36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 202
CONTENTS
Tuesday, March 23, 1999
1005
| CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Mr. George Proud |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| GOVERNMENT SERVICES ACT, 1999
|
| Motion that debate be not further adjourned
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1055
(Division 354)
| Motion agreed to
|
| Government Business No. 21
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
1100
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
1105
1110
1115
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1120
1125
1130
1135
| Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
1140
1145
1150
1155
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
1200
1205
1210
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1215
1220
1225
1230
| Mr. Charlie Power |
1235
1240
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1245
1250
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1255
1300
1305
| Mr. John Richardson |
1310
1315
1320
1325
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1330
1335
1340
1345
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1350
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| WORLD METEOROLOGICAL DAY
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| HAPPY BIRTHDAY, MOM
|
| Mr. Randy White |
1400
| LIVER DISEASE
|
| Mr. John Cannis |
| YEAR 2000
|
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| ROGER GIGUÈRE
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
| CANADIAN FRANCOPHONIE
|
| Mr. Claude Drouin |
| EPILEPSY
|
| Hon. Andy Scott |
1405
| BASKETBALL
|
| Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
| IMPAIRED DRIVING
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| GINETTE RENO
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| COMPUTERS
|
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
1410
| PUBLIC SERVICE
|
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| MENTAL IMPAIRMENT
|
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| LONDON AND ST. THOMAS REAL ESTATE BOARD
|
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
| CHAD BLUNDON AND LISA ROBICHAUD
|
| Mr. Charlie Power |
| ELMIRA MAPLE SYRUP FESTIVAL
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| BUILDING CONTRACTS
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1420
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1425
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| NUCLEAR WASTE
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1430
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| BUILDING CONTRACTS
|
| Mr. Jim Jones |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Jim Jones |
| Hon. John Manley |
1435
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| BUILDING CONTRACTS
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1440
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| BILL C-54
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. John Manley |
1445
| BUILDING CONTRACTS
|
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| CANADIAN EMBASSY IN BERLIN
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| GRAIN INDUSTRY
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1450
| BUILDING CONTRACTS
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| TRANSITIONAL JOBS FUND
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1455
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| ENDANGERED SPECIES
|
| Ms. Aileen Carroll |
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| BUILDING CONTRACTS
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1500
| SOCIAL CONDITION
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| The Speaker |
1505
| Kosovo
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| The Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| GOVERNMENT SERVICES ACT, 1999
|
| Motion that debate be not further adjourned
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1510
1515
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1520
1525
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1530
1535
1540
1545
1550
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1555
1600
1605
1610
1615
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1620
1625
1630
1635
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
1640
1645
1650
1655
1700
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1705
1710
1715
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1720
1725
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| TAX ON FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS
|
| Motion
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1730
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
1735
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
1740
1745
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1750
1755
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1800
1805
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1810
| Mr. Mark Assad |
1815
1840
1850
(Division 355)
| Amendment negatived.
|
1905
(Division 356)
| Motion agreed to
|
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-219. Consideration of motion resumed
|
1915
(Division 357)
| Motion negatived
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| GOVERNMENT SERVICES ACT, 1999
|
| Motion that debate be not further adjourned
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1920
1925
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1930
1935
1940
1945
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1950
1955
2000
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
2005
2010
2015
2020
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
2025
2030
2035
2040
| Mr. René Laurin |
2045
2050
2055
2100
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
2105
2110
2115
2120
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
2125
2130
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
2135
2140
2145
2150
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
2155
2200
2205
| Mr. Ken Epp |
2210
2215
2220
2225
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
2230
2235
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
2240
2245
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
2250
2255
2300
2305
2335
(Division 358)
| Motion agreed to
|
| Second reading
|
| Bill C-76. Second Reading
|
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
2340
2345
2350
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
2355
2400
2405
| Mr. Randy White |
2410
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
2415
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
2420
2425
| The Deputy Speaker |
2430
2435
2440
2445
| The Deputy Speaker |
2450
2455
2500
2505
2510
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
2515
2520
2525
2530
2535
| Mr. Pat Martin |
2540
2545
2550
2555
| Mr. Scott Brison |
2600
2605
2610
2655
(Division 359)
| Motion agreed to
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
2700
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
2705
| Mr. Randy White |
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
2710
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
2715
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
2720
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
2725
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
2730
| Mr. Charlie Power |
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
2735
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
2740
2745
| Mr. John Duncan |
2750
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
2755
| Mr. Ted White |
2800
| Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
| Mr. Keith Martin |
2805
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
2810
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
2815
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
2820
2825
2830
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
2835
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Amendment
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Amendment
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Amendment
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Amendment
|
2840
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Amendment
|
2845
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Amendment
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Amendment
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Amendment
|
2850
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Amendment
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Amendment
|
2855
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Amendment
|
2900
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Amendment
|
| Amendment
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Amendment
|
2905
2910
| Motion for concurrence
|
(Division 360)
2920
| Motion agreed to
|
| Third Reading
|
2925
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
2930
2935
2940
2945
2950
2955
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
3000
| Amendment
|
3005
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
3010
3015
3020
3025
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
3030
3035
3040
3045
3050
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
3055
| Mr. Charlie Power |
3100
3105
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
3110
3115
3120
| Mr. John Cummins |
3125
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
3130
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
3135
| Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
3140
3220
(Division 361)
| Amendment negatived
|
3230
(Division 362)
| Motion agreed to
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 202
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, March 23, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1005
[Translation]
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table
the 1998 report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to five petitions.
* * *
[English]
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to
the House, in both official languages, the eighth report of the
Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association which represented Canada
at the joint committee meeting of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly
of defence and security, economic and political committees held
in Brussels, Belgium, February 14 and 15, 1999.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
GOVERNMENT SERVICES ACT, 1999
MOTION THAT DEBATE BE NOT FURTHER ADJOURNED
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 57, I
move:
With respect to Government Order, Government Business No. 21,
that debate shall not be further adjourned.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
1055
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 137
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Cardin
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Crête
| Cummins
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Desjarlais
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McNally
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Nystrom
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Power
|
Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
|
Ritz
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 99
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Assadourian
| Bulte
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Folco
| Fournier
|
Graham
| Guay
| Longfield
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Patry
| Perron
| Pratt
| Sauvageau
|
Speller
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Venne
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS NO. 21
The House resumed from March 22 consideration of the motion.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had
two minutes left in my speech and I really wanted to come back
today and take all the time available to me to explain the scope
of the bill that is now before us.
In these two minutes, I should summarize yesterday's remarks for
the benefit of those members who were not here, and perhaps also
for those listeners who are just joining us on the parliamentary
channel today.
Yesterday, I accused the Liberal government of being anti-worker
and anti-union.
I accused it of being unfair, cynical and Machiavellian, for
several reasons which, unfortunately, I will not have time to
repeat. I will deal with the essential.
Back to work legislation is a prime example; it is not the first
time that this government prepares and introduces this kind of
legislation. Canada Post workers were hit by such a measure, and
so were railway workers. Now, the government is targeting 14,000
low income federal public servants.
Yesterday, among the examples I gave to show that this
government is anti-worker and anti-union, I mentioned how slow it
has been, and still is, in settling the pay equity issue, and
how quick it is to grab the surplus in the federal public
service employees pension fund.
1100
I used the example of the Singer employees, who were probably
the first victims of this government's refusal to assume its
responsibility as trustee, because it was already planning to
grab the surplus in the federal public service employees pension
fund.
These examples show that this government is clearly anti-worker
and anti-union.
I call on the Liberal party to use common sense. It is not too
late. I am asking government members to withdraw this bill so
that bargaining can continue until a collective agreement is
signed by the parties involved.
[English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
know it is not summer but suddenly the reruns are here. It seems
that we have been in this place before doing exactly the same
thing, legislating some group of people back to work. This is
certainly a heavy handed approach to take. It does not solve
anything.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I do not wish to be impolite in regard to your predecessor, but
at the end of the speech by the member for Saint-Jean, I believe
the Speaker in the Chair before you neglected to provide the
period set aside for questions and comments and immediately
sought to have the debate continued.
I would like your comments on that, Madam Speaker, and I would
suggest to you, as you were not there, that you confirm this
with your clerks, who will be able to enlighten you.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In response to the hon.
member, when Standing Order 57 is invoked as has just been done,
there are no more comments or questions.
[English]
Mr. Dale Johnston: Madam Speaker, as I was saying, we
have done this before. I do not see this as a resolution. I do
not see anything being resolved. In most situations somebody
should gain something. There should be some winners. When I
look at this situation I am hard pressed to find a winner.
What we have now is legislation before us that will put people
grudgingly back to work. It will do absolutely nothing to
improve the relationship that the employer, the Government of
Canada, has with its employees. We have done this over and over
again.
The last time we legislated people back to work was over 16
months ago, in 1997 before Christmas, when we legislated the post
office people back to work. Those people are still without a
contract. As of today they are without a contract. What have we
gained? We got the mail moving all right, but we somehow got the
government out of its obligation to bargain with and come to
settlement with its employees. If that is the kind of situation
the government wants, why does it not put it in its policies?
When we had the labour code up for amendment a year ago, the
government said that it would be seeking a balance. That was the
framework on which the amendments to part I of the labour code
were based. This does not seem to be a balance.
The bill covers some 14,000 blue collar workers in Canada, some
of whom are not on strike and some of whom will not be eligible
for a strike position until this coming Friday. The government
has some obligation to come to an agreement with its employees.
1105
We have now experienced closure or at least the limiting of
debate in the House 50 times. While I agree that we have an
emergency on the business of getting the grain moving again in
western Canada, I do not think there was any need for the
government to drag its feet to the point where it suddenly feels
its back is against the wall with a two week break coming up. It
is now in a position where it wants us to agree to put the
legislation through the House in all stages in one day. This is
simply for the convenience of the government which is, I will
point out once again, responsible for the situation we face
today.
It is only reasonable to expect people to work without a
contract for so long and then there will be some real problems.
These people have been to the bargaining table. The President of
Treasury Board says that in his estimation they have been totally
unreasonable and that Canada simply cannot afford to agree to
their demands. We have not been party to those negotiations so
we are not sure just how to evaluate the remarks of the President
of the Treasury Board.
However, I think the onus falls on the government to make sure
that this sort of thing does not arrive at the situation where it
is today. The main reason I say this is that it is a recurring
thing. Again and again we will be called on to legislate some
group of people back to work because of the failure of the
government to act in a responsible manner and to arrive at a
contract with its employees before it reaches an impasse.
That is why we have advocated for some time now the use of final
offer selection arbitration in cases where there is a monopoly
situation, where the services cannot be obtained anywhere else
and where the withdrawal of those services would have a
detrimental effect on an innocent third party such as the grain
handlers, and in particular the grain weighers in this case. Some
70 people go on strike and stop the movement of all grain in
western Canada to port.
Final offer selection arbitration is a tool that can be used
equally well by management and by labour. By putting in place a
mechanism that will require both parties to place their final
offer, their bottom line, in writing before a mutually agreed to
arbitrator or panel, they may possibly bargain so earnestly and
fine-tune their position to the point where there will not be any
need for an arbitrator to make any decision at all. The result
will be that final offer selection, used to its ultimate, is not
used at all. We firmly believe that the best settlement is a
negotiated settlement.
I would like to quote from page 18 of the Reform Party's blue
book which clarifies where we are coming from as far as labour
relations are concerned. It states:
The Reform Party supports the right of workers to organize
democratically, to bargain collectively and to strike peacefully.
At the same time we believe certain services in Canada should
not be interrupted because it would have a detrimental effect on
the country's economy and innocent third parties would be damaged
by the removal of those services. We therefore suggest that in
those situations final offer selection arbitration be used.
1110
Some people have said that final offer selection arbitration
will take away the right to strike from people. I counter by
saying I do not think it will at all. It will not take away the
right to strike any more than a negotiated settlement will take
away the right to strike. Maybe it will take away the need to
strike, but so does a negotiated settlement. If the settlement
is arrived at and agreed to by both parties, there is no need for
a strike.
Let us be perfectly clear. I cannot think of any union or any
unionized person who would relish the thought of going into a
strike. It is very traumatic for them, for their families and
for their bank accounts to make the decision to strike. When
they do they are trying to pry an intransigent party away from
its position and back to the table to continue to negotiate.
An hon. member: Why are you smiling?
Mr. Dale Johnston: In spite of my smile I think this is a
very important and very serious situation. I would also like to
read from the blue book regarding labour policy. It says:
The Reform Party supports the harmonization of labour-management
relations and rejects the view that labour and management must
constitute warring camps.
It would seem to me that in this situation the government has
taken exactly the opposite view of what the Reform Party has
articulated as our labour policy. It is very difficult to arrive
at a negotiated settlement when we are in a situation where we
are constantly ordering people back to work.
Daryl Bean of the Public Service Alliance of Canada warned the
government that it would use grain as a lever in this round of
negotiations. That should come as no surprise to anybody,
because it has been done over and over and over again. We cannot
simply point our finger at the labour union in this case and say
that it brought about this stalemate, that it is entirely its
fault. It would be absolutely false to say that.
There is also an unwillingness on the part of the government to
come to an agreement. We have to overcome that. The best way to
do that is through the process known as final offer selection
arbitration whereby people can arrive at a negotiated settlement
through a little pressure from a third party.
It is very interesting that recently the government decided to
remove binding arbitration from PSAC workers and then a short
time later legislated them back to work. I know we are not
supposed to impute motive in this place, but we have to wonder if
there is a lot more to this situation than meets the eye.
Twenty minutes is a long time to talk about back to work
legislation. We will be presenting an amendment to the bill. We
would very much like to see it include the use of final offer
selection arbitration. We feel that anything less than that is
simply a stop gap measure that does nothing whatsoever but
grudgingly put parties back on the job. It does nothing
whatsoever to deal with the contract or to smooth
labour-management relations.
This is not the first time we have had such an amendment
presented, but I hope this time we get unanimous or at least
majority consent to pass the motion. We see it as a tool that
could be used over and over again and we would not have to go
through an extremely painful process for everybody.
1115
I still have six minutes remaining, although I am not obliged to
use the six minutes.
We have a big problem with the negligence we are seeing. This
unethical, undemocratic government has rammed this back to work
legislation down the throats of its workers. It is also limiting
the amount of debate. Some of my colleagues are very anxious to
speak to this item and we are being restricted in the amount of
intelligent thought that we can put into this very serious
matter.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Madam Speaker,
we are debating an important issue today, one which my party has
concerns about. Back to work legislation, particularly in regard
to the Public Service Alliance of Canada and the current strike,
is an issue we take most seriously, especially considering that
mechanisms are in place whereby the government could have
resolved the matter.
My understanding is that the difficulties have been under
negotiation for some two years. The fact that no resolution has
come forward is almost an indictment of the government and its
lack of effort to bring this matter to some kind of closure.
I am particularly concerned about my part of the country because
one of the fundamental issues in this strike is the regional
rates of pay. The government has refused to acknowledge and
negotiate that. Regional rates of pay means that people who are
doing exactly the same work are paid less in one part of the
country than people in another part of the country. Not
surprisingly a bulk of those people who are paid less reside in
Atlantic Canada, one part of the country that can least afford
low wages.
I will address that particular issue because it affects my
region. It affects other regions. It is interesting to note, and
the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre raised this yesterday, that
in the back to work legislation there is some reference to those
particular regional rates of pay. The government is suggesting
that it will reduce the number of regions from 10 to 7. It is
talking about combining Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia, and I
suppose we will have Nova-Saskatchewan. It is another way of
saying that people in western Canada and eastern Canada will
receive less pay than people in other parts of the country. And
the government wonders why there is western and eastern
alienation.
How long has this been going on? I believe regional rates of
pay were imposed in 1922. There have been some changes since
1922.
An hon. member: Not in the NDP though.
Mr. Peter Mancini: A member opposite says not in the NDP.
In some ways we have held true to our principles, unlike the
government party which we have seen slide to the right as
pressure from the Reform Party mounts.
The hon. member is right.
There are some things we in the NDP have not given in on, unlike
members of the Liberal Party. They have have given in on things
like labour legislation. They have given in on things like the
right to strike. They have given in on the fundamental
democratic right to debate issues in this House. That is why
there is closure today.
1120
The hon. member wants to heckle and call out where the NDP
stands on certain issues. I welcome those suggestions.
Going back to when this legislation was introduced, it was in
1922, three years after the Winnipeg general strike and about six
years before the great strikes in Cape Breton which led to the
death of William Davis, one of the great labour leaders in my
province. I had the pleasure and the honour of being in Winnipeg
recently. I got to see where that great strike happened, where
the workers of this country stood together to fight for fair
labour standards. I come from a part of the country where people
have shed blood for the right to strike for fair labour
standards. Yet today, many years later, we stand in this House
with back to work legislation being imposed with closure by the
government so we cannot even have a full debate.
It was introduced in 1922, before the second world war, and the
government still justifies regional rates of pay. Think about
it. In Vancouver, British Columbia and all across the country
there have been all kinds of developments. Back then people were
still taking trains to get from one end of the country to the
other but since then, the Liberal and Conservative governments
have seen to dismantling the train lines. Now people fly, those
who can afford to. It is a measure of how out of touch the
government is when it still defends a policy that was in place
before Mackenzie King. It is archaic.
What does it mean to the workers in my part of the country? I
have some statistics. It means that in Nova Scotia a private
sector carpenter will earn on average $20.49 per hour. Someone
who works for the people of Canada through the government will
receive $13.92 an hour. What it means in Nova Scotia is that a
private sector electrician will earn $22.53 while a PSAC worker
will earn $15.38. A private sector labourer will earn $17.79
while a PSAC worker will earn $12 on average. A private sector
plumber will earn $23.50 while a PSAC plumber will earn $16.89.
Not only are there regional rates of pay which discriminate
against workers in different parts of the country, but when we
compare what the PSAC blue collar workers are receiving in
comparison to the private sector, we see the need for amendments
and changes.
We understand and I ask Canadians who are watching the debate to
understand the frustration of workers in one part of the country
who are being told they cannot be paid the same as their brothers
and sisters in other parts of the country and who are facing that
huge wage gap between the public and the private sector. Why are
they so frustrated? Why have they taken to strike? It is not
because they wanted to but because of those very issues.
These are the people who have borne the price of the deficit
fight on their backs. There is no question that the gap between
the rich and the poor in this country has increased steadily. We
know that over the last eight or nine years—and I think it has
been seven years since these people have had a raise—wages have
been frozen and clawed back for the public sector employees.
The Minister of Finance and the members of the Liberal
government stand and applaud themselves for fighting the deficit.
The reality is that it has been fought on the backs of the very
people who today are standing outside and asking why they are
being denied a marginal increase in pay.
The government will answer that in many ways.
Yesterday in answer to questions one of the members of the
government said that it would be inequitable to have the same
rates of pay across the country, that somehow that is unfair.
1125
The interesting thing about that is the people who are receiving
the regional rates of pay represent 3% of the entire public
service. If I were one of the other 97%, I might be a little
concerned that the government's notion of fairness was going to
find its way into the rest of the public service. If the
government thinks it is unfair to give people who do the same
work across the country the same pay, then those who are
receiving the same amount of pay whether they are in Halifax,
Sydney, Vancouver, Regina, or Toronto had better watch very
carefully.
I dare say if the government were to suggest that members of
parliament were to receive a change in their take home pay based
on where they lived and what part of the country they
represented, we might very well see a different debate in this
House.
The government has some concerns about the movement of grain. It
is important. No one should diminish the importance of the
movement of grain to the farmers. Farmers themselves understand
the difficulties faced by these labour unions.
Let us not forget that the mightiest combination that has moved
us toward significant progress has been the alliance between
labour and farmers. That was the foundation of the beginning of
progressive movements in this country.
In my own province the labour movement and the farmers of Nova
Scotia joined together and formed a political party and nearly
captured the government. This was a very brief period in Nova
Scotia history. Only by doing that did Nova Scotia begin to move
progressive legislation forward in the areas of minimum wage, the
right to organize and the right to strike.
I think the farmers who are being hurt by this legislation
understand how important it is to join forces. That being said,
the blame as to why farmers are suffering lies squarely at the
feet of the government.
As I said in my opening remarks, this new labour situation did
not fall like rain from heaven, unknown and not forecast by the
weatherman. This dispute has been simmering for a long time.
Regional rates of pay, cuts and clawbacks to the civil service
are not brand new, or they should not be brand new to the
government. Anyone who works and operates in any city or county
of this country knows the terrible price the public service has
paid to balance the books for this government.
This should have come as no surprise. Realistically, anyone with
any foresight could have seen that without some settlement there
was going to be strike action. And if there was strike action,
it was going to end up hurting the shipment of grain across the
country. It was going to end up shutting down public service
buildings. It was going to end up hurting people who receive
unemployment insurance cheques. It was going to end up hurting
people waiting for income tax returns. It was going to hurt most
Canadians. Surely be to God, the government, which represents
and is supposed to act in the best interests of Canadians, should
have seen that coming and should have done something about it.
The farmers are frustrated because the grain cannot move.
Elderly people are waiting for cheques from the government. Many
thousands of people who are without work are waiting for
unemployment cheques, those who are entitled to unemployment
under this government's legislation, those few who still qualify.
People are waiting for other cheques from this government or for
government services and are not receiving them because of this
strike. Those people need not look far to determine where to
point the finger. Point the finger at the government and its
failure to act and its failure to take into account what was
going to happen.
There is plenty of evidence. The Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance report “Retention and Compensation Issues in
the Public Service” implied that it would be in the public's
interest to settle the labour dispute in a fair manner.
That is a report that comes from the Liberals and the
Conservatives in the Senate. Nevertheless, it is something I am
sure that was brought to the attention of the government in its
own caucus meetings.
1130
Let us look at the cost to the government to settle this
dispute. My understanding is that to settle this dispute would
have cost the government perhaps $8 million. It is worth noting
that the wheat board costed the loss of one contract at $9
million, slightly more than the cost to the government of
reaching an agreement.
We are here today facing closure in the people's House on a
fundamental piece of legislation that forces people back to work,
that does not respect the right to negotiate, that will not look
at arbitration in terms of a settlement. We are here debating
that when it was foreseeable, when it was coming at us like the
Titanic. There is nowhere for this blame to rest except at
the feet of the government.
That being said, members of my party will continue to fight
against the kind of tactics which have been used. Yesterday
morning the opposition parties were given a piece of legislation
that I think is 150 pages in length. We were given a piece of
legislation in which the actual imposition of the back to work
legislation was not highlighted. We were given a piece of
legislation in which the figures were not costed. We had to rely
on doing that ourselves, in a short period of time. We do not
mind doing it ourselves, but when we are given that kind of
document less than 24 hours before this government tries to
impose a settlement, it is absolutely unfair. It is absolutely
undemocratic. It takes away from what Canadians want in the
House, which is reasoned debate on real issues that matter to
Canadians.
We play political games with the lives of thousands of workers
who are on strike and the thousands of farmers who are depending
on grain shipments. That is the approach that the government
uses.
It is no wonder that people get cynical about politics. They
say “Why is the debate ongoing and taking so long?” It is
ongoing because there has not been a proper process followed by
the government. That has not been followed simply because the
government did not want to admit that it did not see this coming.
We end up taking up a huge amount of time in this Chamber
dealing with what could be dealt with in a more rational way.
While we are doing that other important legislation has been
moved aside. One has to wonder about the subtle implications of
that.
It was only yesterday that we began debating the Minister of
Justice's new young offender legislation. That has all been
moved now, that important legislation, because this government
has not followed the proper process. Other areas of important
debate get deferred while we continue to try to deal with this
back to work legislation.
It is regrettable that we are here today in this situation. It
is unnecessary that members of the House of Commons find
themselves in this situation. It is unfair to those whose
livelihoods are being affected and who are waiting for the
outcome of this legislation.
It is poorly drafted legislation. It was pointed out by the
hon. member for Winnipeg Centre yesterday that the clauses are
written in French and English, and one clause has been modernized
while the other has not. It has been mentioned that the
government forgot our newest territory when determining what the
regional rates of pay would be. The government forgot to include
Nunavut.
Perhaps the government should have taken its time to craft in a
better way the legislation that comes before the House and given
the opposition members appropriate time to review that
legislation, instead of playing politics with the lives of people
in this country, with the lives of the workers in this country,
with the lives of the farmers in this country and with the lives
of the taxpayers in this country, those who can least afford to
have politics play with their lives.
It is with regret that I stand here seeing democracy eroded,
seeing workers' rights eroded, seeing the things that Canadians
have fought so hard and so long for eroded, to keep in place
regional rates of pay from 1922 and to keep in place unfair
worker discrimination from an era long gone.
1135
This may have worked at a time when there was not the kind of
information and communication that there is today. Today a
worker in Sydney, Nova Scotia knows what his brother, a
carpenter, is making in Vancouver, British Columbia. Today
someone who is a plumber in Toronto knows what someone in
Winnipeg is making. The government can not hide that from them.
It does not have a rationale. We all keep waiting for a
rationale from the other side to tell us how regional rates of
pay can be justified. There is no logic. The answer is
deafening in its silence. That silence is what the people who
are in the public service alliance will remember in the next
election.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues in the Bloc and the NDP
for giving me this spot. As I sat and listened to the speech of
my colleague from Wetaskiwin, I felt that as a farmer I wanted to
fair. I felt it was another opposition member who probably
should speak. I did not know that I was in line. But thanks to
their kindness, they gave me my spot back.
There was a lot of truth in what we heard from the hon. member
of the NDP. When I got into my office this morning the first
thing I was told was that there were four PSAC strikers in my
constituency office in Portage La Prairie. I dreaded the thought
of talking to these people because I had always been given the
impression by certain factions that they were probably very harsh
and probably very unreasonable. The way government members
explained it is that they could not deal with these people
because they were asking far too much. I found exactly the
opposite.
We talked on the phone with these people for about half an hour.
I asked them what they wanted me to do. I said that a large
percentage of my constituents were farmers. I also said that I
have a lot of PSAC workers in the department of defence and in
the prisons. I asked which side I was supposed to represent. I
said that I knew the farmers were in dire straits and that they
have to have cash flow to put in their crop this spring. I also
said that I knew they had not had an increase for six years. He
said “Mr. Hoeppner, you are wrong. We have not had an increase
for eight years”.
When I see people who have waited for eight years to get a wage
increase from this government, and I see this government that has
in the last year and half given a 10% increase to the other
place, followed by another 6% increase in wages, I know that
something is wrong. That is simply negligence. I would call it
even worse than that, and maybe say words that I should not use
in the House, when an ordinary person who puts bread on their
table cannot get an increase in eight years. We know what the
cost of living has been. We know how taxes have increased in
eight years. How are these people supposed to live?
I said to these people that I wanted them to support me in this
back to work legislation, but I would make very sure that this
government would get fire under its rear end so that it finally
recognizes that their members are not the only ones who want an
increase. The ordinary blue collar workers also want an
increase. They deserve it and they have to have it.
How much does this government care about farmers? How much does
it care about the ordinary individual? A prime example is what
we experienced last year. The Ontario farmers voted 92% in
favour of a voluntary wheat board so they could market some of
their grain for a better price.
What did this government do? It, along with the Ontario
government, legislated against it. It listened to the
manufacturers who said that if the farmers could sell their grain
into the U.S. they may have to pay a higher price because they
would not have the product.
1140
There is a very simple solution to this issue of striking dock
workers or railway men. Give farmers the choice to market their
grain. They will take it across the border where there is no
problem in moving that grain. They will probably have to pay a
few cents a bushel extra for freight, but they will have a cash
flow.
I want to read some statistics which show why I am so determined
that this problem could be easily resolved. Morris Dorosh writes
in the Financial Post:
Export shipments of the grains (wheat and barley) over which the
Wheat Board has a legislated monopoly so far in the 1998-99 crop
year are down 41% from the year-ago rate, and down 30% from the
five-year average.
Do not tell me that these few days of rotating strikes have
decreased that kind of movement of grain.
He further states that exports of non-durum wheat are down 44%,
that durum is only down 18% because of the pasta plants in North
Dakota, and that barley is down 64%.
He goes on to say:
Exports of leading Western Canadian crops that the Wheat Board
does not handle are up 39%. Canola exports are 63% higher than a
year ago and a record for the period. Flax export shipments of
half a million tonnes are 13% higher than a year ago and the
highest to this date in at last 15 years. Exports of Canadian
oats are an all-time record for the first 31 weeks...
There is a problem, but it is not the workers at the ports. The
problem is with the management and with the selling of these
products. Management does not have to be accountable or
efficient. They just have to sit and watch things go on as
usual, while drawing high salaries, which has been the fact in
the past.
This gentleman says:
So what happened to those advantages of the export monopoly?
Where is the power and the glory of single-desk selling now? If
this is orderly marketing, give me chaos.
That is exactly how the farmers feel.
It is not the workers at the ports. We have seen that with all
the non-board grains. It is not that the railways are
ineffective in moving this stuff. It is the monopoly that
controls the management of these sales.
I would say that is negligence by a government when we have a
decrease of 600 million to 700 million bushels of board grains
that are being shipped when there is an increase in population in
the world of at least 80 million. No one can tell me that these
people are eating that much less food that they do not need these
bread wheats or grains.
Reform opposed back to work legislation five years ago and
suggested that we should have the final offer selection
agreement. Today the unions are telling me they are tired of
striking. They are tired of using the defenceless farmers as a
lever. They do not want to do that. They are human and know
that people have to live. However, they feel that is the only
lever they seem to be able to use to make government react.
These people have been in a legal strike position for 90 days.
As we heard my hon. colleague from Wetaskiwin say, some of the
agreements are not finished yet and they were ordered back to
work a year and a half ago or two years ago. This is not the way
to run a country. This is what a heavy-handed government
delivers when it will not listen or react to what needs to be
done.
1145
The PSAC workers, and I hope the facts they gave me are correct,
were telling me that their gross paycheque was $24,000 a year.
How many people today can have a decent livelihood with $24,000 a
year? They still have to pay taxes on that. They still have to
feed their families. They still have to clothe their children.
It is ridiculous. It is a crime. That is the way I call it.
This is what farmers are fighting for. They want a decent
return. They do not care about becoming millionaires. They want
a decent return for their product, and they are willing to share.
We can see that with the food grains bank. No matter how tough
it is, farmers donate thousands of tonnes to the Canadian food
grains bank. They see suffering and they want to help.
After talking to the PSAC workers this morning for half an hour
or so I really felt sorry for them. They are in a position where
they have very little clout and they have to use the food line to
force government to a settlement. That should never happen in a
democracy. That should never be the fact in the House of
Commons, but it is.
If we do not change the system to give fairness, to give the
opportunity to provide for families, we will some day experience
what we are seeing in Kosovo and those areas today. Eventually
people will revolt where they are kept handicapped or where they
are imprisoned with government legislation that does not give
them opportunities other people have.
How much has this country lost because of these strikes? I can
bet my farm on that and I am not that big a gambler. If farmers
got back all the money that was lost by them on work stoppages,
they could probably all retire right now and have a nice bank
account.
The worst of that situation is that the money they lost did not
stay in this country. The money they lost went to foreign
shipping companies and for demurrage. The money they lost went
to pay penalties for non-deliverance of the grain they shipped.
The money they lost in grain sales is foreign dollars that should
have come into this economy. It is not just the losses that the
farmers have been asked to bear, it is the whole economy that has
lost these dollars.
When we look at statistics and some of the big private analysts
telling us that every dollar that agriculture makes has a
multiplier effect of $5 or $6 to the economy, we have a bit of an
idea of what it could have done for this country. It could
probably have provided for all our social costs. But no, we will
not listen. We will not take the bull by the horns, as we say on
the farm, and wrestle the critter down.
This critter that has allowed these types of work stoppages is
not due only to the Liberal government. Work stoppages went on
the whole nine years of the Conservative regime. This is a grave
disease that nobody seems to be able to cure. What will it take
for this country to realize this? What will it take for the
government to realize this? Opposition parties realize it and
have blasted the government for the last five or six years that I
have been here.
Government members do not know how to listen. I do not know
whether they all need hearing aids or what they need to finally
listen to some good input from this side of the House. To me it
sounds like they have silencers that we use on heavy
machinery over their ears. The problem with that is if there is
a problem with the machine and there is some kind of bearing
squealing, they cannot hear it. There are 100 and some bearings
squealing over here but that machine out there cannot hear it.
They will let the whole thing break down before they will
fix it. Then they will blame us and ask why we did not pull those
lousy earmuffs off their ears so they could hear.
1150
We are not allowed to do that in the House. We are supposed to
be very gentle but sometimes I feel like walking over to the
other side and screaming “there's a problem, are you
listening?” People are not working. They cannot get a
paycheque. Farmers cannot ship their grain. There is a problem.
An hon. member: We are trying to fix it.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: They are fixing it, all right.
What they are doing is draining the bit of grease out of the
bearing that is still there so it will seize completely. That is
what the government is liable to do.
The first John Deere combines that came out were all fixed with
Japanese bearings. They had tried to build a good combine with
cheap bearings. It was not very many months before farmers found
out these suckers would not run. They had to replace all the
bearings.
Probably the opposition is starting to realize that until we
replace the machines on that side the bearings will be squealing
all the time, or seized. There is no way that the machine of
government can run. This is a problem we have been dealing with
for five years and there is no fix in sight.
This is the example PSAC workers are telling us. It is broken.
It is dilapidated and it is getting rusty. Very soon we will not
even see the red colour on it. It will be just rust. It will
look like the metal has been eaten through and there is some
dirty dust underneath it.
An hon. member: What about the Reform?
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: The Reform over there would not do
any good anymore because the machine has to be replaced. It is
completely shot. It has to be replaced.
How we will do it we do not know but I know they are helping us
by reacting to people like these PSAC workers. They will not
forget at the next election that they were promised certain
things and they never happened.
I tried to warn the government about the Manitoba flood area. It
was out very gallantly during the flood with its chequebook and
$5,000 cheques were written to anybody who had seen water in that
area. It said it would set the guidelines later on so that people
would have a good thing out of the flood.
Lo and behold all of a sudden the guidelines have changed. It
wants the money back. The poor people who went through that
flood will not forget that by the time the next election rolls
around. They will not forget that at all and I can guarantee
that the riding of Provencher will be sitting with the government
on that side. That is where it is now but it will be under a
different name.
An hon. member: It will be NDP.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: We will see about that. I know
there is a change coming. Everybody knows that. Nobody has to
gaze into a crystal ball because when the unions are against you,
when the farmers are against you, when the doctors are against
you, when the nurses are against you, who is left? The only ones
supporting the government are in that other place and they do not
have too much clout anymore.
It is very sad but it is true that under circumstances where we
could have saved money for a rainy day, when we had a tremendous
economy, we blew it. Now with an economy that is stretched to
the hilt we are trying to rectify some of that. We are trying to
rebuild a health system. We are trying to rebuild a railway
system. We are trying to rebuild a road system. We are trying
to rebuild everything. That will not fly well in the next
election, that we have allowed the system to deteriorate to a
point where everything needs fixing.
When there is one segment of an industry that is suffering or in
trouble it is not that big a job. It is to fix everything. In
Saskatchewan the roads are out of shape. The elevators are
closing down.
Everything is going against the economy. How in heaven can it
continue? I do not think it can.
1155
That is why I am trying to tell this government today that
instead of taking a band-aid approach to this labour problem it
should fix it properly. Give these people a chance to bargain in
good faith with government. That is all they are asking for.
They told me they were so close to an agreement that it was not
even worth mentioning the difference between what they would
accept and what they were offered, and then the government had to
order back to work legislation. It should not be necessary.
Those people would go back to work if the government would sit
down in good faith and bargain with them. That is all they want
and that is all farmers want. Farmers want those people to work
and to have a decent livelihood. When a farmer sees they are
getting $24,000 a year and they have not had a raise in the last
eight years, how can the government call them irresponsible?
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to speak this morning to Bill C-76.
However, 76 reminds me of other things. It rings another bell.
It was the year the Parti Quebecois took office under René
Lévesque.
I would quickly like to relate a bit of history before speaking
to this debate. In 1966, the sovereignists received 8% of the
vote; in 1970, 23%; and in 1973, 30%. Finally, in 1976, we
came to power.
I will now move on to Bill C-76, which is anti-union and
discriminatory legislation.
I will quote two newspaper headlines “Treasury Board President
imposes special legislation”, and “Ottawa forces blue collar
workers back to work”. The same article had this to say about
the government House leader “The Leader of the Government in the
House, one of the Liberal members who sided with PSAC workers in
1991, when Brian Mulroney's Conservative government had imposed
wage freezes—”
It is pretty surprising that these people are now singing a
different tune. Back then, the Leader of the Government in the
House was one of the so-called rat pack, which also included the
present Minister of Canadian Heritage, the maverick Liberal MP
for York South—Weston, a former candidate for the leadership of
the Liberal Party and a former candidate for the position of
Speaker of the House of Commons, whom the Liberal Party finally
kicked out of its ranks.
The member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell backed the alliance in
those days. These members were dubbed the rat pack, and were
known for giving the Progressive Conservative Party a hard time.
I could draw an analogy with France in the year 500 when Saint
Rémi, while baptizing King Clovis of France, told the king to
burn what he had worshipped. This is exactly what the present
Leader of the Government in the House is doing. Having once
defended the alliance, he is now going after it with special
legislation.
The purpose of Bill C-76 is to force striking public servants of
bargaining table 2 back to work. The bill also gives the
government considerable leeway to impose whatever working
conditions and salaries it wishes, including for correctional
officers who have a strike mandate.
The federal government is pointing to the lost revenues of
Prairie farmers and the backlog of tax returns due to picketing
as justification for its bulldozer tactics.
1200
I will give a brief historical background on public service
negotiations.
Employer-employee relations between the federal government and
public servants are governed by the Public Service Staff
Relations Act, which came into effect in 1967. Placing public
servants under this negotiating framework took them out of the
broader framework of the Canada Labour Code.
At the time, the government justified this particular
arrangement by committing to be a good employer as far as pay
and working conditions are concerned, and by not taking
advantage of its size and power to control the market.
Since then, particularly since the Liberals took office in 1993,
these principles have been betrayed in every possible way.
Using its legislative power, the government has falsified,
undermined and subordinated the process of negotiation as no
other employer could do. It has done so with its series of
cutbacks, which have impacted heavily on public servants, and
with its attempts to manipulate the taxpayers with demagoguery
and the government's sizeable communication resources, as well
as to abuse the House of Commons system, by giving MPs
insufficient time and information to debate the matter
thoroughly, as is the case now.
The federal government has abrogated the right to negotiate 8
times in the past 15 years.
For 11 of those years, shipboard and hospital personnel have
worked under a non-negotiated regime imposed by the federal
government by legislative means, each time under the pretext
that it was for the good of Canadians.
Those who work for the federal government have had to endure a
whole series of unilaterally imposed laws. To name but a few,
in August 1982, Bill C-124 froze the salaries of some 500,000
public servants. In December 1989, there was the back to work
legislation, Bill C-49. With Bill C-29 in October 1991, the
employer threatened unilateral imposition of its offer if it
were not accepted.
The Labour Relations Board characterized this approach as
unethical.
The International Labour Organization noted that the federal
government's action imposed serious restrictions on bargaining
and urged the government to return to unrestricted bargaining.
Later, Bill C-113 imposed, in April 1992, a two year freeze and
the unilateral extension of the collective agreement. The ILO
lambasted the government for its lack of support of union
rights.
In June 1993, Bill C-101 accorded the government the right to
impose a vote on its final offers in any negotiations.
Now we come to the government currently in office, the Liberal
Party. Bill C-17, in June 1994, continued the freeze for another
two years and extended the collective agreement—six consecutive
years of salary freeze. Once again, the ILO criticized the
process.
With Bill C-31, still with the Liberals in office, in 1996, the
federal government took up contracting out. In 1992, it closed
the Pay Research Bureau, thus getting around having to take into
account the facts and figures that disproved its assertions.
Bill C-26, on public service reform in 1993, gave the employer a
significant advantage, judge and jury once again, on issues in
the workplace.
As members know, up to now, the governments that have held
office each in turn, be they Conservative or Liberal, have
always been anti-union.
Bill C-76 is intended to bring about the return to work of public
service employees currently on strike.
1205
The bill also gives the government a lot of power to impose
working conditions and salaries, including on correctional
officers, who have a strike mandate.
Negotiations with correctional services employees, at table 4,
led to a majority conciliation report, which was unanimously
approved by union members. The employer tabled a minority report
and the government should simply take into account the majority
report that was submitted by a third party.
Negotiations at table 2, which concern general labour and
trades, ships' crews, hospital services, general service and
firefighters, did not lead to a majority conciliation report,
since the chair of the conciliation board, the employer and the
union tabled three different proposals. The gap between the
offers from the employer and the union are not insurmountable,
provided the government acts in good faith, something it is not
doing right now.
Here is what is included in the bill. The government's offer for
table 2 is lower than its previous proposal, and it is not the
first time this happens. Sometimes, groups negotiate and when
they are subjected to back to work legislation, the offers are
invariably lower than those made previously.
The federal government was originally offering 2.75%, but has
now lowered its proposed increase to 2.50%.
As I said earlier, the government is obviously trying to take
advantage of a situation where it is both judge and jury. It is
to be noted that the salaries for workers represented at table 2
have been frozen for six years.
In addition to the pay increase, the other stumbling block is
the regional rates of pay. It seems the government's offers are
negligible in this regard. The government's offer for table 4 is
unknown. There is a majority conciliation report, but the
government seems to be ignoring it. The bill would allow the
government to impose its own conditions, without taking into
account the conciliation report that was unanimously approved by
the union.
Here is the position of the Bloc Quebecois on Bill C-76.
With this special legislation, the government is attempting to
impose a collective agreement on table 2 and 4 employers, under
the pretext of serving the taxpayers' interests. Quite some
feat, when what the government really wants is to make use of
them to violate the rights of workers.
In fact, the picketing could come to an end today, if the
government wanted that to happen. It would merely have to
accept the majority conciliation report for table 2 and binding
arbitration for table 4.
Generally speaking, we are opposed to the use of special
legislation, which would have the effect of denying the
fundamental right to strike, particularly in the case of workers
who have had to put up with this same treatment on numerous
occasions already. On the other hand, we regret the
inconvenience that the picketing by public servants has caused
to Quebeckers and Canadians.
What we in the Bloc Quebecois want, is for an agreement to be
reached between the government and the workers of tables 2 and
4, and for the services to which the public is entitled to be
restored. There is a way of doing this: the government finally
sits down at the bargaining table and negotiates in good faith,
once and for all.
At table 4, a majority conciliation report accepted unanimously
by the union is not taken into consideration by the bill. One
wonders why, since this is a worthwhile agreement, one proposed
by an independent conciliator, which the union finds acceptable
and which would make it possible to avoid a strike. All of the
fundamental principles of labour relations would be respected.
At table 2, the union says it is fully prepared to go to
arbitration. It therefore agrees to bow to the judgment of an
independent adjudicator, and the picketing would thus cease
immediately.
The problems cited by the government in order to impose the
bulldozer legislation would cease to exist.
1210
And what does the government have to say? That the union
demands are unreasonable. If the union demands are so
unreasonable, why refuse arbitration? What has this government
got to lose?
In fact, this bill is nothing more than a show of strength in
order to impose a collective agreement and avoid the usual
process.
Our position is clear: the freedom to organize supposedly exists
in Canada, and when they have good reason to do so, workers go
on strike.
That is part of a fair balance of power, except when the
employer is the government and abuses its legislative power.
Special legislation should be kept as a last resort, until the
government returns to the bargaining table with an offer that is
acceptable to the workers and resolves the problem
democratically, in a civilized manner, through negotiations.
As a former trade unionist with the CEQ and the CSN, I cannot
agree with Bill C-76. Like my Bloc Quebecois colleagues and my
colleague from Trois-Rivières, I will oppose this bill.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Madam Speaker, I rise today actually in
disappointment as this is the 50th time in the Liberals' reign
that they have invoked closure. We talk about a democracy in
this country. It is actually a capitulated democracy.
I preface my remarks around something that farmers would
understand. Bill C-76 is legislation that looks like it came out
of the south end of a northbound cow. It is absolutely
disgusting that this 530 page piece of trash is not even properly
done. It ignores Nunavut. It ignores other aspects. The French
and English translation of this bill is not even proper and there
are many other errors in it, but unfortunately we will not have
the opportunity to go through it word for word because the
government is ramming it down our throats and the throats of the
Canadian people.
A news release by Treasury Board states “The government wishes
to impose a collective agreement”. I know that when the
government changed unemployment insurance to employment insurance
it had a new thesaurus. It changed the English language. Now it
is changing it to imposing a collective agreement. For those
listening, for those in the House today and for the 300 PSAC
workers outside the House of Commons right now in protest who
will be joined by thousands of others across the country, we
cannot impose a collective agreement.
The word collective means together, labour and management come
together with their own imperatives of what they would like to
see for the next two or three years, the length of the collective
agreement, and then they agree.
In all my years of labour negotiations when they cannot agree,
that is when they get a third party, either a conciliator or an
arbitrator. That person's ruling would be binding on both
parties for the length of the collective agreement.
The government does not even want to go that route. It wants to
impose a collective agreement. I have never heard that in my
life. I have only been on this planet for 43 years. It wants to
impose a collective agreement. That is absolutely ridiculous.
While we are talking about the Liberal government, last night in
the late show I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Treasury Board a question on regional rates of pay. This is
his response, as reported in Hansard, on ending regional
rates of pay:
That would make it inequitable for many people in the process. It
would mean excessive income for some in certain areas [of the
country].
1215
Can we imagine it being excessive when a person making $11 an
hour now has his or her salary bumped over a three to four year
period to $15 an hour? I do not know a place in the country
where $15 an hour would be considered excessive. That is right
from the lips of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of
the Treasury Board.
It is absolutely unbelievable that the President of the Treasury
Board said in the House that members of parliament were paid
differently depending on where they lived. That is absolutely
not true. Some ministers may get an extra stipend, but the basic
rate of pay for parliamentarians is exactly the same no matter
where they live in the country. Whether we live in my beautiful
riding of Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley, in Malpeque, P.E.I. or
in Vancouver we get paid the same. That is a basic fact.
The truth is that 97% of all people attached to the public
service receive the same base pay. Guess what? Only the lowest
paid in the country do not, which is what we on this side of the
House find so offensive.
Here is another statement from Hansard during last night's
late show. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the
Treasury Board said:
If the government were to pay Vancouver rates to blue collar
workers in Halifax, imagine the outcry.
These are the crocodile tears we get. He continued:
Small business would be competing for needed workers, not just
the federal government but the corporations rich enough to match
the higher rates. That would disrupt the local labour market.
We have letters from the official opposition, the New Democratic
Party, and the Progressive Conservatives of Nova Scotia. Not one
business person has ever called me up and said that the
government was right. What they are saying is that the
government is absolutely wrong. Imagine anyone saying that. It
is unbelievable. I could go on with what he said, but I would be
so upset I would want to go over there and scream in their faces.
This morning I had a wonderful breakfast with some doctors and
some legislators to discuss tomorrow, World Tuberculosis Day or
World TB Day. There is another epidemic, a plague going across
the country, the plague of arrogance coming from Treasury Board.
It is absolutely unbelievable that the arrogance coming from the
minister and the parliamentary secretary goes right through the
entire backbenches. I have great respect for some backbenchers.
I can actually call them friends. However, the arrogance being
displayed to backbenchers which is coming forth on the picket
lines is unbelievable.
I cannot believe that in 1991 the Liberals sat shoulder to
shoulder with PSAC workers. We have the evidence. We spoke to
the workers. The Liberal members who were fighting in opposition
at that time against the Mulroney Conservatives were telling PSAC
workers to elect them in the next federal election and they would
end regional rates of pay.
It is now 1999 and guess what? They misled them on that one.
They will break their promise just as they did on GST, day care
and free trade. It goes on and on. It was just a power grab and
they misled some very wonderful people. I am absolutely
disgusted.
I will now deal for a moment with members of the Reform Party.
They are discussing the issues. Some of them have spoken very
well on behalf of people in their ridings. The member for
Wetaskiwin said they believed in fair collective bargaining and
that these workers were decent and honest people. He is
absolutely correct, but I wish he would talk to his member for
Saskatoon—Humboldt who called these same workers hooligans. That
was an absolute disgrace.
I wish members of the Reform Party, especially the leader of the
Reform Party, would take the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt by
the scruff of the neck and stop him from abusing his
parliamentary privileges by calling PSAC workers on strike
hooligans, thugs and thieves. It is absolutely unbelievable that
member would stand in the House and abuse his privileges in that
way.
I reiterate that we cannot legislate a collective agreement. The
Reform Party likes to call it a contract but it is not a
contract. It is a collective agreement. It is a living,
breathing document between two agreeable parties for the duration
of the contract. It is unbelievable the government would ignore
that and try to legislate them back.
We had this same discussion, deja vu I would call it, back in
December 1997 when the government did the same to postal workers.
As of today postal workers do not have a collective agreement.
The government is still delaying and stalling its efforts for a
proper agreement. Darrell Tingley of CUPW, Daryl Bean of PSAC
and all those hardworking people who strive hard to maintain the
morale of their membership are trying to say that they will deal
with and talk with the government, but the government is not
playing ball.
1220
Speaking about ball, the government turned around and ignored
the pay equity rulings from the courts. It said that it could
not do that, that it would be unfair to give people, especially
women, fair compensation for fair value of work. It will not do
that. The pay equity issue was strike one.
Regional rates of pay is strike two. The government will ignore
that because it is a pet personal project of the treasury board
minister so that is the way it will be.
Strike three is exactly what is going on outside right now, the
government's grab on the superannuation surplus of workers of the
public service, those who are retired and those who are currently
working. Where I come from three strikes in baseball and you are
out. This is exactly what will happen to the government come the
next federal election.
If the government is so sure of its legislation, if it is so
sure of its policies and if it believes its polls, it should
prorogue the House and call an election. I challenge the
government to do that. It should go back to the people of Canada
if it is so confident of this piece of legislation. I can assure
the House that the Liberals will be in for quite a shock. We
know they will not do that because they do not have the courage
to do that.
I reiterate that the government is refusing to listen. It has
absolutely forgotten to listen to people. I do not think it
really knows how.
We should all try to help government members. I will try to
help them get re-elected, especially the member for Malpeque who
is looking at me right now. I can assure him his re-election.
All he has to do is rip up Bill C-76, throw it away, recycle it.
I do not know if any recycler would ever want to take it because
it is so contaminated with such useless language. He can rip it
up and tell the treasury board minister, with whom I am sure he
has close contact, to go back to the bargaining table and bargain
in good faith. That would do it.
That is common sense. It is called conversation. It is called
talking. It is called dealing fairly or dealing equitably or
equity. There is that word again which the government does not
understand. It has its new dictionary, its new thesaurus and its
spin doctors. It will turn around tomorrow and ram the bill
through the Senate. As my colleague from Portage—Lisgar said,
the only people supporting the government now are members of the
Senate. If it cannot be reformed, eventually I hope we will
abolish that other place. That is for another time and another
story.
It is incredible that the government can ignore the hopes,
aspirations and dreams especially of those in Atlantic Canada.
There are two people working for PSAC literally 24 hours a day on
behalf of their membership and on behalf of their communities,
Mr. Howie West and Ms. Cathy Murphy. They have done yeoman's
work in trying to get the information out to the membership on
exactly what all this means.
Nova Scotians will not stand for it any more. They did not
stand for it in the last election when they elected six NDPers
and five Conservatives. If the government is thinking of trying
to get re-elected, that is not how to do it.
I hope the member for Malpeque is listening because I am trying
to teach him and show him how he can get re-elected if he desires
that. The member for Portage—Lisgar is correct. These people
will not forget. This is the straw that broke the camel's back,
more or less. The Liberals just cannot keep this arrogant way of
governing. They cannot do that any more.
The last time I checked we lived in a democracy. My father and
mother were rescued by the Canadians in 1945 during the
liberation of southern Holland. My father always said “If they
have a military like that, can you imagine what kind of country
they have?” I was a young child in 1956 when we came to this
country because of the democratic beliefs of Canadians. When I
spoke with my father the other day he said that he could not
believe the government that in the sixties had some very good
progressive and co-operative ideas had completely abandoned them.
1225
It will legislate the lowest of the lowest workers in terms of
salary back to work. If government members think that moving the
picket line from outside to inside the workplace will make
everyone happy, they are sadly mistaken. In the long run it will
cost the Canadian taxpayer a whole lot more money.
It is unbelievable that the government would stall and delay and
then all of a sudden use the hammer of legislation to get them
back to work. It will not work. These people will not abide by
the legislation. They will go back to the office because they
are law-abiding people, but let us imagine what will happen to
the morale of those people. It is unbelievable. When will the
next time be? We did it with the postal workers. Now we are
doing it with the PSAC workers. Who is next? I wish the
government would tell us who is next.
When the Bronfmanns sent $2 billion out of the country a couple
of years ago without paying any money to the federal government,
did the government have an emergency debate? Did the government
bring in legislation to order them to pay that money back to the
Canadian coffers? No, it did not. It just said “Oops, it is
the Bronfmanns. We cannot say anything. We will not say
anything because they are big donators to our party. We will
just ignore that and let it slide”.
Employees earning $11 and $12 an hour are exercising their
democratic right to strike and the government legislates them
back to work. The government's argument is that it is costing the
Canadian economy money. If that is true, why did it not
legislate the Bronfmanns to pay back the money they owed the
Canadian government and the Canadian people?
Another example occurred a few years ago. The Irving
Corporation decided to move its mobile home manufacturing plant
from New Brunswick to Nova Scotia. In fact it went to the town
of Debert and asked for applications from people to join the
company. Irving told the people of New Brunswick that if they
did not abide by its standards, rules and a reduction of pay they
would lose their jobs.
Did the government step in and say “You cannot do that. You
cannot threaten the livelihood of communities in New Brunswick?”
Absolutely not. It stood by and let the market decide. It let
the corporation decide what was best for business. However, what
happens when ordinary working people exercise their basic rights?
The government turns around and says that they cannot have them.
There cannot not be too much democracy in the country.
The government is one sided when it comes to negotiations of any
kind. It does not know how to negotiate. It negotiated a
terrible NAFTA deal. It negotiated bad environmental laws. Now
it cannot even negotiate with the lowest paid workers, its own
employees. That is an absolute disgrace.
I have been in the House for about two years. Like my colleague
from Winnipeg said, we did not come to the House to vote away the
rights of workers. We did not come to the House to have high
taxes placed on small businesses and families. We did not come
to the House to destroy the hopes and aspirations of people
infected with hepatitis C. We did not come to the House to make
all those people live in misery.
We came to the House to make it better for people. We came to
the House, especially me, to work with other opposition members
and to work with the government to come up with solutions that
would benefit all of us in the long term no matter where we lived
in the country.
I have had the opportunity to live in Vancouver, Yukon and now
in beautiful Nova Scotia. I have an understanding of what
Canadians think and what they say. The anger that people across
the country are starting to feel toward the government is
incredible. The government will stand up and say it had to been
done for farmers, for this and for that. It is all hyperbole. If
it really wanted to negotiate in fairness, it would rip up Bill
C-76 and go back to the bargaining table. It will not do that
because it has an agenda that does meet the needs of all
Canadians.
If government members think for one second that they can move
the picket line from outside to inside the workplace they are
sadly mistaken. The arrogance of the President of the Treasury
Board must stop. Otherwise there will be chaos and a lot of
trouble out there in the very near future.
1230
Many PSAC workers and their families in communities across the
country have contacted our party and me saying we have to do
something to get the government to listen to them. I have heard
members from the Reform Party, members from the Bloc. I will be
waiting for members of the Conservative Party to speak out as
well. They are all speaking with the same voice. We cannot do
this. We have to stop legislating collective agreements because
it is impossible.
It is not a collective agreement anymore. It is a legislative
term. It is certainly not agreeable. It is not agreeable to us
or the other opposition members and it is certainly not agreeable
to the workers. This is a slim majority of Liberals, who have
only 38% of the popular vote, legislating their agenda.
Daily we listen to the rhetoric of the Liberals. We listen to
the changes. They go with the flow. They change every day.
There is no question they have a one sided agenda. Their
corporate friends, their very powerful friends, have no problems.
They will do whatever they want with legislation and whatever
concerns they have.
The government ignores the working people in this country, their
families and their communities. It will divide and conquer.
Farmers will be put against workers, coal miners against other
people. Destroy them all. That is completely unacceptable.
I thank members for the opportunity to speak on behalf of all
PSAC workers, their families and their communities across the
country.
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague for Kings—Hants.
I agree with almost every thing the member for
Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore said. What the
government has done today in the House is absolutely
unforgivable, unconscionable and should not be allowed to happen
in a democracy.
It is a pleasure, in one way, to be here today to see the
government acknowledge it has failed miserably on two fronts. It
has failed in managing the House of Commons, the Parliament of
Canada. The government House leader has come in today with a
bill that basically shuts down the rights of all of us as
parliamentarians. This does not give us the right to have
adequate debate. It does not give us a chance to reasonably
explain to each other and the people of Canada why we are for or
against any given piece of legislation.
When the government brings in closure it is acknowledging that
it cannot run this place properly, it has failed to manage the
affairs of the House of Commons. As a result the government takes
away the rights of individual members in order to ram through
legislation which obviously is only favoured by the government,
not by any of the opposition members and not by the majority of
Canadians.
The other area in which the Liberal government has failed is how
it manages public relations, relations with its employees and how
it runs its collective agreements. In effect what the President
of the Treasury Board is saying today is he has failed. He was
not able to negotiate a reasonable and fair settlement with the
lowest paid of the Canadian public servants. To have the
minister come in here today and acknowledge that is at least
something to say that the Liberals know when they have done
something wrong.
Unfortunately what we are seeing here today is a government, its
slim majority achieved with only 38% of Canadian public support,
using its bullying power to pass legislation whether Canadians
like it or not.
We should not be here today just to do the government's dirty
business. We should be here to discuss the problems facing
Canada. One of those is the PSAC strike. What we are really
doing here is getting the government off the hook because it is
incompetent, uncaring and unaware of how to reach a reasonable
settlement with its employees.
We should take some brief moments today, with the small amount
of time we are allocated under this closure motion, to talk about
what collective bargaining is supposed to be in Canada.
Government is not supposed to be in the House of Commons today
changing a rule to suit itself. It is here for the good of the
people.
1235
When it suspends collective bargaining, which in effect is what
Bill C-76 does, it says that people do not have a right to go on
strike. This PSAC strike, as far as I understand it, is a legal
strike. They as employees, part of a collective bargaining unit,
have every right to strike. They pay their union dues. They use
negotiating teams to negotiate a good agreement for themselves.
If those things do not work then obviously they have the
provision to strike.
The employer, on the other hand, has the provision to lock out
any employee who does not have a collective agreement. In this
case these workers, the lowest paid in the Canadian public
service, who have not had a wage increase for seven years, have
chosen to go on strike. To my way of thinking they have every
legal right to do so. For us to be here today to vote to suspend
that right, to take away their collective bargaining right, is
simply not proper.
We are doing it for a reason, there supposedly being a real
crisis in western Canada. My thought process is if we have
employees who are deemed essential, the minute they go on strike
everyone knows the collective bargaining process. Some respect
it and some do not. Basically in a collective bargaining process
employees will choose to go on strike at a time that is most
opportune for them, where they can exert more influence, where
they can put more pressure on the employer to reach an acceptable
agreement. Obviously that has happened in western Canada.
If employees are so essential that we cannot possibly do without
them, that their service must be performed at all cost and at all
times, then we should change the process. We should do away with
collective agreements for some employees and take away the right
to strike. Because they are essential, because they are deemed
absolutely crucial to the governance of our country, then we
should not have collective agreements but a system of binding
arbitration where workers give up the right to strike on one hand
knowing that a binding arbitration clause or agreement will be
struck on the other hand that gives them a fair shake.
Not all governments follow this process exactly. In
Newfoundland we have a most unfortunate situation now where we
have taken the right to strike away from our policemen and
firemen. Why did we take the right to strike away from policemen
and firemen? They are deemed to be essential to good governance.
They are deemed to be crucial to how our communities handle the
affairs that come up on any given day.
Police in Newfoundland went to binding arbitration, so they
thought, except they found that the Liberal Government of
Newfoundland, with the same heavy hand that the Liberal
government in Ottawa uses, would not accept the binding
arbitration and in effect put in place an agreement which nobody,
including the arbitrators, agreed with. That is government for
government sake. It is not government for the people.
This whole situation we are in with PSAC puts farmers on one
hand against PSAC members on the other. I again believe that if
these workers, the grain handlers in particular, are absolutely
essential to the agriculture industry in Canada, they are
absolutely essential for our foreign trade purposes, then they
could be declared an essential service. Make them eligible for
binding arbitration and send them back to work.
If we were here today to discuss legislation which would change
the collective bargaining agreement to deem those persons as
performing an essential service, to give them binding
arbitration, I suspect most of those members in that union would
be more than happy to go back to work and do that essential
service for the good of Canada.
What we have now is a crisis in the grain handling in the
agricultural industry in western Canada and in effect what this
government is doing is using the farmers, the producers of the
country, as a form of blackmail to force some of their low paid
workers not back to the bargaining table but simply back to work.
I think that is absolutely shameful of the government. It is
shameful to think that we would use our hardworking farmers to
force some other low paying Canadians back to work.
I know there is tremendous concern for our international trade
reputation. There is the tremendous concern of money loss, of
contracts in place, of delivery schedules not being met, but it
is the government's fault. Farmers in western Canada may think
the Government of Canada is doing them a favour by legislating
workers back to their duties. Most farmers will say it is the
fault of the Government of Canada and not the low paid PSAC
workers who are at fault here.
If the Government of Canada thinks it will curry favour with all
the farmers across the country, I certainly hope that does not
happen because it does not deserve any credit from the farmers of
Canada.
1240
Certainly Treasury Board and the government have known for over
two years that these negotiations had to take place. Why were
there only 14 days of negotiations with a collective bargaining
unit over a 2 year period? Is this good planning and good
management by the government? Obviously it is not.
I agree that in certain cases people may have to be legislated
back to work because they are essential. If the marine Atlantic
ferry workers connecting Newfoundland to the rest of the country
were to go on strike it might be that because it was destroying
the fishing industry and completely disrupting the tourism
industry those people might have to be legislated back to work.
My thought process is again the same as it is with these
workers, that they are deemed essential. Give them binding
arbitration. They lose their right to strike but it is known
that in the end there will at least be a fair agreement and it
will not have to be done by blackmailing some other part of
society.
One of the very important issues for Atlantic Canada, in
particular for Newfoundland, is the regional rates of pay. This
is another Liberal policy that allows for a Newfoundlander doing
exactly the same work as somebody from Calgary or Vancouver to
get a different rate of pay. It is absolutely unconstitutional.
It is unfair.
It is not allowed to discriminate based on race, creed or colour
but there can be discrimination based on where one happens to
live. It is absolutely, totally unfair and PSAC is fighting this
battle. It is a battle that needs to be won. It is a policy that
needs to be changed by the Government of Canada.
It is silliness to think that the Government of Canada is afraid
to disrupt local labour markets because of paying a higher rate
of pay in Newfoundland. In Newfoundland we lost 30,000 people in
the last three years. We have a 20% unemployment rate and a 35%
unemployment rate with young people.
I assure the President of the Treasury Board and the Prime
Minister and all his ministers in cabinet that there would be no
disruption of the labour market in Newfoundland if the government
paid these people a fair wage.
I hope that somewhere in this whole process some of these PSAC
members are able to fight this battle on regional rates of pay
and come to a logical conclusion which is that everybody in
Canada who does the same work for the Government of Canada should
get the same rate of pay.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker,
government has a leadership role to play in human resource
management. Let me make it clear. I believe very strongly in
the free market system but I also believe that unions play an
important role within that free market system in defending the
rights of workers.
Those people who understand the free market system and support
it also must understand that without unions to defend the rights
of workers it would take a large government department to defend
workers. Unions have for a long time played this important role,
a role government does not seem to recognize.
I support the rights of workers to organize democratically, to
organize collectively and to strike peacefully. It is appalling
that the private sector has actually over the last 20 years leapt
far ahead of the government in terms of human resource
management.
Companies like Chrysler Canada were among the first to appoint
union representatives to their board of directors. Companies
now, when they are looking at improving processes, improving
products and developing better services, are sitting down with
their executives and the unions to develop those products and
services, to agree on labour standards, to work together to
improve the companies and the services for the customer.
The only place where this is not occurring is with the
Government of Canada. That is appalling because government
should be ahead of the private sector in some of those human
resource areas. Instead, the private sector has actually played
a more responsible role in human resource management than the
government.
The issues PSAC raised are very important. It is important to
recognize that we are talking about blue collar workers, people
not at the higher end of the wage scales. These are people who I
understand have not received a raise in seven years.
One of the issues they raised, as my colleague mentioned
earlier, is regional rates of pay. To pay people differently in
Atlantic Canada, to pay people based on where they live, creates
a ghettoization of our national public service, a ghettoization
that is unacceptable.
When we are talking of $11 to $12 per hour jobs, I understand
that there is a $3 to $4 per hour gap, depending on the region a
person lives in. That is a 30% gap depending on where one lives.
I think that is unacceptable.
1245
National corporations have reflected this in policy in recent
years. They accept that they will pay people the same for the
job and people will choose where they live based on their own
selection, based on quality of life issues or standard of living
issues. To ghettoize the public service geographically, in my
opinion, is appalling shortsighted.
We have with our public service now one of the lowest levels of
morale that has ever existed. In fact, I feel comfortable in
saying that this government has achieved the lowest level of
morale in the public service that has ever existed. There was a
time when public servants felt good about their jobs, felt good
about serving their fellow Canadians and about contributing to
the growth and prosperity of our country. Now public servants
feel absolutely besieged by a government that has stopped
recognizing their worth and contribution to the future of our
country.
It is absolutely critical that this issue be dealt with and be
dealt with not by a knee-jerk reaction or the crisis management
style that this government has chosen to deal with almost every
major issue, but in terms of a long term, visionary strategy that
addresses the entire issue of the public service from a long term
perspective.
Instead of negotiating in good faith over a longer period of
time and working with the public service—and based on the
meetings I have had over the past several months, I have found
that the public service is more than willing to negotiate and
discuss long term strategy—the government has let this reach the
boiling point. It has allowed it to evolve at a critical time to
a point where essentially the interests of western Canadian grain
farmers and the western Canadian region are pitted against the
interests of blue collar public servants.
I know a lot of farmers. The farmers I know are very fair
people. I would argue that no farmer would want his or her
interests pitted against those interests of lower income public
servants. I think it is appalling that the government has taken,
for instance, the interests of western Canadian farmers, who are
already facing the lowest commodity prices in generations and are
in a very precarious position, and pitting their interests
against the interests of low income public servants, trying to
somehow use this divide and conquer mentality. It is a bit like
how the Canadian electorate was divided and arguably conquered in
the last election when this government was elected with 38% of
the popular vote, a lower percentage of the popular vote than
that which the government of the Right Hon. Joe Clark was elected
with in 1979.
Obviously this government is not interested in fair labour
practices. It is not interested in sitting down in the same way
that corporations do and developing long term strategies with
public servants to meet the needs of Canadians and to actually
improve the public service. Instead this is a government that,
for instance, with the Revenue Canada agency, is going
gangbusters to split off 40% of the public service, as opposed to
trying to address the holistic issues of the public service
within the public service. This government is saying “Let's
take a hands-off approach and get rid of the public service”.
This is not necessary. It is possible to work within the public
service, as has been done in other countries and as has been
proven by the private sector in working with labour to develop
long term strategies to what are long term issues.
Every time we get into this kind of situation where we have a
long term problem on the horizon, the government ignores it until
it reaches a crisis point and then it creates a political
solution to pit the interests of one group in crisis against
another.
1250
It is not responsible government. It is not responsible human
resource management. It is the type of practice that embarrasses
me as a parliamentarian to play a role in. It puts members in
opposition in a very difficult position. In my opinion, the
position of the government in allowing this to happen is an
untenable position and an unconscionable position on this very
important issue.
We would hope that the government would see the error of its
ways and sit down with the public service. It should read the
recent, excellent report of a committee co-chaired by Senators
Stratton and Cools on the public service. It should develop a
long term strategy to address the fundamental issues of the
Canadian public service, perhaps as a millennium project.
Instead of putting labels on these monumental projects that the
government has developed for its own self-glorification, perhaps
it should be working toward developing a new relationship with
public servants across Canada for the new millennium. Maybe that
would be the best millennium project this government could work
on.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. members who have just
spoken from this side of the House. I want to invite you, Mr.
Speaker, members of this House and members of the listening
audience to come on a little journey and meet two people who live
right in the middle of my constituency of Souris—Moose Mountain.
Dan and Louise are just past 40. They have one child in high
school and two in elementary school. I want to talk about what
they know at the present time and the conditions they are living
with. Later I will be able to inform them of what this
government is doing to them.
In the middle of my constituency is the city of Weyburn. It is
the largest inland buying centre in Canada. While we in this
House debate the PSAC agreement—and we will probably get into
doing something which nobody on this side of the House wants to
do—Dan and Louise only know one thing. They do not even know
what PSAC stands for, but they do know that sitting in the bins
of western Canada is $3 billion worth of wheat. They also know
that the shipments were stalled for a few days because of the
grain weighers.
What they do not know is why they did this. They do not know
the reason this government has deliberately and consciously
driven them into that act.
What they do know is that the wheat board's monopolized exports
are down not 70% from what they were a year ago, indeed not 60%
from what they were a year ago, but 56% from what they were a
year ago.
What this young couple on the farm now knows is that with spring
around the corner they cannot even turn last year's board grain
into cash simply because the grain is not moving.
What this House should know, what this government should know,
and what Dan and Louise know, is that at one time when they first
started farming Canada's share of the wheat production for sale
was 21.5%. What this government should recognize is that
Canada's wheat share is going to drop to slightly below 12%.
1255
If this government were at all sensitive to people's needs it
would understand that, in the typical style of this government,
it pits one group against another, rural against urban and
central provinces against outer provinces. It has a mere 38% and
that is how it governs.
That is what is before us now. Dan and Louise who live out
there are not anti-PSAC. When this country gets to know the full
story, it will be anti-government. Make no mistake about that.
Grain sales are down considerably. Farmers have not been paid
for last year's crop. Dan and Louise lost $80,000 last year and
it is for sure that they will be down $80,000 again this year.
They do not really care, but when an opportunity comes along to
move their grain they want it to be moved.
I will make another announcement that this government is
insensitive to, and it cannot blame this on PSAC. When Dan and
Louise go to fill their fuel tank this spring they will see a
10% increase. It has already happened. To an agricultural
industry that is struggling to get by, this government sits idly
by and says “We did not get much support out there anyway, so
what is it to us?” It is the number one industry in our province
and certainly number one in my constituency. Farmers have to
enter the field this spring with a double whammy: no money for
last year's sale and the prospect of paying more for fuel.
In the next few days farmers will be lining up to pick up their
AIDA packages. When they apply for the government aid package
they will need to come well equipped. Their wife's purse will
not be large enough. It is 40 pages. I took one off the
Internet and I phoned an accountant who said that he would not
even complete one without a fee of somewhere between $200 and
$500.
That is the insensitive part of this government. It is far
worse than income tax. It is something that most farmers are
simply going to throw in the air in desperation and say that it
is typical Liberal style. The Liberals will hire more people to
administer and figure this thing out than the farmers will get. I
call that a thousand dollar lottery because farmers will not find
out until summer if they are even eligible for the package.
Why is this government always part of a problem? Why does it
deliberately solve the problem of 500 people who belong to the
correctional service, who got through the loopholes, by saying
“If somehow we can pass this bill we can cure it”, but the
opposition gets mud in its face? It is very good at scheming
these things.
I could tell Dan and Louise the hourly wage of the 70 PSAC
members who are striking. I could tell them that this government
really has not even dealt with them sincerely for 15 years. That
is what they need to know. When Dan and Louise know that, they
will not be angry at PSAC, they will be angry at this government.
The government exaggerates and personifies total disrespect for
people who are marginal in this country. The 70 frustrated
members did what they had to do and held up shipments across the
west.
Certainly the farmers were angry about that. Certainly they
were angry about the fact that they lost $9 million. I know one
thing. I will do everything that I can, in any way possible, to
make sure my constituents, who are basically farmers, understand
the real reason behind that stoppage of grain.
That side of the House is the reason. The problem is on that
side of the House. It is not PSAC.
1300
Farmers need to sell last year's crop before they can plant this
year's crop. The government's control has done so much that
farmers simply do not have any money to put their crops in. The
people on the government benches do not believe that.
In the last seven land sale packages which were held in my
constituency, there was not one bid. There was not one bid in
some of the richest land in Saskatchewan. Part of this has to
rest right on the government benches opposite. Not only that,
when the government offered an aid package to which I alluded
earlier, the government has made it so complicated that most of
the farmers are simply going to write “return to sender” on it.
The government should listen to what the union is saying about
final selection and negotiated settlement. It should listen to
what every party on this side of the House is saying. The
government should simply go back to binding arbitration.
Everybody would be happy. We would not be forced to stand here
today faced with a vote later on. We should not have to do this.
If it were offered, PSAC would accept binding arbitration today.
What is the matter with the government? The government likes
its Bill C-68. It keeps the people unhappy. The people are
unhappy and the government can govern and that is all that
matters.
Back to work legislation should never be used. It should only be
used as a last resort. The government has the power to stop this
back to work legislation now, this afternoon. The government has
the power to call in the members and privy council and say that
it will offer binding arbitration.
People across Canada, including the union, would be happy, but
the government does not want it that way. The government wants
back to work legislation, but it does not want Canadians to
understand it. The government does not want the farmers in my
constituency to understand what it is doing. The government does
not want the people in Nova Scotia to understand what it is
doing. The government just wants the elected few to understand,
to manipulate this House and twist this country about.
The government has not bargained in good faith. Let me repeat
that the government has not bargained in good faith, and we are
now left with this last ditch effort.
What would Dan and Louise say to this government? “If you come
west and you are looking at why you have alienated the west, you
had better bring some earplugs and be prepared to sit down
because the long list of complaints will keep you busy all
afternoon”.
What we are about to do today is a disgrace. It is totally
unnecessary, totally un-Canadian and totally against every
principle of the democratic process. I hope between now and this
evening the government can somehow come to its good senses.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Perth—Middlesex
on a point of order.
Mr. John Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I am on my feet to
speak for a short moment.
It was nice to hear the member give the usual knee-jerk reaction
to complex problems that we have been getting from the Reform
Party for the last five years. Then the Reform Party members go
back home and say how badly they have been treated.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member is rising on debate.
I understood him to say that he was rising to make a few remarks
so I assume he is rising on debate. The hon. member for
Perth—Middlesex on debate.
1305
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, to get this straight, the strike is across Canada. It
could put a lot more people in jeopardy if we allow the strike to
continue. It could slow down the economy as it has in the hon.
member's riding, which is unfortunate.
Simple knee-jerk reactions are running against the grain on this
issue. As a consequence, if we come up with some measures that
are balanced, well thought out and put into place to get the PSAC
union back to work, we will then have a smooth flow across the
country.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
today is a very sad day in the House of Commons.
I did not expect to again go through what took place in the
House in 1995 when, for an entire weekend, we debated back to
work legislation for Canada's rail workers.
Why do I say that today is a sad day? Because we are looking at
a government that is sitting as both judge and jury and
literally bludgeoning or, more broadly speaking, bulldozing over
the democratic rights of workers.
As I was preparing my speaking notes, various ridiculous but
terrible analogies came to mind, such as leaving Dracula in
charge of the blood bank, or giving Colonel Saunders the keys to
the hen house.
I also thought of the tale of the three little pigs. It is as
though the poor wee things had hired the big bad wolf as a real
estate agent.
This is the sort of situation we are facing. We are looking at
a government that, on the one hand, has the power to make
reasonable offers to its workers but, on the other, as soon as
negotiations stall, dons a different hat. It dons its lawmaker
hat and tramples the most sacred right that workers possess, the
right to strike.
There are 177 seats—right now there are perhaps 172—and only five
of them are occupied. The Liberal government is using its
majority to amend the Canada Labour Code outright and tell
Canada's public sector employees that they no longer have the
right to strike, that they can forget about that recourse.
It is depriving them of that right, and using its majority in
the House to deprive them of the right to strike. The issue will
be settled: as soon as negotiations fail, the government will
put its final offer on the table and it will be all over. That
will be it. And yet, the government boasts about the fact that,
under the Canada Labour Code, workers have the right to strike.
I find it strange to speak about workers' rights. Before
becoming a member of parliament, I spent 16 years working in
labour relations, 14 of them in the pulp and paper industry, and
two in the food industry. I have always represented the
employer. I must confess that, while my training is in
industrial relations, I always worked for the employer side.
1310
One thing which I always found extremely important are the
respective rights and obligations of the parties. Employers have
rights and obligations, and so do workers.
In my role as a member of parliament, and even later on in life,
I will never tolerate the violation of fundamental and
democratic rights relating to labour relations, which is what
this bill is doing.
The member for Chicoutimi thinks it is funny, but he should be
very concerned about this issue, and I am looking forward to
hearing him later on.
I am convinced that the Conservative Party will act as a
defender of the workers' interests, like us in the Bloc
Quebecois and like our colleagues in the NDP.
We know that the purpose of this bill is to get the striking
public servants back to work. For the benefit of those who are
listening to us, I should explain that there are two categories
of workers affected. This may be a bit technical, but I would
like to make it clear whom we are referring to when we speak of
the blue collar workers.
In table 2, we have general labour and trades, ships' crews,
hospital services, general services and firefighters, while in
table 4 we have correctional services workers.
My intention in making this aside to list the categories of
workers affected is to make it clear that there are no $100,000
or $150,000 a year earners in this category. We are speaking of
those at the bottom of the scale, those who are the least well
paid among the public service hierarchy. These are the people
who have for some years made efforts and sacrifices, have
accepted cuts, have agreed to play along. They were told by
their bosses “We are one big family here, and we are having
problems with our budget”.
Their managers did not say so in so many words, but the
Conservatives left $42 billion per year of deficit behind them,
and the Liberals made cuts in a number of areas. Let us think
back to the 1995 budget of the Minister of Finance, which called
for 45,000 civil service job cuts. We in Quebec have the fine
motto of “Je me souviens”, and we certainly do not forget.
What do the managers say to their employees? They say “You have
to tighten your belts, do your share and we will get through
this. One day, after we have get out of this, it will be
worthwhile. You will see, that, together, we will be
compensated”.
But no. When these people want to take action in support of
their rights, they get their legs chopped off at the knees.
This is totally unacceptable.
I was saying earlier that these people are not at the top of the
wage scales. They are, however, people who are committed to
their work and proud of it and who intend to inform the public
the best way possible. They are people whose service to the
public has developed their awareness.
Naturally, a number of horror stories on public servants are
being circulated.
I am not saying that everyone is perfect. What about the
members here? Are all 301 MPs perfect? No, we are human beings
with attributes and faults.
What I want to say, however, is that we should forget the horror
stories that sometimes circulate about incompetent officials,
because there are incompetent lawyers, doctors and butchers too.
Let us forget these horror stories, and look at the vast
majority. They are people whose work is important to them,
conscientious people.
For the benefit of this speech, I will read a letter I received
from an official in my riding, whose name I will not mention
obviously for reasons of confidentiality. This letter was not
written by me or a member of my team. You will see this is
someone speaking from the heart.
1315
The letter is dated July 17, 1998. It reads as follows:
Dear Sir,
I am a resident of Beauport and have worked for Revenue Canada
since 1976. I have 31 years of pensionable service and am close
to retirement. I bought back the years I worked for the
provincial government and I am writing to tell you about what we
are going through at work.
First, our salaries have been frozen since 1991. I can
understand that, at the time, everyone had to tighten their
belts in order to reduce the government's annual deficit.
I did my part willingly, but we had no choice. To my way of
thinking, when we were told that our salaries were frozen, that
meant everyone, all federal government employees from the top to
the bottom of the structure.
When you work as a family, everyone is subject to these
conditions. It makes sense and is fair for everyone. But the
freeze did not apply to all members of the family and that is
unfair. (Another federal government injustice.)
I continue with the third:
We have lost 17% of the cost of living since 1991. This came
out of my net salary. So, on top of getting no increase, I have
lost 17% of my net salary.
(How is this fair? Our salaries had to be frozen.) This 17%
will affect my pension. Those receiving pensions, by the way,
got the cost of living increase because pensions are indexed.
In the fourth paragraph, he says this:
I have read various newspaper and magazine articles and I note
that judges will get increases of at least 12%. Soldiers will
get over 9% and members of the RCMP 12.85% by the year 2001. The
management group will get an astounding 17.4% of the minimum
salary. In addition, deputy ministers will get increases of
from 10.95% to 19.35%.
The Beauport resident goes on to say, in his letter:
It is an insult to workers who provide front line services to
tell them they will get a 1.5% increase at the most. If we are a
family, a team, a partnership, as the employer has been claiming
in recent years, we should get a corresponding increase, which
would be logical and fair. So, I think that you, our members of
parliament—
That person is writing to us, members of parliament. Since I am
his MP, he sent the letter to me, but it concerns all 301
members who sit here.
He adds:
I think that you, our members of parliament, our elected
representatives, should put pressure on those concerned, so that
they think not just about themselves as leaders, but also about
us, ordinary citizens, and about the fact that it is because of
our work that they can give themselves these raises. We are part
of the team, the family. When the atmosphere in the family is
good, the team does highly positive work. In the business world,
when a company makes profits, a portion of these profits
trickles down to the workers in recognition of their good work.
If we have contributed to eliminating the federal deficit,
should we not get the same pay increases as the above-mentioned
people? Think about it for a moment. It is time to take action
and to do justice to all concerned.
This writer from Beauport said the following in closing:
Thank you in advance for your help. I am sure that you will be
able to accomplish something very positive, because I think that
the people in charge are aware of the situation and will do
everything they can to keep all of the family positive and
motivated. That is the secret for winning.
If I took the trouble to read this letter as part of my speech,
it is because of the distress it expresses. There is much
emphasis on the aspect of family.
1320
We must not lose sight of what these people are now
experiencing, the federal public servants who gave their unions
a mandate, saying “We are sending you to Ottawa to negotiate an
agreement. We hope you will bring the best possible one back to
us. We hope that you are going to be able to make this
government listen to reason”.
The union negotiators came back with their tails between their
legs to report “The government is refusing to accept the
majority conciliation reports. The government is refusing the
proposal of arbitration, of calling upon an adjudicator to
determine working conditions, if we are unable to reach
agreement”.
The position of the Bloc Quebecois is as follows.
We say that, if the point of no return has been reached, if not
even another half a centimetre's progress is possible, then why
not ask a university professor anywhere in Canada skilled in
this area to arbitrate the working conditions? According to the
information we have, the union could live with that, but
unfortunately the government is saying yet again “bang, pow, out
of the question, no, nyet, not one minute”.
We in the Bloc Quebecois think that special legislation should
be the last recourse and, we respectfully submit, not all the
recourses have been exhausted. Since 1991, the federal
government has renewed the master agreement with the public
service with laws issued by this Parliament.
Today, with this master agreement subdivided into seven
bargaining tables, the government must reach an agreement
negotiated in good faith.
I would like to close with a short history of bargaining in the
public service. Labour relations between the federal government
and public servants are governed by the Public Service Staff
Relations Act, which came into effect in 1967. The government
justified this particular framework at the time by promising to
be a good employer, providing proper remuneration and working
conditions and not using its size and power to control the
market.
Since then, and especially since the Liberals took office in
1993, these principles have been abused in every way possible.
Let us look at some examples.
Using its legislative power, with its successive cuts, which
have fallen heavily on public servants, through its attempts to
manipulate taxpayers by demagoguery and by using major
government communications resources, the government distorts,
undermines and subordinates the bargaining process as no other
employer can do.
We must not forget that the Department of Human Resources
Development sets the number of public servants to be cut. We
revealed a directive from a senior official in Prince Edward
Island, which said “There could be 250 jobs threatened if you do
not achieve the cuts quota”.
Studies show that some 4% of people defraud employment
insurance. But, according to what I have been told, when a
person arrives in an employment insurance office, they are
assumed to be defrauding the system.
As soon as a person walks into the office, he or she is
immediately labelled and seen as a cheater, when in fact only 4%
of claimants are. We must not tolerate having 4% of claimants
cheating the EI system, but it is totally unacceptable to assume
the other 96% are cheaters too.
Let us now look at the acts imposed by this government and the
previous one. During the 1993 and 1997 election campaigns, the
Bloc Quebecois said “To vote for the Liberals or the
Conservatives is just the same”. The Conservative government of
Brian Mulroney must also share the blame for this unacceptable
situation.
In August 1982, under a Liberal government, Bill C-124 froze the
salaries of about 500,000 public servants. In December 1989,
under the Conservatives, back to work legislation, that is Bill
C-49, was passed.
1325
In October 1991, again under the Conservatives, Bill C-29
threatened to unilaterally impose the employer's offers if they
were not accepted. I could go on and on, but I only have one
minute left.
I began my remarks by saying we cannot trust this government,
which is acting as both judge and jury, and I will conclude with
two quotes. Americans say “Do not put the rabbit in charge of
the lettuce”, while Germans say “Do not ask the cat to look
after the cream”. This is what we have with this government.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is indeed a displeasure to stand here once again. I
am not happy that I have to stand up and again speak on behalf of
prairie farmers, my constituents, with regard to this issue. We
have had this before us now for quite some time. I will again
refer to a bombshell that I released last week when we talked
about this.
One of the key points that needs to be made is that the
government is not sincere in dealing with this issue. It is
looking for an excuse to bring in legislation and blame everyone
else for the fact that it is in this predicament. With the
things I will bring forth it will become quite clear that this is
not the case.
When I got back to my riding I started getting phone calls from
farmers in my area saying that Reform is to blame for all this. I
asked why they said that. Apparently the Minister of Agriculture
and Agri-Food has been spinning out this whole scenario in such a
way that the opposition, namely Reform, is responsible for the
predicament in which the government finds itself. It is blaming
us for the delay and all the concerns that people are raising.
That indicates to me quite clearly that the government is not
sincere in dealing with this and wants to make political points
on it by blaming Reform. This is something the Canadian people
must realize. The opposition parties can hardly be blamed for
the whole mess that has been created because of the government's
lack of action.
Recall last week that the government brought in a motion without
informing the opposition as to what that motion was. It brought
in a motion and asked for unanimous consent for a bill it would
not even show us in advance.
Mr. Speaker, would you buy a pig in a poke? Would you agree to
something you knew nothing about? Hardly. That demonstrates
clearly the government was not sincere in dealing with this issue
of the strike in a manner that was above board and wanted to
resolve it. It wanted to be able to blame the opposition in some
way for not having action on this more quickly.
About 15 minutes before government introduced that motion, the
minister for the Treasury Board, under whose purview this whole
thing is, said he would consider all options. We had just put
forth the option of final offer selection arbitration, which the
government is quite familiar with. If the minister was sincere
in his comments that he would look at all options, to have a bill
submitted or ask approval for a bill 15 minutes later indicates
that the government had in mind all along what it wanted to do.
It was clear that it simply wanted to find an excuse to introduce
legislation to order the workers back to work.
I referred to a letter last week. I called it my bombshell that
I would release. That letter clearly indicates that this did not
happen just in this last week. The government received a letter
on January 27, 1999.
That is more than six weeks ago. It indicates that the strikes
were already creating a problem on the west coast, that PSAC had
been on strike. The weighers, the 70 people who weigh the grain
that is being shipped from the prairies, had already had some
rotating strikes and had effectively closed down the Vancouver
port operations.
1330
The letter goes on to indicate that the Canadian Grain
Commission had provided six supervisory personnel. They were
doing their best to cover all the regular contingent in excess of
the 70 weighmen who were on strike and if no picketing action is
taken by the weighmen, the numbers this small would have
effectively closed port operations.
The President of the Treasury Board received this letter. The
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Minister of Transport,
the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, and the
Minister for International Trade all received a copy of this
letter. The government knew well in advance that this problem
was developing.
The letter indicates that the results of such work stoppages
have stopped the unloading of over 700 rail cars per day,
eliminating the loading of approximately 275,000 tonnes of grain.
The back-up caused by not unloading the rail cars will cost
Canadian grain producers millions of dollars and impact our
critical trading relationships with foreign buyers. This was all
in that letter.
Let me pause for a moment, because there seems to be a few
puzzled looks as to why I am dealing with this when we are
talking about a strike by the Public Service Alliance of Canada
workers. The point I am making is that a third party is being
severely impacted. The economic loss is in the tens of millions
of dollars to the farmers in Saskatchewan, the farmers of the
prairies because of this strike, because of 70 people being off
work. The government has taken the opportunity to order all the
PSAC workers back to work because of the concerns that we have
expressed about the farmers in my riding.
If a third party is being hurt by a strike of this magnitude,
something has to be done. We are holding our noses and voting
for this legislation. What else can we do? We have to get the
grain moving because of the severe impact this is having on the
entire country. Yes, something has to be done.
The letter also went on to say that the Canadian grain industry
and in particular western farmers are at the mercy of the
weighmen. That is the point I am trying to make. That was
included in the letter that I dropped as a bombshell last week.
The letter goes on to explain, “We are asking for the
co-operation of all parties including the federal government in
ensuring that the impact to western farmers is minimized during
this time. To this end, WGEA members are committed to finding
appropriate solutions to the present situation”. They are
looking for solutions.
For the government to suddenly come up with legislation to order
them all back to work when this has been going on for more than
six weeks just shows that it had the opportunity to do something
and it did nothing.
I will give a bit of an explanation on the proposal we put
forward. I am hoping at some point the government will seriously
look at this. Then we would not have to be back here every few
months dealing with similar legislation to order some other group
of workers back to work.
Final offer selection arbitration is a method by which parties
on both sides of a dispute that they cannot resolve put in their
final offer. Then an arbitrator selects one or the other offer.
He cannot take some middle ground between them. He has to select
one or the other offer.
The key thing is who the arbitrator is going to be. Both sides
have to select an arbitrator from a pool of arbitrators. It is
critical that it is an impartial person who reviews the final
offers.
Why are we supporting this legislation? We really have no
choice. We have to get these people back to work. The government
has dilly-dallied. It has not dealt sincerely with this and has
put us in this mess. We have to hold our noses, as I say, and
vote for it.
Farmers are being adversely affected and have no control over
this situation. It is between the government and the PSAC
workers.
1335
The government has the power to run roughshod over anyone in
society and unfortunately it has used this power. That has been
of great concern as I have watched events unfold.
The bill has closure stamped all over it, which means we deal
with this issue now. We do not go through the normal process of
having first, second and third reading with the bill being sent
to committee and so on and having all of those things available
to us. The government said this was the way it was going to be
and it is ramming it through.
Farmers are being impacted. The Canadian Wheat Board put out a
news release saying it lost $9 million in sales in just two days
last week. I am hoping the wheat board is not going to use this
as an excuse for its poor sales.
The wheat board controls all wheat and barley sales. Farmers do
not own their own grain. They have to sell it through the wheat
board. I just found out today that export shipments of grains,
wheat and barley, over which the wheat board has a legislated
monopoly, so far in 1998-99 wheat and barley sales are down 41%
from a year ago and are down 30% from the five year average.
Exports of non-durum wheat are down 44%. Durum is down 18%.
Barley sales are down 64%. Farmers have bins full of wheat and
barley which they cannot sell themselves and the wheat board is
not moving it.
Canada's share of the world market for wheat could drop to below
12% this season. How does that compare? At one time we were up
to 21.5%. The 10 year average of Canada's share of grain sales
is 20% and we are down to 12% of our share of the world market.
That indicates how serious the situation is for western farmers.
They are locked in because they cannot sell their grains, wheat
and barley, outside the wheat board.
The exports of leading western Canadian crops that the wheat
board does not handle are up 39%. Canola exports are 63% higher.
In these other areas that are not handled by the wheat board, the
sales are up a great deal.
There is $2 billion to $3 billion of grain sitting in prairie
bins that remains unsold. Had these off farm sales of grain been
running at the rates of a year ago, there would be $600 million
to $700 million more in the pockets of prairie farmers.
Not only are we prevented from shipping out that grain right
now, sales have clearly been down through the wheat board
already. How is that impacting on my riding? The various
elevators in the northern part of my riding are plugged. The
grain is there and it cannot be moved because the rail cars are
not available to send the grain out to the west coast. It does
not get more serious than that, especially if one completely
depends on the sale of these grains.
I also want to clearly indicate for all those who are watching
this debate on television how much this impacts on prairie
farmers. The government has put us in the very awkward position
of having to choose between the PSAC workers and the farmers. It
has pitted one group against the other because it failed to
resolve this situation. An innocent third party is being hurt,
and we have to clearly explain to people how much that work
stoppage at the Vancouver terminal has hurt.
Way back on January 24 of this year the first stoppage of
services occurred. As I have already revealed, the government
knew about this. A letter was sent asking the government to do
something about it. That was quite some time ago.
The workers are on strike. They are picketing all five
terminals. Five or six ships are waiting in berth and eleven more
waiting outside to pick up grain. Sixteen grain vessels are
waiting for a total of 370,000 tonnes of grain.
It is a lot of money when we take into account that each tonne of
grain may be worth $300. These boats are waiting in berth.
Millions of dollars are being lost.
1340
I should also mention that these contracts to sell this grain
were made when the grain was at a high price. Now these
customers have an excuse to buy this grain at a much lower price
because we have not fulfilled our part of the contract in failing
to deliver the grain. That is all part of the equation. It
indicates that farmers are hurting and another nail is being
pounded into their coffins.
The Canadian Pacific Railway will not deliver grain cars to any
of the country elevators. It has cancelled all its car
allocations for the next week. The Canadian National Railway,
one of the two railways that services the prairies, is saying
that it will spot only a few cars at a few elevators. That is
virtually grinding to a halt as well.
CN has 13 trains waiting in Vancouver as we speak. It cannot
move any of them forward. CN has 700 loaded rail cars and CP has
850 loaded rail cars waiting in Vancouver. They cannot do
anything with these cars because of the strike. Seventy workers
are holding up a huge economy. That is totally unacceptable.
Canada's reputation as a supplier of grain is severely affected.
We are going to suffer immensely because of this work stoppage.
This reputation affects the entire country. Many people do not
realize the economic importance of agricultural products and
grain sales on our balance of payments and on the whole economy
of Canada. All of this is being severely impacted.
Productivity is declining. We talked a lot last week about the
decline in productivity. Canada is now below the state of
Mississippi when it comes to the level of productivity. This
strike impacts that and further declines that productivity level.
It is unreasonable for 70 employees who are part of a much
larger group to be allowed to hold up all of these people. We are
asking the government not just to solve this problem today but to
solve it for the long term. If there is anything I can say at
the conclusion of my speech it is that we must do something to
solve this for the long term. This legislation is not the answer
to the problem on the west coast. The government should
seriously consider implementing legislation that will solve this
for the long term.
Let me quickly summarize the essence of what Reformers are
saying. A number of stories have been printed and broadcast
across the country about the strike by the Public Service
Alliance of Canada workers at the grain terminals in Vancouver.
There was some misinformation in the stories. I would like to
clarify that.
The report stated that the government was ready to introduce
back to work legislation and that Reform blocked a motion to get
70 PSAC workers who were stalling shipments of grain on the west
coast back to work. That is not true. I will tell the rest of
the story.
Reform would like to get the grain flowing immediately at the
terminals in Vancouver. We want to get the PSAC workers back to
work permanently. We called for an emergency debate on this
matter twice last week. The first time it was refused. The
debate was then held on the evening of Thursday, March 18. The
government neglected to recognize that there was a problem until
Reform pushed for an emergency debate in the House of Commons. We
had to ask for the debate twice before the Liberals agreed to
discuss the issue.
What is even more astonishing is that the Liberals knew six
weeks in advance that severe problems were going to occur as a
result of this PSAC strike at the west coast terminals. In the
emergency debate I revealed that five Liberal ministers were sent
a letter on January 27 that specifically stated that the backup
of unloaded grain cars could cost Canadians millions of dollars
and could severely impact our critical trading relationship with
foreign buyers. Reform asked the government to adopt a permanent
dispute settlement mechanism rather than to rely on back to work
legislation as a method of settling these work stoppages.
1345
Time and again Reform has suggested final offer selection
arbitration. It is a dispute settlement mechanism in areas where
there are no alternative services and labour disruptions damage
the national economy and harm innocent third parties. This
procedure would ensure the continuous flow of grain to market.
The Treasury Board minister was even asked if he would support
the idea of final offer selection arbitration. He responded by
saying that he was looking at all the options. Not even 15
minutes later, without notice or consultation with opposition
parties, the government asked for unanimous consent to introduce
this legislation without telling us what it was.
The issue of removing someone's collective bargaining rights is
quite serious and should be done properly. Let me emphasize that
because that point has often been lost in a lot of the
discussion. This is a very serious matter we are dealing with
and the government has the power to do as it wishes. It is
really ridiculous, as I explained previously, to blame the Reform
Party for holding this up.
PSAC workers are asking for 3%. The Senate gets 10%. That is
basically unfair and it is unfair for us to pit farmers against
unions.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
understand that Oral Question Period will still take place at 2
p.m. and that my speech will therefore be interrupted. I will
resume after Oral Question Period.
Since this morning, I have been listening to the debate on Bill
C-76. I believe Bloc Quebecois members are very well prepared.
Our approach to this bill is very well structured. One member I
am thinking of is the member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Îles-d'Orléans, whose speech was
well researched. Government members opposite would do well to
reread the member's remarks very carefully.
It is not surprising that we should come to the defence of
workers in such a situation. In our 1997 election campaign, we
said that the Bloc Quebecois would be there for the workers and
constituents of each of our ridings.
The Bloc Quebecois was left with no choice but to defend the
interests of workers in the present affair. As others have said
before me, we are not talking about workers earning $100,000 or
$150,000 a year. These are people with relatively small
salaries. The government wants to take advantage of the
situation and beat them down with the bill before us today.
What exactly is being proposed this morning? Unfortunately, we
are looking at closure. For those not sure what that means, the
Liberal government opposite, not wanting to know every little
detail of the negotiations, not wanting to know exactly what the
opposition thought, not wanting to hear what the experts had to
say, has moved closure, a motion I will read for the benefit of
those listening. Each word of this motion is very important.
It reads as follows:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of
this House, a bill in the name of the President of the Treasury
Board, entitled An Act to provide for the resumption and
continuation of government services, shall be disposed of as
follows:
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, and no Private Members' Business shall be
taken up;
The said bill may be read twice or thrice in one sitting;
After being read a second time, the said bill shall be referred
to a Committee of the Whole; and
During consideration of the said bill, no division shall be
deferred.
Mr. Speaker, you know what this means, but the average person
might not. What the government wants to do is gag the
opposition so that it cannot say too much about this important
issue.
1350
This is not a very orthodox procedure, but it does not come as
a total surprise, because the government has used it several
times. Closure motions on important things such as this are
virtually undemocratic, since we are here to represent our
constituents and advocate their views.
When an adjournment motion is passed and the opposition is
gagged, it is obvious all members of the Bloc cannot stand and
support their constituents' views the way they should.
Each time the government uses this kind of motion, closure in
this case, I cannot help but remember the nice things they say
during election campaigns. In 1993 and 1997, Liberal members
came up with nice plans and said they wanted to enhance the work
of members of the House. Is this not a good opportunity for the
government to enhance the work of members by letting them uphold
their views in the House? One of the main roles of members is to
make a stand on issues.
Each and every time we have a subject that is in any way
controversial or complicated, when members could really score
political points and express their views, the government
opposite comes in with time allocation or closure.
These motions are virtually anti-parliamentary, and above all
demeaning to MPs, particularly the government backbenchers who
must be getting bored to death with a government like this one,
which does not allow them to stand up and defend their views.
I have been listening to this debate since this morning, and I
have not seen very many Liberals standing up to defend their
views. Is this because they have nothing to say? If they have
nothing to say, why did they run in 1997? If they have
something to say, this means that closure, the motion to gag the
opposition, in a way also gags the Liberal backbenchers, who
might have something to say on such an important subject.
I am sure that some of the Liberal MPs from Quebec have
something to say. I have not seen one of them rise to defend
his point of view, not a single one.
I find this extremely strange. With closure, the opposition is
being denied the opportunity to consult specialists in this
field. They are trying to curtail debate, and thus there will
not be time enough for the opposition to set out in any detail
the positions they want to bring into the debate.
Fortunately we in the Bloc Quebecois saw this coming, and so we
got prepared. We were not caught with our pants down, as they
say. We were prepared to intervene in this House and to bring
out our point of view, but this may not be the case for all
parties.
The government has decided to bring out its heavy artillery. It
seems to me, however, that where negotiations on a labour
contract are concerned, it is legitimate to allow both parties
to defend their points of view, both labour and management. In
labour law, there are rules that must be followed.
As far as I know, the employees and their union have followed
those rules.
Bargaining is a complicated and difficult process. The
membership must be properly represented. I believe there is
also an obligation for both employees and employer to work for
the good of the community, particularly when the employer is the
government.
I was a labour lawyer before I became an MP.
1355
Like my colleagues who spoke before me and said they have
represented workers or employers in negotiations, during the
eight or nine years that I have worked as a lawyer, I have
represented employers as well as employees. Therefore, I have no
prejudice for one or the other.
However, I have some experience in labour disputes and
bargaining. Now, how are things usually done in work contract
negotiations? Employees try to negotiate and get as much
money—since salaries are at stake—and benefits as possible.
Conversely, the employer, who wishes to increase its profits and
bottom lines, will try to negotiate lower salaries and fewer
benefits. But during all that time, the parties sit at the same
table and negotiate in good faith.
When I practised law, I also negotiated out-of-court settlements,
which is not an easy task. I negotiated family law agreements,
which is not easy either. But if the parties are ready to sit
down and negotiate in good faith, they will sooner or later
reach an agreement.
During all the years that I practised, the parties had one thing
in common: they wanted to negotiate and to reach a negotiated
agreement.
While it may not be directly linked to the issue at hand, I am
sure you will allow me to mention in passing a similar case
relating to collective bargaining.
According to this morning's newspapers, an agreement in
principle has presumably been reached at the Flamingo
slaughterhouses in Berthierville and Joliette. Speaking of
negotiations, in that case, the labour dispute had been going on
for five months. Apparently the parties found a basis for an
agreement because they kept negotiating and the agreement in
principle which was reached will be submitted to the approval of
the union tonight.
As we can see, through negotiation, agreement in principle can
be achieved. This is why—and I will conclude on this and continue
after question period—I urge the government to take this time to
ponder and, after question period, to listen more carefully to
what I say.
The Speaker: The member will indeed have the floor following
question period, and I am sure we will all ponder his wise
comments.
[English]
We will now go to Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
WORLD METEOROLOGICAL DAY
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, March
23 marks World Meteorological Day. It commemorates the
convention on the World Meteorological Organization of 1950.
Canada is a founding member of the organization and plays a
prominent role in its work.
The theme of this year's day is “Weather, Climate and Health”.
This is particularly appropriate when communities around the
world are struggling to recover from natural disasters. The
prediction of significant changes in climate over the next 100
years has focused attention on the consequences of climate and
weather, including health impacts. Environment Canada has
contributed to the worldwide body of knowledge on climate change.
World Meteorological Day is also an opportunity to raise public
awareness and appreciation for the valuable public weather
service Environment Canada staff provides 24 hours a day year
round. Weather events like the January storms in Toronto, last
year's ice storm and the Manitoba and Saguenay floods remind us
of the importance of reliable, accurate weather information in
helping Canadians protect themselves and their property.
* * *
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, MOM
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
March 18 is a very important day for me. Yes, that is my
mother's birthday. If not for my mother I would not be here with
you today, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure you are very happy about
that.
My mother says I was born with no hair, a problem I have had for
most of my life. I do not know whether it is her or me who
created the instance. I can say, born in Nova Scotia, raised in
Nova Scotia, she has brought family values to our family.
She always taught us to pay as we go and live within our means.
That is one of the things mothers do very well when they bring up
their children. I am very thankful for that.
1400
Some might ask how old she is. I would not dare ask that
question. My mom's age is quite irrelevant; it is her knowledge.
On this day I wish my mother a very happy birthday. She is a
good friend, and the Liberals will be interested in the fact that
she is a good Reformer.
The Speaker: I can say that this place would not be the
same without you.
* * *
LIVER DISEASE
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I wish the hon. member's mother a happy birthday. I am pleased
to inform the House that March has been declared help fight liver
disease month by the Canadian Liver Foundation. It is estimated
that one in 12 Canadians will at some point in their lives
contract a liver or biliary tract disease.
Liver disease is the fourth leading cause of death by disease in
Canada. It is a serious health concern that has no prejudices,
affecting men, women and children of all ages and races.
The mandate of the Canadian Liver Foundation is to reduce the
impact and incidence of liver disease through research and
education. The foundation's 30 volunteer chapters across the
country are a valuable source of information for those with liver
disease and their families.
I therefore ask all members of the House to join me in honouring
the Canadian Liver Foundation, especially its volunteers, during
help fight liver disease month.
* * *
YEAR 2000
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
year 2000 is being anticipated with hope and optimism. In
Burlington we are well on our way to celebrating the year 2000
with local community events that provide residents of all ages an
opportunity to share in this historic occasion.
Right across the country Canadians will take pride in exchanging
coins designed by citizens in response to the Canadian Mint's
Create a Centsation contest. Burlington residents were thrilled
to acknowledge one of their own stars.
Maria Sarkany's design was chosen for the month of July.
Entitled “A Nation of People”, the coin portrays six people
representing law and order, learning, teaching, the arts, the
love of nature and sports drawn in one continuous line.
I ask my colleagues to join with me in celebrating the talent,
courage and innovative ideas of Canadians who together with
community and volunteer groups, governments and the private
sector will celebrate the year 2000.
* * *
ROGER GIGUÈRE
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today our thoughts are with Master Corporal Roger
Giguère and his wife and daughter as he recovers in hospital from
second and third degree burns. His injuries were sustained when
the truck he was using to transfer aviation fuel from storage
tanks exploded at Canadian Forces Base Comox on Saturday. Master
Corporal Giguère is in serious but stable condition. We wish him
a speedy recovery.
I commend the professional fire fighters from the air base who
acted with textbook precision to quickly contain the fireball in
extremely scorching heat to prevent a huge fuel tank only 20 feet
away from exploding.
The military police and fire fighters have already launched an
investigation into the cause of the explosion. We must determine
the cause to ensure that it never happens again.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN FRANCOPHONIE
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be
part of a government that is committed to defending and
promoting the French language and French culture during l'Année
de la Francophonie.
We are very glad to join all those who share the richness of
French culture, including francophones outside Quebec who often
had to fight a cultural battle that was far from easy. It is
unfortunate that the separatist government has chosen to ignore
this opportunity to show their support to francophones
throughout Canada.
It is important to point out that there are 9 million Canadians
who speak French, almost one Canadian out of three. We hope
that, by the end of the year, there will be 30 million of us who
appreciate the richness of Canadian Francophonie.
Francophones throughout Canada can rely on the Canadian
government to ensure that the French language and French culture
are given pride of place in North America.
* * *
[English]
EPILEPSY
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to remind the House that March is national epilepsy
month. Epilepsy is a functional disorder of the brain. It can
temporarily block consciousness. It can be characterized by
seizures, uncontrollable shaking or convulsion.
Approximately 300,000 Canadians, primarily young people, suffer
from this condition and in nearly 75% of cases there is no known
cause.
1405
Canadian research has made important contributions to the
development of effective treatment. New medications have been
developed to help control seizures. However drugs are not a cure
and often have severe side effects. Furthermore, 20% of seizures
are not successfully controlled by current medication.
Continued research must be supported. I ask all members of the
House to joint with me in applauding Epilepsy Canada during
March, national epilepsy month.
* * *
BASKETBALL
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Guelph—Wellington has done it again. The St. James
Lions recently won the Ontario provincial senior boys high school
basketball championship by an impressive margin of 89 to 53.
When the team placed third at the tournament last year it was
determined to come back and prove which was the best team in
Ontario, and prove that it did.
St. James was leading at the end of every quarter and was ahead
by almost 20 points at the end of the third, and it never let up
playing its hardest to the very end.
I would like my hon. colleagues to join me in congratulating the
St. James senior boys basketball team by taking home the
provincial gold. I pay special tribute to player Michael King
who, despite a personal tragedy, was the motivating force behind
the team's victory. The teamwork and dedication displayed by
these young men is definitely worthy of a mighty lion's roar of
recognition. “Way to go, team”.
* * *
[Translation]
IMPAIRED DRIVING
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
impaired driving is the main cause of deaths and injuries due to
criminal acts in the country. Early in the morning of March 14,
three people died in another tragic and senseless accident near
Trois-Rivières.
The impaired driver, Sylvain Boies, killed two young men and
injured another. It was not the first time this man had been
drinking and driving. The irresponsible and criminal acts of
Sylvain Boies and other drivers just like him have ruined the
lives of innocent victims.
My hon. colleague from Prince George—Bulkley Valley has suggested
changes to the Criminal Code to ensure that penalties reflect
the seriousness of offences. His suggestions are being
considered by the Standing Committee on Justice.
I urge all political parties to support this initiative—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes.
* * *
GINETTE RENO
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
last week the House of Commons welcomed as it should the great
lady of Quebec song, Ginette Reno.
This famous daughter of Boucherville was honored for her
prolific career, which recently saw her nominated for a Juno
Award.
Although her rich and powerful voice, with its affinity for
various musical genres, has won her fame for many years, Ginette
Reno also tried her hand at acting.
After a captivating performance in the feature film Léolo,
directed by the late Jean-Claude Lauzon, she amazed us again in
the feature film C'ta ton tour Laura Cadieux with her
interpretation of the title role that earned her a nomination
for the Genie Awards.
It was high time the House paid tribute to Ginette Reno, who
said candidly that it was the first time she had ever set foot
inside the parliament buildings. It is perhaps regrettable, as
the heritage minister indicated in the speech she made on this
occasion, that Ginette Reno is still so little known in English
Canada.
The fact remains that Quebeckers have long known, appreciated
and been proud of this woman who has thrilled them at home as
she has thrilled audiences abroad.
* * *
[English]
COMPUTERS
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today the need to learn computer skills is an important
key to success. That is why the government launched in 1993 the
computer for schools program which provides computers to schools
and public libraries across the country.
[Translation]
A few hours ago, Gloucester High School, a school in my riding,
welcomed my colleagues, the Prime Minister and the Minister of
Industry, who were there to mark an important milestone in this
program. Indeed, the school just received its 125,000th personal
computer under the program.
I thank the Prime Minister and the Minister of Industry for
their involvement and commend this excellent initiative, which
will help young people acquire high technology skills.
* * *
1410
PUBLIC SERVICE
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in
their election platform, the Liberals pledged to comply with pay
equity legislation. They also promised to abolish regional rates
of pay for blue collar workers in the public service.
What is happening today? The Liberals are imposing back to work
legislation. This is a punitive measure. It is unacceptable to
treat loyal public servants in this fashion.
These regional rates are unfair to 11,000 workers in Canada,
including 1,500 in the maritime provinces.
Treasury Board said that if regional rates of pay were
eliminated, it would be hard to keep old employees and hire new
ones. In Nova Scotia, a carpenter working in the private sector
earns $20.49 per hour, compared to $13.92 in the federal public
service.
Is it fair to pay less money to a blue collar in New Brunswick
than to a blue collar in British Columbia who does the same
work?
The time has come for the government to put an end to the
discrimination against workers in the regions, and to negotiate,
not legislate, a work contract.
* * *
MENTAL IMPAIRMENT
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
during the Semaine québécoise de la déficience intellectuelle,
from March 14 to 20, Quebeckers were urged to forget their
biases toward mentally impaired people. In Quebec, many
organizations are helping change attitudes and perceptions
toward these people.
I wish to salute the exceptional commitment of groups from
Laval, including the ALDI, the centre de réadaptation
Normand-Laramée, the CAFGRAF, and the Ludothèque, which strive
every day to promote the social integration of mentally impaired
people.
I also want to stress the vitality, professionalism and
perseverance of the educational team of the Centre le Tremplin.
Thanks to that group, the choir La différence, led by Anne-Marie
Gohier and made up of some 40 men and women, made us experience
unforgettable moments, on March 16.
Thank you for contributing so generously to help each and
everyone become a citizen in his or her own right.
* * *
[English]
LONDON AND ST. THOMAS REAL ESTATE BOARD
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish
to congratulate the London and St. Thomas Real Estate Board whose
representatives yesterday presented the Minister of Finance with
a cheque in the amount of $27,000 as its contribution to helping
pay off the national debt.
For the past four years the board has contributed $5 per member
per year to a special interest accruing fund. The purpose of
this campaign was to remind the public and politicians that debt
reduction remains a goal that our nation must continue to pursue
with zeal.
The government is committed to keeping the debt ratio on a
steady downward track year after year. In so doing we will have
the flexibility to strengthen not only health care but other
important areas, to provide needed tax relief and to invest in a
more productive economy.
The London and St. Thomas Real Estate Board and its members are
to be commended for their efforts. They have shown that by
working together we can address the nation's fiscal needs and
build a better future for all Canadians. I say well done and
thank you.
* * *
CHAD BLUNDON AND LISA ROBICHAUD
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
know that all of my colleagues in the House are aware and
appreciative of the efficient service performed in the Chamber by
the young men and women in the House of Commons page program.
Today I draw attention to two of these young Canadians who have
further distinguished themselves by competing in the Canada
Winter Games. One of our pages, Lisa Robichaud, represented her
home province of Prince Edward Island at the Corner Brook Games.
Lisa, who hails from Cavendish, attends the University of Ottawa
and works here as a page, was a member of the P.E.I.
cross-country ski team that competed in the 1999 games.
Also competing at the games was page Chad Blundon, a young man I
know personally from the athletic riding of St. John's West. Chad
participated as a page in Team Newfoundland and Labrador. Before
an audience in Corner Brook that included his family and friends,
Chad and his team delivered Newfoundland's strongest showing ever
in squash.
I ask all members of the House to join me today in extending our
heartiest congratulations to these outstanding pages, Chad
Blundon and Lisa Robichaud.
* * *
ELMIRA MAPLE SYRUP FESTIVAL
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I take this opportunity to highlight to all Canadians the
upcoming 35th Annual Elmira Maple Syrup Festival which will be
taking place in my riding of Waterloo—Wellington on Saturday,
March 27.
Each year people from across the country and around the world
flock to the picturesque town of Elmira to taste the delicious
Waterloo county maple syrup and to watch the renowned pancake
flippers.
The festival is a wonderful event in the Waterloo—Wellington
area.
1415
Welcoming between 50,000 and 60,000 people, the festival has
raised over $600,000 over the years for local non-profit
organizations.
Definitely a worthwhile experience, the Elmira Maple Syrup
Festival provides a variety of activities for people of all ages.
The more than 2,000 volunteers helping the festival committee
will surely show everyone and their taste buds a good time.
I encourage my constituents and all Canadians who may be in the
area during the next few weeks to make the trip down to the
Elmira Maple Syrup Festival. I am very proud of all those
involved in this festival for organizing such a rich and
enjoyable event year after year.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
BUILDING CONTRACTS
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
convicted criminal named Yvon Duhaime bought a money-losing hotel
from the Prime Minister. The PM then instructed a senior aid to
pressure public servants into giving Duhaime a huge government
grant. This goes beyond the bounds of being a good little MP.
How can the Prime Minister deny that this is a clear conflict of
interest, that he betrayed the public trust and that his conduct
is unbecoming of a Prime Minister?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was elected to this parliament in 1963. The duty of
every member of parliament is to represent his or her
constituents and to help them create jobs. It is a very
important task.
All the projects that have been proposed by entrepreneurs in my
riding have been approved by the different government
authorities, provincial and municipal. The caisse populaire, the
Fonds des travailleurs du Québec and others approved the loan.
In every case my office has done what is the responsibility of
any member of parliament.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will tell you the responsibility of any member of parliament. It
is to understand that if it is a conflict of interest, walk away
from it and let the public service decide on merit and merit
alone.
What does the Prime Minister do? He sends in his top personal
aid to send a little message. The message was clear. Nobody
less than the Prime Minister of Canada himself wanted them to
grant this money to Mr. Duhaime.
I would like him to stand again and tell us how he can deny that
this was a clear conflict of interest and that it was wrong,
wrong, wrong.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have done what every member of parliament does when
there is a certain level of unemployment and programs are
available. The member for Okanagan—Shuswap worked for Askews
Grocery Store. The member for Nanaimo—Alberni worked for Port
Alberni Marina. The member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley
worked for the Fraser Fort George Museum. The member for Skeena
worked for the Skeena Valley Golf and Country Club. The member
for Kootenay—Columbia worked for the St. Eugene Mission.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to remind the Prime Minister that none of those people
who were consulted were standing in any way to gain, they were
not convicted criminals and the people who were addressing this
were—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. The words are close, but so far they
are parliamentary. I would like the hon. member to please put
her question.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, let me finish by saying
that none of those people were compromised by a conflict of
interest situation.
The Prime Minister in 1996 said “Everybody knows I never run
away when I have responsibilities to face”. He has them to face
today. Conflict of interest—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. Put the question right now.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, what is it about this
Prime Minister's character that makes him run away from
responsibility, from his own unethical behaviour?
Some hon. members: Out of order.
The Speaker: Order. The words are now getting a little
bit closer. The questioning of a member's character is not
permissible. I am going to permit the Right Hon. Prime Minister
to answer the question.
1420
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have served my riding for 36 years. My personal
integrity has never been questioned in this House but by this
member. I saw that again yesterday. Reformers make accusations
like that, but when they go out into the corridor they do not use
the same words because they are just a bunch of chickens.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Order. Again my colleagues, no one's
courage is being questioned in this House and I wish we would
leave words like that out of it.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister does not appear to realize that the
Duhaime affair raises some very serious questions. The Prime
Minister used his office to secure huge grants, not for just any
constituent, but for someone who had done him the favour of taking
a money-losing hotel off his hands. But that is not all. The
Prime Minister also has a financial interest in a nearby golf
course. Is it not true that grant money pumped into Duhaime's
hotel also increases the value of the Prime Minister's golf
course shares?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I sold my shares in 1993, so the opposition is only six
years late. I do not have a share in that golf course. I sold
my shares because I did not want to keep them and because I did
not want to have any conflict of interest. That is all.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, perhaps I will have to refresh the Prime Minister's
memory. On January 28, 1999, the Prime Minister's ethics
counsellor wrote a memo in which he said: “In January 1996, he
(the Prime Minister) informed the Ethics Counsellor that he had
not been paid” for his shares in the golf course “and wanted to
know what his options were. He was told that the Code permitted
him to resume ownership or if he wished, he could of course, sell
these shares”.
Clearly the Prime Minister was told by the ethics counsellor
that he still owned these shares in the golf course. This is
exactly the kind of question a conflict of interest raises. When
will this be cleared up for Canadians?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, never have the shares come back to me, so I do not have
a share.
I would like to quote a member of the National Assembly. On
March 23, 1999 the Parti Quebecois member for Saint-Maurice,
Claude Pinard, said “I don't see why it's a mortal sin for the
Prime Minister of Canada to be interested as well in his own
riding. I find it deplorable that they are throwing rocks at the
Prime Minister for having worked within government programs”.
We are working, provincial and federal ministers of government,
for the well-being of Quebeckers from that part of Quebec in
Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
National Post revealed today that the surplus in the employment
insurance fund will reach $26 billion in the coming year.
1425
However, according to the Minister of Human Resources
Development, this surplus is virtual, it has disappeared. The
money has been spent.
Since the money has been spent, since there is no more money in
the employment insurance fund, will the Minister of Finance, the
person primarily responsible for this misappropriation of funds,
explain what he would do should, unfortunately, a recession
occur? Would he increase contributions? Would he reduce
benefits further? Or would he be obliged to present a deficit
budget?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have already explained to the member that the Government of
Canada guarantees employment insurance contributions.
We are a long way from a recession. Should one by misfortune
ever occur, the contributions are at an appropriate level.
There would be no need to increase them.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
chief actuary of the employment insurance fund has already
indicated that a reserve of $10 billion to $15 billion would be
enough to handle a recession, should one unfortunately occur.
However, the funds the minister has siphoned off from the
employment insurance fund represent about twice this figure.
Given the opinion of the chief actuary, and the fact that he has
already taken $26 billion from the employment insurance fund,
does the Minister of Finance realize that his behaviour is not
only indecent and immoral but also illegal?
The Speaker: Words are becoming a little too strong. I will
permit the minister to respond, but a term such as “illegal” is
out of order.
The Minister of Finance.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, not
only is it out of order, it is totally ridiculous.
I would say to the hon. member that the three commissioners,
unanimously, recommended contributions be at the level of $2.55,
which the government accepted.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, while the federal government is swimming in
money, thousands of people are drowning in poverty, having
reached that period in the year known as the spring gap, a
situation made worse by the Liberal government's EI reforms.
What has the Minister of Human Resources Development got to say
to the people who, for periods of from six weeks to two months,
find themselves with no money to live on or feed their families,
and who see their premiums being siphoned off by the Minister of
Finance to pay down Canada's debt?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have already spoken to the
House about how we sympathize with workers in difficulty. And
when we changed the EI system, we knew that we were going to be
making things difficult for certain regions and for certain
workers.
That is why we have made other tools available to these workers,
so that more jobs will be created in the areas of highest
unemployment. The goal is longer lasting jobs, so that their
standard of living will be improved.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that, in a large
number of seasonal industries such as tourism and forestry, the
minister's active measures do nothing to help thousands of
people who find themselves with no income for two months.
Will the minister put aside his rhetoric, come down from his
ivory tower, and take an honest look at how his reforms have
hurt real people?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is precisely because we care
about these people that we want to help them create jobs in the
regions.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, the best way to show
people that you care about them is to give them work, not to
keep them unemployed, as the Bloc Quebecois wants to do.
What is the Bloc Quebecois asking us to do? Bring back the 10-42
system. The Bloc Quebecois is calling on us to bring back the
system of ten weeks of work for 42 weeks of EI.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Even last Saturday's Le Devoir urged us
not to bring back the earlier system, as the Bloc Quebecois
would have us do.
* * *
[English]
NUCLEAR WASTE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
Three months ago the House foreign affairs committee strongly
and unanimously rejected the idea of burning plutonium based MOX
fuel in Canadian reactors, saying that it is totally infeasible.
Why is the Prime Minister writing this month to U.S. President
Bill Clinton, offering to consider using U.S. and Russian
plutonium in Canada? Does this Prime Minister not understand
that Canadians do not want our country to become a dumping ground
for the world's cold war plutonium?
1430
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that we will be tabling a
response to the committee before the May 10 deadline. I am sure
we will be able to satisfactorily answer the member's questions.
I would like to clarify some of the facts the member put forward.
Canada is not under any commitment to have any kind of
commercial burning of MOX fuel. The only commitment we have made
is to undertake certain tests of very small, minute portions to
determine the feasibility.
I am surprised at the hon. member. One of the most serious
problems we face in the world is nuclear proliferation. One way
to help is to burn up the warheads that Russia wants to destroy.
That is why we have made that kind of commitment.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is not just this hon. member, it was every Liberal
member of the foreign affairs committee that said no to MOX. The
House would appreciate a response before the Prime Minister
responds to the president of the United States. That might be a
little more appropriate.
Why should Canada allow over-flights of plutonium when the
United States itself bans those over-flights? Why should
Canadian ports like Churchill, Montreal and Halifax take safety
and environmental risks? Why should cities like Windsor and
Sarnia be exposed to risk? Why will the government not listen to
the foreign affairs committee and say no to MOX, period?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think I am being very clear to the hon. member. No
commitments have been made. There have been no plans for any
flights for any transportation. If there were to be any decision
of that kind, it would be subject to all environmental safety
transport requirements under Canadian legislation.
The point is we live in a dangerous nuclear world. We have some
responsibilities to help in the denuclearizing of that world.
That is why at the Moscow conference, along with many other
countries, we asked what Canada can do to help reduce the nuclear
threat. We are simply testing to see if we can make a
contribution to that issue.
* * *
BUILDING CONTRACTS
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, today I
received replies from the Business Development Bank of Canada and
Canadian economic development to my request under the Access to
Information Act. The Business Development Bank of Canada refused
to provide any information about Yvon Duhaime while Canadian
economic development denied having ever received a loan
application from Yvon Duhaime, despite other evidence to the
contrary.
In light of the refusal of these departments to clear the air on
the Chateau Shawinigan deal, will the Prime Minister use section
11 of the Auditor General's Act to independently verify these
shady deals?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again they use all sorts of words. I would like to read
to the member what the PQ member of my riding said: “No, no, no.
There cannot be favouritism because in this case the Prime
Minister did exactly what I did in Quebec City. Meaning that we
took our normal government programs and then we obtained a fair
share for our own riding”. These are the words of a member of
parliament. Every member of parliament does this.
The mayor of Shawinigan said: “Whatever the party, be it at the
provincial or federal level, what MP would shortchange his riding
by saying I don't work for my riding? I find it deplorable that
we slander towns in order to attack the Prime Minister who does
his work like any good member”—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Markham.
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, two wrongs do
not make a right. The Prime Minister is hiding. He is hiding
behind his cabinet ministers, hiding behind technicalities, even
hiding behind his riding separatist politicians. No matter how
hard the Prime Minister tries to hide, the inescapable fact
remains. He is supporting Yvon Duhaime, a criminal who misled
federal officials, and Pierre Thibault, an admitted thief under
criminal investigation.
The ethics counsellor has no teeth to investigate the Prime
Minister. Why will the Prime Minister not prove there is nothing
wrong in these deals and table all documents from this office?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with respect to the Business Development Bank of Canada,
I think it is quite clear. The member is welcome to look at the
facts for himself if he wants. The process of reviewing a loan
application was dealt with in the ordinary course of business.
The request for access to information is of course subject to the
provisions of the act which retain confidential commercial
information.
However, if the member wants to go to the registry office he
will discover that the Business Development Bank of Canada was
not the only source of financing for this project. The fonds de
solidarité and the caisse populaire put in money on a commercial
basis.
That is fundamentally the answer to the member's question.
1435
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to give the Prime Minister an opportunity to correct the
record.
He said he sold the golf course in 1993 but he knows full well
that he applied to the ethics counsellor, telling him that he did
not get paid and by 1996 those shares were back into his hands
and now sit with his lawyer. I ask him to correct that statement.
Second, did Yvon Duhaime owe the Prime Minister any money when
he received the grants in 1997?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will answer because I sold the shares in 1993. I was
not paid. It is my problem and the shares are still in the hands
of the one who has not paid or sold to somebody else.
It is all dealt with by the person who manages the trust of my
own affairs. I do not ask them any questions. I do not have the
shares. All my assets are controlled, like other members of the
cabinet, by the trustee and the trustee decides what to do.
I make it my point not to ask any questions. It is the job of
the trustee to decide what to do with my assets.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
ethics counsellor says those shares reverted to the Prime
Minister on January 28, 1999. His office says they are in the
hands of his lawyer, Debbie Weinstein, at this time.
Apparently that is the way this has all happened. Will the
Prime Minister table or arrange for that agreement to be tabled
in the House of Commons so we can see what happened to the golf
course that happens to be right beside Mr. Duhaime's hotel?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my assets are managed by a trustee in what we call a
blind trust.
I do not know in English what blind means but it seems that I am
not supposed to know what is going on. In 1993 these shares were
sold. I needed money and there was no money. It is a big
problem but I am still eating three times a day.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have
learned that the Prime Minister wrote to President Clinton on
March 3 indicating Canada's interest in receiving Russian or
American nuclear arms waste, provided that the project is
hazard-free and viable.
How could the Prime Minister have taken this initiative of
contacting President Clinton when the foreign affairs committee
had examined the issue and requested that the government reject
this project?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, once again, the only undertaking we have is to look
at some very preliminary tests to determine its application
within the AECL nuclear reactor. There is no other commitment
than that.
I underline for the hon. member, who I know has an interest in
these matters, that we live in a world in which nuclear weapons
are proliferated. We have to do our part to help reduce that
threat.
The test that will take place will be less than .02 of a
kilogram, about the size of an AA battery. I do not think it
represents a real threat to Canada but nuclear proliferation
represents a threat to all mankind.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, before
announcing to the whole world that Canada is prepared to become
the nuclear waste dump for the entire planet, can the Prime
Minister commit to a full debate on this matter here in the
House, given the major impact such a decision could have on
future generations?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the government will be tabling its
response to the committee. That tabling under House rules gives
opportunity for members to raise questions, to generate a debate.
We would certainly be glad to engage at that point.
* * *
BUILDING CONTRACTS
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
are getting a smokescreen from the Prime Minister. The fact is
blind trusts are only used for controlled assets such as shares
in the stock exchange or ownership interests in private companies
doing extensive business with the federal government. This is not
the case with the golf course.
1440
Again, did Duhaime still owe the Prime Minister money when he
received his federal grant in 1997?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is exactly what I have done. To be very prudent I
said manage these assets too.
Every commercial activity, the golf course and these shares, was
given to my trustee. At one time we wanted to have money and the
money did not come. That is all. It is her problem, not mine.
She is a competent lawyer and she is doing her job. I put all my
assets in the trust. It is a blind trust. I was not forced to
give her the management. I did exactly that so I would not have
to reply to that type of question.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are getting a little sick and tired of the little guy
from Shawinigan—
The Speaker: Order. I ask hon. members to address each
other by their proper titles.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, the question is very
straightforward, the same one I asked last time. Did the Prime
Minister have money coming from Duhaime when he got the grant in
1997? Will he answer the question?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am sure I did not because I sold my shares in 1993 and
he received the grant four years later in 1997. The trustee was
not to be paid by Duhaime but to be paid by the one who was
buying the shares. The shares were not bought by Duhaime but by
somebody else who has not yet paid me apparently.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-54
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, after the CSN
and Quebec's Conseil du patronat, this morning the 260,000
professionals in Quebec came to the conclusion that Bill C-54
will create unacceptable duplication.
My question is for the Minister of Industry. Does he recognize
that, in addition to creating useless and costly duplication
while at the same time reducing the protection of personal
information, Bill C-54 will very likely be challenged under the
Constitution? As the chair of the committee put it “We will see
about this in the supreme court”.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
several constitutional experts, including Jacques Frémont from
the Université de Montréal, recognized the right of the federal
government to get involved in the area of commerce. Our bill
will complement the legislation that already exists in Quebec.
To be sure, the issue of privacy is very important to all
Canadians. It is important in the context of electronic
commerce, and is an international issue rather than a provincial
one. We will protect the interests of all Canadians.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what Jacques
Frémont said is that this bill was a show of force. That is what
he said.
Given the unanimity among Quebec's workers, business leaders and
professionals, what is the Minister of Industry waiting for—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order please. The hon. member can put her question
again.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, constitutional expert
Jacques Frémont said this bill was a show of force.
Given the unanimity among Quebec's workers, business leaders and
professionals, what is the Minister of Industry waiting for to
return to the bargaining table with Quebec and the other
provinces and come up with legislation that can be implemented
without being challenged under the Constitution?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
did work with the other provinces. After all, there was already
a directive from the European Union that concerned us.
I think it is important that, in striving to be a leader in
electronic commerce, Canada show it is capable of protecting the
interests of individuals with respect to privacy.
We tried to work with Quebec officials, but our own officials
waited in vain for six months and never got a reply from them.
* * *
1445
[English]
BUILDING CONTRACTS
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's spin doctors claim
that the Prime Minister did not know that Pierre Thibault was
under criminal investigation for embezzling money when he got a
wad of government cash.
Now that we all know that Thibault has admitted to
misappropriating funds, will the Prime Minister demand that Mr.
Thibault do the right thing and give the government money back?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in that particular case, we
went through exactly the same process. It is the transitional
jobs fund, which has been supported by the mayor of Shawinigan.
It has been supported by the provincial government in Quebec, by
the provincial member of the National Assembly there. This
particular project has created 59 jobs, 20 more jobs than had
been forecasted at the time the project was approved.
Only these people here like to see big problems and try to make
innuendoes that are out of place in this House.
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the Prime Minister.
Mr. Duhaime bought a money losing hotel from the Prime Minister.
Subsequently he received a grant from the federal government for
about $1 million. We want to know whether Mr. Duhaime owed the
Prime Minister any money on that hotel sale when he got the $1
million of taxpayers' money in the federal grant. Yes or no?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have not been the owner of the shares since October
1993. I sold them to a person who was not Mr. Duhaime. I had no
business relations at all with Mr. Duhaime. My shares were not
sold to him. They were sold to another person who has not paid
us as yet, apparently. It is in the hands of a trustee. I put
all my assets in a blind trust. It is up to the trustee to
decide how the money will come back, if ever I am paid, but not
by Mr. Duhaime, by the one who owes me money.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN EMBASSY IN BERLIN
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Foreign Affairs rejected, quite surprisingly, the recommendation
of a committee of experts, almost unanimous in its choice of an
embassy proposal, claiming there were other considerations
beside that of design. There were, according to him, security,
cost and development considerations. Mention should perhaps
also have been made of the Winnipeg connection.
How can the minister say that there were other criteria not
considered, that the group worked on design only, when his own
ambassador and one of his senior officials sat on the committee
to consider the very—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
It is easy, Mr. Speaker, because he was not. The fact of the
matter is there were four separate committees, one on design, one
on cost, one on functionality and one on technical questions.
Each of those four procedures came up with an independent
evaluation of what would be the most appropriate choice. After
those four reports were merged, the recommendation came forward
and the choice was made. Nothing was overturned. It was based
upon four separate criteria. I am glad to say a very
distinguished Quebec firm was one of the winners.
* * *
GRAIN INDUSTRY
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the official opposition party has been blocking the back to work
legislation for PSAC workers. As a member from the west, I am
extremely concerned about the negative impact of the delays in
resolving the PSAC strike.
Could the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food tell us how
those costly delays are affecting Canadian farmers and the
Vancouver harbour?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, because of the delays and the
unavailability to ship frequently on the west coast, our
reputation as a reliable supplier is again in severe jeopardy. It
may take months and even years to recoup that.
1450
Unfortunately the losses that occur are picked up by the
farmers. The Canadian Wheat Board has had to withdraw from wheat
sales until into April because it cannot tell its customers that
there is going to be reliability of delivery in the loading of
ships.
I look forward to the support of the Reform Party and other
opposition parties as we move forward to get these people back to
work.
* * *
BUILDING CONTRACTS
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we are trying to get to the bottom of this very murky affair. We
would appreciate some direct answers to some direct questions.
For instance does the Prime Minister know whether Mr. Duhaime
owed him money for the sale of the hotel when the Prime
Minister's office went to bat for him and secured this nearly $1
million federal loan? Does he know whether he was owed money by
the person who got the loan, yes or no?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, no. The money is owed to me by a person who is not
involved in that at all.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we know that the Prime Minister sold the hotel in part to Mr.
Duhaime. Mr. Duhaime received a federal grant for nearly a
million tax dollars. We know that the Prime Minister's office
interfered in that process.
The question is, did the Prime Minister receive any financial
benefit from Mr. Duhaime and did that happen at the time that the
grant was received?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the shares were sold in 1993 to a different person.
After that there was a debt owed to me. I asked my trustee to
administer the debt for me and so far, so good. Apparently,
according to what was said some months ago, I have not been paid,
which is too bad. I guess I will have a collection for my
breakfast tomorrow morning.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
We are not talking about a golf course. We are talking about a
hotel. Mr. Duhaime is no ordinary constituent of the Prime
Minister. He is a constituent who did a business deal with the
Prime Minister of Canada. In light of that, can the Prime
Minister confirm that Yvon Duhaime had completed his payments to
the Prime Minister for the purchase of the Grand'Mère Inn, not
the golf course but the Grand'Mère Inn, by the time he was
awarded a total of $814,000 in federal grants and loans in 1997,
and that not one penny of this public money found its way back to
the Prime Minister or his partners?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hotel was owned by the company that owned the golf
course. I sold the share of that company in 1993. After that I
had nothing to do with either the golf course or the hotel. I
had no shares. That was clear.
The debt that was owed to me by somebody else was in the hands
of a blind trust. I have nothing to do with it. I have had no
relationship with the hotel or the golf course since October
1993.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the question is, did Mr. Duhaime owe the Prime Minister
any money in 1997 at the time that he received some $814,000 in
money from the federal government in terms of grants and loans?
Did Mr. Duhaime owe any money to the Prime Minister's associates
in 1997, yes or no? Surely the Prime Minister knows the answer
to that question.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, he does not owe me a cent. In 1993 I sold the shares of
the company that owned the auberge. There was no relation after
that. I have had no shares in this operation since 1993. I
cannot be more clear than that. I have no shares, no interests.
He owes me not a cent, not a dollar, not a loonie.
* * *
TRANSITIONAL JOBS FUND
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr.
Speaker, we have seen this type of shady behaviour before in the
transitional—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
1455
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that
Jacques Roy, an employee of the President of the Treasury Board,
gave confidential information on transitional jobs fund
applicants to convicted Liberal bagman Pierre Corbeil.
Now the Prime Minister's special representative, Denise
Tremblay, made sure that the transitional jobs fund doled out big
dollars to convicted criminal Yvon Duhaime. What assurances can
the human resources minister give that Denise Tremblay or others
have not disclosed jobs fund information to be used for illegal
purposes? What safeguards are there?
The Speaker: The question is in order. The hon. Minister
of Human Resources Development.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can give the member full
assurance that the process was thoroughly reviewed following the
incident that the member is raising in this House. On behalf of
the government, I asked the RCMP to investigate, if there was a
need for it. Following that incident, I asked my deputy minister
to thoroughly review the way we were conducting the consultations
on the transitional jobs fund. I was assured that everything was
absolutely correctly done.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, in less than two years we have seen the transitional
jobs fund become a source for Liberal Party kickbacks. We have
seen the Liberal fundraiser convicted—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. I want the member to go directly to
his question with no more preamble.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, last fall the human
resources minister announced the creation of a Canada jobs—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford.
* * *
ENDANGERED SPECIES
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Six hundred and thirty-one scientists have written to the Prime
Minister protesting the scientific process surrounding the
assessment of species at risk. They have contended that it has
been and continues to be politicized and thus compromised.
[Translation]
What is the government doing right now to respond to the
concerns of the scientists?
[English]
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today the Government of
Canada along with the provincial and territorial ministers
responsible for wildlife further increased the role of scientists
to protect species at risk in Canada. Eight scientists have been
added as voting members to COSEWIC, the Committee on the Status
of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. As Minister Stewart said, this
change to COSEWIC's composition will ensure its continued
scientific integrity.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would remind you not to use
the names of any members.
* * *
BUILDING CONTRACTS
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this is what a blatant conflict of interest looks like: there
are excuses, there are evasions and there is miscommunication.
Can the Prime Minister not see what every other Canadian can
see, that his actions were unbecoming of a Prime Minister and
unethical?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am absolutely not at all embarrassed to get up in the
House. As a member of parliament I have done my job for my
constituents. I have only done what any member of parliament
does, what any member of the Reform Party or any other party in
parliament can and is doing. Those who qualify, qualify.
Okanagan—Shuswap got money for Moose Mulligan's Pub. I could
talk about many other projects of the Progressive Conservative
Party.
Every member of parliament is entitled to help his constituents
to get money in order to create jobs so that people will not be
on EI anymore and will have the dignity of work.
* * *
1500
[Translation]
SOCIAL CONDITION
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, given the
devastating effects of poverty and the Liberal government's lack
of desire to do anything about it, my colleague from
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve yesterday tabled a bill to include social
condition as a prohibited grounds of discrimination under the
Canadian Human Rights Act.
Does the Minister of Justice intend to support this initiative
and make social condition discriminatory under the law?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member may be
aware, I indicated some time ago that we would be undertaking a
major review of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The act has been
in existence for some 20 years, and I plan to announce that
review in the coming weeks.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order to register my unhappiness with the
way that question period unfolded today. Again the smaller
parties are being punished for the time that is taken up by rows
that basically happen between the government and the official
opposition, or between the government and the Bloc Quebecois.
I see no point in any more encouraging my colleagues to be quiet
and to show respect during question period if they are going to
be punished by not having their questions heard. They might as
well just get into it with everybody else.
It seems there is latitude at 3 o'clock to make sure that at
least the NDP gets its third question, and perhaps the
Conservatives, but this is not happening. It has happened a
couple of times now that we do not get our third question.
What is the point, Mr. Speaker? It seems to me that your role
is to reward and punish according to behaviour, not according to
the clock, and we are getting the short end of the stick. If
that is the way it is going to be, we will have to take that—
The Speaker: The hon. member is a veteran
parliamentarian and he has raised this point before. Once again,
we try to measure it all out and we will try to see if over the
days ahead we can balance things out so all parties have a chance
to ask questions and to have them answered in the House.
I wish I could be optimistic and say that at all times all
members keep to the rules and are very quiet.
I am sure the hon. House leader of the New Democratic Party will
know that from time to time—it does not occur often—there are
lapses in all parties and I have to take that into consideration.
1505
I will see what we can do to see to it that we get in the
maximum number of questions in every question period. If there
are any problems we will try to even it out by the end of the
week, or surely by the end of a number of days. I undertake to
do that.
KOSOVO
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a totally unrelated matter, although I
agree very strenuously with the comments put forward by the House
leader of the New Democratic Party.
This morning in the British parliament Prime Minister Blair made
a lengthy statement to the British House of Commons concerning
the deterioration of the situation in Kosovo. This appears to be
a situation that will also involve Canadian military forces and
their involvement in the possible military action.
I ask the government when we will hear a similar full statement
in the House of Commons concerning Canadian citizens who will
perhaps be called upon to be put into action with respect to the
situation in Kosovo. Our armed forces are waiting.
The Speaker: Surely this type of question would be in
order during question period. I do not think I will allow it to
be raised as a point of order in the House.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT SERVICES ACT, 1999
MOTION THAT DEBATE BE NOT FURTHER ADJOURNED
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
before Oral Question Period, I was congratulating Flamingo, a
company operating in Joliette and in Berthierville, because we
are on the topic of labour relations and negotiations. I was
saying that, when parties sat down and tried to reach a
solution, when parties acted in good faith, something could be
done.
The newspapers—to continue with this issue that concerns some of
my constituents—reported good news, that an agreement in
principle has been reached at the Flamingo abattoirs in Joliette
and Berthierville that will, if approved by union members, end a
five month dispute. This is concrete and very topical proof
that opposing parties can reach an agreement if they act in good
faith.
The following questions come to mind: Is the government
opposite acting in good faith? Does the government opposite
want to resolve the dispute fairly for all parties? In order to
answer these questions, we must examine the facts. We must
understand what the issues and the facts are.
We know that, since 1991, the federal government has established
seven bargaining tables with its employees. It divided all its
employees into seven such tables for bargaining purposes.
One might say that the federal government divided to conquer, an
old principle even Julius Caesar used to use. I dare hope this
was not its main motivation, but the fact remains that there are
seven bargaining tables.
Two of them, tables 2 and 4, are currently involved in a
dispute. Who are the people involved? Table 4 comprises
correctional service officers, and table no 2 general labour and
trades, ships' crews, hospital services, general services, and
firefighters. Clearly, we are not dealing with deputy ministers
making twice as much as the minister in charge of the matter,
but people at the bottom of the pay scale. They are not highly
paid civil servants.
These two tables were bargaining and, since they were not making
progress, union members resorted to pressure tactics, including
going on strike.
1510
At this point I believe we need to go back over the history of
bargaining in the public service to have an overview of the
situation and form an opinion on the matter.
Labour relations in the federal public service come under the
Public Service Staff Relations Act. This act came into force in
1967. This new negotiating framework removed public servants
from the more liberal framework of the Canada Labour Code.
There are many differences between the Canada Labour Code and
the Quebec Labour Code. I believe the latter is far more
specific, and probably more advantageous for workers.
We do have a labour code, but the adoption of the Public Service
Staff Relations Act effectively removed public servants from the
jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Code.
It is very important to remember that one of the reasons given
by the government of the day to justify the removal of public
servants from the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Code was
that it considered itself a good employer because it paid its
employees well and gave them good working conditions. We were
told then that no government would ever abuse the situation and
use its size and power to control the market, to muzzle its
employees or to bludgeon them into submission, if I may use that
expression.
In other words, we were told that since the Canadian government
was such a good employer, its employees would be removed from
the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Code and would instead be
governed by a law that would apply only to them and over which
the government would have total control.
Is that what is really going on? I think history has shown us
that it is not the case. Since the adoption of the new
legislation, and particularly since the Liberals took office in
1993, those principles have been betrayed in every possible way
by the government, especially through its legislative power. The
government distorts, undermines and dominates the bargaining
process like no other employer can, legally. It has the power to
do so.
The government made a series of cuts which impacted heavily on
civil servants, and attempted to manipulate the taxpayers with
demagoguery and the government's sizeable communications
resources. As well as misinforming the public, it has abused
the House of Commons. We, the MPs, cannot even debate such a
vital matter, thanks to the gags the government keeps using.
I would like to ask a legitimate question, for the sake of those
following this debate. Is this the first time the federal
government is acting in this way? Is this the first time it is
trying to impose its will as heavy-handedly as this?
One would have to look at past legislation to see whether this
is a first or not, and if it is true that what goes around comes
around, it will surely not be the last time either.
In August 1982, Bill C-124 froze the salaries of some 500,000
public servants. In December 1989, there was the back to work
legislation, Bill C-49. Later, in October 1991, there was Bill
C-29, with which the employer threatened unilateral imposition of
its offer if it were not accepted. “Those are the offers. If
you do not accept them, you will end up with them anyway”. That
was more or less what Bill C-29 was all about.
But something rather special happened then. The Labour
Relations Board characterized this move by the federal
government of the time as unethical.
Worse yet, the International Labour Organization commented that
this action by the federal government imposed serious
restrictions on the bargaining process and urged the government
to return to free bargainiing. The ILO found the way the federal
government was treating its employees shocking.
1515
Members will understand our having a few doubts today about the
federal government's statement that it is a good employer. The
International Labour Organization had doubts then.
In 1992, there was something else. In 1993, 1994 and 1996,
there were in this House a series of laws imposing working
conditions on these public servants. One of my Bloc Quebecois
colleagues said “We are forced to conclude there is no
difference between Conservative and Liberal”.
When we look at labour relations with public servants, both the
Conservatives and the Liberals forced their will on their
employees using the legislative tools at their disposal.
In conclusion—I will have the opportunity to come back about 11
p.m. or midnight, I am pleased to say—what we want the
government to do is sit down and bargain, as they are entitled
to do.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today to Bill C-76.
Unfortunately this bill should never have been brought to the
House.
If the government had done its job PSAC workers would not be on
a strike platform right now. If it had treated PSAC workers
fairly we would not have the imposition on the grain handlers and
the economy taking place right now.
The government has not been negotiating in good faith with PSAC
workers. It has not treated them fairly. When PSAC workers
wanted to come to the table for discussion with the government,
it turned its back on them. Why is that? This is the third time
PSAC workers are to be legislated back to work. We understand
the reasons why the government will do that.
We cannot have an economy that is held hostage to strikes. We
cannot have situations such as those taking place now with grain
handlers being unable to carry on with their jobs; 70 PSAC
workers striking and holding up 112,000 grain handlers should not
be allowed to occur. On the other hand, PSAC workers should have
the right to get a fair resolution to their problems.
There is a way of resolving this issue. How do we ensure that
people will not go on strike? How do we ensure the economy will
not be hurt? How, on the other hand, do we enable workers to get
a fair resolution?
The solution put forth by the Reform Party is an excellent one
that is built into the contract of essential services and built
into the contract of PSAC workers. I suggest that some of these
workers such as prison guards be made essential. In the process
of doing that, these individuals must have an out, an ability to
get resolution to their grievances.
The way to do that is by binding arbitration or final offer
arbitration. In other words, give workers in various disciplines
the opportunity to negotiate a settlement. If after a certain
period of time no settlement is arrived at, be it on the lack of
good faith on the part of the government or the people who are
negotiating from outside the government, then a situation will
happen where resolution has to occur.
Rather than have people go out on strike and hurt the economy,
hurt Canadians, hurt other workers, the solution is to write into
the contract that both sides come together for binding offer
arbitration or final offer arbitration.
Final offer arbitration would ensure that both sides, the
government and in this case PSAC workers, would put forth the
best solution they can possibly come to themselves. A third
party, acceptable to both sides, would then make the decision.
The other option is binding arbitration. In that case a third
party, again one acceptable to both sides, would deliberate on
the situation, take the offers from both sides and construct an
offer they find would be the best at that point.
That would enable workers to get a fair and quick resolution to
their situation. PSAC workers, like other workers, just want to
get back to work. They want to be treated fairly.
On the other hand, it will prevent strikes from taking place and
prevent the inconvenience and damage that is taking place to our
economy, to other citizens and to the functioning of government.
Therein lies the solution and we have put that solution forth to
the government.
1520
I will not be supporting Bill C-76 unless the clause of binding
offer arbitration or final offer arbitration is accepted by the
government. If it does not accept that, I cannot support the
bill because members in my constituency of Esquimalt—Juan de
Fuca are very angry with the government and want a resolution.
What are they asking for? Are they asking for things that are
unreasonable? No, they are not. Their pay has been frozen since
1992. They are asking for a fair wage increase. I submit that
if PSAC workers were to get the same wage increase as members of
parliament receive that would be fair.
On the issue of pay and equitable playing fields for people
across the country, right now people are paid different amounts
depending on where they live, and that is to take into
consideration the fact that the cost of living in some places is
different from that in others.
A better way of doing that would be to pay people the same for
doing the same job. On the other hand, people are being forced
to live in an environment where the cost of living is higher than
in another. For example, in Victoria the cost of living is
higher than in Halifax. The people working in Victoria would
receive a supplement to what they are making at this point. That
is done in the military with an accommodation assistance
allowance.
A similar type of situation can be built into the contract. In
that way we would not have the perception and the reality that
people across the country are being paid different amounts for
doing the same job. Pay them the same but give them the
accommodation assistance allowance which would account for the
differences in cost of living. That way everything would be very
transparent and available to all concerned.
The other thing that we see happening is the issue of fairness
in terms of labour-management relations. Labour unions have
sometimes done a good job and sometimes have not. We need to
clean up the labour situation and we need to ensure that the
people working under labour union laws have the choice of whether
to participate in the union.
Right now there are obligations for people in various jobs to
participate. That is not fair. People should have a choice
without being penalized for being a participant or not being a
participant in the union.
Right to work legislation exists in some parts of the United
States. Where that has taken place the income of those people is
about $2,500 to $3,500 a year greater than for those people who
are living in states where there is not right to work
legislation.
Unions have to be in a position where they will be acting not in
the best interests of the union leadership but in the best
interests of the people they represent. That is extremely
important.
In my riding we have quite a number of PSAC workers. One of the
examples I would like to give is the non-military blue collar
workers at the maritime forces base in Esquimalt. These people
have been working for wages at or just slightly above welfare for
a very long time. They have been asked to downsize
significantly. Many of them have downsized 40%. They multitask.
They have streamlined their jobs. They have streamlined their
work. They have not asked for much at all. They have been
working for rates far lower than what they could be making in
other parts of the country doing the same job in other parts of
the government. They stuck with it because they believed, out of
a sense of duty, they were doing the right thing for the
military.
After doing all this the government has kicked them in the
teeth. It has not given them a level playing field to work on,
and that is completely unfair. The workers in the base in
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca want to have a level playing field where
they can compete with others fairly for their jobs and they want
to be treated fairly.
The other issue, which I think is a very legitimate grievance,
is that people doing the same job with the same skills working in
PSAC are paid less than those individuals doing the same job with
the same skills in the government, in other unions.
Why is that? That should not happen. If a person is doing the
job, if they have the same skills, they should be getting paid
the same wage regardless of what union they are in within the
government. That is called parity.
1525
On the issue of employment equity, it is wise for us to
understand what that means. Many people think it is for equal
pay if people are doing the same job, with the same skills and
the same experience regardless of their gender or any other
characteristic we would like to name. That is not what
employment equity is all about. Employment equity says that if
person A is doing a job and person B is doing a different job,
some arbitrary third person says those two people should be
getting paid the same.
We do not believe that is fair. We do not support that. The
reason we do not support that is we believe the market should
decide what the value of those two jobs are. Should someone
working in a clerical position get paid the same as someone
working in a blue collar job because some arbitrary third person
in the government says those two jobs are equivalent? We do not
believe so. What we believe in having is a level playing field
where people can compete fairly for the jobs they would like to
pursue.
We also believe very strongly that people doing the same job
with the same skills in the same way should get paid the same
amount of money. We very much support that. That is not taking
place right now in the unions and the government has not
addressed that.
The amount of money the government has given these people is
pathetically small, given the impositions it has imposed on these
workers and the challenges they have met. The blue collar PSAC
workers have tried very hard and have met the challenges that
have been put in front of them. They are hardworking individuals
who are the backbone of our country. Yet the government has not
treated them fairly.
The longer the government does this, the longer it continues to
treat PSAC workers in this way, the less and less it will get out
of them as workers and the less faith these workers will have in
the system they work in. Who will be hurt by that? The people
who rely on these PSAC workers to do their job and the country.
Does it not make sense if we are to have a stronger economy, a
more cohesive society, that these people are treated fairly?
That is all they are asking. Yet the government will force these
people back to work and engage in strong, punitive legislation
with huge fines for people who will not agree to that.
The failure of the government to deal with the situation in a
proactive fashion has brought us to the catastrophe we have
today, a situation that no one relishes. Why it does not do this
I do not understand.
I challenge the government to do the following with the PSAC
workers. It should identify other workers it believes are
essential. It should put into the contract with their agreement
that if the negotiations are not concluded with a fair resolution
on both sides, binding final offer arbitration is put into the
system, into their contract. In that way strikes will not take
place, the economy will not be compromised, people will not be
compromised and quick resolutions to this thorny problem will
occur in a fair and equitable fashion so that the government, the
economy, the public and the union workers will ultimately be
treated fairly. To do anything less is grossly unfair to all
concerned.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I regret that we are engaged in this debate,
period. Let us be clear about what is before the House today. We
have before us the most anti-democratic motion possible by any
government anywhere.
Yesterday we had introduced in the House the most
anti-democratic legislation imaginable for a democracy anywhere.
Today we have the double whammy, an anti-democratic process on
top of anti-democratic legislation.
The purpose for the debate this afternoon is to come to grips
with this arbitrary, heavy handed approach by the Liberal
government.
It is yet another example of how arrogant this government has
become.
1530
Less than two years ago, when many of us were elected for the
first time to this Chamber, we were given an opportunity to see
democracy at work. We held out great hope that the rights of
every individual member and the views of every Canadian would be
heard and heard well. Lo and behold, that hope was short-lived
for many of us.
I was elected in June 1997 and one of the very first measures of
this government was to impose closure on Bill C-2, the bill to
amend the Pension Act. Just when it became clear that this
government was embarking on major changes that would have serious
and widespread ramifications for Canadians everywhere, just
when—
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Madam Speaker, I rise on a
point of order.
With all due respect, I note unfortunately that there is no
quorum in the House. I request your co-operation, Madam Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Indeed, I note there is no
quorum. Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I see we now have quorum.
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Madam Speaker, I am glad I now
have the attention of members opposite. I will carry on from
where I left off, with my observations as a new member of
parliament less than two years ago. I held out great hope that
democracy would be a model for this country and for this
parliament.
Instead I saw two things in very short order. First I saw a
government that was more right wing and regressive than the
previous Brian Mulroney Conservative government had been,
absolutely and without question. The second thing I noticed was
a government of unprecedented arrogance. It is unbelievable that
any time an issue has become difficult or the debate has become
complex this government has resorted to the undemocratic measures
of closure, of speed-up motions as we have today, of killing
parliamentary debate and of the chance for public input.
After many attempts over the last couple of years by this
government to bring in closure and to bring down arbitrary,
undemocratic measures, today we have before us a mean-spirited
motion. It is an absolute abuse of power. What else can we call
this attempt on the part of the government to fast track and
limit debate on some very serious legislation pertaining to
forcing workers back to work? It can only be described in terms
of abusing power, of violating the very basic tenets of any
democratic society.
Why in the world did this government feel it had to bring a
heavy sledgehammer into this Chamber on an issue that is so
fundamentally critical in terms of our history as a country and
our traditions in terms of democracy?
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I call for a quorum check. I see the House is virtually empty.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I see we now have quorum.
1535
[English]
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would take it that it is a contempt of this House for a
member to make colourable quorum calls. I take note that the
previous call was made by a member who immediately quit the
Chamber. I therefore call upon you, Madam Speaker, to exercise
your discretion and to refuse frivolous quorum calls.
Mr. Peter Mancini: Madam Speaker, I was here when the
previous member made the call for quorum. I was present while
she stayed in the Chamber. She did not leave immediately after
she called for a quorum count.
I think I have been the only one who has been here throughout
the whole thing.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of
order. I find the hon. member's remarks totally unacceptable.
The government must make sure there is quorum and must have
members present in the House. As long as the government does not
make sure there is quorum, we have a right, as members of this
parliament, to call for a quorum count.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): This is not a point of order
but a matter for debate.
[English]
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. When the opposition called for a point of order there
were more government members present in the Chamber.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Madam Speaker, what we are
dealing with is deep-felt shame and embarrassment on the part of
members of the Liberal government. Otherwise they would not be
rising to their feet on points of order and commenting on those
who are trying to seek a quorum in this Chamber.
Let us face it, it is an embarrassing moment for Liberal
members. It must give them a terrible sense of shame and
dishonour to have to sit here and be a part of a process that is
denying fundamental basic democratic rights in the House of
Commons. They have to be ashamed and embarrassed. They are
probably also very ashamed and embarrassed about the legislation
behind this motion, Bill C-76, which is an attempt to apply the
most undemocratic process to deal with a labour dispute in our
country.
Let us keep this in perspective and try to bring some sense to
members on the government benches. This is not an isolated
incident. This is part of a pattern of governing that is
absolutely loathsome and absolutely repulsive for Canadians
everywhere. This is just one in a series of examples.
I would like to remind members opposite how often we have had to
deal with closure on important legislation, how often we have
heard about decisions being made by the government outside
parliament, how many times parliamentarians have been bypassed in
critical decisions being made for this country and how often
bodies without any democratic responsibility and accountability
determine the future of this country.
Let us not forget the past week when we asked a simple question
about the denial of postal subsidies for religious publications
in this country. We were told that was part of the WTO, the
World Trade Organization, reaching its tentacles into something
as basic as the right of this country to produce religious
publications that reflect the values of this country.
Let us not forget that if it had not been for the vigorous
efforts on the part of non-governmental organizations, justice
coalitions everywhere across this country and some members of
parliament, we would not have had the multilateral agreement on
investment before this Chamber for discussion. It would have
proceeded in secret and arbitrarily. It would have become a fait
accompli, causing much harm and destruction to the future of the
country, if people had not called the government to task and
demanded some sense of democratic process.
1540
Let us also look at the way in which members of parliament have
been raising their concerns over the last while and pointing out
how much parliament is bypassed on a day to day basis.
My colleague, the member from Kamloops, was very clear last week
in the House when he said that the government is working very
hard to make all of us into political eunuchs. It is attempting
at every step of the way to deny us the opportunity to exercise
our democratic rights and to represent the people who elected us
to this Chamber.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would like a quorum call please.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I do not see a quorum. Call
in the members.
And the bells having rung:
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We now have a quorum.
1545
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Madam Speaker, a minute ago I
heard the member for Ottawa West—Nepean suggest the reason it
had been hard to keep members in the House was that there were
many committees going on. I want the member and all others
members on the Liberal benches to know that many of us here would
like to be in committee as we speak but we are forced to be in
this place because of the unilateral, arbitrary and undemocratic
actions of the government. If the government could see the light
and realize that if it allowed democracy to pursue its natural
course, we could all get the work of this place done efficiently
and effectively.
I will try to wrap up the first part of my speech pertaining to
closure, this arbitrary move on the part of the government, by
referencing a couple of other incidents and events flowing from
this place.
It should come as no surprise to members opposite that when it
comes to serious matters like detailed analysis of the budget
committees are barely given an opportunity for active scrutiny.
The decisions are made outside this place. That is an
undemocratic practice. When it comes to big decisions of vital
importance to the country and to the world, especially when it
comes to questions pertaining to peacekeeping troops being sent
into wartorn countries, as a matter of course this place is
consulted after the fact.
The government may allow for a few hours to be spent on a take
note debate, but when it comes to final decisions around whether
or not troops will be sent into an international scene of
conflict the government makes those decisions before parliament
has had a chance to have any involvement or say on those issues.
Let me mention another example having to do with the incident we
all had to deal with over the last year. Scientists in the
health protection branch were being threatened, intimidated and
placed under gag orders because they chose to speak up and inform
Canadians about the possible harmful effects of something being
added to our milk. In that case we were talking about bovine
growth hormone. It is a very clear example of what has happened
in the country and the kind of arrogance that is so pervasive
with the Liberals across the way.
It means that civil servants who are doing their jobs are
threatened, intimidated and made to shut up so that the
government does not have to deal with the hard facts and take
those concerns into account. There are numerous more examples of
how undemocratic the government has become.
Ms. Elinor Caplan: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Not only are the member's facts inaccurate, but I do not
think she is speaking to the topic.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Madam Speaker, the motion before
us is a motion to speed up the process around the approval for
the most undemocratic legislation we have ever seen. We are
talking about closure.
Every incident I have referred to has do with the way in which
the government wields the heavy hand, cuts off debate, makes
decisions outside parliament and denies the fundamental tenets of
a democratic society. I am right on topic.
Let me move toward the actual anti-democratic nature of the
legislation around which the motion is trying to speed up the
process with regard to Bill C-76, the back to work legislation.
Why in the world did the government feel compelled to go the
route of fundamentally bypassing the democratic collective
bargaining process and bringing in this heavy handed back to work
legislation?
It is absolutely shameful the government had to resort to such
tactics when there were many other options which the government
with a bit of courage, leadership and conviction could have used
to ensure that the concerns of workers, farmers and the public
service were all addressed. Canadians could then feel there was
some framework of harmony and consensus at play and the tools in
place by which they would have the ability to take on the future
with all the rapid technological change and global forces at work
in this country and around the world.
1550
We are talking today about the most anti-democratic process to
bring in and to force the most anti-democratic legislation
imaginable.
I do not think many Canadians will take solace in the
government's suggestion that this heavy handed legislation was
the only solution to the problem. Canadians know full well that
the process of collective bargaining involving members of the
Public Service Alliance of Canada was not respected. They know
full well that legitimate issues and demands were being raised by
alliance workers that were not taken into account.
I would like to take a couple of minutes to read a few letters I
received today in my office in Winnipeg and some letters I
received over the course of the last couple of months while
public service alliance workers have been trying to convince the
government of the need to deal with their grievances and, in
particular, to deal with the whole question of inequity and
discrimination in the regional rates of pay.
I quote from a letter by Alice, sent to me today at my office.
She wrote:
I thought that being a federal employee would entitle me to equal
treatment like everyone else that works for the government, but I
guess (the President of the Treasury Board) doesn't see it that
way. This is discrimination with a capital D. Our prime
minister does nothing to help us. I feel we have no rights as
Canadian citizens.
Alice does not feel she has any rights as a Canadian citizen. We
do not feel we have any rights as members of parliament. Is
there any sign of people feeling like they are able to use their
full rights as citizens of the country?
Let me go on and read from Leona who wrote:
I am writing in protest to being legislated back to work by the
federal government. I can't believe that our Prime Minister
condones (the President of the Treasury Board's) behaviour
towards the blue collar workers of Canada. (The Prime Minister)
openly shows his discrimination, by not stepping in to stop (the
President of the Treasury Board) and the treasury board from once
again sending us back to work without a proper raise.
Let me quote from Mike who wrote to me today:
I am an employee of the Federal Government of Canada and a
member of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. As an employee
represented by Public Service Alliance of Canada-Table 2 I urge
you to intercede on our behalf—
We are doing that today. We are trying to intercede on behalf
of workers who are members of the public service alliance and
part of the table two negotiations seeking to have their concerns
heard and taken seriously.
It is absolutely unnecessary and unexplainable. It takes the
words right out of my mouth to try to figure out why the
government felt it had to resort to back to work legislation when
there were options before it, when it was a matter of respecting
the rights of workers and respecting the role that the labour
movement plays in the country.
I urge members today to consider their actions and to remember
people like Stanley Knowles who would have been appalled by the
kind of anti-democratic motion put before the House today. I ask
members to remember the contribution of the labour movement
throughout the history of the country in seeking a more just and
equitable society. I ask members to remember the words that when
one among us suffers we all suffer. When we work to ensure the
collective good and find co-operative solutions, therein lies our
hope for a secure, healthy and peaceful future.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to speak to this debate. Honest to
goodness, I cannot for the life of me understand what is going on
and why we are playing these games.
There should have been a settlement a long time ago. We have
asked the government many times, over and over again, to keep the
grain moving. It has to be kept moving for the sake of our
farmers everywhere, not just farmers throughout Saskatchewan and
throughout Alberta in small towns or communities.
I talked with a number of businessmen just this weekend who
reassured me once again that the success of the town, the
community and the small business that exists relies totally on
the success of farmers in their community. Over and over again
every year we go through this nonsense.
1555
I am pleased to hear that the grain is moving today and that we
are not having a little demonstration, strike, picket line or
whatever to stop its flow. It should have never come to that in
the first place. We asked the government over and over again to
bring in such things as final arbitration that would put an end
to the harassment that farmers have to go through.
I realize what the NDP colleagues are saying about faithfully
negotiating. If negotiations are supposed to take place, for
heaven's sakes get to the negotiating table. I do not think
there has been negotiating going on with the prison guards for I
do not know how long.
People are pushing hard for negotiations and to reach a
settlement. I would like to try an experiment after 1999, in the
new millennium, that will change the role. Somehow or another we
will get farmers to go on strike. They will just stop producing.
We will not be able to legislate them back to work. We will not
be able to do anything, because they will choose to pull the pin
and go on strike. I wonder where all the picket lines would be
if there was no grain to move, or if they did not have any of
this or that to do.
The farmer has had the short end of the stick long enough. They
have no alternatives. They do not have a negotiating table to go
to. They do not get to sit around a table and say “We are going
to negotiate. What are you going to do for me? How much money
are you going to bring me this year? How are you going to
increase my wages?”
They have absolutely no say. They put their seeds in the ground
and pray that it does not hail or there is not a drought. They
go through the headache of getting a crop together and getting it
to the right places so they can get it moving and into the hands
of society so people can eat. Contrary to what some people on
that side of the House must believe, food does not come from
grocery stores. It comes from other places.
Farmers have no representation whatsoever in terms of who will
look after their needs. When it comes to 70 grain weighers or a
few dock loaders, man do we have people jumping to their rescue
all over the land. They go on strike and stop the movement of
grain. It does not matter if the farmer needs cash or his crop
will go down the tube the next year if he does not get some cash.
Some people in my riding asked me not too long ago whether the
Liberal government was trying to destroy them. That is what they
asked. Why do hon. members think that a relief package is going
out?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must apologize to
the member.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Would you please check if there is indeed a quorum?
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We do not have a
quorum at this time so we must call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We now have a quorum.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Madam Speaker, we have to play a few
more games. We have to go through these things. I do not know
why.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. The hon. member who just called for quorum, whose
party I notice is fairly underrepresented in the House today, is
the same member wearing a badge on his lapel that I think is not
according to the rules of the House.
1600
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): If the member rises
wishing to speak, we will go into the matter at that time.
Mr. Myron Thompson: There we go again, Madam Speaker. It
is a good thing the grain movement strike is not in effect in
Vancouver right now because that—
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I do not appreciate the comment made by the member opposite. I
am wearing this to show compassion for government employees.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): This is not a point of order
but a matter for debate.
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson: Madam Speaker, that is what I am
getting at. It is a good thing the grain is moving, because if
it was not and we had to get them back to work to get the grain
moving, that four or five minute intervention would have cost a
few more thousand dollars which of course would have come out of
the farmers' pockets. That is where those losses are. Farmers
are the ones who lose. But of course we have to make sure this
button looks good or that one looks bad or whatever. That is
really important stuff.
When are we going to start doing things in this House that would
guarantee some things to the farmers? They have no avenue. They
do not have a union. They cannot go on strike. Every year they
end up in the hole. It is getting worse and worse. A big fund
was needed this year to help relieve a crisis. We would like to
blame everything under the sun. We would not want to point any
fingers in this place that would cause any problems. The
government could have put an end to any danger in grain
movement—
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would like to know if there is quorum to continue the
proceedings of the House.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I do not see a quorum at
this time.
Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We now have a quorum.
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson: Madam Speaker, the point I have been
trying to make is that it does not appear that the government in
power or colleagues to my right or to my left are interested in
the welfare of farmers.
The farmers' only alternative is the House of Commons. They
cannot go on strike. They cannot set the price of their grain.
They cannot determine who is going to buy it or how it is going
to get there.
The fate of the farmers is left in the hands of everybody under
the sun. They have no say about when the grain is going to flow,
when money is going to come in, when they are going to have some
cash to be able to put a crop in another year. All they ask for
is a little peace and tranquillity so they can go into another
year and keep doing their job. But there are these constant
interruptions every year. Sure as clockwork it is going to
happen again next year because this government will not—
1605
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The member opposite is using his cellular telephone. This is
completely unacceptable.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I did not witness the
incident referred to, but I would ask all members to refrain
from using cellular telephones in the House.
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson: Madam Speaker, we continue to play
games. The farmers are quite concerned about their fate, about
what is going to happen. The separatists are quite concerned if
they are going to be able to leave Canada or not. I guess right
now that is the most important thing. Why in the world can we
not stop for about 10 minutes and think about the fate of the
farmers?
I put out a notice in my riding the other day that if the strike
continued and the farmers could not move their grain and they
wished to go to Vancouver—
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin: Madam Speaker, the interpretation is not
coming through. I think something is not working.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I will ask those concerned
to make sure that the system is working properly and, if there
are problems, to let us know.
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson: Madam Speaker, I hope the public is
listening to the wisdom of those people over there. We are
talking about the fate of a lot of people. We are talking about
the most important industry to this country which happens to be
farming, whether they want to admit it or not. If putting on a
floor show is the most important thing they can come up with,
then I will direct everything to you, Madam Speaker. You and I
can have a good conversation because I know you will listen. They
do not care that much. If they did care we would not be here
again debating how we can keep the grain flowing in our ports.
We are going to support this back to work legislation. There is
no doubt about that. We want these things to come to an end. We
want the government to sit down and learn how to fix these
problems by talking to all parties, including the farmers. This
does not have to happen year after year. It is costing the
farmers millions of dollars. It has put a lot of young farmers
right out business. I do not think any of them over there know
what it is like. Maybe a couple of them would know what it is
like to lose a farm. I personally know some farmers who have, and
it is because of a lot of what takes place here that it happens.
If we ever have to go through this again and if farmers want to
load the ships themselves, they should give me a call. I will
lead them to Vancouver. We will get shovels or whatever it takes
and we will load the ships ourselves if that is what it takes.
I was asked how many acres I have. I used to have quite a few
but then I used to do pretty well until the government stuck its
nose in. Then I joined the ranks of “you better get out of it
before you go bankrupt”. That is life on a farm. Farmers have
no say in their destiny. It is limited. It is all in the hands
of people like Toronto lawyers who are not sure which animal
produces the milk they buy in the carton.
I would like to talk about the prison guards. I visited the
prison guards in my last portfolio. They begged and pleaded with
the government and with corrections to do something. They were
concerned about a raise. They had not had one for nine years.
Now it is up to 11 years. It is one of the most dangerous
occupations, one of the most responsible jobs.
1610
The guards asked time and time again, through us because the
government would not listen, that we deal with situations which
needed to be dealt with in the penitentiaries. It would make
their lives a little safer. It would make the lives of their
wives and children at home a little safer because of threats they
were getting. It was about safety measures that could be taken
in the prisons to protect them from being stuck with needles
which happened just the same and threats from other things.
They asked time and time again, could they please get equal
treatment. A prisoner puts in a harassment charge and is dealt
with in a matter of a few days or weeks. Guards who put in
harassment charges are never dealt with. Sometimes it takes two
to three years. The government puts such little value on the
people who work in these institutions. In 11 years the guards
have not had a raise. The government is not even willing to talk
about it. The guards were not really interested so much in the
raise throughout that whole era.
One guard in Drumheller who was under suspicion and charged with
theft was immediately released from her duties without pay. In
the upper house, in the other place convicted ones are sitting in
there drawing all kinds of pay. Yet there is a guard from the
Drumheller penitentiary who is now at home because charges have
been brought against her. She has been out of work.
This place sits back and plays its little games. All through
this whole period we have brought these issues to this House of
Commons. We have asked the solicitor general time and time again
to look after the needs of our guards.
Madam Speaker, how many times in the last session did you hear
me ask for puncture proof gloves, something that would protect
the guards from possibly contaminated needles? How many times
did it never happen? Always. Gloves appeared in some quarters
of our penitentiary system, thanks to the efforts of many people
at the grassroots level, not thanks to the government.
I remember this same bunch crying out in 1991, “No, no you
rotten Conservatives, you cannot get them back to work through
legislation. You cannot do that undemocratic thing”. Now the
Liberals are doing it, because they want to look good in the eyes
of the public I guess.
How nice it would be to come into the House of Commons and deal
with issues squarely on, face to face, sensibly and guarantee to
our farmers that they do not have to worry about their grain
shipments ever stopping again. Why do we not do that?
Wait a minute. I am from a different party than those members
are. We cannot allow good ideas to come from the opposition and
they cannot come from the government.
An hon. member: You never have good ideas.
Mr. Myron Thompson: They never have good ideas to help
our farmers. Keep them alive, keep them well and keep things
moving. Are those bad ideas?
Farmers supply food to that member and to every household in the
country. Is that not a good idea? If the member thinks that is
not a good idea, then go ahead and say it. I will pass the
information on to the farmers. Stand up and say it. We will
turn the mike on so we can hear. I would like to know when we
are going to wake up and take care of the people who take care of
us.
I would love to see members of every union across the country
collectively say, “We have a good idea, folks. We will join
with the farmers, the businessmen and everybody else. Let us all
come together to lobby and demand that we have a tax break. We
are taxed to the hilt”.
I can almost assure every prison guard, every policeman, every
nurse that if we could get a tax break no one would have to have
a raise.
Besides, a raise would just put a person into a higher bracket
and they would lose most of it anyway. So why not go for tax
relief collectively across the land and come together as a
people, instead of always squabbling back and forth and fighting
one another and then ending up with one group of individuals
which has no avenue to turn to?
1615
Those individuals do not have a union. How many times do we have
to say that? They do not get to name the price that they are
going to put on their wheat or barley. They have to wait and see
what it is going to be. They do not have a say in what it is
going to cost to ship it here or there.
The number one most important industry in this world is farming.
It puts food on our tables. We treat it every year in the same
fashion.
Mr. Scott Brison: Fishing.
Mr. Myron Thompson: And fishing, which is farming. But
we would not dare to change it because it would not look good
politically. I say, wake up folks. Let us get on with the
legislation so we can get people back to work, and then let us
start working from that day on to see to it that we do not have
to go through this again next year.
Let us get to the legislation. We want to support the
legislation. We want the back to work legislation. But let us
start doing things together that will make it good for the
workers, for the producers and for everyone. Let us start now
and stop the games. Today is the day. We can do something.
I say this on behalf of all my grain farmers in Wild Rose, many
of whom are on their last leg, who phone me every day and say:
“Help us. We have no place to turn. Help us”.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am delighted to address some of the concerns and some
of the nonsense that has been going on in this place. It
actually began last Thursday night.
I find it rather interesting. The longer one is in this
business, and I have been around for 20 years, the less surprised
one gets at how silly and how low political parties, opposite
particularly, can go with some misconstrued attempt to try to say
to the people that they are doing something good for Canadians.
Last Thursday there was a request that came from the opposition
to have an emergency debate. The issue surrounded the
fundamental problem in the grain industry and the fact that grain
shipments were being held up due to rotating strikes. The grain
was rotting and the demand was that we have an emergency debate
to see if there was some way the government could bring some
position forward that would get the grain moving again,
notwithstanding all of the other problems around the rotating
strikes, the difficulties of people not getting their income tax
refunds or not getting their forms filed, all the safety concerns
around national defence, around—
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I am disappointed that so few members got to hear the member's
eloquent speech. I do not see a quorum in the House. Perhaps
we should call for one, for the benefit of members.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In fact, we do not have a
quorum. Call in the members.
[English]
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We now have a quorum.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Madam Speaker, there are a couple of
not so minor points of interest. I am told that the cost to run
the House of Commons is approximately $27,000 an hour. We hear
people who watch television say “I saw you speaking in the
House. Why were there not other members there?”
We all know what other members are doing. How many committees do
we have? I currently sit on a couple. Public accounts is
sitting down the hall from this august Chamber right now.
1620
An hon. member: As is the health committee.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: The member says that the health
committee is also meeting.
An hon. member: National defence.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: National defence is meeting with
members from all parties as we speak. The justice committee is
meeting as we speak in this place.
There are members of parliament from all parties who are working
in committee. As the Bloc chirps on, we all understand that the
process requires us to be in committee. Why? Because there are
bills which go to committee, as well as the reports of the
auditor general, which one would think the opposition members
might possibly be interested in. But no. What do they do? They
simply continue to call quorum. They are trying to perpetrate
the fraud upon the Canadian people that members of parliament—
An hon. member: And we will keep doing it until the cows
come home.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Go ahead, you just assist me when you
chirp like that.
They are trying to perpetrate the fraud that members of
parliament are somehow lying around and not doing any work.
Members are at committee. If they are not at committee they are
working in their offices with their televisions on so that they
can follow the debate. But the Bloc is not interested in that.
We know that it is in the very clear interest of the Bloc to try
to bring disrepute to anything Canadian. It is in its interest
to try to show the Canadian people that somehow this place does
not work. That is all it is doing.
We know that Bloc members would not want to go back to their
ridings and tell the people there, some of whom may have voted
for them and some of whom may have not, that the committee system
actually has a purpose in the Canadian Confederation, that for
the bills introduced in this place to get proper scrutiny they
are sent to committee, at which time members of the Bloc, if they
choose to attend, and often they do not, would have the
opportunity to put something forward that just might, in some
small way, be important to their constituents. But it is much
more interesting for them to bring disruption to this place.
They could care less.
If the strikes were to continue on a rotational basis, if the
grains—I say to the hon. member for Wild Rose—were to rot in
western Canada, they would not care. In fact, they would like
that because they could turn around and say “See that? There
are strikes. Canada does not work. Food is rotting”.
We can tell by their excited interventions and their chirping
that they are a little excited about this because the truth
really hurts. When someone puts the point across and outs them
for what they are, destructive separatists dedicated to
destroying the greatest country in the world—and it does not
matter to them what tactics they use—of course they will get
excited. I understand that.
In spite of the fact that the Bloc continues to waste the time
of this place at $27,000 per hour, it is now 4.25 in the
afternoon and we are going to be here until 11 o'clock debating
this bill. That is no problem. We have lots of members. We are
ready and willing to stand to defend Canada. We are ready and
willing and able to stand to defend legislation that will put
Canadians back to work, that will save $60 million worth of wheat
that is rotting, which they do not care about, that will bring
safety back to our airports and that will bring back safety to
national defence. We are quite prepared to do that.
1625
In spite of the obstructionist, childish, immature, nonsensical
tactics of the Bloc, we will vote on this at 11 o'clock. And
guess what, boys and girls? We are going to win. How do you
like them apples?
Once that happens we will go on to a new bill which is the
actual bill that will put an end to the strikes. It is, of
course, back to work legislation. Is that something any
government wants to do? I would say not. Ordering one's own
workers back to work through legislation is absolutely a last
resort.
However, we were asked to have an emergency debate, and we did
so. We looked for alternatives. Negotiations have been ongoing
with the members of the union in various areas. Agreements have
been arrived at which were not ratified in certain areas, such as
for the correctional officers. There have been problems. Labour
negotiation is a very complicated and difficult process to go
through.
I know a little of what I speak because my dad was a labour
leader. When I stand to support this government's legislation,
which I will do proudly, sadly my father will likely once again
turn over in his grave. He will not be particularly pleased that
the son of the past national director of the United Steel Workers
would actually vote for legislation that would send workers back
to work.
An hon. member: Your uncle Ed will be happy.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: It is uncle Ted. My Uncle Ted is a
farmer, I say to the member for Wild Rose. He only farms rocks
mostly. In any event, my dad would say that he did not agree
with it. However, he would understand democracy. My father
would understand that this kind of nonsense is destructive to the
very fabric and fibre of democracy.
The games that people play are quite remarkable. What do we do?
We sit here because we are unable to make a deal—
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I do not always agree with the members opposite, but I
would like to hear what they have to say. I would ask that you
attempt to keep order in the House so that the speakers can be
heard. I would appreciate that, Madam Speaker.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am going to ask all
members present to exercise a little courtesy and to listen
along with me to what their colleague has to say.
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the
assistance of the member opposite who would be somewhat loath I
think, under normal circumstances, to provide me with any
assistance. I must admit I am a little surprised that she is
having difficulty hearing me. I will try to speak up. Perhaps
that will help, although I doubt it.
What the member is really saying, once again, is that these
people, the Bloc, have been outed for what they are. Their only
defence is to yell, stamp their feet, pound their desks and be
childish.
What are some of the problems? More than one million Canadians
are awaiting their income tax returns. How many of those might
be in la belle province I wonder. How many of those people would
like to ask the Bloc why it is intentionally holding up their
income tax returns. Why are the Bloc members doing that?
There are a lot of people in Quebec and in all of Canada who
those income returns are pretty darn important to. We have to
find a way, as distasteful as it is to legislate a union back to
work. I personally and strongly believe in the right to strike,
in collective bargaining and in the process. I also believe that
while one gets the right to strike in a free and democratic
country, one does not get the right to use that instrument to
block other people from doing their work. One does not get the
right under Canadian labour law to prevent parliamentarians from
going into buildings. That is simply not right.
I say to the member opposite from the New Democratic Party, you
do not get the right to be disruptive to the point where you are
actually taking away other people's rights.
The right to strike means the right to demonstrate in a public
place. It means the right to picket. It means the right to
withhold services.
1630
For people in the labour movement the only thing they have is
the right to withhold their services. I understand that. At a
certain point we as a government have a greater responsibility to
all Canadians. Do we say to those million people awaiting their
tax returns that we are sorry we cannot help them?
Members of the union who work for us are unhappy with the offer
we have made. We have not made a deal so we are saying that they
will not be getting their cheques. Frankly even the New Democrats
who would pretend to support the unions in this cause, and in
fairness I am sure they do, would have difficulty telling people
in their ridings that they will not get their cheques because
rotating strikes are going on.
At some point in time part of the responsibility of being a
government is having the guts to govern. That is plain and
simple. We have arrived at that point with this legislation.
An hon. member: Yell louder.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: No, I do not have to yell louder. The
microphone is on. They have to yell louder because their
microphones are not on. Once again they are simply showing their
frustration because their tactics are not working.
The government has introduced responsible return to work
legislation. The government recognizes that we have to bring
safety back to those sectors in the Canadian economy that are in
jeopardy. We have to get grain moving again. How can we in good
conscience sit back and simply say that we will not do anything?
That brings me to an interesting point. I heard members of the
Reform, and I hesitate to be too unkind since they were being
somewhat gentle, say they would not support the bill. I have to
be honest. I heard members opposite when they were outraged. In
fact I heard their critic being interviewed and saying that the
solution was final offer arbitration.
Is that not wonderful? Where have they been? They want to come
along now. They see the government doing what they would do in
spades every day of the week. If we want to talk about
democratic principles and the right to strike, the agenda the
Reformers would bring forward would destroy the labour movement,
and they know it.
They had to find a way to oppose back to work legislation so
they came up with the magical final offer arbitration. They are
not fooling the labour unions if that is what they are trying to
do. They understand the agenda. They know where that is going.
They are certainly not fooling us.
The farmers my friend from Wild Rose so eloquently spoke about
must be shaking their heads and wondering what is going on.
Farmers out in western Canada who voted for some of these people
thought members of the Reform Party were their friends. Why are
they not supporting the government in getting the legislation
through quickly? Why are they continuing to debate, rag the
puck, stall, delay and cause problems in the House of Commons?
That is what farmers must wonder.
I also suggest the business community in western Canada must be
wondering. There is no question that west of Manitoba is
beautiful country, but there is an attitude out there because
they sent Reformers here to protect their interest and
unfortunately for them this is what happened. How can they
assume they are protecting their interests? They are not. They
are voting against a bill that would get the economy going again.
I am sure they find that bewildering.
When Reformers go home for the two week Easter break they might
find that there are some questions. Never mind the united
alternative. They will be asked whether they were in bed with
the Bloc, whether those two parties were being obstreperous.
They have not heard the Tories calling for quorum and that kind
of nonsense.
1635
I see the collaboration between members of the Reform Party and
of the Bloc which tends to be more of a left wing socialistic
party that we would expect to be on the side of the NDP. How did
that happen? How does that work? That is an interesting bed to
find themselves in. It must be awful crowded. They would not
want to turn over too quickly because they would not be sure
exactly whom they are in bed with.
Some interesting dichotomies exist because the opposition, with
perhaps the exception of the New Democrats, recognizes that this
is needed legislation. If Bloc members were honest and it were
not in their interest to destroy the credibility of Canada in
every possible way, they would say that.
I cite the example last week when I spoke at some length and I
understand upset some members of the Bloc. It is their desire to
eliminate the Canadian dollar from our economy and to replace it
with some Pan-American dollar. I suggested it might be a coupon,
that maybe they would use a coupon. The reality is that they
would wind up using the American dollar if that happened. That
does not bother them because anything that would discredit
Canada, anything that would discredit anything Canadian, is in
their interest.
I want to touch on the proposed legislation. Parliament is
being asked to pass legislation that would authorize the
government to impose the immediate return to work of some 14,000
blue collar workers represented by PSAC. It also seeks authority
to impose certain terms and conditions of employment on workers
who have been waging rotational strikes across the country for
the past two months.
I have been involved in other situations where a labour strike
had to be ended by legislation, for example the teachers in
Ontario when I was part of the Peterson government. We had
problems even during the Bob Rae days. NDPers must roll over
every time they think of the Rae days because of the things he
did that were totally opposite to the policies of the NDP.
An hon. member: Tell us about Bill Mahoney.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: That member should be in the back
taking notes rather than sitting out here publicly witnessing
anything. He has not heard anything because he is not listening.
He does not like the fact that this is responsible legislation.
He is just trying to be disruptive.
The proposed legislation will allow the government to implement
a collective agreement for some 4,500 correctional officers. If
NDPers do not think that is important, God bless them.
Correctional officers are extremely important to ensure the
safety of everyone that works in that system.
We have pride. The government has negotiated. We have sat at
the table. We have put deals forward and taken deals back. The
system has bogged down and the bottom line is that it is not
working now because it is causing disruptions in areas that
impacts our farmers, the recipients of tax refunds, safety and
national defence. The government is responsible enough to know
that cannot happen. It is an utter shame, particularly for
members of the Bloc, that they feel the need to be so negatively
disruptive and uncooperative.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is
with some apprehension that I rise to speak today. There are
not many members with the oratorical talent of the member for
Mississauga West. He is capable of working himself into a
frenzy for minutes on end without saying anything, when he is
not spouting nonsense.
I must therefore congratulate the member for Mississauga West on
his exceptional ability as a speaker and it is with some
trepidation that I rise to speak today.
I hope that the member for Mississauga West, along with his
colleagues, will follow the example of the Bloc Quebecois, who
listened calmly to his speech, and that he in turn will listen
very calmly to everything I have to say and hang on my every
word, as I took in every word that he had to say.
1640
It is important to have a clear picture of what we will be
talking about. We have to know the text of the motion that was
introduced by the government House leader. Here is what it says:
That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of
this House—
All that goes out the window.
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 and no Private Members' Business shall be
taken up;
The said bill may be read twice or thrice in one sitting;
After being read a second time, the said bill shall be referred
to a committee of the whole;
During consideration of the said bill, no division shall be
deferred.
I want to tell my colleagues opposite, who were talking about
the huge cost of keeping the House of Commons running, that it
is their own motion that says the House shall not adjourn except
pursuant to a motion proposed by a minister of the crown.
We know full well that it is a lot more expensive to keep this
place running at night than during the day.
If they want to complain about the even greater costs that will
result from this debate, they just have to talk to their House
leader who is forcing the House to sit extended hours at a cost
of $22,000 an hour, I think. It must be more expensive when
there is overtime involved. At time and a half, it is $33,000 an
hour. At double time, it is $44,000 an hour. It is outrageous.
And they are the ones accusing the opposition of wanting to
spend the taxpayers' money.
I would be ashamed to say such things in the House. It is their
fault that the House will be sitting so late.
Since I have been here in this House, I have been terribly
surprised at the attitude of Liberal backbenchers, who are
nothing but doormats.
We heard over the week-end that the Senate was going to debate
the possibility for Canada to use a common currency. This is
what the outstanding speaker from Mississauga West suggested.
Senators are going to debate the issue whereas, in this House,
we will not, although we are the only elected chamber, and
willing to do it. It is absolutely incredible that such an
archaic, outdated and undemocratic body will debate a proposal
so vital to the future of Canada and Quebec when the House of
Commons will not. This is due to the trained seal attitude of
the Liberals, who decided this issue would not be discussed in
the House.
They refused to discuss such a forward thinking idea as the
creation of a pan-American monetary union.
They similarly decided not to discuss such a fundamental issue
as the right and freedom of Canadian workers to strike.
This harks back to the Duplessis area. As members know,
Duplessis was a member of the National Assembly and Premier of
Quebec from 1936 to 1939, and from 1944 to 1959, if my memory
serves me right. My colleague from Trois-Rivières will confirm
this. Am I right?
Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Yes, you are.
Mr. Richard Marceau: Premier Duplessis used to say “You know,
in a good government there is no need for an opposition”. This
is the same attitude we are seeing from this Liberal government,
which is telling us that no matter what the opposition has to
say, it will not listen and will ram this piece of legislation
down our throats.
It is important to remember that the Liberal Party of Canada was
elected with only 38% of the vote. This means that 62% of
Canadians voted against it. This highly democratic party is
using its questionable legitimacy to force back to work Canadian
workers who are legally exercising their right to strike.
1645
This is a disgraceful, undemocratic, bulldozer policy, in short
an illegitimate policy on the part of a so-called democratic
government.
Mr. Claude Drouin: Bulldozer?
Mr. Richard Marceau: I see my colleague, the member for Beauce,
getting excited already. As soon as he hears anything that
makes sense, we know that he either votes against it because it
comes from the opposition, or he leaves and does not give people
a chance to say their piece.
In fact, the member for Beauce, who says he represents his
constituents well, voted against striking a committee to examine
the idea of single currency, while the business community, which
is exporting over 80% of what it produces to the United States,
is calling for this kind of study so that it can maximize
cross-border exports.
I hope the member for Beauce will, for once, stand up instead of
bowing down before the sacred cow represented by the government—
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Richard Marceau: —and that, this time, on behalf of his
constituents, he will vote against forcing the workers of Canada
and Quebec back to work.
A motion like this one leaves me speechless, as I channel all
the expressions of anger I have heard from the workers I have
met, all their outrage at the government's attitude.
Just recently some of my office staff spoke with Viviane
Mathieu, the union president at Donnaconna penitentiary. She
was on the verge of tears. “What can we do,” she said, “if we
are no longer able to exercise our right to negotiate a
collective agreement freely? What can we do?” She felt she was
at the end of her tether, and rightly so. What can be done,
when workers are forced back to work against their will, when
they have every right to continue to negotiate?
Not only that, but this is done in an underhand manner. It is
done through the back door. It is done hypocritically. We know
very well that the Liberal Party is very familiar with closed
door policies, with deals made behind closed doors.
This is what happened in 1981, when the Minister of Justice of
the day, now the Prime Minister of Canada, negotiated a new
constitution behind Quebec's back. That was called the “night
of the long knives”.
We know that this highly undemocratic party is continuing the
same odious tradition, one which in my opinion merits absolutely
no consideration by Canadians.
Special legislation ought to be a last-ditch effort. As my
colleague from Beauce is well aware, not all avenues have been
exhausted, far from it. We believe that workers have the right
to strike. This is a fundamental right, and one which is in a
number of international conventions. It is a right that is
recognized by the International Labour Organization, of which
Canada is a member, moreover.
What is the Canadian government doing? To our great shame, it is
trying to abolish this fundamental right with a stroke of the
pen, with special legislation. This is a right for which
millions of workers have fought throughout the world. Those who
are familiar with French literature may remember the stunnning
novels written by Zola on this subject. I cannot believe that
the government would revert to the attitude that prevailed
during the industrial revolution, when workers counted for
nothing practically.
The government is reverting to a reactionary policy. Where are
we headed? Let us reread Zola, the great thinkers and the great
novelists of the late 19th century. Where does the government
want to take us? To the abolition of the right of Quebec and
Canadian workers—
Mr. Réal Ménard: Les misérables.
Mr. Richard Marceau: Yes, Les misérables, among others.
Incidentally—
Mr. Réal Ménard: They are in front of us.
Mr. Richard Marceau: Indeed, les misérables are in front of us,
as the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve has pointed out.
1650
In fact, my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, to whom I pay
tribute today, introduced a bill yesterday to fight and almost
eliminate poverty. While it may be an impossible dream, we must
always aim to do so. It is surely not—and I am sure he will
agree with me—by passing such odious and undemocratic
legislation that the rights of workers and the poor will be
respected.
I was saying then, before paying tribute to my colleague and
friend from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, that if the strike of the blue
collar workers affects the interests of other Canadians, as was
said earlier, with the tax refunds and so on, we have to
understand that the exercise of the right to strike inevitably
has a direct or an indirect effect on society, because if every
strike that affected the interests of the public were
prohibited, there would be no more right to strike.
I studied law in Quebec at Laval University and in Ontario at
the University of Western Ontario. In all law courses, and
especially in the basic labour law course, we learned that one
of the basis of a free and democratic society is the right of
workers not only to associate freely, but to bargain freely with
the employer.
When the government takes this right away from workers, it
creates, I would say, a terrible imbalance between the powers of
the workers, often the more vulnerable, and the powers of the
employer, often the stronger.
So, once again, this government has decided to come down on the
side of the stronger. This time, it is coming down on its own
side, because it is the employer. There is a terrible
imbalance. They are failing to respect the rights of the
workers, the ordinary folk, the real people, with whom the
government has lost contact. It lives in a bubble, on another
planet.
What does it mean, living on another planet? It means imposing
regulations and laws that are completely ridiculous. This is a
totally hateful attitude, worthy of Duplessis, and we must keep
saying that.
Mr. Claude Drouin: This is not the Parti Quebecois here, this is
the Liberal Party.
Mr. Richard Marceau: I hope my colleague from Beauce will
continue to listen carefully to what I have to say because even
people from his own riding call me regularly because they are
dissatisfied with their member.
I was saying that not only do we know the mentality of
government members, of those Liberal backbenchers who are
nothing but doormats, but also that of the President of the
Treasury Board. All his actions over the last few years have
gone against the interests and the rights of workers.
I can give a few examples that will help a lot of people
understand what I am talking about. I hope the Liberal members
who are here today are listening to me and will see the
undemocratic and anti-worker attitude exhibited by the President
of the Treasury Board since he took up his duties in 1993.
Now for the examples. He has refused to comply with the ruling
on pay equity.
My colleague, the member for Longueuil, who has done an
extraordinary job on this issue, will be able to attest to that.
If I am not mistaken, on this very day, the Canadian Human
Rights Commission blamed the President of the Treasury Board for
appealing its ruling. The commission has asked the government to
withdraw the appeal. How did the government react? Because it
lives on another planet and because it is deaf, it has decided
to go ahead with the appeal.
I am happy to see that the member for Mississauga West is
listening carefully. I am sure he will learn a lot of things
from my speech.
I was talking about the President of the Treasury Board, who has
refused to discuss the issue of orphan clauses and to recognize
the problem.
The consensus in Quebec is almost unanimous, particularly among
young people, that orphan clauses are discriminatory for young
people who represent the future and to whom totally unfair and
discriminatory clauses are applied. And what is the President of
the Treasury Board doing while this discrimination is going on?
Nothing. He does not even acknowledge the problem.
What is the President of the Treasury Board doing? He is
completely reforming, and failing on all counts, the Canada
Industrial Relations Board, where appointments are still being
made along party lines and smack of patronage instead of being
made according to merit.
1655
As I said earlier, in my introduction, this government harks
back to the Duplessis era, it is out of touch with reality,
behind the times, old-fashioned, undemocratic and despicable.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Outdated.
Mr. Richard Marceau: And outdated.
I was also saying that the President of the Treasury Board has
refused to pass antiscab legislation. This type of legislation
exists in Quebec since 1977, if I am not mistaken.
It is a masterpiece of harmony, an example of the harmony that
well-thought out legislation can bring.
Since 1977, this wonderful legislation, which was introduced if
I remember correctly by Pierre-Marc Johnson, has been universally
acclaimed in Quebec. I think it deserves a try in the rest of
Canada. But what did the President of the Treasury Board do? He
refused even to consider passing such a bill, although it
improved union-management relations tremendously in Quebec.
What did the President of the Treasury Board do in addition? He
refused to pass part III of the Canada Labour Code concerning
the preventive withdrawal of pregnant workers.
I have two children, who have just turned one. Nothing is more
precious than a child, but before we can think about children,
we must think about pregnant women. They must be protected.
They are often in a vulnerable condition and must be removed
from environments that can sometimes be dangerous both to them
and to the child they are carrying.
What did the President of the Treasury Board do? He refused to
pass part III of the Canada Labour Code concerning the
preventive withdrawal of pregnant workers.
As I have only two minutes remaining, I seek the unanimous
consent of the House to speak for another 10 minutes.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Will the member please
repeat what he said. I did not catch the member's request.
Mr. Richard Marceau: I sought unanimous consent to speak for
another 10 minutes.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Richard Marceau: Before everyone came back, there was
unanimous consent.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Charlesbourg has requested unanimous consent to extend his
speaking time by 10 minutes. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Speaker, I am not at all surprised to
have been denied unanimous consent.
The government will not allow this house to discuss such an
important bill, just like it would not let it examine the
possibility of having a pan-American monetary union. This
tyrannical, undemocratic, duplessiste government, which is also
prone to patronage, continues to operate in its usual fashion.
As for the President of the Treasury Board, it is unfortunate
that I only have a minute and a half left, because I could talk
about him for a long, long time.
I will conclude, and this unfortunate, because all the members
were listening so intently to my comments and I could have gone
on for a long time. Freedom of association exists in Canada.
When workers have good reason to do so, they go on strike. This
is part of a fair balance of power, except when the employer,
which happens to be the government, abuses its legislative
power, as it is doing in this case.
Back to work legislation should only be a last resort. In the
meantime, the government must get back to the bargaining table
with an offer acceptable to workers, and it must settle the
dispute in a democratic and civilized manner, through
negotiation.
I will end on that note. It is unfortunate. I could talk forever
about this issue. It is always a pleasure to address this House,
through you, Mr. Speaker.
I hope the member for Mississauga West, who is unfortunately not
here, and the member for Beauce listened carefully and will be
voting with the Bloc Quebecois tonight, for the workers of
Quebec and Canada.
1700
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, when the likeable and dynamic
member for Charlesbourg asked for unanimous consent, I trust you
could note that there was unanimous consent. I would not be
able to understand our colleague's being denied the opportunity
for the most democratic action possible in this house, that is
voicing his opinion and speaking on behalf of his constituents.
I would ask that you check again, because it is my firm
conviction that it would be a loss if our colleague were not
able to continue.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Unfortunately, there is not
unanimous consent. The hon. member for Drummond.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
thank my hon. colleague from Charlesbourg for his highly
intelligent and interesting remarks. It is a pity that the
House has not consented to his speaking for another ten minutes,
for I am certain that he could have enlightened the House still
further on what is going on at the present time.
These last two days have marked some extremely sad moments in
our history. In my time here since 1993, I would never have
thought I would see the present federal government attacking the
most precious thing there is in this country, that is the
totally legitimate right to democracy.
Through the President of Treasury Board, the federal government
has introduced Bill C-76. This bill is rife with demagoguery,
historic revisionism, dishonesty, and worst of all, it
represents an attempt to stir up public opinion against workers
who have been deprived of their most basic right.
It shows the arrogance of this government, which has no respect
for its citizens, or for this House, or for its own employees.
We have seen that it also lacks respect for us as
parliamentarians, by not allowing us to go any further in our
discussions, as has just happened to my colleague from
Charlesbourg.
I would like to give a historical background to this bill in
order to truly show our listeners, all Canadians and all
Quebeckers, what an odious piece of legislation this is.
The current bill is intended to bring back to work public
service employees who are currently on strike. These workers
are at bargaining table 2. The bill also gives the government
broad latitude to impose the working conditions and salaries it
wants, and on the correctional officers too, who have a strike
mandate.
In addition, it says to those bargaining “You will come back to
work under duress, and we will set the conditions”. This is a
breach of a legitimate right, that of striking to claim one's
rights from a centralizing government. It has decided it will
act as police and no longer negotiate. It is bringing employees
back forcefully, under the nightstick, otherwise it will
penalize them. That is what it is saying.
In addition, the federal government is justifying these
bulldozing measures by claiming loss of revenues by farmers in
the prairies and delays in the processing of income tax returns
because of the picketing. If the government were operating in
good faith, it would have sat down at the bargaining table and
negotiated.
1705
It is holding people hostage. It is the one acting in bad
faith. It is the one saying, in an authoritarian fashion “Some
people will be penalized. We are going to bulldoze that and we
will fix that for you”, because it does not want to negotiate.
To the farmers and the people waiting for their income tax
refunds, it is giving the impression that the workers in the
public service, its employees, are taking people hostage. It is
crazy. It is terrible.
The negotiations currently underway with table 4, that is the
correctional service officers, have led to a majority
conciliation report unanimously accepted by the members of the
union. The minority report was tabled by the employer.
The government should take into consideration this majority
report submitted by a third party.
Reference was made earlier to negotiations with table 2, and I
want to specify the groups that are represented at that table.
They are general labour, trades, ships' crews, hospital
services, general services and firefighters.
These are not people who earn huge salaries. These are people
who work for the government, government employees who earn
relatively modest salaries. They have not received a raise for a
long time. The government is telling them “We no longer want to
negotiate with you. We will impose on you what we want and give
you what we want”.
These negotiations could not lead to a majority conciliation
report, since the chairman at the conciliation table, the
employer and the union tabled three different offers. The gap
between the employer's offer and the union's offer is not
insurmountable, as long as the government shows good faith, and
we know how arrogant this government is.
What is contained in the bill is the government's offer for
table 2, which is lower than its previous offer. The federal
government had offered a 2.75% increase; it has now reduced it
to 2.5%. The government is clearly trying to take advantage of a
situation where it is both judge and jury. This is democracy
according to the government.
It must be noted that table 2 workers have had their salaries
frozen for six years. Workers are not asking for the moon. They
have not had a wage increase in six years.
They asked for 2.75% and the government said “We will give you
2.5% and no more. We want to hear no more. We will decide and
fix everything for you”.
Apart from the pay issue, the other sticking point was regional
pay rates. The employer's offers in this respect have
apparently been negligible. The government's offer for table 4
is not known right now. There is a majority conciliation report
that the government seems to be ignoring. However, the bill
would allow the government to impose whatever conditions it
wanted without taking into account this conciliation report that
was unanimously approved by the union.
It has already negotiated and everyone agreed. The government
then said that was that.
It said it no longer had an agreement with them, that it would
impose whatever conditions it wished, without taking into
account the conciliation report that had nevertheless been
unanimously approved.
The government is once again trying, through this special
legislation, to impose a collective agreement on table 2 and 4
workers, supposedly in the interest of taxpayers. This is
nonsense. What the government wants is to use the public to
violate—and I mean violate—the rights of workers.
In fact, if that was what the government wanted, picketing could
stop today. All it would have to do is approve the majority
conciliation report for table 2 and binding arbitration for
table 4.
1710
Generally we oppose back to work legislation that would trample
the fundamental right to strike, particularly in the case of
workers against whom this kind of legislation has been used a
number of times.
On the other hand, we regret the inconvenience that the
picketing by public servants has caused to Quebeckers and
Canadians. What we in the Bloc Quebecois want is for the
government and table 2 and 4 workers to come to an agreement,
and for citizens to regain access to the services they are
entitled to. There is a way to achieve this, provided the
government sits down at the bargaining table and negotiates in
good faith.
As I said before, the union unanimously endorsed the majority
conciliation report regarding table 4. The legislation ignores
this report. Why? This is a worthwhile proposal made by an
independent conciliator, which meets with the approval of the
union and could prevent a strike; all the basic labour
relations' principles would be respected.
At table 2, the union says it is fully prepared to go to
arbitration. It is willing to abide by the ruling of an
independent arbitrator, in which case picket lines would
immediately come down. The problems cited by the government to
ram this legislation down our throat would be solved.
But what is the government saying? That the union demands are
unreasonable. If they are so unreasonable, why refuse to go to
arbitration? What has the government to lose?
Obviously, this bill is nothing more than strong arm tactics to
impose a collective agreement outside the normal process. I
repeat, strong arm tactics to impose a collective agreement
outside the normal process. This is what the government wants to
do to the employees of the public service.
Blue collar workers of the federal government are presently on
strike and their picket lines are hindering the transportation
of grain. Those picket lines hurt prairies farmers. A member
asked for an emergency debate to discuss means to bring this
situation to an end.
Among the options proposed, an act forcing blue collars back to
work was demanded. What is going on right now in this House is
inadmissible and very sad. As I said at the outset, this strikes
a blow at a fundamental and democratic right.
This government travels around the world to talk about democracy
in the “most beautiful country in the world”, as the Prime
Minister likes to say. People who are looking at us throughout
the world can see that this government is striking a blow at the
most fundamental right. I believe government members who will
voter for this special legislation should be ashamed, in front
of the rest of the world, to strike a blow at the most
fundamental right, democracy.
We should never pass a special act such as this before having
exhausted all other avenues. Have they been exhausted? We do not
believe so.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: That's right.
Mrs. Pauline Picard: Going out on strike is a right of the
workers. The member for Mississauga who has supported this
special legislation should be ashamed.
Mr. Réal Ménard: His father is a union man.
Mrs. Pauline Picard: He will be accountable to his constituents.
1715
This is completely anti-democratic. The government did not think
about the people who would be affected by this legislation.
The Liberal government is a very centralizing government. But to
pass a bill like this one leans toward dictatorship. This is no
longer democracy at work. When the government acts in this way,
we have a dictatorship and it is a shame.
As I said earlier, the right to strike is a fundamental right
for workers. This special legislation would deny them their
right. The government would have us believe that it has
exhausted all its options, but it is not true. Arbitration is
still an option. If the federal government were to agree to
arbitration, the blue collar workers would put an end to their
pressure tactics.
Since 1991, the federal government has renewed the framework
agreement with the civil service through legislation passed by
this parliament. Now that this framework agreement has been
subdivided into seven bargaining tables, it is crucial for the
government to negotiate an agreement in good faith.
By introducing such a bill, the government is clearly not acting
in good faith.
If the blue collar strike is hurting Canadians, one needs to
understand that exercizing the right to strike is bound to have
a direct or indirect impact on our society. If we were to forbid
a strike every time it affected our fellow citizens, the right
to strike would no longer exist.
Instead of asking for special legislation, the Reform Party
should urge the government to negotiate in good faith.
Reform members who support this special legislation and will
vote with the government should be ashamed of themselves.
We know the mentality of this government and of the President of
the Treasury Board. All their actions over the last few years
have struck a blow at the interests and the rights of workers,
and I will give a few examples: refusal to comply with the
ruling on pay equity; refusal to discuss the issue of orphan
clauses and to recognize this problem; total failure to reform
the Canadian Industrial Relations Board, where appointments are
based on partisan and patronage considerations rather than on
merit; refusal to pass antiscab legislation; refusal to pass
part III of the Canada Labour Code regarding preventive
withdrawal for pregnant women.
I repeat, women represent 52% of the population, and yet this
government has refused to pass part III of the Canada Labour
Code regarding preventive withdrawal for pregnant women. It is
outrageous.
In conclusion, as I was saying earlier, it is absolutely
shameful that, in a country such as ours, a country that prides
itself on its democratic tradition, a government be allowed to
legislate its own employees back to work and to impose a
collective agreement upon them. I said it before and I will say
it again, this is dictatorial.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to have the opportunity to speak to this bill. It does not,
however, please me to see the situation our beautiful country
has come to. This is not the first time such a thing has
happened, either.
First of all, I want to quote from the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms. Which states as follows:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including
freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.
1720
Freedom of association implies the freedom to negotiate a
collective agreement. The preamble to the Canada Labour Code,
as quoted by the supreme court, states the following:
Whereas there is a long tradition in Canada of labour
legislation and policy designed for the promotion of the common
well-being through the encouragement of free collective
bargaining and the constructive settlement of disputes; and
whereas Canadian workers, trade unions and employers recognize
and support freedom of association and free collective
bargaining as the bases of effective industrial relations for
the determination of good working conditions and sound
labour-management relations; ...and whereas the Parliament of
Canada desires to continue and extend its support to labour and
management in their cooperative efforts to develop good
relations and constructive collective bargaining practices—
Today we have Bill C-76, an act to provide for the resumption and
continuation of government services. It is as if people working
for the Government of Canada did not have the same status as
other workers in the country.
Today reference is being made to different bargaining tables.
There is talk of table 2 and table 4. Table 4 is that of the
correction service officers, who will be in a legal strike
position on March 26. The table 4 negotiating team voted to
accept the bargaining committee report and has asked Treasury
Board to sign a collective agreement.
In the bill the government wants passed, which is totally
undemocratic, and of which it ought to be ashamed, these people
are put in the same position.
PSAC is in the process of negotiating a collective agreement in
which employees in the Atlantic provinces, Prince Edward Island,
New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, do not have the
same salaries as their counterparts in Alberta or British
Columbia.
I am certain that Atlantic region MPs are only too pleased to be
paid the same as those from the west. When the President of
Treasury Board comes and tells us this is not true, that the
salaries are not the same, that they get more money in the west
because they live in remote areas, this is wrong. Salaries are
the same, it is their expenses that are not.
If a person has to take the plane to northern Manitoba, it costs
more, but when it comes to salaries, the salary is the same.
What has been said in the House is wrong.
We cannot accept the way Canadians are being treated. Whether
they come from the east or the west, people doing the same work
deserve the same salary. The problem is not the creation of the
workers, but of the government, once again.
Once again the government is going after the workers. Once
again, it is committing another injustice in our country. That
is where the problem lies.
They do not want it discussed in parliament. They do not want
it discussed in the House, so they introduce bills. They say
“You are the bad guys. You, the workers, are the bad ones. You
are not on the job to give people their tax cheques, and so you
are the bad ones. You are not moving the farmers' grain”.
They take the growers and try to make them like other government
workers.
But it is you, Liberals on the other side of the House, who are
creating the problem. You should be ashamed. You should be
ashamed of the way you are treating your workers. They are not
in reality the best paid.
1725
Some of them are being paid $24,000 and $25,000 a year to do the
dirty work of the government, which then turns around and wants
to legislate to force them back to work and not give them the
opportunity to bargain, an opportunity enjoyed by other
Canadians under the charter and legislation.
The Liberals are not the only ones to do that. The
Conservatives did it in 1989 and 1991. At that time, I was a
union member, and the Liberals were in opposition. They
boasted, saying “We would never do that. We would never do that
if you put us in government.
We would not treat our employees like that”. Today, they have an
opportunity not to treat their employees like that, but they are
treating them exactly like the Conservatives did in 1989 and
1991, when Brian Mulroney was Prime Minister. This is utterly
shameful.
Fourteen years after the pay equity legislation was passed, the
federal government should be ashamed to still be dragging its
feet and trying to make Canadians believe that it will cost them
$4 billion for pay equity, when in fact the government will tax
back 60% of that money on people's paycheques. Let the
government tell the truth.
I am disappointed at how the House is acting toward democracy
and at how it is treating the workers who have helped build our
country.
Correctional officers are still negotiating and this legislation
will force them back to work when they have not even gone out on
strike, when they have not even had a chance to go ahead with a
committee's recommendation. This is unbelievable. What are
things coming to? It looks like we are following Mexico's lead.
We are not there yet, but we are headed that way. We are losing
our democracy.
I am convinced that, during the election campaign, the Liberals
did not tell these workers “We will legislate to force you to go
back to work. We will not pay you the same salary in New
Brunswick as in Alberta, in Newfoundland as in British Columbia.
You do not deserve as much as the others”.
I remember when RCMP officers were paid less if they worked in
the maritimes than if they worked in western Canada.
They asked my predecessor, Doug Young, to go and see his Liberal
colleagues and tell them that it was not right that an RCMP
officer in the maritimes was paid differently than an officer
out west. They did not pass legislation for the RCMP. They
turned to their friend, Doug Young, whom I turfed out with the
help of the voters in my riding. They went after a collective
agreement and a contract with the same rates of pay Canada wide.
If the RCMP can be paid the same throughout the country,
Canada's public servants deserve to be paid the same, whether
they work in Newfoundland or Vancouver, in Prince Edward Island,
Ontario or the Gaspé. They deserve to be paid the same.
Once again, what is going on is unacceptable.
They should not be boasting. This is the 50th time they have
legislated workers back to work and that they are denying
democratic and collective bargaining rights. What is going on
is a disgrace. Their attempt to pass a bill such as this without
debate in the House is a disgrace.
We have a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms giving us the
right of association. We have legislation giving us the right
to bargain collectively, and this government says that it has
the power to set all that aside.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must unfortunately
interrupt the hon. member. When debate resumes, he will have
approximately 10 minutes remaining.
It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
TAX ON FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS
The House resumed from February 3 consideration of the motion
and of the amendment.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been the usual
consultations among all the parties and you should find unanimous
consent for me to make a small wording change to my motion to
help clean it up.
1730
I would like to ask for unanimous consent to remove from my
Motion No. 239 the following words “show leadership and”. The
amended motion would then read:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should enact a
tax on financial transactions in concert with the world
community.
I have had the usual consultations with the government across
the way, the Bloc Quebecois House leader, the whip of the Reform
Party, the whip and the leader of the Conservative Party and also
with my own party.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member
have the unanimous consent of the House to make the change that
he has just mentioned?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): When the motion was last
before the House, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans had the floor. He still has five
minutes remaining.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I want to briefly
summarize what I said previously.
I explained how much a tax on currency speculation was needed. I
also explained that we could not allow the money speculators in
New York and elsewhere around the world to sometimes bring
countries to their knees by statements that a country was a
basket case or whatever which drives trading in the currency
down. I also explained that we could not allow money speculators,
who just play with paper and create no real wealth and do not
produce anything, to jeopardize ordinary people's working lives
by their actions.
Let me use the few minutes I have left to build on why Canada
should push for such a policy globally. The fact is a small and
some would say very tiny tax on currency speculators could
stabilize economies. At the same time it could help finance
social initiatives and third world development.
By stabilizing economies I mean that some speculators who are
playing with the financial markets on Bay Street or some other
such place have a notion about a country and make a statement
that a country is in serious financial trouble, that it is a
basket case or whatever. Those words get into some of the
investment papers. That one single statement by people play
around with money and create no real wealth other than for
themselves starts a run on the country's currency and causes
serious problems for the finances and people of that country.
Putting this small Tobin tax as it is called on money
speculators would ease that kind of activity. They would not play
those kinds of games. We are talking about a very small tax,
somewhere in the rage of one-tenth of one per cent. That kind of
a tax would also bring in a fair bit of return. It would have to
be put in place globally. With that kind of financing a lot
could be done for the third world in terms of needed social
policies.
The book Good Taxes by Alex Michalos had this to say about
the tax and how it would be put in place:
A transaction tax on purchases and sales of foreign exchange
would have to be (1) universal and (2) uniform; it would (3) have
to apply to all jurisdictions, and (4) the rate would have to be
equalized across markets. Were it imposed unilaterally by one
country, that country's FOREX market would simply move offshore
... (5) Enforcement of the universal tax would depend principally
on major banks and on the jurisdictions that regulate them. (6)
The surveillance of national regulatory authorities could be the
responsibility of a multilateral agency like the Bank for
International Settlements or the International Monetary Fund. It
might be authorized to set the size of the tax within limits.
(7) It would have to possess sanctions that could be levied on
countries that fail to comply with the measure.
1735
Those points are important. That is what we are saying we have
to move toward. All those conditions have to be met. It is
important for Canada to lead the way by discussing with other
countries that this kind of tax is needed on a global basis.
This should lessen the money speculation and would provide moneys
to do good things in social policy and other ways for the third
world.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Before resuming
debate I would like to state that the motion proposed earlier by
the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle has been carried.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
somewhat troubled by the shift in thinking that has taken place
over the last year. I am referring to the government's position
which would tend to be supportive of the motion before the
House.
The debate we are having today is very important. The motion may
not be perfect, and the mechanism to deal with the issue may not
be either, but at least this parliament is talking about the
phenomenon of speculation, which is pervasive in our economies.
The first challenge in this debate is to define the concept of
speculation, and it is quite a challenge.
To understand speculation, a bit of a historical background may
be useful.
Since the end, in 1971, of the Bretton Woods agreement governing
the foreign exchange market, financial markets have been plagued
with instability. Speculative bursts have occurred, and since
the value of assets had no relation with reality, speculators
played currencies against each other at the expense of the
affected countries. Mexico was under attack in 1992 and, in
1994, the pound sterling had to be withdrawn from the European
monetary system.
Mr. Soros, one of the biggest speculators in the world, who,
incidentally, gambled $10 billion against the pound sterling and
earned $1 billion, has stated that some order definitely had to
be restored in the financial system.
This is a complex debate, but the impact of speculation remains
to be determined. Today, at least, we are dealing with part of
this problem.
I will not speak in favour or against a tax mechanism on
financial transactions. I think the issue must be considered in
a more comprehensive way. First, we have to understand the
impact of speculation on civil society, and then, once we
understand it—as I often put it, to understand in order to
act—we will be able to act with the full knowledge of the facts.
Unfortunately, some people today are against such a regulatory
system for the international financial system. However, the
Tobin tax, the tax we are talking about today, is a mechanism
that can be proposed. There are other mechanisms. For example,
Chile, a South American country, partially sheltered itself from
speculators by charging a tax on a portion of the funds getting
out of the country less that two years after coming in.
Then, there is the tax on direct investments abroad, derivatives
trading market regulations such as swaps, options, futures
contracts on bonds, stock index contracts and so on; I have here
a list of proposals coming from civil society economists
throughout the world.
Where there might not be any consensus is on what mechanisms
should be set up and which international body should initiate
such a reform. Others attack the project, stating categorically
that it is impossible to reach an agreement internationally on
this type of regulations.
The challenge is there but at least, what is important is that
we talk about it and that people know more what we are dealing
with when we talk about financial market destabilization because
I think this is the case. There is some instability.
1740
A while ago, my colleague mentioned investments in financial
markets, they are not value-added. These investments do not
create jobs, but wealth. It all depends how you define wealth.
There are other causes for concern. Thousands of billions of
dollars are moving freely around the world in search of gains
due to speculation. On a regular basis, their owners trigger
attacks against currencies that appear weak, often causing them
to be devaluated. Cases in point are the Swedish krona, the
pound sterling, the Brazilian real and the Mexican peso.
When I read this kind of thing in L'Actualité, where economist
Pierre Fortin tells us that speculators are attacking
currencies, I would like to know what mounting an attack on a
currency means. I am not talking about hypothetical things.
Last summer, the Canadian dollar lost 10 cents due to
speculation. I am wondering who is attacking and who is mounting
the attack. I believe this is worthy of debate.
The list of reasons why it is urgent to take such steps is quite
long. I believe that when the House wants parliament to foster
such debates internationally to bring about international
regulations, we must agree with that.
This leads me to an issue dear to me.
I believe the economy is currently in mutation. For example,
with regard to speculation, 30 years ago only 5% of financial
operations were of a speculative nature. Today, this proportion
is as high as 90% to 95%. This is a lot. This means that a huge
part of our economy is at the mercy of such fluctuations and
so-called attacks.
This worries me and this fact is not the only one I find
troublesome; there are a number of other ones which are linked
to the globalization of the economy.
I believe this is linked to globalization. Make no mistake, I am
not against globalization. But I want people to understand what
it is all about. It seems to me that, for the first time in
history, we as a society are faced with a very complex
situation, and it is extremely important for us to understand
it.
In the same spirit as this motion, one battle I am trying to
wage in this Parliament is to see to it that the members of this
House understand this phenomenon, that they have a perfect
understanding of what we are experiencing as a society with
regard to globalization, particularly with regard to what is
going on right now in financial markets.
Last December, I presented a petition signed by 50,000 people
asking their elected representatives to reflect on this
phenomenon. I think it is a very legitimate request. It is
perfectly normal.
The study of a mechanism to prevent financial speculation or to
clean up financial markets is essential. I am happy that we can
take part in such a debate today because I think it is of the
utmost importance for countries and for society.
I cannot speak on this issue without also talking about civil
society, which is mobilizing all over the world to make such
debates happen. There is Atac, in France, a movement that is
taking international proportions. Here in Canada, there is the
CCIC and the Halifax initiative. In fact, there are numerous
groups promoting debate on this kind of issues in civil society,
in Parliament and soon, I hope, in international forums.
In conclusion, I will quote world famous speculator George
Soros, who has taken advantage of the chaotic international
financial system. He said “If people like me can bring down
governments, it means something is wrong with the system. My
experience with markets has shown that they often had a tendency
to be unstable.
If we do not take measures to stabilize them, serious accidents
will occur”. Obviously these are financial accidents.
This quote is from the October 24, 1996 issue of L'Express.
1745
These are not leftist remarks. Even the greatest speculators in
the world say that danger is lurking right now. I rarely say
such things, but I am doing so today with all my heart in the
interest of current and future generations.
If we want to have a global economy, we must have rules. Just
like in hockey or in life, rules are essential. Right now, it
seems that the lack of rules in this system and the lack of
understanding by parliamentarians have resulted in carelessness,
which has caused a lot of turbulence in financial markets.
That is why I will vote in favour of this motion today.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am
very pleased to enter into debate on the motion put forward by my
colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle to suggest the importance of
Canada taking leadership in putting forward a Tobin tax and
building international consensus around the critical importance
of adopting such a tax.
It is a private member's motion, but let me make it very clear
that it will be one that is enthusiastically supported by all 21
of my caucus colleagues. Why? Because we recognize and have
long believed that it is essential for Canada to take the lead in
building support in the international community for a modest but
important tax on international financial transactions.
In 1997 the federal New Democratic Party at its convention
adopted support for the Tobin tax into our party policy. In the
1997 election we ran on the commitment that we would go on
working to gain co-operation and support for the Tobin tax at
home and abroad in partnership with other progressive forces.
Let me say how pleased we are today that there is an increasing
number of progressive groups in Canada from the faith
communities, the labour movement, the environment, the
development and other social justice movements calling for the
Government of Canada to provide leadership in the adoption of a
Tobin tax.
What is the Tobin tax? It is the brain child of Nobel Prize
winning economist, James Tobin. As early as 1978 Dr. Tobin
proposed the introduction of a tax on international financial
transactions, a tax wisely proposed to be low enough not to have
adverse effects on trade in goods and services but high enough to
cut into the profits of currency speculators and thereby
hopefully reduce the currency speculation that is causing havoc
in economies around the world.
The world desperately needs to restore some balance after the
mania of market fundamentalism which has gripped the world
economy. In the 1990s we have seen the spectacle of the
so-called risk takers: a 28 year old in red suspenders who can
bring down a century old bank, a major private sector hedge fund
engaged in billion dollar investments which has to get bailed out
to the tune of $3.2 billion by the U.S. federal reserve fund to
prevent a major global financial crisis, and currency traders
making billions of dollars while wages for ordinary citizens
stagnate or fall even in the most successful economies of the
world.
Market fundamentalism in the nineties has meant idealizing the
marketplace as something that can take care of everything that
matters to people. When unbridled currency speculators turn the
Asian so-called economic miracle into a financial crisis
overnight, whole national economies were plunged into recession.
Twenty-five million people sunk into dire poverty in Indonesia
and Thailand alone.
Thirty-five per cent of the world today is in recession, and as
the contagion spreads to other countries like Brazil that
percentage is increasing.
1750
Why do we need a Tobin tax in today's market? The economic
market was supposed to reward risk takers. That was the theory,
to reward people who would put up their own money to build a
plant, to develop a new product or to provide a new service to
the community. That is the theory.
However today's market rules are: do not bet your own money;
hedge your bets; invest in the private market preferably
offshore; get the public, in other words taxpayers, to bail you
out if you get into difficulty; protect and hoard your personal
wealth by sending it to a tax haven abroad. This has led to
rescue packages for the super rich, impoverishment for the many,
and diminishing capacity for the public through its elected
governments to address the social problems left in the wake of
market failures.
Today the world desperately needs a strategy to ensure that the
international economy serves the interest of ordinary citizens in
the poorest countries that are being increasingly marginalized
and in the wealthier countries where workers are launched in a
race to the bottom. The Tobin tax is one way to rebalance risks,
rewards and responsibilities, a way to ensure that those who
benefit most from the market system take some financial
responsibility for it.
George Soros, the billionaire financier who has made a fortune
in international markets, describes today's global capital flows
as a wrecking ball spreading indiscriminate grief and poverty
around the globe:
There used to be a concept of civic virtue, but because of the
sharpening of competition, people have become so involved in
fighting for their own survival they cannot indulge their concern
for the common good. The concern with the common good has been
almost eliminated by allowing the markets to become the main
forum for decision making.
According to the United Nations human development report the
estimated cost of providing universal access to basic human
services for all the world's citizens is roughly $40 billion per
year, and $40 billion is a mere 20% of the revenues that could be
collected through the imposition of a Tobin tax. Nations around
the world could use the revenues generated to alleviate human
suffering on a scale so vast that it would eclipse all our
collective efforts for the past five decades.
When the G-7 nations met in Halifax in June 1995 regrettably the
Prime Minister of Canada resisted the call for our government to
provide leadership in building consensus in support of the Tobin
tax. I think it is a positive development, a very welcome
development, that today the government recognizes the Tobin tax
is an idea whose time has come. The finance minister has
recognized in the Tobin tax:
—the general taxing power to raise money for great international
needs, whether it be problems of the Third World, the heaviest
indebted poor countries, or international environmental problems.
Surely a proposal with such potential cries out for political
and international support.
The finance minister was absolutely correct when he stated
publicly almost a year ago today on national television that it
would take a long time to get the rest of the world to sign on to
the Tobin tax. To that I say let us get started by giving
unanimous passage in the House to the motion before us calling on
the Government of Canada to provide leadership to the adoption of
a Tobin tax on behalf of all world citizens.
1755
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, all we
need is the NDP to come to this place and suggest to these
Liberals a new way of taxing us. As if we are not taxed enough,
now there will be a new tax, and tax on tax on tax on tax.
I use that as my introduction because I think this is a wrong
headed idea. We need a government that learns to live within its
means, that perhaps stops subsidizing all the buddies of the
politicos over there and giving them a bunch of our taxpayers
money. The government just wastes it and avoids dealing with the
real problems of the country, and that is jobs.
Jobs are created by having less taxation on economic activity,
less taxation on the people and the families of the country and
less taxation on businesses, not more. We do not need more
taxation.
What we have here is a motion by the member for
Regina—Qu'Appelle. I will not question the hon. member's
motivation. As a member of the New Democratic Party, the overt
socialist party, he is very interested in seeing how he can get
money from somebody who earned it—maybe it was not earned; maybe
it was by speculation, which is part of the way of earning
money—and give it to somebody who did not earn it. That is the
whole agenda of the NDP.
I remember a number of years ago I had an interesting debate
with a member of the New Democratic Party. We talked about
helping poor people. I said to him, and I will not use his name
here because he probably would not like it—
An hon. member: He was a nice fellow.
Mr. Ken Epp: A nice fellow indeed. I asked him how much
he gave to charity the previous year and he said nothing, that it
was not his responsibility but the responsibility of the
government. I said to him “Therein lies the difference betwixt
thee and me. I believe in being generous with my money; you
believe in being generous with everybody else's money”. That is
what is wrong in the whole premise of adding yet another tax on
to people who are trying to make money.
Here is an interesting twist, though. A New Democratic member
has proposed the motion and the motion has been amended by the
socialists on the other side of us here. The motion says that
the government should enact a tax on financial transactions in
concert with the international community.
This tax on financial transactions has been taken out in the
wording of the amendment by the Bloc, so we will first be voting
on whether or not to promote the implementation of a tax aimed at
discouraging speculation on fluctuations in the exchange rate.
This was put forward by an eminent scholar, an economist, a
Nobel prize winner who knew a lot, but I seriously question
whether a small tax on a transaction will make any difference at
all. Everybody who deals in the market, whether it is the money
market or any other market, is quite willing to pay the
transaction fee which accrues to the dealers. It does not
discourage it at all. As a means of discouraging speculation, it
is a wrong headed idea. We would have to put such a high tax on
it to actually discourage the process that it would basically
cause economic chaos around the world, as if we do not have
enough of that already.
I would like to make a few comments on this tax. Generally what
we tax we discourage. That is just simple human nature. I often
think of my father who lives in a tax ridden province run by the
NDP. He said when it brought in the GST, which was added to the
PST, that it was one tax he could avoid. Whereas my father used
to buy a new car every four or five years, he drove his car for
ten or twelves years after that. I do not remember exactly how
long it was before he traded it, but he said that he did not have
to buy a new car.
1800
As a result the GST and the PST discouraged him from entering
into the marketplace and getting a new car. He just drove his
old one. I think that was a good decision anyway. It was a
perfectly good car. I will not do any free advertising for
Oldsmobile here.
I remember reading about the Brits who at one time thought they
were would tax rich people like NDP members always wanted. They
say let us tax the rich so they leave the country like the
finance minister does. He takes his business out of the country
because he can get regime for taxes which is much more
favourable. Let us tax these rich suckers so they leave and that
way we will not have any jobs in this country. Everybody will be
happy. This is NDP style.
The Brits came up with a wonderful measure of a tax for rich
people. They would base it on the size, the total area, of
windows in their houses. What should surprise us is that all the
rich people who had homes with big windows boarded them up. The
windows were not needed if they were to be taxed on them. That
is so obvious.
What we have here is an attempt to manipulate human activity,
whether it is an investment or elsewhere, by taxation. As far as
I am concerned that is an unwelcome, unnecessary and immoral
intrusion of government on our personal freedoms. We should be
able to move in these areas without having government, through
taxation or other means of coercion, try to influence, determine
and prevent us from doing what we want and instead try to tell us
what to do.
There is another big problem with this tax. I have already
mentioned the finance minister and his steamship companies. These
companies are registered offshore. There are advantages that
way. How can we ever presume that a Tobin tax will be accepted
by every country? If all countries agree to do this, except 5, 8
or 12, then those are the countries that will become havens for
the investors. Investors can go to these countries and do
financial transactions without being taxed. That is exactly what
they will do. That is human nature. I cannot blame people for
making those decisions when greedy governments insist on taxing
us to death to the point where we can hardly survive because so
much of our income is confiscated from us.
There is another very important aspect to this. How do we ever
get agreement among countries to co-operate on this in terms of
how they are to collect the tax and how it is to be distributed?
We have this insane move by the minister of culture who thinks
she will help the country by putting a tax on magnetic tape,
notwithstanding that a lot of it is used for purposes totally
unrelated to the recording of artists' materials. She will take
the tax from this and have a whole bureaucracy. The government
will soon announce the rate of this tax which will be
retroactive. That will make people every bit as happy as the GST
ever did.
The minister will take this tax and redistribute the money.
That is an absolutely insane idea. We have taxes on taxes. We
have great difficulty in coming up with a bureaucracy that is big
enough and efficient enough that it actually earns more money
than it costs to administer. What is the point of having a tax
that returns nothing to the government or to the people of the
nation because the cost of administration is so high?
This member certainly has his ideas. He is welcome to them.
That is the wonder of democracy, the wonder of freedom of speech
and I hope we can keep it. I have my doubts in this place
because of the high handed government on the other side. It is
the member's right to put forward this motion. He has done that.
I recommend that all members think hard before they support this
motion because it is wrong headed, going nowhere and will not be
successful. It is a bad idea. Let us all be sure that it is
firmly defeated.
1805
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to return the debate to the subject of
the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle's resolution.
We had only one reservation about the resolution and he has very
gracefully accepted our suggestion for a change. I would like to
enter into the record that the finance minister has been
concerned with this issue for at least four years. He did raise
it at the Halifax reunion referred to in 1995. It has recurred
in discussions at the World Bank and the IMF in Washington and
again at the Kuala Lumpur informal meeting of the APEC leaders.
It is a subject we are very concerned with. The economist who
gives his name to the tax proposed is not some obscure ivory
tower economist. He has been working in the practical world of
economics. Apart from his Yale professorship, he was an adviser
to President Kennedy on the crucial financial banking policy
making that President Kennedy's administration was engaged in.
Returning to this subject, it directs attention to the problem
of our times of the breakdown, as in other areas of the world
community, of international institutions that were conceived for
other purposes and have to be readjusted and remade to accord to
new conditions. I am referring of course to the breakdown of the
Bretton Woods system which in essence over the last half century
has governed world banking and monetary policies.
The Bretton Woods system was set in place in 1944 in
anticipation of the victory of the Allies in World War II and it
was based on the evident economic financial facts of that period:
the war about to end, the dominance of the United States and the
dominance of the U.S. dollar system which was the pivotal
international currency linked to gold by a fixed exchange rate
with other currencies with fixed par value rates too.
What was linked to Bretton Woods was an international regulatory
system for capital demand and supply and two very key
institutions, the World Bank for long term capital assistance
mostly to developing nations suffering from chronic capital
shortages, and the International Monetary Fund, the IMF, for
regulating money supplies to alleviate the crises in
international payments. There was a multifunctional, global
monetary banking framework established under Bretton Woods.
The special societal and economic facts on which that was
posited have changed. One of course is the emergence of other
banking systems not in opposition but parallel to the American
system. We would take note obviously most recently of the
emergence of the European banking group, the emergence of the new
European currency unit and also of course of the Japanese
construction of their own financial banking system.
More important, however, is the challenge to the institutions
themselves. All of us have had reservations about the response
of the International Monetary Fund to the Asian crisis. Others
would take objection, as I have in other places, to the response
to the change from the Soviet Union to a number of independent
states and Russia itself.
The careful line between financial policy and political policy
in the strict sense which figures largely in the IMF's decisions
has sometimes led to results that one would question. Again
there have been serious complaints made by third world countries.
What we are really directing attention to is that the member for
Regina—Qu'Apelle's motion, the concept of curbing wild currency
fluctuations due to manipulation of the international financial
markets, this sort of thing has to be viewed in the larger
context of the international financial regulatory framework.
1810
I think we have to consider it together with the World Bank and
the IMF. It will make a fruitful subject for study by the House
committee on foreign affairs which had a very able group working
on international trade policy. It is a subject that it could
attend to.
More than ever the motion which we accept in its amended form
asks us to effectuate this tax in concert with the international
community. It is the green light. It reinforces our attempts to
get this on the agenda of the G-7 and to re-examine the issue of
fundamental reforms in international financial and banking
institutions.
Sometimes we get interesting new policies. The post-Thatcher
policies in Great Britain, which British Chancellor of the
Exchequer Gordon Brown is calling for, look for some new global
overarching international financial regulatory machinery. It will
inevitably reform the IMF, the World Bank and the Tobin tax taken
in juxtaposition.
We welcome the motion by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. It
accords with our government policy if we take it in the larger
context in terms of fundamental reform and modernization of
international financial institutions.
I invite the hon. member and all members of the House to join in
the committee studies of this aspect preparatory to raising it
with renewed force and supporting empirical data before the G-7
and other arenas so that the efforts the finance minister has
taken in previous years will have that extra strength behind
them.
[Translation]
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I do not have
much time, but I did want to take this opportunity to state that
the motion by the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle addresses a
world problem that has been around for many years.
Every day, in excess of one thousand billion dollars are moved
around the world. This is not exactly investments, but rather
speculation. People need to be clear on the point that we are
not against the free movement of money, but instead we want to
limit speculation.
The result of our hon. colleague's motion would be that Canada
would be one of the first nations to promote this needed reform.
In the past 15 or 20 years, the International Monetary Fund and
the World Bank have not been able to find any way to control the
existing abuses. The currencies of the various countries are in
danger because of the incredible speculation that goes on in the
business world.
This measure will need the support of all countries, at least
all the industrialized ones. This will be a start toward
putting the financial affairs of the various countries in order.
The developing countries, those unable to pay their debts, have
fared the worst. Looking at the figures for recent years, the
resulting difficulties and human suffering that have ensued are
obvious.
There has been reference made to the Tobin tax. Some five or
six years ago, I had the opportunity to hear Mr. Tobin speak and
answer questions when he was invited here to Ottawa. He
explained his approach and the way the various transactions
could be taxed for the good of humanity.
A half or a quarter of one percentage point is certainly not
enough tax to hamper investment.
1815
If there is one thing we need, it is investment, but not
speculation. This initiative will certainly be the start of
putting the world's finances in order so that the kind of
shameless speculation that is already going on will not
continue.
Canada has an opportunity to demonstrate on the world stage that
we are concerned with the countries that are having a hard time.
With this motion, I am convinced, it would be an honour for
Canada to take this to the G-7 countries in order to try to
convince them that this is a necessity in today's world.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 6.16 p.m.,
the time provided for debate has expired. Accordingly, the
question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Call in the members.
1840
Before the taking of the vote:
The Deputy Speaker: As is the practice, the division will
be taken row by row, starting with the sponsor and then
proceeding with those in favour of the amendment, beginning with
the back row on the side of the House on which the sponsor sits.
After proceeding through the rows on the first side, the members
sitting on the other side of the House will vote, again beginning
with the back row.
[Translation]
Votes against the amendment will be recorded in the same order.
1850
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Brien
|
Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Loubier
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Rocheleau
| St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean) – 36
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
| Anders
|
Assad
| Augustine
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Casson
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Cullen
| Cummins
| Desjarlais
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Epp
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goodale
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Hanger
| Harb
| Hardy
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Massé
| Mayfield
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Meredith
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Power
| Price
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
|
Reynolds
| Richardson
| Riis
| Ritz
|
Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
| Saada
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Vellacott
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Wood
– 215
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Assadourian
| Bulte
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Folco
| Fournier
|
Graham
| Longfield
| Patry
| Perron
|
Pratt
| Sauvageau
| Speller
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Venne
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
[English]
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The division will take place in the same
way as the previous one.
1905
[Translation]
(The House divide on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Augustine
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Cullen
| Desjarlais
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Guarnieri
|
Hardy
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Kraft Sloan
| Lebel
|
Lee
| Lefebvre
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Mancini
| Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
| Mayfield
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Meredith
| Mifflin
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Morrison
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Proctor
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Solomon
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 164
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Brison
| Bryden
| Cadman
|
Cardin
| Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Duncan
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harb
| Harris
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
| McNally
|
Mercier
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Muise
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Power
| Price
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Shepherd
| Solberg
| St - Jacques
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vellacott
|
Volpe
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
– 83
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Assadourian
| Bulte
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Folco
| Fournier
|
Graham
| Longfield
| Patry
| Perron
|
Pratt
| Sauvageau
| Speller
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Venne
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
The House resumed from March 17 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-219, an act to amend the Criminal Code (using or operating
a stolen motor vehicle in the commission of an offence), be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Wednesday, March
17, 1999, the House will now proceed to the taking of deferred
division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-219.
1915
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Asselin
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Bryden
| Cadman
|
Calder
| Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Cummins
| Desjarlais
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duncan
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gilmour
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Hanger
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
|
Jordan
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Konrad
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McNally
| McTeague
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Peric
|
Power
| Price
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vellacott
| Wappel
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
– 81
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Assad
|
Augustine
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brien
| Brown
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Guarnieri
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
| Hardy
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jennings
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Lefebvre
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Loubier
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Mifflin
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Plamondon
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Redman
| Reed
|
Robillard
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Shepherd
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 161
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Assadourian
| Bulte
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Folco
| Fournier
|
Graham
| Longfield
| Patry
| Perron
|
Pratt
| Sauvageau
| Speller
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Venne
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion defeated.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
GOVERNMENT SERVICES ACT, 1999
MOTION THAT DEBATE BE NOT FURTHER ADJOURNED
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made earlier today,
the House will now resume consideration of the motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
before the vote I spoke on the motion before the House. I spoke
for about 10 minutes in French. I could do 10 minutes in French
and 10 minutes in English and do the same speech again, but I
will try not to do that.
As I said in my 10 minute speech, I am very discouraged and
displeased with the way the government has acted again.
We could call it the 50th anniversary of the Liberal Party
legislating people back to work, which I do not believe is
democratic at all.
1920
When we look at the charter of rights and freedoms, we have
equality of rights. When we talk about equality of rights in a
country, how can there be equality of rights when the Atlantic
provinces do not deserve the same wages as the rest of the
country? That is not equality of rights. That is not what
Pierre Elliott Trudeau was talking about at that time as a
Liberal, and supported by the Liberals.
Every time the government has negotiations it goes the easiest
way. It comes to the House and legislates the workers back to
work. It makes sure we cannot debate it to defend the people we
were elected to work for. Those people we were elected to work
for are not only in one group, the group which has all
millionaires. It is not only those people. It is the little
people, the ones who get up in the morning to make sure that
industry continues, the ones who get up in the morning to make
sure that all the programs of the government are working.
The senators did not have to go on strike. The MPs did not have
to go on strike. We did not have to go on strike, but we had our
increase. I think it is a shame, when we talk about equality of
rights, that the people who are working for the Government of
Canada in the Atlantic provinces have different pay. What is the
problem? Are we not allowed to have industry in the Atlantic
provinces? Are we not allowed to have work? We have to punish
those people by cutting employment insurance because they are
using it too much because the government is not doing its work
and creating a good economic atmosphere.
The government says that we have to take food off the tables of
the working people and their families. That is not enough. Now
we have to treat the workers of the government differently. The
workers who work in an office in Bathurst, New Brunswick are not
treated the same as the ones who work in an office in Edmonton,
Alberta. Does that make sense? No.
The people of Atlantic Canada are not pleased with the Liberal
members of the government who send them letters which say “While
talking to some P.E.I. strikers, it was indicated that they plan to
lobby local Liberal MPs to ask whether or not these MPs will vote
against their government to support their constituencies in
Atlantic Canada”. They say that they receive letters from MPs
from the Atlantic provinces saying “We are supporting you”.
The people of the Atlantic provinces do not only want words, they
want action. They want the Liberal MPs who have been elected to
support them, not just in words and letters, but to stand for
them because they were elected, the few that are left, by the
people of Atlantic Canada.
There are no Liberals left in Nova Scotia. There are just a few
in P.E.I. There are only three in New Brunswick and there probably
will not be any left after the next election because of the way
the Atlantic provinces have been treated by the Government of
Canada, this Liberal government.
The Liberals are acting the same way as the Conservatives did in
1989 when they legislated people back to work under the Brian
Mulroney government.
That happened again in 1991, under the Conservative government,
under Brian Mulroney. The Liberals said “Let us in there and we
will not do that. We will treat our workers the right way”.
That was until they got elected and we see what is going on
today.
Today they want to put farmers against workers. They want to
put workers against farmers. Whose fault is it? It is the fault
of the Liberal government which is not taking its
responsibilities. Do like the charter of rights and say equality
for everybody.
Whether a worker comes from New Brunswick or Manitoba they
should be paid the same because they are doing the same job.
I am an MP from New Brunswick. I get paid the same as the
members from Windsor. I get paid the same amount as the members
from Saskatchewan. That is what is called equality.
1925
What did the minister say? “No, it is not true. We pay MPs
differently. Some are getting paid more because they stay in the
region”. He is not telling the truth. The wages of the MPs are
the same across the country.
I remember not too long ago that there were some who were not
paid the same, the RCMP. I remember they went to see my
predecessor, Doug Young, and he negotiated with the government to
get the same wages. I never heard about them again. Does PSAC
have to go to see Doug Young? Is he the one who will save this
country? Is he the only one who will be able to get the wages
for the people of PSAC? Is that the way it works? Does somebody
in the Liberal Party have to be paid by the back door? Is that
the way it goes?
It is very sad that this government does not treat its people
across the country equally. Those people did not have to go on
strike. There is a way to do it if the government is serious and
if it cares about democracy. The people of PSAC have proposed
something. “Why does the government not give us binding
arbitration? If it gave us binding arbitration we would agree
with the arbitrator”. The arbitrator would come down with a
decision. He would evaluate both sides and give a good contract
to both sides, and PSAC would agree to that, but it will not
agree with what the government is doing today.
There are people working in prisons. What has the government
done for them? There are even recommendations on the floor and
the government will not even wait for those recommendations.
Those people will have to take the 2%, the 2.5% and the 1%. That
is not democracy. That is not the way to do things. We are
beginning to be treated in the same way as the people in Mexico
are. That is wrong. It is totally wrong. The people of this
country never thought the Liberals would be that bad, as bad as
the Conservatives. People thought if they put the Liberals in
things would be a lot better, but no way.
If we look at the wages of the people working for the government
and the way they are getting treated, if we look at the people
who are having their EI cut and the way people who are suffering
every day, that it is not something to be proud of. They cannot
be proud of the Liberals. The Atlantic region has learned its
lesson now. In Nova Scotia they got rid of every one of them.
In New Brunswick we are almost there. We have a bit of work to
do yet, and we are going to do it. It needs to be done.
We have to be proud of the workers in our country. We have to
be proud of those who get up in the morning to work hard for our
country. We have to respect them. They are the base of our
country; our working people, men and women. The NDP and I will
never accept our working people being treated this way.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to take part in this important debate tonight on
the special legislation forcing certain public servants back to
work. But before we deal with the actual content of the bill,
what we are debating now, and until 11 p.m., is the gag the
government is imposing on us. This is an attack on democracy, at
least on parliamentary democracy.
The government is in such a rush to get this bill passed that it
wants to gag parliamentarians. In my opinion the special
legislation is already a breach of democracy, but to deprive
parliamentarians of their right to speak is an attack on
democracy.
1930
The people in my riding elected me to represent them, not to sit
in my seat and passively watch as special legislation is passed
constraining much of the population, because it involves public
servants. The people want their members of parliament to
express their fears. I think many public servants met with
their members individually and spoke of their expectations and
claims.
I have had the privilege of serving my electors, who are
affected by this bill.
The union members, including the general labourers with the
coast guard working in Quebec City, came to me to say they
considered it unfair they were being treated differently
according to regions, they did not consider one category of
worker should have a different salary because of where they live
in Canada.
That is the case. They objected and came to ask me “Do you
think your salary should be the same as that of a member of
parliament from Vancouver or Newfoundland?” I answered
“Naturally, it is a matter of equity”. There is a lot of talk
in the House about—and increasingly, Bloc Quebecois members are
talking about it—pay equity. We must eliminate the differences
in pay for jobs traditionally considered masculine or feminine.
We must not only reduce the gap, but eliminate the differences.
We consider that an important right.
I heard people in my riding, not only women but also men, say
they agreed with that. All this has come up in the negotiations
on labour relations.
Yesterday, the government had a knee-jerk reaction. Today, it is
resorting to closure to quickly end the matter. Why is the
government so anxious that it is using closure?
I am convinced that the majority of Liberal members are not very
proud to adopt special legislation. I would even say that some
are ashamed of such a measure. They are ashamed, they are not
proud of such a measure, but they are forced to support it. As
we know, the government imposes the party line when members vote
on such issues. Members do not agree with that legislation, but
they are forced to follow the party line and support it, because
they fear that they will be ejected from the party and perhaps
even have to sit as independent members. They prefer to side
with the majority and, in some cases, not be present during
debate, and certainly not take part in debate.
Many members can vote against their own opinion, but it is quite
a bit harder to do so during a vote in the House. I understand
why there are very few Liberal members here this evening. We
cannot allude to members' absence, but we can talk about their
presence. Very few are here this evening to discuss the issue of
freedom of speech for parliamentarians. Very few want to enjoy
this freedom which is limited, since the debate will come to an
end at 11 p.m.
Today, I was at the industry committee. Throughout the day, for
hours on end, I had to fight with other members so that the hon.
member for Mercier could finish the speech she spent a whole
weekend preparing and which summarized the testimony heard in
the past two or three weeks.
1935
It was unbelievable the trouble we had getting permission for
her to finish her speech. Almost every week lately, this
government has been moving time allocation. It is as though our
constituents had elected us to sit in our places and do exactly
what the majority or the establishment required of us, to keep
to ourselves what our constituents tell us and not to make it
known in the House.
But is this building, this institution, not called parliament?
What is a parliament? The last time I looked in a dictionary,
it was a place of speech, the site of democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure your knowledge of history is as good as
mine, so I do not need to remind you that not just hundreds of
thousands, but millions, of people died fighting for freedom of
speech. They died so that their fellow citizens could continue
to exercise their democratic rights.
We are in this place, supposedly the very symbol of democracy,
and the party in power wants to limit the time spent debating a
topic as important as the right to strike.
There is another right and that is the right of association. If
we recognize that people have the right to form unions, we
should be logical and ensure that they can exercise the other
rights that flow from the right to negotiate.
If we look at the history of this government and its
predecessor, what do we see with regard to the labour rights of
federal public servants? In 1982, a bill was introduced to
freeze the salary of some 500,000 workers. In December 1989,
back to work legislation was passed. In October 1991, we had
legislation saying that the employer's offers would be imposed
unilaterally if they were not accepted. There were threats.
In April 1992, we had Bill C-113, which imposed a two year freeze
and a unilateral extension of the collective agreement. In June
1993, Bill C-101 gave the government the right to require a vote
on its final offers during any negotiations. In June 1994, Bill
C-17 extended the freeze for two more years as well as the
collective agreement. Salaries were frozen for six consecutive
years. Again, this approach was criticized by various
stakeholders.
Then, in 1996, we had Bill C-31, through which this Liberal
government wanted to start contracting out. In 1992, the federal
government closed the Pay Research Bureau, thereby avoiding
taking into account facts and figures which contradicted its
claims. In 1993, Bill C-26 on public service reform gave a great
advantage to the employer by making it judge and jury on issues
related to the workplace.
We could go on and on. I want to protect federal public
servants. Some people may wonder why a sovereignist would do
that. There are federal public servants everywhere, including in
Quebec. Since Quebeckers pay federal taxes, part of that money
is used to pay public servants. Some of these people do a good
job.
I am not one of those who think that federal public servants are
necessarily bad people. On the contrary, many of them are
competent and qualified workers.
1940
What we are dealing with here is the right to strike, to
bargain, to organize. This is one of the rights recognized by
the United Nations, which makes us a supposedly democratic
society.
I have been in this House since 1993 and have had numerous
opportunities to note that the Liberal government is not
motivated by a very keen sense of democracy. Anytime it runs
into a problem, gag orders are used., not just at the end of a
session.
At this point in time we are not faced with a huge legislative
agenda. I am not the only one to say so; a number of political
observers have said the same thing.
There are not very many bills. There would probably be enough
time. There is no great urgency, yet we are being forced to get
the discussions over quickly.
It was the same thing in committee, as I have said.
On top of that, we Quebeckers are dealing with an increasingly
centralizing government, which is flouting the Constitution and
its various provisions.
Bill C-54 clearly establishes trade as a provincial jurisdiction,
yet e-commerce is being used as a pretext for passing a bill
aimed at creating federal legislation to protect personal
information in the context of commerce. This is a provincial
jurisdiction.
We have seen the strategies the government is making use of, for
instance the millennium scholarships.
The government knows very well that it cannot hand out grants to
students in other provinces, in Quebec and elsewhere, directly.
What does it do? It creates a foundation that will go over the
provinces' heads to give grants to students. This is a way of
circumventing democracy, of doing indirectly what it cannot do
directly.
When it can take direct action, it is often borderline, a bit
dubious, as in the case of the environment, and the member for
Jonquière knows what I am referring to.
The environment was not mentioned in the Constitution of 1867.
This is a concept that comes up more now. Since it was not
specifically mentioned in 1867, much as it did when it patriated
the Constitution in 1982, the government is using grey areas to
justify invading these jurisdictions.
It sees the provinces as lesser governments and itself as a
higher government to which all others are subordinate, a
government that wants to set national standards.
There is another point to consider as well. I often meet young
people, as all members do in their ridings. Young people often
express their opinions of the Bloc Quebecois, but they do not
always realize what is going on. They tell us all the parties
look the same and ask us how we are different. My reply is that
Bloc Quebecois members have always defended democratic values,
respect for freedom of speech, respect for the right of
association, fundamental freedoms that must be preserved. We
constantly have to uphold such rights.
In the present system, questions must be asked. I am not saying
this has to be sorted out this evening. In the United States,
they hold presidential elections.
Here, we hold an election to elect a party and members to
represent ridings, but it is the party that gets the most
members elected that forms the government and the majority
rules.
1945
The Liberal Party did not receive 50% plus one of the votes
in the latest federal election. The Liberal Party got the most
ridings, which gives it a majority of five seats. Supported in
its position, the government is trying to dish that up all the
time, in committee and in the House, forcing us to act at its
speed and to pass its policies.
They say “Keep talking, you members, it will get you nowhere.
We will do the deciding”. For government backbenchers, it is
the will of cabinet that counts, and the ministers impose the
will of the Prime Minister.
If we look at that, Canada is not the United States. It is not
as powerful as the United States, but if we compare the powers of
the Prime Minister and of the President of the United
States—with a veto in Congress and in the Senate, which is not
the case here—the Prime Minister can do what he wants most of
the time.
This person who is currently the Prime Minister is imposing the
party line on the people in his party. We have special
legislation before us, even though many members, men and women,
oppose it, because they find it too precipitous and they do not
support different pay for different regions.
Let us discuss that a little. I listened to my New Democratic
colleague from Acadie—Bathurst. He is quite right. He comes
from one of the poorest regions in Canada.
Moreover, people there are told “You come from a poor region.
You have less benefits. We know that the industrial strategies
of the federal government are targeted so as to make Ontario
rich”. There is no other way to put it. This is done at the
expense of the regions.
People in remote areas are told “In addition to that, the public
servants who work in your region will be paid less”. We are
talking here about workers who belong to groups such as general
labour and trades and ships' crews. Because they work in poor
regions, these public servants are paid less.
This increases regional inequalities. If public servants are
paid less in these regions, they cannot spend as much as other
public servants. They cannot make the same contribution to their
region's economic development. This is not fair.
Public servants have come to my constituency office, including
people who belong to groups such as general labour and trades,
ships' crews, hospital services, general services, and even
firefighters. I promised them I would tell my colleagues in the
House what they told me, since I was elected to represent them.
I promised them I would try to make government members realize
that it is not right to force these workers to immediately go
back to work by passing special legislation. I must also say on
their behalf that it is not right for the government to use
closure, so that other citizens cannot hear what we have to say
on this issue.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
purpose of Bill C-76, an act to provide for the resumption and
continuation of government services, is to get the public
service workers who are currently on strike back to work.
The bill also gives wide latitude to the government in imposing
the working conditions and salaries it wants, including those
for the 4,500 correctional officers who have a strike mandate.
With this bill, with its pernicious effects on correctional
officers, according to its press release of March 22, the
government wants to “ensure the safety of the Canadian public”.
This is a totally fallacious argument.
1950
This government knows very well that, if it wanted to ensure
public safety, it had only to bow to the majority conciliation
report, which was unanimously accepted by the unions
representing the correctional officers. From that point on, the
threat of a correctional officer strike would have been avoided,
without any need of unjustified special legislation.
The federal government justifies these drastic measures in the
form of Bill C-76 with the pretext that the prairie farmers are
losing income and people's income tax returns are not being
processed because of the picketing. In my riding of Jonquière.
we have a taxation data centre.
I think the workers who demonstrated had the right to do so, and
the Revenue Canada workers at the Jonquière centre respected
their right.
I cannot say the same for the government. I thought that in
Canada people still had the right to unionize and that workers,
when they had good reason to do so, could strike, because they
had followed the entire process that could lead them to a strike
mandate.
Today, I am not so sure. The government's approach right now,
introducing special legislation, makes me think there are things
to hide. It is part of a fair balance of power.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: What? Speak up. What is there to hide?
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Speaker, when my dear colleague
opposite speaks, I will listen. So I ask you to tell him to
allow me to speak.
The Deputy Speaker: I would ask the hon. parliamentary secretary
to give the hon. member a chance to speak.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If
the hon. member opposite says the government has things to hide,
let her say what they are, but she has no intention of doing so.
It is easy to make statements and gratuitous insinuations.
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid this is not a point of order.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Speaker, we recognize
your great wisdom.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: You cannot say what we are hiding. It is
easy to make accusations.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Please, calm down. We have the whole
night to talk. So, cool it. Your turn will come.
Mr. Speaker, let me recapitulate.
Negotiations with the officials representing the 4,500
correctional officers at table 4 led to a majority conciliation
report—and I emphasize the words “majority conciliation”—that
was unanimously approved by union members. Unfortunately, the
employer, which happens to be this government, tabled a minority
report. I wonder why.
Why did it not take into account the majority report tabled by a
third party? This is one reason why I do not think the
government is very honest in its approach.
Negotiations at table 2, which involved workers from groups such
as general labour and trades, ships' crews, hospital services,
general services and firefighters did not lead to a majority
conciliation report, because the chair of the conciliation
board, the employer and the union tabled three different offers.
The gap between the offers from the employer and the union is
not insurmountable, provided the government acts in good faith.
Here is what is included in the bill. The government's offer for
table 2 is lower than its previous proposal. The cat is out of
the bag. The government is using its power to introduce a
special bill to lower its offers.
Before tabling its bill, the federal government was offering
2.75%, compared to 2.50% now.
1955
The government is obviously trying to take advantage of the
introduction of this bill to get the upper hand in a situation
where it is both judge and judged.
Have table 2 workers not had their salaries frozen for 6 years?
I would like go over what has been happening to employees in
various sectors for the last six years. I will take the case of
construction workers in my riding of Jonquière.
Carpenters in Quebec's federally regulated sector earn $14.75 an
hour. That is because their salaries have been frozen. In
Jonquière, carpenters earn $21.46 an hour, and the Office de la
construction du Quebec pays $24.94 an hour.
A federal government mechanic is paid $14.05 an hour. In
Jonquière, a class B mechanic earns $20.92 an hour and an FTQ
mechanic in construction is paid $24.49. Clearly, this wage
freeze put in place six years ago has dealt a serious blow to
the purchasing power of these workers. And this is not the offer
being made by this government, which it has reduced since
introducing the bill. Something must be done to eliminate the
ever-widening gap vis-à-vis comparable sectors in the private
sector.
Apart from the pay issue, there are regional rates of pay. This
is ridiculous. Do people realize that the rates of pay of
federal workers in Quebec, Newfoundland and British Columbia are
not the same? How can this be? They are doing the same work
but have three different salary scales.
The government's offer to table 4 was known. There was a
majority conciliation report. Why did the government choose to
ignore it? The bill will allow the government to impose its
conditions and to pay no heed to this majority report which, I
repeat, was produced by a third party, and unanimously endorsed
by the union.
Through this back to work legislation the government is trying
to impose a collective agreement on workers at table 2 and 4
claiming it is standing for taxpayers' interest. I doubt this
very much. This could not be further from the truth. What the
government really wants to do is set the public against the
rights of the workers. In fact, if the government was really
interested, picket lines could come down today. All it would
have to do would be accept the majority conciliation report
concerning table 2, and binding arbitration for table 4.
In general, we oppose back to work legislation. Why? Because it
should only be a last recourse. Have all the other options been
exhausted? We believe they have not. Striking is a worker's
fundamental right and back to work legislation would abolish
this right. The government should accept going to arbitration.
The blue collar workers would then put an end to their pressure
tactics.
Since 1991, the federal government has renewed the framework
agreement in the civil service through legislation passed by
this Parliament. Today, as the framework agreement has been
divided into seven bargaining tables, it is essential for the
government to reach a settlement negotiated in good faith.
2000
If the strike by blue collar workers is harming the interests of
other Canadians, it must be understood that exercising one's
right to strike always has direct or indirect repercussions on
society. If we were to prohibit any strike that harmed other
people, the right to strike would no longer exist.
I come from a unionist background. The riding of Jonquière is a
workers' riding. For the last 50 years, these people have worked
hard in their negotiations with their employers to achieve
collective agreements in which they made sure their bargaining
power and the balance of power between them and their employers
was respected. I do not think this government has any respect
for that.
Let us review briefly what happened in the past. I am
astonished. The federal government has constantly used its
legislative power to pass special legislation. I will give a
list of some of these measures.
In 1982, it passed Bill C-124 to freeze the salaries of some
500,000 workers. In December 1989, we had back to work
legislation, Bill C-49. In October 1991, it passed Bill C-29 which
said that the employer's offers would be imposed unilaterally if
they were not accepted. The Canada Labour Relations Board said
this measure was unfair.
In April 1992, we had Bill C-113 which imposed a two year freeze
and a unilateral extension of the collective agreement. Even the
International Labour Organization chastised the government for
its lack of support for union rights.
In June 1993, another bill was brought in, Bill C-101, which gave
the government the right to impose a vote on its final offer in
any negotiation. In June 1994, the current government
introduced yet another, Bill C-17, which imposed two more years
of wage freezes and added two years extension to the collective
agreement, for a total of six consecutive years of wage freeze.
Once again, the International Labour Organization denounced this
process.
The year 1996 brought Bill C-31, with which the federal
government moved into contracting out. In 1992, the federal
government closed the Pay Research Bureau, thus avoiding being
forced to deal with contradictory facts and figures. Bill C-26,
on public service reform, in 1993, gave the employer a major
advantage, making it once again both judge and party in
workplace related matters.
As the member for Jonquière and as a member of this House of
Commons, I am opposed, as are all members of the Bloc Quebecois,
to this bill which tramples on the fundamental rights of workers.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Madam Speaker,
having been an employee of Parks Canada and been in the GS
group, I understand the situation well, but it is still very
difficult to comprehend what is going on with what we have
before us today.
Today, for the 50th time, the government has resorted to time
allocation and closure. Not only is it denying Canadians the
right to strike, but it is denying democratically elected
members of parliament the right to debate it.
2005
Members will not have the time to debate this bill forcing a
return to work and will not have the time to properly study it
to make changes to it.
[English]
What I am saying here is that we were elected democratically to
debate issues in the House. Unfortunately due to this
undemocratic process we cannot debate it in the House like we
should be allowed to.
[Translation]
As my colleague from Winnipeg Centre was saying yesterday, the
bill was prepared on the run. There is no mention of Nunavut,
for example. It does not harmonize regional rates; it does not
reflect the best offers the government made at the bargaining
table. The blue collar workers have not had a salary increase
in years, but the workload has increased because a number of
jobs have been cut.
[English]
Regional rates of pay discriminate against 14,000 blue collar
workers in Canada, including 1,500 in the Atlantic provinces.
Atlantic federal blue collar workers are the ones most
discriminated against. We get discriminated against quite often
in the Atlantic.
Can someone argue that a maritimer deserves less money than a
westerner doing the same job? That is what we are seeing here.
This government seems to think it can.
[Translation]
It is important to look at the situation. Employees are asking
the government to eliminate the discrimination that exists with
regional rates of pay. It all seems very complicated. The
government is trying to tell us that it keeps regional rates
because they are in line with those in the regions' private
sector, but we have proof that this is not true.
From 1981 to 1997, when I worked for the public service, I held
several positions in the CR and GS groups. When I was a CR, that
is a clerk—
An hon. member: In PEI.
Ms. Angela Vautour: —In PEI, my salary was the same in Prince
Edward Island as it would have been in Vancouver.
This is fair, because these positions were evaluated and the
same salary was paid for the same work. This is not complicated.
When I bought my milk in Prince Edward Island, where I was a CR,
I was paying the same price as the GS who worked in Prince
Edward Island national park. However, that person was paid less
than the one working in the national park in British Columbia.
How can this government tell us it is impossible to remove this
discrimination for all sorts of reasons?
[English]
It is not hard to understand. It does not matter where one
lives. Do we really think people living in Newfoundland are
paying less for their food than someone in central Canada?
Newfoundlanders are being paid less and I can guarantee that they
are not paying less for their groceries. It is the opposite. We
have a government today that keeps pushing inequity and
discrimination among employees.
I am hoping that Canadians are realizing what these employees
are asking for. It is simple. They just want to be paid the
same amount of money for the same work they are doing no matter
where they are living in this country. The way it is now, the
government has actually divided the whole country. Depending on
where one lives a different salary is being paid.
I want to stress that when a secretary is working in New
Brunswick, if that secretary is a CR-03 that CR-03 gets the same
salary as a CR-03 in B.C.
2010
The loaf of bread for the CR-03 in New Brunswick is the same
price as the GS category in New Brunswick whose salary is up to
$3 less than the one in B.C.
If anybody can figure this one out and say it can be justified I
will be available after my 20 minutes to sit down and listen to
their argument. There is no argument even though my colleague
from P.E.I. on the other side of the House is saying there is an
argument. There is no argument, none that makes sense to anybody.
We do not have to be accountants to figure this one out. I
worked in both those positions and not once did my level of
standards change because I was into one and then the other. I
still had to pay the same amount for everything.
It is very important that the public realize that what we are
talking about here is total discrimination. Every blue collar
worker across the country should be supported on this because the
only thing we are fighting for in the House is justice and
equality.
We have a government that loves inequality. Look at the pay
equity issue. We have the Prime Minister's signed letters saying
“Yes, we shall honour the tribunal decision”. All of a sudden
they get the decision and oops, no, I guess he is allowed to
change his mind.
[Translation]
But that does not make it right. This government likes to say
one thing and do another. The regional rates affect 1,500
people in Atlantic Canada. These people work in Kouchibouguac
national park, Fundy national park, Louisbourg and Cape Breton
Island. They are everywhere. All they are asking for is to be
paid fairly for their work like their colleagues in other parts
of the country.
[English]
We depend on blue collar workers. We need them. There are
firefighters, hospital workers, workers in national parks. They
supply goods and services to Canadian military troops. They fight
fires in national defence bases. In some airports unfortunately
they are starting to disappear because they are cutting them. In
Nova Scotia 22.1% were cut, 24.4% in New Brunswick and 27% in
Newfoundland. Instead of getting rid of the regional rates of
pay we will just get rid of the employees and take care of the
problem. I guess that is the direction the government is taking.
An hon. member: Some cuts don't heal.
Ms. Angela Vautour: Exactly. Some cuts don't heal. We
have our workers in national parks. We have a whole team that is
trying to fight this, the team at table 2.
I was actually one of these members when I was elected because I
was the GS. I am not inventing this. I was one of them. I was
actually sitting at table 2.
[Translation]
When I was elected in 1997, I was a member of the table 2
negotiating team. The table 2 members are as follows.
[English]
The negotiating team at table 2 is Paul Anstey representing the
Atlantic. We have Gary Smith, Rene Kitson, John Shaw, Gary
Fraser representing B.C., Paul Brewer, Leslie Hamill, Judith
Scott representing NCR, Kevin King, Steve Covell representing the
prairies, Mike Benoit, John Irving representing Ontario,
Abdelkader Elkak, known as ElKak, Denis Dupre representing
Quebec, Byrun Shandler representing the north, Nycole Turmel as
an officer, and the negotiator is Luc David. Their researcher is
Doug Marshall.
It is important to recognize these workers because they have
been fighting at the table.
They have been fighting for all the blue collar workers. It is
important. There is a team that wanted to negotiate.
2015
Unfortunately, the other side, the Treasury Board, had no
intention of negotiating. It does not need to negotiate any
more. It pretends that employees have the right to strike, until
there is a disruption, such as this rotating strike, a little
inconvenience here and there. We have to remember that when
employees inconvenience us a little bit, they are fighting for
our children's future.
My 13 year old will be looking for a job, hopefully when he is
out of university, that is if I am still here and can afford to
put him through university. I may be back to where I was before.
Today a lot of poor people will never go to university, but let
us assume my child will make it through university. I want him
to be able to find a good job with good security and with half
decent pay.
That is all the negotiators are asking for. They are asking for
what we want for our children.
[Translation]
But the thinking is that, because there are strikes that
inconvenience us, we must stop this, that and the other. These
people are fighting for our children's future.
Do people who earn good money today know why that is? Is it
because we have a government that offered everything?
Who negotiated the good benefits enjoyed by employees nowadays?
Who negotiated leave to care for a sick child. Who negotiated
health insurance? The unions did. These benefits were not
handed over on a platter.
This was negotiated in the hope that it would benefit our
children, our children's children, and would last a long time.
But governments keep on wanting to destroy it all. It is
important for Canadians to understand that workers are fighting
for them. They are fighting for young people. We have young
pages working here. They will want to have good jobs later on.
They will want to buy a house, have a family. People cannot do
this if they do not earn money. They cannot do this if they do
not enjoy job security. We know the government does not want to
give it to us unless we fight for it. It is important to
remember how things work.
For the past two years, federal employees have been trying to
negotiate a collective agreement with Treasury Board. It is very
difficult to negotiate with a government which is still
promoting inequality in this country.
The gap between the rich and the poor is widening. Hundreds of
thousands of people are homeless across the country and the
government keeps on closing its eyes.
Thousands of unemployed workers have no income while there is a
$25 billion surplus in the employment insurance fund.
These decisions perpetuate inequalities in this country, let us
not forget it. Canadians must remember this. The government
wants to ignore all kinds of people. What was the unfair
treatment of students at the APEC summit in Vancouver all about?
Another example of the unfairness encouraged by the Liberal
government is its refusal to abide by the decision of the human
rights tribunal on pay equity. It is all the same. I myself was
a victim of pay inequity when I was a CR and an ST. Promises are
things of the past.
They are forgotten now that they got elected.
They are saying: “Sorry, we do not need to keep our promises.
We only make promises to get elected”. We remember that. The
elections in Nova Scotia are a case in point. The results of the
next elections in Nova Scotia remain to be seen. I believe there
is a risk in New Brunswick as well. I could name many more.
Even today we see another example of unfairness. The federal
government is refusing to recognize a national pay rate, which
means equal pay for equal work. This is not complicated.
2020
It is time this government shouldered its responsibilities and
did the right thing for its workers.
One Liberal member appears to believe that MPs' salaries are not
the same country-wide. Let us correct that immediately. My
salary as an MP—not my operating budget, but our actual salary,
the cheque that is made out to me—is the same as that of a member
for Vancouver or for Winnipeg. The salaries are equal, unless a
person is a minister or a parliamentary secretary. Perhaps,
though, the Liberals are paying themselves more. That may be
what is going on.
Speaking of raises in salary, I was in table 2 for the
negotiations.
Then I was elected, and then people said to me “Now you will be
in a position to vote yourself an increase”. Imagine that.
Public servants can never turn up at the table and announce “Mr.
President of Treasury Board, we have voted ourselves a raise,
and that is what we want”. But we can. I did not accept my
raise, because I do not believe in such a system. It is a
rotten system.
There are some employees who want to sit down and negotiate.
They accept that they cannot give themselves a raise like we
can, but even then we have to contend with a Liberal government
that has refused to negotiate.
When we see that MPs can vote themselves a raise, this raises
questions. A recommendation was even made for there not to be a
raise, but it was not heeded.
A committee decides whether we should have a salary increase or
not, and we have to accept these decisions.
We were able to give ourselves an 8% increase as MPs, but how
many public service employees got an 8% increase? We must not
forget that 8% of $25,000 is a lot less than 8% of $65,000. And
yet this is what we see, and it goes on.
Let us look at employment insurance. In the Atlantic region, we
would say we are being hit on again, and again and again. When
they made these cuts, 31 of 32 members were Liberal. When that
all changed after the federal election, they said “What will we
do? No one is representing the Atlantic”. Things could not
have been worse than when there were 31 out of 32. The 31 of
the 32 said to the other members “Go ahead, cut. Forget the
Atlantic”.
At least today, there are voices speaking on behalf of the poor,
women and workers seeking justice and the elimination of the
discrimination to be found in regional rates, workers who are
working very hard and who deserve the very best.
[English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it has been some time since I have been able to address
the Chair and this chamber. I hope that my cough and my voice
will allow me to conclude my speech.
Here we are again to debate Motion No. 21 tonight. Between 11
o'clock and midnight after we vote on this we will begin debating
Bill C-76, an act to provide for the resumption and continuation
of government services. We will go all night, until the wee
small hours, until we have finally concluded with the vote on
third reading of the bill. We will probably be here until about
the time that most people will be thinking about getting up to go
to work tomorrow morning.
2025
Why are we doing this? Why are we pushing the bill through the
House in this manner tonight? Why is the government's closure
motion being debated right now? It is largely because of the
slipshod, shoddy mediocre thinking that characterizes the Liberal
government. This need not be the case tonight. There has been
plenty of time for the government to meet with its employees, to
negotiate a settlement that is fair and which is agreed to by all
parties concerned, but that is not the case.
This government has allowed the process to go on and on without
taking its employees seriously, without giving them the respect
that is due to them. These employees have their backs against
the wall and have said “We have to do something to force a
settlement so we will begin rotating strikes”. We have been
pushed into what is an emergency for thousands and thousands of
Canadians.
The bill will force over 14,000 members of the Public Service
Alliance of Canada back to work. They have been on rotating
strikes this past month. The bill pretty much forces all PSAC
workers back to work, regardless of whether or not they are on
strike. Some of them are not on strike right now. The
legislation intends to close the loophole for those correctional
officers who will not be in a strike position until Friday. The
government has allowed itself the slack to have cabinet proclaim
this if it is needed. What kind of legislation is this where
nobody really knows what is going on?
It is not unusual for this government. When the government was
first elected in 1993 it came in with a promise to cancel the
Pearson airport contract. By golly it did and it is still a
mess. The Pearson airport is in such a mess that Air Canada is
suing the corporation for hundreds of millions of dollars.
Think of the cancellation of the helicopters. Helicopters are
needed by the emergency workers. Helicopters have still not been
provided and the government is still debating about which
machines to purchase.
Think of the immigration situation. People who would be a
credit to our country are being denied entry at the borders.
Instead, outlaws and criminals are allowed in.
Think of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. They are concerned
that in the near future they could have a shortage of as many as
1,000 members across the country, with a shortage of 500 RCMP
officers in British Columbia alone.
Tell me what kind of government that is. Tell me that it is not
mediocre thinking by a slipshod government that allows our
country to be served so poorly.
In my constituency of Cariboo—Chilcotin the trade agreements
have been a problem for the producers of softwood. I think of
the quota agreement, a quota which I spoke so vehemently against.
Why could we not use the dispute settlement mechanisms that are
available? No, we have a quota agreement. The best this
agreement could do is close down the small mills and the new
producers and have their quotas go to the large mills and the
established producers. The worst it could do would be to have
the large mills not find this an acceptable agreement. The worst
is what we got. More mediocre thinking.
It occurs right across the country and it has been so
detrimental, so harmful and so hurtful to our citizens. It is
the people who go to work every day, the people who will get up
tomorrow morning at about the time we pass this bill with the
Liberal majority. It is those people who are hurt by these
government policies. I hope they understand the seriousness of
this kind of mediocre leadership.
I do not think we will find many people in the country who are
surprised with what is happening here. They are not surprised
about the dispute between PSAC and the federal government. They
are not surprised by the rotating strikes by PSAC members.
2030
They are not surprised by the number of federal services
affected by this labour disruption. We are very sympathetic with
those people. I am very sad to say that this has become such an
emergency that we need some kind of resolution, so I will be
voting for the bill but with deep regret.
We should think of our constituents who are in need of a
resolution and think of the mediocrity that has brought us to
this position. Canadian taxpayers are seriously affected by it.
The Minister of National Revenue stood and said that they were
about 1.2 million claims behind this time last year in terms of
processing.
We should also think of grain farmers who have been suffering
over past years with low grain prices and now have their backs
against the wall. They desperately need to get their grain
loaded on to ships and delivered to overseas customers.
This is undoubtedly the busiest time of the year for Revenue
Canada. Many Canadians have already filed their income taxes and
are anxiously awaiting a little bit of the money the government
has taxed out of their hides. We should think of the rotating
strikes that have caused the processing of these returns to be so
slow and of farmers, many of whom have already gone bankrupt and
many others who are threatened with bankruptcy. Are we to ignore
them?
Even though this could be explained as a major inconvenience for
Canadian taxpayers, there is a growing number of citizens who
will be more than inconvenienced. They will be seriously hurt by
the long term effects of the strike. The sad part of this strike
is that it need never have happened.
Without the money from the sale of their grain many farmers will
be unable to plant their crops and will face the consequences of
lack of income for long periods of time. Thank goodness there
have been no picket lines and the weighing has been able to
continue during the strike by some 70 grain handlers. Thank
goodness strikers have understood the seriousness of this
consideration, and I thank them for that.
The official opposition called for an emergency debate on the
issue last week. We called on the government to act. Farmers
and taxpayers are depending upon a resolution of this problem. It
is with real disappointment and reluctance that I have to support
the legislation.
My colleagues and I strongly believe that this heavy handed
approach, an approach I will talk about a bit later, is only a
short term fix. It merely adds to the problems in the long term.
The government has not looked at other means of settling this
labour dispute. It has not looked at a third party resolution to
it. It has not looked at final offer selection arbitration,
which is what we would propose as a reasonable way of doing it.
What is final offer selection arbitration? It would allow both
parties to negotiate until they reach a conclusion that is
satisfactory to both, unless it is not possible. Both parties
would be invited to present their final best offer. The final
best offers would be received by a neutral arbitrator and in the
mind of the arbitrator the fairest offer would be accepted. There
would be no cherry-picking of what is good from one and what is
good from the other. One final offer would be accepted. This
would focus the mind on the very best offer possible.
As many of my colleagues have mentioned throughout the debate
leading up to this point, final offer selection arbitration is
official policy within our party.
We will be pushing the government in this debate to adopt this
policy.
2035
My NDP colleagues talk about this being the end of negotiations.
Forget it. This is simply a mechanism for dealing with an
intractable solution that leads to hardship for many people who
are not involved. There has to be a better way and Canada is one
of the countries that has the most difficulty in settling its
labour disputes.
My colleagues and I know that legislation such as the bill
before us tonight should only be used for national emergencies. I
do not believe that the dithering, the waiting, the delaying and
the lack of taking this situation seriously are acceptable
reasons for allowing it to become a national emergency. There is
no need for that kind of emergency. This is simply as a result
of dithering, a lack of concern and a lack of respect.
Those people who are being hurt by this situation will agree
that there must be a better means of resolving such disputes than
what the government has put forward. There has to be a better
way than ramming it through late at night. Their livelihood
depends upon it. They deserve better.
Given the current financial hardships of many Canadians, and I
think especially of farmers and those people who are unemployed
and are depending upon a little bit of money in their tax
refunds, they do not need more obstacles in making their living.
The approach that the government is using tonight is not a new
approach. Anyone who has followed the events in recent years may
recall that the Liberal government used the same heavy handed
tactics to end the dispute with Canada Post last year. What has
been the result? Sixteen months later it is not even negotiating
with the postal workers. How is that for credibility?
While the union is still waiting for the negotiations to begin
the government would have us believe that the current situation
is all PSAC's fault. That simply is not true. The government's
various stalling tactics have not helped the situation in any
way. The current legislation will do nothing to help mend any
relationship between the union and the government when they head
back to the negotiating table.
Why does the government not have a long term policy that would
allow the opponents to deal peacefully in these negotiations and
would allow employers to deal peacefully with their employees to
settle serious disputes? Why is there no means of third party
mediation or arbitration? Why is the government not using these?
Why is it bringing these issues to a conclusion through heavy
handed legislation?
We should have known that the government would use last minute
tactics to dissolve the current labour dispute. It is really not
resolving it. It is sweeping it under the carpet, trying to hide
it or get rid of it. The consequences are still there. We see
it all the time in the House of Commons with the government's use
of time allocation and closure.
Is it not interesting that less than six years after the
government was elected to power this is the 50th time allocation
or closure motion in the House of Commons. This is a dark
anniversary. We have seen the Liberal government invoke censure
of debate. Citizens of Canada elect their representatives to
come to the House of Commons to represent them and then find that
representation is not possible because of closure and time
allocation.
Is it not interesting that one debate lasted 30 minutes before
the vote after time allocation? This is the 50th time tonight.
It is shameful and a total disregard for the democratic process.
We oppose this restriction on our right as members to represent
our constituents.
2040
We oppose the government's last ditch ineffective approach to
force legally striking workers back to work. We also acknowledge
the overwhelming need for a resolution. This is the government's
responsibility. It is the government's fault that it has come to
the situation with which we are faced tonight.
I would like to make a couple of points about the legislation.
Part I of the legislation, once assented to, comes into force 12
hours later. Once this occurs, this part of the bill will order
all striking workers back to work and will prohibit any further
strike activity so that government operations can resume.
What will this do to the morale of employees? They will not
have a say and will be told to do it. The government is saying
that it is not concerned about their needs and that their
negotiations do not mean anything. Further, this part of the
bill provides for the enforcement of these orders. Failure to
comply with the provisions outlined in the bill will result in
financial penalties of up to $10,000 a day.
Part II of the legislation covers basically the same provisions
as part I. However, part II deals with the few correctional
service officers who will shortly be in a legal strike position.
They are not even in strike position but they are included in the
legislation. This part of the legislation will not come into
force unless it is proclaimed by order in council. Here we have
cabinet taking over from the House of Commons once again.
Once again I voice my reluctant support of the bill. I am sorry
to have to do so. We should have never been forced into this
situation in the first place. The government has forced us into
a position where there must be a resolution, but because of
government intransigence and government lack of responsibility we
are left with a much less than satisfactory means of settling the
dispute on behalf of the nation.
The government should be condemned for its ill thought, heavy
handed approach in forcing ends to disputes. However we need to
keep in mind the need for important government operations.
Government has become so big and has intruded so deeply into the
lives of people that without these services Canadians suffer. We
simply cannot cut them off. These services must be maintained.
As we do this on behalf of all Canadians, on behalf of grain
workers and on behalf of taxpayers, I am sorry we have come to
this position. I beg the government to think about what it is
doing to our country as it so carelessly administers the affairs
of the nation.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today social peace
is in jeopardy.
Before making judgements on the situation, we might want to know
what are the origins of the problem we are faced with today. We
have Western farmers who want to move their produce, we have
correctional officers who are negotiating improvements to their
working conditions.
The government with surpluses in its coffers says it too wants
to negotiate as stated by the spokesperson for the Treasury
Board, who said on November 12 “We want to settle with the
Public Service Alliance of Canada and ensure collective
bargaining remains a key element of labour relations between the
government and its employees”.
The government stated last November that it wanted to have good
human relations, good labour relations with its employees. This
must be translated into concrete actions.
2045
The government implemented a reform of the labour code in 1967.
It granted powers to its employees. It allowed them to be
unionized, it gave them the right to negotiate work agreements.
It granted them the right to refuse to work if they believed
they were not getting the pay they deserved. This is called the
right to strike.
When we give a right to workers, and at the same time the means
to exercise this right, which is the least we can do, we have to
expect that they will use every means at their disposal to get
what they want.
If a union does not have the right to strike, how can it be
heard? It is similar to the situation of Quebec, which has been
putting demands before the federal government for 30 years but
is still lacking the ultimate weapon it needs to be heard.
As soon as Quebeckers have expressed clearly their desire to
achieve sovereignty, the federal government will have no choice
but to sit at the table and negotiate.
We can see that the federal government, which has not yet
yielded to this custom, refuses to negotiate, as it refuses to
recognize the situation with Quebec.
There are 49% of Quebeckers who said “We have a human relations
problem. We have an economic relations problem as well as a
political relations problem with Canada. We should sit down to
try and resolve these problems”. But the federal government says
“There is no problem since 51% of Quebeckers say they want to
stay with us.
There is no problem. We do not need to listen to the mere 49%
who say they want to separate”.
The federal government has the same attitude in the labour
dispute we are facing today. There are only seven bargaining
tables. Only two of those are causing problems at this time. It
is not worth dealing with them. The government says it is
dealing with them. It wants to crush the workers as quickly as
possible to shut them up so life can go on and it is no longer
bothered by these things. It will behave as if there never was a
problem.
It will say “The problem has been resolved. You see, we just
crushed them. We stomped on them. We stomped on them and now we
can start afresh”.
But those people who have not had a negotiated agreement in
seven or eight years, how do they feel today? There were given
the right to strike, they were given the right to negotiate, but
they cannot exercise that right. How does the government intend
to deprive them of that right? Through special legislation.
A special bill on labour relations is like a notwithstanding
clause in the Constitution. If Quebec—to name but one
province—which has a notwithstanding clause, had used it for
anything and everything, what would the federal government have
said? It would have said “the notwithstanding clause is an
exceptional tool which, ideally, should practically never be
used. We should always manage to reach an agreement through
discussion, through negotiation, before using this ultimate tool.
It is the same thing with labour relations. What happens when
rights, and the means to exercise them, are given to a group,
only to be removed later through special legislation?
2050
The government has done that four times since 1971. Was it a
life and death situation each time? Was it, on each of these
occasions, the only means left? One only needs to look at the
current situation to know. The other situations were no more
serious.
It is true there are problems with the current situation. It is
true that the two sides do not agree, but have all other means
been tried? I say no because, at least at one of the bargaining
tables, the union had accepted the majority conciliation report.
This being a minority report, drafted by an independent
arbitrator, one of the solutions would have been to have the
government say “We bow to the majority conciliation report, we
accept the conditions, we sign”.
In the case of another table, the union, having been told by the
government that its demands were exaggerated, and unreasonable,
responded “We are prepared to take these demands before an
impartial arbitrator. We are prepared to bow to the
arbitrator's judgment as to whether our demands were really
exaggerated and unreasonable”.
The government said no, because it feared the arbitrator could
suddenly find it was in the wrong, and it could then no longer
impose its philosophy, its way of thinking; it could no longer
impose working conditions.
The government is acting as it does in all other areas. It
assumes an arrogant stance, disdainful of the workers, of the
smallest members of society, under the pretext that it is
protecting the safety of Canadians.
Was the government concerned about the safety of Canadians when
it picked their pockets to create an employment insurance
surplus? Well in excess of 87% of PSAC members were among those
affected. Hundreds of thousands, even millions, of ordinary
workers had their pockets picked. I use that term advisedly,
because they had no choice in the matter. There they were, and
the government just helped itself.
Of course, this was probably for their own good. So much for
their own good, that the government ended up with their worldly
goods. It did not have anything to do with safety.
At that time the government had no scruples.
Mr. Claude Drouin: It is always the fault of the federal
government.
Mr. René Laurin: My colleagues opposite would do well to be a
little more attentive, and to consider what we are saying,
because we are talking about the unreasonable things they are
doing and they do not realize it because they are not listening.
They rarely listen. They do not listen to the public, the
unemployed, women, students and seasonal workers, who are saying
“Stop, we are out of breath, we cannot go on”.
They are not listening to that. They are not listening this
evening either, because they are afraid of hearing the truth.
They are afraid of hearing people talking about real things.
Each time we talk to them about it, they say any old thing to
avoid listening.
And this is what they are doing as I speak so they do not hear
me. They are talking. They are trying to talk to me. I am
certainly not going to listen to them this evening.
2055
Special back to work legislation, I have experienced it in other
lives, before I entered politics. I know what it means. I know
what it means for the employer and for the employees as well.
In certain cases, 20 years later, the wounds are still there.
They can be felt in society, in the family, in labour relations
and I could even say in political terms.
It has always been possible to lead a horse to water, but it has
never been possible to make it drink.
While it is possible to use special legislation to force people
to go back to work, by imposing thousands of dollars in fines to
those who do not comply with the act, it is impossible to force
them to put their heart into it. It is impossible to force them
to work with zeal, to continue to work generously for their
employer, to do a good job, to work with dedication, and to be
respectful of their own responsibilities, including toward those
to whom they must provide services as public servants.
We cannot force workers to do that because these are feelings.
These are personal feelings. An employee is willing to behave in
such a way if he feels his employer respects him and does not
treat him like a number. An employee works hard if he knows he
will be appreciated, if he knows his value will be recognized.
Politicians across the floor should know what it means to get
recognition, given all the millions they spend to ensure their
visibility.
Why do we want visibility? To be recognized. But this is not
only good for members of parliament. It is also good for
employees who work with their heart, who work to provide for
their families, including their children's education and future.
This is why people work.
The salary is not an employee's first motivation. It is the
employer's respect and the recognition of who we are, of our
contribution. This is what respect from one's employer is all
about.
Does the government expect to promote this kind of work
atmosphere with a special bill? We would resign ourselves to
such a measure if it were an exception, if we had been
negotiating forever and if experience had taught us that there
is really no way to reach an agreement, that we are in a
cul-de-sac, that we are too far apart. Then we would have to
accept resorting to special legislation, to an exceptional
measure. However, this is not the case.
Since 1991, this exceptional measure has become the rule. It is
the easy solution used to render workers powerless. Tomorrow
morning, they will praise them in the House.
At the first opportunity, a Liberal will jump up and make a
member's statement saying that we have a wonderful public
service and devoted public servants in Ottawa. There will be a
ceremony next fall at which medals and awards will be handed
out. The downside of that party is what is happening tonight.
2100
I do not know what PSAC employees will be thinking at the next
public service awards bash. I do not know how many of them will
thank their employer. I do not know how many of them will
comment on its kindness and sincerity in organizing an awards
ceremony.
Can these people do this with any sincerity? To appear sincere,
it is not enough to look the part. One must be sincere through
and through, and that is harder to carry off because it involves
actions and attitudes, not just words.
We should not be surprised that public service workers are
frustrated and have taken the action they have. They believe in
their demands. According to the our information, what they have
asked for is similar to what has been offered in other job
categories and, where there are differences, they are prepared
to submit them to a neutral arbitrator.
If the government is truly sincere, it should also let an
arbitrator decide. The problem will be sorted out. Employees
will return to work tomorrow morning. Western farmers will be
able to sell their wheat. Correctional services employees will
be back on the job. Hospital workers at Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue who
look after veterans will continue to do what they did before,
and what they are still doing.
As evidenced by the information I obtained today, these people
work conscientiously with patients and veterans who are
hospitalized. They continue to provide services. They are doing
their best to find other means of penalizing the employer
without penalizing patients. This takes dedication, diligence
and professionalism.
The government should be more grateful and should accept to go
back to the bargaining table. I am not telling the government to
start giving unions everything they ask for. That is not what a
collective agreement is all about. That is not what bargaining
is all about. Bargaining involves sitting down together and
engaging in a process of give and take. But to do that, the
parties must sit down face to face, discuss and determine what
the demands are and what can reasonably be granted. To do that,
one must also be able to listen.
The government ought to return to the bargaining table, listen
to what the union has to say and then ask itself questions like:
Is it in the national interest? Is it in the taxpayers'
interest? Is it fostering social peace or is it continuing to
refuse to give these workers a decent salary and decent working
conditions while dipping into the pockets of taxpayers to
accumulate huge surpluses?
I hope these thoughts will help government members take a more
positive position before the night is through. Let us hope they
do.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is a very important debate. However, I think it has been
some time since Canadians were advised of exactly what is
happening.
Yesterday morning the government House leader took the initial
steps to table in the House an appropriate motion that would lead
us basically to back to work legislation. It is not as easy as
simply tabling legislation, having a debate in the House, having
a vote and dealing with the matter. Now we are having some
procedural problems and I think it is worth reflecting on what is
actually happening.
The debate started today and it is now 9 o'clock in the evening.
We will be going until about 11 o'clock. However, we are not
debating the legislation right now, as members know; we are
debating whether we should limit the debate once we get there. I
think that most Canadians watching will understand that they have
heard a broad range of dialogue on a number of matters which are,
quite frankly, unrelated to the issue before the House, which
deals with what the government believes to be an urgent
situation.
2105
We have heard, for instance, an NDP member suggest that there
has been, in her words, a little bit of a disruption for
Canadians. That is probably the largest understatement of the
facts. Now a Bloc member has risen to suggest that we go back to
the table. There comes a point in time at which going back to
the table does not work. We cannot make it work if the parties
are not prepared to be at the table in good faith.
We are presently debating Motion No. 21, which is related to the
government services act. The NDP and the Bloc Quebecois have
strong union ties. They are here debating and arguing the
union's position. They will be opposed to this legislation
because of their strong union ties.
Reform Party members have also cautiously entered the debate
today and have used it in a way to try to play both sides of the
fence. However, they will be supporting this legislation tonight
because they know that this is not a little bit of a disruption.
Many of their constituents, the Canadian farmers, particularly
the western Canadian grain farmers, are hurting, and they are
hurting badly. There comes a point at which we have to act.
That is why the Reform Party will be voting for this.
The legislation itself, Bill C-76, was tabled by the President
of the Treasury Board yesterday, March 22. Basically it will
impose an immediate return to work for some 14,000 operational
group employees represented by the Public Service Alliance of
Canada, known as PSAC.
The proposed legislation also seeks the authority to impose the
terms and conditions of employment for these employees who are
presently waging rotational strikes. Canadians will know what
rotational strikes are. It is a common tactic of unions to
disrupt services on a sporadic basis and in an unknown pattern.
It is terribly disruptive, not just to those who are stricken by
it, but also to those who at any point could find themselves
being dealt with by the unions and the strikers.
I had important meetings with finance officials today and the
finance building, just down the street from the Parliament
Buildings, was totally sealed off. Federal employees of the
federal finance department were unable to go to work today. They
were unable to discharge their responsibilities.
Maybe Canadians are going to ask themselves whether this is
constructive in dealing with labour relations matters, whether
being at the table is better than being in front of some building
stopping people from doing their job. It happens all the time.
I think Canadians are probably getting a little fatigued at what
the NDP might call a little bit of a disruption, which translates
into a major disruption of virtually every facet of government
business.
This does not only affect government. It also affects Canadians
who have filed their tax returns and are waiting for refund
cheques, and grain farmers who are losing millions of dollars
each and every day because their grain cannot be moved.
These are not little disruptions. These are major disruptions
in the economy and in the operations of Canada. It also
seriously affects the small businesses which employ a tremendous
number of Canadians. I want to emphasize that these are not
little disruptions.
Canadians should know that for almost two years we have been
negotiating this collective agreement. It is not something that
has just started and, as the Bloc member would suggest, we should
get back to the table. An awful lot of work has already been
undertaken. Every reasonable option has been exercised to try to
get a settlement in these rotating strikes.
However, it has not worked and there comes a point at which a
responsible government has to say that it will not let Canadians
be held hostage any longer on these matters and that it must act,
which is exactly what is happening. Canadians should feel
confident that the government is taking the best possible route
to bring an end to this disruption to so many aspects of Canadian
life by getting people back to work. That is what is important.
2110
The President of the Treasury Board has said in the House on a
number of occasions recently that the cost to our economy is
millions and millions of dollars each and every day. The
proposed legislation that the minister tabled yesterday is the
last possible resort. The government's position is that this is
the last possible resort. There is nothing else we could
possibly do to end this situation without bringing in back to
work legislation.
What are we talking about in terms of the urgency to deal with
the strike? The government is of the view that it cannot allow
any further disruptions in services, which inconvenience
Canadians, especially when their safety and security could be at
risk. There are actually safety and security issues on the
table. We cannot tolerate any further impact on the Canadian
economy and on our businesses. Real economic disadvantages to
Canadian businesses are being affected by these rotating strikes.
We cannot afford to lose the revenues from operations for which
we are accountable to the Canadian taxpayer. It is a
responsibility of the government to be responsible to the
taxpayer, to manage the affairs with which it is charged. The
only way we can do our job at this point is to deal with this
legislation.
Strikers do not have the right to impede the work of other
employees providing services to Canadians. I believe this is a
principle which has not been respected in this matter which we
have been dealing with. The unions have not respected Canadians'
rights to continue to operate their businesses and to provide
services.
In western Canada the stoppage of the grain shipments has
affected farmers and the business community. It has raised
concern among our international customers about the reliability
of grain deliveries. This is very, very important. Canada has
contracts and agreements which it must meet. There are going to
be consequences if we are unable to meet our contractual
obligations because of these disruptions. There comes a point at
which we cannot wait. That is why this legislation is a last
resort.
The grain shipments at the port of Vancouver alone are worth $60
million per week. The cost keeps mounting every day the system
is shut down by the striking workers. That is a lot of money and
a lot of people are affected. Canadians have to know that.
Travellers are also being affected by the strike activity at
airports across the country. I do not think I have to remind
Canadians of the kinds of disruptions we have experienced at
airports from time to time because of strikes. Why is it that
Canadians so often are held hostage at the worst possible times?
When are we going to have good faith bargaining so that
collective bargaining can work? Does it work? It appears not
when the Government of Canada has to come forward with back to
work legislation. I think there has to be better faith shown by
the bargaining units on this matter.
The strikes have also been causing some difficulty in our
ability to collect taxes such as the GST. There have been
delays, particularly with respect to reimbursements to taxpayers.
Taxpayers get a significant amount of reimbursements, such as GST
rebates. There are a number of taxpayers who are presently
waiting for their income tax returns. As a chartered accountant
I always tell my clients to file early if they are getting a
refund because they will get a prompt refund.
The Minister of National Revenue stood two days ago, and I think
even yesterday, and had to admit to the House that because of
these strikes about 1.2 million Canadian tax returns have not
been processed. They are behind. I suspect that of those 1.2
million about one million are owed refunds, which those people
need. Because of these strikers, Canadians who need their tax
refunds are not going to get them when they need them. Canadians
are not going to get their refunds and that is not fair. It is
not fair to hold Canadians hostage.
The operations of some departments have been severely impacted
by the strike activity. They include, as we have heard many
times today, national defence, the coast guard, Public Works and
Government Services Canada.
With regard to the legislation, a proposal has been tabled
asking parliament to authorize the government to impose an
immediate return to work of some 14,000 workers represented by
PSAC.
The legislation also seeks the authority to impose terms and
conditions of employment for these workers who have been waging
these rotational strikes across the country for the past two
months.
2115
The proposed legislation allows the government to implement—
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to communicate
my views as a member of parliament. I respectfully listened to
the NDP member speak in the House and now the NDP member is
trying to disrupt again. I understand that the NDP member has a
different point of view, but I respect her opinion to have a
different point of view and I wish she would show the same
respect to me.
To continue, the proposed legislation seeks the authority to
impose terms and conditions of employment for the workers who
have been waging these rotational strikes across the country for
the past couple of months.
The legislation also allows the government to implement, if
necessary, a collective agreement for some 4,500 correctional
officers if their talks with PSAC break down. The government must
fulfil its obligations to maintain the safety and security not
only of the correctional institutions but of Canadians as well.
There are safety considerations and the security of Canadians is
at risk because of the rotating strikes.
The government's proposed legislation is presented to this place
in fact as an action of last resort. Canadians must understand
that every reasonable effort has been made. To demonstrate, I
have here a document which shows the chronology of the
negotiations that have been ongoing.
Canadians should know that this started back on October 17,
1996. On October 17, 1996 the parties signed a memorandum of
understanding establishing the table structure for negotiations
with PSAC. That is how long ago this started. We can look down
the list at the various significant events that have occurred
since October 1996. On March 12, 1999 the talks ended without
reaching a settlement. They could not reach a settlement. At
that point government had to act.
It has now become not just a collective bargaining issue, it has
become an issue for all Canadians. All Canadians are now
involved. All Canadians are impacted. The member who is
heckling will understand that very well. She will understand it
from her constituents who are going to call her and share with
her some of the disruption in their lives as a result of the bad
faith bargaining that has gone on.
With regard to the status, and I think this is also a very
important aspect, the government's preferred option in these
matters has always been a negotiated settlement. We have seen
that before. I know that when we had the mail disruption the
former labour minister continued to defend the collective
bargaining process. Time after time the government has said that
we must let the collective bargaining process run its course,
that we have to respect it. And we did. But there came a point
at which Canadians were involved and the impacts on them were
such that the government had to act. And it did.
We respected the process and the same occurs here. It is the
same situation. The situation is that Canadians have now been
drawn into this in ways which were never intended. The
collective bargaining process has now invaded the living rooms of
Canadians. They have taken Canadians hostage by their actions.
This has to stop. This is why the government has to be
responsible in these matters, to respect the collective
bargaining process, but also to respect the needs of Canadians,
of Canadian small business, of grain farmers, of ordinary
Canadians. They are who we have to protect.
Canadians will be interested to know that agreements have been
reached with 87% of the unionized workforce, including more than
100,000 PSAC members. Significant progress has been made but
until we get the rest of the union representatives on side, we
cannot move forward. This thing is dead because the process is
being held up by 13%.
2120
Canadians are being held hostage by 13% of the PSAC members.
This is absurd. This is why the government has to act
responsibly and do the right thing by getting this legislation
through the House. That is the job we were elected to do and it
is the job we are going to do. Canadians should be assured of
that.
The employer has also made concessions. Canadians should know
that this is not a one way street. We do not dictate each and
every thing. We act in good faith. Here is the good faith.
The government has accepted to reduce the number of regional pay
zones by 30% for these workers. This is a very significant
concession. In addition, wage increases of 2.75% in the first
year and 2% in the second year have been offered. These
increases are consistent with those already accepted by other
public service employees. It is fair. It is equitable. It is
acting in a responsible fashion on behalf of all Canadians,
including those involved in the collective bargaining process.
With what has gone on today and in hearing this debate, members
of parliament, all of whom have responsibilities not only in this
place but in their ridings and also to their families, are going
to be here tonight until about 11 p.m. at which time this segment
of the debate on Motion No. 21 will be completed with a vote on
it.
Then we are going to start the process of debating the actual
piece of back to work legislation. After going through all of
the stages of the bill in one sitting, if we are lucky sometime
between 4 and 5 in the morning we will vote on the legislation
and it will pass. I do not want Canadians to worry about staying
up to see whether it will pass. It is going to pass. Before the
rooster crows tomorrow, this bill will be law. Canadians will be
back to work and small businesses will be taken care of.
It is too bad. Today is March 23, my daughter's 17th birthday.
I would like nothing more than to spend a little bit of time with
my daughter but I am here doing my job like all of these other
members. Members will be tied up in this place until 4 a.m. or 5
a.m. because the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP have decided that
their links and their responsibilities are to represent the union
position only, rather than the position of Canadians and their
constituents to do what is fair, to do what is right and to do
what is right on behalf of Canadians. That is what is important.
We are here doing our job. Canadians will understand. They will
hear some things. The Liberals are not going to be talking too
much on this because the important thing is that we have to move
forward on this legislation. We are not going to take advantage
of the time of the House, of all the pages and all the people who
are here keeping this place running. We want to get this
legislation dealt with in a fair and democratic manner, which is
our job in this place, and we will.
I thank the member from the NDP who has heckled me throughout my
speech. I feel invigorated that I did not miss any of the points
I wanted to make. I hope the member will get some sleep tonight
because tomorrow is another day.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise with some regret to speak on Motion No. 21.
I accept the premise of the government that the Treasury Board
has painted itself into a corner from which it cannot extricate
itself by any means other than back to work legislation. Because
we are dealing with an emergency situation, I will support the
government's initiative in this respect tomorrow morning when it
becomes necessary but it will not be with any degree of happiness
because this was not necessary. It never should have gone this
far. There is no reason that it should be this way.
The hon. member obviously did not hear my speech last night
because he says I changed my mind. I have often noticed that
members of his party get confused.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
2125
Mr. Lee Morrison: If the member will shut his big mouth
for 10 seconds, I will repeat what I said last night. I said
that the government's move to take in 14,000 workers who were in
no way affected or in no way involved in the strike which is
tying up the ports was a Machiavellian move, and I will stick by
that. I did not say that I did not support back to work
legislation. I hope the hon. member has that straight in his
head now.
This is an emergency. It is an emergency on the prairies in
particular. The livelihoods of thousands of people on the
prairies, including farmers, truckers, elevator operators and
railroaders, are on the line. PSAC made a strategic decision to
target the grain terminals because it knew that was the tender
spot. That was the most vulnerable target it could hit and it
decided to go for broke. Now we are going to see the results of
that.
Contrary to what my friends in the NDP might say, there is truly
an emergency. This is not a joke. This is very serious. We
have to do something about it. A grain train has not left the
prairies for over a week. People are in a very bad state. The
trains are not moving and we are getting into the season when
road bans are beginning to go on. People will not be able to
move their grain to the trains. Something has to be done.
Because of the government's ineptitude, the only thing that can
be done at this point is back to work legislation.
We have been having these problems for 30 years. There is
nothing new under the sun. The grain movement in this country
has been constantly victimized by labour disputes. It never
seems to end.
Not too many years ago this government said that it was going to
solve the problem and it brought in its wonderful Bill C-19. The
only problem with Bill C-19 is that whoever drafted it was
asleep. We tried to point out when the bill was being presented
to the House that there were holes in it, that we cannot protect
an entire system by forcing certain segments of the industry to
perform. There will always be somebody left on the outside who
can tie it up.
In this case it was the grain weighers in PSAC. Treasury Board
has mismanaged negotiations with these people. Because the
government has removed the right of arbitration for PSAC, we now
have this situation in western Canada where we are being held
hostage by a tiny little group of 70 workers. To deal with a 70
worker nuisance, the government has decided to burn the house
down. It has brought in this legislation that will affect 14,000
people. This is indefensible. It is Machiavellian.
When a house is burning, and it is burning right now, the first
thing that has to be done is to put the fire out. Then there has
to be somebody watching to see that it does not flare up again.
After the fire has been fully and properly quenched, then the
necessary steps are taken to see that it is not going to happen
again, that it is not going to restart.
In this case a very obvious solution would be to provide final
offer selection arbitration. This is a solution we have been
advocating in this House for three or four years. It is a
solution that has been widely used. It works. The government is
certainly not unfamiliar with the mechanism. It has used it. It
is my understanding that in this particular instance PSAC would
agree to it. It would accept final offer binding arbitration.
The only people who do not care about arbitration and fairness
are the members over there because it is not in their interests.
2130
The government has boxed itself in and 14,000 workers are
affected. Not all of them are even on strike. It is suspected
they might go on strike. Since these folks are too lazy to be
here over the Easter break, they have decided to legislate them
back to work before they even hit the bricks to save time and
energy.
The government also seems to think that some prison guards might
walk out during the Easter break. It does not know that, but if
I may use the word strike in a different connotation the
government has decided to have a pre-emptive strike.
The government claims that Revenue Canada has a backlog of more
than a million tax returns but PSAC flatly denies it. It says it
is actually a little ahead of the average production compared
with previous years. Somebody, whether it is the President of
the Treasury Board or the leader of PSAC, is not telling the
truth. I am not about to try to guess which one it is, but
somebody is giving us the gears. That is a rather important
consideration.
It is not surprising to me that the government introduced
legislation that will affect 14,000 people in order to get 70
people back to work, which could have been done with a very
simple targeted act. This is the same government that passed
pre-emptive legislation against three or four million Canadian
gun owners not too long ago in order to deal with a couple of
hundred criminals who might have used guns. This is typical
Liberal attitude: get them in the throat before they have a
chance.
Many members want to address this question tonight. I will be
addressing it again when we get to committee of the whole. With
that I will let it go for now. I have made my position
abundantly clear.
[Translation]
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is
with a sense of deep sadness and anger that I rise in this House
this evening to oppose this motion and this unjust and unfair
legislation.
The government knows full well that the NDP and the Bloc
Quebecois would never let such an anti-democratic bill be passed
without putting up quite a fight. Therefore the Liberals used
their majority in the House to limit debate. Make no mistake:
this is an affront to democracy.
Usually back to work legislation contains a clause providing for
binding arbitration as a way to settle disputes.
But in this case, instead of arbitration, the legislation
imposes on workers a collective agreement of the government's
making. It also applies to federal prison guards, who are not
even on strike. This is incredible and truly unfair.
This bill undermines the democratic rights of Canadian workers.
We in the NDP oppose this unjust legislation.
[English]
I turned on the television news last night and witnessed with
absolute astonishment in a rare moment of joy the Reform member
who has just spoken in the House, the member for Cyprus
Hills—Grasslands, saying that the Reform Party would stand up
for workers and would oppose this Liberal legislation. He was
huffing and puffing and saying that the Reform Party is here to
speak on behalf of public servants.
I did my best. I could not believe it. This is the same Reform
Party that has been so blatantly anti-worker from the time it
first came to Parliament Hill.
This is the Reform Party that spoke out in favour of right to
work legislation, that slammed the labour movement and so on.
Suddenly that articulate, loud mouthed little member for Cypress
Hills—Grasslands is defending workers. It was incredible. It
was too good to be true. Guess what happened today. We found
that the Reform Party was in bed with the Liberal Party once
again.
2135
I say shame on the Reform Party. Shame on the member for
Cypress Hills—Grasslands. When Reformers had a chance to stand
up for workers they caved in. Who will they vote with tonight?
They will vote with the Liberals. They will vote against
workers. They will vote against farmers. They are voting
against some of the poorest paid public servants in the country.
Let us look at Canada's obligations under international law.
Canada has signed a number of major international conventions
with the International Labour Organization, the ILO, that oblige
us to bargain collectively.
[Translation]
We have signed conventions that oblige us to respect the rights
of Canadian and Quebec workers.
[English]
Last year Canada commemorated the 50th anniversary of the United
Nations Declaration on Human Rights. This legislation and this
motion make an absolute mockery of Canada's international
obligations under the ILO and under United Nations conventions.
Let us be clear. This is not the first time the Liberal
government has shown contempt for our international obligations.
Just a few months ago the United Nations committee on economic
social and cultural rights pointed out in very harsh language,
strong language, powerful language, that the government was not
respecting the rights of poor people, homeless people and jobless
people in Canada, and that the international covenant we signed
on economic, social and cultural rights was being ignored by the
government.
The government is ignoring our international obligations as it
has done on more than one occasion under the International Labour
Organization. It is not just doing that. We in Canada have a
charter of rights that Canadians collectively adopted. I had the
privilege of being a member of the committee which drafted that
charter of rights and passed it with great fanfare. One of its
basic rights is freedom of association. Those freedoms, those
basic rights, those fundamental freedoms that all Canadians take
for granted have once again been totally overridden in
legislation.
We look at war veterans who fought hard for these rights and
these freedoms. We look at merchant seamen who fought long and
hard for these freedoms, who worked long and hard for these
freedoms under very difficult circumstances. The legislation
makes a mockery both of our international obligations under the
ILO and of our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
A number of my colleagues have spoken very eloquently in
opposition not only to this draconian closure motion but to the
legislation itself. Again I pay tribute to my colleague from
Winnipeg Centre who has led the fight on the legislation from the
beginning. He is out of the labour movement himself. He knows
firsthand the importance of respect for not only collective
bargaining but for the basic freedom of association.
My colleague from Winnipeg Centre; my other colleague, the
member for Churchill, who will be speaking to the legislation;
and others have pointed out many of its very serious flaws. One
of its most outrageous flaws is the fact that we have back to
work legislation applying to correctional officers who have not
even walked off the job, who are not even on strike yet. They
are being sent back to work without any terms in writing. It is
absolutely unbelievable and unprecedented.
2140
Let me be very clear. For almost 10 years I had the privilege
of sitting on the justice committee of the House of Commons. I
travelled to many prisons in the country and met personally with
correctional officers and prison guards. The working conditions
of these prison guards are disgraceful. In many cases they are
overworked and underpaid. The value of their work is not
recognized through decent pensions. In many cases they face very
dangerous and intolerable working conditions.
The government is treating these dedicated and hard working
employees with absolute contempt. We in the New Democratic Party
say shame on the Liberal government for its treatment of
correctional officers.
Let us look at the working conditions of those who have been on
strike. We are talking about some 14,500 members of the Public
Service Alliance of Canada. In my own province of British
Columbia how many are we talking about? The largest group of
these employees is at Esquimalt in Victoria. In Vancouver the
largest group is at the grain commission. A significant number
of these workers in British Columbia are those who work at Rogers
Pass, at Glacier and at Mount Revelstoke National Park mainly
doing highway maintenance. They also have folks who work in
stores at Revenue Canada and other departments.
These are not fat cats. These are not people who are being paid
excessive wages. These are hard working blue collar workers
whose wages have been frozen for seven long years and who have
not had a negotiated collective agreement for some fifteen years.
All they are asking for is fairness, justice and collective
bargaining, and the government says no to all of that.
The member who just spoke talked about grain commission workers.
Grain commission workers were behaving very responsibly for most
of the last eight weeks. They were going to work. They were not
putting up any picket lines. However, when the elevators started
applying for exemptions so that the grain would not have to be
weighed they started picketing. By the way, they only picketed
those elevators that had applied for exemptions. The ones that
did not were not picketed.
I have personally spoken with the president of the Grain Workers
Union, Ron Burton, who is one of my constituents. It took a
responsible approach and is again treated with absolute contempt
by the government.
These workers are particularly upset to hear the President of
the Treasury Board saying that their wage demands are excessive.
in his words. These workers point out that senior managers got
increases of something like 17% to 25%. Members of parliament
even got increases greater than what they were demanding.
I say on behalf of these workers that it is absolutely
nonsensical to suggest that these increases were in any way
excessive. Let us just take a moment to look at what was
actually on the table when the talks broke down. When the talks
broke down on March 12, about 10 or 11 days ago, the union's
position on the table was 2%, 2.75% and 2% with a 30 cent
sweetener in the last two years. That is not even catch up
money. That does not even catch them up to seven long years with
no increase whatsoever.
The government and the union were not that far apart. I think
it was a little over 3% or 3.1% that they were apart or around $8
million between the two. Let us take a look at that figure for a
minute. Eight million dollars would have ensured that farmers
were able to get their grain through. Eight million dollars
would have ensured that some of the lowest paid federal public
servants would have been treated with dignity and respect.
The government has brought forward the hammer of closure and is
imposing a collective agreement all for $8 million. I say shame
when in fact one contract alone that was lost for a week was
worth over $9 million. It makes no sense whatsoever.
These are hard working employees. I have spoken with a number
of them in my constituency office. They have talked about some
of the difficulties they face like any Canadian in a situation
such as this. They have mortgages to pay, families to look after
and kids they are putting through post-secondary education so
they will get a decent education in the future.
This Liberal government treats them with nothing but disrespect
and contempt for the collective bargaining process.
2145
I think it is important to point out as well, as my colleague
from Winnipeg Centre noted in his remarks, that with massive cuts
that have been taking place in the federal public service with
this Liberal agenda, deregulation, privatization, fighting back
against any progressive labour education, we have the same number
of workers who are being called on to do more and more work. A
heavier and heavier burden is being borne by these workers.
There is a much greater stress and strain in the current
workplace. Yet they are told forget it, and seven years without
any decent increase whatsoever.
That is not the only way in which federal public servants are
being hammered by the Liberal government. The fact is in a
number of different areas the government has shown how little
respect it has for its public servants. Women in the federal
public service are still waiting for pay equity. The government
continues to fight against equal pay for work of equal value.
[Translation]
It is totally unfair that women working in the public service
still have to fight today for fundamental rights to justice and
pay equity.
[English]
We know as well the government is anticipating a major public
service pension grab, something like $30 billion in federal
public service pensions and the government wants to get its hands
on that. Instead of treating its employees with respect, what
does it do? It tries to grab public service pension money.
This legislation has been thrown together in such a short time
that in many respects there are some very serious drafting flaws
in it. The new territory of Nunavut has been left out entirely
from the legislation, completely ignored. In defining workers
under the terms of the proposed collective agreement I note that
the definition of common law spouse in English actually does
reflect the collective bargaining position that was achieved
through other public service negotiations and recognizes that
common law spouse includes gay and lesbian partners.
[Translation]
However, in the French version of the text, “conjoint de fait”,
or common law spouse, is defined as follows:
Il existe des liens de conjoint de fait lorsque, pendant une
période continue d'au moins une année, un employé a cohabité
avec une personne du sexe opposé et l'a présentée publiquement
comme son conjoint et continue à vivre avec cette personne comme
si elle était son conjoint.
We have a French version that denies the fundamental rights of
same sex spouses, while the English version reads as follows:
[English]
Common law spouse includes those relationships. Mr. Speaker, I
know that you have certainly taken an interest in this issue,
recognition of same sex relationships and common law spouses, and
I know you will be as concerned as I am with respect to this
disparity in the recognition of the two statutes.
Certainly we will be seeking clarification of this issue during
the debate in committee of whole. I have spoken already with the
President of the Treasury Board and with the government House
leader. They have both indicated that it is the intention of the
government to recognize same sex relationships for purposes of
these collective agreements, but I hope that will be clarified
during the course of debate in committee of the whole.
While I am on this subject, it is also important that the
relationships of gay and lesbian people be recognized under the
public service pension legislation as well. We are still waiting
for the government to move forward to amend that legislation
which will hopefully come forward in the very near future.
I want to note as well the issue of correctional service
members, those I talked about earlier who are covered by this
legislation. These are the public service alliance members
represented by the table 4 negotiating team. They went into a
third party conciliation process.
2150
There was a conciliation board report released on March 19.
These workers accepted the recommendation of the conciliation
board. They were prepared to accept that and live with that even
though it represented a significant compromise on their behalf.
They said they were prepared to accept that. Treasury Board
walked away from the table and refused to sign that agreement. So
much for that. So much for fairness to correctional service
workers. It was a very different Liberal Party back in 1991.
Mr. Lou Sekora: I wonder if Clark pays for his jet.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson: The loud mouth member from
Coquitlam was not here then. I remember when other Liberals were
here in 1991 and the position they took when the Conservatives
were in government. The Liberals at that time stood up for the
public service. They were prepared to defend the public service.
[Translation]
They were there with the public service, but now what are they
doing? Absolutely nothing. They are imposing upon these same
workers totally unacceptable working conditions.
[English]
Let me once again appeal to the government to recognize that
these 14,545 members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada at
the table 2 negotiations and the some 600 correctional service
workers at the table 4 negotiating team deserve to be treated
with dignity and respect. Instead, this government is using the
jackhammer of closure to ram this legislation through the House.
[Translation]
We in the New Democratic Party will do everything we can to
oppose this legislation and support these workers everywhere in
Canada. This legislation, this motion is an affront to
democracy.
[English]
This is an assault on our international obligations. This is an
assault on freedom of association. I say shame on the Liberal
government for betraying the workers of the public service of
Canada.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
take no pleasure in rising today to speak to Motion No. 21 by the
government house leader, introducing the President of Treasury
Board's Bill C-76.
I would like to begin by pointing out that the result of the
motion in question, which has been debated since around 11
o'clock this morning, and will be voted on later tonight, is
that we are discussing this bill within a closure motion. This
means that the government has restricted the time of debate,
thus preventing all members of this House from voicing their
concerns about this bill.
This way of proceeding is far from exceptional. It has become a
habit with this government.
It crops up as soon as there is any opposition to steps taken by
this government. By refusing to allow the House to debate
freely, by restricting debate, the government is denying the
role the House must play in the legislative process.
This closure motion on the motion by the Government Leader is
the 50th time this government has gagged the opposition members.
It is an unfortunate reality that this is the 50th time the
government of that little guy from Shawinagan has taken the
House hostage by preventing it from debating.
Once again, this is a blatant denial of parliamentary democracy.
It is not surprising that more and more people are questioning
the real power MPs have in this House.
By acting this way, the government shows it uses Parliament as
it pleases, setting aside the usual rules of debate and
preventing members from doing their job properly. It is with the
same kind of logic that the President of the Treasury Board
introduced Bill C-76.
This bill entitled an act to provide for the resumption and
continuation of government services is special back to work
legislation affecting two categories of workers, namely those in
the operational services group, the federal government's blue
collar workers, also known as table 2, and corrections officers,
also known as table 4.
2155
With this bill, not only does the government want to force the
hand of the unions involved, but it also wants to set the rules
and impose working conditions without negotiating in good faith.
This lack of good faith is nothing new; negotiations between the
two parties have been dragging on for too long. The federal
government's blue collar workers have been without a collective
agreement for about two years and their salaries have been
frozen for six years. The same goes for corrections officers.
And yet, these workers, like so many others, have done their
share to help the Minister of Finance table a balanced budget.
Like the unemployed, they helped eliminate the deficit.
Unfortunately, these workers do not seem to deserve the
generosity of the government, which prefers to invade provincial
jurisdictions with their money.
It is interesting to illustrate the bad faith of the employer in
the case of the blue collar workers, the famous table 2. At the
start, the federal government offered them a 2.75% increase. It
changed its mind however. Figuring that the offer was too
generous, it reduced its offer to 2.5% for the first year in
this bill.
In the negotiations over the past two years, it is
understandable that table 2 union members had no hesitation
using their right to strike, which they had obtained on December
16, 1998. So, in a perfectly legal context, the union is
exercising its means of pressure by holding rotating strikes
across the country since January 18.
That is permitted under the rules of bargaining. According to
the government, the union's demands are unreasonable. If that
is true, why is the government refusing arbitration in order to
establish the merits of these demands? A party outside the two
bargaining parties could decide on the merits of the union
demands.
The reason is very simple, and the problem is a big one. The
fact is that, as of February 15, the government, in its infinite
wisdom decided to suspend the binding arbitration provided under
the Public Service Staff Relations Act until 2001.
The attitude of the government leaves workers no option but to
strike. The special legislation, in addition to denying the
blue collar workers means of pressure will impose a collective
agreement.
How ironic, given that the expression “collective agreement”
means an agreement between employees and employers governing
working conditions.
The government could have resolved this dispute by negotiating
in good faith, but it preferred to drag its heels and in the end
impose its views and upset the balance between the parties.
Naturally, it is easier to be both judge and judged. Under the
false pretence of protecting the economy, the President of the
Treasury Board is taking federal public servants hostage.
If we are to believe the government, the die is cast and this
legislation is the final recourse. Yet, surprisingly, federal
blue collar workers are not on a general strike. As for
correctional officers, they committed the irreparable error of
announcing their intention to use pressure tactics.
And yes, that is right, table 4 workers are not even on strike.
They will be in a strike position on March 26. The government
will force them to return to work when they have not even gone
out, and will impose a collective agreement despite the fact
that the union approved a majority conciliation report.
This is another edifying example of negotiation. In effect, the
government is telling these workers to accept the offers it is
making or have working conditions imposed through special
legislation.
2200
One wonders whether this government is aware of the working
atmosphere it will be helping to create with such tactics.
Respect for the principle of bargaining in good faith is a far
better alternative than unilaterally imposing working
conditions.
When a union applies pressure, it is true that the public can be
inconvenienced. But the public is smart; it too understands
that these workers are not getting their fair share. The
government could end this situation by simply negotiating in
good faith.
We demand that the government withdraw this undemocratic bill
and get back to the bargaining table, this time with the
intention of negotiating in earnest. Thus Quebeckers and
Canadians will receive the services they are entitled to, and
government employees will be able to provide these services
under good working conditions negotiated between two partners
respectful of each other.
It is obvious to me that beating workers into submission with
back to work legislation will have very real consequences. We
might see the labour climate degenerate without necessarily
ensuring that services to the public are provided adequately.
This is not the first time that the government, with the little
guy from Shawinigan and the President of the Treasury Board at
its head, has raised arms against workers.
Let us mention among others that this same government is
refusing to abide by the ruling on pay equity, which involves
mainly women.
Similarly, it is refusing to discuss the issue of orphan clauses
which discriminate against young people, it is refusing to
include antiscab provisions in the Canada Labour Code, while
such a measure has proven to be very effective in Quebec. Let us
remember the back to work legislation regarding postal services.
I could go on for ever. I have the feeling people opposite are
listening, this is extraordinary. The examples of unfair action
on the part of this government are increasing. One thing remains
constant though: when it comes to depriving workers of their
most fundamental rights, the government acts like grease
lightning.
We should also point out that the right to negotiate has been
abrogated for 8 of the last 15 years, and for 11 of those years,
ships' crews and hospital personnel have worked under a
non-negotiated regime imposed by the federal government.
There have been many such laws pushed through by both
Conservative and Liberal governments in this House. In August
1982, Bill C-124 froze the salaries of some 500,000 public
servants. In December 1989, there was the back to work
legislation, Bill C-49. With Bill C-29 in October 1991, the
employer threatened unilateral imposition of its offer if it was
not accepted.
It is noteworthy that the Labour Relations Board characterized
this latter approach to negotiations as unethical.
It is curious that the portion of Bill C-76 that applies to
correction services officers smacks of the same thing.
In 1992, we had Bill C-113, which imposed a wage freeze for two
years, as well as working conditions. In 1993, Bill C-101
entitled the government to require unions to vote on offers. In
1994, Bill C-17 imposed two more years of salary freeze. Enough
is enough.
2205
Bill C-76 clearly demonstrates that the Liberal government denies
its employees' and all unionized workers' right to negotiate.
Since the right to negotiate of necessity goes along with the
right to strike if negotiations reach an impasse, what the
government is in fact also denying is the right to strike.
This is a striking conclusion to reach in a democratic society
where the right to strike is an integral part of the right of
association. In the case of the federal blue collar workers,
the government is refusing binding arbitration and is preparing
to pass back to work legislation which imposes a collective
agreement, if one dares to call it that.
For these employees and their union, this is a dead end. It is
in fact the denial of their freedom of association—after a six
year salary freeze.
The only solution is for the government to bargain in good
faith. These negotiations have been going on for two years,
without an agreement. The blue collar workers have been using
pressure tactics, rotating strikes, since January 18, about two
months. It is now up to the government to show its good faith.
It is high time indeed the government, which dragged its feet at
the bargaining table, got down to serious business.
Georges Clémenceau, the great French statesman, said—listen
carefully, this is a real eye opener—and I quote “Parliament is
the greatest organization we ever invented for committing
political errors, which have the great advantage of being
reparable, whenever the country wants to repair them”.
There is a lot of wisdom in this quote from Clémenceau. It is
not too late to prevent the occurrence of the political error
the government is preparing to vote on. The conciliation report
approved by the workers at table 4 need only be implemented and
the arbitration involving workers at table 2 requires approval
only. In choosing instead to suspend the sword of Damocles over
the head of his employees, the President of the Treasury Board
will clearly prove the claim of Machiavelli “Politics has
nothing to do with morals”.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
delighted to enter into the debate today. In the event that
members present or individuals watching on CPAC are not aware of
what is happening, we are debating whether we should press a bill
through in one day. It is called closure. It is called “Let's
not debate the issue, let's just do it.” Of course that brings
us to a real solid dilemma.
There are a lot of people in Canada whose futures depend on what
is happening here. There are some people whose futures will only
be marginally affected and there are others who will be affected
in a major way.
I was just trying to think of some sort of analogy. Why did we
get into this? It was a little over a year ago that we had a
problem at Christmastime when the post office workers were no
longer willing to work without a contract because their contract
had expired. They went on strike.
It was not long before the government decided that it was time
to take action, and it did. It brought in legislation and very
quickly we, collectively in this House, legislated them back to
work, even though they did not then have a contract and,
incredibly, still do not. It is 16 months later and we still do
not have a solution.
What do we do when there is a collision of interests?
I really have a soft spot in my heart for the farmers who are
facing such a financial crunch these days.
This has been such a tremendously difficult year for them. They
are facing the next year with great trepidation. There are a lot
of farmers who just simply do not have the cash flow to keep on
farming. When that happens, not only can they not keep their
farms going, the value of those farms really goes down because of
the whole situation in the agriculture scene. What they have
worked for all of their lives, and in some instances for more
than one generation, is at risk. Their land and their farming
operations are at risk.
2210
Of course farmers have to put up with so many variables. They
have the weather. They have the prices of grain. They have all
of these different kinds of issues that affect their—
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I am wondering about the matter of relevance in this case,
because I thought the member was speaking against the bill and it
strikes me that he is speaking in favour of it. Is the line of
reasoning that he is following relevant?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In the opinion of
the Chair, the hon. member for Elk Island was not only relevant,
but cogent.
Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At this time of the
night I need that kind of affirmation. Had I known I was going
to be here at ten minutes after ten debating this tonight I would
not have worked until twenty after one this morning.
This is a very important issue. We are talking about cash flow
for farmers. We are talking about the delivery of grain. We are
talking about the sale of grain which brings their income. These
are the farmers who, as I was saying when I was so kindly
interrupted, are at large risk because they do not have the cash
flow to sustain their operations.
I do not know whether there are many members in the House who
have had that experience. I have. I grew up on a farm. My
father bought it. It was really tough in the 1930s when he got
into farming. There were a number of years when he had no
income, and if it was not for the fact that we kids did not eat
very much I think he would have gone bankrupt. We saved him, and
hon. members can see that later on we made up for it. It is
certainly true that it is very, very tough to be a farmer.
These farmers are now facing the cost of putting in their crops
for the coming year. They just had notice that the cost of fuel
is going up substantially. They have all sorts of crunches, and
at the same time we have a small group of people who, because of
this government's failure to reach a contract with them, feel
that they are forced or obligated to hold rotating strikes to
press their particular issue. This is so unfortunate. It comes
at such a bad time.
As a matter of fact, I do not think there ever is a good time
for a strike or a labour conflict. It really is better if we can
work together, bargain in good faith, come to agreements and
motor on.
About 20 years ago a friend and I had a little business. It
happened to be a dairy business. We had about 50 cows, or a
little more, and we milked them morning and night, seven days a
week. We never took Christmas Day or Easter off because when one
has a dairy operation it demands one's attention every day,
without fail. Whether one is sick or not, it does not matter;
one has to look after the cows or they will not maintain their
health. They need to be milked every day.
What happened? There was a strike at the dairy which picked up
our milk. Suddenly, just like that, the truck did not come to
empty our big chrome-plated tank of milk every day. We ended up
putting 5,000 gallons of milk down the drain every other day. We
lost our income and we really had a tough time. It set us back
fantastically. It was simply because they did not have an
agreement. It was a tremendous hit for us.
2215
We have an obligation to each other. Often we hear in the House,
particularly from the Liberals that we are such a compassionate
society. I agree. We need to work very hard and care for and
look after each other. There are times when we are in conflict.
Sometimes our rights conflict and collide with the rights of
others and desperately so.
I know it is essentially impossible to reach but there should be
times when labour unions and others say, “We know we are
entitled to this but we cannot let these other people down and
put them at risk to that extent”. I think that is a breakdown.
Right now I am putting the blame on the unions but I am also
putting the blame on the employer, in this case the Government of
Canada.
I had a great meeting with one of the PSAC members last
Saturday. I am told it is their opinion that the government has
not bargained in good faith. They have some requests, some
demands, some positions they want in their new contract and the
government is just saying nyet. The government is refusing. By
the way, for the translator who needs to put it into English,
nyet is Russian. The government is saying it will not do it.
The union wants to have the same salary for the different
classifications across Canada or at least some move toward that.
That does not seem to be terribly unreasonable to me. As the
hon. member opposite has said, the government did move partially
toward that. Perhaps it is part of a process. Maybe the unions
should be a little more patient and say that it got a little bit
this time and next time it will get a little more.
It is a required process. We need to consider what our actions
mean to others. This Liberal government has to think of what
this action means. It has already talked about the implications
for thousands of Canadians who are waiting for their income tax
refunds. The government needs to think very hard about what this
means to the prairie grain farmers. We have emphasized it so much
in the last four or five months. It has been a tremendously
difficult crunch for them.
There is an attachment to the land. When one farms the same
property, as my family has done now for over 60 years, one gets
very close to the soil. I often think that I can empathize with
the natives of our country who identify with the land. Some of
us come to this part of the country, we cover it with concrete
and asphalt and we do not get close to the land.
My dad is 87 years old and he still gets excited every time the
harvest comes off. He still goes out every day to the farm
during seeding and harvesting to see how the boys are doing and
what is going on. He would love to drive the tractor but
unfortunately with the huge equipment nowadays that is not always
possible because it takes considerable skill. He has a great
interest in this. It is devastating to families, to people like
my brother and my dad, to even contemplate that their business
operation is so threatened that they may lose what is theirs and
what they have worked for, for now into the third generation.
I want to share an experience I had. I have indicated many
times in the House that I worked as a mathematics instructor at
the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology. In 1982 the
institute went from being governed by the government directly to
being operated by a board of governors. My colleagues honoured
me by electing me as the founding chairman of the staff
association. My responsibilities were to get the organization up
and running, build a constitution that worked and all those
things. We also had our first collective agreement.
As a matter of fact after serving for five years, my gift, my
token, my memento of that five years of service was a beautiful
work of wood art. One of the members of our woodworking section
handcrafted a copy of the first collective agreement with our
signatures on it.
That sits on our coffee table with great pride.
2220
I want to say something about that first agreement. Before we
were under a board of governors, we were forced members of the
Alberta Union of Provincial Employees. As professional staff,
most of us would have chosen not to be under that union but we
were obligated because we were civil servants of the province of
Alberta. We did not like some of the things that happened. We
thought that the union was sometimes unresponsive to us. When we
formed our own staff association, we said one of the things that
we were going to solve right at the beginning was the problem of
dispute resolution.
There are two levels of dispute resolution when it comes to
labour agreements. One is the ongoing one, where members who are
under the collective agreement feel that they are not being
treated fairly under the terms of that agreement. That usually
yields a grievance or some other mechanism to try to solve that
difference of opinion. The other area in which there is room for
the correction of a disagreement is the negotiation process
itself.
When an agreement cannot be reached in negotiations and hence an
agreement cannot be signed, the old-fashioned way in Canada and
in much of the western world is for the unions to withhold their
services. They go on strike and force the hand of the other
side.
In the case of industrial businesses and manufacturing plants
there is a tremendous economic loss to the employer. In the case
of educators, there is usually a gain to the employers when the
employees go on strike. The employers save the money of the
salaries when the employees are on strike and invariably the
students catch up on their studies later on.
We argued that because we were in an educational institute, it
was to the advantage of the employer if we went on strike and it
did not force the employer's hand so could we come up with
something better. I am very proud to say, and I think I had some
leadership influence, that some very fine people worked on that
original collective agreement. One of them was a guy by the name
of Percy Bell. There were others as well but Percy in particular
really leaned into the problem.
In our first collective agreement we had a provision that took
away our right to strike. Many people in the union camp would say
that was a huge error, but the fact is it was done by mutual
consent. It was not forced by one side. We were able to
persuade our members that under that regime we would be better
off than if we were to have the right to strike.
We built into our collective agreement a very rigid process for
resolution of a dispute at the time of contract negotiations. It
was right down to the day. I do not remember the details but we
said that so many days before the expiry of the contract each
party had to present their opening positions, which clauses of
the contract they wanted to open. Two weeks later they would
give their positions on those contracts. There was a time line
for arranging for meetings. There was a time line on how
frequently those meetings could be held when people were named to
meet and so on. It was all spelled out in the agreement.
I am proud to announce that it worked very well, at first. Now
I will drop the bombshell. For the most part over the years the
Government of Alberta has been a good government. Unfortunately,
the government threw a monkey wrench into this process. We
usually had a collective agreement before the old one expired. We
would come to an agreement. There was no arbitration. There was
no mediation, but when it finally came to that, we had the time
lines set out for naming a mediator and the mediator's decision
was binding and final. It was all spelled out.
2225
What happened was the Alberta government made a mistake. It
passed into its labour legislation a little clause that said that
in the event that an arbitrator or a mediator is required to make
a decision on a collective agreement, he is required to take into
account government policy. That annoyed me because it totally
skewed and really nullified a very good process.
What happened was that before the negotiations began, the
government would simply make an announcement. For example, it
would simply say that this year its policy was no raises more
than 2%. We then knew that if we ever went into arbitration we
would get 2% because the arbitrator was obligated to take into
account that government policy.
That was a very unwise decision because it took away from the
process the element of fairness which makes it trustworthy.
I wish we could do that with the post office and with PSAC. I
wish we had a better way of resolving a dispute in the final
agreement than simply clawing at each other with the power of
strikes and all of the bad feelings that generates, the impasses
which are brought along and the tremendous implications to so
many innocent bystanders, like the farmers or the people waiting
for their income tax refunds. It is long overdue.
I am very proud to say that one of the reasons I like the Reform
Party and its policies is that in our policy for labour
management we are promoting the idea of final offer binding
arbitration. It is a mechanism which I am absolutely convinced
will work because I have been in an environment where it did
work.
I emphasize that it needs to be brought into being by consensus
and not by a forced vote. A convincing case needs to be put
forward to both sides that they would be better off under that
regime than under a strike regime. If they buy into it and
accept it, then it will work because the parties will be amenable
to it. If they have agreed to it, they will make it work. If it
is imposed on them, they will not.
I am so dead set against the high-handed government imposing its
will on workers and other citizens simply by pulling the string
of a majority government. It is wrong, anti-democratic and does
not serve the best needs of Canadians.
When we come to the vote, we are asking to get the show on the
road. I regret to say this but unfortunately I think it is
necessary to get these people back to work while we solve this
problem. However, I for one am not going to rest until we have a
long term solution so we do not have this problem recurring over
and over again. There is a better way.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to mention that the hon. member for Halifax West and I will
be splitting our time.
Before I begin my discussion on this bill, I want to wish happy
birthday to Whitney, the 17 year old daughter of the member for
Mississauga South. Hopefully, we can have her father home
sometime in the next few days to spend her birthday with her.
The issue we have been discussing is one of extreme importance.
Sometimes in this House we tend to take for granted some of the
things that greatly affect the lives of individual Canadians. We
forget what we are doing to the workers and individual Canadians
as people. We forget the effect we have on their lives in some
of the actions we take.
That is what is happening today. The government is invoking
back to work legislation. Make no bones about it. In essence,
we are taking away the democratic right of individual Canadian
workers to fair and collective bargaining and the result of
collective bargaining.
The government will argue that it was backed into a corner and
that Canadians are being held hostage.
They would only be held hostage if they were taken somewhere,
carted off into a corner and nobody gave them a chance to get
out. The bottom line is that the government is not a hostage and
Canadians are not hostages. The government willingly created the
situation we are dealing with today.
2230
In 1997 the government through legislation removed the
possibility of binding arbitration. It vehemently indicated
through this measure that the workers had to get back to work.
Numerous Reform and Liberal members say that the farmers are
suffering because of the workers.
The New Democratic Party and other members, as well as the
workers, are made out to be enemies of farmers. What needs to be
emphasized is that those workers gladly asked to be under the
Canada Labour Code. Canadians need to know that grain weighers
wanted to be under the Canada Labour Code and the government
refused to let them be. Under the changes that took place to the
Canada Labour Code in Bill C-19 they would not have been in this
situation. They would have been working. The bottom line is that
the Liberal government did not make any effort to allow those
workers to be under the Canada Labour Code. That would have ended
the whole situation of today. If we want to put blame, let us
put the blame where it should be.
Let us talk about the other issues and the other workers that
fall into this area. We must understand that when it comes to
farmers and grain movement that did not have to happen.
Correctional workers and guards, those who are not on strike, are
being ordered back to work in the legislation. Where is their
right to the free and democratic collective bargaining process?
It does not exist with the government.
As each and every Liberal on that side of the House votes in the
next few hours, let them remember that every vote they make
stomps out the democratic rights of thousands of workers in
Canada. That is the picture the government is portraying to all
business in Canada and worldwide.
The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas was very eloquent in his
comments that we are looked upon as an example of how labour
action should take place, how collective bargaining should
happen. Canada sells itself as a great place in that regard.
What has been done today sets that back. No longer can we say
look at us, we know how to do things. We are not perfect but we
have processes in place that are beneficial and right for all
Canadians, for workers, and ultimately for the benefit of
society.
There is no question that the correctional workers who are not
even on strike are being stomped on totally. The collective
bargaining process was used with the postal workers and in many
other instances. There was back to work legislation but they
still had the right to conciliation, to work toward an agreement.
That is not the case here. Heavens no. We have gone a step
further. It is not just back to work and then a conciliation
officer working with them. Even if they have not come up with an
agreement yet, the bottom line is that we have allowed the
bargaining process to take place, which is not happening here.
The government has gone a decade or two or three back in working
relationships and labour relations by not allowing a conciliation
process to take place with those workers. It has now imposed the
entire contract on them with no conciliation process.
Next I will discuss regional rates of pay. I wonder if any
member of the House could justify why it is okay for members of
parliament from Sydney, Nova Scotia, Halifax and Charlottetown,
or the solicitor general from P.E.I., to feel that they should be
making less than the member for Mississauga South simply because
of regional rates of pay.
2235
Is that fair? Do they believe that east coast people and people
in Saskatchewan should be paid less? If they believe that then
each and every one of them should stand and say they should be
giving the difference back to the Canadian people. Otherwise
they should be opposing regional rates of pay. Each and every
member that supports the bill tonight is saying that regional
rates of pay are okay. If they really believe that they should
put their money where their mouths are.
I would love to have more time to deal with this issue, but
since I am splitting my time with my hon. colleague I will allow
him to speak.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I too
am pleased to have the opportunity tonight to address this issue.
We are dealing with a motion concerning the disposition of a bill
regarding the resumption of government services.
The motion speaks about Bill C-76 which in essence is back to
work legislation that takes away from employees their legal right
to strike. We are very concerned about this kind of legislation.
Over the years employees have fought long and hard for ways to
enhance their situation to make sure they are not dealt with
unfairly. One of those ways is the right to strike if they are
not being treated fairly. Now the legislation forces them to
abandon that particular avenue of redress.
The interesting part is that we are dealing with a legal strike
involving about 14,000 blue collar workers across our country,
1,500 of them being in Atlantic Canada. This is very significant
for Atlantic Canadians.
Why are these workers striking in the first place? Many people
have spoken about what has taken place and why these workers are
striking. It has been mentioned over and over again that
regional rates of pay is one of the key issues. It is of
particular concern to Atlantic Canadians. Far too often we on
the east coast find that we are receiving less than those in
other parts of the country. Regional disparity is reinforced by
regional rates of pay.
Right from the outset of the strike, members of the public in my
constituency were calling and supporting the workers. They could
not understand why the government could not see that it was
patently unfair to have different rates of pay across the country
for basically the same work.
It was interesting to note that the President of the Treasury
Board stood on one occasion in the House to mention that MPs had
different rates of pay. That was not true. MPs do not have
different rates of pay. We all have the same basic pay. We may
receive different budgets for operating our offices depending on
where the constituency is located, but we all receive the same
basic level of pay.
Therefore it is very difficult to understand why the government
cannot understand how unfair it is to workers who are working day
in and day out to put bread on their tables at a much lower wage
than many other people are receiving in the country.
Why are we opposed to closure and time allocation? We are
opposed because they take away the right of parliament to fully
debate an issue. The government has seen fit on many occasions
to use these tactics to draw to a conclusion issues that should
be more fully discussed and debated so the public will have the
benefit of knowing that its views are put forth through its
elected representatives.
The government is not serious about allowing full debate or full
examination on a lot of issues. The government is not serious
about finding positive solutions to many of the problems facing
society. This is particularly true in Atlantic Canada. Quite
often we see situations within our constituencies that call for
solutions. The solutions are pretty simple if there is a will to
get to the answer. Far too often the government is not willing
to resolve such issues.
I think for example of the issue of pay equity. We see people
who are owed money because they have not been paid fairly. It
has gone through several levels of adjudication and rulings have
been made. Yet the government is not hurrying to end the issue.
The government seems to be in a great haste to bring an end to
this strike and resolve the issue we are now facing, but there
are many issues that it seems to be very slow in bringing to a
conclusion. Pay equity is one of them.
2240
I recognize how much Atlantic Canada could benefit from a very
positive and constructive national shipbuilding policy. We do
not have such a policy and the government is not in any hurry to
bring about a policy which will enable the trained labour force
in our area to take advantage of its skills and come forth with a
strong shipbuilding industry.
Let us look at the replacement of the Sea King helicopters. We
see incident after incident where these helicopters are causing
people concern. Accidents are taking place yet we are constantly
told that it will be dealt with and a strategy will be brought
forth in due course. We do not see the haste and urgency being
displayed tonight surrounding this strike when it comes to such
an important issue for our military and for our country as
replacement of these search and rescue helicopters.
We can look at instances where industries are closing down in
different areas. Not too long ago in my home riding of Halifax
West the Volvo plant closed down, putting many people out of
work. I have communicated with the government about trying to
assist in finding an answer to the problem and trying to
encourage new industry to come in to replace the plant that
closed down. However there has been nothing but silence from the
other side. We do not see that kind of urgency around problems
that should be addressed. Yet we see it when it comes to
depriving workers of their right to strike and their right to a
fair and decent wage.
We do not see any urgency on the part of the government in
dealing with the Devco situation where many miners are out of
work or will soon be out of work. They are looking for fairness
and a settlement that will enable them to carry on with their
lives. We do not see any great plans taking place with respect
to economic development for many depressed areas of the country.
The government picks and chooses its priorities when it wants to
come in full force and find a quick and easy solution.
There is a small black community in the riding in which I live
inhabited by a lot of elderly people and a lot of young people.
That community does not even have a central water supply to
provide them with safe and clean drinking water. I have been
struggling now for months on end to try to see what kind of help
could be forthcoming from the federal government to assist the
community in having a supply of good drinking water. The results
are pretty pitiful thus far, but I will not give up.
I will continue pushing on this issue. If the government can
move with the kind of haste we see tonight to bring an end to a
legal strike and to bring an end to legitimate action that
workers have taken to try to resolve their situation, it can move
with the same kind of speed, interest and willingness to resolve
an issue facing a community that has struggled for years and
years to overcome discrimination. It has fought to maintain its
place in society and it cannot even get hooked up to a water
supply in an adjacent community.
That kind of thing causes me to wonder where government
priorities are. It gives me great concern when I see grants
being given to organizations to produce senseless books with
jokes about females and such activities taking place and being
supported by the government. That is tied in with the same
concern I have about the action being taken here.
It is very important as we deal with these issues to deal with
them from the point of view of asking ourselves whether we are
treating people in the manner that we would like people to treat
us. If we use that rule in our dealings with other people we
will always find the right answer. We should treat other people
in the same way we would want them to treat us. That should be
our guide no matter what we are doing. Whether we are passing
back to work legislation or looking for solutions to other
problems, we should always ask ourselves if this is the way we
would want to be treated ourselves and use that as a guide as we
move forward.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, would you allow me to take part in
this debate? I draw your attention to the fact that Bloc
Quebecois members have not spoken for a long time.
2245
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve is quite correct. The purpose of the
debate of course is to have one side heard and then the other
side. Over the course of the evening, in the last three hours,
there has been one Liberal, there have been many Blocs, many NDP
and some Reform. Right now we are hearing from the member for
Vancouver—Quadra.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I had not intended to enter this august Chamber tonight to speak,
but I was moved to tears by the splendid orations, Ciceronian in
style, and I think we are all indebted to the member for Elk
Island for that moving account of life on the prairies in an
earlier age. His eloquence swept across the House. I can assure
him that outside the Chamber grown men and women deputies were in
tears. It was a moving and eloquent address. We are all
indebted to him and we can assure him that the northern provinces
of Canada, the northern regions of our western provinces, did him
right when they gave him this hand-carved statement, the
constitution of his association, which he founded and upon which
he left his imprint, his style, his personality. It stands on
his coffee table, as he said, as a constant reminder of what it
is to be a Canadian.
One reads the rules, one studies what is carved, if not in
stone, carved in wood, and one provides inspiration for
generations of children.
This may not be mathematics in the new style, but it is
certainly mathematics in the old style, back to the 19th century.
We are indebted to the member for Elk Island.
Mr. Speaker, you were very indulgent to him because you were
also I think moved by his oratory. I distinctly heard him utter
words—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Speaker should
point out to the hon. member for Vancouver—Quadra that the
Speaker is a graduate of the Northern Alberta Institute of
Technology and certainly would allow a great deal of latitude
when it comes to the laud of that fine institution.
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, when I heard him utter
those forbidden words I remembered “Nyet. Sdez on ne govorut po
russki”, but you allowed him the indulgence because oratory is
so rare in this Chamber. We mumble our words and we perhaps are
lulled to sleep by a monotonous cacophony of sounds, usually from
the opposition, but sometimes even from this side.
The reminder of the 19th century drew me back to Mr. Justice
Oliver Wendell Holmes, a household word for many people. Mr.
Justice Holmes uttered the well known words upon businesses
affected with the public interest.
I think we should perhaps examine the concept of rights of
society, rights of individuals, rights of associations in a
contemporary context.
What were the businesses affected with the public interest? Mr.
Justice Holmes referred to people by these honourable
professions: lock keepers; innkeepers. There is a distinction:
people who conducted ferries; people who conducted rooming
houses, not gaming houses; all of these objects. But the kernel
of all this was that this was an area where state and the
individual in society were in collision and rules and regulations
were required. So I suppose one of the larger areas in which we
could have benefited from northern Alberta's or northern
Saskatchewan's learning was where to draw the line in these
particular cases.
Businesses affected with the public interest have their own
regime, their own regulations and certain privileges and
immunities that the general public do not have. I suppose that
is one of the issues for our society today, the growing public
domain. Some would say it is too large. We think on this side
of the House that we have the right balance. But nevertheless,
are there privileges, are there immunities that ordinary citizens
do not have? Is there, in that sense, an implied social contract
to accept the continuance in work, even under conditions which
would not be tolerated in a purely private domain?
2250
It is a resolution that modern jurists, trained in the concept
of balancing interests, balancing community interests, balancing
individual interests, know that decisions can only be rendered in
the context of specific cases. I think in this sense I would
have preferred more argument on the other side of the House
addressed to this issue.
I am getting this in letters and communications to me, and I
have asked myself professionally, for example: Should
teachers be allowed to strike? Should university professors be
allowed to strike? Should nurses? Should doctors? Should
people who perform essential services? I think we do need, in
terms of defining a new social contract for the new millennium,
to have an extended debate on issues such as this in the give and
take to which this House is accustomed. I do not believe we have
heard it tonight. I think that is a pity because an opportunity,
at some length, has been lost.
I am reminded again of a point that was discussed with—can I
say some heat—by the member for Elk Island and by members on his
side of the House. It seems to me that some of the hon. members
opposite were saying that they were barred from access to this
House. None of us would attempt to bar the member for Elk Island
from access to this House. That would be a formidable
confrontation and we would certainly want to avoid it.
Nevertheless, in the 16th century the great preoccupation of
parliamentarians was resisting people who tried to bar their
access to parliament. It was the king and the king's courtiers
and others, the commoner, rushing to the House who might
never arrive.
In the Polish parliament it was said, because they had the
strange concept of the liberum veto, that a single negative vote
was enough to prevent any decision being made. The only thing to
do was to apply the word that the member for Elk Island uttered
so eloquently, nyet. However, before he could utter nyet and
veto, they would lop off his head. The liberum veto, as late as
the 18th century and the third partition of Poland, had its
necessary corrective, the right to cut off heads. It is an old
Polish custom, but I was reminded of it when I heard the eloquent
speeches opposite of how members were barred from coming to
parliament.
I once gave an opinion, free of charge I must say, to a member
of the other house. Why do so many of us cast stones against
that other house? I once visited the chambers, the rooms, the
offices of members of the Senate and I saw those red carpets.
Ours are green. The grass is green. When we visit the offices
of the Senate we see that beautiful red plush velvet. I was
overcome by a senator who embraced me and said “Somebody has
committed a crime worse than death in relation to me”. I asked
“What have they done?” The senator said “They tried to serve
a process on a senator in the house”. Serving a process in the
House, is that an impediment to the efficient conduct of a
parliamentarian's work? Speakers of the House have been known to
scribble notes during the hearings of the House. It has been
observed. Is it an impediment to a member's or a senator's
function to be served with a traffic ticket violation by a police
officer?
I was appalled when I heard this. I empathized with the senator
concerned, one of our most attractive senators. We discussed
alternative, more moderate controls, to take a further step beyond
Mr. Justice Holmes.
We do agree that senators are not above the law, that senators
are subject to the principle of equality before the law.
Senators should pay their traffic violation tickets too. But are
they effectively to be immunized from this equality before the
law because they cannot be served?
I think looking for a pragmatic resolution to this problem, Mr.
Speaker, you would examine the issue: Are there alternative
methods of service of summons?
2255
The suggestion I made to the hon. senator was that she make
herself available to be served in her residence or in her taxi
coming to the Senate, but not in the Senate itself. The
principle was an inviolate one. The House cannot be used for
service of ordinary legal processes. A member cannot be arrested
in the House. That is why I come back to the 16th century.
I sympathize with those who felt on a picket line that they were
polite and maybe a member was not polite. Nevertheless, the
inviolability established against an arbitrary king, a sovereign
king who said “I am king and I am above the law”, was that he
could not bar members from coming to parliament. When King James
I said to Sir Edward Cook “You say I am subject to the law. Mr.
Chief Justice, I am above the law. I am the source of
sovereignty”, Chief Justice Cook replied in the eloquent phrase
“Non sub homine sed sub Deo et lege”; not subject to God but
subject to the law of the land. That is a very eloquent
principle.
The member for Elk Island could well counsel his colleagues with
the wisdom that comes from the accumulated experience in northern
Saskatchewan. In those long winter nights he could say they are
also subject to the law. The more moderate control in this case
would be to advise the member for Elk Island's colleagues to step
nimbly around those obstructing their passage. The alternative,
more moderate control is that you can waltz around them. That is
the way. The member for Elk Island would agree with me. He
could exercise a skater's waltz around the obstruction.
If we have solved this problem of sanctity of parliament that
members cannot be barred from coming to the Hill, it is worse now
than the offences of the 16th century committed against
parliament because then parliament had the remedy. It had its
dungeons and it cast the miscreants into the dungeons. There is
a case to be made for cleaning the dungeons, cleaning the Augean
Stables. Let us have access to those dungeons. We can protect
the member for Elk Island. We can protect his colleagues and his
cohorts from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment on the way to the
House. Bring back the dungeons.
It occurs to me that in considering this matter at this stage of
the evening we have to study the old precedents. We have to
reject, as the member for Elk Island would in his Ciceronian
tones, the notion that all of the past is bad. We can learn from
the past.
Mr. Speaker, you and I watched the Academy Awards two nights
ago. We saw the resurrection of Queen Elizabeth in two
personalities. We saw the past as beautiful. Life is beautiful.
We do not expect the member for Elk Island to imitate La Vita
é Bella and to dance on the backs of chairs. But we do expect
from all members of the House respect for the past, respect for
precedents, but in a very dynamic sense the interpretation of
precedents in a creative way that responds to our expanding
destiny for the new millennium. The time is with us. The new
millennium is arriving.
To examine the dilemma of how to balance the conflicting
interests in this period of rapid change, the societal interest,
the individual interest, is the question. What is the answer?
It calls for Solomonic judgment and the answers are to be found
in those hidden valleys in northern Saskatchewan.
I ask the hon. member from the Trent University area, are there
not hidden valleys in his original native land? There are parts
of Wales that have not been visited since the Romans were there.
People in these lost valleys have the virtues of yesterday. They
have the old values.
They have all the things that we depend on to build and
maintain—
2300
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Laurier said that the 20th century
belongs to Canada. The 21st century belongs to the member for
Elk Island and people with old-fashioned values. We will join
him in preserving them. We will join him in reviving the
dungeons, cleaning the Augean stables, throwing in those who
would stand in the way of parliamentary privilege, throwing in
those who would serve a writ on a Senator in this parliament
building; intolerable, sir, and a taint to our privileges and
immunities.
I take the opportunity to have a discussion on Senate reform.
We respect our co-ordinate institution. We love the Senate and
the senators. We are waiting only for the rebuilding of this
House to occupy those offices in that end of the building, to
remove the red carpets, to introduce—
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. As always, I want to thank the Liberal Party for the
standing ovation every time I get up to speak. I do wish to
remind the member for Vancouver Quadra that he was the one who
voted against his own members—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is not a point
of order but all hon. members will be pleased to remember that
everything we say here is in Hansard and will be there to
be read tomorrow.
The member for Vancouver Quadra has about 30 seconds left.
Mr. Ted McWhinney: We would say to all those who are here
that we are celebrating this House, its august traditions. One's
understanding is there is an arrangement on both sides of the
House. We have exercised it to the full. We are voting
according to our conscience. We respect the opposition. We
would all like to get home early of course, but nevertheless we
play our part. All of us may qualify for an academy award next
year.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
In a spirit of camaraderie, I seek unanimous consent to speak
for 20 minutes.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the member to
speak?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: It being 11.05 p.m., it is my duty to
interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question
necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.
2305
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
2335
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anders
| Assad
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brown
| Bryden
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casson
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| Cummins
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Epp
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lincoln
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
| Redman
|
Reed
| Reynolds
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Wood
– 159
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Brien
| Brison
|
Cardin
| Casey
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Forseth
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hardy
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Loubier
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Marceau
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Muise
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Power
| Price
| Proctor
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
Stoffer
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis – 63
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Assadourian
| Bulte
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Folco
| Fournier
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Lefebvre
| Longfield
|
Patry
| Perron
| Pratt
| Sauvageau
|
Speller
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Venne
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
[Translation]
SECOND READING
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved that Bill C-76, an
act to provide for the resumption and continuation of government
services, be read the second time and referred to committee of
the whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the bill to provide
for the resumption and continuation of government services. But
I would first like to say that the government's calls to reason
have been heard.
I am extremely pleased to inform the House that the joint
efforts of our negotiators and those of the Public Service
Alliance of Canada have resulted this evening in an agreement in
principle for the 14,000 blue collar workers—
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
Hon. Marcel Massé: To confirm this, I am extremely
pleased to report to the House that this evening—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
[Translation]
I know that all members want to hear what the President of the
Treasury Board has to say.
[English]
Hon. Marcel Massé: I am extremely pleased to report to
the House this evening that as of just a few hours ago and with
much effort on the part of the government and union negotiators,
we have reached a tentative agreement for striking blue collar
workers.
2340
[Translation]
I think this agreement in principle is fair and generous. I
have always said that negotiation was our preferred solution,
and I have the proof in my hand. Our determination to act in
the interests of taxpayers, while respecting the interests of
our employees, has borne fruit.
This last-minute agreement must not, however, sidetrack us from
the reasons we are sitting at such a late hour. Canadians
throughout the country have been the victims of rotating strikes
by PSAC members for ten weeks now.
Not only do the effects of these strikes concern the government
but they were the subject of an emergency debate in the House
last week.
This agreement in principle does not guarantee that the strikes
will end. Union members can ratify or reject this agreement.
That is the price to be paid for respecting the right to strike,
a democratic right that is part of the collective bargaining
process.
A responsible government cannot, however, wait for the decision
of union members and we must therefore continue our efforts to
ensure Canadians the return to the normal federal government
services provided by blue collar workers and the maintenance of
those services provided by correctional officers in Canadian
penitentiaries.
In recent months, the Treasury Board Secretariat has signed
numerous collective agreements with over 87% of its employees.
The Government of Canada has shown on many occasions, including
this evening, that it respects the collective bargaining
process. This evening, the government is asking parliament to
force its 14,000 blue collar workers to go back to work and to
accept a collective agreement.
We are also asking parliament to adopt measures that might be
necessary to ensure that the some 4,500 correctional officers
remain at work and resume negotiating as soon as possible.
We want to avoid a strike and the absence of functional
correctional services, which would pose a threat to the safety
of inmates and Canadians.
The decision to request parliament's authorization to impose
special legislation was not made impulsively. In fact, it is an
agreement that will allow us to ensure the operation and
maintenance of government buildings and of health services in
federal institutions.
After 10 weeks, the impact of these walkouts on Canadians and on
government operations is being felt.
[English]
Canadians as much as the government can no longer accept that
passenger travel continues to be disrupted in the country's
airports. We cannot accept either that tax and GST collections
have become so much more difficult. This House should know that
one million taxpayers will experience delays in their tax refunds
because of these strikes.
[Translation]
Put simply, many low income families and many small businesses
will have to wait for the refunds to which they are entitled and
for which they have an urgent need.
This is not to mention the most vulnerable in our society who,
every year, rely on the free services provided by Revenue
Canada's tax clinics. The rotating strikes have prevented many
Canadians from having access to these services.
[English]
The operations of national defence, the coast guard and public
works have been considerably disrupted by picket lines and the
withdrawal of services by these workers.
[Translation]
The strike also affects our grain exports, thus threatening an
important sector of the Canadian economy, and also our
international trade relations. In the port of Vancouver, dozens
of ships are waiting to be loaded—
[English]
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The government knew a couple of hours ago apparently that it had
a settlement. The minister is standing in the House speaking
about the settlement.
What I would like to know is if there is anybody today, right
now, on job action. If that is not the case, I would like the
minister to—
2345
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. House leader for the
official opposition may have an excellent question but this is
not the time for questions and comments. This is debate and the
minister has the floor. I am afraid that is not a point of
order.
[Translation]
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Speaker, in Vancouver harbour, scores of
ships are sitting idle, waiting to be loaded, which translates
into expenses in the millions of dollars in each case. The
impact of this situation on western farmers is very serious,
since they can no longer move their grain to foreign markets.
Farmers cannot afford such losses and bear the negative
consequences of the strike any longer.
The situation is so serious that the president of the
Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, the biggest farmers co-operative in the
country asked—
[English]
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Is this settlement agreed upon or is it not?
The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. The
minister is making a speech on second reading of this bill. He
is entitled to do so and I invite hon. members to allow him to
conclude his remarks.
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Speaker, if there has been an
agreement it does not mean that it will be ratified,
unfortunately. That means that there has been an agreement at the
level of the negotiators and if we want to stop the strikes, if
we want to ensure the movement of grain, we have to pass this
law. Ratification may take a number of weeks. It may be
rejected by the workers. What we want to stop is the movements
that have been taken by the strikers in blocking the movement of
grain. I am sure farmers in the west understand that situation.
The Canadian Wheat Board has revealed that it has lost sales
worth millions of dollars because the delivery of the grain could
not be ensured. At present, unless the law is passed the
delivery of grain cannot be ensured.
[Translation]
If parliament does not authorize the government to force workers
back to work, we might lose further contracts abroad.
This in turn would cause job losses in Canada, and tarnish our
international reputation in a world where prosperity depends on
foreign trade.
[English]
Increased tensions on the picket lines have resulted on
occasion—
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would like to know from this government whether or not there
has been agreement to stop job action.
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid the hon. member is out of
order. The minister is making a speech on a bill. The member is
asking questions. He is not raising a point of order. I would
ask him to please refrain from interrupting so that we can get on
with the debate.
Hon. Marcel Massé: In the public interest, Mr. Speaker,
the government must exercise its responsibilities with concern
both for the principles that underline healthy labour relations
and for sound management of the country's affairs. This is a
delicate balance that pits respect for a bargaining process we
believe in against the need to ensure the common good.
[Translation]
The dispute between the employer and the correctional group is
of a different nature and represents a particularly worrisome
threat to public safety.
Without an agreement on the number of correctional officers
necessary to maintain order in federal institutions, the
government can no longer ensure the safety of both inmates and
employees working in these institutions.
The government has the obligation to protect the safety of the
public, but I would also like to stress the moral obligation of
the union with regard to the common good and the protection of
Canadians. This is why this legislation must be implemented even
if we have reached an agreement with the negotiators.
[English]
With the agreement we have with the negotiators, while it
ensures that if it is ratified the situation is solved, we cannot
say that at present and the only way to prevent the strikes from
affecting the movement of grain is to pass this law.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would like to seek the unanimous of the House to have questions
and comments of the minister.
2350
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is obvious the President of the Treasury Board has
reached an agreement that none of us were made aware of as these
proceedings were going along. This is indicative of the process
of negotiations over the past two or three months, in fact, over
the past two or three years. Canadians are kept in the dark along
with the union negotiators.
While there may be an agreement in principle, the minister
clearly did not indicate to me that this covered all the
bargaining tables, the blue collar workers and the corrections
workers. No one is left uncovered by this agreement in
principle. That was not totally clear to us in this House. A
bit of discussion with the House leaders before announcing it
would have made all the difference in proceeding smoothly tonight
and getting on with this business of getting the workers back on
the job.
Up to this point no minister on that side of the House has stood
up and said “I am responsible for the mess that we find
ourselves in today. I am responsible for the negotiations that
did not happen. I am responsible for not coming to an agreement
before we got into an emergency debate and got into back to work
legislation” which no one in the country wanted to see except
the government.
We are left in the situation of looking at faulty back to work
legislation tonight. There was a simple solution available to
this government and that was to bring in back to work legislation
with final offer selection arbitration as part of the terms.
What we have is back to work legislation which will impose an
interim settlement penalizing the workers from the position the
government had last offered; i.e., they were going to have lower
pay and the question of increments was not covered.
What we have here at this late time is a government trying to
poke and penalize the negotiators and the union people with whom
it will have to start renegotiating with tomorrow.
The President of the Treasury Board did not sound very confident
that it would not go through. We are left in the same situation
of not knowing what is going on. He said he has an agreement in
principle but only time will tell.
We will support this but only to ensure that farmers get their
grain moving and their income sustained and so workers can get
back to work. We will be bringing in amendments to this final
offer arbitration to rid of the dictative terms of this minister
and this government that are totally unsatisfactory to the union
people on whom he is imposing it.
We have had unanimous agreement to allow me to share my time and
I will be sharing it with the member for Wetaskiwin.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the
member to share his time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, being
a man of few words, I am sure I will not use the remaining 35
minutes.
2355
I have been looking forward to the debate here tonight but when
the minister comes into the House and makes an announcement as he
has—
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
It seems to me that my colleague from the Reform Party rose on a
point of order. You took his intervention as a point of order,
but it would appear that we have resumed debate without your
saying so and inviting the speakers to identify themselves.
Are we still on a point of order about the sharing of time or
have we resumed debate?
The Deputy Speaker: We have resumed debate, but there is a case
where time will be shared with the unanimous consent of the
House.
Mr. René Laurin: I have nothing against that, Mr. Speaker,
except that you never indicated to the House that we were
resuming debate.
The Deputy Speaker: We resumed debate because the member
indicated that the member for Wetaskiwin would use the rest of
his time, and that is why he has the floor.
[English]
Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if
the government was this close to coming to a resolution of the
problem in the beginning it is, to say the least, jumping the gun
to bring in back to work legislation.
I have said in the House I do not know how many times in the
last few days that this is no way to cement relationships with
staff. This is no way to work on labour relations, to bring in
back to work legislation when a tentative deal has been all but
hammered out and the government brings in back to work
legislation.
I suggest that is using the official opposition and everybody on
this side of the House in a very suspicious manner. I object
strenuously. This is a despicable move. Why is it done at this
late hour?
It would seem to me that the timing of all this is simply for
the convenience of the government since we will be on a two week
break and the minister thought it would be a perfect opportunity
to suck in the opposition parties and have them go through all
this terrible debate, spend all night here and well into the
morning, working on something the minister knew darn well was
nothing but a pressure tactic to make his agreement come to
fruition.
I still think it would be a great idea if we were able to
question the minister under these circumstances. I ask once
again for the unanimous consent of the House to have questions
and comments of the minister for 10 minutes.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its consent to
have questions and comments to the minister for 10 minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Dale Johnston: I noticed it was not the backbenchers
who said no but the minister himself who does not want to answer
any questions.
This puts an entirely different light on the situation. If we
have a tentative agreement hammered out between PSAC and the
Government of Canada, what are we doing here talking about back
to work legislation? Why are we not talking about final offer
selection arbitration or something that will—
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The hon. member asked if there would be consent to have
questions and comments to the minister for 10 minutes.
I have just verified with the minister that it certainly would
be acceptable to him, to give him an opportunity to further
expand on the answers he gave a while ago. For our part we would
be agreeable to that.
2400
The Deputy Speaker: I again ask the question. First, is
the hon. member for Wetaskiwin prepared to reiterate his request
because he has the floor. If so, are members prepared to give
consent to have a 10 minute period of questions and comments to
the minister? Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe this. We
have a party that says it stands for the working class, that it
is going to be the champions of the working class. Yet, it has
turned down an opportunity to question the very minister who is
in charge of the Public Service Alliance of Canada.
This puts a totally different light on the situation. We have a
situation where we are trying to legislate people back to work
who are at work. I cannot think of a more ridiculous situation
to find ourselves in. God knows we did not put ourselves in this
mess. We have been advocating final offer selection arbitration
as a means to settle disputes without having to go through the
pain and the agony of having to legislate people back to work.
We find ourselves in a position where we have to acquiesce and
legislate people back to work. The minister all the while has
been coming up with an agreement. He has had it for at least two
hours and did not bother to tell us about it. How do we know
that he has not had this agreement for longer than two hours? He
tells us it has been two hours but we have no way of knowing
that.
Lo and behold when the government agrees that we can question
the minister, the Bloc says no. It is unbelievable.
An hon. member: It is a credibility problem.
An hon. member: What do you know about credibility?
An hon. member: Pay attention. You will learn something
about credibility. Why are we here tonight?
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for
Wetaskiwin has the floor.
Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind a little
help. I am getting tremendous encouragement from my colleagues
and even some good words of advice.
We are going to have to completely rethink our position on this.
Things have completely changed from this morning when we started
debating this. If I were the House leader, I would be saying
that all bets are off at this moment. Things have changed
completely.
No wonder they say that Treasury Board does not bargain in good
faith. It does not deal with us in good faith.
I would like one more time to ask if there would be unanimous
consent for questions and comments of the minister.
The Deputy Speaker: We will do that in a moment. There
is a point of order from the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if there
has been a misunderstanding of the request that was made by the
hon. member from the Bloc from the Reform Party. Given some of
the commotion that was taking place at the time he made the
request, I would again ask for unanimous consent that the
minister be permitted to take questions for a defined period, 10
minutes or more. I ask that that be put to the House once again.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair is more than happy to keep
putting this question to the House. Might I remind hon. members
that on the motion by the minister that has been moved, assuming
it is carried, the House will go into committee of the whole
later on this bill. I have no doubt that the minister will be in
the committee of the whole and will be here to answer members'
questions in committee of the whole. I stress that that is still
a possibility and I remind the House of that.
I will put the question to the House again. Is there unanimous
consent that there be a 10 minute period of questions and
comments to the minister?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
2405
Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what I
am hearing.
I know when we get into committee of the whole we will get an
opportunity to speak on our amendments and to question the
minister. The time spent between now and when we do go into
committee of the whole may be a total waste of effort. If we were
to get some clarification from the minister at this point, if he
were to be forthright with us, we may be able to save ourselves a
whole lot of effort and time, if we were just able to ask the
minister some questions.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point
of order.
I am sorry and I am not challenging the Chair in any way but I
do not know who said no. It is my understanding that the
Liberals would like to allow the minister to—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The Chair does not wish to
ever put itself in the position of identifying who in the House
has said no. When hon. members seek consent, they may wish to
accuse others of having said no. It is not for the Chair to
intervene in this matter. The Chair put the question as I have
done four times this evening already on this issue. On every
occasion I have heard a no and I have never said where I heard it
from, and I will not. Other members may say so. I will not.
I heard a no and that was the end of it. The Chair tries to be
very attentive in these matters because we know that on occasion
we have been in trouble for having tried to put something through
when there has not been consent. I am very cognizant of the
wishes of hon. members in this regard. There have been nos. I
would prefer not to get into any of that discussion.
Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, just for old time's sake,
I would like to make my favourite point, the need for a permanent
dispute settlement mechanism rather than going through the agony
of legislating people back to work. Let us face it. If we go
through with this exercise and legislate these parties back to
work, parties who may or not be in a strike situation any longer,
we still have done nothing whatsoever about their contract. We
still have to have some sort of mechanism to deal with their
contract. Therefore, we need to have final offer selection
arbitration.
Having gotten in that commercial message, I would ask one more
time, maybe third time lucky, if we could have a 10 minute
question and comment period with the President of the Treasury
Board.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for a 10
minute question or comment period to the minister?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Before we start, is the hon. member
for Wetaskiwin finished his remarks or will it go back to him at
the conclusion of the 10 minute period?
Some hon. members: Back to him.
The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments to the
minister.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to know from the minister just when he
found out that there was a tentative agreement. At what time did
he know that?
I feel that the opposition in this House has been truly sucked
in by this government. Government members knew darn well there
was a tentative agreement coming and they set us up in this
House. They made an announcement as though we should stand here
and clap for them when they knew all along there was a tentative
agreement.
Why is there not cessation of job action when they have a
tentative agreement?
According to the Treasury Board official here in the back room,
he says that was not attained. I would like to know why it was
not. As far as I am concerned, this official opposition has some
real problems now with the integrity of what went on over there.
2410
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Speaker, I knew about the
agreement taking place at about 10.10 tonight. The agreement was
the result of difficult negotiations that have continued with the
blue collar workers. This afternoon I heard about the various
elements that were involved. I indicated that I was ready to
agree to the various contents. The negotiations took place
between our main negotiator and Daryl Bean's negotiators tonight
between 8 o'clock and 10 o'clock. I was told at 10.10 that they
had initiated an agreement.
The problem of course of having an agreement of that type is
that since we now have a negotiated collective agreement this is
what eventually, if it is ratified, must become the agreement
between the parties.
However, the possibility of the blue collar workers continuing
their strike is not only there but it was mentioned to us that it
was likely that it would continue because until that agreement,
which is an agreement between our representatives and those of
the union, is ratified by the membership, which may take one, two
or three weeks, the right to strike continues.
Therefore, we still need to pass the law as it is. I will
introduce amendments at the next stage with the possibility that
the collective agreement that we have just negotiated, if it is
ratified, will become the conditions of work with the parties.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what is going
on here tonight is very surprising. I will tell you that I
worked in the labour movement for 20 years and this is the first
time I see anything like this.
I said in my speech, and I will repeat it for the minister, that
this government has done all it could to push these 14,000
public servants to go on strike. It did all it could to provoke
this strike and it did all it could to crush it.
Now the minister is telling us that there is an agreement in
principle.
We all know that, when an agreement in principle is reached
under the sword of Damocles, when one is under the threat of
back to work legislation, usually that agreement in principle is
final.
Therefore, not only has the government succeeded in provoking
that strike, but it has used the House of Commons to apply extra
pressure on its employees. People say they agree, thinking they
can go back to work and everything will be settled, but that is
not so. Moreover, the government will even force these employees
to go back to work even though there is an agreement in
principle. I find this totally unacceptable.
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Speaker, you will have noted that there
are two groups of persons mentioned in this bill. The first are
the blue collar workers. I believe it is incorrect to say that,
if there is an agreement in principle, it is automatically
ratified because in the case of the prison guards there was an
agreement in principle with our negotiators and a recommendation
for acceptance by PSDAC, but then the employees rejected it.
This is an immediate example of non-ratification of an agreement
in principle.
Continuing, there are two groups of workers. The prison guards
are designated as essential, anyway, and as I have said, some
500 or 600 of them are not covered by the essential service
designation. Clearly they must be covered, and this is why we
must have the bill.
Since the rotating strikes cannot be stopped by agreement in
principle, the bill must be passed so as to put an immediate
stop to the rotating strikes.
2415
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question may seem quite similar. If the table two bargaining
group has reached a tentative agreement, and seeing as there is
an order from the new CIRB about the picketing on the west coast,
grain shipment is not a factor any more even if the table two
workers were to carry on any kind of a job action. Would it not
seem, then, that we are carrying on with the legislation for the
table four workers, the CX workers?
It seems to me that this is no longer back to work legislation.
This is legislation to designate the table four CX workers as an
essential service to take away the right to strike for any of the
corrections officers who are left there. Is it still back to
work legislation or is it designating these CX workers?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Speaker, the act is still
necessary for the CX workers. Once again, they should be
designated essential and they are not. We need back to work
legislation to prevent them from striking. It is still necessary
for blue collar workers, because the agreement in principle by
itself does not prevent them from striking. There have been
indications that they want to continue their rotating strikes
unless there is back to work legislation that prevents them from
striking.
Given the fact that they can still interrupt the movement of
grain, by the way all through the period until ratification and
continuously if it is not ratified by them, which is a
possibility, we therefore need back to work legislation.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question for the minister is very simple. Everyone here wants to
see farmers being able to ship their grain. How do you expect us
to support the legislation when you are standing here before us
tonight—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member will
address the Chair, please. The hon. member for South Shore will
please address the Chair.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, how does the minister
expect us to support the legislation when he stood before
parliament tonight and said he had negotiated in bad faith? He
has not negotiated in good faith. The question is simple.
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I
understand what the member means. We have been negotiating with
the union. We have been at the same table. We knew what the
differences were between the two of us and finally tonight at 10
o'clock we reached an agreement.
However, the agreement itself is an agreement in principle. If
it is not ratified the strikes can continue over time. Therefore
we need the act to prevent the strikes in the meantime, to
prevent the strikes if there is no ratification by the employees,
and to prevent a strike by the prison guards.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, seeing as that the President of the Treasury Board saw
fit to raise tonight that he and his government had an agreement
in principle, is he willing to table that agreement in principle
so that we can work with it tonight?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Speaker, I know that our
negotiators have initialled that agreement. I do not know if it
can be tabled tonight. We obviously have at least one copy that
has been initialled. I am not sure it is available. If it is,
we will produce it for the hon. member.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would like to ask for unanimous consent of the House to adjourn
until we get the tentative agreement.
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Speaker, I did not say that it
could be produced. I indicated that I would check if it could be
produced.
I have my main negotiator here. I can probably get the answer
in a few minutes. If it cannot be produced, it cannot be
produced.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to adjourn
until the document is produced?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of privilege to explain why I believe my
privileges and the privileges of the opposition parties in
general have been compromised this evening by this evening's
activities.
2420
Approximately an hour ago we were asked to vote in the House on
Government Order No. 21 which dealt with the way the bill before
the House at this time was to be handled. What that motion said
was that all stages of the bill must be dealt with and we would
continue debating, without ceasing, all stages including
committee of the whole until such time as the bill was completed.
Prior to that vote having taken place, the President of the
Treasury Board and others on the government side of the House
knew that a tentative agreement in principle which directly
affected the bill had already taken place. That information was
knowingly withheld from the official opposition and the other
opposition parties on this side of the House because the
government knew it would affect the vote that took place on
Motion No. 21. In other words, the government withheld
information that was critical to the decision making process of
every member of parliament on this side of the House, and it did
so deliberately.
Not only does the tentative agreement affect the entire process
we are to go through tonight, but by deliberately keeping this
information, by holding it to its chest and just saying “vote on
that, commit yourself, make a decision as a member of parliament
and I will just keep this information secret”, everyone on this
side of the House had to make a decision based on half-truths and
innuendo when the government knew that the truth was available
and yet refused to share it with us.
When a vote comes before the House and the government
deliberately withholds information that affects my decision on
how I voted, I believe my privilege has been compromised. I
would ask you to rule in that way, Mr. Speaker, because I
consider it a travesty that the vote was taken when the minister
kept that information from me and from every member in the House.
That is not right and he knows it.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker,
I can certainly understand the hon. member's frustration. He
makes a good point that we did not have all the knowledge we
might have been able to have before the vote. His frustration is
compounded by the fact, as his House leader said, that they were
sucked in. They voted for closure and now they are embarrassed
that they voted for closure, that they voted for the government.
The Deputy Speaker: I am not sure that the hon. member
for Winnipeg—Transcona is addressing himself to the question of
privilege that has been raised.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, just to respond to the question
the hon. member across the way raised, which he says is a
question of privilege, I do not believe the privileges of anyone
have been negatively affected by anything government has done.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Don Boudria: I beg hon. members to listen briefly to
what I will say because I intend to state to the House that in
fact such was not the case. The President of the Treasury Board
indicated that shortly after 10 o'clock this evening a tentative
agreement had been reached.
He rushed over to the House of Commons to inform us as soon as
possible. A vote started at eleven o'clock. While the division
bells were ringing, I alerted all the other House leaders that I
had heard an announcement was imminent and immediately after the
vote was taken the President of the Treasury Board made that
announcement to the House. In fact what has been demonstrated is
the exact opposite of what has been alleged.
On the point raised by the hon. House leader from the New
Democratic Party, if members are entitled to vote against a
measure, others are entitled to vote for it. Both propositions
are equally legitimate and there is no question of privilege.
An hon. member: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: I am dealing with a question of
privilege. I will not hear a point of order until I have dealt
with the question of privilege. I will deal with the point of
order after the question of privilege has been disposed of.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, a while
ago, the President of Treasury Board told us that he would look
into the physical possibility of tabling the document on which
there was an agreement.
Could the President of Treasury Board tell us what progress he
has made in his search?
2425
The Deputy Speaker: That is not a question of privilege. I
called for comments just on that.
[English]
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, I certainly believe that my
privileges in the House have been affected.
The government House leader knew of the agreement in principle.
We on this side of the House did not. We only knew that the
government had some announcement to make. As a result, how could
my privileges not have been affected by their not announcing
before the vote that in fact there was an agreement in principle?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of
privilege. The hon. government House leader has just admitted
that he is in essence an accomplice to what took place because he
came into the House and made reference to the fact—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I do not think we
are advancing the cause by saying what happened among various
members.
The question before the House was and is whether any hon.
member's privileges were violated in any way by the
non-disclosure of certain facts that may or may not have been in
essence, as appears now from the answers we have, true at a
certain time earlier this evening prior to the vote.
The Chair's view is that members' privileges of freedom of
speech have not been impaired in any way by this non-disclosure.
While members may have a grievance and a complaint, it is not one
that affects their privileges. Accordingly I feel there is no
question of privilege to be raised here.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
would ask for unanimous consent of the House to extend the
questions and comments for another 10 minutes. I have not had an
opportunity to ask a very short question of the minister, as I am
sure is the case for many members present. We could resolve this
a lot quicker by extending it. I ask for unanimous consent to
extend the questions and comments of the minister for another 10
minutes.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
There is a certain amount of confusion here. The Chair was
asked to ensure that, in order for the debate to progress and so
that we could do our job as parliamentarians, we could be able
to look at the agreement, the written text, and all the
information.
Does the Chair intend to ensure that we will have that
information in due course, because we submit to you that this is
really where our privileges as parliamentarians are being
affected?
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair is not in a position to ask that
documents be tabled unless the House itself has asked for them.
At the present time there is no motion or order for production
of documents made by the House. Therefore, the Chair is not in a
position to do so.
The minister said he would answer a few questions, and would
table the agreement arrived at, if possible. Then the minister
said something about that. We might want to debate this, but for
the time being let us resume debate on the matter before the
House.
Would the minister like to add something.
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Speaker, I only wanted to say that
according to the information I received from our negotiator,
both parties have agreed not to reveal the details of the
agreement at this time.
[English]
Mr. Charlie Power: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
privilege. I want to make the point that my privileges have
definitely been infringed upon this evening in this debate.
If there were a tentative agreement at 10.10 this evening and I
voted at 11.40, one hour and 30 minutes later, everybody on this
side of the House voted on the assumption that there was a work
stoppage, that there was no tentative agreement, and everybody on
that side of the House voted knowing there was a tentative
agreement. I guarantee everybody's privileges on this side of
the House were infringed upon.
2430
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that I have already ruled
on that point of order. It was the same one raised by the whip
of the official opposition. That is not a question of privilege.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I would
like some clarification on your ruling. Do you believe there was
indeed a breach of parliamentary privilege when the government
withheld information and lied to the House? We would like to
understand the meaning—
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Members have certain
privileges that are defined in the materials that are on the
table. They can read Beauchesne's and Erskine May and they can
read that there are certain privileges.
The privilege of freedom of speech is one of those privileges.
There is a privilege of freedom from arrest and so on, but there
is not freedom of information or guarantee of information.
What we have here is a situation where the minister has
indicated that the agreement cannot be produced. He is not in a
position to table it. Members will have to continue without the
agreement. That is the point.
I recognize the hon. member on debate.
[Translation]
I did not give the floor to the member on a point of order, but
to resume the debate.
[English]
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify something
that is very important at this time in this House.
A deliberate omission is a grave contempt according to Erskine
May's 22nd edition. A deliberate omission is a form of contempt.
The government deliberately misled the opposition.
Mr. Speaker, for your information, I do know Beauchesne's and
Erskine May, and if those members bothered to read it they would
see it in there.
Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a
point regarding the House leader's point and that is the fact
that what was presented by the President of Treasury Board this
evening does not change the substance of the issue. It does not
change the substance of the issue. The fact is that there was an
agreement reached—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It is quite clear
that the points of order and the questions of privilege, while of
interest, will not resolve the issue before the House.
We are on debate and I suggest that we get back to the debate on
second reading of the bill before the House. The Chair is
running out of patience on points of order. I will hear a few
more and then there will be no more. They are getting very
repetitious and I cannot continue all night.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I
only ask that you would rule on the House leader's point. The
House leader of the Reform Party has brought up a very germane
point to this debate.
In Erskine May, the textbook which you quoted earlier, it says
that a deliberate omission by the government constitutes a
contempt of this place. In my opinion, and I think it is pretty
obvious what any layman's interpretation would be, there was a
deliberate omission to make sure the opposition parties did not
have that information in their hands when we voted on a key vote
at close to midnight on a key motion on which closure had been
imposed.
If it is a deliberate omission, and by their own omission it was
in their knowledge, in their presence, in their hands well before
this House voted on Motion No. 21 put by the government, then it
was a deliberate attempt to withhold information from the
official opposition and the opposition parties in this House.
2435
The vote that was held afterward means that every single member
of parliament on this side of the House was deliberately misled
and left out of the information circle that had a crucial effect
on the vote which followed.
If that was deliberate, and if it is in Erskine May, then, Mr.
Speaker, I think you should find the minister in contempt of the
House and I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Speaker, obviously questions of bad
faith are not mentioned here, but this is a question of bad
faith.
The motion on which the vote took place was on a motion for
closure. It had nothing to do with the act itself. I have
already indicated that the bill itself is not changed by the fact
that there has been an agreement in principle. The need for the
bill to be passed is not affected by the agreement in principle.
It is not affected, on the one hand, because the blue collar
workers have not ratified the deal and can, therefore, still
strike with the same effect that they have had in the past 10
weeks. The prisoner guards can also still strike. Therefore,
the substance of the act does not change.
The vote that took place was on a motion for closure which was
not affected in any way, shape or form by the tentative agreement
that was reached tonight.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, not to belabour the point, but the
question that needs to be asked is quite simple. Were the
Liberal members, especially the backbenchers in this House of
Commons, given access to that information at 10.10 p.m., long
before the opposition members were? That is the question. Were
the Liberal members given access to that information an hour
before the members on this side of the House?
The whip of the official opposition is absolutely correct. It
is quite probable in all circumstance that the Liberal members
were given information long before the members of this House. If
that is the case, the minister is in contempt.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, our point is still valid.
The minister is incorrect in his assertion. The vote taken was
not on closure. The vote taken happened to be on Motion No. 21.
The minister is incorrect. This government or this minister is
in contempt. It is in Erskine May and we want it remedied
tonight, now.
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the allegation of
the opposition, it is that somehow a member of the government
sitting on this side of the House failed to disclose something
during the debate that preceded our vote at about 11 o'clock. I
hope it has not escaped the notice of members opposite that, by
my recollection, no member of the government front benches was
speaking at that time. I think I recall opposition members
speaking at that time.
Secondly, just prior to 11 o'clock, as one government
backbencher, I did make an attempt to ascertain the status of a
number of things. In reply to my questions I was told that I
would have to wait for the hon. treasury board president's speech
to the House.
I think the opposition members are whistling here at 12.40 in
the morning.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, to offer support to the House
leader of the official opposition, I want to make a couple of
points.
We were told by the minister after we voted that there was a
tentative agreement. I would suggest that what that means is
that the union executive is going to recommend this to its
membership. That is crucial information that we must have before
taking the vote. The vote was not on closure and we are not in
routine proceedings.
We are planning to sit in this House all night, for 24 hours,
and that is information that should have been provided to us.
2440
Out of the courtesy to the union, we should be giving it an
opportunity to accept that tentative agreement as opposed to
turning this into a national crisis. That is very germane to the
issue at hand. It is unbelievable that the minister would not
come in and say, before the vote, that he had some information
for the House.
I agree that it was deliberately withheld. We are aware of
members of the backbenches who were talking about this before
they came into the House. That has just been brought to my
attention.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I quote from Beauchesne's.
Citation 93 reads:
It is generally accepted that any threat, or attempt to influence
the vote of, or actions of a Member, is a breach of privilege.
If the minister knew this information at 10.10 p.m., and I was
asked to vote later without that same information, the minister,
by not giving us that information before the vote, was trying to
influence the vote. I use Beauchesne's to back up that argument.
I ask the Speaker to rule on the issue. The minister knew
before we voted. I was not allowed to vote with the full
knowledge of what the minister knew. That is a breach of my
privileges.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, this is factually incorrect.
Surely the hon. member who raised this, who was himself a speaker
of a provincial legislature, knows better than to make these
claims. It is because he is a credible member that he should not
say these things.
The title of the section that the member is quoting from is
entitled “Interfering with Members”. It has to do with the
fact that a policeman attempted to stop a member from having
access to the precincts of parliament. That is the premise of
the section from which he is quoting. He is trying to indicate
through reference to that section that somehow he might have
voted differently on a previous order of the House—government
Motion No. 21 standing in my name, not the one before us, Bill
C-76, in the name of a completely different minister—and that
either I or he has interfered with him. That is incorrect. So
are a number of other allegations that have been made.
When I came into the lobby at approximately 10.45 p.m., it was
the first I had heard that a tentative agreement was possible,
the details of which I knew nothing and which were revealed
almost immediately by the President of the Treasury Board as soon
as we finished voting.
Everyone here has acted in good faith. Everyone is trying to do
what is best for the people of Canada. That is still our
determination. That is still what we want to do. Everyone in
this House knows it. Even those who are disagreeing with us know
that we are working for that common good, with no other objective
in mind.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have listened closely to what
the hon. government House leader has said. However, by his very
admission what we heard was that at least one other member, other
than the President of the Treasury Board, knew about this.
The point that has been made by the opposition House leader is
still very relevant, that perhaps not only members on this side
of the House have been denied the privilege of this information
that is very telling and would impact on how members would cast
their votes, but also members of the government side of the
House. They would have very much liked to have been informed
that a tentative agreement had been reached.
We are talking about the process in government Motion No. 21,
the process that would very much impact on the way this debate
was to be constructed and the vote that would finally be taken on
the bill itself. This is information that was purposely
withheld. Therefore, I suggest that there is a breach of the
privilege of hon. members which would impact on the way that they
would cast their vote. It is a prima facie case.
I suggest that there is enough evidence before the House for the
Chair to make a ruling on this matter.
2445
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, in relation to the
comments by the government House leader, that section on
interfering with members is not totally to deal with police
interference in the House. I go by section 92:
A valid claim of privilege in respect to interference with a
member must relate to the member's parliamentary duties and not
to the work a member does in relation to that member's
constituency.
The member's duty in this House is to vote with full knowledge
of what he is voting on.
The government House leader is correct that I was a Speaker in a
former House. If any minister tried to pull this thing in my
House he would have been held in contempt. Before I voted on
this issue, this minister knew that an agreement had been signed,
as did the House leader, but they did not relay that information
to this side of the House, Her Majesty's official opposition and
other opposition parties. That is holding this House in contempt
and they will pay the price for that with the Canadian public.
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Speaker, the official opposition
must be joking because the vote that has been taken is a vote on
closure. I have checked. That is what Motion No. 21 does. Mr.
Speaker, it was only after you called orders of the day that the
bill was introduced for the first time. The information that we
had an agreement in principle was irrelevant to the vote on
Motion No. 21. It has nothing to do with it. No privilege was
breached. There was no information that was relevant for the
vote on Motion No. 21. I made the first speech at second reading
of the bill and that speech mentioned that there was at that
point an agreement in principle.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I will show the minister
how much we are joking. When you find the minister in contempt I
have a motion that I will present and table in the House. Mr.
Speaker, at some point when you make the decision on contempt we
have the motion here.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair is ready to deal with
the question of privilege that has been raised. Members should
regard the facts of what has transpired and the explanations that
have been given by hon. members who have participated in the
points of order that were raised, including the House leader and
the whip of the official opposition, the hon. member for
Saanich—Gulf Islands, the hon. member for West
Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, the President of the Treasury Board,
the government House leader, the hon. member for
Scarborough—Rouge River, the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and the hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona who had something to say on this matter.
While all the issues that have been raised are no doubt
important, the fact is the Chair is in a position where a
decision is to be rendered on the question of whether there has
been a prima facie contempt of the House committed by the
minister by reason of the failure to disclose the fact that a
tentative agreement had been entered into some time earlier this
evening and before the vote took place in the House on a motion.
2450
I want to stress the quality of this motion to the House. It
was one that suspended the rules of the House in relation to the
proceedings on this bill and we are now debating the bill before
the House.
I note that the motion that dealt with the suspension of those
rules was adopted and following that the bill was called. On the
very first speech on the bill the minister disclosed to the House
that in fact an agreement had been reached. It was his speech,
his opening remarks on the bill.
Given the timing at which that started and given the fact that
the vote took place very shortly after an agreement had been
reached, I am not satisfied that the minister deliberately
attempted to mislead the House on a prima facie basis and I am
not therefore prepared to have a motion go forward at this stage.
I believe it would be out of order.
I believe what is in order is for members to proceed with debate
on the bill before the House and of course they are free to
express their views as to the agreement, as to what the minister
said about the agreement in the course of that debate and indeed
to vote against the bill. I think that in the circumstances that
is a reasonable way of proceeding given the fact that this
agreement was achieved quite late.
In the circumstances I believe we should now proceed with the
debate and I therefore call for resumption of debate on the bill.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, since I would have voted
exactly the opposite, I request that my vote on Motion No. 21 be
reversed and I be recorded as being against that motion.
The Deputy Speaker: Such a request will require the
unanimous consent of the House. Is there consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, because of the information
that was deliberately withheld from us which you ruled was not in
contempt but which is material to how I would have voted on
Motion No. 21, I would ask that my vote be reversed. If I had
known what information the minister had I would have reversed it.
I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to reverse my vote
on Motion No. 21 and oppose that motion.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous
consent of the House to allow me to reverse my vote that was
taken earlier due to the fact that the government deliberately
withheld critical information.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, I also ask the consent of the
House to reverse my vote on Motion No. 21.
I feel very strongly that the information was—
The Deputy Speaker: Is there consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, we have given permission
to the government to proceed in an emergent fashion in what we
consider to be an emergent situation. Because of information
known only to the minister and to a few select ministers in his
cabinet which was withheld from me, if I had had that information
I may have voted differently. I ask for the unanimous consent of
the House to change my vote.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate with the member for Winnipeg Centre.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate being recognized. I am looking forward to entering
into—
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Just so I am clear on this, you have resumed debate. Is
there a period of questions and comments or are we moving on to
the next speaker?
The Deputy Speaker: There are no questions or comments on
the first three speakers on second reading in a debate. The
minister was number one. Number two split his time so there were
two speakers in slot number two.
2455
This is slot number three. There will be no questions or
comments. The member for the Bloc did not rise so I went to the
hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Perhaps I can clarify this. Prior to our getting into points of
order and questions of privilege, you allowed our member the
additional time that was left. You said you would come back to
him in debate. We expect you to honour—
The Deputy Speaker: I asked him if he was finished his
remarks and he told me he was. That is why I then went ahead
with the 10 minute questions and comments period. We will get
the blues, but it was very clear. I was quite emphatic with the
hon. member for Wetaskiwin. Before we began the 10 minute period
of questions and comments to the minister I asked the member for
Wetaskiwin if he had concluded his remarks. He told me he had.
That is why I called for resuming debate and looked around to
other members in the House.
An hon. member: You are wrong.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member says I am wrong. I
recall asking the question and I remember the hon. member giving
me the answer. Perhaps the hon. member for Wetaskiwin will
recall whether I asked him that question and if he did not give
me that answer.
Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the way I recall this,
when you rose and asked if I was finished or if I would prefer to
continue after the debate, I nodded that I would prefer to
continue after the debate.
The Deputy Speaker: I have no objection. If the hon.
member wishes to continue I am prepared to go back. I assume the
House will agree to that. I am not trying to cheat him out of
his time.
Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate that. I am sorry for the misunderstanding.
It was the understanding of this House that we were dealing
with—
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I and other members have heard an hon. member across
accuse me of making an untrue statement to the House. I probably
have most faults on this earth but I am not lazy and I am not a
liar. Hopefully I will have the support of hon. members when I
ask that not be said in here about anybody, including me.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure all hon. members know that
the use of the word liar is unparliamentary and that they would
refrain from the use of the word. The Chair did not hear the
word. If hon. members used the word I am sure they would want to
withdraw. The hon. member for Wetaskiwin has the floor.
Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, when this situation was
first debated in the House last week it was brought in as an
emergent motion by my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake. We
approached this issue on the basis that this was an emergency.
Part of the emergency was that there was grain shipment stoppage
at the west coast ports yet again, one that we were assured would
never happen again because of the provisions in part one of the
Canada Labour Code. The industrial relations—
Mr. Jean Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
At 10.15 p.m. the President of the Treasury Board said he had a
tentative agreement and that he could share it with us in five to
ten minutes. We are now in debate and the information of the
tentative agreement could very well change the debate we are in
right now. Will the minister give us—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. This question has been asked
several times. I do not believe it is a point of order. We have
resumed debate now and I would urge hon. members to allow the
hon. member for Wetaskiwin to continue with his remarks.
2500
Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, we
approached this on the basis that it was an emergency situation.
Indeed we felt that it was. There was a grain stoppage at the
port of Vancouver. We were assured by the labour minister of the
day that would never happen again because of provisions in Bill
C-19, the amendments to part I of the labour code.
Lo and behold exactly what we had predicted came true. One of
the unions at the port went on strike. A picket line was set up
and other unions refused to cross it. Therefore, Canadian grain
was not reaching port and we were losing customers that we could
ill afford to lose.
We were also under the impression that the tax centres were not
operating and Canadians were desperately in need of their tax
returns. As a matter of fact everyone knows they can file tax
returns as early as January 1. We were given to believe people
had filed for their rebates but they were not getting them
because of slowdowns and rotating strikes that were taking place
by PSAC at those centres.
Now we find we have a completely different set of circumstances.
It begs the question, what is the emergency now if we have a
tentative agreement? It also begs the question, if we have a
tentative agreement, how does the union respond to that? Do the
negotiators for the union go back to the union members and say
“You guys had better sign this because if you do not, they are
just minutes away from bringing in back to work legislation
anyway”? What kind of position does this put the PSAC workers
in?
I do not think this is any way to negotiate with employees,
whether you are a staunch union person or not. This is no way to
cement labour relations. I do not think this is any way to
utilize the opposition parties of this House either. It is a very
disrespectful way.
We agreed with the Government of Canada that this was an
emergency and it was going to be treated as such. Otherwise why
would we be in this chamber at 1 o'clock in the morning debating
something that we have agreement to? It is absolutely insane to
be doing this in this fashion.
If the government was so close to signing an agreement with
these people, the minister could have come in virtually at the
eleventh hour and said lo and behold he has a ministerial
statement to make that all is well but let us proceed with this
back to work legislation. The President of the Treasury Board
could have taken five minutes of time from the member from
Vancouver prior to the vote and made that announcement. If
necessary, we could have adjourned the House for 15 minutes while
the caucuses determined what their positions were going to be.
We did not arrive at this position by drawing numbers out of a
hat. We had a caucus meeting, as did everyone, and we arrived at
a position on this. We said we are going to arrive at a position
that is based on something we feel is an emergency situation in
Canada and we are going to do it by consensus in our caucus. I am
sure everybody arrived at it this way.
Excellent points have been made that not only were we labouring
under lack of information that the government had but the
government's very own backbenchers were also. This is an
absolute sham and a tremendously disrespectful way to use
parliament's time and resources.
What is the emergency now? I am sure a few government members
will stand up on debate. I would like to have them explain to me
where the emergency is. As a matter of fact, we now hear that
perhaps there is not a backlog of tax returns after all. Perhaps
they are a bit ahead of the schedule where they were a year or
two ago.
2505
This is about the shabbiest handling of a bill. It defies
logic. This is kind of a Keystone Cops situation that could only
be bested in the funny papers. This is a sham and a ridiculous
use of this institution.
No one in the House wants to see the grain shipments flow
unimpeded from the farm gates on to the high seas more than
myself and my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake. I was pleased
when through you, Mr. Speaker, and largely your efforts and your
concurrence that he was able to get an emergency debate on this
very issue. I thought hurrah, perhaps we are going to make some
headway here.
This is absolute silliness. The next time this government comes
to us asking for back to work legislation, we are going to look
at it with very jaundiced eyes. We are going to be extremely
suspicious of its motives.
I know Mr. Speaker will say that we must never impugn motives in
this House, but when we see time after time this sort of prank,
for lack of a better word, pulled in the House, then it is small
wonder we should be suspicious and sometimes impugn motives.
While we are talking about shifty operations, let us talk about
last Friday. Last Friday we were asked out of the blue with
about three seconds notice to give unanimous consent to the
government. The first thing we asked was what would the
unanimous consent be for. It was for closure so that we could
put these militant people back to work. They are striking. They
are tying up the whole country. We have to put them back to
work. It is an emergency. It was not even explained to us that
well. The government said, “Trust us. We are from the
government and we are here to help you. Trust us. Give us your
vote. Give us your unanimous consent”. I have heard that one
before, the cheque is in the mail.
We were asked to give the government unanimous consent and we
said no, that we would give our consent perhaps when we had had
an opportunity to assess what it was the government was asking
our consent on. First that and now this.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I rise on a point of order, Mr.
Speaker.
I am trying to follow this debate here. It seems to me as
though you have lost control of the House. In fact, there is
noise all over this place and I cannot follow the debate. That
is my privilege and I would like it protected.
The Deputy Speaker: I must say that I was able to hear
the debate but I am aware there is some noise in the House. I am
sorry that the hon. member could not hear, but I know hon.
members will want to hear the hon. member for Wetaskiwin in his
remarks, as I am listening. The hon. member for Wetaskiwin.
Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I know that not everyone
in the House is listening to my words of wisdom, but I know Mr.
Speaker is hanging on every word.
All of us here are interested in seeing Canada work as a
cohesive unit. We are very much concerned about the fact that
once our reputation as a reliable shipper of goods is damaged, it
is extremely difficult for us to get it back. We are continually
in a catch-up situation. We are continually trying to regain
where we might have been or where we would have been. We cannot
say we want to get back to where we once were shipping grain
because we never really reached a zenith. We always seem to be
slipping back.
We all would like to see these labour disruptions absolutely
minimized.
There are absolutely no winners in this situation. I know the
people in the unions do not strike simply because it is 2 o'clock
on Tuesday so they are going to have a strike. That is not the
way it is decided. It is a very gut wrenching decision for them
to withdraw their services, to go without pay, to walk the picket
line and to suffer the scorn of some of the people who pass by.
It is a very big decision for them.
2510
I submit that when they have gone without a contract for two
years at a time, it is small wonder that they take some kind of
job action. We have to ask ourselves what kind of an employer
would ask their employees to go without any kind of an agreement
for two years at a time.
Looking back in the records I have found that since April 1997
some of the bargaining units have been totally without a
contract. That is indefensible. There is no way under the sun
that the minister can defend that kind of a record. If he had
and if he had agreed to final offer selection arbitration being
included in this bill, then perhaps all would not be lost.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise at this late hour in a context that was not
necessarily planned, but very revealing.
When the government House leader introduced the bill yesterday,
he spoke of a sad day.
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
I have not made any comments in regard to what has been going on
tonight. One thing I have been milling over in my mind is that I
would have abstained on the vote that we had at 11.15 p.m. on
Motion No. 21 had I known that this tentative agreement had been
reached. I would have liked some time to study the tentative
agreement before I decided how I would vote.
I request that before we continue any more debate that that
vital document be tabled. We may have to suspend the House for
the time being or do whatever we have to do, but that thing is
vital to how I would have voted.
In the meantime I ask that I be allowed to abstain from having
voted on that motion.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there consent that the hon.
member's vote be changed on the previous motion to an abstention?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the government
House leader said yesterday, in his presentation, that it was a
sad day.
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
We have talked about this tentative agreement. As a member of
parliament I feel I have every right to have knowledge of what it
is about before we carry on with the debate.
The Deputy Speaker: There has been the request. The
minister has given his answer previously.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying—
An hon. member: For the third time.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau: —for the government House leader, it was a
sad day, yesterday. Today is a very sad day too.
We are witnesses to the tragicomic behaviour of the government,
which is showing the world, on television, how arrogant it can
be, of what disdain it is capable. There is a sort of deception
in its behaviour, given what it hid from us earlier.
This confirms completely all the claims, all the frustrations
that the union movement and the public service unions have
criticized for a long time, whether we are talking about the
Public Service Alliance or the members of the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police, who complained of this government's day to day
operations.
We have a perfect and glaring illustration of that this evening.
2515
We will get back to the basic issue. We will get back to the
substance as if nothing had been said, because there is not much
there. It is all right not to bother about what the President of
the Treasury Board said earlier, because it is not worth it.
Let us get back to the context of the legislation used by the
government to force back to work employees who belong to the
general labour, ships' crews and trades groups, that is table 2,
and the correctional officers, or table 4. As members know, the
bargaining process was divided in seven tables.
This is what the minister should talk about, instead of rambling
like he did earlier.
Incidentally, workers in the general labour group earn an
average of $31,000 per year. A salary increase is, therefore,
definitely in order. There is nothing outrageous about such a
measure, on the contrary. This would show some openness,
particularly considering that the salaries of these workers have
been frozen for six years and that they are now paid an average
of $6 less per hour than blue collar workers in the private
sector or at the municipal level. These Canadian public servants
are earning an average of $6 less per hour than workers who hold
similar jobs.
Before the minister's rambling, the state of negotiations was
that a conciliation report had been submitted by a third party,
the conciliator, and that report had been accepted by the union.
Perhaps the President of the Treasury Board should begin by
listening and by taking a closer look at the conciliator's
opinions and the results of his research, which was endorsed by
the union. Perhaps it would be easy for the government, the
employer, to take this route.
I think this is already expecting too much. The President of
the Treasury Board prefers talking with another distinguished
colleague, who likes to dip into workers' pockets, much like he
does. They make a fine pair during this debate about the future
of public sector workers and of workers in general, nattering on
when it would be more in the public's interest if they were to
listen.
We can see that Quebec is very well represented in this cabinet,
the people with the real power.
So, for table 4 there is a conciliator's report that has been
approved by the union, while for table 2 it is high time the
parties, particularly the government, agreed to binding
arbitration to try to resolve the situation.
It must never be forgotten that this is a legal strike, where in
fact a strike is going on, by a legally recognized union that is
part of our institutions and that has the right to strike when
it feels that the offers being made are not acceptable. It is
therefore based on a balance of power which is also inherent to
our labour relations and should include bargaining in good faith
and in a civilized manner. This is precisely what the employer,
the government, has not demonstrated, in our opinion.
2520
We want the government to negotiate. The government is in a
period of negotiation, but it seems to be more inclined to
legislate than to negotiate.
Instead of saying that the government is more inclined to
legislate than to negotiate, we should rather say that, in the
recent past, since 1982 actually, bona fide bargaining has been
the exception. The government would rather legislate.
Since 1982, it has obviously given the preference to its role as
a legislator, and it has outrageously neglected its role as an
employer who should be bargaining in good faith, like any
employer, and taking legislative action only when public
interest is at stake—which is not the case now.
Historically, legislative action in labour
relations have been a constant occurrence since 1982. Let me
give a list.
I did not pick year 1982 out of the blue. We should remember the
context. The neoliberal philosophy was all the rage then, and
the likes of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were in full
flight and having an influence on all governments in the western
countries. Canada has been part and parcel of the devastation
that spelled setbacks in existing social benefits, and in
collective agreements, including working conditions and the
union movement itself.
The Liberal government gleefully entered the fray with Bill
C-124, an act concerning compensation that affected everybody.
Its purpose was to control the compensation of 500,000 workers
in sectors directly or indirectly under the Canadian government.
That was in 1982.
In 1989, we had Bill C-49, an act to provide for the resumption
of certain government services. That title is almost identical
to that of the bill now before the House. It was back to work
legislation for workers in hospitals and for ship crews, and
these groups are again today the target of a special treatment.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
When my colleague from Trois-Rivières talks about the workers'
fate, when he talks about the employer's responsibilities, would
it be possible for the President of the Treasury Board and for
members of the Liberal Party of Canada to listen instead of
throwing paper at each other—
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order, please. The
hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot makes a good point. It is
getting late. We could give each other the dignity of paying
attention to each other. If we do not want to do so, there are
the lobbies for social events.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, in 1989, we had Bill C-49, a
second special bill, the Government Services Resumption Act,
which provided for the return to work of a particular group of
employees, who were as much a problem for the government then as
they are today and who have been the victims of government
policy, namely hospital workers and ship crews. That was in
1989.
In 1991, two years later, the Public Sector Compensation Act
imposed all conditions of employment, leaving no room for
negotiation, mediation and arbitration.
In 1992, the next year, Bill C-113, the Government Expenditures
Restraint Act, provided for a two year extension of the salary
freeze and the term of the collective agreement.
In 1993, Bill C-101, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and
the Public Service Staff Relations Act, gave the government the
right to impose a vote on its final offers in the course of any
negotiations within the public service.
2525
In 1994, Bill C-17, the Budget Implementation Act of 1994,
extended the collective agreement and the wage freeze for
another two years, for a total of six years of wage freezes. The
government pushed back the collective agreements already signed,
arbitrarily using and abusing its legislative powers when it was
in fact acting as an employer in this context.
The same thing happened in 1995. As members can see, almost
every year, some special legislation was passed. Bill C-76, the
Budget Implementation Act of 1995, provided for the elimination
of 45,000 positions in the civil service. In fact, it was more
like 55,000 jobs that were abolished.
This was direct interference in the collective bargaining
process and had devastating effects on some classes of
employees, including the general services group represented at
table 2 who saw the number of positions reduced by 41% between
1995 and 1998. In the general labour and trades group, the
number of positions dropped by 33%. For a government that brags
about creating jobs, it introduced bills that had a devastating
impact on the labour movement and on the job situation.
The last of this series of legislation, except for the bill
before the House tonight, was Bill C-31, the Budget
Implementation Act of 1996, which truly undermined the financial
security and job security of employees. This bill provided for
contracting-out and also suspended—and we are still reeling from
that initiative—for three years the right to go to arbitration as
a way to settle disputes.
There is one point to be made on this issue.
It is a little easy in the government's situation. Besides, it
does not matter whether it is Conservative or Liberal, this
proves our point that it is all the same. In that regard, it
always boils down to the same thing, more or less, with respect
to the Constitution. As for labour relations, it is more or less
the same people who think the same way.
It is a little too easy, when we see how the government can
restrict the recourse to arbitration and, at the same time,
refuse to limit and suspend its power to designate employees
who, as we know, have different prerogatives and powers since
they are designated.
In 1999, we have this Bill C-76, which is a back to work
legislation.
This legislation can legitimately be referred to in terms of a
bludgeon or big stick legislation.
It suits this government's culture, because when talking about
big stick we can think of baseball bat, and when talking about
baseball bat we can think of cayenne pepper. When we think of
the very modern means this government used in its response to
demonstrators who came legitimately to show their discontent, we
know that dogs were used. We have seen it here in Ottawa. Some
people have been bitten. In the history of that culture, when
talking about demonstrators, we know that police grab people by
the throat in order to intimidate ordinary citizens.
This illustrates very well the culture of this government,
which is going nowhere and has in fact been the object of the
interest of not only Canadian organizations but also
international organizations.
The Canada Labour Relations Board, in its wisdom, blamed the
government at least twice for its actions as a legislating
employer. The International Labour Organization also blamed the
Canadian federal government four times. The “most beautiful and
best country in the world” was blamed four times by the
International Labour Organization, which represents not only
governments but also unions and employers.
2530
On four occasions since 1982, this government has been blamed
internationally in its management. We know what it means to
belong to the ILO, the International Labour Organization. The
ILO's statement of principle provides—and the Government of
Canada has made a commitment to it, as member—that:
In freely joining the ILO, all Members have endorsed the
principles and rights set out in its Constitution and in the
Declaration of Philadelphia, and have undertaken to work towards
attaining the overall objectives of the Organization—
All Members, even if they have not ratified the Conventions in
question, have an obligation arising from the very fact of
membership in the Organization, to respect, to promote and to
realize, in good faith—
These principles include, the freedom of association and
effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining; the
eradication of discrimination in respect of employment and
occupation.
Unless it can be proven otherwise, Canada is still a member of
the ILO. That means that it is violating both the spirit and
the letter of the convention it signed.
An hon. member: Shameful.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau: The way this government has dealt with
labour relations has resulted in a negation of the Public
Service Alliance members' right to negotiate freely during eight
of the last fifteen years. During eight of the last fifteen
years, we have been forced to adopt legislation and our working
conditions were legislated on.
In the case of the hospital services and ships' crews groups,
salaries and working conditions have been legislated on during
eleven of the last fifteen years. This is totally unacceptable.
It is a shame. It proves the carelessness and the incompetence
of this Liberal government.
This rather bizarre behaviour is once again illustrated by the
government House leader. The hon. leader, who represents
Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, is a great parliamentarian.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: He is not here.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau: No. He is one of those who do not listen.
He distinguished himself when he was in opposition, much more so
than as a government member for that matter. He distinguished
himself as a member of the so-called rat pack. He was very
aggressive then. So aggressive, so compassionate that a few
years ago he was on the picket lines with the Public Service
Alliance members to condemn the conservative government.
And today? He is now one of the main participants in this debate
to oppose the same Public Service Alliance of Canada, which he
supposedly supported only a few years ago.
This is typical of this government: a bunch of hypocrites.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau: There is an aspect that this government
seems to completely overlook, and that is what happens the day
after workers have been forced to go back to work.
What about the managers' attitude? What kind of attitude can we
expect from these people? Where is the incentive for public
service managers and, more importantly, for the public servants
who are being treated with such arrogance and contempt today?
If the government can show such contempt for the House of
Commons as it did this evening, imagine what these people are
capable of on a daily basis, with employees who must be
respectful and loyal, particularly since job security is very
tenuous within the federal public service.
2535
Underneath all this lies a real human resources management
issue. There is an issue of actual productivity to be expected
from employees who are well treated, well understood and well
respected by their employer. We do not have that. Even the
tiniest of small businesses, whose owner is all worked up
because of the market situation, is not worse. This government
manages like an incompetent boss with a piecemeal approach to
dealing with human resources.
Let us hope that there will be a huge political price to pay. I
am thinking about the members from Quebec, starting with the
President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Human
Resources Development. They will have to pay a huge political
price for their lack of credibility.
When they come to us with their talk of social union, we will
remember, because this is the same disdain that we sense in the
House today for workers as for in the provinces, Quebec in
particular, where there is no recognition of Quebeckers as a
people, no longer even any recognition of Quebec as a province
like the others. Slowly but surely, the provincial governments
are becoming regional governments in this new Canada they are
concealing from us, this unitary and centralized Canadian.
An hon. member: Totalitarian.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Totalitarian it is. What we are dealing
with here is a dictatorship in the making. No need to mince
words. A dictatorship in the making that is re-elected every
four years, particularly with the unique Liberal Party of
Canada, which acts as if it personally owned all the
institutions.
In my opinion, the reign and the domination of this government
are coming to an end.
As for Quebeckers, we know how to leave all this behind in short
order.
We should all be feeling a great sadness. The government House
leader was right in his opening remarks. This is all very sad,
exceedingly so. What worries me is seeing these employees
treated with so little respect and so much disdain. I wish
public service managers all the best in the days, weeks and
years ahead, because this sort of event is not forgotten.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
glad to be able to join the debate even though it is the middle
of the night. I have mixed feelings about being able to speak
now.
I firmly believe that we are being dragged through nonsense for
nothing, to sum it up. We know now that in the last few hours
there has been some movement on the government's part in terms of
reaching the tentative settlement we are talking about. In fact
we saw the government move very close to the union's position
when talks broke off on March 12.
Everybody seems to want to know what was in the tentative
agreement. I know exactly what was in it. It went from 30
months to 24 months. It went from 2.5% to 2.75%, which was the
union's position on March 12, although it wanted a 30 cent upper.
In the last year the 1% gets knocked off. We were very close, so
why was the country dragged through weeks and weeks of rancour,
animosity, hostility and inconvenience if the government had the
money in its pocket?
It has found it now. Why have we been dragged through all of
this nonsense and why do we find ourselves here now? I cannot
understand it. Personally it is very frustrating. That is table
two, the 14,500-odd trades people. The government seems to have
found a way to solve the problem and put these folks back to
work.
2540
Another thing in the agreement is the zones, the real reason the
workers from Atlantic Canada felt it was necessary to take the
drastic measure of withholding their services. The zone pay is
offensive to everyone who has spoken to it. The government found
satisfaction there. Now it will merge the Atlantic provinces
with Quebec into one zone. That makes sense. That is what the
union was calling for all along. The government wanted to merge
Atlantic Canada with Saskatchewan. That was its great idea for
merging into one zone. Yes, it will go down from 10 zones to 7,
but that was ludicrous.
Another thing the union recommended was that one of the zones
should be the three prairie provinces combined: Manitoba,
Saskatchewan and Alberta. That is common sense. It is a natural
district with a community of interest and similar costs of
living. Now the government seems willing to let the union do
that.
The third difference is that Banff will be rolled into British
Columbia for the purposes of pay zones. Again that is exactly
what the union asked for on March 12 before talks fell apart and
the workers had to hit the bricks.
If we found the will, the money and a way a couple of weeks
later, it begs the question why. Why did we force this strike
and why did we put all these people out? It is beyond reason.
That is why I say it is absolute nonsense.
It leads me to believe that it was ideologically driven. I am
not trying to imply ideological driven as in bust the union or
something like that, but there was a secondary goal, a secondary
objective the government was trying to achieve by coming in
through the back door, that is the 600 to 800 corrections
workers, the table four corrections workers.
The government had it within its ability to settle in that
regard as well. The conciliation board came down with a ruling
on March 19 to which the union agreed. It said it could live
with it but the government said no and two days later tabled back
to work legislation.
Given there is no justifiable or good reason to keep table two
out or to even go through the whole painful process of back to
work legislation for table two, the government is really shooting
for table four. It is trying to do what it did with the postal
workers strike, trying to achieve some secondary goal through the
guise or through the packaging of back to work legislation.
Why is the government not honest about what it really wants to
do? Why does it not come through the front door and say it wants
to designate these 800 workers as essential services? Then we
could deal with it. We could have an honest debate about it. It
should not try to achieve something by subterfuge or by stealth,
which is what it boils down to.
We have been hearing a lot of passionate speeches from very odd
sources. We have had to listen to members of the Reform Party,
although I see they do not have the same courtesy to stay and
listen to us. It has been painful to me as a trade unionist to
listen to them paint themselves in the last couple of days of
debate as the champions of the working class. Somehow they are
the saviours of workers and champions of the union movement. What
a crock, frankly.
I do not know how much we can get away with saying after
midnight, but what absolute excrement.
Mr. Jay Hill: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I
wonder if you would inform my hon. colleague who is speaking now
for the socialists that there are Reformers in the House and that
it is not up to him to mention whether or not members are
present.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member is
quite correct. We do not refer to the presence or absence of
other members in the House.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. While we
are on the subject of the Reform Party and its role with unions
and its reputation about being great trade unionists, that party
sent around a book to the various members of parliament.
It is about unions and right to work laws, how to bust unions
essentially. That book came to every member of parliament to
promote right to work legislation which everybody here knows is a
misnomer for a legislative agenda specifically designed to stop
workers from doing their job of elevating the wages and working
conditions of the people they represent. It is a very detailed,
complex book.
2545
What we have heard over the past couple of days is the Reform
Party saying that it has been speaking on behalf of workers, et
cetera, and then tonight voting for closure, voting to shut down
debate. They are always saying that this government has
introduced closure or time allocation 50 times, so here is the
50th anniversary and they all stand up and vote for it because
they are so eager to take away the workers' democratic right to
withhold their services. The great champions of the working
class. It is actually quite galling. It is very galling for me
as a trade unionist to have to listen to that.
It is valuable to spend some time and talk about that basic
democratic right. Now that we have moved off the debate on
closure we are on the substance of the issue, the actual bill,
the back to work legislation.
The right for workers to withhold their services is basic and
fundamental. It is recognized in our charter of rights and
freedoms. It is recognized at the ILO and the United Nations and
it is recognized as a peaceful means for settling an impasse, the
most peaceful means, frankly. In the history of impasses and any
kind of long protracted arguments or battles things used to fall
to violence, whether it was a skirmish over a border or any other
kind of long disagreement like that.
What we have in labour relations is a way to try to solve that.
It is through free collective bargaining—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am really sorry to
interrupt the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre. Was it the hon.
member's intention to split his time with the hon. member for
Palliser?
Mr. Pat Martin: I will be using the full 20 minutes.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member has
12 minutes left.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, let us look at the reasons
workers take that drastic step of withholding their services. It
is a tool and an instrument to apply pressure to a situation, an
argument or a debate. We believe it is the only really effective
tool workers have to try to elevate the standards of wages and
working conditions for themselves, their families and the people
they represent. It should not be tampered with and it should not
be entered into lightly when one withholds anyone's rights. It
is getting to be more and more common. It is a slippery slope in
this House. Twice in the very short period I have been here we
have had to go through this whole debate and we have seen people
having that right withheld.
We come from a caucus that believes all labour has dignity. We
believe that fair wages benefit the whole community. We believe
that the workers involved in this job action have very
justifiable grounds for doing what they did. It has been pointed
out by many speakers that they have had seven years without a
raise. Some of the trades people in table 2 have gone 15 years
without a negotiated settlement. Their settlements have been
imposed for that whole period of time.
Is this the country that believes in the right to organize and
the right to free collective bargaining? This is the way it
treats its own workforce. It really is fundamentally wrong.
Last June I had the honour of going with the minister to the ILO
in Geneva. In light of the adverse pressures of this country that
would see unions stamped out I was very proud to see our Minister
of Labour stand up at the ILO and reiterate the fact that Canada
does agree with and supports the right to organize, the right to
free collective bargaining and yes, the right to withhold
services, the right to strike if deemed necessary.
It is quite a contradiction to be standing in the House six or
eight months later having this debate and watching the government
side quite willingly go down the road that would simply strike
those rights and freedoms that workers should have.
2550
Unions have played a role in elevating the standards of the
whole community as I pointed out. Whether it is health and safety
issues, wage issues or whatever, we should be very grateful.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am really sorry to
interrupt the hon. member. I wonder if the hon. member for
Kootenay—Columbia would mind sitting in one of the chairs.
Mr. Pat Martin: A woman died today in New York City who
was the last survivor of a fire in 1911 at the Triangle
Shirtwaist factory. This fire killed many factory workers in
this terrible sweatshop. The reason I tell this story is that in
1991 in Hamlet, North Carolina a fire occurred at another factory
for the third time from the same cause. The owners of this
factory used to lock the doors from the outside because they were
concerned factory workers were stealing chicken byproducts. The
workers were stealing the gizzards and the wingtips to take home
and make soup. This was a right to work state so the women were
very poorly paid. This factory caught on fire for the third time
and 128 women died scratching at the doors trying to get out.
That happened in 1991.
Where unions are not given the ability to function and prosper
and do their job, we see standards slide as in the right to work
states which is what the Reform Party is promoting here. In the
free states of the United States where free collective bargaining
is still allowed and not legislated away, we see much higher
social conditions on just about every measurement we can think
of, whether it is wages, money spent on education or health care
issues.
I think we should pause and reflect when we are engaged in such
an unsavoury pastime as taking away worker rights. I think it is
fitting that we take pause and reflect on what unions have done
over the years to make our communities better places to live.
I want to dwell a bit on the actual case in point which is the
strike that is about to be terminated by this back to work
legislation. I have been getting a lot of letters sent to my
office from public service alliance members. These are personal
letters, some handwritten, from people encouraging and thanking
the NDP for all we are trying to do to keep their issue alive.
These people are reminding us about the issues of not just the
pay zones but the differences in pay between the public sector
and the private sector. It used to be that it was almost
comparable. As a carpenter I could work in the private sector for
$20 an hour and I could also work in the public sector for a
comparable amount of dough. Now that spread is $5, $6, $7 an
hour different because wages have been frozen for so many years.
Workers have fallen way behind.
Workers can take some comfort that even though they got a lower
wage they had job security. Over the last couple of years there
is no more job security. Everybody in the public sector is
working with that sword of Damocles hanging over their heads.
They are wondering who is next.
After that added insult to injury there was always the comfort
level that they got lousy wages and not much in the way of job
security but there was a reasonable pension plan. People could
feel good about that. On April 15 the President of the Treasury
Board announced he was going to loot the surplus of the pension
plan, take the $30 billion surplus out of the pension plan and
use it for God knows what.
I would think there is a huge political price this party will
pay if it has the unmitigated gall to dip its hands into that
pension plan and try to take that surplus. That is workers'
money. It is deferred wages. It is paid to workers for their
purposes. If there is any surplus, it should go to indexing the
pension to raise benefits or give it back to the workers who
actually deserve that.
2555
When I talk about a political price, the irony is that an awful
lot of public sector workers vote Liberal, which has been a long
history and tradition of public sector workers. Everybody knows
that Tory times are tough times. They got the heck kicked out of
them by the Mulroney government and they were kind of relieved
when the current Liberal government took over in 1993. I am sure
they were optimistic that they would get some kind of break. I
think a lot of them worked very hard to put that government in.
What do they get for it? Looted pension plans, about a third of
the civil service laid off, kicked right out of a job, frozen
wages for six, seven, eight years. Thanks a lot. I think they
are fed up. I think the some 150,000 members of the public
service alliance are justifiably angry and there will be a
political price. The next time around I do not think the
Liberals can count on that kind of support.
It hurts me as a trade unionist to even have this debate,
especially in the middle of the night. It hurts all of us to be
here, I suppose. It is such an unnecessary thing. As I said at
the start of my remarks, we should not be here at all. If the
government had the money to sweeten the offer tonight, why did it
not have it on March 12 and prevent this whole disaster, this
whole two or three weeks of misery that it put people through?
We cost out what the spread is. They were only three percentage
points apart when the talks fell apart on March 12. Between the
union position and the government position it was 3.1%, $7.8
million a year. They have lost more than that by closing down
the ports and with the impact of the strike in that period of
time. It is does not add up from a cost point of view.
Another matter is the way this whole back to work legislation
has been treated. This is the package, 534 pages without an
executive summary, without even any reference to what the wage
increase was to be. People have to go up with this book the size
of a Manhattan phone book to their offices to try to tabulate and
calculate the offer that we are being asked to vote on. When
government members give us a book that size and then tell us we
are to have time allocation and closure, not only is there no
time to debate this properly, there certainly was not time to go
through it.
We think this collective agreement that forms part of the back
to work legislation is probably loaded with all kinds of, if not
deliberate changes that we cannot find, omissions that we do not
have time to find, omissions such as the one on page 3 that in
the English translation contemplates same sex couples and in the
French translation says that a common law spouse is a union
between a man and a woman or talks about people of the opposite
sex. That is just one example we found without digging too hard.
We found that in the first five minutes. How many more errors
are there in this pile of stuff here that we are forced to deal
with?
The real issue now is why will the government not accept the
conciliation officer's report for the table 4 corrections
officers. Why are we voting on back to work legislation for
corrections officers who are not on strike? They have not lost a
day's time. They are not on strike. How do we vote people back
to work who are not even out on strike? It is ludicrous.
The question we need the Treasury Board minister to answer is
why he will not accept his own conciliation board recommendations
for settling the table 4 talks.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, tonight
the government has achieved what some would consider previously
to have been the impossible. It has united trade unionists with
fervent believers in the free enterprise system in opposition to
its inaction in creating this crisis tonight.
2600
We just heard from a trade unionist describing his opposition to
the government in its position on this issue which led to the
crisis tonight. As someone who believes strongly in the free
market, I recognize, as does our party, the importance of the
trade unionist movement within the free market. Without the
labour movement the free market cannot operate effectively.
This early morning debate on Bill C-76 is an example of what
happens with a visionless, leaderless government. The direction
that this government has refused to take has led to this crisis
tonight. This is a government that only deals with issues once
they have reached the boiling point. Only once the issues have
reached a crisis will this government actually look seriously at
addressing an issue. It will not deal with issues that appear on
the horizon and take a long term approach to solving the
problems. It waits until the crisis develops. It is 911
government and it is unacceptable.
For instance, we were told that there was a $9 million grain
sale lost due to the government's inaction this week. Some
information I have on the difference between the final offer that
the government made and what the union had agreed to previously
was about $8 million. This government spent $3.6 million on
marketing the recent budget because the budget was not good
enough to sell itself. It spent $500 million to cancel a
helicopter contract.
This government has no sense of priorities, except the
priorities of political expedience. This government is not
interested in addressing the long term issues that affect
Canadians, particularly going into a new millennium. The
government is not focused on the long term future. It is solely
focused on the next election.
To avoid these types of important issues affecting Canadians
which lead to these kinds of crises is completely irresponsible.
It is appalling for a government of Canada to behave in this
manner.
Governments should play a leadership role in human resource
management. Human resource management is evolving significantly
and has evolved significantly over the past 20 years in the
private sector. In fact, in Canada the private sector has leaped
ahead of government in human resource and labour management. For
instance, Chrysler Canada was one of the first companies in the
auto industry to have unions represented on its board of
directors. In companies today management is working with
employees to create long term plans, to address issues, to
develop better products and services for better prices for the
consumers. In doing so they are creating better morale for their
employees and better services ultimately.
The government, in its approach to labour management, is doing
the exact opposite. It is bludgeoning the unions whenever it has
the opportunity to do so. It is not interested in providing
better services to Canadians. Frankly, it is shocking.
Government has a role to lead in labour management. If it will
not lead, we would like to see the government follow the examples
of some of the companies in the corporate sector that are
actually doing the right thing. There are examples.
It is absolutely shameful what the government has done tonight.
First the government let this crisis develop without taking any
responsibility. Tonight when it had the information that there
was a tentative agreement, it withheld that information until
after a vote, denying it to members on both sides of the House.
Members on that side of the House should be as upset as members
on this side of the House. There has been a breach of the
privilege of all members. Information about an agreement that
had been reached was not provided to members. The government
manipulated parliament tonight. It demonstrated a contempt for
parliament. I was elected in June of 1997 and I have not seen
this type of contempt. I think members who have been here longer
are absolutely appalled that the government has behaved in this
manner.
2605
It is not surprising that the government is acting in this way.
We have seen this government act irresponsibly and in contempt of
this parliament on a number of issues. In fact, there has been a
decline in the role of the private member that has been
precipitated since this government was first elected.
I am going to speak to one of the issues concerning this labour
dispute. It is the issue of regional rates of pay. Our party
believes very strongly that it is fundamentally unfair that the
government will pay people differently based on the regions in
which they live in the country. It is hypocritical. All members
of this House receive the same level of pay. It creates a
ghettoization of the public service. It is not consistent with
the type of labour-management practices in which the Government
Of Canada should be leading.
Now that the government has allowed this dispute to boil into a
crisis, the government has chosen to pit the interests of one
group against another. That is typical of this government. The
interests of the grain farmers and people involved in the grain
industry in the west are being pitted against the interests of
blue collar public sector employees.
There are a lot of agricultural interests in the Annapolis
Valley, which is in my riding. One of the things I have always
noted about farmers is that they are very fair people. I do not
believe that any farmer in the west would feel comfortable with
the fact that his or her interests were being pitted against
those employed in the public sector as blue collar workers. It
is absolutely shocking this divide and conquer attitude that the
government is willing to take in pitting farmers against blue
collar workers in the public service.
Tonight, after having withheld the information to this House of
the fact that a tentative agreement had been reached, the
government proceeded with the back to work legislation that
should be used as a last resort when all other avenues have been
exhausted.
In my opinion, it is a violation of good faith to use this back
to work legislation as a sledgehammer to bludgeon labour to
create some sort of advantage. It is not consistent with good
faith negotiations. The government has hit an all-time low in
labour relations. It is continuing to drive morale in our public
service lower than it has ever been.
For any member of this House who has read the recent report from
the Senate on the public sector, co-chaired by Senator Stratton
and Senator Cools, they will know that our public sector in
Canada is at a critically low point in its history.
There was a time when there was pride in participation or
service to one's country through the public sector. This
government has systematically worked to erode the confidence that
our public sector employees have in their own government and in
their service to the public. It is absolutely inappropriate.
Tonight the government has not only demonstrated contempt for
parliament, it has demonstrated complete contempt for the
collective bargaining process and contempt for the public
service.
The government has refused to table the tentative agreement.
Members of parliament do not have the ability tonight to study
this agreement, to deal with it logically and to use that
knowledge to help base a decision on the proceedings. The
government has manipulated the opposition parties by withholding
information. It has been a travesty of democracy. There has
been no respect for parliament or labour.
The government deserves to be noted as having completely
enshrined its role as the patron saint of hypocrisy. The Prime
Minister claims that he cannot remember why he was marching with
PSAC a few years ago. Perhaps he also cannot remember why he
claimed that he was going to rip up the GST and the free trade
agreement.
2610
This government is not interested in consistency in policy. The
Liberal Party opposite is not interested in doing the right thing
or actually having any consistency on important issues facing
Canadians. It is interested in one thing and that is winning
elections at all costs, even if the casualties are Canadians,
even if they are blue collar Canadians, even if the casualty is
democracy and the sanctity of this House. All it is interested
in is power at all costs.
The actual agreement is jeopardized by the government holding a
gun to the union's head at this point. The government is
actually still trying to tell the House that in some way it is
negotiating in good faith. We do not buy that over here. The
government is negotiating in bad faith.
I heard one person from the Reform Party say earlier that they
felt they had been sucked in and manipulated by the government.
There are members here who would have voted differently had they
had the information.
I am pleased that our party did not support the closure motion.
An hon. member: What about the farmers?
Mr. Scott Brison: I hear a Liberal member opposite ask
“What about the farmers?” Perhaps he should have been standing
up for the farmers when they needed help this past fall. The
government sat on its hands during a time when there was a
significant farm crisis and again waited until that crisis
reached the boiling point before it even dealt with the issue.
Again the government is choosing to pit farmers against blue
collar workers. It is absolutely unconscionable and unacceptable
for parliamentarians to stand by and let this happen.
I am shocked tonight at how the government is treating blue
collar workers. I am beyond being frustrated at how the
government is treating parliament and I am ashamed to have played
a role as a parliamentarian in this charade that the Liberals
have created. It demeans parliament and it demeans the rights of
workers in Canada.
I hope that with a little soul searching the Liberal members
opposite will recognize, particularly those members on the back
benches, that they too were manipulated tonight by a government
with its power concentrated on a very small group of people. It
not only has contempt for members on this side of the House, for
the blue collar workers in PSAC, for the farmers against whom it
pitted the interests of the blue collar workers, but it also has
contempt for its own members on that side of the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
2655
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélanger
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brown
| Bryden
| Byrne
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Copps
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Epp
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Manning
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
Mayfield
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Morrison
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Penson
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
|
Reynolds
| Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Solberg
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vellacott
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 158
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Brien
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Cardin
| Crête
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Forseth
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hardy
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Loubier
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mancini
| Marceau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
|
Muise
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Power
| Price
|
Proctor
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
– 72
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Assadourian
| Bulte
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Folco
| Fournier
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Lefebvre
| Longfield
|
Patry
| Perron
| Pratt
| Sauvageau
|
Speller
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Venne
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and the House went into committee
thereon, Mr. Milliken in the chair)
The Chairman: Order, please. House in committee of the
whole on Bill C-76, an act to provide for the resumption and
continuation of government services.
Shall clause 2 carry?
(On Clause 2)
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, I
would like to start the debate with some questions. We have many
unanswered questions on this bill that I think Canadians would
like answered. It is only right that we get answers to those
questions.
I am glad to see that the President of the Treasury Board and
his officials are here. Perhaps he could give some clarification
to the Canadian people.
He mentioned in the House that he has an agreement in principle.
Could he describe whether he has any agreement from the striking
PSAC workers that the rolling pickets would cease and desist
during the time that this vote is being taken? It is important
for Canadians to know what kind of assurances they have, if any,
that the strikes or pickets are going to be held off.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Chairman,
there are no assurances from the union that they will stop the
rotating strikes or that they will not have rotating strikes
between now and the time of ratification.
2700
Since we do not know if it will be ratified, if it were not to
be ratified then there is a possibility the strikes would
continue.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Chairman, just a follow-up question
to that. If the union has recommended acceptance of this
contract, and I assume then that it feels this is the best deal
it can make, and the government is satisfied it is the best deal,
it is fair to all concerned, does the Treasury Board president
not feel that he may be endangering the ratification process by
what we are doing here this evening? Basically what we are doing
is sticking a sharp stick in the union's eye.
If it was all done in good faith and we are taking the union's
word that it will promote this among its union workers, and this
agreement in principle does that, I think all of us in the House
say we are willing to live with it if the union and the
government are happy.
Does the President of the Treasury Board not feel it is
jeopardizing that ratification vote by telling the union workers
“notwithstanding your agreement in principle, we are going to
hit you with a great big club called back to work legislation”?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, we do not feel this
because we know that if there had been no tentative agreement,
the law would have been passed. The workers would have been sent
back to work. The workers also know that we have come to a
tentative agreement and they have not given us any assurances
between the time of the tentative agreement and the time of
ratification.
We have to protect Canadian people during that period of time.
The workers will have to choose to ratify or not and they will
have the choice between the collective agreement that would have
been included in the law as presently drafted and the new one and
another collective agreement, the one that has been agreed to in
principle that contains more benefits than the one included in
the law.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Chairman, my question for the minister relates to the definition
and in particular to the provisions which are included in the
collective agreement affecting gay and lesbian partners of public
servants.
As the minister knows, in other collective agreements that have
been negotiated with the federal public service benefits have
been extended to gay and lesbian partners. In the English
language definition of common law spouse, the definition reads as
follows: “Relationship exists when for a continuous period of at
least one year an employee has lived with a person, publicly
represented that person to be his/her spouse and continues to
live with the person as if that person were his/her spouse”.
[Translation]
In French, the definition of common law spouse reads as follows:
Common law spouse Il existe des liens de conjoint de fait
lorsque, pendant une période continue d'au moins une année, un
employé a cohabité avec une personne du sexe opposé et l'a
présentée publiquement comme son conjoint et continue à vivre
avec cette personne comme si elle était son conjoint.
[English]
I wonder if the minister could clarify and confirm that it is
his intention to extend the benefits of the collective agreement
fully to same sex partners and that the French language
definition of conjoints de fait will be amended to reflect that
equality.
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, the member has brought
that difference between the English and French definitions to my
attention today. The English definition is the right one. The
French definition, the one contained in the regulations, will be
amended deleting the words that are not in conformity with the English
version.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson: Mr. Chairman, just for
clarification, is it then the intention of the government to
extend these benefits to gay and lesbian partners of public
servants covered by the collective agreement?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, yes it is.
2705
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Chairman,
I would like to ask the President of the Treasury Board who is
not covered under this agreement. Which workers, please?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, basically under the
agreement there are two groups that are covered, table two, the
blue collar workers, and table four, the CXs, the correctional
workers. The agreement covers only these two groups.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I would
like to ask the minister how he explains the fact that, over the
years, ever since 1982 as I mentioned before in my presentation,
the times when the federal government has actually managed to
get along with its employees have become the exceptions to the
rule? How does he explain the fact that this government is
incapable of finding ways to come to an agreement with its
employees?
Is there something in the process that is wrong or flawed? Is
the problem the competence of the public servants? Is the
problem the orders that are given by the government?
How does he explain the fact that the government, no matter
which party is in power, is unable to get along with its
employees?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, before the two groups that we
are talking about, table 2 and table 4, we reached negotiated
settlements over the past two years with 87% of our employees.
If we include blue collar workers, this brings the number of
employees with whom we have negotiated collective agreements to
almost 95%.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I have
three brief questions for the minister responsible.
Would he agree to update the House specifically on the
instructions he gave to the government negotiators? Who are
they? What is their background in negotiation?
Secondly, what specifically caused him to lose confidence in the
possibility of reaching an agreement with the correctional
officers' representatives? At what point did he lose confidence
and what specific instructions did he give to the negotiators?
Is he going to be able to sleep tonight, knowing that he has
made a mockery of democracy?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, first of all, the instructions
to the negotiators for members of the correctional groups were
the same as were given to most of the other bargaining tables,
in other words a 2.5% increase the first year, a 2% increase the
second year and a whole series of provisions dealing with things
like parental leave, annual leave depending on seniority and so
on. Our instructions were the same.
Second, we have complete confidence in our negotiators because
they have made it possible for us to reach agreements with 87%
of our employees this year in difficult circumstances.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Chairman, my question pertains to the discriminatory practice
of paying workers in one region of the country, members of the
public service, less for work of equal value for the same work
done in another region of the country.
I would like to know from the minister whether there is any
intention on his part or his negotiator's part to delve into this
issue with a mind to making an equal rate of pay across the
country. Will the minister enlighten the House as to whether he
is amenable to moving toward this in the future?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, in most cases regional
rates are the rates that permit equity in terms of the rewards
for the work done. This is because the cost of living and market
conditions vary in the various regions of the country.
This is so true that in a department like external affairs there
are groups of countries defined according to cost of living,
difficulty of being there, the element of nearness or being very
far away, very isolated, and there are compensations for all of
these factors.
In the RCMP there are cost of living adjustments for instance.
Our regional rates adapt themselves much better to living
conditions, the cost of living and local market conditions.
2710
In the present negotiations we have reduced the number of
regional rates from ten to seven. That was one of the difficult
parts of the negotiations but we succeeded in getting agreement
between employers and employees.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, if
this back to work legislation pertains to the grain weighers,
what does the minister intend to use as a method to settle the
contract once he gets the workers back on the job?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, what we have in the
tentative agreement is a list of conditions of work that will
take place once the contract has been ratified by the workers. We
have a tentative agreement that has been initialled by us and by
the representative of the workers.
The back to work legislation has to apply in the interim period
which is between now and the time when the agreement will be
ratified. During that period there is no guarantee that there
will be ratification. There is no guarantee by the employees
that they will not have strikes.
The conditions of work will apply in the interim period, unless
it is ratified, and they will continue to apply if it is not
ratified. Those are conditions of the present contract.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Chairman, now
that table two is less of an issue and now that certain terms
will be recommended by the union to its workers for ratification,
I would like to ask about table four.
We now have the report of the conciliation board to the
chairperson of the Public Service Staff Relations Board. It is a
detailed ruling that came down from the board on March 19.
What is it about this report that the government cannot see fit
to implement knowing now that the union finds it okay? The union
has seen this report and finds it tolerable or to its liking and
will vote for it. Why can the government not simply say now that
it also accepts the findings of the conciliation board and use
this as the settlement for what has been going on?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, even though we have an
agreement that has been initialled by the negotiators once again
this does not cover the period between now and the moment of
ratification. For that time we still have to prevent strikes
from taking place. We have to take into account the possibility
that the agreement will not be ratified.
In terms of the CXs the conciliation board report is equivalent
to an increase in compensation of about 11% compared to the 2.5%
and 2% that have been the basic compensation. What PSAC was
asking for was equivalent to about an 18% increase in salary. We
cannot accept the conciliation board report because it is clearly
excessive in terms of all the other agreements we have
negotiated.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Chairman, everyone knows that the very reason for this
bill's existence has ceased to exist.
The government decided to bring in legislation because it
thought no agreement would be reached; since an agreement has
been reached, the reason for the bill no longer exists.
Starting now, should the government not provide instead that for
the group of correction officers who are not on strike, who will
not be going on strike because they are not in a legal position
to do so for two days, should it not provide in the bill
something that would allow 24 or 48 hours for reaching a
settlement, without the legislation as such applying to them?
It has already been proved that there is no need for special
legislation, since a settlement has been reached, while the
whole principle of the bill was based on the fact that the
government thought it could not reach an agreement, and an
agreement has in fact been reached.
Could the government not show good faith and give correctional
officers a chance to put this in a collective agreement, without
having to take the special legislation route?
2715
Hon. Marcel Massé: Again, Mr. Chairman, in the case of the blue
collar workers themselves, the reason we still need back to work
legislation is because there is a transition period between now
and the time when the agreement is ratified, and if the
agreement is not clearly ratified by the members, they have to
be prevented from causing more problems for western farmers, in
particular.
In the case of the correctional services officers, in theory,
they do not have the right to strike. They have all been
declared essential.
A strike did not take place, this time. Of course, we cannot
take the chance that the 500 or 600 correctional services
officers who currently have the right to strike could actually
do so, because already a riot in just one prison makes the lives
of inmates and staff very difficult. This is why they must be
included now while they do not have the right to strike.
The fact that they would be able to go on strike on Friday or
Saturday forces us to include them.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Chairman, when this evening began there was no tentative
agreement. Now there is a tentative agreement which
substantially changes the whole nature of the discussion.
I want to ask the President of the Treasury Board a simple
question. Is it his intention to table in the House tonight the
tentative agreement which we are now discussing?
Hon. Marcel Massé: No, Mr. Chairman, and I have given an
answer in this regard. There has been an agreement with the
negotiators, the union representatives and ourselves that it
would not be revealed.
The agreement, as I mentioned, was signed late last night.
Therefore the agents of the employees want to have time to
explain the agreement and present it to their members.
Mr. Preston Manning: Mr. Chairman, perhaps members of the
House would also like to understand what is in the tentative
agreement because it affects what we are doing tonight.
If the President of the Treasury Board cannot present the
agreement or table the agreement in the House, could he at least
explain the substantive points in it that make it different from
the current collective agreement or the one that would be
perpetuated if the legislation were passed?
Hon. Marcel Massé: I am told, Mr. Chairman, that the
agreement includes the basic 2.5% and 2%. There is also a long
list of improvements in terms of holidays. For instance, they
can have five weeks of holidays after 18 years of employment
rather than 19 years and so on.
Another advantage has been given to them. There are five steps
in each classification. One step has been added or reduced. I
am told that the increase that was offered to them is 2.75%
instead of 2% and there is a small increase in the salary or
wages they get per hour.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Chairman, I have a couple of questions. The hon. government
House leader told me earlier that he did not believe that there
was any provisions for the corrections services people, but the
minister just informed the House that group four, the corrections
people, were included.
Are the corrections people included in this tentative agreement?
If there is an initialled tentative agreement I can take it that
all the issues are resolved. If that is the case, would it not
be in our interest to give the workers an opportunity to ratify
it before we proceed?
The minister is not willing to table the document in the House
for members, but the union will be taking it to its membership
and it will therefore be in the public domain. Obviously they
have to know what they are voting on.
Why will the minister not give members of the House an
opportunity to see the agreement when in essence it will be in
the public domain as the union membership must see what is in it
if it is to vote and ratify the agreement?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, in the agreement only
the blue collar workers are covered. The CXs are a different
table. It would be a different agreement and there is no
agreement with them.
The agreement that was initialled tonight covers only the blue
collar workers, what we call table two, but they are both in the
law.
2720
On the other question, there is agreement between the unions and
ourselves that they would not be tabled for reasons that are easy
to understand. Yes, the union may reveal it, but we cannot break
our word to the union that we would not reveal it until there is
an agreement on it.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of
questions. Could the President of the Treasury Board inform the
House of what the total cost difference is between the agreement
outlined in the bill now before the House and the tentative
agreement that was arrived at with the table two workers?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, I am told that the cost
is something like $5 million out of a total bill of about $500
million. Therefore the difference is about 1%, perhaps 0.9%.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson: Mr. Chairman, the obvious question
that flows from that is why on earth the government put Canadian
farmers and Canadian public servants through this agony for $5
million of taxpayers money.
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, the basic question is
that what was asked by the unions and their negotiators was much
more than this. The reason we have an agreement is that they
have come down to a level that makes sense in terms of the
employees in our view and in terms of the employer.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Chairman, the
President of the Treasury Board has partly justified using this
special bill to impose working conditions on the basis of the
fact that there have been financial losses in a number of areas,
including grain handling and transportation.
Could he inform the House of the total amount of the financial
losses caused by these work stoppages?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, the figures have varied from
day to day. I am told that there have been up to 20 ships
immobilized in Vancouver's port.
There have been up to 1,300 grain cars immobilized there as
well. A $9 million contract has been lost, according to the
Saskatchewan Wheat Pool.
In any event, the farmers themselves have seen their wheat
exports drop significantly. I think that in the west it was
clear that this was an emergency that was costing them millions.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, can
the President of Treasury Board tell us about what he has
criticized as a slow-down in the processing of income tax
returns?
Can he give us figures? He made it sound terribly serious,
whereas according to our information everything is going fine as
far as processing returns is concerned.
Is there not something of a discrepancy between what the
President of Treasury Board has announced as a major problem
that required him to intervene by means of special legislation,
and the reality?
Hon. Marcel Massé: No, Mr. Chairman. I have been kept informed
on a daily basis of the output at the Department of National
Revenue by its Minister, Mr. Dhaliwal.
In the initial weeks, the backlog in uncompleted or non-processed
returns was 900,000. A few days ago the Minister of National
Revenue told me that the backlog was 1.2 million returns.
[English]
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Chairman, the Canadian Grain Commission is headed for about a $26
million loss over the next couple of years on its operating
deficit because the volume of grain moving is such that it cannot
cover its costs.
Is there anything in this agreement that prohibits the Canadian
Grain Commission from either eliminating positions or doing what
is necessary to create the efficiencies and effectiveness of
operations so farmers and others do not have to be charged
excessive user fees in order to pay these guys to stay at work
doing nothing?
2725
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in the
agreement, I am told, that affects the operations of the Canadian
Grain Commission.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Chairman, I would like
clarification on the facts of the case with regard to market
conditions as to zone pays and that sort of thing. The example
of the RCMP was used.
It is my understanding that the pay difference for Winnipeg,
Vancouver and Peterborough is zero, that the only difference is
in the northern living allowance and isolated post regulations.
Is it true that, as the minister stated earlier, market
conditions dictate the RCMP too?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, I am told there is a
cost of living adjustment in the Vancouver region also because of
cost of living conditions.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Chairman,
the President of the Treasury Board said earlier that all issues
had been resolved.
He also said earlier that there was no guarantee that strike
action would not be taken on the part of the union concerned. Did
the government approach the union to secure an agreement not to
proceed with any strike action before ratification?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we asked the union
that in the negotiations and it said no. It wants to have the
right to strike until ratification.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Chairman, on what grounds could the
minister say that all the issues have been resolved if the union
maintains a potential strike position? How do we know that the
tax centres, for instance, are not still vulnerable to strike
action under the status quo?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, the member is right to
say that this is indeed the difficulty. The various questions
that have been resolved are the questions that had to do in
particular with the various clauses in the collective agreement,
but the reason we have to continue with the law and bring forth
back to work legislation is that this risk exists. We have been
told that there may well be strikes between now and ratification.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, the fact remains though that
the CX guards, the table four correction workers, are not on
strike.
Here we have back to work legislation that is ordering people
back to work who are not on strike. Surely the minister will
accept how very odd this looks to the general public.
If the real goal is to take away their right to strike in the
future, why is that not coming to us in a bill that actually says
that? Why is it tucked into the back to work legislation dealing
with table two workers?
Hon. Marcel Massé: In fact, Mr. Chairman, all the
correctional workers should be designated as essential services,
which means that there is no right to strike. It is because of a
quirk, a loophole that was used, that now 500 to 600 of them have
the right to strike.
We believe that they must not have the right to strike because
they provide essential services. We are re-establishing the
position that should have existed where none of them had the
right to strike.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, why is this not coming to
us by way of separate legislation dealing with designating these
workers essential? Why is it coming to us in back to work
legislation which has nothing to do with workers who are not out
on strike? We cannot send people back to work who are not out on
strike and we should not be voting for something like that
tonight.
Why is the minister not introducing some kind of legislation on
a separate basis to designate these people and then we could have
argument and debate fairly on that one issue?
2730
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, these people have
already been designated as essential workers and they do not have
the right to strike. As I mentioned, 500 to 600 of them now have
the right to strike because of a quirk. We are correcting that
quirk. Because there is the possibility that these 500 to 600
would strike, and they have indicated that it was their intention
to disrupt the services in penitentiaries and so on, we have to
bring in back to work legislation that will prevent these people
who unfortunately now have the right to strike from having that
right in the future.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the
President of the Treasury Board if his attitude means, as far as
the government's strategy as the employer is concerned, that he
has crossed out the report by the conciliator, the neutral,
impartial intervenor whose proposals were endorsed by the union?
Does it mean that the employer does not intend to give any
weight at all to this report and that it prefers to legislate
strategically?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, in the case of the blue collar
workers there was a conciliation report that we were ready to
accept but the workers decided to reject.
In the case of the corrections employees, there was a report
that was in our opinion excessive and that we decided not to
accept. Both sides have an equal right to accept or reject. We
decided not to accept it.
However, there are clauses in the conciliation report for the
correctional workers that are in our opinion very useful. We
have already indicated to the union that we are ready to accept
them.
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to the
amendment to clause 7, but in fact it could stand for all the
government's amendments.
I would like the minister to confirm something for me. We have
been told that there is no guarantee that the collective
agreement resulting from the settlement that has been reached
would be the one that would take precedence if it is only
ratified in the next few weeks.
Given the way the clause is drafted, is there not a possibility
that the government could order that the conditions in the
legislation will take precedence, instead of waiting for the
actual results of the bargaining? Is this clause water-tight
enough to ensure that the settlement will take precedence over a
government fiat?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, our intention is clear. We
have said what we intend to do and we hope that the way the
amendments are drafted expresses our intention equally clearly.
If the initialed agreement is ratified by the blue collar
workers, that is the agreement that will become the contract
between the employer and the employees.
[English]
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Chairman, I
have two brief questions for the minister.
While both teams were at the negotiating table, did the PSAC
negotiators agree to forgo job action during the ratification
period if the government were to give up and delay its back to
work legislation?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, the union has indicated
that it is not ready to let go of the right to strike during the
ratification time period.
Mr. Charlie Power: Mr. Chairman, how long does the
minister expect this ratification or rejection process to take?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, the normal period for
the ratification process is four to six weeks. In this case the
union negotiators have indicated to us that they will try to do
it within two weeks.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Chairman,
the President of the Treasury Board has made no mention of the
Canadian Grain Commission. Is there anything that prohibits the
Canadian Grain Commission from eliminating positions in order to
create efficiency and effectiveness in the Canadian Grain
Commission?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in the
agreement on that subject.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Chairman, I ask a question specifically relating to the solicitor
general group, group four.
Some time ago that bargaining group had two options other than
negotiations when there was a problem. They could either have
conciliation and the right to strike or they could have binding
arbitration.
2735
This government has taken away their right for binding
arbitration and has left them only with conciliation and strike.
So they went for conciliation, and the conciliation panel, never
mind that there was a dissenting report, there was a majority
report. They are prepared to accept that. The only thing that
the government has left them is conciliation and the government
is rejecting that.
It was only through a slip-up on the part of the government. In
actual fact it was a big slip-up, mainly because there were
unfilled positions that did not get designated and the government
could not designate something it said was not important enough to
fill, then it turned around and filled them. That is why it has
the problem.
The position now is that the only thing left for these people is
conciliation. They went that route and accepted it. The
government is saying, “We are going to designate you so you
cannot go on strike. We have taken away arbitration and now we
will not accept conciliation”.
How does the President of the Treasury Board justify the fact
that the government has taken away the two options they had? It
has taken away strike and it is going to designate them. How are
they ever in good faith supposed to negotiate with this
government when the government has totally emasculated them and
taken away every opportunity for action against the government?
They rely only on the goodwill of government and that is not very
strong these days.
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that even
when the right to arbitration existed, the PSAC, the CXs, have
never used it.
Second, the conciliation board report is a useful instrument,
but as I mentioned, in the case of the blue collar workers we
thought that the conciliation board report made a lot of sense
and the blue collar workers refused it. We used exactly the same
right in this case. Also we have to remember that in the case of
the CXs, in December we had had an agreement with the
negotiators. Hon. members will remember that even the union
thought that the agreement with the correctional officers was a
good one and recommended to the union to accept it. But in the
end, the employees did not accept it.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson: Mr. Chairman, as the minister will
be aware, Canada has undertaken international obligations with
the International Labour Organization and it is signatory to a
number of international labour conventions.
I wonder whether the minister could indicate whether he has
gauged the acceptance of the bill which is now before the House
against Canada's international commitments under ILO conventions.
I would suggest through the Chair that in fact Canada is in
breach of our ILO conventions through this legislation.
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, we have evaluated that
agreement in terms of domestic law, of Canadian law and not in
terms of international law.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson: Mr. Chairman, the obvious question
is if Canada is serious about its obligations under international
law and particularly these conventions that we have signed, why
on earth is this government refusing to evaluate the legislation
against that and refusing to respect those international
commitments?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, our basic desire of
course is always to come to negotiated settlements. In cases
like this, I think it is clear that the domestic law
predominates.
Mr. Jim Gouk: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Could I
ask why it seems that almost everybody is getting supplementaries
but I did not?
The Chairman: I did not see the hon. member rise,
unfortunately. The hon. member need not worry. I will come back
to him in due course.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Chairman,
I will ask a supplementary because the answer to my first
question will help me with the second question.
2740
In response to my colleague from the Kootenays and to my
colleague from Winnipeg Centre, it was not made clear to my
satisfaction at least as to whether this legislation relative to
the CX employees will permanently put them out of the range of
strike. Will this permanently refuse their ability to strike?
Hon. Marcel Massé: No, Mr. Chairman. That is done
through other means. It is the designation as workers in
essential services.
In the present case we have a specific problem. We are solving
it through the back to work legislation until this agreement
expires and another one replaces it.
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, in the definitions group
specific agreement means any agreement specified in schedule 1.
The second part of the bill deals with schedule 2.
It strikes me that the government is basically saying to its
workers that they have a right to strike up to the point that
they want to strike. Is that not what it is saying? In other
words, we are having to deal with the legislation we have at the
moment at 3.40 a.m. because of the inability of the government to
come to an agreement with its workers. Having reached a point
where it cannot come to an agreement with its workers, it then
removes the right to strike.
I ask the President of the Treasury Board, what is the purpose
of having a right to strike for people in the public service if
when they choose to exercise that right we are forced to vote on
back to work legislation thereby removing that right?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, in the case of the CXs,
because they are designated as an essential service the right to
strike does not exist. This has been a choice that has been made
because the security of prisoners and other people is involved.
In the case of the blue collar workers, it is obvious that the
right to strike is not absolute. When there is an emergency
situation like there is in terms of western grain, then at that
point the government has the ability, and it has used it in the
past, to bring the workers back to work because the security,
safety or economic life of Canadians is involved.
Mr. Jim Gouk: Mr. Chairman, before I start, is this the
supplemental I did not get or is this a new one which will give
me a supplemental?
The Chairman: If the hon. member wants it.
Mr. Jim Gouk: Mr. Chairman, I want to finish off with the
answer I did not get from the President of the Treasury Board.
I specifically asked how unions and more specifically the CX
employees are supposed to bargain in good faith if the government
takes away every single tool that they have. He said that the
arbitration has not been used, yet the government saw fit to take
it away from them.
Now we have a situation where they are designated. The
government is saying it still left them with the right to
conciliate and strike. If the government does not like the
report of the conciliator, it will take that right away from them
too, but the government will keep rights on its side. We have an
incredible imbalance.
One of two items that is in this proposal of the conciliation
board, and there are only two, deals with pay and training. I am
a member of the subcommittee studying the CCRA. I have been in
the Pacific region and I have been in Atlantic Canada. Training
is non-existent. Guards are being asked to do a job which they
do not know the details of or what the rules are because there is
no training. That was one of the two items.
If this is such an unacceptable conciliation report, is the
government saying it does not care what they make, it does not
care if they are trained and it does not care if they have any
rights any more? How is the CX employee supposed to bargain in
good faith when the two things the government said that were
their tools in the event of a failure to settle a dispute are
taken away? How are they supposed to negotiate in the future if
they are told no arbitration, no strike and it will not accept
conciliation unless it says exactly what the government wants it
to say?
2745
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, in fact the past history
proves that we have been able to come to agreements with them. We
were very close to having an agreement with the correctional
officers before. There was an agreement accepted by the
negotiators but, as I mentioned, it was not ratified by the
employees. Clearly, over the past years we have been able to
come to agreements with them.
In the conciliation report there were four items. One was, of
course, wages. There was training. There was another one about
a study that will establish if really they are or should be
equivalent to RCMP officers, and so on, and we have agreed to
that one as well. Out of the four elements we have agreed to
three. I think our record shows that we have been able to come
to agreements with them.
Mr. Jim Gouk: Mr.
Chairman, I still have not received an answer to a question twice
asked. How are the CXs supposed to negotiate in good faith with
the government in the future when they are being told they are
designated, they cannot go on strike? They have had the right to
binding arbitration taken away from them and the government has
now proved that unless the conciliation report says what the
government wants, it will not accept that either.
How in the future are they supposed to bargain in good faith in
light of what the government has done to them this time?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, in the end it is always
the market that determines if a level of salaries or wages is
acceptable. In this case we have no problem with rates that are
offered in the negotiated settlement. We have no problem
recruiting prison guards.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Chairman, we now have a tentative agreement. We have an imposed
settlement, this 500-page plus document. We have had questions
about what is now seeming to boil down to a concern about what
happens between now and ratification in terms of the government's
concern that these people will be able to strike.
If that is the issue, and that appears to be a very big part of
the issue, I want to follow up on earlier questions by other
members and ask the government why it does not bring forward
simple legislation that just deals with keeping people on the job
between now and the eventual ratification of the agreement, and
forget about this imposed settlement that we have all been bogged
down with in this place today.
Hon. Marcel Massé: Because, in fact, Mr. Chairman, the
agreement may not be ratified. We have already had the problem
with the CXs where there was an agreement with their negotiators.
It was put to a vote of the employees and it was not ratified.
We have three problems that can only be solved by passing back
to work legislation. The first one is the problem between now
and the moment of ratification. That means that for two to four
to six weeks the farmers in the west would be submitted to the
kind of rotating strikes that have taken place in the past few
weeks. I think we have come to the judgment that the farmers in
the west are not ready to accept that.
There is also the possibility that the agreement will not be
ratified. If it is not ratified, of course, we need back to work
legislation for the same reasons: the emergencies that have
been created, in particular in the west. In terms of the CXs, as
I have explained, we have to have back to work legislation that
will prevent them from striking because we cannot afford a strike
in the essential services in the penitentiaries.
Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Chairman, my question really has not
been addressed. The reason it has not is because I used the
words “eventual ratification”. The government has proved that
the way it is going to bargain is that it is going to legislate
people back to work anyway. That is a given.
It does not have to all hinge on ratification of this agreement.
We can talk about eventual ratification. In terms of the
corrections officers, the corrections table, I think that
surgical legislation is another option for the government rather
than this huge, imposed settlement.
Can the minister please tell me why that is not an option?
2750
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, in the case of the CXs,
there are 500 to 600 prison guards who at present have not been
declared essential services. They will be in a position to
strike on Friday of this week. We have to prevent their ability
to strike in this case because their work is an essential
service.
In the case of the blue collar workers, we know what the strikes
have produced in the last few weeks. We know the state of
emergency which has been created in Vancouver, as well as for
western farmers. We want to prevent that state of emergency
continuing during the period of ratification which, once again,
could be two, four or six weeks. We have been told by
authorities in the west that they cannot continue even for that
period of time, even for another two weeks, without these people
being prevented from having rotating strikes.
Of course we have to consider the possibility, which does exist,
that ratification will not take place. Then, obviously, we would
have to have back to work legislation in any case.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Chairman, I am sure that other members of parliament must have
been as disturbed as I was to hear that the minister admits not
even having considered whether or not this legislation was in
conformity with Canada's commitments at the ILO. Could the
minister tell us, when it comes to labour legislation and to
legislation which is arguably in violation of these international
commitments, if it is the policy of the minister and of the
government to not even bother subjecting this kind of legislation
to an analysis which would indicate whether or not it was in
violation of these agreements? Surely this is disturbing.
It would have been better if the minister had said that they
subjected it to this kind of analysis and came to a different
conclusion than I might have come to, but the minister said that
he did not even bother to consider whether or not the ILO
commitments were relevant in this case. Could he indicate if it
is government policy to completely ignore the ILO? If it is
government policy, would he care to defend such a policy? I
would not.
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, we operate in the
context of Canadian law and Canadian law reflects public
interest. We try to make sure, and usually we do, that the
agreements we bring together are in conformity with Canadian law
and meet the test of Canadian law. It is this parliament that
passes the law. We do our utmost to fit this test. The ILO is
not a test that is asked of us in terms of serving the public
interests of Canadians as expressed in Canadian law.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Chairman, this is getting to be a
more and more interesting and ridiculous claim. I wonder what
the Minister of Foreign Affairs would think of this view as he
goes around the world rightly preaching the value of
international agreements when the President of the Treasury Board
says he is only answerable to Canadian law in this case.
In what context would the President of the Treasury Board argue
that he is answerable to international law? Is there any context
in which he would be answerable to international law,
international labour law in this case, if he is not answerable to
it at all in a case like this?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, in a way, what can I
say? We are bound by Canadian law because it is the law that
applies to us, so we put it into place.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, I would like to find out from
the President of the Treasury Board whether there was an offer,
in the agreement, from the government and a response from the
union for the people who were already on strike regarding the
possibility that they might return to work as early as tomorrow,
while the agreement is ratified.
Was there an offer from the government on this, and was there a
response from the union on the possibility that the employees
would go back to work and the agreement would be ratified later
on?
[English]
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, our negotiator has asked
specifically for that to be done and the negotiators for the
union have said no.
Mr. Charlie Power: Mr. Chairman, when I asked the minister if
PSAC negotiators were willing to give up job action during the
ratification period in return for the government giving up its
back to work legislation, the minister answered that the union
was not willing to give up its strike option. Was this position
forced on the union because the government would not relent and
give up its right to back to work legislation?
2755
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, we believe it is in the
public interest of Canadians, because of the emergencies that
exist, to have back to work legislation that will prevent strikes
as of now. That is why we want to introduce back to work
legislation.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, I
wonder if the minister could tell us what will be the lower level
of the hourly rate, the highest hourly rate and the average
hourly rate under the new contract.
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, I do not have that
information. Since the agreement was signed only late tonight we
have not been able to calculate it. However, we would not give
out that information because we are not going to reveal the
details of the negotiated agreement.
Mr. Ted White: Mr. Chairman, could the minister then
please give us the lowest hourly rate, the highest hourly rate
and the average hourly rate under the old contract?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, my negotiator does not
have that.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Chairman, I realize that we are not
just asking questions here. I might launch into a 25 minute
speech just to keep everybody's attention. Then again, maybe I
will not.
I have a couple of questions for the President of the Treasury
Board. I hope he realizes the difficulty that he has put
parliamentarians in and even Canadians as they try to evaluate
this bill.
Basically he is saying to vote in favour of this bill and to
support the agreement, but we cannot see the agreement because it
is secret. In other words, he is telling us to trust him. “I'm
from the government and I am here to help”. It is one of those
things that one has an awful lot of difficulty believing.
Why would he suggest that parliamentarians, and Canadians in
general, would want this thing rammed through parliament, given
the stamp of approval, when he cannot tell us what we are voting
on because it is a secret? Why should we do that?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, the general parameters
that I have given them tonight are the 2.75% and 2%, plus the
increase in salaries. I have mentioned some of the advantages,
such as holidays, parental holidays and so on. The existing
agreement is available for everybody to see. On that basis one
can see what the general parameters are.
As I have mentioned, we have an agreement with the union which
we will not reveal because the union wants to present it to its
members first. However, I believe it is quite clear to members
what the general parameters of the agreement are.
In terms of the CXs, I have indicated what the results were of
the conciliation board, what the percentages were and why we
believe they cannot be accepted.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Chairman, I do not think we could
get a union worker to vote on what the minister just said. That
is like saying “Oh, you saw the old agreement. The new one is
better, so just vote for it and you will be happy”. Obviously
the union would not go for that. Yet here in parliament,
parliamentarians are being asked to just trust this government.
I guess it is something that we could live with, but it makes it
really difficult to be gung-ho for. It is hard to vote for
something that amounts to tens of millions or hundreds of
millions of dollars, or whatever, when we are not sure of the
details.
I would also like to point out this idea of the emergency that
is seizing the nation right now. There are going to be darn few
people watching this because the real emergency of course is
going on over in Europe. This idea of an emergency gripping the
nation is a little hard to believe.
The grain is moving. That is not the emergency. There is nobody
picketing in any major sustained way. I do not see an emergency
there. Emergency is a kind of an overplayed word here, I think,
unless one is the victim of an overactive imagination.
2800
The procedure we are going through tonight of committee of the
whole is a proposal that the Reform Party has made. Each minister
should go through this at the tabling of every bill in the House.
Whether I agree with the minister or not, I think it has been an
excellent process to go through. When a minister tables a complex
bill and comes in with his officials and answers questions like
this for an hour is an excellent idea and would improve the House
of Commons tremendously. I do approve of what is going on here
tonight. I think it is great.
During a press conference today the president of PSAC, and I
cannot use the words because they are unparliamentary, said some
things of the Treasury Board president that were very
uncomplimentary. He said that the President of the Treasury
Board is not correct when he said refunds from Revenue Canada are
behind schedule. He says they are ahead of last year's schedule
at this same time. In other words, he says they are ahead of
where they were a year ago.
Could the President of the Treasury Board explain whether he
believes the PSAC president?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, I believe it is an
emergency and it is important. The Reform Party itself judged it
proper to have an emergency debate on the question. I listened
carefully to what Reformers said and they gave all kinds of
elements about western farmers that to me would indicate there
was an emergency situation.
Yes, I am aware, perhaps unfortunately, of the words the
president of PSAC had. I always speak kindly of him. Perhaps we
are both wrong in our assessment of each other.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Chairman, I would like to ask the Treasury Board president why he
is crying a few crocodile tears on behalf of western farmers. The
minister knows very well he has thrown up a smoke screen for the
poor job that the wheat board minister has done in selling our
wheat.
Western farmers have sold off-board grains at record high prices
while the Canadian Wheat Board has sold less than 50% of the
wheat board grains at record low prices. If they want to gain
some brownie points with western farmers, give us a voluntary
wheat board and there will be no problem with strikes on the west
coast. Get up and act like a government and let farmers take
over their own business.
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, I see the hon. member's
position.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Chairman, PSAC workers were trying to get the same wage for doing
the same job as members in other unions working for the federal
government. PSAC workers were asking for the same wage as those
working for CUPW. Did the workers from PSAC get the same wage
for doing the same job as other members working for different
unions within the federal government?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that there
are different rates for every function. Even within one
collective agreement there are sometimes hundreds of rates for
very different classifications.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, but that is
not good enough. People are doing the same job with the same
qualifications and the same merits as somebody else doing the
same job with the same qualifications and the same merits in a
different union but both working for the federal government and
yet they are getting paid very disparate amounts of money.
2805
For example, crane operators in my riding were getting paid $16
an hour where crane operators in other unions working right
beside them were getting paid 50% more. That is a huge inequity.
Was that rectified in the negotiations that were just undertaken?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, because there are that
many unions and because these rates are determined by collective
agreements what we do in the federal government is let the
collective agreement process determine the wages. This is the
system we use.
Now that we are introducing the UCS, the universal
classification system, we will at least have a classification
system that will be standardized and will enable us to correct
some of these discrepancies.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Chairman,
I have a question relating to the PSAC workers, particularly in
the Atlantic region.
The President of the Treasury Board said that the regional rates
are based on adaptation to living conditions. I have two
questions.
First, how are those local living conditions assessed, on what
basis are they assessed? Second, are they open to change or
review if the living conditions change during the life of the
agreement?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, these rates could always
be changed even in the middle of a collective agreement. They
would have to be changed by mutual agreement. That is the
process we have.
We have adaptations every time we renegotiate these rates. We
try to take into account local living conditions in order to get
the negotiating rates to reflect local conditions.
Mr. Peter Mancini: Mr. Chairman, I have a supplementary
for the president. I know it is late and he might have forgotten
my first question.
What are the living conditions based on? How are they measured?
What is used as the yardstick say between Saskatchewan, Nova
Scotia, British Columbia, Toronto and Ontario?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, when the initial rates
were negotiated I was told there were studies of living
conditions, cost of living and so on. These are arguments that
are brought up by the union in order to determine the rates for
each location.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Chairman, the President of the Treasury Board has indicated to
us, as I understand it, that the government has an agreement but
it really does not have an agreement. There are some initials on
it but they really do not have to abide by anything.
Does this great announcement he made a few hours ago have any
meaning whatsoever or are we in exactly the same position, from a
purely practical point of view, as we were in yesterday?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, the process works in
such a way that these negotiations take place between the
negotiators of the government and the negotiators of the union.
They reach a tentative agreement, as they call it, and initial
it. However, this agreement does not have the force of a
collective agreement until it is ratified by a majority of the
members.
This agreement does not have force of law. It is not a
collective agreement and it cannot be applied. However, now that
we have a tentative agreement it means that since we prefer to
have a negotiated settlement rather than a legislated one we will
introduce amendments in the law that will permit us, if this
initial agreement is ratified, to put it as the collective
agreement that will serve as the instrument of relationships
within the parties.
Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the
President of the Treasury Board what good is a tentative
agreement or a preliminary without a no strike commitment. It is
just a piece of paper.
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, once the agreement is
ratified and becomes the agreement between the parties at that
point there is a no strike agreement.
There is a contract between the two parties, but until that
agreement has been ratified it does not have the force of law and
therefore the employees can strike.
2810
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Chairman,
the President of the Treasury Board earlier said it was a glitch
that allowed prison guards to strike. My understanding was an
administrative error by this department.
Since PSAC does not seem to have been doing too good a job
representing correctional service workers according to
newspapers, they have been organized under a more militant union.
It appears to me that the government is using grain
transportation and tax returns as a cynical cover to play one
group against another and it is really the correctional service
that is the point of this legislation.
If that is really the minister's intention would he have
introduced this legislation if it were only about shipping
prairie grain?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, we would have had to
introduce the act purely for the CXs, for the correctional
officers, given that in this case they should not have the right
to strike. They are designated as essential and there was that
possibility of a strike.
However, in the case of the blue collar workers, we believe, and
I think a lot of the people in the Reform Party agree with us,
that there was a state of emergency. The communications from the
Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, the communications from the Canadian
Wheat Board, the communications from the Saskatchewan government
were quite clear that there were conditions there that were
threatening the livelihood of farmers and that is in good part
why we are bringing in back to work legislation.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Chairman, it is impossible to have a
legislative collective agreement. What we have is a legislated
forced settlement. There is nothing collective about it.
The minister and his department knew years ago that a day was
coming up when 600 or 800 so-called CX workers, prison guard
workers, would have a legal right to strike. He gives the
perception to the House that it was a surprise and they were
caught off guard that they would have this legal right to strike.
Why did they not bring in special legislation strictly for that
purpose instead of trying to hide it through the back door and
call it legislation as he is trying to do?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, if we had been able to
solve that question through a negotiated settlement there would
have been no need for legislation because the situation would
have rectified itself through common agreement. In this case,
because there was no agreement, we have to legislate.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chairman, the President of the
Treasury Board has not answered the question.
The question is quite simple. His department knew months ago
that these workers had a legal date to strike. Why did he make
it a perception in the House that it is a surprise to him? Why
is he including it in this massive 534 page document and calling
it back to work legislation when in essence what he should be
doing is introducing special legislation specifically for those
workers?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, I do not think so
because these workers are all designated essential. In this case
when new positions were created they had to be defined and then
registered. When people move into existing positions they have
to be reconfirmed as essential workers. That unfortunately was
not done. I could say it is not the fault of Treasury Board, but
this does not matter. In this case it was not done and the
result is that there is a risk of a strike and that is why we
have to introduce legislation.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Chairman,
the President of the Treasury Board caused much unnecessary
controversy and skepticism last evening when he stood as the
first speaker on second reading of the bill before us to present
his statement regarding the tentative agreement.
2815
My question for the minister is very simple. He told us last
night that he had learned about this tentative agreement at 10.10
p.m. and presented it to the House in vague terms after the vote
was taken on the motion to expedite the passage of Bill C-76.
Why did he not bring the information before the House before the
vote so that members such as myself could consider all relevant
material that was germane to the bill? Why did he not bring it
to the House before the vote instead of after the vote?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, I thought that had been
solved when the question of privilege was argued. The right
argument is that this fact was not one that would affect the
motion to expedite debate but this fact was a force essential for
the discussion of the bill. I learned about it at 10.10 p.m. and
I was here at about 10.40 p.m.
I barely had time to change my speech in order to be able to
make my first statement on that news. During that first
statement, as the member may recall, I indicated what had
happened. I also indicated that because of the CXs and because
of the time period before ratification for blue collar workers we
still needed the type of legislation that was in front of us. I
do not want to resurrect that but that is how it happened.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Chairman, I raised the matter
because I am in principle supportive of the need for this kind of
legislation, but my support and that of many other members for
the legislation has become very tenuous because of the sequence.
It did appear to us that back to work legislation might be
necessary on an emergency basis. For that reason many of us
voted to expedite it. Then we discovered all of a sudden that a
tentative agreement had been reached and the predicate of an
emergency seemed to suddenly disappear.
I have a second question for the minister. For how long has the
President of the Treasury Board known that his negotiating team
was close to reaching a tentative agreement with the PSAC union?
How long did he know that they were closing in on an agreement
and how long did he withhold that information from the House?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, I do not agree with the
term withhold, but I will go with the reason for the legislation.
Unfortunately the way that negotiations take place means that we
still need the back to work legislation in terms of emergency for
the CXs. That is clear. That is half the legislation.
The other part of the legislation deals with table two blue
collar workers. The fact that there is a period of time when
strikes can take place before ratification and the fact that
ratification is not assured indicate that the requirement for
back to work legislation continues to exist.
In terms of the emergency itself, we had an emergency debate. We
dealt with that question and we came to the conclusion that there
was an emergency.
Negotiations take place all the time more or less seriously.
There was a meeting between our chief negotiator and the head of
PSAC between 8 and 10 this evening. I was told after the final
meeting between the two of them that they had reached an
agreement.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, I am
sure it is no secret to the President of the Treasury Board that
the Reform Party very much supports the use of final offer
selection arbitration.
Does he favour the use of final offer selection to settle cases
like that of the grain weighers?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, these are options that
could be considered. One of the reasons we have taken away
arbitration was that we were in the process of introducing
universal classification systems where all kinds of salary
adjustments had to be made. This is why at present we do not
have them, but arbitration in a number of cases is a very useful
way of dealing with these problems.
2820
Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I heard the President of
the Treasury Board talk about arbitration, but I was talking
specifically about the use of final offer selection arbitration
in which both parties are required to submit their final offer
and the arbitrator takes all of one position or all of the other.
Could he comment on that for me, please?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, the member probably has
more knowledge of that specific type of arbitration than I do. I
will just indicate that there are various types of arbitration.
They all have pros and cons. If one of them is more efficient
obviously we should give it more weight.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Chairman, my question for the
treasury board minister has to do with some of the costs that
came out of this strike.
The Public Service Alliance of Canada and the government botched
these negotiations to the point where serious financial harm
happened to farmers, in particular, along with many other
suppliers and service industries. Those costs deal with added on
farm storage of grains, lost sales overseas and the loss of
Canada's reliability as an exporter. That will cost farmers into
the future.
I would guess that the fault is about 75% on the government and
25% on the Public Service Alliance of Canada in botching these
negotiations. Is there anything in that agreement to pay
farmers, the innocent third parties, the moneys they have lost in
this strike action?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, I am informed that there
are none.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Chairman, could I get a
commitment from the treasury board minister to begin an
investigation to determine the exact costs to farmers and to take
action through legislation to compensate them?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, we will look at these
possibilities.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Chairman, in my riding many of PSAC
members, in particular workers on the base at Esquimalt, were
working at levels just slightly above welfare levels but were
acting out of a sense of duty to the military for which they
worked as civilian members.
I want to know whether or not the raise these workers obtained
was equal to, greater than or less than the raise we as members
of parliament voted for ourselves last year.
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, the rate we got was 2%.
In this case the basic settlement was 2.5% and 2% just as the
base.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Chairman, these people have been
legislated back to work four times. This is the fourth time we
are attempting to do it.
In order to avoid these problems in the future, will the
President of the Treasury Board include in the contract an
opportunity to engage in either final offer arbitration or
binding arbitration to prevent strike actions that have impaired
our economy, or a solution that would get us out of the problem
of ordering these workers back to work against their will while
enabling them to have a legitimate out?
We could develop a solution that would be fair to the
government, the taxpayers and the workers who are trying to get a
fair resolution to their grievances.
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, I underline the fact
that we have been able to negotiate collective agreements with
our members in more than 87% of the cases. However I will
consider the possibilities my hon. colleague mentioned.
2825
Mr. Jim Gouk: Mr. Chairman, I would not like to leave on
record two inaccuracies that were mentioned tonight. The first
was when the President of Treasury Board said that they took
arbitration away this time because of a whole series of new
classifications. I want the record to show that the right to
arbitration has been taken away for two successive years at
budget time, not just for this set of negotiations.
It was also stated that the conciliation recommendation covered
four areas when it covered two. It covered pay and it covered
training. The training clause was watered down so much that even
I do not accept it. Yet they were prepared to accept it.
The President of the Treasury Board specifically said that by
comparison wage parity with the RCMP was included. Wage parity
with the RCMP would require about a 38% increase. The
conciliation report ranged between 12.5% and 14.2%. Let the
record show accurately what happened and not what has been stated
by the President of the Treasury Board.
The question I would like to ask goes back to what I asked three
times now and did not get an answer to except under the most
insulting terms CX workers could possibly imagine. I asked how
they could possibly negotiate in good faith with the government
in the future, given that the government had taken away
arbitration and given that the government had essentially
rejected conciliation, had taken away their right to strike and
had said it would designate them.
His response the third time I asked the question was that if
they did not like it they could quit because there were lots of
people who would work for less. Prisoners work for $5.65 a day.
Perhaps the President of the Treasury Board will get the
prisoners to look after themselves, or maybe the CX employees
could lock themselves up because it seems they would have more
rights that way.
I would like to ask this question for the fourth time to see if
I can get a logical and acceptable answer. Will the President of
the Treasury Board tell the House how employees like the CX group
will be able to negotiate in good faith with the government in
the future when they have lost the right of binding arbitration,
when the government rejects their conciliation, rules them back
to work instead of allowing strikes and goes to full designation?
How will they negotiate in the future?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, the member unfortunately
will get the same answer because I do not know of any other
answer to his question.
The four elements in the conciliation report are training,
parity or not with the RCMP, a step taken off the bottom and a
step added at the top.
The member is right when he says there has been a prescription
for arbitration twice: one in the last budget for the reason I
gave and one in the budget at the time we imposed restrictions.
At that point we indicated that we wanted to be responsible for
the settlements and did not want a referee to be responsible for
them.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, we have been listening to the
President of the Treasury Board saying over and over again that
it is necessary to designate the 600 or 700 CX people who are
left over.
However, as recently as March 22, the Treasury Board and the
Public Service Alliance of Canada signed a memorandum of
settlement saying that it was understood and agreed that the 608
positions identified were not designated within the meaning, et
cetera. Item No. 3 said that the parties further agreed that the
employer would not seek any change of the non-designated status
of the positions until subsequent notice to bargain was served in
the next round of bargaining, et cetera.
The treasury board and the Public Service Alliance met all day
on March 19 to hash out the agreement that they would not do
anything to go after these non-designated people, and now we are
facing legislation, the heaviest hand of all, being imposed in
the House of Commons. I guess I am asking for some explanation.
If the memorandum signed on March 22 said that we could survive
with this number of non-designated people, why is it now an
emergency and all of them have to be designated immediately with
such a heavy instrument or a blunt cudgel, one might say?
2830
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, the answer is easy.
Before that agreement was made, there were 900 people in that
situation. That agreement solved it for 300, but unfortunately
it did not solve it for the 500 to 600 that were left. For these
500 and 600 we still have the need for back to work legislation.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, my information shows it was
actually 1,200 when the application was started on February 19.
The fact is that the language in here is fairly clear: The
parties further agree the employer will not seek any change to
the non-designated status of the positions in this appendix until
subsequent to notice to bargain being served in the next round of
bargaining involving the correctional. The government clearly
built in a strategy on how it would get these other people
designated in the next round of bargaining.
Is it not being intellectually dishonest to sign this on the
22nd and one day later try to slam this through with the back to
work legislation? Clearly something needs more explanation.
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, I am told there was an
emergency in these two institutions where these 300 people were.
That emergency was solved for these two situations. However, the
rest of the problem remained. Once again that is why we have to
have back to work legislation for these essential services.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Chairman, I would like
the President of the Treasury Board to clarify one thing.
When we were discussing blue collar workers' salaries, we asked
why people on the east coast were paid less than others. The
case of members of Parliament was used as an example. The
President of the Treasury Board said that certain MPs were
compensated at a higher rate than others. I think that all MPs
are paid the same amount whether they come from the east coast,
from New Brunswick, from Vancouver or from Edmonton.
I know all MPs receive the same salary. The only thing which is
different is the travel expense budget for members who live
further away.
What was said in the House is not correct. People in the
Atlantic provinces deserve to be paid the same salary for
similar jobs as the people in the west or anywhere else. In the
collective agreement signed with the union this evening to be
submitted to its members, is there some reference to the fact
that people in the east will be paid the same for the same work
as those in the rest of the country?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, my colleague is of course
referring to the fact that federal MPs are all paid the same no
matter where they come from. What I said earlier was that
members of provincial parliaments receive different salaries.
This can be proved. You only have to look at the difference
between the salaries of MPs in Newfoundland, for instance, and
Ontario. That is what I said.
Regarding regional rates of pay, I said that equity involves
adapting to local circumstances and the local cost of living.
That is what we are doing.
If we look at the case of the blue collar workers, the Atlantic
region benefits enormously under the agreement we have now.
Mr. Yvon Godin: I just want it to be clear. It is as if the
minister said to the House that MPs from Newfoundland or
elsewhere were not paid the same. We are not at the provincial
level. We are at the federal level.
An MP gets the same salary whether he comes from Newfoundland,
New Brunswick or Vancouver. Do the people who work for the
federal government not deserve the same salary, whether they
come from Newfoundland or New Brunswick or Vancouver or
Edmonton, no matter where throughout the country? I am talking
about salary here, not expenses.
2835
[English]
Hon. Marcel Massé: I have understood what the member has
said.
The Chairman: Shall clause 2 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 2 agreed to)
[Translation]
The Chairman: Shall clause 3 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 3 agreed to)
[English]
The Chairman: Shall clause 4 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 4 agreed to)
[Translation]
The Chairman: Shall clause 5 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause agreed to)
[English]
(On clause 6)
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) Mr. Chairman, I move:
That Bill C-76, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 14 to
16 on page 3 with the following:
“bargaining agent and the employees until the earlier of
(a) the day they become bound by a single collective agreement
concluded by the employer and bargaining agent, and
(b) the day they become bound by the collective agreement
referred to in subsection 7(3).”
[Translation]
The Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Amendment agreed to)
[English]
The Chairman: Shall clause 6, as amended, carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 6, as amended, agreed to)
[Translation]
On clause 7
Hon. Don Boudria (Government House Leader, Lib.): Mr. Chairman,
I move:
That Bill C-76, in Clause 7, be amended by adding after line 3 on
page 4 the following:
“(6) If the employer, the bargaining agent and the employees
become bound by a single collective agreement concluded by the
employer and the bargaining agent before terms and conditions of
employment applicable to the employees are prescribed under
subsection (1), subsections (1) to (5) and section 9 are deemed
to be spent.”
[English]
The Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the committee to
adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Amendment agreed to)
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Chairman, I
move:
That Clause 7 be amended by adding after line 28 the following:
(c) the introduction of seven new pay zones to be reconfigured
in the following way: (i) Merge Zone 2 Atlantic with Zone 3
Quebec; (ii) Merge Zone 6 Manitoba, Zone 7 Saskatchewan and Zone
8 Alberta; (iii) Add Banff, Alberta to British Columbia.
The Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the committee to
adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: No.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Amendment negatived)
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I move:
That Bill C-76, in clause 7, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 3
on page 4.
2840
The Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the
amendment?
Some hon. members: No.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Amendment negatived)
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I move:
That Bill C-76 in Clause 7, be amended by replacing lines 17 to
35 on page 3 with the following:
“7. (1) The President of the Privy Council shall, after
the coming into force of this Act, appoint a mediator-arbitrator
and refer to the mediator-arbitrator all matters that, at the
time of the appointment, remain in dispute between the parties in
relation to the conclusion of a new collective agreement.
(2) The mediator-arbitrator shall, within ninety days
after being appointed,
(a) endeavour to mediate all the matters referred to in subsection
(1) and to bring about an agreement between the parties on those
matters;
(b) if the mediator-arbitrator is unable to do so, hear
the parties on the matter, arbitrate the matter and render a
decision;
(c) ensure that any agreement or decision referred to in
paragraph (a) or (b) is in appropriate contractual language so as
to allow its incorporation into the collective agreement; and
(d) report to the President of the Privy Council on the
resolution of all such matters.
(2.1) The mediator-arbitrator has, with any modifications
that the circumstances require,
(a) for the purposes of the mediation referred to in
paragraph (2)(a), all the powers of conciliation commissioner
under section 84 of the Canada Labour Code; and
(b) for the purposes of the arbitration referred to in
paragraph (2)(b), all the powers and duties of an arbitrator
under sections 60 and 61 of that Act.
(2.2) The time during which the mediator-arbitrator may
perform the duties and exercise the powers under this section may
be extended by the President of the Privy Council or by mutual
consent of the employer and the bargaining agent.
(2.3) As of the day that the mediator-arbitrator reports
to the President of the Privy Council under paragraph (2)(d), the
collective agreement shall be deemed to be amended by the
incorporation into it of
(a) any agreement resolving the matters in dispute
between the employer and the union arrived at before, or pursuant
to, mediation; and
(b) any decision of the mediator-arbitrator in respect of
any matters that were arbitrated.
You have no doubt understood that, for the Bloc Quebecois, it is
essential that we come back to a process which provides for
arbitration in the negotiations between the government and its
employees. I think there is a monumental shortcoming here, and
in the past the government has taken advantage of its employees.
This has been shown time and time again. It is high time that
this situation be remedied.
Well aware of the good faith and the capabilities of the
President of the Treasury Board, I am certain that he will
implement this very fine recommendation. I know I am pushing it
a little when I mention capabilities, but we will let the
minister answer, as we know he is capable of acting in good
faith if he wants to.
The Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
amendment?
Some hon. members: No.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Amendment negatived)
2845
[English]
The Chairman: Shall clause 7, as amended, carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 7, as amended, agreed to)
(On clause 8)
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I move:
That, Bill C-76 in clause 8, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8
on page 4 with the following:
The Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the committee to
adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Amendment agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 8, as amended, carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 8, as amended, agreed to)
[Translation]
The Chairman: Shall clause 9 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 9 agreed to)
[English]
The Chairman: Shall clause 10 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 10 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 11 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 11 agreed to)
[Translation]
The Chairman: Shall clause 12 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 12 agreed to)
[English]
The Chairman: Shall clause 13 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 13 agreed to)
[Translation]
The Chairman: Shall clause 14 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 14 agreed to)
[English]
The Chairman: Shall clause 15 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 15 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 16 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 16 agreed to)
[Translation]
The Chairman: Shall clause 17 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 17 agreed to)
[English]
The Chairman: Shall clause 18 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 18 agreed to)
[Translation]
(On clause 19)
Hon. Don Boudria (Government House Leader, Lib.): Mr. Chairman,
I move:
That Bill C-76, in Clause 19, be amended by replacing lines 28 to
30 on page 7 with the following:
“bargaining agent and the employees until the earlier of
(a) the day they become bound by a collective agreement
concluded by the employer and the bargaining agent,
and
(b) the day they become bound by a collective agreement
referred to in subsection 20(3).”
The Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Amendment agreed to)
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Chairman, I
move:
That a new clause 19.1 be added as follows:
“That no agreement shall contain any differential rate of pay
based on geography after January 1, 2001, with the exception of
allowances made for hardship postings”.
The Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the committee to
adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: No.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Amendment negatived)
2850
The Chairman: Shall clause 19, as amended, carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 19, as amended, agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 20 carry?
(On Clause 20)
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Chairman, I move:
That Bill C-76, in clause 20, be amended by adding after line 20
on page 8 the following:
“(6) If the employer, the bargaining agent and employees become
bound by a collective agreement concluded by the employer and the
bargaining agent before terms and conditions of employment
applicable to those employees are prescribed under subsection
(1), subsections (1) to (5) and section 22 are deemed to be spent
in respect to those employees”.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the committee
to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Amendment agreed to)
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Chairman, I
move:
That clause 20 of Bill C-76 be amended by replacing lines 25 to
36 with the following:
“20(1) The Governor in Council shall implement the
recommendations of the report of the Conciliation Board to the
chairperson of the Public Service Staff Relations Board as
delivered to the parties on March 19, 1999”.
If we have any real commitment to the whole process of free
collective bargaining, if it has not fallen completely by the
wayside, we will accept the recommendations of the conciliation
officer. The government and the Public Service Alliance jointly
went into conciliation in good faith thinking that the outcome
would be recommendations by that board. The board made the
presentation after considering all the facts put before it. It
carefully looked at the idea of harmonizing the corrections
officers with the RCMP, but it actually fell short of that. It
therefore is not a very radical recommendation. It is very much
a compromised position in the best spirit of a good conciliation
officer's report.
We believe that we have put this whole thing to bed in a
peaceful way and have sent a good message to the country. We all
want to go to bed. We could stop short of this heavy-handed
intervention of back to work legislation. We could have a
negotiated settlement, or the next best thing to it, which is the
implementation of the recommendations of the conciliation board.
I would ask for the support of the House for the motion.
2855
The Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the committee to
adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Chairman: All those in favour of the amendment will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Chairman: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Chairman: In my opinion the nays have it.
(Amendment negatived; Yeas, 66; Nays, 127)
[Translation]
(On clause 20)
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I move:
That, for reasons of conformity, Bill C-76, in Clause 20, be
amended by deleting lines 18 to 20 on page 8.
The Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the
amendment?
Some hon. members: No.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Amendment negatived)
2900
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I
move:
That Bill C-76, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing lines 31
to 42 on page 7 and lines 1 to 7 on page 8 with the following:
“20. (1) The President of the Privy Concil shall, after the
coming into force of this Act, appoint a mediator-arbitrator and
refer to the mediator-arbitrator all matters that, at the time of
the appointment, remain in dispute between the parties in
relation to the conclusion of a new collective agreement.
(2) The mediator-arbitrator shall, within ninety days after
being appointed,
(a) endeavour to mediate all the matters referred to in
subsection (1) and to bring about an agreement between the
parties on these matters;
(b) if the mediator-arbitrator is unable to do so, hear the
parties on the matter, arbitrate the matter and render a
decision;
(c) ensure that any agreement or decision referred to in
paragraph (a) or (b) is in appropriate contractual language
so as to allow its incorporation into the collective agreement;
and
(d) report to the President of the Privy Council on the
resolution of all such matter.
(2.1) The mediator-arbitrator has, with any modifications that
the circumstances require,
(a) for the purposes of the mediation referred to in paragraph
(2)(a), all the powers of a conciliation commissioner under
section 84 of the Canada Labour Code; and
(b) for the purposes of the arbitration referred to in paragraph
(2)(b), all the powers and duties of an arbitrator under
sections 60 and 61 of that Act.
(2.2) The time during which the mediator-arbitrator may perform
the duties and exercise the powers under this section may be
extented by the President of the Privy Council or by mutual
consent of the employer and the bargaining agent.
(2.3) As of the day that the mediator-arbitrator reports to the
President of the Privy Council under paragraph (2)(d), the
collective agreement shall be deemed to be amended by the
incorporation into it of
(a) any agreement resolving the matters in dispute between the
employer and the union arrived at before, of pursuant to,
mediation; and
(b) any decision of the mediator-arbitrator in respect of any
matters that were arbitrated.
The Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the
amendment?
Some hon. members: No.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Amendment negatived)
The Chairman: Shall clause 20, as amended, carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 20, as amended, agreed to)
[English]
(On Clause 21)
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) moved:
That Bill C-76, in clause 21, be amended by replacing lines 24 and
25 on page 8 with the following:
The Chairman: Shall the amendment carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Amendment agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall 21, as amended, carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 21, as amended, agreed to)
[Translation]
(On clause 22)
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Chairman, I move:
That Bill C-76, in Clause 20, be amended by adding to line 28,
after “20(3)”, the following:
2905
Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that would make the bill more
balanced.
Since it has just been decided that you can have either a
collective agreement by special legislation or a negotiated
agreement, this amendment is designed to ensure that the parties
will be able to amend the agreement by mutual consent, not only
in the case of the agreement provided for in the legislation but
also in the case of an agreement resulting from an understanding
reached by the two parties.
Without the amendment, we are giving additional powers in the
case of the agreement resulting from the special legislation,
while an agreement resulting from bargaining could not be
corrected in the future, could not be adjusted to new labour
market realities as they develop.
This is an amendment that would improve the bill and is
practical and functional.
The Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the
amendment?
Some hon. members: No.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Amendment negatived)
[English]
The Chairman: Shall clause 22 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 22 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 23 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 23 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 24 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 24 agreed to)
[Translation]
The Chairman: Shall clause 25 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 25 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 26 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 26 agreed to)
[English]
The Chairman: Shall clause 27 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 27 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall schedule 1 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule 1 agreed to)
[Translation]
The Chairman: Shall schedule 2 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule 2 agreed to)
2910
[English]
The Chairman: Shall clause 1 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 1 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Title agreed to)
(Bill reported)
Hon. Marcel Massé moved that the bill, as amended, be
concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélanger
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brown
| Bryden
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casson
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Epp
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lincoln
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Manning
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| Mayfield
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Morrison
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Penson
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Ritz
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Solberg
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Whelan
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
|
Wood
– 153
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Cardin
| Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Desjarlais
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Duceppe
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Forseth
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Hardy
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Loubier
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Marceau
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Muise
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Power
| Price
| Proctor
| Rocheleau
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Vautour
| Vellacott
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
– 66
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Assadourian
| Bulte
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Folco
| Fournier
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Lefebvre
| Longfield
|
Patry
| Perron
| Pratt
| Sauvageau
|
Speller
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Venne
|
2920
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
[English]
When shall
the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I want to inform the House and the people listening to us that
if the division bells had rung for 15 minutes as usual, I would
have been here to vote with my party.
Mr. Paul Mercier: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have just
arrived and I too would have voted with my party.
[English]
Hon. Marcel Massé moved that the bill, as amended, be read
the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will not make a speech. I would like
to thank all the people in the House, especially those from my
party who have gone through the night in order to support it.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, before I begin my
speech, I ask the concurrence of the House to share my time with
the member for Wetaskiwin.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Just to give the House notice, we tried so members are going to
sit here for a while.
2925
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, tonight I believe we are about to—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for
Selkirk—Interlake has the floor. I am sure all members want to
hear his speech.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
In the spirit of co-operation that we have tried to demonstrate
this evening, perhaps the Chair would seek the same consent that
it sought a while ago. I would invite you, Mr. Speaker, to invite
the hon. member to seek the same consent again to see if it works
better.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, I no longer ask for
that consent. I would like to speak my full time.
We are debating Bill C-76, an act to provide for the resumption
and continuation of government services. The short title is
cited as being the government services act, 1999.
Tonight we have had amendments in committee of the whole to put
in place the tentative agreement that was announced tonight by
the President of the Treasury Board between the government and
the table two blue collar workers of the PSAC union.
I would like to note that we have had the bill along with a
booklet setting out the details and the wages that are part of
the back to work legislation. We attempted to get the details of
the tentative agreement which is now part of Bill C-76. However,
we were unable to get them tabled in the House even though we are
expected to debate those very provisions. It is not particularly
fun or appropriate to have to debate something when we do not
have the exact facts in front of us, but we will debate what we
have.
Bill C-76 is in two parts. The first part deals with the
operational groups. Being the chief critic for agriculture, the
one I am particularly concerned with is the grain weighers at the
west coast ports. The second part deals with the corrections
workers in our federal penitentiaries who are not designated
essential.
Tonight we came to debate this back to work legislation in good
faith and with good intentions. But tonight the government
handled the issue of the surprise announcement of the tentative
agreement in much the same way that I believe it has handled the
negotiations with the unions over the past three months, with
confusion, a lack of complete facts, and a spinning of the facts
which left no trust and no faith in the process.
Back in 1993 when the Liberals took over as a majority
government, many workers across the country were in a wage
freeze. They knew at that time that the wage freeze would end.
In 1997 the Public Service Alliance of Canada gave notice that
bargaining would be taking place.
2930
At that time it would seem to me that it would be incumbent upon
the negotiators, and I guess the ministers responsible for the
negotiations, to set a timetable to ensure a bargaining agreement
was in place at the expiry of the wage freeze. That would have
had the advantage of there not being a strike because there would
have been an agreement.
If there was no agreement and a sensible and reasonable
timetable had been set out by the treasury board minister, he
could have looked at back to work legislation at a much earlier
point.
We ended up with a whole lot of innocent third party Canadians
seriously being harmed by the negligence of the government to get
the agreement in place and by the fault of a certain number of
union negotiators not to work in conjunction with the government.
I said earlier that if I were to apportion blame I would probably
put about 75% on the government and 25% on the union.
Let us talk about what has happened in the past with regard to
grain exports and the agriculture sector as it relates to
stoppages due to wage negotiations. In the last 26 years there
have been 12 work stoppages at west coast ports. We could think
about that for a minute. Almost every two years there is a
stoppage in grain movement to the coast.
We must remember that every time there is a stoppage of grain
movement to the ships going to our customers overseas it costs
our farmers money. It costs the union people who have to go out
on strike pay and it hurts our reliability.
This year the Canadian Wheat Board has exports of a little over
50% of what they were a year ago. We are seeing the cumulative
effect of our grain sales being considered unreliable to our
customers overseas. We cannot apply a dollar and cents figure to
that very easily. However we could look at the sales of our
competitors, the Americans for instance, which are down only
about 10% as compared to ours being down close to 50%.
Of the 12 work stoppages we see that 9 of them involved grain
and 7 of those involved back to work legislation specifically
because of grain stoppages. Both the Sims commission and the
west coast port inquiry identified grain disruptions as a
catalyst for back to work legislation in labour disputes at west
coast ports.
I do not happen to have the chronology of the House as to who
was in power over the different years, but I happen to know they
involved the Right Hon. Lester Pearson, the Right Hon. Pierre
Trudeau and the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker who came from my home
province and was just one fine fellow.
This situation should not have been any surprise to the
government sitting here today in 1999. There are 26 years of
history. I look at the other side of the House and I know there
are members over there who have been here for at least 28 to 30
years. I believe the Prime Minister has something like a 34 year
record. If the leader on the other side cannot remember the
harm, the damage and the tremendous number of stoppages of grain
movement to the west coast, there is no hope of a negotiated wage
settlement being done in a proper manner, on schedule, and in
time to prevent the harm and the hurt by farmers.
2935
The Western Grain Elevator Association is representative of Sask
Pool, Agricore, a new grain company out west, United Grain
Growers and Cargill. These grain company foresaw major problems
with their exports of non-wheat board grains and wheat board
grains that they were handling on behalf of the board.
On January 27, 1999 they sent a letter to the treasury board
minister and to the Prime Minister identifying that a big dark
cloud was looming on the horizon, a cloud of disruption, a cloud
of trade and losses to farmers, and a cloud of loss of exports of
grain in particular. I do not think the government bothered
reading that letter too much because it went ahead with its
negotiating plan which resulted in the mess we see here today.
Along with my colleagues I had to force the government into an
emergency debate to get this movement going. What did we see? We
saw trickery on the part of the government up to the very last
moment when it brought in a surprise tentative agreement at a
late hour.
The treasury board president tonight in committee of the whole
identified that he would consider the possibilities of doing an
investigation and determining what were the actual costs to
farmers as a result of the loss of exports during the strike by
grain weighers. We should hold him to that. Can we imagine the
billions of dollars in loss over the last 26 years, not thousands
or millions, that my grandfather and my father and the
grandfathers and fathers of many people in the House suffered due
to a lack of action by governments of the day? The
disappointment is that the present government cannot learn from
the mistakes of the past, some of which were committed by present
sitting members, I might point out.
Who will pay for the losses of these farmers? When we look at
the Canadian Wheat Board and its loss of sales due to the snow
storms of 1996-997, we see that the Canadian Wheat Board went
after the railways. It negotiated a settlement with CN. We will
never know how much it got. Then later it achieved a $15 million
settlement with CPR because farmers were innocent third parties.
The railways saw fit to move products and commodities other than
grain and gave preference to commodities like coal, sulphur and
whatever. As a result there was a liability on behalf of the
railroads to the wheat board and therefore to farmers. Tomorrow
and on future days I will be calling upon the wheat board and the
government to identify the costs to farmers and to compensate
them for those losses.
The government brought forth the agriculture income disaster
assistance plan. The agriculture minister bears full
responsibility for that plan which went out to farmers.
We found from the initial reaction of farmers who filled out
those forms that the plan would not help them very much when it
came to financial compensation.
2940
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I fail to see a quorum in
the House. I wonder if you would take a count.
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have a quorum.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, getting back to the
commitment to compensate the farmers, it is absolutely vital
because of the financial situation they are in which gave rise to
this emergency debate.
If there is financial hurt out there, how can the government not
consider compensating farmers for financial loss caused by the
government and the Public Service Alliance of Canada negotiators?
It is only fair. It is only right. Why should farmers suffer
due to the actions of other people?
There is nothing in Bill C-76 that will prevent this situation
from happening again on the expiry of the tentative agreement, if
it is ratified. We will see the same old routine of the last 26
years. In about two years time we will see another strike,
another crisis, another back to work piece of legislation, and
another loss of a $100 million to farmers. There is no hope from
the government as to its future commitments in two years.
Maybe the election will come along before then and I will walk
over to the other side to take care of agriculture issues along
with my compatriots in the Reform Party. We will see how that
works out in the future.
We have the opportunity today, not in two years time, for the
government to put final offer selection arbitration into the
legislation and into the negotiations it has a tentative
agreement on. In all the comments of the President of the
Treasury Board in this regard he never said that he had tried to
get that back into the legislation for the 70 grain weighers in
particular. It was kind of like the official opposition brought
it up so maybe now he would think about it.
Farmers and other Canadians need a lot more than he will think
about it and try to do something. They need it to be put into
legislation. It could have been in Bill C-76. It could have
been in the amended Bill C-26, but it will not be part of the
legislation.
We have covered the costs and the idea of final offer selection
arbitration. Another part that has not be thought of is that
maybe the 70 grain weighers should be considered an essential
service. They have held up 115,000 farmers who tried to ship
their grain to the west coast. It would seem to me they are a
monopoly service. They are essential to the well-being of a
significant chunk of the population of the country.
Over the next few months before this parliament recesses we will
see that there will be a lot of pressure from the opposition side
to move in that direction to protect the farmers. We will be
looking for support from the government side to bring that about.
2945
The treasury board minister said that the reason we needed this
legislation was because between now and the point of ratification
there might be another strike. The tentative agreement did not
really cover a lot of the things that needed to be covered,
including trying to have the no strike provisions put in so it
did not have to continue on with hammering the democracy of this
parliament with closure.
I heard the hon. House leader from this side speak earlier about
the fact that this government has used closure 50 times between
the 35th parliament and this one today. This closure that we are
speaking on today is the 50th. If that is democracy, it is
democracy being abused.
Closure is the kind of legislation that should be available, but
it should be used more along the lines of the notwithstanding
clause as opposed to being used more in the way of the government
dictatorially trying to get its way in this parliament. We have
seen that abuse tonight and that is why we are sitting here at
this early hour of the day speaking about Bill C-76.
We went through hours of amendments, some of which were very
good. My friends in the Bloc, in fact, brought up the final
offer selection arbitration. I thought that maybe that amendment
would be one that would really improve this bill. What did we
get? We saw the government members yell that great amendment
down. As a result, we now continue on with this bill without
that key part in it.
We have in this bill a requirement about the grain that is
mostly from western Canada. However, I would like to point out
that we are also going to be talking very shortly about grain
from central Canada. I speak particularly of Ontario, because I
am a little more familiar with it. The seaway is going to be
opening up. The terminals at Thunder Bay are going to be opening
up and there are going to be boatloads of grain going down the
seaway and out to our customers on the other side of the Atlantic
to South America.
We know there are a few Liberal members of parliament who
represent the seaway area in Ontario. Maybe we will see a lot
more action to make sure that the seaway stays open and that
those jobs and those farmers in Ontario are well taken care of.
Why could that not also have happened for the western farmers?
This government is supposed to be taking care of all Canadians,
but it seems that it likes to take care of itself.
Earlier today and yesterday we heard serious allegations about
the Prime Minister in regard to golf courses and hotels in his
own riding. These allegations border on a conflict of interest
problem.
We have the second reason that the Treasury Board says we have
to have this legislation here. It is because the grain has to
keep moving. I certainly agree that the grain has to keep
moving. This legislation is the only way that is going to happen.
As a result, I am going to vote for this legislation because it
is that important.
Western farmers cannot be held to pay for ruinous type
legislation and ruinous type negotiations in labour-management
talks that this government seems to be bringing forth all the
time.
2950
The third reason had to do with the CXs. The CXs are the
corrections workers, and I have corrections workers at Stony
Mountain penitentiary in my riding. I have spoken to some of the
union workers there and they are not a very happy bunch. They
have been mistreated in previous negotiations with the government
and they obviously have not experienced good faith negotiations
in this round of talks.
In the Stony Mountain penitentiary we have an educational and
training centre, not only for the guards and the union operators,
but also for the prisoners who are housed there.
We had a situation over the past few years where all of a sudden
the contracts for that training happened to end up with a group
of educators based primarily in Ontario. At one time our local
school boards managed to get those contracts.
Once again we see government interference. It is a strange
method. I have not exactly had time to look into this, but I am
giving the government notice tonight that I intend to look into
it and determine just what it was that managed to have our local
school boards not be able to win any of these contracts.
All of these things add up to why these corrections workers were
in the past, and still are, unhappy with the negotiations. That
is why we once again have this legislation being brought in to
force them back to work.
I do not know why they have to be forced back to work. The
Treasury Board minister has informed us that there are about 500
of these people who are not covered as essential workers,
possibly as many as 600. Union negotiators have told me that
there are 720. That is part of the problem in dealing with the
government and I appreciate that maybe the negotiators for the
unions had the same problem in getting hard facts and
commitments.
As another example of a lack of commitment, I have been arguing
since early December when the Estey report came out to get a
commitment from the transportation minister and the Canadian
Wheat Board minister that the report actually was important, that
it had to be dealt with and that it should be moved along.
I tried to get this commitment through letters to the ministers
and inquiries during question period to try to get them to move
along.
I was part of an industry group that was trying to move these
ministers along and get a commitment from them. As of this day
we still have no commitment as to where they stand on it, whether
we will move ahead, move backwards or move sideways.
That is the same lack of commitment that we see in trying to
negotiate these wage agreements with the various unions around
the country. In particular, I am speaking out on behalf of the
corrections workers, some of whom are my neighbours and friends,
and in fact I would like to say that they should not have been
included in this back to work legislation. The jobs of the 500
to 600 workers they are talking about could quite easily have
been done by the other thousands of employees at the corrections
offices.
If they had set up pickets, it well may have turned out that
other union workers would not have crossed their picket lines.
Once again, we would have the same situation that we have with
the grain weighers on the west coast. When they put up a picket
line the other unions would not cross it.
2955
Now we see that the government understands that this is a
problem. In regard to the corrections workers, it has built into
Bill C-76 the fact that while this agreement is on the go, and
once it is ratified, there will not be any strike action and the
work will have to continue on.
It was vital to get the grain moving. We had to ensure that the
western farmers were covered, as well as the west coast workers.
However, in fairness, there should have been a negotiated
settlement and we should have continued on with the negotiated
settlement with these corrections workers. Instead they will be
arbitrarily forced back to work if they go out on strike, which I
assume they will if this is not passed.
We are going to see the same thing with the corrections workers
that we saw with the postal workers. We are going to see them
16, 17 or 24 months down the road with no contract. With the
grain weighers, in two years, which is the average before another
stoppage comes along, we will be in the House again with back to
work legislation and a big crisis. That could happen before the
next election if this bill is not improved.
I will have to check how the House works with regard to the
technicalities, but I would like to think we could move some
amendments tomorrow at third reading stage that would bring in
final offer selection arbitration that we so desperately need
in this legislation.
It is time that I pass along to the next speaker, who will no
doubt be saying a lot of the same things I am saying. I have
pointed out clearly where this government has fallen down. The
people of Canada will know it. The western farmers will know it.
The unions will know it. One last attempt to put in final offer
selection arbitration will be made.
I am going to support this bill to get these workers back to
work and to keep them on the job just because of the drastic
consequences there are to the western Canadian economy and the
whole Canadian economy due to the lack of productivity, and for
the individual farmer trying to make a go of it this spring with
all the vagaries of agricultural life, such as drought, too much
rain, floods and all of those things.
This government has really turned the House off tonight by the
way it has handled the closure motion and by bringing in the
tentative agreement at the last minute.
I would now ask that the member for Wetaskiwin be permitted to
speak in the time remaining.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
agreement?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to thank the House for its co-operative spirit in
allowing me time to have the last seven minutes of debate on
third reading.
We have just gone through a very arduous and painful exercise in
the House and I do not think any of us are looking forward to
repeating this any time soon, but the truth of the matter is that
we are destined to repeat it. As my colleague from
Selkirk—Interlake pointed out, it might not be all that long
until we do have to repeat this.
With the record we have seen since we came here in 1993, this is
a recurring dream. It is like the summer reruns. They happen
over and over again.
3000
Time and time again we have to face the unpalatable and drastic
task of legislating some group back to work. I am totally at a
loss as to know who is the winner in a situation like this. It
is certainly not the members of this House. It is certainly not
the government as the employer and certainly it is not the
employees. There are no winners.
Why do we continue to put ourselves through this sort of task
when it is not necessary? Some third party always suffers in
these instances. A party that has absolutely nothing to do with
the conflict that is taking place, the labour strife, suffers
just the same.
My colleague from Selkirk talked about agriculture. This is
about more than the farmers. The economy of Canada is quite
dependent upon agriculture. Agriculture is still one of the
largest employers in the Canadian economy. The spin-off effect
from agriculture is huge.
We have all talked about the importance of our good name and
reputation as a dependable supplier of goods in the world market.
Yet we find miraculously on the last day at the eleventh hour
the minister comes into the House and says that wonder of
wonders, they have reached a tentative deal.
It makes us wonder just how far apart the parties were in the
first place. It makes us wonder whether or not we were misled.
It makes us wonder whether there was a deal in the offing as we
were gathering to consider this legislation. It makes us wonder
whether both parties were utilizing the grain. We cannot say
that labour knows that grain is a flash point, that it is a hot
button. The government is certainly aware of that as well. It
knows that we cannot hold up the grain shipments. We know that
it is going to create action, action that none of us are going to
enjoy.
The reason I say there is no reason to go through this is that
we have a method available to us, if only the government would
choose to implement it. I am speaking specifically to the
President of the Treasury Board and to the Minister of Labour. We
need to implement final offer selection arbitration so that these
matters can be settled amicably. We have all talked about how a
negotiated settlement is far better than an imposed settlement. I
think we all agree with that.
In the spirit of final offer selection arbitration, I would like
to move the following motion. I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word “That” and substituting the following therefor:
“Bill C-76, an act to provide for the resumption and
continuation of government services, be not now read a third time
but be referred back to committee of the whole for the purpose of
reconsidering all of the clauses with the view to provide final
offer arbitration as an alternative to legislating agreements or
workers back to work.
3005
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Madam Speaker, I would
like to know whether I must speak to the amendment immediately,
or whether I speak as planned in my turn on—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The debate is on the
amendment.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau: In that context, then, I advise you
immediately that I shall be sharing my time with my colleague
for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member for
Trois-Rivières have the unanimous consent of the House to share
his time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues for
their understanding.
I would like to begin by thanking all my colleagues for their
very significant moral and physical support throughout this long
debate which, to all intents and purposes, has dragged on since
last Thursday. All staff in the offices of the whip, the leader
and the research unit have been of invaluable support throughout
the debate.
Returning to the merits of the question, there are two
categories of worker particularly affected to which I wish to
draw attention.
And, before I forget, I also thank my administrative assistant,
Lucien-Pierre Bouchard, who has, as usual, with the greatest of
good will, been of inestimable help to me, especially
intellectually.
3010
There are, therefore, two categories of public servants affected
by the measures taken by their employer, who is also the
legislator.
First of all, obviously, I have in mind the correctional
services officers, who are once again being pushed around. Yet
these are the workers who experience, on behalf of society, what
might be termed the decline of the American empire. Their
working conditions continue to deteriorate, their work pressures
are continually on the increase because of our overcrowded
prisons and the risks of contracting serious illnesses—AIDS among
others—from the slightest physical contact in which blood may be
exchanged.
We know that these people are living the increasingly acute
problems that our society is faced with, a bit like the schools,
sadly. We can only hope that the government will perhaps be more
understanding with this group of workers, who do not deserve to
be treated the way they have been for years, because they do
provide services, in dreadful circumstances, day in and day out.
We must be aware of that, and try to imagine what it is like to
face such dreadful working conditions constantly, doing a job
that probably no one else would want.
So, it is incumbent on the employer, the President of the
Treasury Board, the Department of Justice or of the Solicitor
General to take all necessary measures to ensure that these
people are treated with more dignity.
There is another group of employees that I want to talk about,
that is the members of coast guard, because I am the Bloc
Quebecois critic in this area.
I had the privilege of meeting them some weeks ago, in Quebec
City. They are very courteous and very competent and they not
only provide great services to the public, in particular to the
recreational boaters, but they are also very important as a
group for the economy, some carrying out important rescue duties
on the St. Lawrence River. Furthermore, and this is what I want
to underline and I would appreciate it if the President of the
Treasury Board also took this into account, these people have
made a considerable effort in terms of the restrictions, the
downsizing and the restructuring in the federal public service.
These people have accepted to merge services that are not
necessarily compatible, and to take training courses because
their tasks have changed over the years. Through new operational
procedures, they have made it possible for the Canadian
government to enhance productivity and save $13 million a year.
As a reward for the sacrifices they have made, they were
promised special treatment when the great negotiations came
around. But, in actual fact, these promises have not been kept.
They are being treated just like everybody else. They do not
have any special status in the ongoing negotiations. I wish the
President of the Treasury Board would pay attention, because
these people are very deserving in view of their generous
attitude towards their employer.
They have been co-operative, innovative, creative, responsive,
and they have made substantial savings possible in the
operations of the department.
Today, the door is being slammed in their faces, when a
commitment, at least a moral commitment, had apparently been
given to them by their immediate supervisors that the government
would reward them in due course. But nothing has been done.
This is not a big group. There are maybe 350 to 400 people who,
we are told, have had an exemplary behaviour as servants of the
state and of the public. But today, they receive the same harsh
treatment from that giant employer, the Government of Canada,
which is unable to make the distinctions that sometimes need to
be made.
3015
To come back in a more general way over this day, which is a
historic one, once again, I have to say that every day we adopt
special back to work legislation is a sad day, historically, a
black day in parliamentary history.
To better understand what is going on, we have to give some
background to indicate where today's back to work legislation
fits into the strategy of the Canadian government. Therefore, we
have to go back to 1982.
It can never be overstated that we are dealing here with a type
of behavior that is deeply rooted in ideology. We are in the
midst of a neo-liberal trend, where individuals like Mrs.
Thatcher and Mr. Reagan had all the latitude in the world, in
the new global order, to set the course, for which we are now
paying the consequences.
However, it had all started earlier, when the powers of
governments began to be limited in order to force them to curb
their spending and give up more and more of their
responsibilities. Important measures were taken during the 1980s
and the 1990s that led to governments giving up their
responsibilities and getting rid of thousands of employees,
about 55,000 employees apparently.
As for giving up responsibilities, I will give an example.
To cut its costs and do its share in a collective effort to
reduce costs or to expand the Consolidated Revenue Fund, as we
all know, the coast guard has set a new fee structure, which was
imposed arbitrarily on users, especially icebreaking service
users.
The Bloc Quebecois has played a key role in bringing the
government to show more compassion and wisdom. It made to
government back off significantly in order that users, and above
all foreign users, keep wanting to do business with Canada, in
particular with Quebec and Montreal, at a reasonable cost.
Now an aspect that is less known, a natural phenomenon, or in
any event one resulting from the way we use the St. Lawrence
River is bank erosion. Previously, the riverbanks were under the
Coast Guard's responsibility.
There were complaints about erosion. Now there is are very
serious problems. It seems that, in some regions in Quebec, 15
feet a year are lost to erosion. This is a lot. Over three to
five years, it is 60 feet of land that disappear due to erosion.
Previously, there was an organization that felt concerned, and
that was the coast guard. But now, the coast guard does not
care. Apparently, there was devolution of this responsibility to
municipalities. To turn to the Government of Quebec is out of
the question; it would be too embarrassing. But municipalities
do not have money, they do not have a budget for that, and
everyone is passing the buck. Municipal taxpayers, including
private ones, could see their own property eroded year after
year with nobody in the country feeling concerned.
In the past, however, these people were looked after.
This is part of the so-called rationalization, and it is a
result of the fact that employees were cut, a lot of employees
were cut—55,000 of them—and now we are obliged to let go of
responsibilities previously appropriately assumed by the public
service.
I know that, in my region, Trois-Rivières, in the riding of
Champlain, huge rocks were used for back filling so in the
spring there would no longer be the disastrous erosion.
3020
So, this is a very practical example of what happens when the
public service is attacked rather blindly and much more
ideologically than claimed. It all happens without discussion,
vision or transparency. They administer Monday to Friday,
biweekly. Years and months go by. The next day it rains. Out
they go in it. There are no plans. No accounts are given.
They say neither where they are going nor from whence they came.
An hon. member: We have had it.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau: It is just beginning.
The minister responsible for regional development should get
used to it, because if there is one department that is the
subject of all our criticism, it is his.
They like to attend all sorts of meetings to sing the praises of
Canadian federalism as part of the government's only strategy,
which is to be visible on the eve of a new election. They excel
with public coffers, as we saw recently in Trois-Rivières, where
for $200,000 they were after rather abusive things in terms of
visibility. This is the only real concern of the government.
In 1982, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996, there was
special back to work legislation, an intrusion into the field of
labour relations involved in existing collective agreements.
It is disgraceful.
It means that negotiating in good faith has become the exception
for this employer, who also makes the laws. It has become the
exception when the exception should be—and common sense tells us
this—that the government, at times, when a situation becomes too
difficult and the public interest is at stake, would resort to
its lawmaking powers.
Today, it prefers to legislate rather than negotiate. That is
typical of this government.
The farmers know it and the International Labour Organization
knows it too. It is not for nothing that the ILO has on four
occasions blamed the government, Progressive Conservative or
Liberal, it makes no difference. For those who are unaware, the
ILO is made up not just of governments and unions, but also of
bosses, the good old friends of this government.
When one thinks of the Liberal empire in Canada, one immediately
thinks of the healthy campaign funds that keep it going. So
when these influential people criticize the federal government,
it is no small matter and should be a source of concern for the
President of the Treasury Board. As a good manager, he should
be worried. He should be embarrassed today to have behaved like
certain of his predecessors and taken the extreme action he is
still taking today to force people back to work.
The President of the Treasury Board and the minister responsible
for regional development are not the only ones to have shown
their true colours. We could mention the Minister of Human
Resources Development and the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs, but especially the government House leader right now.
We mentioned him in our first speech. The member for
Glengarry—Prescott—Russell is a good example.
Historically, he has always been very aggressive.
The government House leader has been like that throughout his
career. That was how he was seen by the Prime Minister in the
days of the rat pack. He made a name for himself in labour
disputes, even supporting PSAC members on picket lines. What
has become of his motivation today? What has become of his
convictions? They are nowhere in evidence.
3025
He is now in charge of doing the government's dirty work, while
he used to unequivocally support the positions of the unions,
which look a lot like the positions the union is still defending
nowadays.
Let me conclude, much to the relief of the two stooges, by once
again urging the President of the Treasury Board to take some
responsibility for the consequences these so-called negotiations
and the passing of special legislation will have.
Can the President of the Treasury Board imagine what the
atmosphere in the workplace will be like day in and day out in
the departments, now that the government has again use its
special power, which is becoming the rule, now that both
management and workers have again realized that the government
has shown them no respect and no recognition and has treated
them badly. It will be nasty.
I used to be a Quebec public servant, and things can get very
nasty when decisions come from on high, when arbitrary and
drastic measures are taken, as they were today, and especially
when workers realize that their employer, instead of showing
them some respect, would rather make their lives miserable.
I am convinced that the people in the Outaouais, the federal
public servants in the Outaouais whose political stripes are
well known, will remember this when the time comes. And that
time may come much sooner than we expect.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker, you
seem to be full of energy this morning, just like me. First of
all, I will begin by repeating that something extremely sad—
Hon. Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
ask for unanimous consent of the House so that the members who
unfortunately could not participate in the vote taken about an
hour ago at the report stage of Bill C-76 could have their names
recorded.
I will read the names of these members and I would ask for
unanimous consent of the House so that they could be recorded as
having voted.
These parliamentarians are the hon. member for Saint-Jean, the
hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, the hon. member for Rosemont,
the hon. member for Témiscamingue, the hon. member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, and the hon.
member for Terrebonne—Blainville.
I ask that they be recorded as members having voted against the
government's motion at report stage. I will submit a copy to the
clerk.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous consent
to allow the Bloc members whose names have just been read to be
considered as having voted?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Speaker, in spite of the fact that a new
day is dawning on Parliament Hill, you can easily see that we
are still very much in the gloom, because this is an extremely
dark day for democracy.
No parliamentarian deserving of the name can be proud of what
has occurred in the last few hours. What happened? The
government imposed special legislation on workers, not just
ordinary workers, but people who carry out their duties under
extremely difficult conditions.
3030
I am referring of course to correctional officers, who work in
prisons. Their right to a negotiated collective agreement was
denied, rejected and trampled on. There will be a price to pay
for this.
This government has a rather ambiguous attitude. When it comes
to equity, the general behaviour of government members is
somewhat like The Silence of the Lambs. They are silent.
They are not there when the time comes to act in fairness.
However, when the time comes to act repressively, like a
dictator and with a total lack of consideration for our most
democratic values, I must admit that —and I will name him, even
though I have some affection for him—the government House
leader is among those most despicably involved in this
repressive process.
We will remember that. We will remember this day in March, when
the government stomped on people's most democratic rights.
Before going into the full significance of today's vote, I must
thank those who have been with us through this night. I am
referring to the guards, the library staff, the cafeteria staff,
our support staff, particularly Jean-François Lafleur who was
extremely helpful.
Those people showed strength in adversity because they knew that
with the Bloc Quebecois they could build democracy. They have,
through the years, allowed the voice of those who believe in
negotiation to be heard in parliament.
I cannot find the words to say how sad and disappointed we are.
All the more so since in our everyday contacts with the
President of the Treasury Board, we found that he was rather a
pleasant person to deal with. How could this man fall into this
trap, which is the first step towards a lack of democracy, which
will lead him to the worst abuses?
Nothing in his personality inclines him to such behaviour,
except for a lack of vigilance we do not accept. We refuse, as
members of Parliament, to be required, in 1999, to deny workers
who fulfil an essential task in our society their rights.
I have the greatest respect for workers of the public service,
and even more for those who, downstream or upstream, deal with
organised crime. I cannot understand why the President of the
Treasury Board acted the way he did.
A few hours ago, he informed the House that an agreement had
been reached with representatives of one of the bargaining
tables. On the basis of what logic and for what reason did the
minister not give negotiations another chance? Would it not have
been possible to reach a negotiated agreement in the next few
days?
There will be a price to pay for arrogance. Intolerance also has
its price. This government cannot behave the way it does without
exposing itself to being punished by the voters. It will be, and
it will have deserved what it gets.
The saddest thing is to see how some government members are
pharisees, whitened sepulchres. When they were in opposition,
they could not find words strong enough to condemn those abuses
and it was quite something to see them praising the values of
dialogue, commitment and negotiation.
3035
Do members think that our fellow citizens believe this kind of
utterly hypocritical rhetoric, where, when they are on one side
of the House, they say one thing, and when they are on the
other, they say something else?
This is not the kind of political game we, in the Bloc
Quebecois, want to play. We sovereignists have too much respect
for the institutions of parliament to accept such a behaviour.
I would like to say a few words about the member for Outremont
who, first of all, is a lawyer and has a great deal of respect
for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
As a member of parliament who has a good knowledge of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and who knows that it is
part of the modern Canadian identity, how can he accept that,
today, the government is trampling on one of its principles, the
right to negotiate one's working conditions? There is one word
to describe that kind of behaviour and that word is pharisee.
What is really at stake here? Since it was elected in 1993, the
government has been utterly incapable of showing respect for
public servants. The federal public servants are the people who
deliver services to our fellow citizens every day. They do so
under trying conditions.
As we know, they are doing it under trying conditions because of
our ageing population, because of pressure on the public
service, because our fellow citizens are living longer and need
services more frequently.
These people are not paid a lot, and their demands are hardly
excessive. Often they join the public service because they want
to serve. On the darker side, the track record of the government
is one of compulsive, chronic, recurrent and sustained
incapacity to negotiate with its employees.
I say it again, the Liberals will pay for it at the next
election because, in a few years, when we go over their track
record we will remember their arrogance and intolerance.
Again, the public can count on the opposition, the Bloc
Quebecois, as an efficient ally to fight against this kind of
behaviour, which is unacceptable in a democratic country.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Contempt will be short lived.
Mr. Réal Ménard: As my colleague for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans said,
contempt will be short lived, even in ministerial garb.
This being said, I would like to show, through a number of
examples, what this government is like in action, what makes it
tick.
Is this government the one that passed pay equity legislation?
Could a government member, could someone across the way rise and
say “Yes, on the issue of pay equity, we delivered the goods”?
The Silence of the Lamb.
They cannot because they have not done it.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Despite all the pressure, they have not moved
on the issue; we will remember this. The obscure screams of the
famous backbenchers will not change a thing. And the screams of
the obscure backbenchers will not change a thing.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
3040
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Order, please. I cannot hear
our colleague who is addressing the House. I would ask you to
please join me in listening to what he has to say.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Speaker, you would do this House a big
favour if you would provide a sedative, at the expense of the
opposition if necessary, to the member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, and I assure her that this is just a
friendly remark.
On the issue of pay equity, this government's record is not
good.
But let me talk about another issue where, when the Liberals
were on this side of the House—and I am thinking of the member
for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel—they could not speak loud enough to
criticize the government. That issue was anti-scab legislation.
All the members of the rat pack were mobilized on this issue.
Can somebody tell us where we are today on this issue? Do we
have in the Canada Labour Code provisions similar to those that
exist in Quebec? The answer is a shameful no.
Let us look at this government's record.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Speaker, I would ask the members to
remain calm because there is nothing I want more than to
enlighten this House, especially government members.
The member for Trois-Rivières, whom the House should applaud for
his excellent work—
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Réal Ménard: An enlightened spirit like few others on that
side, the hon. member for Trois-Rivières reminded us earlier
that, in recent years, nearly 50,000 jobs were eliminated in the
public service. And the President of the Treasury Board was the
killer of those jobs.
Was that done democratically? Was that done through
negotiations? Was that done with respect for the workers? No.
They were forced to take severance packages that often fall
short of their expectations.
The member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell must not forget that
this behaviour is shameful and that the government should
repent.
I also want to address another stigma. I feel so strongly about
that that I have trouble talking about it. I am referring to the
employment insurance reform.
Where was the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine when the reform
was brought down? The Silence of the Lambs. Where was she when
it became increasingly difficult to qualify for maternity
benefits? Where was she when the qualifying conditions for first
time workers became tougher?
Had it not been for the Bloc Quebecois, this would have gone
unnoticed. That is the reality.
I cannot say it strongly enough, it is a sad day. It is a very
sad day, indeed. You have before you a concerned and sorrowful
man. Rest assured that we will never accept a situation where
workers, the very ones who are building this society and giving
the best of themselves, are deprived of their collective
bargaining rights.
Let it be known that all the members for
Glengarry—Prescott—Russell of this world will not be able to
stifle the Bloc Quebecois.
3045
Among the great international tools used for the promotion of
human rights, we know very well that the right to collective
bargaining is at the very top of the list of rights that are
recognized. I know that certain government members went to law
school. How could we, as parliamentarians, accept today that
workers be denied this right? We cannot accept it, we will not
accept it, and we will always be there to fight that battle.
I would like to talk about another reality, a reality that the
member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel must surely understand.
The member offers an image of great stability, but the
boundaries of his riding are more unsettled.
Let us talk about poverty. Let us talk about what the government
has managed to do concerning the issue of poverty. Where is the
just society promised by Pierre Elliott Trudeau when we know
that 20% of Canadians, due to government policies, are getting
poorer?
Who has solutions to propose for the fight against poverty?
Certainly not members on the government side. I do not even want
to look at them. Who has solutions to offer? The Bloc Quebecois
has. Our colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques fought to improve the employment insurance system. My
colleague from Shefford had also interesting things to say on
this issue.
In a few hours, I will be tabling an anti-poverty bill. What is
in an anti-poverty bill? I would appreciate some sign of support
for such a bill.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Réal Ménard: This bill will call for the inclusion of social
condition among prohibited grounds of discrimination in the
Canadian Human Rights Act. The member for Outremont studied
law, but that is not where he spent most of his time, because I
am told he skipped his social law courses. He took criminal
law, was very keen on business law, but he was not there for
social law.
Had he taken the social law courses, he would know that social
condition led, in Quebec, to the improvement of the Quebec
charter of human rights, the most thorough legislation in
Canada, which has contained provision on social condition since
1977.
This has led to a significant improvement in the situation of
people on social welfare, single parents and persons with
disabilities.
Imagine, as we speak, there are eight provinces with provisions
on social condition, and the federal government is one of the
last bastions permitting discrimination on such grounds. We
will not tolerate that. I would hope that the member for
Ottawa—Vanier will join with the Bloc Quebecois to speak with an
enlightened voice for once.
We have a whole lot of solutions to propose on the subject of
poverty. All we ask is a little attention. We do not think
this is too much.
I would like those watching us this morning, with their orange
juice and toast, to know that we have been sitting since Tuesday
evening at 5:00 p.m., that we have been the voice of the
workers, and that we will not let these people be deprived of
the right to collective bargaining. We will continue to be this
voice in Parliament.
We know that you cannot count on the ministers, and I do not pay
them tribute.
3050
[English]
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP):
Madam Speaker, it would be a lie for me to say that I am happy to
be standing here in this early morning light trying to convince
this Liberal government from riding roughshod again over the
backs of Canadian workers.
Why is it that it always seems to be the Liberal government that
has the most difficulty with the working people of this country
organizing and standing up for their rights as equal citizens of
this great country? The Liberals, despite their lofty rhetoric,
have always been the first to turn their guns, in some cases
quite literally, on Canadian workers.
I look to my own island of Cape Breton and talk to people of my
grandparents' generation. They remember the strikes of the
twenties, thirties and forties. They remember a Liberal
government that sent in soldiers to guard the property of British
mine owners against the men who had worked and died in the pits,
and that ordered Canadian soldiers to shoot Canadian workers on
June 11, 1925.
It is a transforming experience for any community to have the
army that is sworn to protect you ride down your city streets
with guns drawn and blazing. Because you are a worker, because
you refuse to stand the gaff of a government and society that
treats you as a slave to foreign capitalists, you are now an
enemy of the country you love.
Perhaps this is why Cape Bretoners have maintained a long and
honourable tradition of union activism and have always been quick
to speak out against oppression and exploitation.
It is that constituents from my riding support the Public
Service Alliance of Canada members, the men and women who have in
their hands the fragile structure of our public service; our
health care system, our parks and national monuments and the
agencies that connect Canadians to their government.
Over the past seven years these people have been on the front
line as the Liberals here in Ottawa sold off the family silver to
pay off the deficit. Not that that fight was not an important or
necessary one. But why is it that the Liberal Party always seems
to think that crises must be solved by attacking the middle class
and working people? Why is that when they are presented with any
dilemma they feel that they, the members of the private
gentlemen's clubs of Ottawa, should create policies which the
working people from coast to coast to coast are forced to pay
for?
It is not the members of the government who have had to endure
the cuts to health care. They have not had to endure the effects
of their cuts to government departments where regular Canadians
must often wait weeks before their case is dealt with by a
stressed and overworked PSAC member. They have not been forced to
see the effects of their cuts on their children in the schools.
Not so for most children who endure leaking roofs, old books, and
teachers whose class sizes go up and up as their colleagues are
fired or pushed into early retirement.
No, it is a remarkable thing about the Liberal Party, this
ability to hurt regular citizens and then to tell us that it is
all for our own good. When banks pay not one penny in income
tax, a single mom with a low paying job pays thousands. But that
is for her own good. Telling a senior citizen that because of
cutbacks his drug plan will not be processed on time, that is for
his own good.
It is strange that the Liberal Party is viewed as the party of
the centre in this country because when I look at its history I
see a party that, when necessary, takes good ideas from wherever
it can find them. I see a party that on its own has never had a
good idea, that has never had any ideas beyond the absolute
necessity of winning election after election, principles,
policies and decency be damned.
I come from Nova Scotia where we have been cursed by a system of
political patronage that could compete with the southern United
States. We are used to having our roads paved if we vote the
right way and having them torn up if we vote the wrong way. We
are used to seeing the graveyards send ringing endorsements of
Liberal candidates. For Liberals in my province, short term jobs
with a Liberal contractor, just enough to qualify for EI, are the
Liberals' ideas of good social programs.
That is why I have a tough time stomaching this government's
endless speeches about how it is helping Canadians do this and
that, how it has made life so much better for all of us, and how
we should be grateful for the stewardship it has provided us.
Should my constituent who was refused federal housing assistance
be happy for the piece of plastic sheeting that she uses as a
roof for her trailer? Or the man who needs to decide between
paying the rent that keeps him off the streets or paying for the
drugs that keep him alive, should he be happy for that?
3055
No doubt many people are happy with this government, the people
that are in the top 1% income bracket who run the corporations
and own the banks that give such huge donations to the Liberal
Party every year. Those people who think Brian Mulroney was too
progressive and too tough on business are thrilled with this
government. Of course they are.
Instead of government of the people by the people for the
people, we have a government of the people by the Liberals for
the Liberals. They just cannot stand it when we the people say
that we are fed up with that kind of government, when we want
something that is for all the people, not just those fortunate
enough to inherit fortunes from the shipping industry, an example
that just happens to spring to mind.
Then the Liberals start to do the only thing they know how to
do, they lash out. Just as they did on June 11, 1925 in Cape
Breton when the troops ran down women and children in the
streets. Just as they did in 1997 in Vancouver when Canadian
students became the enemies because they were angered that their
government supported and defended brutal dictatorships. They too
have learned what it is like to have the Liberals decide they are
the enemies of their government.
Now we have the strike by the PSAC workers who are upset that
they are paid one wage while their contemporaries are paid more
or less depending on where they live. What is so bad about that?
It is a case of one rule for one and another for the other.
While lower ranked staff are paid differential rates, their
managers are not.
Here is a challenge for the Liberal members. If they are so
supportive of regional discrimination as the President of the
Treasury Board says he is, how about they volunteer here and now
to have their salaries decided based on where they live. When I
look across the way, it is no surprise that I do not see any
takers. Maybe they are too tired to jump on board, or maybe deep
down they see the obvious, that this issue is not what the
government says it is about.
It is not about workers trying to sabotage Canada's public
service. It is not about radical trade unionists trying to pull
down the government. All this is is a group of Canadians
supposedly protected under Canadian law and the Canada Labour
Code. They exercised their rights to free and fair collective
bargaining and they waited year after year for their employer to
sit at the table with them and discuss demands that seemed
obvious in their validity to most people. Equal pay, equal
standards. What is so hard to deal with in those four words?
Equality has gone out of favour in this country. Now this
government, not happy with making the rich richer and the poor
poorer, has decided to create artificial divisions from province
to province, territory to territory. No, this is not a surprise.
We expect nothing different from this government.
That is why I am proud to sit on these benches, a member of the
party that introduced universal health care and pensions to
Canada, the party that believes in those things because they are
right and not because it was electorally convenient to adopt them
a few years ago. It is a party of conviction and principles and
most important, a party that supports Canadian workers.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member for
St. John's West on debate.
An hon. member: Give it to them, Charlie.
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Madam Speaker, I
am not sure we have much left to give them. We have given them
all our logic and all the benefit of our wisdom and the
government members never seem to accept very much of it. I
suspect it will not be any different this morning than it was
last night, yesterday or last week.
We have a few points to make about what has happened here in the
last 24 hours. Our caucus has a few things to say about how the
government has handled this issue. Yesterday when I first spoke
on this matter I said that the government was acknowledging by
the way it did this that it had two fundamental failures.
One is its fundamental failure in how it runs this House.
Whenever the government House leader has to bring in closure, an
act that takes away the rights of the members of this House of
Commons, he acknowledges a failure in managing this place
properly. That is something all 301 members deserve and expect.
All Canadians expect us to have the rights of this House of
Commons every single day. If the government cannot manage its
business any better, if it has to run from crisis to crisis, then
maybe the government House leader should look at exactly how he
does his job.
The other failure was the failure of the President of the
Treasury Board, the minister responsible for collective
agreements, the minister responsible for making sure we have in
place a collective bargaining process that has an opportunity to
work.
3100
If there is a case where this pending strike has been ongoing
and the collective agreement has been ongoing and needing to be
negotiated for two years, why did we end up with 14 days of
negotiation in two years? What happened to all the other days in
those two years that were not used to solve this problem? That
is why we have been here for the last 24 hours.
The third mistake, if there was a mistake to be made worse than
the other two, is how the House was managed last night. Some
people in the House had access before a crucial vote to very
crucial information about a vote that we were taking about
collective bargaining in Canada.
Why did the President of the Treasury Board and the government
House leader not acknowledge that they knew an hour or so before
any of us voted that there was a tentative agreement? It is
absolutely unfair and unacceptable. It may not be illegal but it
certainly is immoral and unfair to all of us as members of the
House of Commons to allow some persons to have knowledge before
they vote and some persons to have that knowledge 40 or 50
minutes later, after the vote was taken.
That is one of the reasons we spent most of the night here. The
government did not give the opposition the facts. It did not
give us the truth as to what was really happening. As long as
those kind of things happen in this place, the opposition will
fight for its rights. We will fight for the rights of Canadians
who did not get a fair shake in this collective bargaining
process.
Another strange thing happened last night that none of them seem
to understand. The President of the Treasury Board should have
come in last night and made a wonderful announcement that there
was a tentative agreement as a result of the collective
bargaining process, which is what everyone wants to see happen.
He should allowed it to be the end of the evening. Instead he
had to come in and rub the faces of the people in the PSAC union
in the mud and say they were given a collective agreement, which
might not be really what was wanted. In case it is not accepted
it took away the right to strike anyway. What kind of logic is
that?
If a collective agreement is negotiated in good faith and is
accepted by members of PSAC, why are we taking away the right to
strike from people who are not now on strike? Why was it not
part of the negotiating process for the President of Treasury
Board to simply ask the member of PSAC to give up their right to
go on strike during the ratification process? Any agreeable,
acceptable union would be happy to do that provided the
government was fair enough to take away its right to rush in here
and pass back to work legislation.
My suspicion is that the government was not willing to give the
union any assurance that it would not come in and pass back to
work legislation. As a result, the union quite probably said
that if the government would not relent on its back to work
legislation it would not relent on its right to go on strike
during the ratification process.
It was all done very wrongly. The whole collective bargaining
process is now wrong for all public servants of Canada. How can
the issues they want to negotiate through the collective
bargaining process be done? There cannot be binding arbitration
and there can only be strikes if it suits the employer. That is
a no-brainer. Who will go on strike? Who can go on strike? The
minute they do it is taken away through the process we have
before us in the House of Commons.
I will repeat today what I said yesterday. If workers are
deemed essential, whether they are grain handlers, transportation
workers or workers in prisons, and their services must be
available for good governance in the country, they should be made
essential workers and given binding arbitration. Then most
persons would accept as a fair and reasonable way to govern the
taking away of their right to strike. In this case the workers
have given up everything and the government very little. As a
result we will continue to have a series of union and employer
problems for many years to come.
Certainly from our point of view not only salary issues are
involved. There is a terrible unconstitutional law that has been
implemented by Treasury Board. A person in St. John's,
Newfoundland, who does clerical work for the Government of Canada
gets paid an entirely different wage from a person who does the
same work in Calgary. How can there be discrimination in the
country based upon where one happens to live?
3105
I do not care about the business of disrupting labour markets.
The minister thinks that if he pays an equivalent wage or a
slightly higher wage to a person in St. John's, Newfoundland,
than he pays to a person in Calgary he will disrupt the labour
market in Newfoundland and will not be able to find employees for
the private sector.
The government does not know yet that there is a 35%
unemployment rate for young people in Newfoundland. It does not
know that there is a 20% unemployment rate for all adults in
Newfoundland. There are no jobs. In the last three years we
have lost 30,000 Newfoundlanders. Is that labour market
disruption? Is that affected by the Government of Canada paying
lower wages in Newfoundland than in other places? Those are the
kinds of things that have to be negotiated through collective
agreements.
All I can say about this process is that there does not seem to
be a collective bargaining process any more. It is intimidation
by the majority. It is bullying by government that forces people
to accept certain things which are not acceptable to them in a
normal, negotiating process.
From the point of view of this caucus we are very disappointed
that the Government of Canada tries to pit farmers against
workers in Newfoundland. Sometimes it picks on, in this case the
poorest paid in the public service. They are bullied by a
government which tries to use farmers to intimidate them. It is
a totally wrong process. It is a disgusting process.
The way members of the House of Commons were treated last night
in the vote was disgusting. This party and this caucus do not
vote for those kinds of shenanigans in the House, not now and not
ever.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Madam Speaker, I would like
to join with all my colleagues who consider that the government
acted in a very cavalier way, to say the least.
The farce that took place last evening and last night left many
members puzzled, particularly when they heard the President of
the Treasury Board deliver his unexpected message around 2.30 a.m.,
if I remember correctly.
In my view, it was certainly unique. Having been in the labour
movement for 20 years, I know that with back to work legislation
pending, usually, if the government reaches a last minute
agreement, workers agree to go back to work. But the government
went even further.
I said it in my first speech and I repeat it. The government
wanted this strike. The government did all it could to provoke
this strike and then it did all it could to crush it. It could
have crushed it just like that, without any offer from the
workers. When it reaches an agreement at the last minute, I
think it is important that the government say “Now, we will not
add insult to injury and we will see to it that workers go back
to work peacefully”.
One basic issue remains. What about the consequences? What will
the consequences be in a union where the majority of the 14,000
workers accepted the government's offers and still are subjected
to back to work legislation?
There is a problem there, and there could be trouble. I am
thinking in particular of the 400 workers at the military base
in Saint-Jean.
These 400 people are mechanics. These are people who make the
lowest salaries in the federal public service.
They looked at the negotiation process in general and saw the
government make interesting offers to other tables. When their
turn came, the government, which is both negotiator and
legislator, said: “We do not have much money for you folks”.
These people felt let down. I think this will certainly have an
impact on their productivity.
To go back to work with a bowed head, with the feeling of having
been whipped, is not always easy. People will say “Will I be
loyal, totally loyal to my employer? Did my employer show me any
respect?” These are all questions that people are asking.
3110
Perhaps they are not all great trade unionists, but they are
fathers, mothers, ordinary people who ply their trade as best as
they can, and after more than 6 years without a raise, several
collective agreements were imposed on them. My colleague from
Trois-Rivières explained that clearly—over a period of about 15
years, there may have been 11 imposed agreements.
These people have had their collective agreements imposed on
them often. They say “What is the point of trying to negotiate
in good faith with an employer?”
I think the aftermath is always difficult, in such cases. I have
seen employers being very hard on their employees.
I have seen employers be very tough with their employees, but
seldom as tough as what I just saw here in the last 24 hours.
When a negotiator in the private sector goes and negotiates with
a union, there is a power relationship that comes into play. If
the right to strike is legal and workers exercise that right,
everybody understands. However, the dynamic here today is very
different, because the government is the entity that will be
legislating should negotiations fail, and the government is in a
position to make negotiations fail.
I think that is what happened. This government made the
negotiations fail in order to impose, by special legislation, a
back to work order. I do not need to explain in any great detail
that not only it imposed such legislation but also it did so
after the employees, at the last minute, said “We have an
agreement in principle, we are going back to work”.
So, I think this will be added to the government's record, a
rather negative one, in my opinion, with respect to workers,
because this is not the first time it shows it is anti-workers,
and anti-unions too.
I raised several examples the other day. A few examples come to
my mind. There is the surplus in the federal public service
pension fund, to which the President of the Treasury Board said
they were going to help themselves. I made a connection with
former Singer employees, the Singer retirees. For more than two
years, I have been asking the government, as the trustee for
that pension fund, to give that money back to the workers. The
government kept repeating no, no and no. Yet, the government was
the trustee, the watchdog of the fund.
Why did the government say no? Because it intended to dip into
the surplus in the federal public servants' fund.
There are no end of examples of this government's approach to
labour relations with its employees and with the public in
general.
What kind of example is the government setting for employers
today? Is it a positive one? Is this not a negative message
that is being sent, that acting in bad faith might work? But it
only works in the short term, because in the long term people
are less productive, more disloyal, because they feel they have
been let down by the government.
Other examples given here over the past weeks and months include
the EI fund to which employers and employees contribute. Once
again, there is a huge surplus in this fund and the government
should be using it to improve the system instead of using it to
pay down the debt.
So there is all sorts of evidence that this government is going
after workers. This is a rather sad day for me. When one
removes one's union hat, as I have, and dons the hat of an MP,
one has to remain pretty open-minded because in society, in our
riding offices, in the House here, we run into people from all
walks of life.
But is the first principle not to serve voters as well as
possible?
Has this government served voters well today? I think not. It
is not just that it has wronged 14,000 people, but it will leave
the public with the idea that it is alright to act in bad faith,
that a government can block negotiations, bring them to a
complete standstill, withdraw from the bargaining tables, and
make offers way below what unions are asking for.
3115
At the last minute, even though it knows that this will not
work, the government withdraws and says “Now I will act as a
legislator and I will impose back to work legislation and set
the working conditions myself”.
On behalf of the 400 people I represent at the Saint-Jean
military base, I think things will not go easily today at the
military base. Of course, when I am back in my riding, I will
contact the union president. However, I am proud that the Bloc
Quebecois stood up throughout this debate.
We have managed, so far for almost 36 hours, to prevent the
government from rushing this legislation through the House. This
is not the first time; as I said in my speech, the Bloc
Quebecois is the only party that has always defended the
workers. When there was the postal strike or when the rail
workers were legislated back to work, the Bloc Quebecois was on
the side of the workers.
Hopefully, the workers will not forget that the Canadian
government does not serve them. Hopefully, people in Quebec will
see that the Bloc Quebecois is on their side. Fundamentally, it
may have to do with our financing method, since many workers
contribute to the Bloc Quebecois' campaign fund, and they do not
contribute thousands of dollars.
We get $5 and $10 bills from unions and individuals.
When the time comes to defend them, however, our hands are not
tied, as the Liberal Party's are, by connections with the major
corporations, and the big banks and insurance companies. When
the time comes to force government workers back on the job, the
Liberal Party will boast of it, for a multitude of reasons.
They claim income tax return processing was slowing down and
that grain was piling up in the west. These are nothing but
pretexts. The government would have grabbed onto any pretext
for accomplishing its ends. I believe the government is a far
from exemplary employer, since it is sending such a negative
message to all those who are required to negotiate collective
agreements, whether in the public or the private sector.
The Bloc Quebecois cannot, of course, subscribe to such a farce.
Tonight we have been the spectators and performers in another
performance, a dramatic comedy. The government turned up with
offers at the last minute. So there we were at 2.30 or 2.45 a.m.,
saying “Hooray, at least we get to go to bed. It's
over.” But this was far from being the case, for the President
of Treasury Board arrogantly pulled his last ace out of his
sleeve, and told us “We are still going to force these people
back to work. We will continue with the legislation and we will
take it to the very end”. I repeat, this was just adding insult
to injury.
I am proud to say that not only did the Bloc oppose the measure
from the beginning, but that it will oppose it to the very end.
Everybody had a hard night, but I think that the Bloc will be in
a position to tell the workers, in my riding as well as in all
of Quebec, that we tried to set an example and to make the
government change its mind.
Unfortunately, unless a new card comes out at some point—and I
would be very surprised because it would be a trump card for the
workers—it will not. It would be so nice if the government said
“We will withdraw the bill. People will go back to work. There
was an agreement and we are now confident that people will go
back to work. They don't want to have back to work legislation
hanging over their head”.
In conclusion, I will say that the government used the House of
Commons to force employees back to work and to threaten them to
the very last minute, and when the employees signed the
agreement, the government decided to go ahead with its strategy,
just the same. I find it unconscionable as I said yesterday. It
is a sad day for the Bloc and for the workers and I hope that
the government will pay a political price for its actions.
Members of the Bloc who have federal employees affected by the
bill in their riding will make a point of explaining to these
workers what really happened. I am sure that the workers will
support the Bloc and say that it took the right decision in
staying up all night, for 36 hours, to defend them and to oppose
the government, which once again proved that it is against
unions and against workers.
3120
[English]
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to spend a short while discussing this back
to work legislation. I do not want to get into how inappropriate
and ineffective it is or the necessity of it. I want to talk
about the impact the government's inaction can have on the
community and the area I come from. In particular, I want to
talk about the government's inability to come to an agreement
with the grain handlers.
Quite often when we discuss this issue the first issue of
concern is the prairie farmer which is only right. Whether they
be primary producers of grain, the forest workers, or in the
fishing community, the primary producers always seem to get the
short end of the stick. I certainly have a great deal of
sympathy for the impact any delay in the transfer station system
can have on the prairie farmer.
I understand something like 70 grain handlers are affected. We
are not talking about a large group, but they do have the ability
to shut the system down. The question is why did the government
not take action long before it got to this critical point? That
is the key issue.
Somewhere along the line somebody is missing the boat. Somebody
does not understand how the transportation system works. Somebody
does not understand that since the Crow rate was removed, the
ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert, and the Fraser port to a
lesser extent, on the west coast are not so much in competition
with one another as they could be in competition with American
ports. This is simply because of the ease with which farmers
could transport their grain south of the border and ship it
through the port of Portland or even the port at Sacramento,
California.
The possibility exists that the competition for British Columbia
ports is not among themselves but it very well could be with
ports south of the border. If a trickle of grain starts being
shifted south of the border even down to the Mississippi, in
short order there is going to be a flood. That is the key issue
in my view. How do we protect the transportation route and keep
that grain going out through the port of Vancouver? I think the
government has completely ignored this issue.
The matter of the grain handlers is only one small issue. The
other is the transportation issue. The government has sorely
neglected that aspect of it as well. The taxation regime and so
on which our railways have to cope with is far in excess of that
which the American lines have to cope with. Sooner or later that
grain is going to be shifted south of the border and with it will
go a great deal of prosperity. The dollars that accrue to
Vancouver through the shipment of prairie grain are huge and we
should not ignore that.
This action taken by the government was unnecessary. Had it
bargained honestly and openly in the beginning, an agreement
could have been reached with the workers. That was demonstrated
last night when an hour before he made the announcement in the
House, the President of the Treasury Board was aware that an
agreement had been reached, an agreement which should probably
allow the continued shipment of grain through the port of
Vancouver. If that agreement could be reached last night, it
certainly could have been reached a week ago. The money was
obviously there to satisfy those people.
Another aspect of this bill which concerns me has to do with the
prison guards who are also part of this negotiating table. I do
not think anybody in my community would resent those guards being
given a substantial raise.
The work they do is dangerous. They operate under tremendous
pressure. The support they have had from the government is
almost non-existent. It is a job I sure as heck would not want
and I do not think too many people in this chamber would want. I
do not think those people have received the respect they deserve
from the government. It is sad that it has come to that.
3125
When we look at the wages these people are paid in comparison to
police officers, it is simply an outrage. Why money could not be
found to pay these people the kind of dollars they are worth is
simply beyond me.
Why back to work legislation has been used when nobody is off
the job is a mystery to me. If these people are essential
workers, then treat them as essential workers. Bring in
essential legislation that would define them as such and let us
get on with life. But do not impose back to work legislation on
them when it is inappropriate, as it is today.
I reiterate the despair I feel in the fact that the government
has simply neglected the country's transportation system. The
Vancouver, Prince Rupert and Fraser ports face a peril if more
care is not taken to ensure that the transportation system in
Canada remains viable and competitive with that of our American
neighbours. As I said earlier, it only would take a trickle of
grain to find its way over the border, down through the rail
system to the ports along the west coast or down to the
Mississippi and there will be a flood. The cost and loss to
Canadian taxpayers, and the job losses in Canada, will be huge.
I urge the government to wake up. It has been a long night but
it is time to wake up and address this issue in the way it
should.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Madam Speaker, I do
have a question for the hon. member who just spoke.
It is a valuable point to raise concerning the problem we will
be running into with our transportation system and the total lack
of vision the government has shown.
We are missing a more important point. In the collective
bargaining system the government supposedly bargained in good
faith with the grain handlers and PSAC workers. An agreement was
reached and the government turned its back on that agreement. The
government came into parliament the very night on which it
reached the agreement and said it was going to force the workers
back to work. Why bargain? Why is there a bargaining system in
place? It begs the question.
Either there is a system where people sit down and discuss
issues in a reasonable and rational manner and come up with
solutions, and then abide by those solutions, or there is not.
The government has completely turned its back on that system. It
is a travesty of justice without question. Why did the
government go down that route to begin with? Why did it say it
would bargain and then not abide by the rules as set out by the
government? I do not understand it. I do not think anyone can
understand it.
A greater issue is the regional rates of pay. This has nothing
to do with grain handlers. The grain handlers are just an excuse
for the government. It conveniently found that in western Canada
$18 billion worth of grain exports were being held up. It was a
convenient excuse for the government to force everybody back to
work after it had already worked with them. There is something
seriously wrong.
3130
We sat here all night and discussed the bill and participated in
vote after vote after vote and clause by clause consideration in
committee in the whole. Obviously the government had one thing
in mind and is walking out of here with the same thing in mind,
that it will bargain in good faith on one hand and enforce
legislation on the other hand.
The Liberals can blame it on the grain handlers or blame it on
PSAC. They can try to create all the bogeymen that we want to
create, but the fact is that those are not the problems. The
problem is the Government of Canada that was looking for a
stakeout to begin with. It is very unfortunate.
Mr. John Cummins: Madam Speaker, I agree with the
concerns my friend has raised.
These freighters may look pretty sitting out there in English
Bay riding high at anchor, but they are costing prairie farmers a
lot of money when they are not moving. That is the problem. The
government just does not get it.
A couple of years ago during the winter we had huge problems
with the shipment of grain. The rail lines were not operating
properly. The money was not there although taxes were high. The
government is simply ignoring the very critical transportation
problem on the west coast.
Sooner or later we will wake up one day and the grain will be
going south of the border, in which case we will be short a huge
number of jobs in western Canada and a lot of money. A lot of
people will be out of work. We simply do not need that. We need
action from the government on this very critical issue.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Madam
Speaker, what does my colleague in the Reform Party think of
legislating workers who are not even on strike? This is what is
happening. I have a serious problem with back to work
legislation, to start with, but even more of a problem with
legislating something that is not happening yet.
We are living in a democratic country. The prison guards are
not on strike. Let us face it. They have been working and
getting paycheques, but the government acts as if they have been
on strike all this time. I guess it got a pretty good deal, if
we look at it that way.
What is the member's feelings on legislating workers that are
not on strike?
Mr. John Cummins: Madam Speaker, I think it is an
outrage. Either we have a collective bargaining process and
allow it to work, or we do not. It is as simple as that.
Everybody who has worked for a large corporation or in the
government service understands and appreciates the fact that they
have a union protecting them. They have union protection and
unions bargaining for them. It is part of their democratic right
and should be allowed to go through its natural course. That is
what it is all about. To order people back to work when they
have not gone on strike is an absolute outrage.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, how does my colleague from British Columbia feel about
the farmers who found a market in 1993 for grain which was
designated poisonous and unsaleable? Grain companies could not
handle it. The wheat board could not handle it. When farmers
found a market in the U.S. the government started prosecuting
those farmers. Dan Sawatzky beat the case. The government lost
the appeal and is still prosecuting 170 farmers for moving grain
that nobody wanted to buy.
Is that human rights abuse or what is it? How can the
government let something like that go ahead? I would like the
member's impression on that.
Mr. John Cummins: Madam Speaker, I do not know a whole
lot about that issue, but I know about another issue where the
same happened. It had to do with fishing regulations put in
place by the government on the west coast. It took fishermen to
court because they defied the minister's regulation which the
joint House of Commons and Senate Committee on Scrutiny of
Regulations declared to be invalid.
Yet the government has continued to arrest people and to take
them to court over regulations that are invalid, regulations
which a provincial court judge and the Supreme Court of British
Columbia have declared invalid. The government continues to
harass fishermen, to take them to court and to put them in jail
over an issue when it is the minister who is breaking the law.
3135
I do not know as much about the issue as my friend, but I know
the government is perfectly capable of putting farmers in jail
for standing up for their rights.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, finally we have awakened what the government has been
trying to put to sleep for the last couple of years. I want to
address that issue further.
In 1993-94 farmers were stuck with millions of bushels of
fusarium wheat that was declared toxic and unsaleable by the
government. Farmers found a market for it. Farmers started
exporting that worthless wheat and saved taxpayers millions of
dollars. After they had developed a market the government
interfered. It wanted to stop it so it charged David Sawatzky
from my riding. Without any representation in the court the poor
farmer beat the charge and proved to the government that it had
no right to charge him.
The government appealed that. Then what happened? The
government lost. It turned around and charged 175 farmers. They
are being prosecuted on that same issue. Has the government
dealt in good faith with anybody? Nobody. This is Cuban-style
dictatorship. If it is allowed to continue, we might as well
shut down the House or burn it down because it would be useless.
People are being mistreated. People are in jail. What can we
do? Why did people send us here? It was certainly not for
something like this. We could have that in a different country.
We do not need Canada for that. Why are we sitting back and
allowing it to happen?
There is a trial in Brandon, Manitoba, on the same issue. If
members want to know if I am telling the truth, they should come
to Brandon, Manitoba. Now there is a suspicion that even court
documents have been doctored to prosecute the farmers. What
next?
We have a prime example of what has happened over on that side.
We have a prime example that we have a government that is worse
than the Mulroney government. Why should people support it? In
the next election they will show the government where to go, out
the door.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The question is on
the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
3140
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members have risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Call in the members.
3220
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Canuel
| Cardin
| Casey
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Cummins
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Duceppe
| Duncan
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Konrad
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
|
Manning
| Marceau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Nystrom
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Power
| Price
| Proctor
|
Ramsay
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Solberg
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Vautour
|
Vellacott
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver) – 95
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélanger
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Byrne
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Grose
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lincoln
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood
– 127
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Assadourian
| Bulte
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Folco
| Fournier
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Lefebvre
| Longfield
|
Patry
| Perron
| Pratt
| Sauvageau
|
Speller
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Venne
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
Is the House ready for the question on the main motion?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed the members are in?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
3230
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélanger
|
Bennett
| Benoit
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Byrne
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Chatters
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Copps
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Epp
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Lunn
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Manning
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Morrison
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
| Ritz
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Solberg
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vellacott
| Whelan
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 154
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Alarie
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Canuel
| Cardin
| Casey
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Desjarlais
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Duceppe
| Duncan
|
Forseth
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Grewal
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Loubier
| Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
|
Marceau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
| Meredith
|
Muise
| Nystrom
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Power
| Price
| Proctor
| Rocheleau
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Vautour
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford) – 68
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Assadourian
| Bulte
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Folco
| Fournier
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Lefebvre
| Longfield
|
Patry
| Perron
| Pratt
| Sauvageau
|
Speller
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Venne
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
The Deputy Speaker: I express my thanks to all hon.
members for their patience and their co-operation.
It being after 8.30 a.m., the House will adjourn until later
today at 2.00 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 8.32 a.m.)