11189 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 172 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Monday, February 16, 2015 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES February 16, 2015 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 172 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 172 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 172 (Version officielle) 147 172 16 02 2015 2015/02/16 11:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2 The House met at 11 a.m.

Prayers Private Members' Business Private Members' Business (1105) [ English ] Assaults Against Public Transit Operators Bill S-221. Report stage The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-221,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against public transit operators) , as reported (without amendment) from the committee. Mr. Corneliu Chisu (Pickering—Scarborough East, CPC) Motion for concurrence moved that the bill be concurred in. (Motion agreed to) The Speaker : When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now? Some hon. members: Agreed. Mr. Corneliu Chisu Bill S-221. Third reading moved that the bill be read the third time and passed. He said: Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate today at third reading, and to speak in support of Bill S-221 , a bill that seeks to address, through explicit sentencing principles, the harm caused when public operators acting in the course of their duties are the target of violence. At present, there is no specific offence or aggravating factor in the Criminal Code that uniquely targets acts of violence committed against public transit operators.

The proposed bill would amend the Criminal Code to create a new aggravating factor for the sentencing of offenders convicted of uttering threats, any of the three assault offences, and unlawfully causing bodily harm to transit operators.

I would first like to thank Senator Runciman and his staff for their hard work on this file, as well as all those in the transit community, such as the Canadian Urban Transit Association and the Amalgamated Transit Union, amongst others, who have spent countless hours educating both the public and government about the danger that violence against our transit operators presents, not only to themselves but to the general public. This is a very serious issue that must be addressed. I would also like to extend my thanks to the other side of the aisle, to the members of the opposition parties who have done their

part in making sure that Bill S-221 becomes law, and in particular to the member from Wascana . I know he has been working diligently on this matter for years. Hopefully today all of that hard work will finally be realized and result in meaningful and effective legislation. I think I can say without any hesitation that everything we have heard in debates in both Houses during the recent months has absolutely confirmed our belief that Bill S-221 is both justified and necessary.

The proposed Bill S-221 would amend the Criminal Code to create a new aggravating factor for the sentencing of offenders convicted of uttering threats, any of the three assault offences, and unlawfully causing bodily harm to transit operators. Transit operators play an absolutely critical role in the lives of our citizens and communities all over Canada. Nowhere is this more apparent than in our major cities, where public transit is relied upon to transport millions of passengers every day.

It would be no exaggeration to say that without the people who drive our buses, subways, trams, and taxis every day, our economy and our communities would be in peril. A 2010 report prepared by the Canadian Urban Transit Association, entitled "The Economic Impact of Transit Investment: A National Survey", offers the following key findings: transit reduces vehicle operating costs for Canadian households by approximately $5 billion annually, and it reduces vehicle accident costs by $2.4 billion annually.

While these statistics and figures are certainly fantastic, they come at a price, specifically to the well-being of our public transit operators. An analysis conducted by the Toronto Transit Commission showed that transit operators face daily violence. According to their analysis, during 2013, 39% of attacks were related to fare enforcement. Alarmingly, one in five attacks was recorded as being unprovoked, with no real rhyme or reason given. The motive was nothing more than pure malice, an attempt to harm the public transit operator just for the sake of it.

Unfortunately, these sorts of attacks run the risk of becoming more and more common, unless we as legislators take action to ensure these assaults are sanctioned adequately. The report is broken down as follows: expectorate, around 45%; physical—hands, feet—33%; foreign objects, 15%; liquid, 5%. According to the Canadian Urban Transit Association, there were 2,061 reported assaults in 2011. That is over five reported instances of assault a day across this country. This is shameful.

Transit operators, due to the nature of their work and their inherent inability to defend themselves against aggressive acts while carrying out their duties, face a number of unusual and unpredictable threats in their workplace that most Canadians do not. Transit workers are at a higher risk for violence than workers in many other occupations. Statistics Canada has reported that public transit operators are more than four and a half times more likely to be assaulted in the conduct of their duty than an average person is when walking down the street.

While this in and of itself is a shocking statistic, there are other consequences that may not be immediately clear. The most troubling of these is that a public transit operator is in charge of operating an incredibly large vehicle, which, more often than not, is in motion on crowded streets and highways. Any minute, a distraction may cause an immediate and very real danger, not only to the passengers charged in the operator's care, but to other drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. This danger naturally increases when we have someone physically beating or spitting on the operator.

The issue of assaulting a public transit operator is not only being noticed here in Ottawa, but in other municipalities as well. A little over two weeks ago, Tom Hann, a councillor in St. John's, Newfoundland, had the following to say regarding tougher sentencing legislation: [Public transit operators] should not have to put up with that kind of stuff, and I'm hoping legislation that will deal with stronger sentencing will make people think twice. It pleases me to no end to see that Bill S-221 has garnered support from municipalities as far away as St. John's.

On the other side of the nation, bus drivers in Vancouver have opted to begin a six-month, fleet-wide experiment with plexiglass barriers to protect themselves from would-be attackers. Last year, Hamilton saw a five-year high in assaults on their buses, which has prompted the transit director of the Hamilton Street Railway company to make a budget request for cameras to be installed in the fleet, and possibly even barriers. Grand River Transit of Kitchener and Waterloo has made a similar move.

It is a sad state of affairs when bus drivers feel so unsafe at work that they feel their only recourse is to attempt to remove and segregate themselves from the people they serve. To echo Councillor Hann's sentiments, we need to make sure that these thugs think twice before assaulting a public transit operator, and we need to make bus drivers feel safe in their place of work.

We need to ensure that the transit system operates effectively, that people feel safe when they use the transit system, and that those operating our public transit feel assured that if they are victimized on the job through acts of violence, the criminal justice system will effectively respond to such violence. Attacks on transit operators can leave lasting physical and mental scars. With more than 300,000 members, Unifor is Canada's largest union in the private sector.

At a 2014 gathering at Unifor's Canadian Council, transit drivers shared personal stories of assault, harassment, and degradation that left lasting trauma, and, in certain cases, permanent disability. Transit drivers should not have to go to work fearing that they will be hit, sexually assaulted, threatened with death, punched, kicked, spat on, or have a weapon pulled on them. While much of the focus thus far has been on bus drivers, we must not forget another vulnerable and often forgotten group of individuals: taxi drivers. From 1997 to 2011, the homicide rate for taxi drivers was 3.2 per population of 100,000.

This is nearly three times the murder rate among the general population. In that 15-year period, 23 tax drivers were murdered in cold blood. We do not have statistics available to us on assaults, but one does not have to jump to conclusions to suggest that they would be as horrifically high as their counterparts in public transit. Support for this bill extends far and wide. Transit unions, transit police, bus and tax drivers, the Ottawa Transit Commission, the Toronto Transit Commission, and many others have spoken in strong support of this bill.

We now have the opportunity with Bill S-221 to work together and unanimously pass into law meaningful changes that would appropriately address the violence committed against transit operators. I strongly support this bill, and I hope that the sentiment is echoed on all sides of the House. Let us finally put an end to this wrong and pass Bill S-221 today.

(1110) [ Translation ] Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure my colleague immediately that we feel exactly the same way. I would like to point out that members of my party have introduced a number of similar bills, and as I recall, though I was not here, during the previous Parliament, Bill C-333 dealt with exactly this problem. My question is this: why has the government been dragging its feet on this issue since 2006? Can the sponsor tell me what happened to make this measure, which we will support, a priority? (1115) [ English ] Mr. Corneliu Chisu : Mr.

Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. It is a very good question. I know that several bills on this subject have been introduced in the House. This bill has a specific provision that would also include taxi drivers, who were not included in the other bills. I think this is a novelty, and it shows that our government would take care of a larger range of public transit operators, as the bill also includes taxi drivers. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in support of Bill S-221 .

In fact, the deputy leader of the Liberal Party had a similar private member's bill. Our caucus, and I am sure all members, recognizes the valuable role of transit drivers in all regions of our country. I had the good fortune, through John Callahan of the Amalgamated Transit Union in Winnipeg, to have a tour of the facility and the opportunity to participate in a bus ride-along, which I would highly recommend to members. One can learn a lot when riding on a bus and talking to some of the drivers. One gets a better sense of some of the things they have to go through day in and day out.

When that door opens, transit drivers do not know what is coming in. There is a need for this legislation. The number of verbal and physical assaults is very high. I think the public would be quite surprised by how many occurrences there are every year. My question is fairly specific. Would the member not agree that as parliamentarians we can also work with municipalities to see how we can make the working environment of our transit drivers better, such as by potentially having patrols on buses and so forth? Mr. Corneliu Chisu : Mr. Speaker, to work with municipalities, we need to have legislation in place.

This bill would give the opportunity to municipalities to move forward in the deterrence of violence and to take action against violence against public operators and taxi drivers. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux : Mr. Speaker, my follow-up question is in regard to the taxi drivers the member made reference to. Again, this is a very important industry. When they allow people in, it is not like taxi drivers will say no. They feel vulnerable. There is a need for safety shields and cameras. There is a higher sense of need for security in our taxis than there ever has been over the last decade plus.

Could the member provide some comment on our role in terms of making sure that there is a safe working environment? Mr. Corneliu Chisu : Mr. Speaker, it is important that, through this legislation, we provide the tools to educate the users of public transit and taxis not to resort to violent acts and so on, and if they do resort to these acts, they will be punished accordingly, with the force of the law. This is not necessarily punitive legislation; it would provide the tools to have deterrence and not just a reaction to violence. This is in line with the Canadian way of thinking. Mr.

Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this long overdue legislation. I would like to start off by praising our public transportation workers across the country. Every day, thousands of women and men across this country basically ensure the safety and security of our loved ones in getting to work, to school, or to a wide variety of places. Their job is to ensure that our loved ones make it to work, school, shopping, and any other circumstance as safely as possible.

Tragically, we are seeing that increasingly, their safety and security is in jeopardy because of an epidemic of attacks, and there is no other way to put it, against public transit operators and public transportation workers. Today we are seeing across the country thousands of transit workers who are making sure, even in adverse weather conditions, that our loved ones get to work or school safely. Yet today, an average day in Canada, four, five, or six of those transit operators and public transportation workers may be assaulted in the line of duty.

As they are doing their work of ensuring the safety and security of our loved ones, their safety and security is often put into question because of a growing number of tragic assaults against these workers. This did not start happening yesterday. It has developed over a number of years. That is why the NDP over the past number of years has put forward legislation to combat this epidemic of attacks on public transportation workers and drivers across this country. Judy Wasylycia-Leis, who members will remember, first put forward a bill. I myself put forward a bill a number of years ago.

We encouraged the government at the time to put in place these measures. My colleague from Thunder Bay—Rainy River also put forward legislation. Bill S-221 is currently on the docket in the House of Commons. It would increase penalties for anyone who assaults or abuses a public transportation worker. By putting this legislation in place, we would be sending a message to people right across the country that this is unacceptable. The safety and security of our public transportation workers should not be put into question because of the growing likelihood that they may be assaulted in the line of duty.

Imagine driving a bus and trying to maintain the safety and security of perhaps dozens of passengers, and someone gets on the bus who feels that he or she has free rein to assault the driver. While the driver is trying to protect members of the travelling public, his or her own safety is in question. That is why it is important to send an inescapable message to all Canadians that assault or abuse is simply not acceptable. That is why we support the bill. That is why we have called for tougher penalties, as well.

Part of the reason this is an important step and the reason the NDP has put forward legislation over the past few years a number of times is the public education that can come from it. Saying that it is a case of aggravated assault, as we have said in the NDP bill, or an aggravating circumstance, as in the bill before us today, is something the public transportation companies and private taxi companies can use to ensure that the public is aware that when they try to abuse or assault a taxi driver or transit operator, it is a serious crime.

(1120) There is no doubt that this is something that would help to address this tragic epidemic of attacks on transit workers. In many cases, we are talking about serious assaults. These are assaults that have resulted in serious, permanent disability. We are talking about situations where the bus driver or transit operator has been unable to return to work. We are not talking about minor assaults here. In many cases, we are talking about tragic, serious assaults. That is why we have been bringing this forward in the House of Commons for so many years.

We need to change the public perception that somehow it is okay to attack a transit operator, a bus driver, or a taxi driver. The bill today is long overdue. We would have liked the government to have adopted the NDP legislation we have been pushing forward in the House years ago. It will nonetheless make a difference, particularly when the public transportation companies are able to put forward the very clear message that this is unacceptable. The bus drivers and transit operators in my riding are represented by the Canadian Union of Public Employees and Unifor, as well, formerly the CAW transit operators.

We also have the Amalgamated Transit Union, which has also been a phenomenal force in campaigning for this change. (1125) [ Translation ] The Société de transport de Montréal drivers' association also played a major role. [ English ] With Unifor, CUPE, ATU, and the STM we have a real consensus among bus drivers and transit operators across the country that it is time for a change. It is time to send an unmistakable message to all Canadians that to assault a transit operator or a bus driver is a serious offence.

Those bus drivers and transit drivers get up every day in the morning with one thought in mind, which is to make sure that our loved ones get to their workplaces, their schools, or wherever they are going safely. We have a responsibility as parliamentarians to ensure their safety, to ensure that they go to a safe workplace and can come home and know that they have provided that service to Canadians, that there are no scars to show for it, and that they have been able to work in a safe environment. I would like to conclude by saying that this is long overdue legislation. We support it.

In fact, the NDP has been the impetus behind the legislation, and we are happy to see that it is finally coming forward on the floor of the House of Commons. [ Translation ] Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that the Liberal Party will vote in favour of this bill. My colleague from Wascana once introduced a similar bill, though his was a little more vigorous than the one we are talking about today.

We are therefore very happy to support this bill. [ English ] Far be it from me to predict the voting decisions of hon. members on a private member's bill, but I will not be surprised if this bill receives the unanimous support of the House. We shall see later if this is the case. In effect, it would be difficult to oppose this proposition. Bus drivers and other public transit operators provide a valuable service for all Canadians every day. The statistics show that they are subject to much more abuse than one might expect, and certainly much more abuse than they deserve.

Therefore, it is incumbent on Parliament to take measures to help protect them. It is true that all three major parties of the House have, at one time or another, presented similar legislation in this regard. Therefore, I would be astounded if the bill did not receive overwhelming, if not unanimous, support. To provide a few of the statistics, 2,061 bus drivers were assaulted in 2011, with attacks ranging from being spit on and punched in the head to knife attacks and sexual assault.

It is partly because of the nature of their work that they are at greater risk than most because they are subject, willy-nilly, to whoever should enter their buses, taxis, ferries, or whatever means of transit. They have no control over who enters and are much more susceptible than most to this kind of attack. This is why they deserve a level of protection that is higher than that provided for most Canadians in other walks of life. It is important to indicate what exactly the bill would do.

I know the member has done so, but it would make the nature of a victim's employment as a public transit operator an aggravating circumstance which must be taken into account when a judge sentences an accused after conviction on specific Criminal Code charges. These include bodily harm, assault, aggravated assault and causing bodily harm. The definition of “public transit operator” includes not only bus drivers but also those operating taxis, trains, subways, trams and ferries. We are happy to support this proposed law.

As I indicated, the bill put forward by my colleague, the member for Wascana , was a little stronger in the sense that the fact of being a bus driver was to be an aggravating circumstance in sentencing for any crime against a bus driver no matter what the specific charge. However, that, in a sense, is a fairly small detail and the two laws are in the same spirit. We therefore are very happy to support it. As my colleague from Winnipeg North pointed out, passing this law should not be the end of our pursuit of greater fairness for bus drivers and other public transit operators.

There is scope for further actions, and a lot of those actions would probably involve more of the provincial and municipal governments than they would the federal government. At the federal level, we clearly have jurisdiction in the area of criminal law and can take this action, but also in the future the federal government could, and should, work with other levels of government to produce other measures and policy initiatives to enhance the safety and security of bus drivers. I do not think there is controversy on this, so I will not go on any longer. The Liberal Party will enthusiastically support the bill.

(1130) Mr. Gordon Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill S-221,

an act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against public transit operators) . I would like to note that the bill was introduced in the other place by Senator Bob Runciman, the senator for Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes who happens to be from my area of Ontario. The bill aims to protect transit workers who play a critical role in serving the public at large. Public transit is differentiated from other occupations by the fact that those who play a role in providing this service work with a broad spectrum of customers and are often alone with them late at night.

Due to this, they are vulnerable and, by virtue of the fact that they are operating a vehicle, will often be defenceless against attacks. The statistics on assaults have been mentioned in previous debates and in committee by numerous people. I would like to emphasize two particular statistic that summarize the unsafe work environment that these transit workers have to work in. According to the Amalgamated Transit Union, 40%, or four out of ten, of all public transit operators are assaulted on the job at some point in their career.

The Canadian Urban Transit Association reports approximately 2,000 assaults per year, which is an average of around 5 assaults per day. In addition to the detrimental effects on the victim, such attacks also threaten the safety of the general public as transit operators have responsibility for the safety of their passengers and, of course, others who are on the road. Further, these attacks have a negative impact on the transit industry financially in terms of compensation for victims and employees missing days at work. The attacks also make it difficult to recruit and retain qualified operators.

This bill would affirm the preventative purpose of criminal law through the threat of enhanced punishment and would contribute to enhanced public safety, while also having a favourable impact on the transit industry generally. Bill S-221 would create a new aggravating factor for the purposes of sentencing. The aggravating factor would only apply in respect of the following offences in the Criminal Code: uttering threats,

section 264.1; assault,

section 266; assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm,

section 267; aggravated assault,

section 268; and, unlawfully causing bodily harm,

section 269. If the victim of any one of these offences is a public transit operator engaged in the execution of his or her duties, the court must consider this an aggravating factor at sentencing. The bill includes a definition of “public transit operator”. A “public transit operator” is an individual who operates a vehicle used in the provision of passenger transportation services to the public and also includes an individual who operates a school bus. This definition, coupled with the definition of “vehicle” will capture a wide variety of circumstances.

The bill advances two fundamental sentencing objectives: deterrence and denunciation. It sends a strong message by requiring the courts to consider increased sentencing consequences for those convicted of crimes of violence committed against public transit operators while engaged in the execution of their duties. The bill states that we as a society do not tolerate such violence and that those who choose to engage in such crime will be punished in a way that properly reflects the harm they have caused.

During its study of the bill, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights examined the impact it would have in practice. Two particular issues arose are worth mentioning. The first issue is related to the proposed definition of vehicle. The bill proposes a non-exhaustive definition of “vehicle”, for the purpose of the proposed aggravating factor, as including “a bus, paratransit vehicle, licensed taxi cab, train, subway, tram and ferry”. One committee member questioned why not simply amend the definition of “motor vehicle” in

section 2 of the Criminal Code to avoid the potential confusion that may be caused by having two

definitions, one for “vehicle” and one for “motor vehicle”. The evidence given before the committee confirmed that there should be no confusion created by the proposed definition of “vehicle” found in the bill. First, the definition would only apply to the proposed

section 269.01. Second, the provision would be clear and unambiguous. It would not cause any difficulty for the courts to interpret “vehicle” as including devices that were not propelled by a motor, such as a bike-taxi or rickshaw operator. If the intent of the sponsor was to limit the application of this

section to motor powered vehicles, I believe he would have said it.

(1135) The second issue that was raised during the committee's study of the bill concerned the meaning of “engaged in the performance of his or her duty”. Let us recall that the proposed aggravating factor would apply where the victim was a public transit operator who, at the time of the commission of the offence, was engaged in the performance of his or her duty. The notion of being engaged in one's duties exists in other parts of the Criminal Code though the exact words can vary. For example, the murder of a police officer acting in the course of his or her duties is automatically first degree murder.

Similarly, it is an offence to assault a peace officer engaged in the execution of his or her duty. Existing jurisprudence interpreting these phrases would likely inform how the courts would interpret this new aggravating factor. This jurisprudence tells us that the individual must be lawfully engaged in his or her duties. In addition, one cannot simply be on duty, such that transit operators who are assaulted after signing in for their shifts prior to commencing their duties would not likely receive the benefit of the new aggravating factor.

However, it is also likely that the new factor would not be limited to situations involving the driving of the vehicle. For example, it would likely apply to situations where drivers were inspecting their vehicles prior to bringing them into service. At the end of the day, these questions of

interpretation would be addressed by the courts. Regardless of how the new provision would be interpreted, it is important to remember that the courts will retain broad discretion to determine whether any particular fact aggravates or mitigates the sentence imposed in any given case. I would like to conclude by reiterating the importance of protecting public transit workers. Operators who encounter these harmful attacks during the performance of their duties are simply trying to do their job of delivering an essential mobility service to the public.

This bill is intended to deter violent attacks on public transit operators and to increase overall safety for persons using transit services. Due to the critical importance of public transit to our communities from coast to coast to coast, as well as to our economy, I encourage all members to support Bill S-221 . I am encouraged that members from all sides of the House have risen to show their support. I encourage members to pass the bill as quickly as possible into law in order to protect transit operators.

(1140) Ms. Isabelle Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favour of Bill S-221 , a bill to amend the Criminal Code to require a court to consider as an aggravating circumstance for the purposes of sentencing the fact that the victim of an assault is a public transit operator. Public transit operators play a significant role in our daily life. Their contribution might go unnoticed, but their service is surely invaluable.

In small and big cities, Canadians count on the service of all those men and women who strive to provide the best service possible, while ensuring the well-being of passengers, pedestrians, cyclists and other motorists. [ Translation ] Because of the nature of the work they do, public transit operators are easy targets for acts of violence that can take many forms, including everything from verbal intimidation to physical abuse.

Stéphane Lachance of the Syndicat des chauffeurs, opérateurs et employés des services connexes, which is part of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, said and I quote, “Unfortunately, being a bus driver also means being a victim of violence.” I have some facts to present that clearly illustrate the scope of the problem and the need to take concrete, effective measures to contain it. In 2010, within the organizations that form the Association du transport urbain du Québec, 14.2% of workplace accidents covered by the CSST were the result of assault and acts of violence.

Also in 2010, 65 drivers from the Réseau de transport de la Capitale and 56 from the Société de transport de Laval were attacked, and in Vancouver, 150 assaults on bus drivers were reported. In 2011, 2,061 operators were assaulted in Canada. Assaults included everything from getting spit on, being hit over the head and having boiling water thrown at them to being threatened with a knife and even sexually assaulted. In July 2014 in Cambridge, a driver was even threatened by a young man carrying a samurai sword. That speaks volumes about the kind of problem we are dealing with.

In Ottawa in 2012, OC Transpo reported 62 incidents of violence committed against its operators. Also in 2012, 66 acts of violence against bus drivers were reported in Montreal. According to health and safety experts, only 25% of violent acts are reported. In 2013 in Kelowna, a woman stabbed an operator with a syringe, so now that driver will have to be tested for hepatitis C for the rest of his life. I could list of all the attempted murders and assaults with a weapon, which unfortunately have become all too common for bus drivers. Furthermore, subway and taxi operators also face the same risks.

I am glad that the member opposite included taxi drivers in this bill. Marc-André Coulombe, president of Taxi Québec, said: Not a week goes by that I do not hear about an attack or a scuffle. However, most drivers do not report it. This is a big problem. As a Liberal member was saying, taxi and bus drivers confirm that this is a reality of their job.

This is what Robin West, International Vice President of the Amalgamated Transit Union, said during his testimony to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs: It is a sad reality that most public transit operators have experienced the indignity of being spat on, have been punched in the head, or they know a colleague who has been subjected to a knife attack, been stomped upon or sexually assaulted...many suffer physical and emotional injuries that are life-threatening and career-ending. That was the case for Mr.

Bouzid, an Algerian engineer, Montreal taxi driver and father of three, who was killed in cold blood while on the job. I would like to take a moment to note that many taxi drivers in my riding and elsewhere are from an immigrant minority and have excellent qualifications from their homelands, but cannot pursue a career in their field because they cannot get their credentials recognized here. These highly qualified, university-trained immigrants have a very hard time integrating into the labour market.

I would like to take this opportunity to call on the appropriate authorities to correct this problem, which affects a large part of the immigrant population and remains a major hindrance to their emancipation. These taxi and bus drivers are facing problems on the job. Mr. Bouzid's murder may be an extreme case, but attacks in taxis are not so rare. This is a recurring problem. To deal with this type of appalling crime, it is essential that judges be equipped with the right tools so that they can hand down appropriate sentences and deterrents are strengthened.

Unions and associations that represent bus and taxi drivers have been calling for better protection for their members for many years. The government needs to always be listening to the professionals in this sector and has a duty to ensure the safety of everyone employed in this area and to protect them when they are working. By making the assault on a public transit operator an aggravating circumstance for the purposes of sentencing, we will be sending a strong and unequivocal message that such crimes are not tolerated.

These measures will help reduce the number of assaults on public transit operators and will curb the increase in this very disturbing phenomenon, which is of particular concern to transit professionals. (1145) [ English ] New Democrats believe that Canada must invest in the well-being of all public transit operators, and this will only be possible if we can ensure a safe and secure environment in their workplace. Indeed, protecting mass transit operators has always been a priority for the NDP, a duty that is incumbent upon us to uphold as much as possible.

In this regard, the NDP has already tabled many private members' bills that sought to extend further protections to public transit operators by imposing greater punishment for the offence of aggravated assault when public transportation workers were the victims. Even though the bill under examination was tabled by another political party, we are ready to take a constructive approach to allow for the necessary changes to be implemented in order to help these workers significantly.

This is because the NDP has the public transit operators' interests at heart. [ Translation ] I would like to point out that these new provisions have been favourably received by a number of unions in this sector, including the Syndicat de la STM, which represents bus drivers. I would just like to quote Stéphane Lachance, the union spokesperson: We applaud the initiative and will work with partners who want...increased protection for transit workers. We hope that the deterrent effect of such a law will be felt quickly and that we will see a significant decrease in assaults in our network.

NDP members are proud to support the demands of the associations and unions that represent public transit workers because the NDP has made the needs and interests of public transit workers one of its top priorities. Therefore, I join my colleagues in supporting this bill, and I hope that it will be passed and written into law as soon as possible. [ English ] The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : I invite the hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East to exercise his right of reply. He has up to five minutes. Mr. Corneliu Chisu (Pickering—Scarborough East, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, many people have put countless hours of hard work into this file. I cannot possibly convey my thanks to them all in a short five minutes; however, there are a few I would like to mention in the time I have. Once again I would like to thank Senator Runciman and his staff for all their hard work on Bill S-221 . I want to express thanks as well for the support that we have received from not only the opposition across the way but also from the various transit organizations across the country, some of whom are looking on here today.

They have been very supportive and integral in getting this piece of sound legislation passed. Bill S-221 would amend the Criminal Code to create a new aggravating factor for the sentencing of offenders convicted of uttering threats, any of the three assault offences, or unlawfully causing bodily harm to transit operators. This would cause those who would do harm to our public transit operators to think twice before they engage in the reckless and dangerous assault of our bus drivers, subway conductors, taxi drivers, et cetera.

Ensuring these PTOs are safe is the first step in ensuring that the public using these methods of transport are also safe, as well as those on our streets, bike lanes, and sidewalks. In conclusion, I would like to encourage all hon. members to pass the bill as soon as possible, and if possible today.

(1150) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. (Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

Suspension of Sitting The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : It being 11:52 a.m., the House will stand suspended until noon. We will pick up government orders at that time. (The sitting of the House was suspended at 11:52 a.m.)

Sitting Resumed (The House resumed at 12 p.m.) GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders (1200) [ English ] Rail Service Resumption Act, 2015 Hon. Chris Alexander (for the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) moved: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, a bill in the name of the Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women, entitled

An Act to provide for the resumption of rail service operations, shall be disposed of as follows: (

a) the said bill may be read twice or thrice in one sitting; (

b) not more than two hours shall be allotted for the consideration of the second reading stage of the said bill, following the adoption of this Order; (

c) when the bill has been read a second time, it shall be referred to a Committee of the Whole; (

d) any division requested in the Committee shall be deferred until the end of the Committee’s consideration of the bill; (

e) not more than one hour shall be allotted for the consideration of the Committee of the Whole stage of the said bill; (

f) not more than one half-hour shall be allotted for the consideration of the third reading stage of the said bill, provided that no Member shall speak for more than ten minutes at a time during the said stage and that no period for questions and comments be permitted following each Member’s speech; (

g) at the expiry of the time provided for in this Order, any proceedings before the House or the Committee of the Whole shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the stage then under consideration, of the said bill shall be put and disposed of forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, and no division shall be deferred; (

h) when the Speaker has, for the purposes of this Order, interrupted any proceeding for the purpose of putting forthwith the question on any business then before the House, the bells to call in the Members shall be sounded for not more than thirty minutes; (

i) commencing when the said bill is read a first time and concluding when the said bill is read a third time, the House shall not adjourn except pursuant to a motion proposed by a Minister of the Crown; (

j) no motion to adjourn the debate at any stage of the said bill may be proposed except by a Minister of the Crown; and (

k) during the consideration of the said bill in the Committee of the Whole, no motion that the Committee rise or that the Committee report progress may be proposed except by a Minister of the Crown. Hon. K. Kellie Leitch (Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women, CPC) Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask members of the House to expedite the passage of a

an act to provide for the resumption of rail service operations . Today, we are experiencing a work stoppage at Canadian Pacific Railway that will have a significant impact on our Canadian economy. Canadian employees, members of the public, international trade, and our national economy will suffer. Our economy has faced challenging times since the recession. However, we have stood out among leading industrial countries. Our government is proud of its record of protecting Canadians from the worst effects of the economic downturn and of laying the foundation for recovery.

The Canadian economy still faces risks from global factors that we cannot control. A disruption of rail services could lead to job losses and poses a great risk to the Canadian economy. A work stoppage will only further exacerbate the uncertainty of our economic state and further complicate an already complex situation. In Canada, we have a large and well developed rail system that carries freight to all parts of the country. Rail is a vital part of the Canadian economy. It is an extension of our communities and their links to industry and resources, and it is part of our link to the world.

Our rail system is complex. It interconnects a wide range of businesses, including shippers, terminal operators, transloaders, port operators, shipping lines, and trucking, all of which are part of a very complex and complicated supply chain. Railway transportation is a backbone of an integrated supply chain that moves Canada's resources all over the globe. Problems occurring in one part of the chain can affect all stakeholders. There is a domino effect.

Something that happens on the ground in British Columbia can have an impact on someone living in Ontario, and this can have an impact on tens of thousands of Canadian jobs. CP plays a critical role in our economy, with its network spanning Canada and the United States. As the second largest rail freight service provider in Canada, CP has nearly 15,500 employees. CP Rail's network spans approximately 22,000 kilometres from Port Metro Vancouver to the Port of Montreal, and to parts of the U.S. northwest and midwest. In 2013, CP generated $6.1 billion in revenue, an increase of about 8% and a company record.

CP transports seven commodity groups: industrial and consumer products, containers, grain, coal, fertilizer, sulphur, and automotive products. CP provides its customers, Canadians, the ability to trade with many partners across the country and around the globe. This allows us to employ thousands of Canadians. Maintaining an effective supply chain is critical to meeting the government's objectives related to strategic gateways and trade corridors, such as the Asia-Pacific gateway.

The 21 members economies of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation group account for almost 2.8 billion people, over half of the world's GDP, and in excess of 80% of Canada's total merchandise trade. Canada is a trading nation and CP plays a critical role in North America's supply chain for moving goods to and from Canadian, U.S., and international markets. This strike could have a detrimental effect on Canada's reputation as a reliable trading partner. It could have lasting effects on an already uncertain economy and, most importantly, on Canadian businesses and jobs.

It could have an impact on communities who rely on rail services for certain goods. I have received letters from many people, such as Spectra Energy, urging the federal government not to hesitate to take action to ensure a quick resolution to this dispute. Spectra Energy provides a number of natural gas liquids, such as propane, butane, and ethane, all of which are supplied by rail to key markets in Canada and the U.S. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians rely on their products for heat and power.

Without the ability to transport the product to residential and commercial customers, including hospitals, I can tell members that it would be catastrophic. Standing on the ground without heat in a hospital is something I cannot imagine. The Propane Gas Association of Canada has urged that rail delivery of propane gas should be declared an essential service, since rail is the only effective means of transportation and propane is essential for heating homes and businesses.

Teck, Canada's largest diversified mining company has sent me a letter, stating that “...if a strike at CP or CN occurs, we urge that the Government take early action by exercising the legislative measures available to you, including the imposition of back-to-work legislation and binding arbitration.”

(1205) Teck's products represent one-third of our bulk exports going through the Port of Vancouver. Teck is the single largest Canadian exporter to Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Brazil. On a global scale, the implications of a rail disruption are grave.

Teck further states that “...rail disruptions can cause serious harm to the Canadian economy and reputation and hurt our competitiveness as international customers are forced to look elsewhere to import goods.” A work stoppage by CP could also have an adverse impact on the movement of grain, which is only now returning to normal conditions following last year's backlog. As members may recall, last March our government introduced an order in council to ensure that the supply chain operated effectively to deliver Canadian grain to market.

The strike is causing a setback and it could take months to recover the lost business and lost investments. Without CP Rail operating, our ability to move freight is more limited. This strike in rail transportation in Canada will have such an important impact on so many individuals and industries that the cumulative effects could be immense. However, it is not just the industries that use railways. The railways also provide the tracks for commuters in our cities, particularly Montreal in this case. A strike creates slowdowns and congestion, decreasing productivity and impacting hundreds of Canadians.

Over the past few years our government has been taking all necessary steps to protect Canadians from the worst effects of the economic downturn, but the work stoppage at CP, especially in our current economic reality, will have devastating effects on many workers and their families: those directly involved in the railway, and the tens of thousands of Canadians who rely on rail not only for product but also to get to work. We are not just talking just about the CP employees but the hundreds of thousands of Canadians whose livelihoods depend on the goods carried by rail.

It is clear that we parliamentarians have an important role to play in putting an end to a situation that could negatively impact our economy and the well-being of Canadians. Our economy must be protected. Our products must reach markets. Canadian jobs must be preserved. As we can see, rail transportation is key to maintaining our country's economic growth. Canadians and businesses count on us to make tough decisions like this one. We are doing this for the good of our country and the good of Canadian citizens.

I am happy to report that the Canadian National Railway and the TCRC, and CP and Unifor were able to reach agreements to renew their collective agreements. I am optimistic that these agreements will be ratified. (1210) [ Translation ] It is true that it would be preferable for the parties to resolve their differences on their own. [ English ] Our government would like nothing more than to see these parties, the CP and TCRC, reach an agreement on their own, because the best solution is the one the parties reach themselves.

We have offered dispute resolution assistance to the parties, provided through the Canada Labour Code, but to no avail. The services and mediators of the Federal Mediation and Conciliatory Service are still available to help CP and the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference in their negotiations. In fact, I know they have been continuing to work with them, even today. On several occasions, I too have met in person and talked by phone with the former and current presidents of the union and the CEO of CP. As early as November and December last year, I was expressing my expectations for the current round of bargaining.

More recently, in Montreal over the course of Friday and Saturday, I have been encouraging these individuals to reach a negotiated settlement, because the best solution is always the one the parties reach themselves. If they cannot reach an agreement, I have asked them to go to voluntary arbitration to resolve their outstanding issues. Indeed, last Friday, I went to Montreal and continued to work with them, this time actually at the bargaining table. I continued to express my desire for them to reach a negotiated settlement, and failing that, agreeing to voluntary arbitration. Thus far they have not.

We feel that the parties have had ample time to reach a negotiated agreement. At this point, I have to be honest, the parties are not close to a deal. For every day of a work stoppage, our economy and trade relationships will be further undermined. The cost to our economy will be enormous, an estimated $205 million decline in GDP per week. Therefore, I ask my fellow members to stand up for Canadians and Canadian businesses and pass this bill to resume operations at CP Rail. I can assure the House that our government will continue to focus on the growth and sustainability of our economy.

Rail services must continue so that Canadian businesses and, more importantly, Canadian families can continue to be safe and prosper. [ Translation ] Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am appalled that we are once again debating a bill that violates the rights of this country's workers. Could the Minister of Labour explain why the Conservatives are once again taking a sledgehammer to unions and workers and taking away their ability to exert pressure? My question is simple: does the right to strike still exist in Canada? [ English ] Hon. K. Kellie Leitch : Mr.

Speaker, our government has been very clear. The economy is extremely important. It is in fact our top priority. These parties have been given ample opportunity. As I mentioned in my speech, starting as early as November and December of last year, both parties were provided assistance, conciliators and mediators through the Federal Mediation and Conciliatory Service, to come to a negotiated agreement that both parties could live with on their job sites. As recently as this weekend, I was in Montreal working with the parties to try to reach an agreement.

As I said, because CN and the Teamsters and CP and Unifor worked hard with the Federal Mediation and Conciliatory Service, they came to an agreement. The best agreement is one they reach themselves. In this case, we have not been able to resolve the disputes and in the best interest of the Canadian public and the Canadian economy, we will be moving forward to make sure that CP Rail is back in action.

(1215) Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the minister is missing a large element here: this is about security and safety. For two years the government has been warned repeatedly by the Auditor General, the Transportation Safety Board, and other voices, including the Teamsters and other union groups, that there are problems with the safety and security of rail in Canada. We know on this side of the House that the government has spent more money on advertising its economic action plan than on rail safety for the past five years. We know that.

The government cannot deny it because the numbers do not lie. It is the government's responsibility to address the serious safety issue of adequate rest for railway operators. That would have prevented this CP Rail strike. It is its responsibility to establish rest periods for railway workers to ensure the safety of Canada's railways and the communities that our railways travel through. Railway employees have been asking the Minister of Labour , the government, as well as the transport minister, for safe working conditions. It is the government's obligation.

It has been warned, forewarned, and warned again, and the result of the failure to take serious action on rail safety is the two parties with seemingly irreconcilable differences. Can the minister explain to Canadians who are watching and following this debate why her government has not taken measures to prevent this draconian legislation being brought forward? Hon. K. Kellie Leitch : Mr. Speaker, having spent a significant amount of time with both parties, I can say that there are a number of issues still on the table, as both parties would state. There are numerous issues on the table.

With respect to rail safety, our government has taken action. In fact, we have moved forward with putting in place a number of legislated and regulatory directions to ensure that rail transportation in this country is safe. We take that exceptionally seriously. I encourage the opposition to support those initiatives so that individuals working with and impacted by the railway are safe. Speaking about the public interest, another significant part of the public interest is the economy and making sure that Canadians have an opportunity to work.

The shutdown of rail services by Canadian Pacific will have a $205 million impact on our GDP per week. In addition to that, it is not just about the jobs that are impacted directly at CP but also the individuals working in other industries who now cannot ship their goods. Individuals who work in tech industries or otherwise might be out of work. Quite frankly, commuters in Montreal, I can tell members, are not pleased they will not be able to get to work, and this will affect productivity. There are a number of issues on the table, as both parties would admit.

I am hopeful that they will come to a resolution, because the best option is always when the parties reach an agreement together. Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie , has said very eloquently, the issue of the right for collective negotiations is something we on this side of the House believe is fundamental. The Supreme Court, in its admonishment to the government a couple of weeks ago on the right to strike, has agreed with the idea that in a free democracy there should be the right to collective negotiations.

This is a problem of the government's own making. We have seen steadily increasing incidences and accidents in rail safety. A number of organized men and women have come forward and said that one of the main aspects they have to tackle is the issue of crew fatigue. The incredibly archaic way that the crew schedules are sometimes put together means that they have to deal with crew fatigue. As we saw last night on the news, there are crews, who after working a shift for a number of hours are called back to work early in the morning after an hour's sleep.

The issue of crew fatigue is something that most Canadians are aware of, and most Canadians understand that we need to have the utmost standards of rail safety. However, the government has done nothing to bring in regulations to govern working hours so that we can diminish crew fatigue, and it has done no review of the Rail Safety Act. Why has the government not acted on regulation, not acted on the Rail Safety Act, not acted to put in place the kind of regulation that would bring about a lower rate of accidents in a rail system, rather than a higher level?

(1220) Hon. K. Kellie Leitch : First, Mr. Speaker, let me correct the record. We are reviewing the decision taken at the Supreme Court, but it had to deal with the Government of Saskatchewan. It was about essential services, and that is not what we are discussing today. We are discussing making sure that CP Rail continues to function so that Canadians are protected. I want to be very clear that the decision dealt with the Province of Saskatchewan, not the Government of Canada. With respect to the issues, as I just mentioned in response to a previous question, these parties have numerous issues on the table.

We have been working with them since November 2014, providing mediation, conciliatory services, and making sure they were supported as best they could be to deal with the numerous issues on the table. Some progress was made on some issues; progress was not made on many issues. Having sat with these parties through several days of bargaining recently, it is my opinion they would not resolve their differences. In the interests of the Canadian public, the Canadian economy, I think it is now time for the Government of Canada to act in the best interests of Canadians. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, the minister made reference to the fact that the government has been in negotiations, attempting to try to assist in mediation, since November 2014. Can the minister give an indication as to when she would have informed either party, or one particular party, as to the government's intentions with regard to back-to-work legislation? When was that issue first raised with either CP management or the union side? Hon. K. Kellie Leitch : Mr. Speaker, as I just mentioned, we have been working with these parties, both CP as well as the Teamsters, since November, providing conciliation and mediation services.

I was sitting with the parties up until the deadline of when the strike action could be taken. We were very clear: If they were unable to get to an agreement themselves, would they consider voluntary arbitration or mediated arbitration? Those offers were provided to the parties. One of the parties was willing to do that; another party was not willing and decided to strike. I worked with them up until the very last minute, quite frankly, including yesterday and continuing today. As I said, the best agreement is one that the parties come to themselves.

I have encouraged them, even in this period of time when the TCRC is on strike, to continue to speak to each other to see if they can come to an agreement. That is in their best interests, and I think the very best result. That being said, if these parties are unable to come to that negotiated agreement that is in their best interests, working together with the help of Canadian mediators from Labour Canada, we will act, and we will act swiftly this afternoon, in the interests of the Canadian public and the Canadian economy. A hit of $205 million per week to the Canadian GDP is simply too much.

Canadians losing their jobs is too much. We will act. [ Translation ] Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it saddens me once again today to rise in the House, in the Parliament of Canada, to oppose a bill. I rise as a member of the official opposition to represent the values of the NDP, which is opposing a back-to-work bill for the seventh time since the Conservatives took power in 2006. This government is certainly a repeat offender when it comes to attacking workers, violating their legitimate rights and preventing them from exerting pressure, which includes going on strike.

In 2007 we had Bill C-46 for the continuation of railway operations, so this is not the first time. In 2009 we had Bill C-61 for the continuation of railway operations once again. In 2011 it was Bill C-6 to restore mail delivery. That bill targeted postal workers and letter carriers. Also in 2011 was Bill C-5 to continue air service for passengers. Then we had Bill C-39 and Bill C-33 in 2012, when the Conservatives once again created a power imbalance between the parties.

They systematically took the employer's side and took away fundamental rights from unionized workers, who are well within their rights to exert pressure. I asked the minister a question earlier that I believe is the key issue we are concerned about: do people still have the right to strike and use pressure tactics in Canada today? Does this Conservative government recognize that striking is a legitimate way of expressing the right of association and freedom of collective bargaining? The Conservatives seem to be completely ignoring that aspect, and I will come back to that later.

The Supreme Court's recent decision has once again upheld this right that the Conservatives have been flouting, year after year, in Canada. We have reached a point where workers have to ask themselves whether they will be bothering anyone if they exercise their right to strike. Will the government systematically intervene and break the rules to give the employer more power and additional arguments? The situation is always the same.

If the employer knows for sure that it does not really have to reach an agreement because its friends in the Conservative government will intervene, violate rights and prevent its workers from striking, then what incentive does the employer have to negotiate in good faith and try to find a solution? That is the major problem. (1225) [ English ] They should give negotiation a chance. We have a Conservative government that is always on the side of the employers and never on the side of the workers of this country.

Workers have a fundamental right to exert economic pressure and strike if they need to in order to force employers to recognize problems and find solutions. The minister just said that a negotiated deal is always better than an imposition of anything. Why is she imposing back-to-work legislation again and again? It is the seventh time that the Conservatives would do that since they were elected in 2006. It is a bad habit that they have; they take a side every time and break the balance of power between the two parties. We are saying to give the workers a chance to negotiate and to exert their rights.

The Minister of Labour just said that the recent decision of the Supreme Court had nothing to do with the right to strike. I contradict that. I have a quote from a Supreme Court judge in that decision from a few weeks ago. Judge Abella wrote the following: Where good faith negotiations break down, the ability to engage in the collective withdrawal of services is a necessary component of the process through which workers can continue to participate meaningfully in the pursuit of their collective workplace goals.

In this case, the suppression of the right to strike amounts to a substantial interference with the right to a meaningful process of collective bargaining. This is exactly what the decision of the Supreme Court is about. It is about the fundamental right of workers to exert some pressure on an employer to improve their working conditions. If those workers are refused the right to strike, that is an interference of their fundamental rights. This is exactly what the Conservative government is doing, again and again. It is a sad day. The right to strike in this country is under attack.

Unions were considered illegal organizations before 1872. We are asking whether the government wants to go back to that point in time. Every time that it can crush workers and their unions, the government does it systematically. It has done it with Bill C-525 , Bill C-377 , and Bill C-4 , other attacks on health and safety issues. It is a sad day for democracy. It is a sad day for the workers of this country. It is a sad day for the labour movement. Workers can count on the NDP to defend their rights because we will protect the freedom of negotiation and collective bargaining.

This is a value that we on this side of the House cherish and care about. Workers know that in a few months they will have the opportunity to have the first social democrat, pro-union, pro-worker, government in this country. It is coming. (1230) [ Translation ] I would like to reiterate that the labour minister told us that the Supreme Court's recent decision had nothing to do with exerting economic pressure or the right to strike.

However, Justice Abella indicated in the ruling given a few weeks ago that the suppression of the right to strike interferes with the right to a meaningful process of collective bargaining, a process that provides an opportunity to get results. In this case, it is extremely dangerous for the entire labour movement and for all workers to have a government that systematically takes the employer's side and tramples on workers' rights. [ English ] It is critical with the CP issue, and when there is a threat of back-to-work legislation hanging over their heads, to ask why the employer would negotiate in good faith.

The employer knows it has good friends in power in Ottawa. The government will be on the employer's side and will force workers to go back to work. There is no reason for the employer to negotiate and look for a compromise. Our concern is also the safety issue that is on the table for Canadian Pacific workers. It is a safety issue for everybody in this country: for the workers, first and foremost, of course, but also for everybody else. It is a question of the hours of work being too long, and extreme fatigue. We are talking about conductors who are driving freight trains that can be four kilometres long.

We can imagine the consequences if the conductor is too tired to be aware of the dangers or everything that is going on. This is not only the vision of the union. It is a problem that has been recognized by Transport Canada, and even by the companies. Transport Canada's own analysis of CP and CN employee scheduling records, from six different rail terminals across Canada, concluded that on the timing and length of each shift, assigned through an unpredictable on-call system, extreme fatigue was rampant.

In 4% of cases, employees were already extremely fatigued at the start of their shift because they did not have enough hours to sleep. It is a shame. The government is not acting to correct that situation. Canadians should know that their safety is being put at risk by the government. We want that to change. Forty-five percent of employees became extremely exhausted during work, and nearly all, 99%, were fatigued at least once during a month. It was the same problem, the same issue, three years ago when employees of CP went on strike for a couple of days.

After that, of course the Conservative government came here to vote on back-to-work legislation. The workers at that time were promised that the situation would be fixed: “Do not go on strike, we will negotiate and fix it.” However, three years later, it is the same story. The same problems are still there. Extreme fatigue is still a problem for members of the Teamsters who are working for CP. Nothing has changed. We are back here again in the House of Commons, talking about back-to-work legislation. My guess is that in three years we will be back again, because the issue will still not have been solved.

There is no incentive for CP to solve the problem. The Conservatives are not helping. The Minister of Labour is not helping. (1235) [ Translation ] I think it is worth repeating, because the main issue in dispute here is not that workers want higher pay or want to extort more money from their employer. This is not about money. Incidentally, Canadian Pacific is an extremely profitable company. It has nothing to complain about; business is good. The discussions and debates are really about a matter of public safety.

People need to be aware of that, because this is about the problem of too much overtime and the fatigue this causes. Canadian Pacific workers, the train operators, are not getting the rest they need, which leads to extreme fatigue. What do the workers want? To be able to stop working and go home after 10 hours of work. All they are asking for is to not work more than 10 hours. What is this, the 19th century? Right now, train conductors have to work up to 12 hours straight before they can get a real rest. This is 2015; this is shameful. This Conservative government is doing nothing.

In fact, it is actually helping rail companies perpetuate this practice. Consider the potential consequences if a conductor driving a four-kilometre-long train is tired, does not have the necessary reflexes, and is unable to read the terrain or the dangers up ahead. Recent tragedies have shown us how important rail safety is. Everyone needs to know that this is a public safety issue and that the Conservatives are doing nothing about it. A few minutes ago, I said that three years ago, CP workers, Teamsters members, went on strike for a few days on the issue of fatigue on the job and lack of breaks.

The Conservative government forced them back to work. They were told not to worry, that this would be resolved, that there would be negotiations and recommendations would be made. Nothing was done. Today, in 2015, three years later, these same workers are going back on strike on the same issue of fatigue at work because nothing has been resolved. Now, we have another bill that is going to force them back to work again. Should we allow the Conservatives to remain in power, I would not be surprised if people have to deal with a CP strike in three years.

Unfortunately, if the Conservatives are still in power, they will again force them to go back to work. However, even Transport Canada recognized the issue of workplace fatigue for train conductors. It is not the Teamsters, the union, the CLC, but Transport Canada that is talking about this. Investigations of six different train terminals across the country led Transport Canada to conclude that the problem of extreme fatigue was rampant across Canada.

In 4% of cases, employees are even extremely fatigued at the start of their shift, at the start of their work day, because they often do not get enough rest between two shifts. Fully 45% of employees are extremely tired or even exhausted while on the job. Forty-five per cent. Almost everyone, 99% according to Transport Canada, is tired at least once a month. That has an impact on the workers. Obviously, it is bad for their health, their family life and their work. It puts everyone at risk. The NDP does not want train conductors to experience fatigue at work. That is basic and straightforward.

We do not understand why the Conservatives are still refusing to resolve this issue. Even our neighbours to the south, the United States, where private enterprise is king and people despise regulations, have more regulations governing hours of work for rail company employees than we do. That is bizarre. Why have the Conservatives never managed to fix this problem? We do not understand, but it puts huge swaths of our communities at risk. Over the past five years, there have been at least seven accidents that, thankfully, did not cost any lives, but that happened because train conductors were tired at work.

This is a real problem. We have to find a solution, but we will not find a solution by preventing workers from exercising their right to take job action or go on strike. We know that because this is like groundhog day: it is the same old story over and over again. (1240) [ English ] I want to emphasize the fact that it is a real problem. The extreme fatigue of CP workers is real. Transport Canada has revealed that in the last five years, at least seven accidents or incidents were caused by fatigue of drivers or conductors of those trains. It is a real problem, but the government has no solution.

Its only way to act is always ideological, always against unions, always against workers and against the safety of Canadians. It is really sad. It is another case of the Conservatives going against international law. There is a labour organization in Switzerland that recognized that the right to strike is a fundamental right in modern societies. Once again, the government is going against the last decision of the Supreme Court and against international law. On this side of the House, we think that workers can organize, defend their rights, and improve their working conditions.

It is not the job of the government to oppose that, because it helps to build better communities. We always hear the Conservatives talk about the middle class and how they will defend the little guys of the middle class, but the middle class is, for the most part, a creation of the labour movement in this country and in all countries. Without the labour movement we would have no middle class. If we want to defend the middle class, we must give the workers the tools to negotiate, to gain something in collective agreements, and to make sure that they are working in safe places.

We must make sure that we do not put the safety of citizens of this country at risk. [ Translation ] Not only is the current federal government going against the Supreme Court's recent decision in the Saskatchewan case, but it is also going against regulations of the Geneva-based International Labour Organization, which considers the right to strike and the right to free collective bargaining to be fundamental.

However, this is not surprising coming from an extremely ideological Conservative government that always responds in the same way when Canadian workers try to exercise their rights and improve their working conditions. This government pulls out the big guns and beats them back, telling them to shut up and get back to work. It does not want to listen to them; they are annoying. What is important to this government is that companies continue to rake in profits, regardless of how or why and regardless of the rules, even if it makes people sick.

The Conservatives often like to say they are standing up for the middle class. However, the middle class is mainly a creation and a consequence of union struggles by workers who got organized, defended themselves at their workplace and negotiated better collective agreements. If we are talking about the middle class, we must also talk about the tools that workers created to improve their situation. The NDP will always be there to stand up for workers and their families, for workplace health and safety and for public safety.

Unfortunately, again today, we see that the Conservative government is violating workers' rights and putting public safety at risk. I hope that all of us in the House will oppose this back-to-work bill—yet another one—and stand up not only for workers, but also for the middle class and public safety. (1245) [ English ] Mr. Bev Shipley (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting discussion we are having today, particularly the one that we just heard. I noticed a lot of focus on rights. One thing I never heard, though, was a reference to rights in conjunction with responsibilities.

The other focus was on 10 hours of work. It is interesting that nurses in Ontario work 12-hour shifts saving lives, and we do not hear about these issues from our nurses. Their standard hours are 12-hour shifts, although they do not work every day of the week. With respect to the time, the discussions and negotiations started back in November, about three and a half months ago. Where I come from in Ontario, agriculture and the auto industry are the largest industries. The rail system is used to move grain out west and to bring in fertilizers and potash. The auto industry hires tens of thousands of workers.

How do those members feel when those plants shut down and union workers do not have work? Hospitals in most places up north require the rail system to deliver propane and fuel to run them. How does the member feel knowing that the north does not have the energy to run them, especially on a day like today when it is so cold? I wonder how the member feels about those union workers who do not have a job but likely do have health concerns. How does the NDP plan on telling all these— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie . Mr. Alexandre Boulerice : Mr.

Speaker, there are very many misconceptions on the Conservative side. It is terrific. Only someone who knows almost nothing about labour relations and collective negotiations could say things like that. Oh, my God. The member said that the workers have negotiated for three months and that is long enough. No, it is not. It takes time, and we have to give them time. The two sides at the table need a balanced position of power, and right now the Conservative government is taking one side. It is breaking the balance of labour relations in this country.

The workers have not even been on strike for 48 hours, yet the Conservatives claim it is too long. The workers have some rights and should be able to exert pressure on their employer, and the reason is public safety. [ Translation ] Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague. I really appreciated his comments. He just said that this is about employees exerting pressure on their employer.

However, is the real issue that we are debating in the House today not the role that the federal government plays as the regulatory authority in Canada, with responsibility for the safety of our rail industry? Is this really about pressure between two parties? Is that not exactly what the Conservative government would have us believe? Does it not want us to see these differences as just disputes between two parties?

The government is trying to distract us so that it does not have to justify the fact that for nearly five years now, it has not invested as it should have in the inspectors, inspections, controls and staff required by the Department of Transport. That is the major challenge we are facing today. Mr. Alexandre Boulerice : Mr. Speaker, I see where my colleague from the second opposition party is going with his question. However, the issue today is that the Conservative government is taking a stance against the rights of workers to negotiate and engage in free collective bargaining.

That said, he raised an interesting point, which is that the Conservative government could have been proactive and ensured that there were good working conditions in the rail network. That is true. That does not prevent us from rising today and doing our job to defend workers and their fundamental rights, which were recognized in the Supreme Court's recent ruling.

However, if the Conservatives had wanted to help CP and CN train conductors, they could have taken action years ago and looked at what is being done in the United States to give these workers decent hours to avoid extreme fatigue, which puts everyone in danger. (1250) [ English ] Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that a number of years ago the rail system brought in the safety management system, which is self-reporting.

The Lewis report, an independent study commissioned by the Conservative government, outlined how members of CP and CN rail felt the culture of fear to report safety and hazardous conditions that they and their colleagues faced on the job. Could my colleague address the issue of the culture of a self-regulatory system? [ Translation ] Mr. Alexandre Boulerice : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Windsor West for his excellent question. This Conservative government really deregulated a huge number of sectors.

Companies now have to inspect themselves and send their own reports about how nice they are and how well they treat everyone to the federal government. This is a real problem because it is completely biased. My colleague was right when he said that the people who work for these companies now feel completely abandoned because there is no independent third party to visit the workplace and see if the company's claims are true. We need a tougher regulatory system with real inspections. We need people who do not work for the company to be the ones writing the reports.

Otherwise, of course they are going to make themselves look good. This culture of fear and bullying in the workplace is a direct consequence of the Conservatives' bad decisions. Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his excellent speech. He is doing a great job as the NDP labour critic. We just had a derailment in Nickel Belt , on Saturday night if I am not mistaken. I cannot say exactly what caused it at this point, because we do not know yet. However, there was also a derailment in western Canada just a few days ago.

The young woman who was in charge of the train has been subjected to disciplinary measures. She said she did not receive any training. This is happening more and more. Companies like CN and CP are not required to train their employees because the government will protect those companies. Training comes with contract negotiations, which take a really long time. Right now in my riding, Nickel Belt , negotiations are under way with Vale. They began three months ago and will continue for another three or four months. However, the Conservatives are not giving the two parties a chance to negotiate.

In his role as the NDP labour critic, I wonder if the member could talk about what we could do better, besides getting rid of the Conservatives in 2015. Mr. Alexandre Boulerice : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Nickel Belt for that great question. Indeed, getting rid of the Conservatives is a good place to start. After that, we have to have an NDP government that will be able to respect the unions. The 4 million people in the country who are members of a union make unions the greatest strength of civil society and the largest democratic movement in the country right now.

We must respect that and avoid upsetting the balance of power during collective agreement negotiations. We have to allow them to come to an agreement. The government must not attack the workers yet again. My colleague from Nickel Belt mentioned the train derailment that occurred in his region on the weekend. Fortunately, no one was hurt. Extremely heavy and very long trains and locomotives cross through all of our communities, towns and villages. We need to have the strictest rail safety measures, because this is very dangerous.

The Conservative government is twiddling its thumbs and letting the companies do what they want so that they can make us much profit as possible. This jeopardizes the safety of Canadians. An NDP government would take the necessary measures to enhance rail safety and to provide good working conditions to the employees. (1255) [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent of the House to split the time with the member for Ottawa Centre . The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux : Mr.

Speaker, I have a bit of a bias in the sense of my family background and history in the CN yards in the Transcona area. Today I represent an area just north of the CP tracks. The railway lines have played a very important role, not only in my life but in all our lives, either directly or indirectly. The government needs to be held accountable for its lack of attention to our rail lines as a whole. What we are debating today is most unfortunate. We in the Liberal Party do not support the government's proposed initiative for good reason. It is very critical to acknowledge this.

When we think of strikes and the important role unions play in today's society, we cannot underestimate how important it is that there is a sense of fairness when it comes to negotiations. However, that has been absent with the government, which is why asked the minister when she first raised the issue of back-to-work legislation. The minister talked about the federal government being involved back in November 2014. There is no doubt in my mind that the government's intention from the get-go was that it would bring in back-to-work legislation virtually at the beck and call of one side over another.

If we were to canvass the thousands of CP workers, I do not think they would respond that they thought the government was approaching this issue in a fair fashion. We see this today with the legislation that is to be brought forward. There was reference made to the labour issues a few years ago with CP. I had the opportunity to walk with some of the workers three years ago in Winnipeg North. Many of the concerns they expressed to me back then are still there today.

I have heard this spoken of in some of the debate that has already taken place today, whether from my colleague for Ottawa Centre , who talked about the issue of fatigue, regulations and safety, as well as other members who also emphasized the importance of fatigue. When we talk about labour negotiations, it is not all about money. There is a genuine concern that many CP workers have with respect to safety, and they want the Government of Canada to step up and take its responsibility more seriously.

There are certain industries in Canada where there is a need for government, at different levels, to be more directly involved. A good example of that is long-haul truck driving. Regulations are put in place to not only to protect the industry, but to protect the community as a whole and to assist the Canadian economy. There is a need for government to recognize that fact. The Prime Minister does not seem to understand the importance of Ottawa having a role to play. A good example of that was back in January or February of last year.

During question period I stood in my place and was critical of the government because it had dropped the ball in getting prairie wheat to the market. We had piles of wheat in our prairie fields, and we had empty ships in the Pacific Ocean waiting to be filled with that wheat. What did the government ultimately do? It took months for the Conservatives to realize that they needed to take some action, and then they came up with some sort of a penalty, which was virtually ineffective. They were unable to get the grain to the market.

(1300) That is why I find it interesting today that when the minister stood up, she said that this is all for the sake of the Canadian economy. The members of the Liberal Party of Canada understand the Canadian economy. We understand the importance of getting our products to market. However, we also understand that the Conservatives have not been doing their job. That is something on which we want to take the government to task. I use wheat as just one example.

We understand, for the manufacturing industry in Ontario and in other jurisdictions, how important it is for the manufacturers to get their products to market. We understand the importance of the raw materials, whether they are in the ground, above the ground, or being produced, needing to get to market. We understand the important role CP Rail and CN Rail play in Canada's economy in providing valuable middle-class jobs and many more. We understand all of that, but we also understand the importance of our unions in modern society.

I do not believe for a moment that the thousands of workers who work for CP believe that there was an even playing field when it came to the negotiations that were taking place. For many of those workers, they understood that they had a government that was biased, and that bias is now starting to show in a tangible way. I understand the importance of that issue. When I was first elected to the Manitoba legislature, the Meech Lake accord, I would argue, was the number one issue, but following that was likely the issue of final offer selection. There was heated debate in the province of Manitoba.

If there was a lesson to be learned from that, it was that when talking about collective bargaining, there has to be a sense of fair play. If there is not a sense that both parties are coming to the table on an equal playing field, arguing for their positions, then there is a significant advantage to one side over the other. Based on listening to the minister and her inability to directly answer my question, I do not believe that CP officials for a moment felt that they were going to be threatened in any fashion with any substantial work stoppage.

The Conservative Party would be there to protect their interests, not necessarily the Canadian economy. The minister stands in her place and tries to justify the action. I would rather have seen a minister who was more enthusiastic in November 2014 in ensuring that there was a sense of fairness in the negotiations that were taking place. I do not believe that it had to get to the point where we are today. That is why I question to what degree the government is moving forward in the best interest of not only the management and the employees but in terms of the whole process in which we find ourselves today.

I would suggest that based on their previous attempts, the Conservatives will be found wanting in terms of addressing important labour issues in Canada. Let us look at what is happening at Canada Post, for example. I wish I had time to expand on that. We could look at what the Conservatives could have been doing on this issue three years ago, when the strike was there on the issue of fatigue and railway safety.

(1305) Just this last weekend, there was a tragedy 80 kilometres outside of Timmins. There is so much more the government could be doing, whether it is through regulation or bringing people together, to ensure that a number of the issues the employees are trying to address could be addressed in a different format. That has been my experience when I have had the opportunity to talk to employees but also, on occasion, to people in management. With those words, as I have indicated, I will be voting against the back-to-work legislation. Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague to expand on a couple of points he made in his speech. One was the question of lingering safety concerns with respect to rail safety as a whole in Canada. He is aware, as members of the House should be aware, that the Minister of Transport , and each one who has come before her, has had detailed meetings, briefings, and exchanges with labour groups, safety groups, and the railways themselves. Each in their turn has raised profound and important security and safety concerns with the minister directly.

To what extent has the government been negligent in not taking the action required, which has now led to strike action? Mr. Kevin Lamoureux : Mr. Speaker, the member for Ottawa South is right. This is one of the reasons I indicated that the government has dropped the ball. We know that safe working conditions has been raised with the ministry for the last number of years, and the government has virtually turned a deaf ear to those concerns. The most compelling example, and I have heard it right from the CP Rail workers, is the issue of fatigue.

The impact that is having is significant and serious, yet the government has not addressed that issue whatsoever. There is no way to convince me, and I suspect many others, that the government has been doing its job in protecting the industry by ensuring that there is a safe working atmosphere and that the communities our trains drive through are becoming safer, either through regulations or other actions. The government has been turning a deaf ear and has done a minimum in terms of trying to improve overall conditions.

That is, in good part, why I am not surprised that we find ourselves in a situation that would have been completely avoidable if the government had acted on the issue of railway safety and other concerns that have been brought to its attention over the years.

(1310) Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to follow my colleague and some of the very important and profound comments he made about where we are with respect to this back-to-work legislation and why the Liberal Party of Canada cannot support it. It is important to step back for a second so that Canadians can see the repeat pattern of crisis and back-to-work legislation. Let us remind Canadians, from the perspective of the Liberal Party of Canada, that the federal government has an obligation to get the very big things right.

One of the things a federal government has to get right is rail safety. Rail safety in this country today is in a state of flux. We have had a 1,500% increase in the transportation of oil by rail in the last three years. Even if every single contemplated pipeline is built in Canada to transport fossil fuels south, east, and west and is used at maximum capacity, present projections suggest that by the year 2024, there will be one million barrels of excess oil capacity per day that will have to be transported by rail.

When a government minister stands up and says that this is exclusively about the economy, our international reputation, and the movement of our citizens, she is only partly telling the truth. Much more is below the surface. Of course, this is in large part about collective bargaining and the right to collectively bargain. We all know that.

However, as the vice-chair of the standing committee on transport, who has been active now for over two years in all of the details around rail safety post-Lac Mégantic, I believe that the government is trying to project a different series of concerns to mask a fundamental and lingering problem in Canadian society today, and that is rail safety. The government would have us look over here as the minister distracts from the government's failure to take serious action on safety and security.

Canadians are not going to be surprised to learn that at committee, we have had the heads of CN, CP, the Teamsters, Unifor, and other unions and stakeholders all come forward and say the same thing. They want more safety and security in the rail system. They have all agreed on this. They have all called for enhanced safety. In fact, they have been unanimous about it. Part of the challenge we face as a country is that we have had five ministers of transport in eight years. That is not serious.

How is the minister of the crown seized with one of the most important and foundational responsibilities in Canada, which is transport, supposed to do the job if he or she is being shipped out, shipped down, or shipped up through the department of transport in 16 to 18 months? This is one of the challenges we face. We have had a succession of ministers transiting through the department of transport on their way elsewhere. The safety and security they are supposed to uphold are undermined.

By failing to address the serious issue of adequate rest for railway operators, the government has failed to prevent this CP Rail strike. It is not management. It is not labour. That simplistic, sometimes antiquated notion, often put forward by my colleagues in the NDP, is, in my view, dépassé . All parties want to see the requisite investments in safety and security, and they know that they are not getting it from the government. That is why the government is rushing through this back-to-work legislation.

It is an attempt to masquerade and to cover the fact that it has not addressed the foundations of some of the challenges we have going forward. This puts our railway employees, Canadians, and our communities at risk.

(1315) It is the government's responsibility—not the railway company's responsibility, not the union's responsibility—to establish rest periods for railway workers to ensure that railway employees, Canadians, and communities are safe. It cannot be fobbed off or sloughed off. We cannot simply pretend this is a dispute. “Irreconcilable differences”, says the minister. “We have been there, trying to help broker a deal”, says the minister. Really?

The Minister of Labour should talk to the Minister of Transport and find out why it is that for over six years, the government has been meeting with union representatives, the railways, and advisory groups in backroom meetings. They have been seized with these foundational security concerns for all that time. The Conservatives knew this was coming. It was no surprise. Now the minister comes out and says that it is merely a negotiation of differences between two parties. She is right that several unions have settled. Unifor and 1,800 employees have settled.

The Teamsters and its 3,000 members on strike have not, but this is not reducible to mere union-management or labour-management differences. Do not take my word for it; take the report of the Auditor General. It is a scathing indictment of the government's failure to address the foundational issues around rail safety for almost nine years. The government does not like to hear it, but I like to remind Canadians that Conservatives have spent more money each and every year for the past five years on economic action plan advertising during the NFL or hockey games.

These spots cost $37,000, $67,000, and even $300,000 for 30-second advertisements. It is interesting that not one of those Conservative MPs can look their constituents in the eye and say that they can defend that spending, because they know they cannot, not with the real needs out there in Canadian society and certainly not with the real needs of rail safety. The Auditor General pointed out many times and in many places that there are huge problems. Here is one to remember.

In the three fiscal years that the Auditor General audited, the government's Department of Transport audited only 25% of the safety management systems it said had to be audited to keep the railways safe. In the same three-year period, VIA Rail, carrying four million passengers a year, was not audited once. Those facts are indisputable. In conclusion, we cannot support this back-to-work knee-jerk legislative response. It is a masquerade. It is hiding the foundational issues around safety and security that Conservatives have refused to address. That takes money. It takes inspectors. It takes investment.

The government has an obligation to get the big things right; rail safety is one of those things, and it is not doing it. [ Translation ] Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Ottawa South . His speech was very interesting. The Conservatives are clearly causing a crisis when we should be negotiating an agreement. We have a real problem with today's motion. I completely agree with my colleague that the Conservatives seem more interested in advertising than in solving the problems we are facing in the area of rail safety, for example.

We are all too aware of this danger in Canada. Canadians, and especially Quebeckers, are very concerned about this issue given the accident that occurred in Lac-Mégantic. We want workers to be proud of what they do, we want their working conditions to allow them to do their jobs effectively and we want them to be willing to report any problems with rail safety, as there were in Lac-Mégantic.

I would like my colleague to comment on the recent decision rendered by the Supreme Court, which found that collective bargaining is a fundamental right in Canada, and I would like him to explain how that relates to rail safety. Do agreements that are negotiated between employers and workers lead to a better workplace and can they improve the safety of Canadians?

(1320) Mr. David McGuinty : Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. I respect the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. Our party does not have a history of attacking the Supreme Court of Canada or its Chief Justice. We will leave that to the current Prime Minister of Canada. The hon. member is absolutely right in saying that employees on the front lines of our rail system have a lot to contribute and want to improve the safety, the efficiency and even the profitability of the railway they work for.

The Conservatives' outdated belief that the unions are just there to get as much as they can from the employer is false. The employees of an organization are essential to that organization's success and are thus deserving of a much more respectful approach. I therefore agree with my colleague that this type of negotiation can enhance safety. [ English ] Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the remarks from my colleague from Ottawa South .

It seems to me that when we look at the history of the government, we see a certain mentality in the corporate sector now that they really do not need to negotiate with the unions, whether it was Canada Post or the railways in the past or others the government has a certain mandate for. The corporate sector knows that if it negotiates poorly, the government will eventually order employees back to work. That is part of the problem we have. The member talked about the safety and security of Canadians and the Canadian workforce and about our need for this transportation sector.

I wonder if the member could expand a little on why we got to this stage. Is it, as I suggested, that there is a mentality out there that the government will take the side of corporations and order people back to work? Are there other things that the government should have done to prevent this strike so that we would not have had the effect of this two-day loss to our economy? Mr. David McGuinty : Mr. Speaker, the member for Malpeque is again correct. The government could have done many things. It was forewarned over and over again, through testimony, witnesses, overtures, meetings, advisory groups, and councils.

The situation has been going on now for almost nine years. The government should have invested far more in inspection and audit capacity inside Transport Canada. The government should have invested far more resources in enhancing the safety management systems that our railways, airlines, and shipping companies rely on. They are the central place where regulator and regulated meet to make sure things are safe, and the government should have invested far more in enhancing that capacity. The old idea that a group in Canadian society can be picked out and blamed is Republican Conservative tactic 101.

The idea is to find a bad guy, and in this case it must be the unions, and blame them. That is nonsensical, not efficient, and not economic. The railways have never been more profitable, and we are for that. Why would they not reach out, work with the front-line workers, and ensure that the legitimate concerns they have with safety and security, such as sleep, are addressed? These things could have been defused months ago, if not years ago. This was a predictable strike, and the government knows it. Shame on the government for allowing this to happen.

(1325) Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to rise today to discuss the issue of the work stoppage at Canadian Pacific Railway. The failure to resolve the labour dispute between CP and the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, or the TCRC, is having an extremely negative impact on our economy. We heard that earlier from our Minister of Labour . Knowing that today one in five Canadian jobs depends on exports, it is clear that our prosperity hinges on opening new markets for Canadian goods, services, and investments.

Canada is a trading nation, and trading countries must be able to count on a reliable and effective transportation system, including a railway system. This work stoppage at CP could have negative repercussions on Canada's reputation as a reliable trading partner. CP is one of our two largest railways and plays a pivotal role in North America's supply chain for getting goods to and from Canadian and international markets. CP's rail network spans 22,000 kilometres from the port of Metro Vancouver to the port of Montreal and into parts of the U.S. northeast and the Midwest.

CP plays a significant role in moving the majority of Canada's forest products, agriculture and agri-food products, petroleum products, cereal grains, coal, and consumer and manufactured goods, including automobiles. Here we are today with a disrupted railway system. We have to take the situation very seriously. This is about keeping the Canadian economy healthy and prosperous. It is about making sure Canadian jobs are protected. It is about ensuring that Canadians are able to distribute their products across Canada and the United States.

A responsible government must show leadership and act in the interests of all Canadians. That is exactly why we are doing everything we can to help the parties arrive at an agreement. Let me give an idea of how badly the work stoppage at CP is affecting our economy. A work stoppage in rail transportation in Canada has such an important impact on so many people and industries that the cumulative effects are significant. For example, a railway stoppage could cause layoffs in manufacturing and automobile production. The work stoppage at CP will have other major impacts on workers and their families.

I am talking not just about job losses, but also about the broader impact for the hundreds of thousands of people who depend on the goods carried by rail. A work stoppage at CP would also have an adverse impact on the movement of grain, which is only now returning to normal conditions following last year's backlog. As members may recall, in March of last year our government introduced an order in council to ensure that the supply chain operates effectively in delivering Canadian grain to market. It is not just the industries that rely on freight that will be affected.

The railways also provide the tracks for commuters in our country's three largest cities of Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal. A strike will create slowdowns and congestion in these vital cities. The economic cost of a work stoppage at CP is profound and will cost our economy an estimated decline of $205 million in GDP per week. We just cannot afford such a loss of productivity and revenue. The world economy is more interdependent than ever before, and a work stoppage like this one will affect both inbound and outbound goods and merchandise in Canada.

Our industries could take years to recover from lost business and lost investments caused by this work stoppage. The strike will only further exacerbate the uncertain state of our fragile global economy. It is clear that we as parliamentarians have an important role to play in helping the parties to resolve this situation. Our economy must be protected. Our products must reach their markets, and Canadian jobs must be preserved.

(1330) Canada offers some of the best working conditions in the world and we have a solid reputation for having safe, fair, and productive workplaces. The Canada Labour Code establishes a framework for collective bargaining so that representatives of both employees and employers have an opportunity to negotiate the terms and conditions of employment. Our government is doing everything possible to help the parties find a resolution. Let me explain how we got to this point in the dispute. The collective agreement for CP running trades employees expired on December 31, 2014.

In mid-November 2014, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service received a notice of dispute from CP. Of course, since that time, we have continued to make every effort to help both parties reach an agreement. We offered the parties every resource and support set out in the Canada Labour Code, including the appointment of conciliation officers and mediators from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, to help them reach a resolution. There have been numerous meetings between the employer, the union, and FMCS officials, with the aim of resolving the dispute.

Moreover, the Minister of Labour has encouraged representatives from CP and the TCRC to continue working together to reach an agreement. On February 15, a work stoppage began. A negotiated agreement is always the best solution to any labour dispute. We are still hoping that CP and the TCRC will find a way to resolve their differences. However, we must also be prepared to act to ensure the resumption of rail services at CP. The entire Canadian population will feel the impact of this work stoppage, not only Canadian businesses. We need to do everything we can to keep our economy rolling.

To do that, we have to ensure that CP resumes its operations. We must do what is necessary to protect our economy, our workers, and our businesses. All members of this House must act in the best interest of all Canadians. For this reason, I stand here today to urge all hon. members to quickly pass this act to provide for the resumption of rail service operations. I strongly encourage each of my colleagues to support the bill so that we can continue creating jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity for all Canadians. [ Translation ] Mr. Marc-André Morin (Laurentides—Labelle, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, listening to all this, I wonder if a single member on the other side of the House understands what it is like to drive a convoy of 250 rail cars. The train conductor is constantly under stress; he cannot afford to be distracted for even a split second. Given the length of the train, something can happen one kilometre behind the conductor and he will only find out when the train derails. If the government were the least bit responsible, it would not be passing a bill to force conductors to be on duty.

Instead, it would pass a bill to prohibit people who are overtired or exhausted from going to work because it is not safe. I would like to thank these workers for bringing a serious threat to our attention. [ English ] Mr. Peter Braid : Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that this government takes the issue of rail safety extremely seriously. Our Minister of Labour and Minister of Transport have been focused squarely upon this issue for the last number of months. In the area of rail safety, numerous enhancements to Transport Canada regulations have been made to improve rail safety in this country.

However, this issue is about ensuring that significant adverse impacts to our economy do not take place. This legislation would ensure that CP continues to operate so that those negative consequences to the economy do not occur. It would not preclude a settlement from taking place. What it would do is to allow for the continued important operations of CP, so that those other important labour-related issues could continue to be discussed in a parallel forum.

(1335) Mr. Ryan Leef (Yukon, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. colleague touched on this a bit but I think it is important to assure Canadians and the great people at the rail company about the following. Would this legislation propose imposing a settlement; in other words, would it finalize all of the terms of any grievances that exist and force the parties into an actual settlement, or is it just back-to-work legislation to keep the services to Canadians and our economy strong? Mr. Peter Braid : Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that excellent question is that it does not impose a settlement.

The purpose of this legislation is to keep the operations of CP continuing to ensure that there are not significant and extreme consequences for our nation's economy. It is not just about the goods and the services that are transported by rail, but also about all of the jobs in our manufacturing and automotive sectors and the farmer's out west who rely on rail and need grain moved to market. As a government, we have a wider scope of interest and concern than the opposition has. Our concern is the continued health of our economy and the continued protection of jobs in this country.

That is exactly what this legislation would contribute to. Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, while I disagree with most of the parliamentary secretary's points, I certainly agree with him that we need to be looking at the Canadian economy with great regard. We have to make sure that we defend it in the ways we can. However, the Supreme Court has said very clearly that the right to strike is a fundamental right in this country and that curtailing it can only be done only in circumstances that are justifiable in a free and democratic society.

With a strike that is not even 24-hours old, it seems a little precipitous to send people back to work in response. If we are to talk about rail safety I certainly would like to see more attention placed on it by the government than it has until this point. If it were serious about rail safety, it would try to work in partnership with the workers of the rail industry to ensure they are partners in this endeavour. Legislating them back to work will not lead to better rail safety.

If anything it would result in working conditions that led to the rail tragedies we saw recently in northern Ontario and western Canada, and in Lac-Mégantic. The government seems precipitously inclined to attack workers, but it does not seem to take rail safety anywhere near as seriously as it should. I would like to hear from the minister exactly how the municipalities are supposed to work with the recent regulations that say that dangerous goods passing through their communities will only be divulged to them six months after the fact. How does that help rail safety? Mr. Peter Braid : Mr.

Speaker, I would begin by making it absolutely clear that the government clearly wishes to have a negotiated settlement in this case, but in order for that to happen, both parties need to have the will to work toward that common goal and the gap between the two sides needs to be bridgeable. What this legislation clearly does is to ensure the continued operations of CP while those other important labour issues continue to be resolved and our economy and jobs in Canada are protected in the meantime.

For the last number of months, the Minister of Labour and the federal Department of Labour have been providing every tool in the toolbox to help the parties toward the objective of a negotiated settlement, but we have not seen enough progress in that regard. Finally, with respect to rail safety, in the last number of months the Minister of Transport has made numerous enhancements to the Railway Safety Act regulations to accelerate the phasing out of DOT-111 cars. These regulations improve railway safety oversight and grade crossings.

There are also enhanced regulations with respect to the transportation of dangerous goods, with new administrative monetary penalties in place for violations of these regulations. Furthermore, there was a negotiated arrangement with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities with respect to the disclosure of information on the transportation of dangerous goods.

(1340) Mr. Philip Toone : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary and carry on with the discussion we just had. I have heard from municipalities in my riding that while the recent regulations are an improvement, they are far from satisfactory. The government tends to look upon its proposals with a very positive attitude, but when it actually seeks consultation with the greater community, it finds there is an awful lot lacking.

I, for one, have not heard a single municipality in my riding say that being told six months after the fact that a dangerous good is passing through the community is in any way adequate. Certainly when it comes to the DOT-111 cars that will be retrofitted, it is really not happening anywhere near as fast as it could, according to Canadian manufacturing capacity. I would like to see improvements there. Getting back to the motion at hand, the strike is of incredibly short duration and we have not seen any consequential effects on the Canadian economy.

When the government says it is trying to avoid extreme effects on the Canadian economy, I challenge the minister to show me some numbers where the Canadian economy is actually in extreme peril due to the current strike. It is laudable that we are looking to make sure that negotiations have been fluid and continuous, but to force workers back to work, taking away their greatest tool in negotiations, the right to strike, I think is a terrible mistake. I think it contravenes the recent ruling of the Supreme Court.

Would the parliamentary secretary please comment on the recent ruling of the Supreme Court regarding the right to strike? Mr. Peter Braid : Mr. Speaker, to address my hon. colleague's last point first, if the strike continues and we as a government do not do the responsible thing by ensure a restoration of CP operations, it will have an estimated impact on our GDP, on our economy, of over $200 million per week. That is significant. With respect to the arrangement with the FCM, the Minister of Transport consulted extensively with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

Municipalities across this country are extremely satisfied with the information exchanged under that agreement. With respect to the transportation of dangerous goods, we also have to be aware that there are safety and security issues at stake. Municipalities know there is essentially no change in the type of goods that are transported through their communities; so that information is absolutely critically important, valuable, and relevant. (1345) [ Translation ] Mr. Hoang Mai (Brossard—La Prairie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today despite the disagreeable nature of what we are discussing.

Once again, the government wants to impose its way of doing things and seeing things. As everyone knows, CP and its employees are conducting negotiations on a safety issue t