gall to suggest we should not even expound on what the terms of the old agreement were. They are mugwumps, by the way. They are trying to say they are going to be supportive of having this strike end. At the same time they are trying to do everything they can
August 27, 1987

tonight to prevent it, to frustrate it, to impose their own will not only on this House, where they are a small miserable minority, but on the whole country.


An Hon. Member:: Sit down, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am not sitting down, Madam Speaker, this is the time for comment or question.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Keep talking, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: Let me ask a question of the members of the New Democratic Party. Should we set the terms of the contract in this House? Because there are 210 of us and there are only 33 of you. If that is what you want done, the terms that are set might not be the terms you want. And there are 40 Members of the Liberal Party. So I suggest that you forget your partisan, prejudicial approach to this problem and that you go along with this Bill.
We are leaving it up to an impartial arbitrator. We are not interfering at all. We are not saying what the arbitrator should do. You are trying to bully the arbitrator, pressuring him to find this and that, contracting out, changing this legislation and so on, exerting your insidious pressure in one direction only. If this country ever has a government formed by your party, by God, we can expect no impartiality, no justice, no free collective bargaining system, nothing but mugwumpry and discrimination against everyone you do not agree with. It is a disgrace.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Well, Madam Speaker, one might get the impression that the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) was provoked to anger and supreme irritation. Indeed, became so angry that he resorted back to using phrases he had only used up to 20 or 25 times 10 years ago. I would have expected to have heard something innovative out of such an eloquent mouth, but evidently logic has left him and imagination has left him as well. That is unfortunate because he was so busy sitting there simmering that he obviously missed practically every word I said.


John Carnell Crosbie: Answer the question.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: I am having great difficulty understanding, however, how back to work legislation represents an example of free collective bargaining.


James Douglas Manly: Crosbie style.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: What I said was that it should be possible, not on the side of labour, but considering the concerns of labour, not on the side of management, but considering the concerns of the industry, that all three parties-all three parties-not confrontationally, not bragging about "my 210 seat majority", but as concerned representatives of the people of Canada, come up with a piece of legislation which would be at least as humane as that brought forward in 1973.
Maintenance of Railway Operations
I do not think that one could have alleged that that legislation at that time was written in the offices of Bob White. On the contrary. The Hon. Minister of Transport would have the people of Canada believe that the New Democratic Party stands for only a very narrow portion of the population.


John Carnell Crosbie: Absolutely.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: The Minister can say "absolutely" as much as he wants, but there is a pretty absolute difference between 44 per cent and 23 per cent. I would prefer to stand up with the fishermen, the labourers and the farmers rather than with a Reagan, a Shultz, or anyone else on the other side. Do not tell me I am un-American because I want to be Canadian because that does not fit into the argument either. I am saying that if the Hon. Minister of Transport wants to engage in reasonable discussion about reasonable legislation, we will be pleased to do so. However, we know that neither the Hon. Minister of Transport nor his Government will entertain any amendments that are at all at odds with the preconceived notions on which his legislation has been written. We know on what side he stands because he has already indicated that clearly to this House.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I would like to ask my colleague a couple of questions which I think are related. He said that the key issue in this dispute is job security, that workers are concerned about jobs. I believe he said that the basic cause goes far beyond the current crisis, back to the government policy of deregulation as a result of which, I believe, it is expected that some 15,000 workers will be displaced, including workers with 25 years' seniority.


John Carnell Crosbie: Absolute nonsense.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Also-and I think the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) should be concerned about this-workers, including women and representatives of minority groups who are employed under the new Employment Equity Program, of course, will be the people who are last hired and first fired.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member for his views. What could the Government have done to avoid this crisis which has now resulted in back to work legislation? And if the Conservatives insist on going ahead with the deregulation, which, as a Government, they are going to do as a concession to free trade, does this mean the end to employment equity as it applies to the railways, which of course are under federal jurisdiction?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Upon recognizing the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) again, 1 would like to point out that there are only two minutes left.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Our parliamentary Spiro Agnew, who shares other characteristics with his progenitor, would not admit that deregulation is an essential underpinning to the dispute before us now, but let us not forget what deregulation is all about.

August 27, 1987
Maintenance of Railway Operations
Deregulation is essentially about the application of Reaganomics in Canada. When we have a situation in which only recently women were accorded employment equity and they are the last hired and will be the first fired, I do not recall the Minister expressing one iota of concern. Perhaps his is the same level of concern as Spiro Agnew might have expressed. That disturbs members of the New Democratic Party.
Let me tell you, Madam Speaker, that to say that employers and industry, should be concerned about workers is not a challenge for industry or for employers, and to imply anything so ludicrous is a measure of the intelligence of those who would utter such nonsense.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, do I have time for another question?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The time for questions and comments is now over.


John Carnell Crosbie: I wonder if the hon. gentleman could give me the answer to this question-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order.


John Carnell Crosbie: There is no time? Lie does not have the answer anyway, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The time for questions and comments is over. We need unanimous consent to give the floor back to the Hon. Minister. Do I have unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Carnell Crosbie: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just wanted to ask the Hon. Member a question. He is going on about deregulation causing all these problems. What does he think caused the problem between 1974, when there were 107,000 employees in the rail industries in Canada, and 1984, when there were 81,000, a loss of 25,000 jobs? Deregulation was not even in the air in that 10-year period. What does he think caused the loss of those jobs?
Can he not have at least some intellectual honesty and admit that a lot of the problems in the rail industry today are caused by the change in the nature of our transportation system, not by some sinister plot of somebody who is going to deregulate and put people out of work, and all the rest of it. None of us want to see people out of work. You do not have a monopoly on virtue. You do not have a monopoly on the good feelings. You do not have a monopoly on helping people. I have been helping them for 20 years and I am not NDP, nor a Liberal, I am a Conservative. Why do you think you have all the compassion and sympathy? You are a bleeding heart. You are bleeding that stuff, but you have no more of it than I have. I want you to answer that pragmatic question. What happened in those 10 years?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Madam Speaker, I did not say the Hon. Minister was devoid of sympathy. He is devoid of sympathetic action.


Miss MacDonald:: Answer his question.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: I am surprised that the Minister of Transport does not know why there has been a decrease in employment in the railway industry over the period of time cited.


John Carnell Crosbie: 1 do know.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: 1 find this absolutely amazing. Why would a man be chosen to be Minister of Transport if he does not know why there has been a change in the distribution of transport among railways, trucking and shipping? If he does not know that there has been a change in technology, and if he does not know any of those things, then he has no business being Minister of Transport.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam
Speaker, I had hoped that we would hear from another member of the Government on this very important matter. I guess my colleagues to the right of me are spending their time watching a past Leader on television rather than being concerned about the legislation that is before us.
I wish to do two things in my contribution to the debate this evening. I wish to outline briefly and in a general way why my Party and I are opposing this legislation. Then I want to give an indication as to the type of amendments that we will bring forward during the committee stage.


An Hon. Member:: Let's go ahead, then.


Iain Francis Angus: The Hon. Member says that we should go ahead and do it. We will. One of the realities with this type of complex legislation-and in a great many ways I do not think the public really appreciates this-is that to understand what it does and then to find ways in which it can be approved takes time. A number of us have been working since eleven o'clock this morning with members of our staff going through the Bill to try to see what can be improved upon to make a bad deal a little bit better for the people whose livelihoods will be affected by it. I wish to remind Hon. Members that it is not the presidents of the railroads or the shareholders-and let's face it, we, the people of Canada, are the shareholders of one of the two major ones-but it is those men and women who work for the Canadian railroads whose whole existence will be affected by this legislation. It will affect their ability to bargain. It will affect their ability to achieve a settlement that is fair. Once this legislation is passed and those people are sent back to work, whether it is tomorrow, Saturday or Sunday, it will be up to a nameless individual to decide on their fate for the next two years. It will be up to that individual to decide whether or not they will have a job, as a result of the type of policies he or she allows the rail companies to put into place with respect to job security, contracting out and technological changes.
August 27, 1987

We in this Party believe in the principle that the worker has to have a say in matters that affect him or her on the job. It is something which affects them as workers and, of course, it affects their families.
1 wish to deal now with the crux of the matter. We heard part of it in the exchange between my colleague, the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy), and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie). The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) well knows, because of our debates in the House over Freedom to Move, deregulation, and specifically Bills C-18 and C-19, that our profound belief is that a move to a free market system in transportation can only lead to the elimination of vast numbers of jobs within the rail sector. In effect, what will happen is that, as with contracting out, the Government will allow the theft of jobs from one sector to another, allow the elimination of jobs, jobs that are being held today by Canadian men and women, jobs which will not exist in the future.
Deregulation is at the heart of the problem we have before us today. It set the stage for the type of negotiations that the rail companies entered into with their worker representatives. It is fair to say that a great many jobs in the past were not due to deregulation. But it is also fair to say that much of the pressure on the companies is being brought about because of deregulation and the move to a free market system.
Let us remember that this is a very long country. We are not like the United States where everything is in a grid and there are people north, south, east and west. Here it is only east and west, by and large. It is the ribbons of steel that connect the oceans that are the hub, the dream, that have kept this country together. That dream is based on stability, a stability of service. It is one of the things the Government has forgotten about. Service must come first. The economics, although important, must play a secondary role.
I would now like to deal with the general concerns in the Bill. The Bill provides for a two-year imposed extension of the collective agreement, with the arbitrator given an opportunity, or the permission, to extend it to three-years. It is our understanding that at no time during the negotiations was there a three-year contract discussed. Both sides, company and union, were talking two years. We think there is no reason whatsoever that the arbitrator, this sole individual, should be able to add another year on to a collective agreement that has not been achieved through fair collective bargaining but has been imposed upon both sides by an individual who is not the choice of either side but is the choice of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux).
The question of contracting out-in effect, a process that allows a company to take a full-time, well-paying job from an existing employee and give it to someone else's employee-is job stealing. That is what we call it. I can understand the unions, not just in the railway industry but in all other sectors, fighting this type of clause. It undermines our whole fabric. It undermines the consumers who buy goods and food to put on
Maintenance of Railway Operations
the table for their families. I think that it would be better for the economy if we could retain these jobs within the rail sector, within the unionized sector, to ensure that the money that is needed in our economy continues to circulate.
This ties in with employment security. Hon. Members will note that I said "employment security" and not "job security". There is a difference. What the unions are arguing for is not job security in which an individual keeps the same job throughout his or her career but employment security in which an individual is assured of ongoing employment within the company. Workers are already being required to change jobs and to change locations frequently as companies continue to try to reduce their workforce. There is almost no one now working for the railroads who has not been there for at least eight years.
There are also concerns over centralization. A few years ago the CNR closed the bunkhouses in Atikokan and offered relocation to some of the employees to Winnipeg, which is 200 or 300 miles to the west. House prices in Winnipeg are a great deal different from those in Atikokan. If one is a 50 or 55-year-old married man who owns his own home in Atikokan and finds himself having no choice but to relocate, what he was making in Atikokan can no longer provide him the same type of lifestyle that he would be able to achieve in Winnipeg. The unions are legitimately concerned about the impact of those types of decisions on the people whom they represent.
One of the other items in the Bill is the question of the responsibility of the arbitrator. Basically, the arbitrator has a blank cheque. During the clause by clause debate, we may hear from the Minister on the intentions of his Ministry in regard to instructions to the arbitrator. Clearly, from the manner in which the Bill is written, it is a blank cheque. The arbitrator can decide on what he wishes to deal with which is in dispute, and perhaps ignore the key elements that either side may wish discussed.
In our amendments, we are proposing that we give the arbitrator a shopping list. This is not a unique occurrence; it has happened in other legislation which dealt with back to work matters.
A Bill passed in the first session of the 29th Parliament in 1973 dealt with a work stoppage on the railroad. That Bill included components, it established base increases in wages and criteria which the arbitrator, Mr. Emmett Hall, had to consider.
We are proposing that incorporated into this Bill there be a 4 per cent wage increase effective January 1, 1987. This leaves the second year of the imposed collective agreement to the arbitrator to work out with the two parties. This would ensure that those workers who have been without a collective agreement for some time will have the benefit of a moderate increase in their pay cheques sooner rather than later.

August 27, 1987
Maintenance of Railway Operations
We will also recommend that a list of the key items determined by the parties be included in the Bill, but not necessarily limited to them. I wish to state briefly the types of things that we want to say to the arbitrator through legislation that he must consider and deal with.
The arbitrator must deal with wages, starting rate for new employees, dental plan for new employees, extended vision health care for new employees, shift differentials, medicare allowance, job security benefits, employment security, contracting out, incidental work rules, yard switching limits, coupling-uncoupling hoses, disability pensions, dental plan, extended health care, and vacation. We are not limiting the arbitrator to those issues, because there may be other items that both sides feel it is important to resolve. We want to say to the arbitrator, "This is your starting list. You must not overlook these points because they are deemed to be important to the conclusion of the arbitration and any negotiations that take place".
We also wish to lift a section out of the 1973 legislation which states that the arbitrator shall closely examine the job security demands of the union, and fully explore the feasibility of a job security plan based on the principles of attrition.
In that amendment, we are saying that the Bill should have built into it the principle that no individual will lose his or her employment except through attrition. This means, within the terms of the collective agreement, when that individual is ready to retire voluntarily, or leave the workforce. There will not be massive eliminations of jobs, and massive permanent lay-offs of individuals. We did not dream that up. It is in legislation previously enacted by the House several years ago in a matter relating to a work stoppage in the rail industry.
Another amendment that we will put forward deals with an interpretation of the instructions in the legislation to the companies and the unions. There is a section which states, "every employee shall when so required forthwith resume the duties of that employee's employment with the railway company".
We are concerned that any of the railroads may use that particular wording to delay calling workers back for their legitimate shifts, or not calling them back at all. We recognize that this legislation will probably clear both Houses before tomorrow, so we are probably talking about a weekend startup. We understand that the office workers at CN or CP who normally work Monday through Friday will not have to be called back in for Saturday morning, unless there is a legitimate reason to clean up the backlog. We are concerned that the railways will use that particular wording to eliminate jobs, and we want to avoid that situation. We will move the deletion of "when so required".
I have mentioned the two-year contract as opposed to the third-year option. This is a minor wording of a technical nature. It states that collective agreements are between a union and a company. They are not between a company and an employee. A union acts as the agent of the employee through
legislation approved by this House. It is designed to protect individual workers in order that they do not find themselves in a position of having to negotiate on an individual basis with their employer, and be subject to all of the whims and other things that we have previously talked about. We are proposing that this be changed so that it is clear that it is between the union and the company, and not the employee.
I come from a transportation town where many railroaders live and work. As the House is aware, many of my constituents work in the grain handling and woods industries. Those industries are interrelated. I do not feel that 1 would be doing justice to my constituents if I did not stand up in the House and oppose this Bill.
What the Government has proposed is inappropriate. The parties should have been given more time. We could have worked with them. 1 wish to remind the Minister that this is the third labour dispute that he and I have dealt with in the transportation or grain handling sectors since I became a Member of Parliament in 1984. During the first two disputes he told me that there is a time when one should wait for the two parties to get things off their chest. He said this during the grain handlers' dispute in Thunder Bay, and he said it during the longshoremen's dispute in Vancouver. All of a sudden we do not have to wait these seven days. Bill Kelly was not whispering in his ear and saying, "Hang on, hang on. We have to wait a little longer".
During the discussion on the clauses perhaps the Minister may wish to respond to this. Why is there a difference in this dispute? The parties have been at the table for a long time, they were close to an agreement, and although they broke off negotiations, perhaps they knew that the inevitable would happen. The Minister had been saying, "If you do not get a settlement, we will legislate you back to work". The Minister also said that during the dispute in Thunder Bay. A settlement was reached. It seems that now there is a different set of rules for a national rail strike. I agree that it hurts the economy. More important, I think we have to recognize that unfair treatment of workers by any employer hurts our society. These workers do not want the moon. They just want a fair deal. 1 would urge the Minister to give due consideration to the amendments to see if he can incorporate at least some of our thoughts and principles. Perhaps the wording we have come up with is not as clear as we would like to have it or as is legally appropriate.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Perhaps.


Iain Francis Angus: Perhaps. I ask the Minister to consider taking those principles even if he does not agree with the wording, and incorporating them so we can make this Bill a little bit better. Quite frankly, I tend to doubt that that will occur, unfortunately. I, with my colleagues, will vote against this legislation when the appropriate time comes.
August 27, 1987


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, would the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) comment on the inconsistencies in the comments being offered tonight by the Conservatives, particularly by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), who has been critical of the New Democratic Party for wanting to incorporate guidelines and instructions into the legislation? We know full well that in 1973 when the Conservative Party was in opposition it did not feel it was acting inappropriately when it made suggestions and moved amendments and did the very kinds of things which the Minister of Transport finds so heinous now on the part of the New Democrats. Will the Hon. Member comment on that?


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, 1 must say, as somebody who has spent time across from the Tories in the Ontario Legislature a number of years ago, that 1 was not surprised to see the same kind of inconsistencies when 1 got here.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: And remember what happened to them.


Iain Francis Angus: And what will happen to them in a couple of weeks.
Quite frankly, I think the Conservatives have been an opportunistic type of Party, prepared to do one thing in opposition but not prepared to do the same thing in government. 1 think that is unfortunate. I think the people of Canada feel abused by that type of approach and will surely let the Conservative Party know how they really feel when we have a chance to go to the polls sometime in the next couple of years. That will be the final judgment. Perhaps the Minister of Transport might then be looking for another Party to join. Somehow I do not suspect he will come our way, nor would we want him.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: He can go to the Rhinos.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is as follows: Mr. Cadieux, seconded by Mr. Mazankowski, moves that Bill C-85, an Act to provide for the resumption and continuance of railway operations and for the settlement of disputes respecting terms and conditions of employment between railway companies and their employees, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Maintenance of Railway Operations


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:
The Acting Members.	Speaker (Mrs. Champagne): Call in the


The Assistant Deputy Chairman (Mrs. Champagne):: declare the motion carried.

August 27, 1987
Maintenance of Railway Operations


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, with unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mrs. Champagne in the Chair.
The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Order! The House is in Committee of the Whole to consider Bill C-85, an Act to provide for the resumption and continuance of railway operations and for the settlement of disputes respecting terms and conditions of employment between railway companies and their employees.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On Clause 3-Definitions


André Ouellet: Madam Chairman, 1 have a short question for the Minister about the appointment of an arbitrator. 1 realize we are talking about definitions here, but just the same, I would like to ask the Minister now whether he intends to appoint an arbitrator tomorrow and whom he intends to appoint.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Chairman, I intend to appoint an arbitrator as soon as possible after the Bill has received Royal Assent. However, before I do, 1 also intend to make a few enquiries. So I think it would be difficult for me at this stage to say exactly when, tomorrow, in two days or three days and since 1 want to make a few enquiries, I cannot possibly give the name of the arbitrator.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Chairman, the Minister, in his response, said that he would consult. Will he affirm that he will be consulting with both the company and the unions about any name he has to put forward?


Pierre H. Cadieux: 1 will have consultations. 1 do not intend to limit myself to various parties or persons. 1 will gladly accept any suggestions from anyone.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Chairman, if a name the Minister puts forward is deemed to be unacceptable by either Party, will the Minister make it clear whether or not he will then not appoint that individual and find someone who is acceptable to both the management and labour side?


Pierre H. Cadieux: After consultation, Madam Chairman, I will make the appointment, in view of the fact that I am the one who makes the appointments.


André Ouellet: I do not want to belabour the point, if I could use that expression, but certainly the Minister should be much more straightforward in his answer. My colleague has asked whether or not he will consult with the parties. The Minister has indicated he does not want to limit himself to some people but has not said clearly that the parties will be consulted.
I want to be sure that the employees' representative will be
consulted. We are not asking that the nominees of the
employees be appointed. However, I think it is reasonable to ask that the unions be consulted before an appointment is made. I hope the Minister is in a position to assure us that indeed he will consult the unions.
Second, I want to get the Minister's assurance that, unlike the conciliation commissioner, this time he will appoint someone who has long experience with the railway industry and its activities, and that it will be someone who is an outspoken person, a person well known and accepted in the railway area.


Pierre H. Cadieux: I think 1 can say that in the process of consultation, I will be speaking to the parties. I would just like to specify that, in view of the fact that this Act has four parts, and since we are dealing presumably with Part 1-and I hope we never have to use Part II, Part III, and Part IV in the process of the immediate consultation, I will presumably be consulting with the leadership of the ARU and the other employer parties.
With respect to the experience and knowledge of the arbitrator, without wanting to get into an argument with my hon. colleague from Papineau on the knowledge or experience of the people who have already served in this particular conflict, I can assure my hon. colleague and this House that I will do my utmost to find the most appropriate person to act as arbitrator. Obviously, their knowledge and experience in the industry is a criterion.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall clause 3 carry?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Chairman, I have an amendment to Clause 3. By the same token, I have amendments to Clauses 12, 21 and 30, which are the equivalent in Parts II, III and IV. I presume we can deal with them all at the same time. I move:
That Clause 3 of Bill C-85 be amended by striking out lines 5 and 6 on page
2 and substituting the following:
"Railway company who is bound by a collective agree-"
Should I read the other amendments?


Steve Eugene Paproski: To make things easier I think we should deal with Clause 3 first and once we get to the subsequent clauses we can set them in the proper order one after another. I would suggest this will make it easier for everybody to understand.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Very well, Madam Chairman.


Pierre H. Cadieux: This is a technical amendment required to give more precision to the definition of an "employee". Otherwise, it could be construed from the original formulation that employees hired after December 30, 1986, would not be covered by the benefits of the arbitrator's award.
August 27, 1987


Steve Eugene Paproski: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Cadieux) agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 3, as amended, carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 4 carry?

On Clause 4-Resumption of railway operations


André Ouellet: Madam Chairman, I have an amendment to this clause.

I would like to propose the following amendment:
That Bill C-85 be amended at page 2 by striking out lines 21 to 24 and
substituting the following therefor:
b) Every employee shall forthwith resume the duties of that employee's employment with a railway company.
The purpose of the amendment is very simple. It is to remove three words which appear in the current legislation. The three words are "when so required". It is quite clear on reading the legislation, and a number of employees have seen in these three words the possibility that the railways will never require them or might wait a long time before requiring them. I do not think that is fair. I think, frankly, that as soon as the legislation is to come into force, each railway shall forthwith resume operation of the railway, and every employee shall forthwith resume the duties of the employee's employment. However, to put these words "when so required" creates a certain situation. As one reads the clause, the clause deals with the responsibilities of the railways, on the one hand, to resume their operations and the responsibility of the employees, on the other hand, to resume their work. By putting in the words "when so required" in relation to the employees, we take away from them their decision to obey the law and we put the conditions for them to go back to work not on their decision, but on the decision of the employers.
I certainly appreciate the fear of some employees. In fact, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys, was speaking earlier in the House and addressed this very question. He received a phone call in the lobby of the Liberal Opposition from Mr. Steve Jursina, who is the local Chairman of the Brotherhood of Maintenance and of Way Employees in Sydney, Nova Scotia. He was clearly saying, "You are quite right," . He insists on amending Clause 4 to take away these words. He said, "We would certainly be in an impossible position because while we might be willing and ready to go, we might not be required by the employers. Therefore, we might be two, three, four, five days, one week,
Maintenance of Railway Operations
two weeks at home waiting for the requirements of the companies".
This is unacceptable. I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment to clarify the legislation. This is certainly not what the Minister wants. I do not think the Minister wants to leave to the discretion of the railways the time that the employees shall resume work. I believe the intention of the legislation is to ensure that when this Bill comes into force the railways will resume their operations and the employees will resume their work. Please, make it abundantly clear.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Chairman, I also wish to speak to this amendment. We have a similar amendment which would have the same effect which we would have moved if the Hon. Member for Papineau had not introduced his. We see this as an example of two things. First, it is like the amendment that the Minister just made. It is one of the dangers of passing legislation quickly in that an effect which people do not imagine being created can be created. Had there not been someone who caught on to the fact that the previous amendment by the Minister was necessary, we could have passed legislation which would have been very faulty indeed.
In this case we run the same risk. We are giving to the railways the power to call back people when they require them. It does not mention in the clause that they will be called back when they should be called back. It says "when required". There is no definition or explanation. It gives the power to CN and to CP to say: "Well, we are going to call back 8,000 people next week, another 2,000 the week after that, and perhaps we will never call back George".
As I mentioned in my speech on second reading, this clause was not in place in the 1973 legislation. It is strange that a clause of this nature has been thrown in, a clause which obviously gives complete and unlimited power to the railways to determine when someone is required to come back to work. I do not think the Minister can justify that. I am afraid that this is open to abuse and that there is no remedy in law for the Government to do anything if the railways decide not to call back people when they would normally be called back to work.


Pierre H. Cadieux: What worries me to some extent is that one wrongly assumes that one of the parties will do something which normally is not be done.

With respect to this particular suggestion, we do not think that it would be appropriate to take out those three words because they serve a very specific purpose. The start-up of operations in a major organization such as a railway is an extremely complex process. Presumably, everyone knows that. Railways operate on a call-out system, which is well known to employees. It is governed by specific provisions in the collective agreement. For example, on the day following passage of

August 27, 1987
Maintenance of Railway Operations
this Bill, which, assuming the Bill is passed today and goes through the Senate tomorrow and receives Royal Assent and comes into force on Saturday, there could be 10 yard engines but no boxcars to switch in a particular yard. Only the employees required to perform the work available would be recalled. As volume increases, additional employees would be called in, in accordance with the seniority procedures contained in the collective agreement. Therefore we believe that the wording is absolutely necessary for the intent of the legislation.


André Ouellet: Madam Chairman, I am not pleased by the answer of the Minister. I want him to realize that I have in my hand a copy of a bulletin that has been posted throughout the Mountain Region. It states:
Your union has declared a strike effective 0001 hours-on 24th August 1987-at the completion of the strike you will be recalled when your services are required-
The bulletin is signed by J. G. Smith, Superintendent, Alberta South Division. At the bottom of the bulletin it states:
Post this notice in one or more places at each struck work location and deliver to as many employees as possible prior to 2359 hours Aug. 23rd, 1987-
This is a message sent by the employer to the employees. It uses exactly the same wording that we have in the legislation, that is, "when required". I am troubled by this because I believe that the Minister of Labour is using the vocabulary of the company. In other words, we have a strike, the Government decides to impose back to work legislation, and the Government is inspired in its back to work legislation by one party, that is, the railways. I do not think it is correct. I certainly do not believe that it is correct that the employees shall go back to work only when the companies decide that they should go back. This is legislation which must apply to both the railways and to the employees. It should be equally applicable to both parties.
I do not like legislation which seems to favour so brutally one party over another. I hope the Minister will review with his officials this situation and accept our amendment, which would also have been introduced by our colleagues in the New Democratic Party. I think both opposition Parties believe this element of unfairness to the employees should not be contained in the legislation.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Chairman, I too want to enter into the debate on this clause. I know that the Minister is listening. Perhaps the wording produced by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Papineau, or the wording of our amendment is not the answer. Perhaps the Minister is prepared to take some time with his officials to find wording that will allow a reasonable return in terms of a normal start-up while at the same time preventing any possible abuses by the railroads. If the Minister is prepared to do that, then I suggest that we might want to stand this clause to allow his officials time to put some wording together that will meet the concerns expressed by the Hon. Member for Papineau, the Hon. Member for Churchill
and myself, as well as the people who will be actively involved in the start-up process and who are very actively worried about the railroads using this particular phraseology as a way to further reduce their workforce and, in effect, use the legislation as a loophole. If the Minister is prepared to take a further look at that clause, I am sure that we would all wish to give him that time and would agree to stand Clause 4 while that is occurring.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: I am looking at the complementary Bill that was passed in 1973. Perhaps it would aid us to review the wording that was used since presumably the intention was the same in 1973 that we wish to put forward this evening. At that time, the Bill that was presented to the House of Commons did not use words that we on this side of the House find offensive. As was stated by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Papineau, the situation has not changed. When the strike ends, we want the operation of the railroads and the service of the employees to continue as before as soon as possible in order to get the commerce moving.
It is generally believed that when the railroads operate, people will return to work. We are using here words that have not been used before in back to work legislation. When words are used that have not been used before in similar situations that existed in the past, then you are deemed to be changing the meaning. I can only assume that the words "when so required" which are put into this Bill by the Government is changing the meaning.


Pierre H. Cadieux: First of all, I wish to express my deep concern, which was hopefully not a direct accusation from my colleague, the Hon. Member for Papineau when he suggested that I purposely used language which may have been used by the employer in this case. I can assure the Hon. Member that, contrary to a suggestion made by my colleague from Churchill, I have not spoken to the parties with respect to this particular legislation.
On the other hand, I presume that 1 cannot be held responsible for language that perhaps that particular employer saw somewhere else. I agree with the Hon. Members who have just spoken that this particular language was not in the legislation of 1973.
I would ask Hon. Members to refer to Bill C-24 which was passed in November, and in particular Clause 3(b). That language has been used before in similar circumstances. With the permission of the Chair, I will read that Clause:
3. On the coming into force of this Act,
(b) every person who is ordinarily employed in longshoring or related operations at a port on the west coast of Canada and who, on December 30, 1985, was bound by the collective agreement to which this Act applies shall, when so required, return forthwith to the duties of his employment.


André Ouellet: Because the Minister of Labour made a
mistake in 1985, he does not have to repeat it now.
August 27, 1987


Pierre H. Cadieux: First of all, it is 1986, and perhaps I do not wish to repeat the mistake of 1973.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Regardless of what the legislation stated in 1986, we are talking about a railway strike and the attempt to pass back to work legislation. I am afraid with what has happened in the railroads, particularly as a result of deregulation, and the lay-offs that have occurred in the smaller communities, that this will be seen as an excuse by the railroads to cut back the workforces that have already been severely pruned.
That is not the role of the Government. I would hope it is not the intention of the Government to aid and abet the railroads in doing that. 1 would hope that the Government would not give them any incentive to do that type of thing. I would hope that it would be the wish of the Government to have the workforce in at least the same numbers as they were prior to the stoppage of the operations of the railroads.


Iain Francis Angus: If 1 may* I wish to direct a question to the Minister.
If it is deemed by one of the parties, i.e., one of the unions, that a railway company is doing what we warned that it may, does the Minister have the power within this Bill to ensure that the railway company brings back those workers immediately, or does he have that power elsewhere under the various Acts in order that there is the type of protection that we are seeking?


Pierre H. Cadieux: With respect to power, as everyone knows, the collective agreement is continued. Under that particular agreement there are very specific grievance procedures that will be available, assuming such a situation would occur.
With respect to the intent that we are trying to place upon the employer, it is certainly not the intention of this Minister to help either party. The intent of this Minister is in the public interest of Canada and returning the rail operations to what they were before. That is specifically what this piece of legislation intends to do.


André Ouellet: Madam Chairman, I should like to read to the Minister a general provision included in the 1973 legislation concerning the return to work. I should like to draw his attention and read Section 14.1 of Part IV of the act which the then Liberal Government had sanctioned on September 1, 1973.
This is how Section 14.1 reads:
Forthwith upon the coming into force of this Act,
(a) every railway company to which any Part of this Act applies shall call back to work every employee of the railway company who has been on strike or has been laid off as a consequence of any strike that has ceased to be valid by reason of the coming into force of this Act; and (b) no such employee shall be laid off or again be laid off by any such railway company as a consequence of any such strike.
This specific provision concerning layoffs was in addition to the obligation found in Section 4 pursuant to which the
Maintenance of Railway Operations
railway companies were to resume operation of the railway forthwith, but they were also compelled to recall all employees forthwith. How is it that in this instance the Minister leaves the companies free to recall the employees-only when they so require-and to let hundreds of other employees stand idle for days and perhaps even weeks before calling them back to work, and probably lay off a few, because there is no general provision concerning layoffs like in the legislation of 1973?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Chairman, of course I appreciate the suggestions made by my hon. friend which refer to legislation passed in 1973. Since 1973 there have been, unfortunately, other Bills that had to be passed by various Parliaments to put an end to labour disputes like this one and like the one in 1986, and I am thinking of Bill C-24 in particular.
I am satisfied with the intent of Bill C-24, where the parties behaved as I believe they will behave when this clause in the Bill before the House today is adopted. Personally, I think the present wording satisfactorily reflects the intent of the legislator.


André Ouellet: Is the Minister telling us that the wording of his proposed legislation is such that he is convinced the railway companies will quickly call their employees back to work?
If that does not happen, is the Minister prepared to exercise his authority and even to instruct the arbitrator he will appoint to ensure that the railway companies do not abuse the three words we find in the text as it is now, and is he prepared to ensure that the railway companies take speedy action to protect the railway employees jobs and their right to work?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Chairman, I am convinced and I hope that all parties, employers as well as employees and unions, will observe the legislation. I believe the intent of this legislation is to have operations resume in a part of the transportation industry that is of crucial importance to Canadians. I am satisfied the legislation reflects that intent. I would not want to prejudge either party, but I am sure that on the basis of our experience, including C-24 where there was no abuse, and considering that these three words were in the legislation at the time, I don't think there will be any abuse this time either.


Neil Young: Madam Chairman, I have been going over those words also. I listened when the Minister said a few moments ago that the purpose of the legislation would not interfere with the terms of the collective agreement. In other words, the terms and provisions of the collective agreement would continue until a new agreement was struck.
The clause reads:
(b) every employee shall, when so required, forthwith resume the duties of that employee's employment with a railway company.
If the employer decides that a specific job has to be filled by a specific employee, say as of Monday morning, does this

August 27, 1987
Maintenance of Railway Operations
phrase mean that the recall provisions under the terms of the collective agreement that would apply as those employees are being recalled, that would normally apply in a recall situation, do not apply in this case because of this specific phrase in the legislation? Does the legislation supersede the provisions of the collective agreement? That certainly is the way it reads here.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Chairman, any employee who is not recalled according to his rights under the collective agreement obviously has the right to grieve and pursue his case or grievance to arbitration, as provided for by the collective agreement.


Neil Young: That may very well be so, Madam Chairman, but it seems to me that our job is to be able to make it as simple as possible, and not difficult. I would not like to hear an employer say, "If you don't like how we have recalled you, you have the right to file a grievance under the collective agreement and go through to arbitration". That is a lengthy process and very costly to both the employer and the union. If the Minister's officials would give us the guarantee that this clause does not mean that the collective agreement would be superseded by this language then perhaps it might be satisfactory. To give me a response that if the employee does not like what the employer does that he or she can file a grievance, in light of the language that the employer has in his hand under this legislation, the Minister might want to rethink that because he could be creating more problems than he is trying to resolve.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Chairman, the last thing I want to do is create problems for anybody. I appreciate the comment of my hon. colleague. He said in reference to an arbitration procedure that it is costly for both parties, not just one. Therefore, I do not see any interest on one or the other, or both, to create some arbitration process which is costly to both parties. I am of the opinion that the collective agreement will continue and that all the procedures under the collective agreement are there and will stay there. Therefore, the grievance procedure, should there be an abuse, is there to be exercised.


David Orlikow: Madam Chairman, unfortunately, the reality of what has been happening in recent years is entirely contrary to what the Minister suggests. Most employers, particularly employers such as the two railway companies, which are very large and powerful, have been taking a much tougher attitude to disputes that arise between contract negotiations. They have insisted on carrying the provisions of the process for settling disputes from the shop floor and the foreman right through to the end where arbitration is required. Unions in recent years have been paying tens of thousands of dollars. This occurred infrequently in earlier years. As the economy has become tougher, employers have become much more aggressive. It is nice to have the assurances of the Minister, but as long as the words are in this Bill I can foresee trouble.
We had some trouble in Winnipeg today when a zealous, enthusiastic middle management official sent out a call to workers in shopcraft who were laid off. Because of the strike they were recalled and ordered to report for work within an hour, or as soon as possible, which would have meant crossing the picket line. Fortunately, calls to the head of the company alerted them and a stop to that directive was ordered. That is just the kind of thing which can happen. Despite the assurances of the Minister, I can foresee difficulties and I see no reason why that clause cannot be amended to protect against any misuse.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Chairman, I just want to give this one more kick, if I can. I do not think the Minister realizes the seriousness of the potential excess that could occur. As my friend from Papineau has said, the words "when so required" inject an intent on the part of the company to bring the workers back whenever it wants, and in fact, the Bill does not really refer to lay-offs in any particular way as did the 1973 Act which said in Section 14.1 the following:
Forthwith upon the coming into force of this Act,
(a)	every railway company to which any Part of this Act applies shall call back to work every employee of the railway company who has been on strike or has been laid off as a consequence of any strike that has ceased to be valid by reason of the coming into force of this Act; and
(b)	no such employee shall be laid off or again be laid off by any such railway company as a consequence of any such strike.
There is a gap here which I find offensive to the workers. Adding that to the fact that the back to work legislation was very much in the minds of the companies when the negotiations were taking place, I find that there should be more consideration placed on the side of the workers in the interpretation of this Bill. I find that the position of the worker has been very much neglected.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Chairman, I appreciate the concerns of the Hon. Member who just spoke and I also regret the difficulties that perhaps occurred in Winnipeg today. The only thing I can say is that Bill C-24 which we passed in November of 1986 contained the same language.
I do not agree with playing with the intentions of the parties. The purpose of this particular legislation is to put an end to this strike, to bring the employees back to their jobs and to have the transportation system rolling again. The intent is also to extend the collective agreement. All the safeguards are there and I think the legislation is very clear on that subject.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Chairman, let me return to the Bill that dealt with the longshoremen and compare it with the 1973 Bill which dealt with the railways. I am not so sure that those Bills can be compared because of the work environment on the docks versus the work environment on the rails.
The wording may have been applicable to the longshoremen
on the West Coast. I assume that it is easier to schedule work
there because it is based on traditions, the availability of cargo,
August 27, 1987

location, as well as the fact that there are fewer workplaces. The wording was safer in that situation. There was less chance of abuse. As well, there had not to my recollection been a real downsizing problem in that industry.
Because there are so many different employee groups and occupations within the rail system, there is a much greater potential for abuse by the companies. I just wanted to add that information because I think it is important to the debate we are having today.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Chairman, I think the Minister has a problem with realizing what the labour dispute was all about. It was about job security. The wording the Minister has chosen for this clause creates a problem because the whole issue is job security. People wanted guarantees against further lay-offs. This wording in the legislation is making it easier for there to be more lay-offs in an unofficial way. The company simply does not bring the employees back and that is exactly what the Bill says.
We will find in every riding in which there are rail workers that some will not be called back for a long period of time. Some may not get called back at all. If the intent of this legislation is to restore the workers back to the workplace in the same situation that they were in before the strike commenced, then this clause goes against that very intent.
If I hear of someone who was not called back, 1 will say to the Minister: "Look what you have done, you have allowed CN and CP to do that to the people in The Pas, Transcona, Kamloops, Yorkton and every other community where this has happened". This clause gives the employer an undue extra power which it would not have had if this clause was not worded this way. It only exists because there was a labour dispute, so it is completely unjustified and we know it will result in fewer people working than would be working if this clause was not there.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Chairman, I would like to add my voice to the concerns expressed by my colleagues and most recently by the Hon. Member for Churchill. I had an opportunity to speak with people who are on strike in Winnipeg and I found that this is one of the clauses that concerns them the most. They are concerned that it does not call for a return to the status quo. It does give the legislation a possible interpretation which is quite frightening if it were to be used in a malicious way by the railways. Given the lack of trust between labour and management in the railways now, I think there is good reason for workers to be afraid that the company might use this clause as a way to get away with things it would not otherwise be able to get away with.
The Minister of Transport made a big deal earlier in the day about impartiality, about the Government not wanting to appear to prejudice the arbitration in any way. In order to do that, it is important that the status quo remain as a result of the back to work legislation. The Minister needs to consider that this particular provision in the Bill does not maintain the
Maintenance of Railway Operations
status quo. Not only does it prejudice the status quo but it prejudices the relationship that exists between labour and management at the railways. It offers new possibilities and powers to the railways, powers that the Minister has no business giving to them under this particular back to work legislation.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Chairman, I do not want to repeat what I have been saying for the past 20 minutes at least. I believe the language represents specifically what the reality is. It is the language that was used in Bill C-24 of November of 1986. It worked well at that time and I think it will work well again. The collective agreement is extended, the mechanisms are there and the parties will have the opportunity to discuss job security before the arbitrator.


André Ouellet: Can the Minister give us the assurance that this clause does not give the railways the right not to recall their employees?


Pierre H. Cadieux: As I indicated at the beginning of this discussion, the start-up of a major organization like a railway is complex. The railways operate on a call-out system. Therefore, my interpretation is that the railways will call back employees-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: They don't have a call-out system at Transcona.


Pierre H. Cadieux: I usually listen to others when they speak. I would appreciate the same courtesy. The railways will call back employees at the speed required to deal with the resumed volumes of traffic, and to my knowledge, that is what was done in the Vancouver ports situation.


André Ouellet: I accept the words of the Minister, but the question I asked is very simple. If the Minister tells me yes, then every employee has reason to be fearful. If the Minister is able to stand up and say no, that ends the discussion.
The question I asked in French, and I will repeat it in English because it is fundamental, is this: Does Clause 4 give the railways the right not to call back employees? If you are saying it does not, that settles the question. If you are not sure, that is why the employees are so fearful. Is it yes or is it no? If it is no, there is no problem and we will go to another clause.
It is a very simple question. Are you giving the companies the right not to call back employees?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Chairman, I believe that upon the adoption of this legislation and it coming into force, for instance if in Montreal there are 20 trains of boxcars, they will call 20 crews. If there are 10, they will call 10. That is my understanding of the legislation. The collective agreement specifically deals with that.

August 27, 1987
Maintenance of Railway Operations


Neil Young: Madam Chairman, I want to ask one simple question and I will try and keep it simple. If as the Minister says the terms of the collective agreement prevail and the recall provisions provide for the orderly recall of employees, why do you need that language in the legislation? If the collective agreement is what we are operating under, why do we have to add additional language in this clause? Why not let the parties who have negotiated these recall rights, over many years presumably, and they know the business much better than you or I do, allow the collective agreement to determine how employees are recalled to work? Why do you need that line of language in there at all?


Pierre H. Cadieux: It is very simple. It is because the collective agreement came to an end, there has been a strike, and we have to recall them back to work.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Chairman, the Minister uses the example of the running trades as if that is all that happens on the railway. He talks about 20 trains that need to go out of the yard and 20 crews are called in. We are talking about thousands of workers at the back shop in Transcona and in other places, people who maintain track, people who are employed in various crafts which the various unions represent. It is extremely simple-minded for the Minister to get up here and pretend that all he is talking about is calling crews for trains.
We are talking about people, for example, in Transcona who work Monday to Friday. They are not called in depending on traffic. They have permanent jobs at the Transcona shops from Monday to Friday.
Is the Minister prepared to get up and say this particular language does not give the railways the right not to call people back to work in that sort of back shop situation, or in any kind of situation where they are not on call, not on a spare board, not called out as the number of trains going out of a yard might dictate? Perhaps if he can make that distinction and stop trying to pretend the only people who work on the railway are train crews, maybe we can make some progress.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Chairman, I was under the impression I was giving an example, but I suppose it could be extended to say that the employer will recall all the employees necessary.


André Ouellet: Necessary?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Chairman, we are back to trying to clarify words. The Minister said "recall all the employees necessary". What do you consider necessary for operating the railroad?
Perhaps we can try it from the other direction. What is there in the Act to prohibit a railroad from laying off an employee as a result of this strike? The 1973 legislation said that every railway company to which any part of the Act applied shall call back to work every employee who is on strike or laid off as a consequence of any strike which ceases to be valid by reason of the coming into force of that legislation. There is no
assurance that every employee is going to be called back and those words that are in the legislation only heighten the ambiguity and concern that all workers must feel in reading this back to work legislation.


Pierre H. Cadieux: I believe, Madam Chairman, that the employers are going to recall the people as the operations start and as volume increases. Obviously there was a work stoppage. One of the reasons we are acting so quickly is to limit the impact of that work stoppage. I believe the language of this particular clause precisely specifies that the parties will recall the employees as the operations progress.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Chairman, my question relates to the example used by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill. What is the Minister going to do if people who normally work Monday to Friday are not called back? This clause is so discretionary that CN or CP can decide they really do not want 100 people in the shop anymore. This is a good day, just bring in 75 because we have this power, thanks to the Minister of Labour. That is what he has done. Do not tell us that the collective agreement covers it. It does not because of the wording of the legislation we have in front of us right now. If CN or CP decides not to call those people back, there is absolutely no protection because of the wording in this Bill.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Chairman, I simply do not agree again with the arguments of my hon. friend. I believe this language, which has been used in the past, has not been abused and I will not speculate on things that may or may not occur in the future.


David Orlikow: Madam Chairman, the Minister said this clause has not been abused in the past. Precisely. It has not been abused by either side. If that is true, and I am sure we believe correctly that the railway workers are law-abiding citizens and that once this Bill is passed through all stages, and I am sure that by tomorrow at supper time it will have passed not only this House but the Senate, the workers will go back to work as the legislation requires. If that is true, and I am sure it is, then why do we need these words?
The Minister has pointed out, as have other Members, that the whole question of who works and when is covered in the collective agreements between the unions and the two employers. As my colleague from Winnipeg-Birds Hill has pointed out, only a relatively small percentage of the entire labour force are on call, those being the people who actually operate the trains. The vast majority of workers work regular shifts and there is no reason for them to be covered by this kind of restriction. Unless there is reason to believe that some of the people will ignore the call to work, 1 see absolutely no reason for this provision.
I hope that the Minister is correct that no official in the
company will misuse the power which the clause, as now
August 27, 1987

worded, gives them. However, we have had experience, as the Minister knows. The Assistant Deputy Minister knows much more about these matters than do any of us. There is a good deal of ill feeling and we cannot hide that fact. It could be that some official, without authority of senior management, would misuse the power which he or she would have under the provisions of this clause. I see no useful purpose for it and join those who are urging the Minister to accept the amendment.


Pierre H. Cadieux: As I have already indicated, the employees required as soon as the legislation comes into force will be recalled. As volume and operations increase additional employees will be called in. That is why the words are there. I think they are very clear.


André Ouellet: 1 think the Minister is being obstinate for no reason at all. I sympathize because he is a young Minister and he is anxious to do the right thing, but he has to depend on the advice he is given. And I am not sure that in his instance he is getting the right kind of advice. I think the Minister should realize that Clause 4 is a neutral clause that should not give any more to the employer than it does to the employee. Clause 4 concerns the resumption of railway services.
In the first paragraph, the clause orders the railways companies to resume forthwith operation of railway services. And the second paragraph orders employees to resume their duties forthwith. That is how things stand. This is not a clause that is biased towards one or the other group. It is a clause that says: We have passed legislation so that you, the railways, will resume services and you, the employees, will resume your duties.
I wish the Minister would make his officials listen to reason if they are incapable of understanding the facts, or otherwise, he should take the advice he was given earlier by one our colleagues which was to suspend the debate on this clause. We will proceed with the subsequent clauses and get back to this one a little later after giving it further thought, because the fact is, this clause must be neutral. It should say only two things: Railways shall resume their services, and the employees shall go back to work. But that is not what it says. The employees are told to resume their duties but only when so required. And that is unnecessary. That is not necessary at all.
Of course we are not going to see 5,000 railway employees rushing back to their jobs tomorrow at midnight. They will resume their duties in a normal way as circumstances dictate.
But the inclusion of the words "when so required" in the legislation means that the decision is no longer theirs but that of the employer.
Really, the Minister should face facts and realize that by insisting on these words he is putting the future of these employees in the hands of the employer. This clause, which must be a neutral provision directing the companies to do their duty, that is respect for the law on the part of both employer and employee, this clause is no longer neutral because these
Maintenance of Railway Operations
words leave the fate of the employees in the hands of the employer, to the whims of the employer. These words should not be there.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Chairman, what the Minister suggests, that it is a question of bringing the operation of the railroads back to normal operations following the work stoppage, is not alluded to in Clause 4. It says "when so required". It does not say "when so required in relation to bringing the operation of the railroads back to full complement". It does not allude to that at all. There is nothing in the Bill which says there are not to be any lay-offs.
Bill C-85 is a means for the railroads not to call back workers who worked for them prior to the work stoppage. There is nothing here to make the railroads accountable for why those people are not being brought back. They need only say that these people are not required. There is no accountability to the Government, the workers, or anyone. They need only say that they are not required.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Chairman, Clause 4 has two paragraphs. Paragraph (a) specifies that the railroad operations must start again and that each railway company shall forthwith begin operations. The operations will resume gradually and the recall will be done gradually as required by the resumption of the operations. I think it is fairly clear and it has been used before.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the amendment carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Amendment (Mr. Ouellet) negatived: Yeas, 16; Nays, 31.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 4 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 4 agreed to. On Clause 5:-Obligations of Unions


André Ouellet: Madam Chairman, I want a clarification from the Minister. Clause 5(2) states:
No railway company or officer or representative of a railway company shall
(a)	in any manner impede any employee from complying with paragraph 4(b); or
(b)	discharge or in any other manner discipline, or authorize or direct the discharge or discipline of, any employee by reason of that employee's having been on strike before the coming into force of this Part.
I want to be sure that this clause covers all the employees. I understand that while the employees were in a legal strike position, and the media indicated that the employees were in a legal strike position, it appeared that the union negotiation teams had not really authorized the employees to start their

August 27, 1987
Maintenance of Railway Operations
legal strike and some of them apparently jumped the gun a little early.
I think whoever did it, did so in good faith. They watched the news and thought that they were in a legal position to strike. In some areas of the country they probably began their strike, technically speaking, a little early. I want to be sure that the company will not take advantage of this to discipline some of these employees who, in good faith, thought they were in a legal position to strike and began their strike a little too early.
Can the Minister assure me that this point will be covered and full protection will be given to all employees, absolutely all, whether or not they started their strike a little earlier than others?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Chairman, Clause 5(2)(b) applies to the employees who are covered by this particular part, which is Part 1. Although the leadership of the union perhaps had not given the word that they should go on strike, the ones who have acquired the legal right to strike are covered by this particular clause and section.


André Ouellet: Will you assure me that there will be no discipline of these people? Will no one be disciplined because of that?


Pierre H. Cadieux: That is specifically my understanding of what the clause says. It reads:
No railway company or officer or representative of a railway company shall
(a)	in any manner impede any employee from complying with paragraph 4(b); or-
The ones covered by this particular legislation. It goes on:
(b)	discharge or in any other manner discipline, or authorize or direct the discharge or discipline of, any employee by reason of that employee's having been on strike before the coming into force of this Part.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Shall Clause 6 carry? On Clause 6:-Extension of Collective Agreements


André Ouellet: Madam Chairman, I would like to move an amendment to Clause 6. The Member for Portneuf does not seem to enjoy the amendment we are introducing. We are introducing an amendment on behalf of many thousands of railway workers who have some fear that this collective agreement might impair their role in the railways in the future. Certainly I will take all the time I need to try to improve this legislation on behalf of employees. If the Member for Portneuf does not like it, so be it. He can go to sleep if he wants, but there are a lot of employees who are not sleeping tonight because they are very concerned about this legislation. They certainly want us to look at it very carefully and try to ensure that they are fully protected.
Therefore, I move:
That Bill C-85, be amended by striking out lines 15 to 22 on page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"6(1 )(a) The terms and conditions of each collective agreement to which this Part applies are amended forthwith by entering into the collective agreement of a lump sum payment of $500 to each employee immediately following the coming into force of this Act.
(b) The term of each collective agreement as amended by this Part is extended to include the period beginning on January 1, 1987 and ending on December 31, 1988.
The purpose of this amendment is twofold. First, as I was saying earlier in the debate on second reading, it is quite clear that there has been a lot of uneasiness on the part of the workers because of a very long and frustrating negotiation process. The workers were hoping that through this collective agreement they would get a fair deal.
We are aware that previous collective agreements with VIA Rail employees arrived at 3 per cent for the first year and 3 per cent for the second year. It might be justifiable and acceptable with VIA Rail. That is a company which is almost bankrupt and is certainly having all kinds of difficulties, and not generating the passenger support that it was hoping to get under this new Conservative Government.


Mr. Hawkes:: Madam Chairman, 1 rise on a point of order. The Member opposite has moved a motion and begun a discussion. I believe the intent of the amendment would be to expend further government funds, at least the way it was worded. What he read does not specify clearly who indeed would pay the $500. May we have a ruling as to whether the amendment, as worded, is appropriate to what we do in the Parliament of Canada? Is the member of the Opposition suggesting that the taxpayers of this country come up with $500 for each worker? Is that the intent of the motion and, if so, is that a motion that would be accepted? If it is not acceptable, then I suggest it is inappropriate to allow the Member to speak to the motion.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The Chair did hesitate before accepting this amendment, as the Hon. Member for Calgary West has suggested. The question was asked around the Table, as to who would have to pay that amount of money. Because of the way the amendment is written, in referring to the collective agreement, the Chair decided that the amendment as proposed by the Member for Papineau meant that the railway companies would pay that amount, not the Government of Canada directly and that is why the amendment was accepted and is being put before the committee for debate.


André Ouellet: Thank you, Madam Chairman, I appreciate your ruling. I just want to remind the Hon. Member that if he had a little information about the current negotiations, he would know that the union, which was originally asking for 5 per cent, has lowered its request to 4 per cent. Management was offering a 1.5 per cent increase in 1988, plus a lump sum payment of $500 in 1987. So this is the $500 lump sum payment the management has already offered that I am referring to.
August 27, 1987

So in the spirit of good-will, to bring these workers back to work, when the management has already said it is ready to give them the $500, why not do so? Let us give them the $500 and see what the arbitrator can do in terms of the collective agreement for the rest of the period, deciding in his wisdom what would be a fair settlement. I believe that every time we have to legislate people back to work we are infringing to a certain degree on their rights and are creating in the labour relations environment some uneasiness and difficulties. The ideal situation is when one has a collective agreement that has been negotiated and agreed upon by the parties.
Unfortunately, when an outside party, in this case the Government, the Minister of Labour, must move in and introduce legislation to force the parties to accept a binding arbitration and at the same time force the employers, in this case, to resume the railway services and the employees to resume their work, we are putting on them the necessity to go back to work, and indeed this return to work might not be as happy as it would have been had they received what they wanted through the negotiation process.
Therefore, 1 think it is important, especially in light of the deregulation environment we are now facing, with this great fear of job loss, the fear of major change in the operation of the railways, the potential curtailment of services, of rail line abandonment in many parts of the country, certainly it would be wise and appropriate, to allow at the beginning this $500 lump sum payment to be given to each employee upon their return to work.
I am not inventing it. Six major issues have been discussed in this rail strike. One of the issues is obviously the wage package. A $500 lump sum payment was put on the table by the management, and I think it should be given immediately to the employees while the arbitrator, appointed by the Minister, looks at the rest of the wage package.
In relation to the second paragraph of my amendment, it is quite clear that the unions and management were dealing with a two-year collective agreement. They were discussing in good faith a two-year collective agreement. All of a sudden, coming from nowhere-and I do not know why-the Minister is possibly giving the option to the arbitrator to extend this two-year collective agreement to a three-year collective agreement. I think we should not change the rules of the game after it has started. We are now looking at legislation to bring the employees back to work because they were not successful in reaching a collective agreement with the employers. However, both the employer and the employees were working on a two-year collective agreement. That is what they were negotiating. It is too bad the negotiations failed. We regret that. But surely that does not give the right to the Minister to change the period of the collective agreement. This legislation should refer exclusively to what was discussed, which was a two-year collective agreement, and the arbitrator should not be given this additional option of one year.
Maintenance of Railway Operations


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Chairman, 1 want to begin by agreeing with at least half of what the Hon. Member for Papineau said with respect to the bizarre provision in this Bill which will give the arbitrator the power to write a three-year collective agreement as opposed to a two-year collective agreement. We also intend to move an amendment which affects that provision, and more will be said about that later.
I want to comment, if I might, on the amendment put by the Hon. Member for Papineau with respect to a $500 lump sum payment, or what is called a "signing bonus". We talk about bizarre notions. Here we are going to have a signing bonus for an unsigning back to work legislation. It seems to me what is happening is that the Liberals are trying to have it both ways.


David Orlikow: That is not unusual.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: That is not unusual, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North says. They are voting for the back to work legislation and hoping that if perhaps they suggested this $500 lump sum payment, they would be forgiven by railroaders across Canada for voting with the Government to send them back to work under the iniquitous conditions which are provided for in this particular Bill.
I say to the Liberals that I do not think railroaders can be bought off that easily. I do not think they are going to forget for $500 that the Liberals voted with the Government to impose this iniquitous piece of back to work legislation upon them.
1 also suggest to the Liberals that they think twice- everyone would-before accepting the $500. That is hard to be against. But the fact is that one could certainly argue that what the Liberals have done here-and in a sense this is consistent with their voting for the back to work legislation-is to take a company view of this matter, because it was part and parcel of the company's offer to the union, this $500 lump sum payment. The Hon. Member for Papineau acknowledged that this was first suggested by the company. To suggest that this is in some way a kind of neutral gesture of good-will and would not prejudice the process which would follow the passage of this Bill, and to entrench into the very back to work legislation something suggested by the company is something about which I think Liberal Members ought to think twice.
My final point, at least on this occasion, is this. Without wanting to sound as if one were against people who certainly are entitled to an increase in their income, one should be very wary of proposals by Liberals which are designed to cover the fact that they have voted with the Government on this iniquitous piece of back to work legislation.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Chairman, in regard to the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Papineau, I do not know where the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill gets his analysis of the situation.

August 27, 1987
Maintenance of Railway Operations


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: From watching Liberals for eight years.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Just because the company recommended it does not mean to say that the workers are not entitled to $500. 1 think it is past the Hon. Member's bedtime. I think he is a little off kilter.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He is out to lunch, anyway, most of the time.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: With respect to the second part on the term of the agreement, here we have a two-year agreement proposed and negotiated by both parties. It was something to which they agreed. The Government is now trying to extend it to a three-year period. The Government has been saying throughout this confrontation and this strike that it was between the union and the management. The Government is now imposing a longer term. It is not a party to the collective agreement. The Government is setting a very dangerous precedent here in back to work legislation by taking something that has been agreed to by the two parties in the negotiations and ignoring it and bringing in a proposal of its own.
I hope that the Government will not pursue this, that it will abide by the two-year agreement that has been agreed to by both parties. I am sure the Minister could consult Mr. Kelly on this issue. Mr. Kelly has more experience in conciliation and in mediation than does the hon. gentleman. I find this to be a very dangerous precedent. I hope that the Government will not pursue it and will agree to the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Papineau.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to repeat the criticism of the amendment made by the Liberal Party which my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill, has already put forward. But 1 would like the Minister to explain this clause of the Bill which gives the person who will settle this dispute the right to extend the agreement which he will impose for three years.
Here we have a Government in which the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Transport in the House, and I think the Prime Minister outside the House on many occasions, have said that they really did not want to bring in legislation, that they really wanted the employer and the employees to settle their differences through the normal course of collective bargaining. That did not work, unfortunately, which is why we are dealing with this Bill. However, there was never any suggestion, as far as I can tell, certainly not in public, and certainly not in the discussions between management and the unions, that the agreement should be for any period longer than two years. That being the case, it is one of the few things which the employers and the employees did not disagree about.
So I find it passing strange, to put it very mildly, that we have in this Bill a clause which gives to the person who will settle this matter the right to extend to three years the length of the agreement which he or she will impose. I would
certainly like to get from the Minister of Labour an explanation for what I consider to be a very dangerous intrusion on the collective bargaining rights of both the employer and the employee.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, I will not take long. However, I am always moved to speak in the Chamber and in committee when I find what I consider to be hypocrisy. We have had an example of two Members from each of the opposition Parties saying, "We are for the working man. We represent the working man". The working man, if one listens to them, does not need choice. "We will tie the arbitrator's hands," say the Liberals. "We will take $500 and give it to everyone and then the arbitrator or the mediator has less room to come to conclusions," which may indeed be beneficial to the people who work for the railroads.
Are Members opposite concerned as a major issue that there be a signing bonus of $500? Nothing I have read in the paper suggests that that is a major concern of the people in the railways. Their major concern is job security, technology, and change. There is some fear out there, as we move into a different kind of world.


David Orlikow: So where did the three years come from?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: We are saying, "Let us give the mediator the maximum freedom. Let us not settle this on the floor of the House of Commons as to what is best for all the parts of that union. Let us let the mediator study this situation and produce a plan that will ensure a stable working environment for whatever length of time makes sense".


Nelson Andrew Riis: You don't know what you are talking about.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It's not a mediator, it's an arbitrator.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: That will work on behalf of those people who work in those situations. That will ensure some stability for the economy of western Canada and other parts of the country. Perhaps the mediator will say that the term of two years is appropriate because that is the best that his wisdom can determine.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Arbitrator!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Arbitrator, excuse me. Maybe he can create a better situation for the transportation of the country and the workers of the country if he is given an extra year. We surely do not preclude the collective process. If it had worked, it would have been signed for three years, or four or ten. There were certainly discussions about two years. But this Party stands for common sense solutions, for choice for individuals. It would be very inappropriate for the House to accept this amendment and bind the hands of that arbitrator who we are sure will act with wisdom in the best interests of the whole country and in the best interests of the railroads.
August 27, 1987


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal with the first part of the amendment to start with, and 1 will come back to explain the second part.
With respect to the $500 cash payment suggested by the Hon. Member for Papineau, in the current dispute the conciliation commissioner remarked on the inter-relatedness of a number of the issues and on the pattern already set by settlements on the ONR and VIA Rail, and that in order to permit maximum flexibility for the arbitrator who will be appointed to the railway disputes the Government has left the matter of wages to be determined as part of his consideration of all the issues to be resolved. Consequently, we will not agree to that part of the amendment.
With respect to the third year, if I may call it that, of the collective agreement, I agree with most of what has been said. We are talking about a two-year agreement. With respect to where the third year comes from, I would just like to point out that, notwithstanding the fact that, as I have said, we were talking of the two-year agreement ending on December 31, 1988, one must recall that the collective agreements expired some seven and a half months ago and that by the time the arbitrator completes his work, fully one-half of this extended agreement may have already elapsed. It may well be that the parties themselves, during the course of the arbitration, may decide that they wish a longer agreement.
If we look at Part V, Section 160(2) of the Canada Labour Code and Clause 10 of this Bill, it prohibits parties from amending the terms of their collective agreement. In order to provide for this contingency in particular, the Government has provided the arbitrator with the power to extend the agreement for an additional year. That is the reasoning for this additional year.
I understand that the Hon. Member for Churchill may have an additional amendment with respect to this particular clause. I would be pleased to discuss that after we have dealt with this particular amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Ouellet) negatived: Yeas, 2; Nays, 35.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I have a further amendment to Clause 6. I move:
That Clause 6 of Bill C-85 be amended by striking out line 18 on page 3 and
substituting the following:
"December 31, 1988 and, with the consent of the parties thereto, may be
further"
If I may explain the amendment, Madam Chairperson, the Minister indicated a few moments ago that this amendment will be acceptable to all Members of the House. Earlier at second reading we expressed a concern with the fact that this legislation allowed the arbitrator to impose a three-year collective agreement, if the arbitrator chose to do so. At that time we pointed out that in negotiations both parties, as long ago as October, 1986, agreed that it would be a two-year
Maintenance of Railway Operations
agreement. We cannot understand, and we cannot accept an imposed three-year agreement which only the arbitrator may accept.
The purpose of the amendment is that the arbitrator can go for a three year agreement, especially if the arbitration process takes a long time. The arbitrator can only have a three-year agreement if both parties agree to it. We believe that that is acceptable. It certainly allows for the fact that the arbitration may take a long time. We recognize that the issues in the rail dispute are not easy issues to settle. We certainly did not want to have a situation where workers who thought they were negotiating for a two-year agreement found out that the arbitrator was going to impose a three-year agreement.
I am sure it is acceptable to the Government that, if we have the consent of the two parties to the negotiations, then we could go to a three-year agreement, but certainly we would not do so otherwise.


Pierre H. Cadieux: As I have already indicated, I agree that the parties were talking about a two-year collective agreement. Already seven and a half months have expired and the process may take a little longer. The arbitrator, with the parties, may choose to extend the agreement by one year. My interpretation at the time, and still is, is that it would not be done without the consent of the parties. Consequently, I welcome that particular amendment, and we would agree to it.
Amendment (Mr. Murphy) agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.

On Clause 8-Arbitration


Steve Eugene Paproski: The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan has the floor-
The Chair sees very well the surprised look of the Hon. Member for Papineau. The Chair has been advised that there are two amendments to Clause 8, and the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan would come before the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Papineau. This is why the Chair has recognized the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.


Iain Francis Angus: I move:
That Bill C-85 be amended at line 13, page 4, after the words "each collective agreement that", deleting the rest of Section 8(1) and substituting for it the following:
"either party may say are at dispute. The matters referred to the arbitrator shall include, but not be limited to the following:
1.	Wages
2.	Starting Rate for New Employees
3.	Dental Plan for New Employees
4.	Extended Health Vision Care for New Employees

August 27, 1987
Maintenance of Railway Operations
5.	Shift Differentials
6.	Medicare Allowance
7.	Job Security Benefits
8.	Employment Security
9.	Contracting Out
10.	Incidental Work Rule
11.	Yard Switching Limits
12.	Coupling/uncoupling Hoses
13.	Disability Pensions
14.	Dental Plan
15.	Extended Health Care
16.	Vacation"
The intention of this particular amendment is to provide some clear direction to the arbitrator, no matter who he or she may be, that the 16 items that I listed must be considered by the arbitrator in the pursuit of the work. It is not limited to those 16 items, but it ensures that at the very least those 16 items must be dealt with, not only by the arbitrator but by the two parties. To a certain extent, it parallels the 1973 legislation which provided a specific direction to the arbitrator to consider some aspects.
|
We believe it is important that that direction be given, that it just not be left up to the whim of the arbitrator to pick from here or there. As we all know, the arbitrator, no matter who he or she may be, may come with some biases. There is no such thing as a truly neutral person. Not even in this House do we find a truly neutral person, amazing as it seems. This will give the individual specific direction to say, "Okay, I have to deal with wages. I have to settle that one. I have to deal with the whole question of starting rates. I have to deal with employment security". Those must not get lost in the shuffle. I would hope that because we have said, "not to be limited to the following" that the direction is broad enough and it allows the arbitrator the full power the Minister wishes to give him. Without limiting that power and without limiting the issues with which the arbitrator can deal, it does say that you have to deal with these 16 at the minimum, plus, one would assume, any other items that either party feels are a matter of dispute. It must be part of an over-all package that will enter into a collective agreement that will come at the end of this process.
I hope that the Minister is willing to accept this suggestion. Perhaps he may have a couple of other items on the checklist that he would like to add. It would be interesting to hear his response.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Chairman, with respect to this particular amendment there have been some discussions a little earlier with the opposition critics. If we take the text of Clause 8 as it reads now, more particularly in the French version at line 15 where the word differend is used, and obviously the same word in

-the word "dispute" has the same sense as in Part V of the Canada Labour Code because of Clause 2 of this Bill, so that Section 107(1) specifies that this word means a dispute about which notice may be given the Minister pursuant to Section 163. All points which are the subject of this notice of "dispute" will necessarily be examined and will be subject to arbitration, they will be submitted to the arbitrator once he has been appointed.


André Ouellet: Madam Chairman, I do not think that the answer of the Minister is adequate to meet the fear expressed by the Member who just moved this amendment. The reason he moved this amendment was to be absolutely sure that the arbitrator will look at all of the aspects of the collective agreement. He is listing 16 items because he believes that none of them have been agreed to by the parties and they are still in dispute. The precaution in this amendment is justified by a press release which was issued today, August 27, by the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway. In part, it reads:
The following statement was issued by Canadian National Railways and CP Rail following the breakoff of negotiations in Hull.
"Failure to obtain a negotiated settlement after coming so close to agreement is a bitter disappointment.
"The railways were encouraged by the progress being made with the help of federal mediation officers. All but a few issues had been settled for the most part when the talks were broken off in Montreal on Sunday.
If it is the feeling of the railways that all but a few issues have been settled, then the arbitrator is not going to look at many things. It would not be appropriate that the views of the railways be taken literally. In the course of negotiations, clearly both parties are putting things on the table. They are making offers and sometimes they agree to some clause, but they agree to these clauses on the condition that they will get an agreement on other clauses. If agreement is not reached on the other issues, then the previous agreement does not hold. There is a give and take. Sometimes parties will agree on some matters with the understanding that they will get something in return later in the bargaining process. But if the negotiations break down and the collective agreement is not signed, the earlier agreement no longer holds. I hope the Minister realizes this and will give us the assurance that the arbitrator is going to look at every aspect of the collective agreement, irrespective of earlier potential agreements on some aspect of the collective agreement.
I have been told that in fact no articles have been signed or initialled by the parties. There is maybe only the CN pension that has been agreed to by the parties. I hope it is clear. I would like to have the assurance of the Minister that the arbitrator will look at everything in the collective agreement.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Chairman, I appreciate the Minister
holding back for a moment. I think we need further clarification of his response to me. Is there a document that the
August 27, 1987

arbitrator will be able to go to to get his or her checklist? Is that what the Minister was saying in French? Perhaps the translation did not make it clear enough. It is important we understand that so that we know if there is a complete document that can be referred to as the shopping list for his instructions.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Yes, Madam Chairman, there is perhaps not one document, there may be one or two, but they are called "Notice to Bargain". I can give the assurance that I will indicate to the arbitrator, whoever he or she may be, that all the issues will have to be looked at. I am also of the opinion that there may be a difference of interpretation at this moment on what may or may not have been settled or agreed upon during the process of the negotiation. As all Members know, some tentative agreement on certain issues was perhaps given in view of a global agreement which never came. I believe very strongly that the arbitrator will look at all the issues and will render an arbitration decision on all the issues.
Amendment (Mr. Angus) negatived: yeas, 8; nays, 31.


Steve Eugene Paproski: For the same reason as was enunciated earlier, I will give the floor to the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Chairman, I appreciate your eyesight tonight. I move:
That Bill C-85 be amended by:
At line 18, page 4, adding the following Section:
8(2) The arbitrator shall closely examine the job security demands of the union and fully explore the feasibility of a job security plan based on the principles of attrition."
This amendment is a very important one. It parallels the 1973 legislation which was passed by this House. It ensures that there will be no lay-offs and that if there are to be job reductions, they are done in a way that would not hurt any individual through the loss of a job. It ensures that it is done at a voluntary level, either by early retirement and early retirement buy-outs or through voluntary relocation of employment.
We believe that this clause is as important now as it was in 1973. Clearly the issue before the negotiators on both sides was that of employment security and job security. This clause would ensure legislative protection. It would not prevent the railways from further downsizing the workforce, I want to make that perfectly clear, but it would prevent massive layoffs.
We have heard estimates ranging from 5,000 to 10,000 people whose jobs in the rail industry will be eliminated. This clause would ensure an orderly reduction without hurting any individuals or their families.
Conservative Members voted for this amendment in 1973. I urge them to do the same today while in government as they did while in opposition in 1973. I urge them to put a clause in
Maintenance of Railway Operations
the Bill that will provide the kind of protection that is necessary for the employment opportunities of the men and women of Canada.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Chairman, it struck me as odd that a motion that would have the effect of providing that there be no lay-offs and that any downsizing of the rail workforce be achieved through attrition should be the source of so much humour on the Tory back-benches. I saw a handful of Conservative back-benchers get a bit of a laugh out of this suggestion. I take it that they-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I have touched a nerve. I have obviously hit on something, the dogs are yelping.
The fact is that we in the House often hear Canada's productivity compared unfavorably with that of countries with an economic performance like that of Japan. Yet in countries like Japan, the kind of principle about which we are speaking here, the principle of job security, no lay-offs, of people having a sense that they are not infinitely dispensable and that they cannot at any moment be declared surplus by their employer, is what contributes to that productivity. It contributes to people having a sense of ownership and participation in the corporations for which they work. It is not something which should be the object of ridicule by Conservative back-benchers or, for that matter, by the Government.
I know that the Minister is more responsible than some of his colleagues. Perhaps he will take our suggestion more seriously. The fact remains that this is a concept for which the Conservatives voted in 1973 at the time of the last national rail strike. I do not see why it should be such a joke to some of them except perhaps to some of the newcomers over there who were not here in 1973. I do not see why it should be the object of such humour on the part of the Conservative back-benchers.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Chairman, I personally take this particular subject and the entire legislation very seriously, particularly because of the public interest which is being jeopardized by the stoppage of this very important transportation system. Nevertheless, I would like to indicate to my hon. colleagues who are specifically referring to job security that job security is one of the items that is in dispute right now. It is one of the items that will be referred to the arbitrator, as I indicated when dealing with the previous amendment. It is one of the items that has been put on the notice to bargain, so it is already covered.
Obviously the arbitrator will have to deal with this issue. I believe, and I think everyone will agree, that it is one of the two or three most important issues in the bargaining.


David Orlikow: Madam Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister to clarify this clause in the printed Bill for me. I admit that I am not a lawyer and that I often find it difficult to understand the precise meaning of a legal clause. The clause states:

August 27, 1987
Maintenance of Railway Operations
The Minister shall, after the coming into force of this part, appoint an arbitrator and refer to the arbitrator all matters relating to the amendment or revision of each collective agreement that, at the time of the appointment, are in dispute between a railway company and a union-
Does this mean all the matters discussed and agreed upon in the discussions held in recent days are accepted and the arbitrator deals only with those matters and those clauses in the agreement which were not agreed upon by the employer and employee? Or, are all the provisions and all the points of dispute now to be settled by the arbitrator?


Pierre H. Cadieux: As I have already indicated, Madam Chairman, there seems to be some confusion right now and perhaps some misinterpretation as to what exactly may have been agreed upon during the negotiations. As I indicated previously, all the issues are going to be subject to arbitration, I presume that if on one, two or three issues the parties do agree, they will indicate that to the arbitrator who will obviously take that into consideration.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Chairman, the amendment put forward by my colleague from Thunder Bay is essential. It was accepted by all three Parties in 1973. The reason for it was understood. Conservative Leaders such as Mr. Stanfield and Mr. Diefenbaker supported it. The reason it was supported by those distinguished gentlemen and all other Members of the House was because they recognized that job security, even at that time, was the essential issue of the dispute. Obviously we know from what has happened in the last week that that is the essence of the dispute today.
If in 1973 this House thought it important to give a specific instruction to an arbitrator to look at a specific proposal and examine its feasibility, which is all this amendment requires, then I do not believe there is any reason why we cannot now have a specific instruction to that effect to the arbitrator.
During second reading debate many of us said one of the major errors of this legislation is that there is almost nothing to give direction to the arbitrator. Despite what the Minister of Transport says, we are not trying to write the collective agreement in this House. We are not trying to cover each clause for each of the nine unions or each of the two companies. We are trying to make sure that the arbitrator has instructions from the House of Commons. This is a very important area. This does not mean he has to agree with the unions. It means he has to give this very close attention.
That was obviously reasonable in 1973 and it is certainly just as reasonable in 1987. It would speak well of the goodwill of the Government toward the affected employees who are being ordered back to work. At least their concerns will be specifically addressed by the arbitrator. Otherwise, the issue of job security can be treated as just one of many issues. Yet we in this House know from what has been said by management, the unions and some employees interviewed on the picket lines, that job security is the issue.
I think that right across this country, not only union members but ordinary people in communities everywhere, would feel that the workers are being better treated if they got that specific guarantee from the Government. The only way they know that will happen is if the House of Commons does as it did in 1973 and gives specific instructions to the arbitrator. We are not asking much. We are saying that if in 1973 it made sense to give specific instructions to the arbitrator, it should be done in 1987.


André Ouellet: Madam Chairman, I was waiting to see whether the Minister would come to his senses and accept this amendment. Unfortunately he does not seem to be persuaded of the necessity. I regret that very much.
I want to support this amendment. As you know, I have an amendment which will be entertained, I suppose, a little later. It is a little bit different than the one proposed by my friend. My amendment goes a little further, so I am afraid that if the Minister does not want to accept this amendment, I do not know what he will do with mine. I guess he will not entertain it.
Job security is extremely important under the current deregulation environment. The Minister certainly should be receptive to our suggestions and realize that job security is probably paramount in the minds of the employees.
It is my understanding that the unions representing CN workers were demanding parity with CP workers with respect to the retirement age being set at 55. Early retirement is a key issue for the CN unions. The last union agreement, which expired December 31, 1986, protected workers with eight years' seniority from lay-off resulting from technological, operational or organizational change, but not for economic reasons. Unions want the protection to apply to all lay-offs and they want it to take effect after four years of service.
Earlier this week I asked the Minister why he was not ready to instruct his negotiating team to try and explore the possibilities of a job security plan that would be based on the one existing in the Ontario Northland Railway agreement. I think that is a precedent. That railway has a plan which is acceptable to the workers. Such a plan should be in the collective agreement of the other railways.
I repeat what the Hon. Member just said. We are not asking very much. We are simply asking that the arbitrator be told that this is an important subject and he should look at it. I wonder why the Government does not accept such an amendment. It seems so obvious.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Chairman, I too would like to support this amendment. It is extremely important. As has been said by representatives of both the NDP and Liberals, we are not asking too much. We are merely asking for the recommendation.
I think one of the reasons I feel so strongly about it is that
the situation facing the railroad workers is rather unique and
August 27, 1987

particularly serious. It deals with men and women who have been employed by the railroads for a considerable period of time. We are not talking about employees who have been employed only recently. In many cases they will be laid off after having worked for as long as 20 years for the railroads. There is an obligation to these people, particularly by Crown corporations.
To say that these workers can move on and bump someone else is ludicrous. These people have lived in the same community for 20 years and could be asked to accept a job in a community which could be many miles away. Is it supposed to be acceptable to ask them to move and uproot their families when they have been good, steady workers? If this is not changed the injustices which we have seen at the Moncton shops will continue.
There is an obligation which must be recognized. The railroad workers consider this to be a primary item of great importance in these negotiations and I can understand why they would. I just wish the Government would understand why railroad workers consider this to be so vitally important. The time has come when this sort of thing should not be allowed to happen. I wish the Government would bring this issue to a conclusion, just for the railroad workers.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Chairman, has the Minister had an opportunity to study the agreement, first mentioned in the House by the Hon. Member for Papineau, which the Ontario Northland Railway reached with its employees? Article 7(a) of that agreement provides that any employee with seven years seniority is guaranteed employment within the confines of that railway organization. An employee is not guaranteed a particular job for all time because, as we all recognize, technological change is altering the workplace. It is important, however, that Clause 7(a) guarantees that individual a job somewhere in that firm.
Imagine the morale in that organization. Imagine the confidence that corporation gives to its employees when it says that since they have served the company well for many years and it appreciates their service it will guarantee, if at all possible within the confines of the corporation, that they will have a job.
Sometimes that is not possible. Positions disappear and it may not be possible to find a particular person a job at a particular time. If that is the case, the provision allows for what is called "waiting status". The individual would wait until a job did come up within that company. With a combination of unemployment insurance and support from the corporation that individual would be guaranteed 80 per cent of his or her income during that waiting period.
Is the Minister aware of this? What is his view on this type of provision in the collective agreement in terms of building the morale and confidence of employees within a company? If he is aware of this, why would he be reluctant to give some
Maintenance of Railway Operations
guidance to the arbitrator in this case to consider whether something like this could be incorporated in this collective agreement?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Chairman, I wish to confirm that I am aware of this collective agreement which was entered into by the parties through the process of collective bargaining without the intervention of any legislation and presumably through the tradeoffs that are included in negotiations, including compromises by the unions to allow workers to cross craft lines, as was suggested by my hon. colleague.
I believe that is an important subject. It is a subject which is causing dispute now between the parties. I have already indicated that all issues in dispute would be referred to the arbitrator. I have already given my assurance that all the other issues which have been listed by my hon. colleague were among those issues mentioned in the notice of a dispute, including the job security issue. I agree that it is probably one of the most important issues and it will be referred to the arbitrator.
I will personally indicate to the arbitrator that that particular issue is very important. I am sure the person who will be appointed as arbitrator will have enough sense to look at precedents, whether of ONR or VIA Rail settlements which have been reached through collective bargaining.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the amendment carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Amendment (Mr. Angus) negatived: Yeas, 10; Nays, 28.


André Ouellet: Madam Chairman, I regret that the preceding amendment was not agreed to. I will try my luck with this one. I move:
That Bill C-85 be amended at Clause 8 on page 4 by adding immediately
after line 21 the following:
"(a) An arbitrator appointed under subsection (1) shall closely examine the job security demands of the unions and fully explore the feasibility of a job security plan based on the one existing in the Ontario Northland Railway Agreement.
(b) No award or decision of an arbitrator appointed under subsection (1) shall provide for any reduction in any wage rate or benefit in the existing collective agreement."
As has been said earlier, Madam Chairman, in Clause 16(3) of the 1973 back to work legislation certain directives were given to the arbitrator. One of the directives had to do with job security. Obviously things have evolved since 1973. Indeed, the Ontario Northland Railway has just concluded an agreement with its employees with relation to job security. I have a copy of the master agreement that was agreed to between the Ontario Northland Railway and the Ontario Northland Associated Railway Unions. In Clause 7(a) of the document there is a full explanation of this package that has been accepted by the railway. It is quite clear that the railway has

August 27, 1987
Maintenance of Railway Operations
indicated that it was ready to give any employees with seven years seniority a guarantee of employment as long as the workers agreed to take another job at the railway.
As has just been explained by the House Leader of the New Democratic Party, should no work be found, then the employee is placed in waiting status until such time as a vacancy occurs within his or her classification. During this period the employee's unemployment insurance benefits or outside earnings are supplemented to a level equal to 80 per cent of his or her weekly base pay until such time as a job is found. Therefore, at least there is a job employment plan that is decent and fair and should be considered by the arbitrator in order to possibly arrive at a similar plan.
Furthermore, I indicated in my remarks at second reading debate that 1 was surprised that the Minister did not add any clause to guarantee that there would be no wage reductions. In 1973 there was a guarantee of no wage reductions. This time the Minister will appoint an arbitrator and there is no such guarantee in the legislation. The arbitrator might suddenly decide that the wage package in the current collective agreement is too rich and could, on his own, decide to reduce that wage package. The Minister might say that this is impossible and will never happen, but we never know.
It was a guarantee in 1973 that was agreed to by all Parties at the time, including the Conservative Party which voted to support that guarantee. I do not see why there will not be in this legislation the ironclad guarantee that the workers will not get a lower package than what they currently enjoy. Therefore, 1 submit this amendment to the good attention of the Minister.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Chairman, I appreciate having the opportunity to make a point regarding this amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Papineau. The amendment causes me some concern.
I think we all believe, as the Minister of Labour has indicated, that the principle of employment security is very important and was fundamental to the negotiations themselves. The breakdown of negotiations was a lack of agreement on that particular issue. The amendment by the Hon. Member for Papineau reads:
An arbitrator appointed under subsection (1) shall closely examine the job security demands of the unions and fully explore the feasibility of a job security plan based on the one existing in the Ontario Northland Railway agreement.
I believe that is a little too specific. I am confident that the Hon. Minister is aware of a number of appropriate agreements that ought to be examined.
With all due respect to my hon. friend, I think that to limit the guidelines for the arbitrator to this one agreement could cause some difficulties. I think we understand what those difficulties may be.
While the amendment may be appropriate in terms of the principle, I think that restricting ourselves to this one particular agreement would be limiting the arbitrator and, quite frankly, not in the best interests of a thorough examination of the opportunities surrounding the introduction of a program for employment security for the workers.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Chairman, I appreciate the concern of the Hon. Member. However, the NDP resolution was just ruled out and I thought it was important to give this another try. The Government has not seen fit to bend yet and we are hoping that if we keep going it will finally see the light.
I also want to bring to the attention of the Minister the trend that is happening with respect to railroads today and the reduction of workers, particularly in the name of deregulation. The Minister knows that the railroads are asking for more concessions and more roll-backs. Where will it stop?
The Minister also knows that many of these people who are losing their jobs are being replaced by part-time employees, sometimes two part-time employees. It means that one fulltime employee is replaced by two part-time employees who do not receive any benefits. That is not what we are trying to foster today in the interest of pension protection and planning for the future.
I ask the Minister to allow this motion. It is very important. It gives the arbitrator the message from Parliament that we want him to consider job protection very seriously. We want the railroads to stop this alarming trend and give more consideration to the workers and the future of these workers.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Chairman, I tend to agree with my colleague, the House Leader of the New Democratic Party, with respect to this particular case in question.
In my answer to the previous amendment, I indicated that the arbitrator will look at ail precedents and therefore go beyond this particular agreement. I am sure there are other agreements which will offer some indication of what has been done in other cases. Therefore, I think it would be a mistake to limit this particular arbitrator to that particular case.
For those reasons and others given on the previous amendment, we will not accept the amendment.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the amendment carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Amendment, (Mr. Ouellet), negatived: yeas, 4; nays, 32.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 8 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 8 agreed to.
August 27, 1987


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 9 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 9 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 10 carry?
On Clause 10-Parties may amend agreement.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Chairman, I move:
That Bill C-85 be amended by:
Adding immediately after line 7 at page 5 the following:
(2) The terms and conditions of each collective agreement to which this part applies are amended forthwith by increasing each hourly basic rate of wages in effect on December 31, 1986, as established or pursuant to such agreement, by four per cent effective January 1, 1987.
Even though the legislation itself says that the arbitrator will be given 60 days to finish his or her work, it is interesting that the Government in another amendment went on to say that perhaps this agreement may have to be in place for three years instead of two years, mainly because it would take the arbitrator a long time to finish his or her work. So the Government in its own thinking, in proposing that the arbitrator can make this a three-year collective agreement rather than a two-year collective agreement, is saying the arbitration process could drag on for well over one more year.
We do not believe it is fair to have the employees penalized by not having any increase in salary in that time period. We deliberately restricted the salary increase for the first year of the collective agreement, allowing the arbitrator to look at the second and possibly the third year of that collective agreement. In that this process, by its very nature, will be long and drawn out, we believe that the workers involved should be guaranteed at least a pay increase for this year which is close, not meeting, but close to the actual increase in the cost of living. We believe that again would be a clause which would help to make for better peace and good relations in the railway industry.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Chairman, I just want to add to the comments of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Churchill, by quoting from the 1973 Act where this type of component was placed into the Bill. Section 5(1) reads:
The terms and conditions of each collective agreement to which this Part applies are amended forthwith by increasing each hourly basic rate of wages in effect on December 31, 1972, as established by or pursuant to such agreement, by thirty-four cents per hour effective January 1, 1973 and by increasing each hourly basic rate of wages in effect on December 31, 1973, as established by or pursuant to such agreement and pursuant to this Part, by six and one-half per cent effective January 1, 1974 and by increasing each hourly basic rate of wages in effect on June 30, 1974, as established by or pursuant to such agreement and pursuant to this Part, by one and one-half per cent effective July 1, 1974.
Clearly, a precedent was established in this House, I take it, supported by the Conservative Party of the day.
I believe that in fairness to the workers who have been negotiating for many, many months, and who are waiting for reimbursement for their labours over and above what they
Maintenance of Railway Operations
were receiving at the end of 1986, it is our duty to include an amount in this Bill which is reasonable. Certainly 4 per cent is less than inflation, and it is only for the one year. It still leaves the arbitrator the flexibility to deal with the second and third years, to provide whatever amount he or she deems appropriate. I think it is a way to perhaps soften the blow a bit, to let them know that even though we are sending them back to work without a collective agreement that has been negotiated, there will be an income settlement to ensure that within a month or two they will be receiving backtime cheques as opposed to sometime in 1988 or later.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Chairman, I too would like to speak in favour of the amendment for many of the reasons which have been articulated by my colleagues. I invite Members opposite, if it turns out to be the case that the Government cannot support this amendment, to rise to their feet and tell us why.
The principle they supported in 1973, was that people who are being legislated back to work should not be legislated back to work without any increase whatsoever, that some demonstration of goodwill is appropriate. I invite Members on the Government side to rise and tell us what is different about 1987 as opposed to 1973? Why did the Conservative Party support such a gesture in 1973 but is silent with respect to it now?
I hope the Government will accept the amendment, but I have a hunch they will not. Does their silence mean they find the Government's position on this indefensible? Or are they willing to rise and tell us why it is they are willing to tell railworkers that they must continue to receive the income they have now with no guarantee that the arbitration process, which is being set up, will result in any immediate increase in their income? I wonder if anyone would be willing to take up that challenge? Or is the silence to continue?


André Ouellet: I would like to indicate that indeed the amendment which is now proposed is in the same vein and nature as the one I proposed earlier, that is, the up front $500 lump sum payment as a genuine gesture towards the employees. The Government has to understand what it is doing. I hope some of the Members here in the House on the Government side, who are basically here to make up the necessary numbers when we have a vote, but not to really take part in the discussions and studies of the Bill, will realize that indeed what the Government is doing is forcing the employees to go back to work, imposing on them a collective agreement that has not be negotiated.
The Minister is appointing an arbitrator who will decide for the next two, or three years, the wages that the employees will earn and the conditions of work the employees will have to accept, and the decision of the arbitrator is binding. Therefore, the employees have no choice but to accept the law. I think it is in the spirit of goodwill that this amendment is presented to give a minimum 4 per cent. Let me remind my friends that in 1973 the following wage increases were accepted in the Act. For the railway non-operating employees it was 34 cents per

August 27, 1987
Maintenance of Railway Operations
hour effective January 1, 1973, followed by a 6.5 per cent increase effective January 1, 1974, and a 1.5 per cent increase effective July 1, 1974. For the railway shop-craft employees and the railway operating employees there was an 8.25 per cent increase effective January 1, 1973, a 6.5 per cent increase effective January 1, 1974, and a 1.5 per cent increase effective July 1, 1974.
All of these wage increases were in the legislation. The employees knew in advance that they would receive those increases. I remind the Government that at that time the Opposition, the Conservative Opposition, voted for this package. Members of the Conservative Party thought that it was important and necessary to put it into the legislation. Although the employees were being ordered to go back to work they were at least being given something. The current legislation is totally silent in this respect. I think that is a mistake.
We know that on the wage package the unions' requests are way above what management is ready to offer. While the demands of the unions are much higher, I have to say that those demands have decreased as the negotiations have gone on. Unfortunately, the railways' offer has not increased.
Originally, the unions were asking 5 per cent. In the course of the negotiations, in the heat of discussion I might say, they indicated that they would accept a 4 per cent increase over the next two years. Management has been offering a 1.5 per cent increase in 1988, plus a $500 lump sum payment in 1987. In fact, at one time management was even asking for wage rollbacks.
We can see that there is a legitimate fear on the part of the workers that they might not even get a wage package that corresponds to the increase in the cost of living. 1 think this amendment, if accepted, would go a long way in bringing the employer back to work with some sense of satisfaction and security. I urge the Minister to accept such an amendment, although he has refused my original proposal of an immediate $500 lump sum payment upon the return of the workers to work.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Chairman, obviously, it would have been a great deal simpler for everyone if the parties had not abdicated their responsibilities and had come to an agreement at the negotiating table. However, in the current dispute the conciliation commissioner remarked on the inter-relationship of a number of the issues and on the pattern already set by the settlements in the ONR and VIA Rail agreement. In order to permit, as I have indicated, the maximum flexibility for the arbitrator who will be appointed to the railway disputes, the Government has left the matter of wages to be determined as part of his consideration of all the issues to be resolved.


André Ouellet: Madam Chairman, I take exception to the
remarks of the Minister. I do not think that the union representatives have abdicated their responsibility. I am told, and I
have checked this, that they have negotiated in good faith from the very beginning.
One thing that has been looked at and, of course, realized, is that the employers from the very beginning have been under the impression that they could hold firm and that the Government would come to their rescue by forcing the employees to go back to work.
Since the Conservative Government has been in office we have never seen CN management act so rude, so brutal and so difficult with its employees. Never in the history of CN have we witnessed such worsening of labour relations. All of this is due to a change of attitude on the part of the Government dealing with its Crown corporations. The Government is squeezing the lemon all the time.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: You are laughing!


André Ouellet: 1 am not laughing. There are a great many employees of CN who have lost their jobs since the Conservatives took office. The attitude of the Conservative Government is to destroy Crown corporations.


John Horton McDermid: Tell us what you did with the Post Office when you were in charge of it. Tell us how well you did.


André Ouellet: I understand that the Hon. Member should be somewhat sad today. He should go to bed and relax.


Mr. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: You should go to bed.


André Ouellet: I am saying that the Conservative Government has been terrible with respect to Crown corporations-


John Horton McDermid: Why should I be in bed?


André Ouellet: I will tell you that, my friend. If you do not realize it, I will tell you.


John Horton McDermid: I saw the next poll. We are happy and you should be worried.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Order, please. I know that it is getting late and people are getting tired. It would be helpful if Hon. Members would avoid having conversations between themselves and if we could get back to the amendment which is before the House.


André Ouellet: Through you. Madam Chairman, I have been speaking to the Minister in a very gentlemanly fashion. Since there are a few phoney boys who just appeared in the back row of the Conservative benches-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Order, please. The Chair is very well aware of what has been said in the House. The Chair would appreciate all Hon. Members getting back to what is being discussed right now.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
August 27, 1987


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I would like to be fair to the Liberal Member who has just been speaking. We have a number of people in the House who, obviously, are here strictly for votes and who are not participating in the debate. I think that for their own sake if they heckle less tfrey may well go home earlier and sleep there.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The Chair offers her gratitude to the Hon. Member for Churchill whose intervention was not a point of order. May we now please get back to the amendment being debated.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me the floor again. I can assure you that if Conservative Members without the slightest interest in this legislation or in job security for railway employees would keep quiet, we could adopt this Bill a lot faster.
I want to repeat for the benefit of the Minister of Labour that the wage issue is an important factor. This is especially true if you consider two collective agreemeents, one with VIA Rail employees which provided 3 per cent the first year and 3 per cent the second year, and the collective agreement with Ontario Northland Railways which also provided for a wage increase of 3 per cent the first year and 3 per cent the second year.
Now 1 don't think we can compare the situation at VIA Rail and Ontario Northland Railways with Canadian National and Canadian Pacific.
Although 3 per cent was acceptable in the case of VIA Rail because of the financial difficulties of that company, the same cannot be said today of Canadian National and Canadian Pacific.
I may remind the Minister that the 3 per cent that were approved for Ontario Northland Railways employees were only one aspect of a very generous package, since in addition to the three per cent, that is 3 per cent the first year and 3 per cent the second year, there was this new job security plan we have been talking about for nearly one hour, a plan that was approved by Ontario Northland Railways for its employees, and it is the kind of plan that CN and CP employees want as well.
Consequently, if we cannot make any progress on job security, these employees should at least receive some concessions with respect to salary levels.
In his report, Conciliation Commissioner Douglas Stanley was not very generous on the item of job security. He rejected the employees' demands, unfortunately, and said on page 35 of his report:
I recommend that the parties agree either immediately to trade-off
reductions in the years service to achieve job security for some or all of the
companies demands for greater flexibility, or that they agree to a process
Maintenance of Railway Operations
whereby this could be achieved on an individual bargaining unit basis during
the closed period in a staged process.

So on the most important item, which was about job security, Mr. Stanley was less than generous. As for the second most important item, and I am referring to wage demands, 1 hope that the arbitrator to be appointed by the Minister will at least be more sensitive, more aware of these important demands and that he will act accordingly.
However, to be sure that is the case, if the Minister could include in the Bill that at least for the first year, the increase would be four per cent, at least part of the battle will be won.


David Orlikow: I rise in support of this amendment. I wish to remind the Minister and Members on the government side of what the CNR wishes to do to its workers. On the one hand, it makes it clear that what it would like to do as quickly as possible is to reduce its workforce by 25 per cent in a very few years. On the other hand, it says to those who will be lucky enough to stay on that it does not want them to accept a wage increase of 1 per cent, or whatever increase is finally dragged out of it kicking and screaming, but it wants them to take a cut in wages. There is an increase in the cost of living of approximately 4 per cent, which means that the real value of the wages and salaries of the employees have been reduced by that amount. In addition, the company wants to impose a further reduction in wages on the employee.
1 ask Members of the House if the management of CNR. after these failed negotiations, and after the arbitrator looks into the matter and makes a finding, can expect to have a happy, co-operative workforce?
I saw back-benchers of the Conservative Party laughing when my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill, talked about the workers in Japan. Until a year ago when the situation changed dramatically, for reasons that we do not have time to discuss, the workers in Japan were involved in a highly productive society. In comparison with workers in North America, both here and in the United States, among the large employers in Japan, comparable to CP and CN, when a worker got a job at that company in Japan he or she had a job for his or her entire working life. If the company wanted to bring in new machines, computers, or automation, of course the workers did not worry because they knew that they had a job for life. The worker would co-operate and was willing to accept any new techniques or new processes. In fact, the worker was probably suggesting new ways to do the job faster and more efficiently because they were part of a team in which both the employer and the employee benefited.
The Hon. Member for Papineau referred to the management of the CNR as being rude to its employees. I was not there, so I do not know if they were rude to their employees,

August 27, 1987
Maintenance of Railway Operations
but they certainly have displayed an aggressiveness, a toughness, and a "we don't care about you" attitude which is certainly new in the entire history of the CNR.
I would ask the Government to give some serious and favourable consideration to this amendment proposed by my colleague. If we put that amendment into this Bill which we are passing, it would say to the workers of the two railways that the Government and Parliament cares about them. It understands the difficulties through which they are living. It is sympathetic and wants them to do as well as can be done. Therefore, it says in the legislation that it is ordering them back to work because the country cannot live with an extended work stoppage, but in ordering them back to work it is guaranteeing a wage increase which will as least meet part of the increase in the cost of living which they, and everybody else in Canada, have to live through.
I would urge the Government to give some serious consideration to making this type of relatively generous response to what I think is a very reasonable amendment.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I have recently taken the opportunity to review some of Hansard during the last time that Parliament was faced with a similar situation, making a comparison to the arguments being offered by the Conservative Government today about the inappropriateness of the NDP's suggestions that the arbitrator be given instructions, and that some income protection be built into the back to work legislation. I would like to refer, if I might, to the remarks of the Hon. Mr. Stanfield, Leader of the Conservative Party, when he spoke in the House on August 31, 1973. At page 6109 of Hansard we find:
On the matter of wages, we are not negotiating an agreement but, rather, back to work terms as the Hon. Member for St. John's East emphasized yesterday. He expressed the principle that governs the amendments we will propose. That principle involves building into the Bill a protection to ensure that any settlement adequately takes into account increases in the cost of living as they can be more realistically projected since the time the Members of the Conciliation Board drafted their reports earlier this year. In imposing a settlement, this parliament can do nothing less than provide that kind of insurance.
Those words are from the former Leader of the Conservative Party, Madam Chairman. I do not know why the passage of 14 years should obliterate matters of principle in the minds of Progressive Conservatives unless there are no principles there to obliterate in the first place. Mr. Stanfield went on to say:
-Parliament cannot simply pass the buck to the parties in the dispute, or to a mediator or arbitrator, without some clear expression and direction of the matters for which Parliament is responsible-
As reported on page 6110 of Hansard he went on to say:
I emphasize that such action could in no way be construed as taking sides or attempting to make a final settlement judgment here in parliament. This would simply be Parliament, in this case, accepting its responsibility in regard to the extraordinary cost of living situation which now prevails in the country.
Mr. Stanfield was arguing that Parliament has certain responsibilities which have to be lived up to. He went on to say
in wrapping up, just before the then Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre spoke:
We feel these proposals would have a salutary effect on the employees concerned. Surely this is a very important consideration both in ensuring an orderly return to work and setting the stage for ongoing negotiations. We believe that Parliament would be doing no more than it should, in line with its limited role at this time, in supporting our amendments. We also believe that in doing so it will be doing what it indeed must do in the interests of justice in imposing a settlement at this time.
Those words were the words of the Leader of the Official Opposition at that time. I hope that this will at least put to rest, if not bring the Government on side, the notion which has been bandied about here on occasion today that what we are suggesting be done in the course of passing this back to work legislation is somehow inappropriate or irresponsible. This was done both in 1973 and in 1966 and which the Progressive Conservative Party supported on both occasions.


Alan Redway: Madam Chairman, I was not a Member of Parliament in 1973 but I was a citizen of this country in 1973. I am aware that the conditions at that time with respect to the cost of living and inflation were very much different from what they are today. In fact, when Mr. Stanfield was making those remarks, he was making them in the context of runaway inflation. He was making those remarks preliminary to espousing a policy of introducing wage and price controls which he advocated in the election campaign of 1974, as you will recall, Madam Chairman.
At that time, the then Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, had indicated that he was absolutely opposed to and ridiculed the concept of wage and price controls. However, immediately after the 1974 election he introduced the same concept in direct opposition and contrary to what he had said during the 1974 election campaign. All of that was in the context of runaway inflation, a very, very much different situation than what we face today.


David Orlikow: Madam Chairman, the Hon. Member for York East is correct that we were dealing in 1973 with a very high rate of inflation. What the then Member from St. John's East moved as his amendment, supported by the then Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, Mr. Stanfield, was that the increase, which was spelled out, had a relationship with the actual increase in the cost of living in that year. This amendment is proposing precisely that.


Rodney Edward Murphy: The Stanfield amendment.


David Orlikow: My colleague from Churchill called it the Stanfield amendment. This amendment proposes that we write into the legislation an increase and a percentage which has a very careful and clear relationship to the actual rate of inflation at the present time. The Hon. Member for York East should learn a lesson. The former Member for St. John's East resigned his seat. When the election was held, it was not a Progressive Conservative who was elected but an NDP Member. This was because of the kind of approach taken by the present Conservative Government.
August 27, 1987


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Chairman, I want to repeat what I already said before. The arbitrator who will be appointed will be looking at all the issues, including wages as well as precedents that have been quoted earlier this evening and perhaps later. I am sure the appropriate decisions will be taken at that time and the parties will make their representations.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Amendment (Mr. Murphy) negatived.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 10 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed
Clause 10 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 11 carry?
On Clause II-Offences


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Chairman, I thank you for your enthusiastic recognition of me at this time of night. It is only ten after one and we have almost finished Part I. We only have Parts II, III and IV to go through. I understand the Government has a couple of amendments to make after that and then we will have third reading. We should not get too tired yet.
Concerning Clause 11, it is important to recognize that the Government is not treating people equally. If we take a look at subclause (2), we find:
A railway company or union that contravenes any provision of this Fart is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable, for each day or part of a day during which the offence continues, to a fine of not less than $20,000 or more than $100,000.
That may seem equal to some people. But when you take a look at who the people involved are, you see CN, a multibillion dollar operation, and CP in the same type of a situation. Some of the unions involved in the railways have a thousand members who would be facing a fine in the same amount as CP and CN would receive. It would be the same amount as the fine CN would receive. In every other case in which we have passed legislation, we have recognized that the size of the fine should have some relationship to the ability to pay. I think it is unfortunate that the Government did not recognize these variations.
In speaking against this clause, I hope that the Government will recognize that it is inequitable. I recognize that it is not willing to change this at the present time, but I would hope that in future labour legislation, we ensure that fines are equivalent to sizes of organizations being fined so that we do not impose a very heavy fine on small groups and a fine on CP and CN that would be completely insignificant.
Maintenance of Railway Operations


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, the 1973 legislation contained no penalty whatsoever. This Bill includes stiff penalties for non-compliance and is very different from the one introduced in 1973. As I indicated in my remarks at second reading, I do not see the necessity of such stiff penalties and I regret that they are there. I will not introduce an amendment, but I will certainly vote against this clause. I hope that the clause will not carry.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Kempling):: Shall Clause 11 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 11 agreed to.
On Clause 12-Definitions


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, as 1 had indicated when I originally presented amendments at the beginning of this interesting discussion, I proposed to put all the amendments at that time but it was suggested that we do them as we come to each clause. I appreciate the goodwill of my colleagues who are permitting me to move this amendment which is in the interests of the legislation and obviously everyone concerned. I move:
That Clause 12 of Bill C-85 be amended by striking out lines 4 and 5 on
page 6 and substituting the following:
"railway company who is bound by a collective agree-"
Amendment (Mr, Cadieux) agreed to.


William James Kempling: Shall Clause 12, as amended, carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
On Clause 13-Resumption of railway operations


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That Bill C-85 be amended at line 26, page 6, Section 13(b), following the
words "every employee shall", delete the words "when so required".
There are four clauses which are almost identical and we will repeat the pattern throughout the Bill without going into debate on most of the items.
Amendment (Mr. Angus) negatived on division.


William James Kempling: Shall Clause 13 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
On Clause 15-Extension of collective agreements


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Chairman, I move:

August 27, 1987
Maintenance of Railway Operations
That Clause 15 of Bill C-85 be amended by striking out line 25 at page 7 and substituting the following:
"December 31, 1988 and, with the consent of the parties thereto, may be further".
This is an amendment which was accepted by the Government and it prevents the arbitrator from imposing a three-year collective agreement without the consent of both parties.
Amendment (Mr. Murphy) agreed to.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That Bill C-85 be amended by:
At line 45, page 7, Section 15(2) following the words "the agreement and each of', deleting the words "its employees who is" and substituting therefor the words "the unions which are".
The intention of the motion is to put into the Bill the kind of relationship that exists between an employer and the representatives of employees; i.e., the union. As the Act is currently worded, it talks about a relationship between an individual employee and the company which does not in fact exist.
[Translation)


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, the introductory part of Subsection 15(2) makes the agreement binding upon the parties. Paragraph (b) specifies, and the terms used repeat the wording of Section 154 of the Canada Labour Code, that the agreement is binding on every employee. For the benefit of all Hon. Member 1 will quote Section 154:
A collective agreement entered into between a bargaining agent and an employer in respect of a bargaining unit is, subject to and for the purposes of this Part, binding upon
(a)	the bargaining agent;
(b)	every employee in the bargaining unit; and
(c)	the employer.
Mr. Speaker, we will therefore vote against the amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Angus) negatived on division.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
On Clause 17-


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That Bill C-85 be amended at line 17, page 8, after the words "each collective agreement that", deleting the rest of Clause 17(1) and substituting for it the following;
"either party may say are at dispute. The matters referred to the arbitrator shall include, but not be limited to the following:
1.	Wages
2.	Starting Rate for New Employees
3.	Dental Plan for New Employees
4.	Extended Health Vision Care for New Employees
5.	Shift Differentials
6.	Medicare Allowance
7.	Job Security Benefits
8.	Employment Security
9.	Contracting Out
10.	Incidental Work Rule
11.	Yard Switching Limits
12.	Coupling/uncoupling Hoses
13.	Disability Pensions
14.	Dental Plan
15.	Extended Health Care
16.	Vacation
The reasons are the same as given before.
Amendment (Mr. Angus) negatived on division.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Chairman, I move:
Thai Bill C-85 be amended at line 22, page 8. by adding the following clause:
"17(2) The arbitrator shall closely examine the job security demands of the union and fully explore the feasibility of a job security plan based on the principles of attrition."
Amendment (Mr. Blaikie) negatived on division.


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That Bill C-85 be amended at Clause 17, page 8, by adding thereto immediately after line 31 the following:
"no award or decision of an arbitrator appointed under Subsection (1) shall provide for any reduction in any wage rate or benefit in the existing collective agreement."
Amendment (Mr. Ouellet) negatived on division.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
On Clause 19-


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Chairman, 1 move:
That Bill C-85 be amended in Clause 19 by adding immediately after line 12 at page 9 the following:
"(2) The terms and conditions of each collective agreement to which this part applies are amended forthwith by increasing each hourly basic rate of wages in effect on December 31, 1986, as established or pursuant to such agreement, by 4 per cent effective January 1, 1987."
My reasons are the same as before.
Amendment (Mr. Angus) negatived on division.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
On Clause 21 -


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Chairman, I move:
That Clause 21 of Bill C-85 be amended by striking out lines 11 and 12 on page 10 and substituting the following:
"railway company who is bound by a collective agree-"


John Carnell Crosbie: Let's strike out the Opposition.

August 27, 1987


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Chairman, despite the provocation by the Minister of Transport we will support the amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Cadieux) agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
On Clause 22-


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Chairman, I move:
That Bill C-85 be amended at line 29, page 10, Section 22(b), following the
words "every employee shall", delete the words "when so required".
I just want to add one additional bit of information to the debate we had on the original amendment. It is my understanding that a large number of the craft employees have been laid off. They are very concerned about this mechanism being used as a bargaining lever by the companies to force them into an unacceptable agreement. I would once again like to appeal to the Minister to reconsider inclusion of this wording in the legislation to prevent that from occurring.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Some time has passed since we last debated this amendment. 1 wonder whether the Minister has had time to not only think about it but to check and is he now able to answer the question of whether or not this clause would permit, for example, the railway to only call a certain percentage of its workforce back on this coming Monday and call others back on Tuesday and others on Wednesday. Has he had an opportunity to think about that and can he say that this clause will not permit them to do that? If he is not able to say that, would he accept the amendment?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Question!
Amendment (Mr. Angus) negatived on division.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 agreed to.
On Clause 24-Extension of collective agreements


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Chairperson, I move:
That Clause 24 of Bill C-85 be amended by striking out line 28 on page 11
and substituting the following:
"December 31, 1988 and, with the consent of the parties thereto, may be
further"
That amendment is similar to that which was accepted by the Government on the first two sections of the Bill.
Amendment (Mr. Angus) agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 24, as amended carry?


Some Hon. members:: Agreed.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Maintenance of Railway Operations On Clause 26-Arbitration


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Chairperson, I move:
That Bill C-85 be amended by: At line 20, page 12, after the words "each collective agreement that", deleting the rest of Section 26(1) and substituting for it the following:
"either party may say are at dispute. The matters referred to the arbitrator shall linclude, but not be limited to the following:
1.	Wages
2.	Starting Rate for New Employees
3.	Dental Plan for New Employees
4.	Extended Health Vision Care for the New Employees
5.	Shift Differentials
6.	Medicare Allowance
7.	Job Security Benefits
8.	Employment Security
9.	Contracting Out
10.	Incidental Work Rule
11.	Yard Switching Limits
12.	Coupling/uncoupling Hoses
13.	Disability Pensions
14.	Dental Plan
15.	Extended Health Care
16.	Vacation"
Amendment (Mr. Blaikie) negatived on division.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 26 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 agreed to.
On Clause 28-Parties may amend agreement Mr. Angus: Madam Chairman, I move:
That Bill C-85 be amended by adding immediately after line 16 at page 13 the following:
"(2) The terms and conditions of each collective agreement to which this part applies are amended forthwith by increasing each hourly basic rate of wages in effect on December 31, 1986, as established or pursuant to such agreement, by four per cent effective Januasry 1, 1987."
The same rationale, Madam Chairman.
Amendment (Mr. Angus) negatived on division.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 28 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 agreed to.
On Clause 30-Definitions


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Chairperson, I move:

August 27, 1987
Maintenance of Railway Operations
That Clause 30 of Bill C-85 be amended by striking out lines 12 and 13 on page 14 and substituting the following:
"Railway company who is bound by a collective agree-"


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 30, as amended, carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
On Clause 31-Resumption of railway operations


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Chairman, I move:
That Bill C-85 be amended by: At line 29, page 14, Section 31(b), following the words "every employee shall", delete the words "when so required".
Amendment (Mr. Angus) negatived on division.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 31 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 agreed to.
On Clause 33-Extension of collective agreement.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Chairman, I rise to move an amendment which I think will have the support of all Members of the House. I move:
That Clause 33 of Bill C-85 be amended by striking out line 35 on page 1 5 and substituting the following therefore:
"December 31, 1988 and, with the consent of the parties thereto, may be further"
Amendment (Mr. Blaikie) agreed to.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Chairperson, I move:
That Bill C-85 be amended at line 6, page 16, Section 33(2) following the words "the Railway company and", deleting the words "each of its employees who is" and substituting therefore the words "the union which is".
The same explanation as before.
Amendment (Mr. Angus) negatived on division.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 33 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 agreed to.
On Clause 35-Arbitration


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Chairperson, we have another short amendment. I move:
That Bill C-85 be amended by: At Line 25, page 16, after the words "each collective agreement that", deleting the rest of Section 35(1) and substituting for it the following:
"either party may are at dispute. The matters referred to the arbitrator shall linclude, but not be limited to the following:
1.	Wages
2.	Starting Rate for New Employees
3.	Dental Plan for New Employees
4.	Extended Health Vision Care for the New Employees
5.	Shift Differentials
6.	Medicare Allowance
7.	Job Security Benefits
8.	Employment Security
9.	Contracting Out
10.	Incidental Work Rule
11.	Yard Switching Limits
12.	Coupling/uncoupling Hoses
13.	Disability Pensions
14.	Dental Plan
15.	Extended Health Care
16.	Vacation"
Amendment (Mr. Murphy) negatived on division.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Chairperson, I move:
That Bill C-85 be amended by adding immediately after line 29 at page 16 the following:
"(2) The terms and conditions of each collective agreement to which this part applies are amended forthwith by increasing each hourly basic rate of wages in effect on December 31, 1986, as established or pursuant to such agreement by four per cent effective January 1, 1987.
The same rationale as before, Madam Chairperson. Amendment (Mr. Angus) negatived on division.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Chairman, I move:
That Bill C-85 be amended by:
At line 30, page 16, adding the following Section:
(35(2) The arbitrator shall closely examine the job security demands of the union and fully explore the feasibility of a job security plan based on the principles of attrition.
It is the same rationale as before.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the amendment carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Amendment (Mr. Angus) negatived.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clauses 36 and 37 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 38 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 38 agreed to.
August 27, 1987

Clause 39 agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: When shall the Bill be read the third time? Pursuant to order made earlier this day, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Pierre H. Cadieux: that Bill C-85, an Act to provide for the resumption and continuance of railway operations and for the settlement of disputes respecting terms and conditions of employment between railway companies and their employees, be read the third time and passed.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, during my closing remarks on this legislation, I want to say that it is sad when Parliament must deal with back to work legislation. Certainly, the ideal situation would have been for the parties to negotiate a collective agreement. Unfortunately, it seems that it was impossible to arrive at a negotiated settlement.
The companies believe they must go through massive reductions in their operating costs and therefore are not in a mood to give generous wage settlements to their employees. Therefore, the bargaining process was jeopardized from the beginning because of this situation. Clearly, while under normal circumstances a collective agreement could have been reached, it was impossible to do so this time.
1 must say that for a number of years collective agreements have been reached easily in the rail industry. In fact, the last time that back to work legislation was introduced was in 1973. There have been good labour relations in the railway industry for 15 years. It is sad to see that the situation has changed.
In discussions with union representatives, I have been told that there has been a very drastic change of attitude on the part of management in recent years. This is regrettable and I hope that it is a trend that will not continue.
Clearly, year after year in Canada a number of people working for Canadian National, Canadian Pacific and other railways have been able to earn a good living. The railways have been a very important factor in the development of our economy and an important source of good reliable employment. Therefore, it is sad that after so many years of good relations, many employees who have been working for 20 to 30 years with the company are now seeing a drastic change of attitude on the part of their employers in terms of their treatment and consideration and friendship. The new attitude is one of confrontation or indifference.
I believe it is very important for the arbitrator who is to be appointed by the Minister to realize the difficulties that now
Maintenance of Railway Operations
exist in terms of labour relations in the railway industry and to try to correct the situation.
I am not very optimistic about the future of the railway industry in Canada, in the deregulation environment. Despite this, I hope that at least in the beginning of this new deregulated environment the arbitrator will see fit to give employees a chance and provide them with a good collective agreement. Fundamentally, it will be on his shoulders to draft the entire collective agreement because the two parties have not agreed to anything so far. It will be a difficult task for the arbitrator and I hope the Minister is fortunate enough to find an able person to assume this responsibility. I wish him luck and hope that this collective agreement will be well received by both parties and, above all, while being an imposed settlement, will be perceived by both parties as a fair settlement.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, my speech will not be as long as the one I gave at second reading, but I want to indicate that we are still in opposition to this legislation. During second reading we explained that we understood the need to have the railways running in this land.
Many of us are from western Canada, and that is the area of the country which is most affected by a rail strike in proportion to its population. However, we do believe that this legislation, as it was presented to Parliament, and even after the amendments made in the last number of hours in Committee of the Whole, is still flawed legislation. We are glad the Government agreed to and helped to draft an amendment which means that the arbitrator will not be able to act independently to impose a three-year collective agreement on the parties which for over a year were trying to negotiate a two-year collective agreement. I believe we did make some wording improvements in that area.
However, in many of the other areas about which we expressed concern at second reading, this legislation has not been improved. My colleague the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), quoted from the Hon. Robert Stanfield in 1973 with respect to the purpose of Parliament and its role when we introduce back to work legislation and how it is important for us to go beyond the structural step of ordering people back to work. We must also consider the times and realize there should be reasonable guidelines for the arbitrator.
This legislation refuses to deal in any way, shape or form with the responsibility which Parliament should have undertaken. As a result, workers and the companies have absolutely no idea of how the arbitrator is going to work. As I expressed at second reading, we cannot put blind faith in an arbitrator. 1 mentioned my own personal experience as a negotiator for teachers in Manitoba. We had an arbitrator who ruled against something both the school board and the teachers had agreed to. It seemed, in his mind, to be the right thing to do. The two parties to the agreement could not sign the final package

August 27, 1987
Maintenance of Railway Operations
because of some other differences. They both expressed their acceptance of the salary package. Yet the arbitrator decided to act differently. We, by passing this legislation at this moment are making that same mistake.
We know there are certain things which must be studied by the arbitrator, especially in the whole area of job security. We tried to get the Government to accept the same amendments the House of Commons accepted in 1973. The amendments passed into law in 1973 were accepted by John Diefenbaker and by Robert Stanfield, supported by the former Member for St. John's East, the Lieutenant Governor of that province at the present time. However, for some reason this new Conservative Government will not accept the same caring philosophy expressed by the Conservatives of 1973.
The Government recognizes that arbitration can be a very long process because it has pushed for the possibility of a three-year collective agreement solely on the basis that the arbitration process may take a very long time. To compensate for something all parties recognize, we said there should be some salary adjustment which should take place for the first year of the collective agreement. Let the two parties work on the second and possibly the third year of the collective agreement. If they cannot resolve that, the arbitrator will deal with it. However, for the first year there should be some recognition for the workers who are obviously trying to make a living. With the price of goods going up across the land and with taxes going up at both the provincial and federal levels, those people have extra expenses. Those expenses are occurring now. If it takes a year or a year and a half for the collective agreement to be settled by the arbitrator, those people will be out of money for a very long time indeed. So we tried to move in that area in the last few hours.
We quoted Mr. Stanfield again, and the Conservatives, who in 1973 were in favour of recognizing a cost of living increase for the workers, would not do so now. I should point out that in 1973, the Conservatives not only supported the Liberal back to work legislation, which gave a salary increase, but the Conservatives moved an amendment to increase the salary. Not only did they accept the cost of living clause put in the legislation by the Government, but the Conservatives, supported by their leader, moved an amendment to increase the salary above and beyond what the government of the day wanted to give to the workers.
The New Democrats of that day supported that motion and the motion carried. So we had a motion by the Conservatives in opposition, supported by the New Democrats in opposition, and the motion carried. I find it more than passing strange that this new Conservative Government will not do the courageous thing they were willing to do in 1973. I heard one of the Conservatives say it was a minority government. Even if it was a minority government, what the Conservatives believed then, they should believe now. It is the same principle. The workers and their families will face extra expenses as taxes go up, as the price of food goes up and as other costs go up, and if
the Conservative Party in 1973 thought we should recognize that in the legislation, the same principle should apply today.
We are also concerned that we do not know who the arbitrator is. We wish the Minister had taken advantage of the advice we gave him earlier today. We wish he had used the time he had to sit down and talk with both parties. He has now assured us he will at least consult with both parties before he appoints an arbitrator. I hope he does that in such a way that we do get someone who is not only acceptable to both parties but who does have a knowledge of the railway industry.
The clause that may be the sleeper in this legislation, the clause that may give us the most concern, is the clause which says that employees "when required" must return to work. It was one of the first clauses we debated earlier this evening. It created a very excited debate as people realized all of a sudden that again we were doing something different than was done in 1973. The 1973 legislation said that those workers who were on strike had to come back to work, those employers had to bring those people back to work. This legislation creates a new scenario. It creates a new loophole for those corporations which are admittedly trying to reduce their workforce. They have a new weapon now, a weapon given to them as a direct result of this legislation.
We challenged the Minister in the House of Commons in a clause by clause study that if the people in the Transcona shop are not called back, if the people in Kamloops, Thunder Bay, and Yorkton are not called back, and if CN or CP uses this clause as their reason for not calling those people back, the Minister's credibility is certainly in jeopardy. This is a new weapon which the Government is giving to CN and CP. Previous back to work legislation tried to re-establish the status quo, to treat both employees and employers in an equal manner, to get them back to work to provide service to the public. The exception that the Minister made tonight is a dangerous one. I believe that in the case of CN and CP, which companies are trying to reduce their workforces, and which companies have used every method they could possibly use to do so, if the collective agreement says it cannot lay off 50 people without giving a long notice, then they will lay off 49 people, and then another 49 x number of months later, followed by another 49 x number of months after that. That is the existing practice in the rail industry.
We have now given those two companies another weapon. 1 predict that in some circumstances they will be tempted to use it. It will be our position as members of the Opposition, and 1 hope that government Members will also be keeping an eye on CN and CP, that if we hear about people who are not brought back a week or two weeks from now when the work has obviously reached the level it was prior to the strike, we will go to the Minister and get this legislation changed.
August 27, 1987


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker,
I do not intend to abuse for very long the patience of those who are still here.
1 make one last try with the Minister in regard to the question of the language of people returning to work when so required. The Minister cited an example of previous legislation in which that language was used. He said that he had no problems with it. However, I wonder if the Minister has reflected upon the fact that the legislation to which he referred when he was making his defence of the language was legislation that applied to people who would be returning to work through the auspices of a hiring hall and not in the way that people on the railroad will be returning to work. I ask the Minister to think about that point. The words "when so required" may have been adequate to the situation that existed when people were returning to work through a hiring hall, but it may not be adequate and may indeed create the type of new power about which the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) has spoken. This new power could be given to the railways as a result of the wording in the Bill.
Finally, I want to say that people in my family have worked on the railway ever since 1912 when my grandfather first came to Canada.
There are many in my family who still work for the railway. I want to tell you, Madam Speaker, and 1 hope that Hon. Members will listen, that something terrible is happening to the railroads. Something terrible is happening to a way of life in this country. Something terrible is happening to the traditional relationship between labour and management and the way of life that was associated with working at the railroad. The Bill that we have before us will not help. It has the potential to make matters incredibly worse.
I say for those who may want to think about it years down the road, that unless something very, very serious is done to correct certain trends which are in place, we will have on our hands the sort of railway equivalent of the chaos that we have had at the Post Office for so many years. So much bad feeling is being built up as a result of new attitudes being taken by management that we will soon be at the point of no return. We will soon be at the point at which there will be no more trust on which to rebuild any kind of productive relationship between labour and management and employees in the companies.
I do not take any delight in that. I am simply saying that that is where we are. If the Minister had taken some of the amendments seriously, he would have had an opportunity to take decisive action to arrest that slippery slope that the railways are on at the moment. Unfortunately, we have not been able to arrest that slide here this evening because the Government simply has not been willing to listen.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, I too am rather concerned and disappointed
Maintenance of Railway Operations
that the Government has not agreed to some of the amendments that have been put forward this evening-excuse me while I get back to my seat, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Obviously, at this time of the morning 1 hope the House will forgive the Chair for recognizing the Hon. Member even though he was not in his place. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan).


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I recall the words of the Hon. Member who just found himself not in his own seat. He made a comment about another Hon. Member earlier in the evening with respect to the fact that it was past that Hon. Member's bedtime. It seems to me that it is certainly past this Hon. Member's bedtime.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: That is not a point of order!


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, I too would like to make a few comments. I am not going to continue too long despite the heckling of Members opposite. I hope that the Government, although it has not agreed to the amendments that have been suggested, will not forget the remarks that have been made here this evening. As was stated earlier by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), our Party supports the legislation because of the downside we see in delaying this whole question. We feel that the loss to the economy of the country by prolonging this rail strike would be extremely damaging. We do not see that continuing negotiations and prolonging the rail strike will in any way influence the Government on what we feel should be in this Bill that is not in it already.
There has been mention made tonight about concerns with respect to job security. I say to the Minister that we are disappointed that he has not seen fit to put in the Bill a recommendation that the arbitrator consider this question very, very seriously. Not only is job security not uniform among the various railroads in the country, it is not uniform among various areas of Canadian National within a certain region. I refer to the Atlantic region. The benefits should be there. They should have been there for everyone in the railroads. However, that is not the case. I hope the Government will correct that.
I also suggest that, with respect to Clause 4 and comparable clauses in the Bill, the words "when so required", which the Government did not agree to delete, would be taken into consideration. We in this Party will be watching very, very carefully to assure ourselves that those who were working for the railroads prior to the strike will be getting back to work in their jobs immediately after the strike terminates. If there is a breach of faith by the railroads in this regard then we definitely want the Government to step in.
I hope that something has been served as far as the Government listening to these matters is concerned. As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Papineau, has stated, this is not

August 27, 1987
Maintenance of Railway Operations
something in which we take a great deal of delight. It is not a happy occasion to be passing back to work legislation. In this case we feel it is necessary but, as my colleague has said, we take no delight in doing so.


Iain Francis Angus: On behalf of all Members of the House, I wish to thank the staff for their work with us this evening to ensure that we could continue to operate. They have put in a long day, and hopefully in approximately two minutes we will all be able to go home.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I have some difficulty recognizing the Hon. Minister right now, because he is deemed to have spoken when the motion was put to the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Pierre H. Cadieux: I did not wish to speak originally because I thought that we had all said what we had to say. I notice by certain repetitions that we had done so. Nevertheless, I would like to add that it is never with great joy that as Minister of Labour I introduce in the House back to work legislation. Unfortunately, it is the second time that I have had to do this, and I do not find any joy in it.
I still believe that our collective bargaining system is probably one of the best in the world. To attest to this fact, and the fact that the parties usually use it to come to an agreement, last year out of 11,000 collective agreements that were reached and signed in Canada, 94 per cent were reached without one single day of strike or lock-out. Obviously, our system works very well. I am proud of the system that we have which falls under the Canada Labour Code. We are always
there to provide the services of conciliation and mediation in order to assist the parties to achieve those agreements.
Unfortunately, in this instance it did not work. Because of the impact upon the public interest, and because of the stoppage of the most important transportation system in Canada, we indicated that we could not and would not tolerate such a work stoppage. We had to step in. It is never pleasant, but we had to do it. We did it, and hopefully we will not have to do it again.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare the motion carried on division.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 2.14 a.m., pursuant to the Order concurred in earlier today, this House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. later today, pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 2.14 a.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, August 28, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers