Jim Peterson

[Petitions, March 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this petition from the constituents of Willowdale asks Parliament to amend the Divorce Act to include provisions similar to article 611 of the Quebec civil code. It states that in no case may a father or mother without serious cause place obstacles between the child and grandparents. Failing agreement between the parties, the modalities of the relations are to be settled by the court. They request Parliament to further amend the Divorce Act to give a grandparent who is granted access to a child the right to make inquiries and to be given information as to the health, education and welfare of the child.

[West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995, March 15th, 1995]

Maybe these are some of the approaches we can go into. However, we know the risk is always there if management and labour in a dispute know that government will step in and settle that dispute by legislation. Then they will not negotiate in good faith.

Looking ahead, the solutions are not always that obvious to us. If they were, we would have found them a long time ago. No one in the House believes that strikes and lockouts are the solution. But I do believe that if we keep stressing that we are now in this together, it is not a question of adversaries and stakeholders fighting it out. We are all in the same boat. If we are

fighting one another, we are drilling a hole in the bottom of our own boat. This has to be the attitude we bring to our future as management, as labour, as citizens and as government.

With this approach we are going to be able to overcome a lot of the animosities of the past. In doing this, we will have to ensure that we do not allow the injustices to creep in which gave rise during the twenties and the dirty thirties to organized labour that had to strike. We are going to have to make sure that we do not have the rapacious management of the twenties and the thirties that was capable of dictating not only wages and hours, but conditions that were unsanitary, unhealthy and such things. That is not what we are asking for. We are enlightened.

We know that a happy workforce is a productive workforce, is a competitive workforce. We know that a management team that works with labour and shares their problems, that brings them to the table, that opens the books to them, that says: "We have a big problem, how do we fix it together," is the type of enlightened management that avoids problems and brings about the new routes to productivity being employed by many of our competitors around the globe.

Let us not rejoice tonight in the fact that we have had to legislate an end to this work stoppage. Let us recognize that what has happened is a failure for every one of us. It is a failure for everyone in this House who did not use his or her collective strength and ability to say to labour and management, is there not a better way. It is a failure based on the way we have done things in the past. We have done them better recently, but it is only 10 years ago that we had the worst record for lost days because of work stoppages, strikes and lockouts.

Let us say we have done what we have had to do. It was necessary in the public good. Let us say, can we not use this as an occasion to find a better way for the future.

Recognizing the role played by workers, unions, companies, and Canadians in general, we must recognize that the measures taken today are not remarkable and that their sole purpose is to protect exports, harbours, and farmers, and to provide essential services. But, from now on, let us recognize that we must find more efficient and more realistic alternatives to ensure peace on the labour front, and co-operation between unions and management, in order for Canada to become stronger, more competitive and more prosperous.

[West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995, March 15th, 1995]

I am very pleased to be able to say a few words tonight because I believe we are going through a period of incredible transition in our country. We have seen the government having to do things that five years ago we never would have dreamed would have been necessary when we brought down the budget.

Canadians realize that there is no longer that pot of gold out there or that our future is assured or guaranteed. People are uneasy because they know we are facing change. They also know that in Canada we have assets unparalleled in any other country in the world: natural resources and human resources to actually make the transition from a resource based economy to an economy dependent on human skills competing in the global economy.

We can do this but it is going to require a lot of changed attitudes. I do not believe that in the future the concept of management on the one side; labour, be they unionized or not, on the other side, be it government or the public, are going to necessarily be the stakeholders in the way they have in the past.

We have introduced in our country and throughout the western world, for very good reasons, the concept of collective bargaining, the concept that workers have the right to negotiate freely for their conditions and for their terms of employment. Management has the right to lock out workers if they do not accept the union offer. However, more and more we are going to have to realize that workers are citizens of the country, that managements are citizens of the country and that all of us have a stake in finding new ways to deal with labour disputes.

Can we afford to go back to the era of 10 years ago when we had the worst labour-management record of any of the industrialized countries? We were doing it to ourselves. Of course we cannot because we are now competing in a global economy where other nations have learned to resolve their labour disputes in a civilized, non-confrontational, non self-inflicting damage manner. Anytime there is a strike or a lockout it is an admission of failure in the collective bargaining process. Let us recognize that.

I am glad in the present circumstances that we let this thing go as long as we possibly could to see if a collective agreement could be arrived at by a negotiated solution. This is always best, rather than imposing conditions which may not be acceptable to either side.

We had to act however. The member for Wild Rose puts it very forcefully. They went on strike this morning. That is why, with the consent of all members, we are sitting tonight to pass that legislation. Maybe some members, like the member for Winnipeg Transcona, do not necessarily agree with this. I understand some of his concerns for the working person. However we have to recognize that the moment we start using lockouts and strikes, we are denying our competitive ability vis-à-vis all of our neighbours in the global economy. How irrational can we be to allow these things to take place?

Legislation preventing strikes in every circumstance is obviously not the solution. As people with a duty of public leadership in Parliament perhaps we have to work more closely with labour and management to see if we can settle these strikes before they become self-defeating for all of us. Maybe we are going to have to find ways to say: "You just cannot strike in certain circumstances. You cannot lock out in certain circumstances because it is against the national interest".

Maybe we can look at new solutions such as final offer arbitration.

[West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995, March 15th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, can I ask your advice? How much longer are we debating?

[Judy Feld Carr, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the recent history of Syrian Jewry has been one of terror and bitter repression.

This grotesque chapter of modern history is now thankfully closed, due to the efforts of one Canadian, Judy Feld Carr. Over the past 23 years, she has worked unceasingly and surreptitiously to build an underground railway. She has raised funds to sustain these hostages, co-opt officials and to pay ransom. Because of her, 2,500 Syrian Jews are now free.

Judy Feld Carr and all those who supported her deserve our praise, our gratitude and our thanks. When this heroic story is fully told, may it inspire others to realize that one person can make a difference. Judy, you have made a difference, an incredible difference. You have earned a place in our hearts and in the history of humanity.

[Petitions, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions today. The first one calls upon Parliament to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to protect individuals from discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The second petition asks for the opposite.

[Committees Of The House, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the 13th report of the Finance Committee dealing with the borrowing authority.

I wish to thank members from all parties for their co-operation.

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

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all of the very hard working members from all parties of the finance committee, I have the honour to present to this House its 12th report.

This is about family trusts.

[Supply, February 14th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to that. All Canadians need an answer.

The member is right. Our growth in Canada has been higher than the norm that was set out, the target that was set out, the standard that was set out in the finance minister's economic analysis. All of us on all sides of the House I believe are pleased that our growth has been this vigorous. It means we are creating more jobs. It means we have unemployment down from over 11 per cent when we took office to under 10 per cent now. This is very encouraging because the reason we have to meet deficit targets is not an abstract study. It is not just because we want the deficit down. It is because we want to help the economy that can create the jobs and the opportunities.

Offside right now in terms of the targets, in spite of excellent growth, the interest rates have gone much higher than we thought. That is the problem and that is one of the reasons we have to meet our targets and get them down. It is one of the main reasons we will.

[Supply, February 14th, 1995]

The hon. member says it is taxing a dream. We are also taking 15 per cent out of $1 million which was unearned as opposed to taking over 50 per cent out of the pocket of the person who has to toil all day long in order to earn that wage. Is that the concept of fairness?

I hope we do not approach this from an absolute statistic point of view. There may be certain cases in which only tax increases will give rise to that fairness but we face another problem, as the hon. members know. When we cut federal programs we do not often in the first year or in the second year obtain actual savings.

When we close down a military base and put people on the street do we actually save in expenditures when we have to provide for unemployment, severance, reconfiguring the land, getting rid of equipment and materials and things like this? We do not always have savings in the first two years.

I believe our deficit crisis is such that we have to meet our targets that we have set and we have to meet them within the time limit we set. Therefore expenditure cuts alone, while they will produce the savings we need over the longer term, may not work adequately in the first two years. This is why we may need

a little tax room on a temporary basis during the first one or two years in order to meet those targets.

I hope that Canadians will keep an open mind when they see the program, when they see the budget that comes down. I hope they will come to the conclusion that the single most important thing we must do is meet our deficit reduction targets.

The second most important priority is how we meet them. If we had to have minor tax adjustments in order to meet those targets, in order to be fair I believe that Canadians would say they do not like them, they may not like the cuts we have imposed but they will judge our overall budget package in terms of all of its aspects; who has been hurt through the cuts, who is hurt through the tax increases, minor as they may be, if there are any. We will be prepared to be judged on the basis of that entire package.