Denis Coderre

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

Mr. Speaker, I can talk for 20 minutes if you want. You want me to conclude? Fine. I can come back if you want. I can talk for a long time.

One thing is certain: this government acted responsibly. It took its responsibilities. We believe in the right to strike. We believe in collective bargaining. We let the two sides have a go at it.

Do not get me wrong: I have nothing against the union or its members. I have absolutely nothing against the union or its members, but when I hear the Bloc lecturing us at every opportunity, I cannot accept it and I wonder who is working for who. I have a right to ask myself this question.

When $54 million are lost every day, when charities are deprived of millions of dollars that are needed to help the poor, the government must act responsibly. When the public does not get the service to which it is entitled, the government must govern and take its responsibilities.

If you do not agree with this, ask the public, ask all those who are watching us. The thousands of people watching us today will understand one thing. They will understand that members on this side who will vote for the special legislation are looking after the interests of Quebeckers and all Canadians. Again, I just realized why, in the latest poll conducted in Quebec, 54% support the federal Liberal Party, while 30% support the Bloc Quebecois.

The Bloc Quebecois may kick a big fuss, it may try to tarnish our reputation, it may talk nonsense, the facts are there and people who are watching us will judge for themselves. There are those who will be voting for this special law—it is not perfect, but one thing is clear, this 540-page collective agreement will be in effect. If you want me to read parts of this document, I could do so all night, but if the average person had such a collective agreement, he or she would be very, very happy.

When someone can receive jackets, trousers, hats, caps, and shirts, when someone has five days off to get married and when his or her spouse has the same benefits—and I have nothing against that—these are the result of negotiations, and negotiations are a good thing. The special law, when it is passed, will be extending this collective agreement.

They still have another chance. There is one vote remaining. I congratulate the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert who had the courage to do what she believed in and who said “For me, this is not how it should be. I am on the side of the people and I support the special legislation”.

If I hear the member for Terrebonne—Blainville quoting Karl Marx, the other friend of his leader, I will end by quoting Mao. He said “Cow dung is more useful than dogma. At least it can be used as a fertilizer”.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are two sorts of laws. First there are those the government proposes because it wants them, like those providing work, strengthening the social safety net or improving the justice system. Then there are those that the government is obliged to adopt. I think it is obvious to all the members at least on our side that this bill belongs in the second category.

I rise to speak today, because I think it is time to set the record straight. We have heard all sorts of mud slinging from the members of the Bloc. They tried to get at my colleague and friend the member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, who, by the way, beat a Bloc Quebecois member by over 10,000 votes. So I think that people are intelligent in the riding of Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies. If they elected him with a 10,000 vote majority, and if they elected me with a 9,000 vote majority, that means something. It also means they elected someone from Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies with labour experience. This is another plus for the Liberal government.

One thing is certain. I have nothing to learn from the likes of the Bloc Quebecois, these PQ champions of special legislation, of going back on a signature. Remember 1982. If the member for Frontenac—Mégantic were a teacher, he would remember that the PQ government introduced a special bill, Bill 111, which repudiated the signing of collective agreements and cut his salary by 20%. That is a gang that works for workers. Give me a break. If they say our minister takes himself for the President of Canada Post, I do not know whether they look like the union president, but there are certainly problems. This special legislation was one hundred times worse than Bill C-24.

And to top it all, who was the chief negotiator at the time of Bill 111? None other than Lucien Bouchard. That must hurt. So I have nothing to learn from them.

Once again, when we do not agree with the Bloc Quebecois, he begins howling that we are not defending Quebec's interests, believe it or die. We are losing $54 million a day. Across Canada, including Quebec, charitable organizations have been losing more than $10 million a day. The Salvation Army, Jeunesse au soleil, these people who collect food and money to help the less fortunate could not get this money because of the postal strike.

We are not pleased with this strike, nor are we pleased to have to pass this special legislation. This is clearly a responsible government, which has let both parties negotiate during eight months with the help of our best mediators, in the person of Marc Gravel and Warren Edmondson—no one can say that Edmondson and Gravel are not good mediators, they are the best—but the parties did not come to an agreement. If I had to choose between our mediators and the Bouchard guys, I am sorry, but I think I would rather trust ours.

Before I go any further, I forgot to mention that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Waterloo—Wellington. You did get that, but I wanted to make sure.

We are losing $54 million per day. Dozens of jobs are lost.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would not want to compare Marxist-Leninists on each side, but I would like our distinguished colleague, who is an honourable man, to withdraw—

[Division No. 48, December 2nd, 1997]

There is no doubt that this special legislation has to be adopted as quickly as possible. It is time that we stopped listening to the same union song and that people stopped talking about knives.

Personally, I have chosen to help the companies, I have chosen to help the citizens. I have chosen to help the charitable organizations. I have chosen to help my fellow citizens because people are losing money. I have decided to help the Salvation Army. I have decided to help Enfants Soleil. I have decided to help all these people because they are really losing money. I have decided to help those who rely on the holiday season to earn a living.

One thing is certain, when I hear members talk about knives and about stabbing, I do not know where they come from, but we have nothing to learn from the likes of them. We must reject this amendment because the union bunch on the other side, what they did is to refuse a settlement. We gave them a settlement, and they refused. This is a government law. We must follow the rules of the Treasury Board.

If these people fail to understand anything, it is because they fail to understand their fellow citizens. Instead of going to Florida, Mr. Plamondon should be going to his riding. Instead of talking about stabbing, the member for Richelieu should go speak to his fellow citizens, and he would see that 76% of the people in all ridings support the government, which has decided to bring in special legislation because we have chosen to be on the side of the citizens and not to be paid by the unions and to play their song. That is the problem, Mr. Chairman.

[Division No. 48, December 2nd, 1997]

There are people who go to Florida, but me, I go to my riding and I work there. What are the people telling me? That they are losing money. There are companies who are forced to tell their workers to stay home because these people do not want to listen to reason.

[Division No. 48, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have been insulted today. I have been insulted because the people from the Bloc, which is being paid and financed by unions, are telling me that I am stabbing workers in the back.

[Division No. 48, December 2nd, 1997]

Don't choke.

[Division No. 48, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Chairman, this is a bad case of increasing cloudiness. One sure thing, Mr. Chairman, is that when you consider the facts, nobody can take offence from those words. The fact is that when we deal with a government bill based on Treasury Board guidelines, the government cannot give more than what it is ready to give in its own negotiations. That is the first point.

The second point is that the union has been offered 2% in a settlement proposal and that it has rejected it. That should also be taken into consideration.

The most important thing for us is that we should pass this bill as quickly as we can because businesses in Quebec are losing $54 million a day because of this strike. Charities that should receive millions of dollars through the mail are not getting anything. We should stop listening to that broken record of Bloc recriminations on behalf of the unions and take a cold hard look at the real situation. We should not only reject this amendment but also go on to consideration of the following clauses.

[Division No. 48, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Chairman, if we forget for a while the demagoguery of the hon. member for Richelieu and consider the simple facts, we realize something. First of all, this is a government bill and it should be based on the Treasury Board guidelines. We cannot increase—

[Parti Quebecois, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, what a sight it was yesterday to see Lucien Bouchard and Jacques Parizeau together on the same podium. How nice it was to hear them say there were no divisions among the separatists.

When Lucien Bouchard condones Jacques Parizeau's statement about the ethnic vote in the last referendum by saying that his predecessor deserves respect, that he is a great democrat, it is true that there are no divisions. Parizeau-Bouchard, same difference. Not only do they want to divide Canada, but they also want to divide Quebec into classes or even into castes.

Well, Messrs. Parizeau and Bouchard, my Quebec has only one class of citizens: first class citizens. Did you get that? In Quebec, we only have first class citizens.