Debates of May 26th, 1994

Budget Implementation Act

[André Caron, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to speak on the amendment of the Reform Party and that of my party and denounce the Liberal government for continuing the Conservative government's policy of ending what I would call the open collective bargaining in the Public Service.

In the past, I lived through two situations where the government changed the rules of the game and imposed its will. I assure you that that had serious consequences, not on the motivation, but on the morale of the workers affected. Of course, people who work for the government and provide a public service continue to do so. On the two occasions when such laws were passed in Quebec, I observed that the people around me. The public servants continued to do their work well but something had changed in their attitude. It seemed that the workers had become more suspicious or distrustful of their employer, which is the government in this case.

So I think that the government should interfere in open collective bargaining only in extreme situations and I do not think that we are in such a situation at this time. But what kind of a situation are we in right now? We see governments that have lost control over their spending. They must therefore make political decisions to show that, at least, they care for the interests of their people.

What is the first decision? They find a scapegoat and public servants, the government's employees, are the perfect scapegoat. The government will say: "Public service employees cost a lot of money, so we will cut their salaries". When you look at those salary cuts compared to our national debt, it really is not much, but it still allows politicians to say: "Yes, we do spend a lot of money, but remember that we have cut public service employees' salaries". I think that it has simply become an excuse for a government that has lost control of its spending.

There is another point that I would like to raise, and it has to do with the fact that we live in a country where the rule of law prevails. The government can make all the laws it wants to make, but they have to be considered fair and adequate by the people. And when a law is considered questionable and inadequate by all the people, I think that we find ourselves in a situation where the rule of law does not prevail any more. In fact, we find ourselves in a situation where the state wants to impose its will, where arbitrary considerations take precedence. People are willing to negotiate an agreement, to take part in a collective bargaining process, but there is always somebody somewhere that can say no. The contract that was signed in good faith by people who took the time to think about it and who voted during union general assemblies has now been unilaterally and arbitrarily repudiated.

I am in favour of the amendment proposed by my party. However, if it is rejected, the amendment of the Reform Party advocating a return to open bargaining seems more acceptable to me than what we find in this bill. In this instance, the government, wanting to show the people that it is ready to make tough decisions in managing our country's affairs, finds a scapegoat and hits its workers in order to avoid having to look elsewhere.

After spending six months in Ottawa, we, in the Bloc Quebecois, know that there are cuts to be made elsewhere. There are things that need to be examined. That is exactly what my party wanted to do at the very beginning of the session when it proposed the establishment of a special committee to review all government spending.

When I say all government spending, this includes wages, but this also refers to all things that are bought, things that are sold, things that often seem, even for the layman, ill planned and that entail expenditures much more substantial than those related to cuts that could be done by a freeze in public servants wages.

I will vote for the amendment proposed by my party and against the main amendment presented by the Liberal government that is putting an end to what I call open collective bargaining in the public service.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I too would like to condemn strongly the fact that this one bill includes all sorts of important issues for Quebec and Canadian society. This bill deals not only with unemployment insurance, as we will see later on, but also with the CBC and with the public service, the subject of my remarks today.

Many public servants listened to the government party's sirens's song. The Liberals told them to change government and re-elect Liberals in order to get open collective bargaing back. Many of them told us how disappointed they were when, a few short months into the mandate of a new government, the wage freeze was extended.

We should know that this is not the first wage freeze. For most of those concerned, this will merely be an extension of an existing freeze.

Public servants are a resource for this country. Their role is to provide to their fellow citizens in Quebec or the rest of Canada the services they need and, most of the time, cannot provide themselves.

This refusal to engage in a real dialogue between negotiating parties has untold consequences in terms of productivity. The way you are dealt with very often determines the way you react. Obviously, you can always coerce somebody into working because there is a salary at the end, whatever the amount. But you can never force anybody to give his or her maximum unless he or she wants to. If we want workers to do their best, and we do need that everywhere now, one of the important things is that they have to feel that they are respected.

One may think that it is arrogant to deprive public sector workers of their dignity with a few paragraphs of a bill which contains measures on programs as important as UI that have attracted the most attention because they affect the most disadvantaged people in society.

The Liberals are at the beginning of their mandate. They are at a stage where they should have started a bargaining process.

They should have tried to ensure a settlement, even one which would subject workers to restrictions. Such a settlement implies that there is an exchange, give and take between parties, and that, at the start, the parties put their cards on the table, and respect each other.

All the conditions were in place for the Liberals because they had not been in power for a long time and the economic situation was better. But, by doing what they have done, what they are about to confirm, what they are threatening to do, if I really said what I think, they have blown their opportunity to re-establish a real dialogue with their employees who, let us not forget, are employees of the government and render services which we would not be able to provide otherwise.

Yes, they often have a bad reputation. However, many citizens know that they can count on their civil servants because they know them well, they know about the cuts, the problems that they face, that their workload is heavy, that they are the ones who answer the questions of the elderly taking their problems into account and that they are much better than answering machines with which the government wants to replace them.

We need a public service that gives the best of itself, and it is not by treating it the way we do that it will. On the contrary. This is the reason why-not expecting the government to reconsider its decision regarding the freeze-we proposed this amendment, inviting the government to have this reviewed by a House committee and give the public service the conditions so that they can do their best. By supporting this amendment, the government would at least-despite its tough position-show its commitment to review the whole matter.

It could start right away to prepare the ground for the return to open collective bargaining. It is in this spirit that this amendment has been formulated. We hope that everybody in this House will support its adoption and its implementation.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to say how surprised we are with the amendment to the motion of the Reform Party, and I would like very much to congratulate them. I think that they perhaps have a much more realistic vision of the public service today and that they made the right decision.

The lack of motivation of public servants is such that I think it is high time that the government opens its eyes. They already have had a wage freeze for several years, and what the government is doing this year is simply carrying over that freeze once again.

That is totally irresponsible on the part of the Liberal government. With all its good will, it could have renegotiated its contracts with public servants in order to find an area of agreement so that things would be much more realistic. Since it came into office, the government has been proving to us that it refuses to make cuts where it counts.

Again, we are talking about tax shelters, an issue that remains taboo in this House. We and the Reform Party are the only ones who talk about it. We talk about family trusts. How many times did we ask for studies? The government still has not responded. It is impossible to get answers on that issue.

Our economy is not as its best. We should not delude ourselves. I think it is very well known that the economy is not about to make a big start this year. If the government decided to give good wages to its public servants, it would probably help the economy considerably, because the economy is like a wheel. When you give good wages to your employees, they buy more products and they make the wheel turn. The more you freeze salaries the more prices go up and the less people will make the economy work. This is all quite normal.

The government really has made its choices this time. Again, it is always the same people who pay the bill. We have talked again and again in this House of the poorest in our society. We have had discussions on many occasions about social housing, among other things, but the government ignores the issue. We have also talked about the middle class which is the public service.

I have relatives working for the public service who are responsible for big departments and who told me that the rates of absenteeism and sick leave in the public service are so high that it has created a real problem. People loose their motivation and this of course gives rise to absenteeism, sickness, depression problems and what have you, while the number of single parents is constantly increasing. This is why the salary freeze is totally unacceptable.

I do not want to go from one extreme to the other and say that we have to give everything away, but perhaps we should accept open collective bargaining. This is what matters here. I am very happy to see that our Reform friends have changed their minds. I support the Bloc Quebecois' motion and hope that for once the government will make wise decisions and sit at the bargaining table. Being at the beginning of its mandate, the government has an opportunity to do so, to prove it is a good government, to sit with civil servants and renegotiate so we can have a public service which is efficient rather than dissatisfied as it has been for many years.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise to address the Bloc amendment in this grouping and to set the record straight on two issues: first, collective bargaining and, second, the purpose of our amendments.

First, at the beginning of the debate on this grouping the member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot indicated that he was both surprised and shocked that we had changed our minds. He felt that the Reform Party was against collective bargaining but with these amendments we had somehow or other changed our minds and were now in favour of public sector negotiations.

I would like to set the record straight. Our party's position is that we are in favour of collective bargaining. We are in favour of people forming groups and unions. We are in favour of them having the right to strike. What we are against is holding the public to ransom. We are against employers not being able to find replacement workers should they need to. Those are the areas where we have to make the public sector a little more like the private sector.

I say that so that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot will realize that we have not totally changed our position on that issue.

Second, I would like to set something straight on the omnibus bill of the government, Bill C-17. We object very strongly to the bull-headed, arrogant fashion in which the government brings forth legislation dealing with five or six different areas of the economy, lumps it all into one bill and tries to force it on an opposition party, not allowing us to question the purpose of each area or to evaluate each individual category separately.

The Reform Party had to come up with a strategy. I guess it is a political game to come up with some amendments to the omnibus bill in order to force debate.

What is happening now is based on Reform Party strategy and on what we feel is in the best interests of all Canadians so that we can discuss each of these five categories separately instead of them being all lumped together in order to confuse everybody.

We wish to point out those areas of the bill that we favour and those we are against. When it comes to voting on the groupings on this bill, I warn the members of the Bloc Quebecois that although we are getting compliments for changing our minds, we have not changed our minds.

Do not be surprised that we will be voting against our own amendments in the groupings.

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy today to say a few words about Bill C-17, the group of amendments proposed by the Reform Party and the way those amendments are being dealt with. I think that there are more than thirty of them. Of course, we have put about ten of them together and decided to vote on these ten amendments.

As far as I am concerned, I am in favour of some of those and against some others. Since I have to vote on a group of amendments, I find myself in a very awkward position.

That being said, I would like to talk briefly about unemployment insurance and the way this government treats our society. It is said to be a Crown corporation, but the government acts as if it was its own business. All of a sudden it decides to increase the unemployment insurance premiums, to reduce the benefit period and to increase the number of weeks that one has to work to be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits.

It is a hard blow on employers and employees who both have to pay higher premiums. At a time when recession is so hard on us, I wonder how the government can consider such a measure to be reasonable and responsible.

Madam Speaker, once again, and I am talking here only about employers, I realize that small and medium-sized businesses which will be burdened with this increase in premiums are still going to see their chances of success diminish-

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like confirmation that we are still on part I, public sector compensation, and not on part V, unemployment insurance.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

We are indeed on part I, which is a grouping of resolutions on remuneration.

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

This puts a very heavy burden on companies and their employees, and I must say that reducing the number of weeks during which unemployment insurance benefits may be received will have a negative impact which will be very costly for the provinces, especially in Quebec.

Reducing the number of weeks during which people are entitled to unemployment insurance means that when they run out of benefits, and this will happen soon as a result of the government's proposal, they will have to go to Quebec's social assistance department for help.

It is estimated that in Quebec, another $500 million may be needed to help the unemployed when their unemployment insurance benefits run out.

In other words, the federal government has used this devious approach to pass its financial burden-the unemployed-onto the provinces. That is unfair, and irresponsible.

We see this happening in other sectors as well. For instance, when medicare was introduced, the provinces did not want the federal government to be involved in health care because it came under their jurisdiction. At the time, the federal government said: "Do not worry, we will establish national standards, we will control health care and introduce regulations, and of course we will also provide 50 per cent of the money required. We will collect the money from the public and give it back to the provinces-they did not say that, of course-and it will be a nice present for the provinces, because we will pay 50 per cent of health care expenses. But of course they never said the money would come out of taxpayers' pockets."

So the federal government took control of health care with its national Canadian health care policy. But today, the government pays only 30 per cent, not 50 per cent, and the provinces pay 70 per cent of their health care bills. And meanwhile, the federal government still insists it should oversee medicare.

More or less the same thing is happening in the case of unemployment insurance. In this case the approach is even more devious. The government says it will reduce the number of weeks during which people have access to benefits which means the provinces will have to take up the slack and ensure that these people can continue to eat and sleep and heat their homes in the winter, in this harsh climate of ours. This is outright hypocrisy.

The government also says it does a lot of consultation. It does, but it is not really listening. It does what it feels like doing. To consult usually means to listen to what people have to say, but the government does not listen. It does not respect their views. That is what their consultations amount to.

When the government decided to raise UI premiums, it said that it was gradually getting out of unemployment insurance programs, but since it was still paying, it also wanted to get involved in training as well. Since I will not have enough time to expand on this point, I will mention what happened and what I heard in committee during the past few years.

The Conseil du patronat and the unions said: Listen, if we as employers and employees have to pay most or all of the unemployment insurance premiums, why does the government continue to manage the program? The Conseil du patronat said, for instance: If we pay and the employee pays, why should we not be responsible for managing unemployment insurance?

For the benefit of our listeners, a distinction must be made between unemployment insurance and job training. The government has managed to confuse the issue, but basically, employees and employers pay about the same for unemployment insurance, while the remaining amounts go to job training. This is another example of federal interference. It takes the money contributed by companies and their employees to provide job training, although this should be strictly up to the provinces.

So, employers and employees say: "Look, we would be willing to administer this unemployment insurance corporation, since we are paying for it. This way, we would assume our responsibilities". The government would not make all kinds of unrealistic rules which often do not reflect real needs; employers and employees would administer the fund and probably have a more responsible attitude. Employees would not be dismissed without due cause, and neither would they resign on a whim. They would realize that acting this way would bring about an increase in unemployment insurance premiums.

I personally believe that people must be given more responsibility. They must be able to administer their own unemployment insurance program. It could provide a good example to have the unemployment insurance fund administered by employees and employers.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I want to clarify something for the members. Motions dealing with the same subject have been grouped together. Therefore, motion No. 1 deals with compensation.

The grouping of resolutions on which members will be voting as groups of motions is under sections or parts of the bill. This particular group is under compensation. I thought I would clear that up in case members had any doubts or questions on it.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would you also clarify whether I am correct in understanding that a member may speak once to each of these areas and then not speak again? In this case would the hon. member be able to speak on compensation later on, or is he entitled to speak again to unemployment insurance, so that we are not having two swings at the same ball here?

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

At the present time we are speaking on Motion No. 1 which is on part I, compensation.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, just for clarification, if a member has spoken on unemployment insurance, would that member again be able to speak on unemployment insurance when that grouping comes before the House?

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Members desiring to take part in the debate will be able to debate on every group of motions.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to this motion, firstly because I am the critic for public service renewal and secondly, because I am familiar with the collective bargaining process from a labour standpoint, having served as president of a teachers' union.

When one wishes to increase employee motivation, the first thing one must do is respect the employees, not only by following universally accepted practices, but also by engaging in ongoing dialogue and by paying attention to arguments put forward by the union, particularly when the aim is to improve the situation. Federal public servants realized that the government had financial problems, was deeply indebted and needed to find ways to resolve the situation. Public service unions even made some suggestions to the government on ways to achieve these objectives without singling out public servants to bear the full brunt.

The government apparently did not even bother to seriously discuss these proposals. Instead, it imposed a salary freeze. Not only did it freeze salaries, it also imposed a freeze on pay increment increases. This action means that public servants not only take an immediate step backward, they also lose ground for the rest of their working days. Those nearing retirement will see their pension calculated on the average salary earned during the last five or six years, and this salary will have been frozen.

Everyone recognizes that the federal public service is highly competent. The members who have been here for several years have repeatedly said so. We have had the opportunity to judge this for ourselves since starting to work in this House and to rely on the help of the public service.

You cannot on the one hand, contend that these people are competent and deserve our respect and on the other hand, disregard what they have to say concerning possible solutions to government problems.

The best way to ensure someone's co-operation certainly is not to kick them in the rear end. If you want them to work together with you, you cannot just tell them they are nice, good and intelligent people and then turn around and completely disregard their proposals for making things work better.

The way the government has gone about imposing a wage freeze on its employees without any consultation or rather serious consultation, because some may say they have been consulted. Meetings were held, speeches were made and legislation was passed. But that can hardly be called serious consultation. Serious consultation sometimes involves changing your approach.

That is why we are requesting today that before making decisions in that respect, the government be required to submit its plans to a committee of the House of Commons so that a public debate can be held to allow the public to determine whether these decisions were made too hastily or at the expense of a segment of the population, one which has unfortunately been a favourite target over the past ten years. The middle class is always targeted. Yet, it is the one expected to pay yet more income tax. The middle class has been a cash cow for the past ten years. Now it is being eliminated without any regard for its contribution to the nation's coffers.

As far as I am concerned, this is no way to establish and maintain good union-management relations and I hope the hon. members will support the motion before us not only out of fairness for this segment of population but also to show the government's regard for all those members of our society who are willing to co-operate, by asking them to pay no more and no less than their fair share.

The government must figure out what can reasonably be asked from this group of government employees without affecting their motivation, credibility, enthusiasm and the respect they have for their employer.

I hope we will show them the same respect and from now on have these people join us around the table for the sake of maintaining the atmosphere of confidence that must continue to exist in the Public Service.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 76(18), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11.