Debates of May 26th, 1994

Government Response To Petitions

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), the government's response to three petitions.

Canadian Film Development Corporation Act

[Michel Dupuy, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-31, an act to amend the Canadian Film Development Corporation.

(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Petitions

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by more than 2,000 residents of my riding of Québec-Est and the surrounding area. The petitioners want to bring to the attention of the Parliament the plight of senior citizens in Quebec, denounce the measures recently adopted by the government, namely age credit cuts and the setting up of inhumane devices such as voice mail boxes.

Therefore, the petitioners pray that Parliament will refrain from taking any measures that would reduce their income and make it harder for senior citizens to have access to services designed for them. I wholeheartedly support this petition and I call upon the government to accede to it.

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present a petition on behalf of my constituents asking the government to amend the Divorce Act to include a provision which would ensure the right of access of grandparents to their grandchildren.

I am adding a further 600 names to the previous thousands I have already submitted. I wish across Canada we could all be aware of the needs of our grandparents and grandchildren today.

[Beryl Gaffney, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am presenting a petition with 400 signatures of residents of Canada whereby these petitioners request that Parliament amend the Divorce Act to include a provision which states that the relationship that exists between grandparents and grandchildren is a natural, fundamental one; that the denial of access can constitute elder abuse and can have a serious detrimental emotional impact on both the grandparents and the grandchildren; and in no case may a father or a mother, without serious cause, place obstacles between the child and the grandparents.

We as parliamentarians have a strong obligation to uphold the right of grandparents and I encourage all members of the House to do so.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Shall all questions stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-17, an act to amend certain statutes to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 22, 1994, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Budget Implementation Act

[The Speaker]

There are 39 motions in amendment on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-17, an act to amend certain statutes to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 22, 1994.

Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 will be grouped for debate, but voted upon as follows:

a) A vote on Motion No. 1 will apply to Motions Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11.

b) An affirmative vote on Motion No. 1 obviates the necessity of putting the question on Motion No. 4.

c) A negative vote on Motion No. 1 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 4.

Motions Nos. 12, 13, 14 and 15 will be grouped for debate but voted upon as follows:

(a) Motion No. 12 will be voted on separately.

(b) An affirmative vote on Motion No. 12 obviates the necessity of putting the question on Motion No. 13 but requires the question to be put on Motion No. 14 which will apply to Motion No. 15.

(c) A negative vote on Motion No. 12 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 13 which applies to Motions Nos. 14 and 15.

Motions Nos. 16, 17, 18 and 39 will be grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 16 will apply to Motions Nos. 17, 18 and 39.

Motions Nos. 19, 20, 21 and 22 will be grouped for debate but voted upon as follows:

(a) A vote on Motion No. 19 will apply to Motions Nos. 20 and 22.

(b) An affirmative vote on Motion No. 19 obviates the necessity of putting the question on Motion No. 21.

(c) A negative vote on Motion No. 19 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 21.

Motions Nos. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38 will be grouped for debate but voted upon as follows:

a) A vote on Motion No. 23 will apply to Motions Nos. 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38.

b) An affirmative vote on Motion No. 23 obviates the necessity of putting the question on Motions Nos. 24, 25, 26, 31 and 33.

c) A negative vote on Motion No. 23 requires the questions to be put as follows:

i) A vote on Motion No. 24 will apply to Motion No. 25.

ii) Motions Nos. 26, 31 and 33 will be voted upon separately.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

moved:

Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3

That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 3.

That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 4.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-17, in Clause 5, be amended by adding after line 33, on page 3, the following:

"(7) On the expiration of the extensions of compensation plans provided under subsections 5(1), 5(3), 7(2.1) and 7(2.2), these provisions shall be referred to such committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by that House for the purpose of reviewing the administration and operation of this Act and the committee shall undertake a comprehensive review of the administration and operation of these provisions and shall, within one year after the review is undertaken or within such time as that House may determine, submit a report to that House thereon including a statement on whether there should be any further extensions of the compensation plans.

(8) There shall be no extensions of the compensation plans to which subsections 5(1), 5(3), 7(2.1) and 7(2.2) apply before the House has considered the report submitted under subsection (7)."

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

moved:

Motions Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11

That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 6.

That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 7.

That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 8.

That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 9.

That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 10.

That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 11.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to speak on Bill C-17. The first thing I have to say is that Bill C-17 is an omnibus bill. It covers many areas, some of which we support and some to which we take exception.

We have asked the government to break the bill into its constituent parts, which it refused to do. We were therefore left with little or no choice but to put these motions in order that we may stress the point that we agree with some parts of the bill and disagree with other parts. While we will be forced to vote against the bill in its entirety, we wish to go on the record as saying that we do support certain parts of the bill and hence our motions this morning.

Basically we are in favour of the sections pertaining to the freezing of wages of the public sector. As everyone knows we are in a serious debt and deficit crisis. Anything that can be done to help alleviate that problem has to be in the best interests of the country.

However as the Reform Party has pointed out on many occasions, much more could be done by the government rather than turning on its own civil service and squeezing some extra money out of its pockets to help the government come to terms with its debt and deficit situation. If we had not only frozen the salaries of the public sector but eliminated every civil servant in the country and saved every nickel that we were paying in wages to these people, we would still not save even half the annual deficit.

Therefore if the government thinks it is going to balance the budget on the backs of the civil servants, it has it entirely wrong. However the basic concept that we are going to save some additional money because every nickel helps in this exercise has to be supported.

There are some items that I want to point out. One is the extension not only of the salary freeze for an additional two years but the introduction of a two-year suspension of pay increments within the salary grades.

I have had numerous representations made to me as a member of Parliament for the constituency of St. Albert where the Royal Canadian Mounted Police perform the police services. In the RCMP, when a new Mountie graduates from training school, his pay increases semi-annually over the next three years until he reaches the normal salary for a police constable.

With this change the increments of a new RCMP constable are now frozen. Now we have an inequity between the amount of money that is paid to new RCMP constables on the beat and the ones who are there already. It is not that they do not want to do their part, but members of the RCMP are subject to transfer from one part of the country to another more frequently than any other member of the civil service. As they move from rural Alberta or Saskatchewan to perhaps downtown Vancouver the cost of living is going to change dramatically.

They are being asked to maintain their salaries at exactly the same level as they entered the police force rather than have the semi-annual increments to bring them up to the level of any other constable in the force.

We see the rise in crime. We have talked about it in the House on many occasions. Perhaps we should give some consideration to recognizing the value that our police force provides to us in the maintenance of law and order. How can we expect them to get by on less than a shoestring? We are not adequately compensating these people as they in many cases put their lives on the line for our protection. We are asking them to do that with less than reasonable salary for the new members of the force.

We support the wage freeze in the public service. We want to do whatever we can as the Reform Party to ensure that every effort is made to come to terms with this horrible deficit that we have. It may be a small step but it is a step that we support with some reservations in some areas.

As I said at the outset, while we will be voting against the bill in its entirety when it comes up for a vote we wish to go on record as having supported the basic thrust of the clause regarding public service wages in Bill C-17.

The other sections that deal with compensation in other areas outside the ones I have mentioned we are basically in support of, especially the one that would freeze the salaries of MPs. We have always wanted to send a clear signal to Canadians saying: "Let us provide leadership".

During the last election that was one of the things that we as Reformers said, that providing leadership to Canadians, demonstrating that we as government and parliamentarians, as those elected to show the way and lead the way in the country, are prepared to do our part to ensure efficient government is provided at a reasonable cost to Canadians at this time when restraint has to be the watchword.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak on the amendments of the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois grouped for debate, all the more so because this bill is very important to me.

Why do I consider it important? Because it is the perfect expression of the total lack of openness that has characterized this government ever since it came into office.

What do we find in this part? To start with, I would like to tell you that I am pleasantly surprised by the position taken by the Reform Party regarding this part of Bill C-17 because, since the beginning of the debate and even the study in subcommittee-the one which considered all the provisions of Bill C-17-the Reform Party has not demonstrated much interest in what the government has been doing to its employees. The Reform Party did not say a word on the fundamental right to open collective bargaining, a thing that the Bloc Quebecois has defended from the start.

As I said, we are pleasantly surprised because, by introducing these amendments to delete all the clauses dealing with the wage freeze in the federal public service, the Reform Party shows it is now more kindly disposed towards fundamental rights like collective bargaining. Consequently, based on the reasoning and the actions of the Reform Party this morning, we can assume that it is also more kindly disposed towards collective bargaining itself and towards workers rights, and that it would be willing to come back to the former system whereby the government and its employees would talk constructively and come to some synergic agreement on working conditions.

This means they agree with the new models introduced just about everywhere around the world which call for co-operation between public service employees and the government with a view to finding constructive solutions to controlling public finance problems and to recording yearly deficits smaller than those recorded year after year by the Canadian government.

I am surprised by this. With our motion, which would require the government to come back to the House on the expiration of the compensation provisions in the legislation to debate either an extension or changes to the provisions, we were simply trying to be realistic. We did not want to introduce one or more motions calling for the elimination of all of these provisions since the government, given its majority position, would surely vote against any such motion.

Indeed, while the Reform Party's motion goes further than our deep-seated convictions, our motion is more realistic because it calls for a democratic debate upon the expiration of the provisions in Bill C-17 respecting public service compensation. We are also asking for transparency, something which this government has not demonstrated since the start of this debate.

I will give you one example of the lack of transparency and the attitude of this government which is quickly trying to put one over on us with this omnibus bill before the House this morning. As you know, the sub-committee which considered Bill C-17 was initially supposed to hold two and a half days of public hearings. Some of the provisions in this bill, particularly those pertaining to unemployment insurance which will be debated during the course of the day, are fundamental. The government was trying to stage a reverse kind of filibuster.

The government was attempting to impose some fundamental provisions within the context of an omnibus bill, and had it not been for the actions of the Bloc Quebecois members of this sub-committee, we would not have had two weeks of public hearings during which testimony was heard from at least one hundred individuals.

Transparency will not stifle this government. A similar thing occurred with the Pearson airport bill. Here again, the government tried to hastily pass some fundamental measures, without resolving in any way whatsoever the problem with lobbyists in Canada.

That is what the Bloc Quebecois motion is about. When wage agreements between the federal government and its employees expire, let a transparent public debate be held, let the government account for the decisions that will have to be made and let the whole world see that while this government may be new, it is totally out of date with regard to the relationship it wants to establish between its employees and their managers.

That is not how things are done now. Imposing is no longer an option; and whether we agree with the idea of a wage freeze or not has nothing to do with the matter. But imposing a wage plan upon public servants in a dictatorial fashion will have disastrous effects.

First, it will demotivate workers. Second, it is gagging union representatives. You know that these people have things to say, and a job to do, as they have demonstrated in the past.

I was pleasantly surprised in early February, before the government even tabled its budget, to see public service unions volunteer to make sacrifices that often went far beyond a simple wage freeze like the one now imposed upon them. They came up with positive ways of reducing the annual deficit, increasing efficiency in the federal administration and achieving that wonderful meeting of the minds which we see in many regions in the world yet is totally non-existent here because this government is out of touch and out of date.

It prefers to avoid confrontation, like the Prime Minister is doing with the Constitution issue, rather than face the real issues, rather than make real decisions in consultation and, I might say, in a spirit of brotherly love.

That is what the motion put forward by the Bloc Quebecois is about. We want to force a public debate not only on public servants' wages but on wage costs as a whole, the efficiency of the government machine and even suggestions made by the unions.

So, with our motion, the House would debate the issue anew upon the expiration of the wage provisions in the budget and, as I mentioned before, if we had not been so concerned about being realistic and had not considered the fact that this government shamelessly takes advantage of its majority to always have its way, we would have introduced, probably with respect to the Bill C-17 clause on public service compensation, motions similar to those of the Reform Party.

But, because we want to be realistic, we know very well that such motions would probably be defeated by government members. Therefore, we have proposed a very realistic motion, which is likely to be approved by the Liberal members, if they are really concerned about transparency and democracy.

By voting against our motion, they will confirm that the government has something to conceal, that it lacks the political will, that it has no vision, and that it could not care less about civil servants, about the state of our public finances, and even about the improvements that we could all make to the government system which is cumbersome, outdated, and rigid, just like the members of this government.

[David Walker, Liberal, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

I think there are changes to the text.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I thank the hon. member for reminding me of my technical obligations. We noticed this morning after the motion notices were printed that there were discrepancies between the English and the French versions.

The errors are in the French version. I want to move the necessary amendments with the unanimous consent of the House. In fact, they are not amendments but corrections. If we have unanimous consent, I will read them to you. I would appreciate your accepting them. So shall I read them, Madam Speaker?

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is there unanimous consent of the House to accept the amendment to the motion by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Do you want to read them for the record?

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Motion No. 4 reads as follows in section 7:

On the expiration of the extensions of compensation plans provided under subsections 5(1), 5(3), 7(2.1) and 7(2.2), these provisions shall be referred to such committee-

The French version, which refers to a House of Commons, Senate or joint committee, should be amended to "a committee of the House of Commons" only.

Instead of "as may be designated or established by Parliament", the French version should read "as may be designated or established by that House" to match the English text and on the last line, "changes it deems desirable" should be replaced with "whether there should be any further extensions of the compensation plans". Thank you, Madam Speaker.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

So if I understand correctly, there is no change to subsection (8).

The hon. government whip.

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Saint-Léonard, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to participate in this debate this morning. After listening to the finance critic of the Official Opposition tell us that the government had things to hide and was doing things in secret, I would not like this debate on this motion to end leaving those listening to us under a completely erroneous impression. I want to set the record of this House straight.

This government was one of the first to establish a process that is open to consultation, first of all in this House where we have special days to debate the budget process. The Minister of Finance held public consultations throughout the country that were televised, not only for those who could take part in this debate, but also for people to follow it on television and even in the committees.

The hon. member referred to the committee where an agreement was first made. We had two days of hearings with all members of the committee. When the opposition asked for more time, their request was granted. We are operating with an order of the House which specifies that we will have two days, today and Monday, to debate the motions after they have been debated in committee at report stage.

So when they tell us that the government wants to rush this through and that we do everything in secret, the opposite is true, because this Liberal government established an open process in which everyone can participate. In the parliamentary reform we made at the beginning, when this House opened, we decided that for the next budget, the finance committee, on which the hon. member sits, will be able to help prepare the budget; it will not be as before, when we learned what the budget was only when the Minister of Finance came to the House to make his speech.

So, it is wrong to say that the Liberal government wants to rush changes through in secret, because everything was done publicly. We are still doing so and will continue to do so. I wanted to make sure that the other side of the coin is seen also and that our listeners can have the other side of the story.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise with regard to this series of amendments because this discussion is symptomatic of a rather fruitless debate which has been going on for several years in Canada and in Quebec. On the one hand, it is conceivable to support the Reform Party's amendments for a return to open collective bargaining, instead of having decisions on employees's wages imposed by the government. On the other hand, no lesson seems to have been drawn from past experience. Let us face it: bargaining in the public sector differs somewhat from bargaining in the private sector.

Through its consultation exercise on the budget and on management as a whole, the government should have come up with a vision different from that of the Conservatives. What we have is a Liberal rehash of an old Conservative recipe. Permanent solutions should definitely be found with respect to collective bargaining in the public sector, so as to avoid the current situation, where the government is once again forced to impose wage conditions to its employees, because it did not react soon enough. Indeed, it should have developed labour relations enabling it to reach agreements and implement a real social contract with its employees.

This is probably why the two opposition parties want significant changes to be made. This bill sends the message that government employees are not productive enough, do not work hard enough and that, consequently, they must not be paid any more than they are. Yet, the truth is altogether different. The vast majority of people in the public sector, as in the private sector, do their job very well and the government should have had the courage, the determination and the originality to develop an adequate collective bargaining model for them, because they deserve it.

During the first few months of this session, we were able to speak on the issue of the special bill passed to settle the labour dispute at the Vancouver harbour, where once again the government took a stand that showed some unwillingness and inability to negotiate fair agreements. Today, we are faced with this bill and we must deal with it. Unfortunately, we are not being asked to recognize a bargaining system arrived at through consensus by the employer, the government, and by representatives of the employees, the unionized public servants.

For all these reasons, the government should review the amendments put forward by the opposition. Up to a certain extent, the amendments from the Reform Party seem interesting, because they at least come back to the main issue, which is open collective bargaining. But such bargaining between a government and its employees occurs in a different context than bargaining in the private sector. Even if the amendments of the Reform Party are agreed to, we would still need to add new stages to the process.

It seems to me that the position taken by the opposition parties is much more in line with the new way we want to manage our labour relations. In fact, the message the opposition wants to convey to Canadians and Quebecers is this: we are here to see that our employees are treated fairly, and not to stand by while, year after year, the situation remains the same, whether we have a Conservative government or a Liberal government. We have a new government, and it has not made the slightest difference in this area and on several other issues.

I think it is important to watch what new strategies are being applied in this area elsewhere. There must be some information on compensation in the public and the private sectors. In Quebec, we get this kind of information from the Institut de rémunération, and we have learned that over the last 10 or 15 years, compensation in the private sector has slowly caught up with compensation in the public sector. Forget the tales about overpaid public servants, we are getting closer and closer to wage parity in both sectors.

If it is wage parity that we want, we will have to provide for a bargaining process as free as possible, taking into account the specificity of the government as an employer. Our amendments were to that effect, that is to find ways to oversee the action of the government because they seem to have already made up their mind, and whatever their decisions might be, they have a major impact on the budget for this fiscal year. We thought we had to ensure an adequate control in order to have the opportunity to see the results so as to be able, in the short term, to manage our labour relations in a way which does not de-motivate employees while allowing us to reach normal productivity objectives for the public service, which are measured in terms not only of lower operating costs, but also of job satisfaction.

Employee satisfaction starts with meeting their basic needs. Whenever these needs are not met, workers will not respond to second- or third-level motivation. It is well known among personnel motivation experts that basic needs have to be met before anyone can be asked to contribute more. If these are not met, no other motivational action will work.

I therefore encourage this government to accept the amendments by the opposition, be they by the Reform Party or the Bloc, which all aim at a more realistic bargaining process and at truly equal opportunities for both employer and employees. I hope the government will take heed of the amendments which have been tabled.