Lynn Myers

[Division No. 49, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I too rise today to speak on Bill C-24, the Postal Services Continuation Act and to express my support for the legislation which provides for the resumption of postal service and sets up a procedure for the settlement of issues which resulted in the disruption of postal service.

I must indicate that I am less than enthusiastic in my support because back to work legislation always signals a failure in the collective bargaining process, a process that I believe to be a pillar of our democracy and an instrument for economic and social progress.

Specifically the bill establishes a duration of a new collective agreement for Canada Post Corporation and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, that is three years. It also includes wage increases for CUPW members of 5.15% over that three year period. The other key issues in dispute, namely job security, part time work and the length of the letter carriers' routes will be settled by a process known as mediation-arbitration.

In this dispute resolution method the mediator is equipped with the power to settle unresolved issues by binding arbitration in the event that they are not settled by mediation. As specified in this legislation, the mediator-arbitrator's report along with terms and conditions established by this bill will form the basis of the new collective agreement.

The federal government had no choice but to act legislatively to restore regular postal service to Canadians. The economic costs to Canadians of a prolonged work stoppage would have been immense. Thousands of Canadian business firms and their employees depend on the postal service. A lengthy disruption in postal service would threaten the economic viability of those enterprises and thus place the jobs of those employees in serious jeopardy.

Numerous Canadian charities rely on the mail service for support and donations at this time of the year. Many of them receive most of their income during this Christmas season.

Many Canadians count on the post office during this time of year as well to communicate greetings and good wishes to family and friends. Despite the increased use of the Internet and e-mail, and despite the availability of efficient courier services, most Canadians still depend on the post office to send messages and parcels.

With respect to those who receive government assistance, while contingency plans have been put into place for the delivery and distribution of pension and welfare cheques, there is still the chance of non-delivery or delays which would cause undo hardship on recipients.

Finally, there is the cost to the parties themselves of a lengthy work interruption. Canada Post has been losing millions of dollars a day and the workers have been losing huge amounts in wages. It is in no one's interest to see Canada Post Corporation brought to its knees.

In short, the public interest requires that the federal government bring forward this legislation. The public interest requires that the federal government end the economic hardship and uncertainty caused by this work stoppage. The alternative, to let the work stoppage drag on indefinitely, was no alternative at all.

Having said that, and having argued the point for the general good that Bill C-24 is necessary, I would also express my great disappointment that the two parties were not able to come to an agreement on their own. As I stated at the outset of my remarks, back to work legislation always means a breakdown in the collective bargaining process.

Collective bargaining is one of the great processes that we have established to help us resolve workplace disagreements in an orderly, democratic and peaceful way. History and empirical research have shown that collective bargaining has been an effective tool for the promotion of both economic development and for social justice. It is also a form of self-government which encourages the parties to devise their own responses to the issues which divide them. For all of these reasons, collective bargaining is very important in this process.

I do not believe that I am alone in thinking this way. I am sure that most Canadians prefer to see negotiated settlements to labour-management disputes. I am certain too that both Canada Post Corporation and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers would prefer to devise their own solutions in these issues.

I would have liked to have seen more flexibility given to this process including in the wage area. Further negotiation in this area by the two parties would have been desirable as opposed to the imposed wage settlement.

There are some in the trade union movement and some in the New Democratic Party who would strongly criticize the government for bringing in this back to work legislation. I can genuinely understand their position, but I would ask them at what point was the government supposed to act.

Was it when Canada Post reached the point of no return financially? Was it when thousands of Canadian businesses went under and jobs were lost? Was it when Christmas had come and gone and Canadians were unable to communicate with their friends and family? Or was it when numerous Canadian charities had to start to lay off staff and were unable to meet the needs of the very people they serve?

As an objective observer would no doubt conclude, the parties had ample time to reach an agreement. They also had ready access to the very able professionals in the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to help them in their efforts, but they obviously could not come to an agreement on their own thereby making the intervention of the government virtually inevitable.

I note that the Reform Party, the party that always espouses less government, has been screaming for government intervention for some time. Apparently, according to the Reform Party thinkers, less government is always a preferred policy approach except when Canadian workers are exercising their legal rights. Then it would seem that more state intervention becomes more apparent and more acceptable to them.

In my view, both the official opposition and the New Democratic Party have failed to take into account all of the complexities of the issue. They have failed to see that all the stakeholders have legitimate rights and concerns and that some kind of balance must be found. That is what effective governing is all about. It is about taking everybody's legitimate concerns seriously. The government has done that and therefore I recommend passage of this bill.

[Postal Services Continuation Act, 1997, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the member opposite and as usual his Reform rhetoric and his holier than thou position.

I noted that the Reform Party, the great party of less government that always espouses such, has been screaming for government intervention for some time now in this matter. Apparently it would be that the Reform Party thinkers believe that less government is always a preferred policy approach except when Canadian workers are exercising their legal rights. At that point it would appear, according to the hon. member and his party, state intervention becomes more acceptable.

My question to the member is, why the double standard? Why does he say one thing for one circumstance and quite the contrary for another? I would like to hear the answer.

[Literacy, November 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, a recently released international survey shows that more than 40% of adult Canadians or seven million people do not have the literacy skills needed to function effectively at home or at work.

My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. What exactly is the federal government doing to improve the literacy of Canadians?

[The Environment, November 26th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member opposite for that wonderful story. I am not sure where it was going or where it was leading but it was wonderful nevertheless.

It is imperative that Canadians, men and women of good faith ensure that we do what we must for the environment. I think that is important and certainly that is the position of this government. We will continue to do so.

[The Environment, November 26th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to speak on this very important issue affecting all Canadians and indeed all people in the world.

On a snowy night in Ottawa global warming may not seem to be an issue of concern but I can assure you it is and members in this House know that it is. We know that almost 90% of Canadians believe that climate change is already occurring or will occur in the very near future. So this is indeed of great concern to all of us as Canadians and to all of us in the world.

Scientists are noting subtle yet significant changes in our environment and the effect of this over time could seriously damage our forests, our agriculture and our fresh water supply. It could also lead to the extinction of species, including polar bears, musk ox and caribou. Moreover it is no secret that a warming climate caused by greenhouse gases will lead to more illness and death in the next century unless steps are taken now. All of this I find most worrisome, as do all Canadians.

It should be noted that nine of the earth's warmest years since 1861 occurred after 1980. Each year the burning of fossil fuels introduces 22 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. While Canada may not be the largest polluter overall, we are the ninth largest. We have the second highest rate of greenhouse gas emissions per person. Since 1990 these emissions have increased by 13%.

The science of climate change is sound and it is compelling. Although we do not know everything, what we do know is more than enough to warrant responsible cost effective investment to address the problem.

The global climate is warming at a more rapid rate. This is due in large measure to a dramatic increase in the volume of greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere. The issue of global climate change is very important in the upcoming conference in Kyoto, Japan. Representatives from around the world will meet to put in place a plan to deal with that change.

Canada needs to and will push for new meaningful, realistic and equitable legally binding targets to limit greenhouse gas emissions. This will be done by developing Canada's position on climatic change with partners from all across Canada, provincial governments, municipal governments, industry and non-governmental organizations.

Our position must be, and must be perceived to be, fair among all regions, provinces and industries. We will endorse emission targets that can be realistically achieved on a step by step basis. We must do this because Canada must be part of the international solution. To do otherwise would be untenable and irresponsible.

All Canadians must be engaged in this debate. Canadians need to understand the science of climate change, the resources and the measures which have been taken to date and what actions they can take to ensure that greenhouse gas emissions are reduced. Overcoming this problem will not be possible without the efforts and support of all Canadians.

The federal government will continue to look after the interests of all Canadians. It will lead us into the new millennium with vision and foresight.

The challenge of climate change does not have to be a crisis. We must take this opportunity to make Canada a more efficient and innovative nation. If we meet this challenge, and we will and we must, it will ensure the continued health of our planet. If we fail to meet it, our children and our grandchildren will pay an enormous price.

We need to work very hard to ensure that this will not happen. All Canadians need to work hard on this issue. We owe it to the generations that follow.

[Supply, November 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would never presume to speak for the Parti Quebecois or the Bloc Quebecois but I would say on my own behalf that I would hope Canadians, men and women of goodwill across this great nation, would work very hard to ensure the viability and the unity of this great country of ours. I would expect that would be the position taken by people who genuinely want to unify Canada and maintain the strength of this great nation.

I would hope as we move into the 21st century that is the position taken by Canadians. I see that being the case. I am heartened more and more by the fact that we are moving in this direction and I am confident that that is the direction that precisely we will take.

[Supply, November 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am heartened by the Calgary declaration and what it stands for and especially by the consultation process that is part and parcel of that very important statement not only by the premiers but also by the territorial leaders.

It is important that we know that Canada is now able to proceed along these lines and take a look, and a hard look, by all Canadians in a consultation process to ensure that all Canadians are heard and that we try to unify the country in a manner consistent with our history and consistent with our aims and objectives as we move into the 21st century.

The Calgary declaration is a very important first step. I am heartened by the leadership role that has been taken not only here today but also by the premiers especially and the territorial leaders in this very important area of nationhood.

[Supply, November 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today before this House to give my views on this very important motion introduced by my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona.

There is no more important issue than the unity of Canada. We on this side of the House confirmed this view in the Speech from the Throne earlier this fall by identifying national unity as our highest priority.

As we all know, the premiers of nine provinces as well as two territorial leaders met on September 14 to discuss a framework for consulting the population about strengthening the Canadian federation. What resulted was the Calgary declaration.

The Calgary principles and consultations are a gesture of goodwill toward all Canadians including Quebeckers, aboriginal peoples and our linguistic minorities. While the declaration is not a legal draft nor a proposal for a constitutional amendment, we believe it is an important step in the right direction. It is an invitation extended by 11 provincial and territorial governments to all Canadians and all regions to reflect on and engage in a new discussion about the values we share as Canadians.

We also hope that the Calgary principles will lead us to a consensus on the core values of our country including respect for the unique character of Quebec.

We on the government side endorse the principles of the premiers, the territorial leaders and all Canadians to foster national unity. Further we fully support the consultation process begun by those premiers and territorial leaders.

The Calgary principles are the work of the premiers and the territorial leaders. The federal government was not a participant at the Calgary meeting and is not a major participant in the current provincial and territorial consultation procedures. That being said however, I do intend to do what I can to promote positive public debate on this very important issue, the Calgary principles, both in my own province and across the country.

We recognize the Calgary initiative was undertaken in part because of the interest of the nine premiers and the territorial leaders in consulting their own populations to create a better working environment. While they are at various stages, consultations on the Calgary principles are well under way in those nine provinces and the territories. This demonstrates a commitment of those premiers and leaders to the Calgary principles and by all accounts to date support for these principles has been widespread.

We on this side of the House urge Canadians to become involved in this very important consultation process. We urge them to express their opinion or to suggest possible improvements to the principles as outlined.

Why is it that the separatist government in Quebec will not consult Quebeckers on these principles? Is it because the principles make sense and define Canadian values and ideals? Is it because it knows that the majority of Quebeckers in fact support these principles?

Let me be specific on each of the seven principles as outlined by the premiers and the territorial leaders in the Calgary declaration.

First, the equality of citizens. All Canadians are equal and have rights protected by law. This principle is entrenched in section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This means that all Canadians irrespective of sex, race, religion, social or economic status are equal before the law. But equality is not the same as uniformity.

In a democracy like ours, equality and freedom go hand in hand. Nothing forces us to have the same beliefs or preferences as anybody else. We all have the right to be different. In other words all the children in the family are equal but that does not mean we are all the same. That is why the Constitution itself in section 36 of the Constitution Act, 1982 commits all governments in Canada to the promotion of equal opportunities for the well-being of all Canadians. It is why various sections of the Constitution recognize aboriginal and treaty rights of our aboriginal peoples as well as the rights enjoyed by our linguistic minorities.

Second, the equality of the provinces. We believe that the principle of equality that applies to individuals also applies to the provinces. It is our view that all provinces have equality of status. None is set above the others and all have the same fundamental legal relationship with the people who live there. Having said that, their equality of status does not mean that they cannot be different one from the other.

As is the case for all individual Canadians, provincial equality does not mean provincial uniformity. Each and every province deserves equal consideration but each province has its own needs which vary depending on circumstances. This is how our federal system makes room for differences and avoids locking the provinces into a rigid structure that would make it impossible for them to respond to their own special needs.

Third, diversity, tolerance, compassion and equality of opportunity. The history of Canada has been marked by genuine openness to differences and by a generous spirit of tolerance. While every country has its weaknesses, circumstances have led us in Canada to develop greater respect for the diverse backgrounds of all our citizens. Our spirit of partnership and compassion has inspired our federal and provincial governments to create social programs that are the envy of the world and which attest to our desire to work in partnership to give equal chances to everyone and our compassion for the neediest among us. That is very important.

Fourth, our national identity is enriched by the contributions of our aboriginal peoples, the vitality of the English and French languages and the multicultural character of Canada. Like the Calgary declaration and the more recent statements released by the premiers and leaders, the Speech from the Throne recognizes the invaluable contribution of the aboriginal peoples to the building of Canada and the richness of our identity. We and the aboriginal peoples must work together to respond to the challenges they face.

Canada's two official languages are another of our country's riches. Linguistic duality and the viability of both official language communities in all parts of the country are part and parcel of our great identity. One of the strengths of Canada, our official languages are two of the languages in greatest use worldwide. They contribute substantially to Canada's success economically, socially, culturally and internationally.

The multicultural character of Canada is a source of national pride and enrichment as well as being a universal ideal.

Fifth, the unique character of Quebec society. Our recognition of the linguistic and cultural differences of Quebec addresses its unique needs and circumstances and is in keeping with the equality of the provinces and of individual Canadians. That is why Parliament has adopted a resolution recognizing these differences.

This recognition of Quebec is a positive message to Quebeckers who want to be part of the great Canadian family. It demonstrates to Quebeckers that the rest of Canada does accept them and respects their right to be different. It is also linked with the core Canadian values which Calgary underscored, that Canadians share with their fellow citizens in Quebec: the values of respect, partnership, fairness, justice and openness.

Sixth, if any future constitutional amendment confers powers on one province, these powers must be available to all provinces. While the Calgary declaration does not call for any amendments in or additions to the division of powers among the governments, in the event that such an amendment were contemplated, then the equality of provinces would apply.

We believe that all provinces must have the same tools available to them to promote their own development. Any tool available to one province must meet its specific needs and must be available to all others.

Seventh, greater partnership among the two levels of government while respecting each other's jurisdiction. This is what the seventh principle states. We can all agree that the vast majority of Canadians want their provincial and federal governments to act in the common interest of all and build a true Canadian partnership based on solidarity and respect for our diversity and for areas of federal and provincial jurisdiction.

The federal government has been working very hard to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of the federation by emphasizing consultation and collaboration. The list of all the areas on which the federal and provincial governments are collaborating is long. To name a couple, they include labour market training and federal-provincial talks.

To conclude, I would like to say that the federal government recognizes that our country is constantly changing. This is the reality of the Canadian community. It is also a fact that we must change if we are going to survive as a society.

As members can see, the consultative process and the seven principles set out in Calgary are critically important to the unity of Canada.

I hope that all members on both sides of the House will get the message out to all Canadians. I would personally like to thank the official opposition for requesting a debate on the unity of Canada. There is nothing more important than keeping Canada together and the motion put before the House today is useful in achieving this objective.

Canada's past was remarkable, its future will be even more so.

[Canadian Heritage, November 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, a recent survey found that nearly one in two Canadians would fail the citizenship examination given to immigrants. This suggests that a large number of Canadians lack the basic civic knowledge required to understand and participate in Canada's public life.

My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. What role does she think the federal government should play to ensure that history and civics are taught in schools across Canada? Does she think that the federal government should develop national standards in these areas?

[Trade, November 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, U.S. President Bill Clinton recently failed to get backing from Congress to give him fast track authority to negotiate expansion of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

My question is for the Parliamentary Secretary responsible for International Trade. Is Canada now in a position to move forward and have its own trade deals with Latin American countries? If so, does he plan to do this?