Debates of March 20th, 1995

Quebec Sovereignty

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday, following the statement made by the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada in support of the no side in the referendum, the Bloc Quebecois' reaction was swift: mind your own business.

One wonders who, in the opinion of the Bloc and the Parti Quebecois, can speak freely about the referendum. Last week, the Bloc questioned the right of the FCFA to express its opinion. Less than a month ago, the Bloc also questioned the right to vote of those who are not old stock Quebecers, to quote the expression used by one of its members. Shortly before that, a senior PQ advisor questioned the right of English-speaking Quebecers to vote in the referendum.

Back in May 1994, the Bloc told one of its own advisors to keep quiet on that issue. The message sent by the Bloc and the Parti Quebecois is clear: Only those who share their views can speak about the referendum.

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, since it is now 2.24 p.m., question period will end at 3.09 p.m.

Rail Transportation

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, CN, CP and VIA Rail management responded to the strike called by rail unions on Saturday by locking out over 10,000 workers, thus paralysing the whole Canadian transportation network. According to Commissioner Hope's February 6 report, these three employers have refused to back down from any of their demands as employers.

Given the employers' attitude, how does the Minister of Labour explain that, in the night between Saturday and Sunday, barely 12 hours after the dispute started, she prepared, at the

employers' request, to legislate employees back to work and to make arbitration compulsory?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, my first reaction to the work stoppage at CN and VIA Rail was to meet with the parties, that is, the three companies and all the unions, yesterday at 3 p.m. in Montreal, to try to convince them to settle the dispute themselves by telling them very clearly that it would be much better for them to solve the problem themselves than to let the government legislate.

We still believe that it would be much better for both the employers and the unions to find their own solution to the problem, and I hope that they still have time to do so before we legislate.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's comments are very enlightening; she has delivered an ode to free collective bargaining, after giving notice at 9.04 a.m. on Sunday, about 12 hours after the dispute started, that she would break up the strike.

How can the minister explain that, over a month before the dispute started, Commissioner Hope recommended back-to-work legislation although, according to his own report, the current stalemate results from the intransigence of the employers, who are trying to impose "extremely controversial and provocative" demands?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, if we have to bring a back-to-work bill before the members of this House, it is because the impact of this work stoppage requires the government to take action.

There is first of all an impact on all the people who use VIA Rail services. All the passengers faced a significant problem this morning. As far as the rail transportation network is concerned, this strike also affects an important part of the Canadian economy, not only rail companies but also all the other companies that depend on this form of transportation to speed up their operations.

Therefore, I think that it is in the public interest for the government to take action in this matter.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the minister, we must conclude right away that there is really only one fundamental question: Does the right to strike still exist in Canada? If it must be taken away, a bill to that effect should be introduced and debated.

If this right to strike still exists, and it does, why does the minister refuse to consider a back-to-work bill that would provide for mediation instead of imposing work conditions and that we would support?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, the right to strike and to lock out workers still exists under the Canada Labour Code. In fact, over 60 per cent of labour disputes are settled without government or departmental intervention. Over 90 per cent of cases referred to the Minister of Labour are settled without strikes or lockouts. Our current system is very effective, except in emergency situations with a major impact on the economy or the population, as is now the case. We must strive to achieve results.

Unfortunately, the parties have been negotiating for months without reaching an agreement. The time has come to achieve results in this dispute.

Port Of Montreal

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. The port of Montreal has been paralysed for thirteen days. Last week, the minister announced that she intended to appoint a mediator to help settle the dispute.

Could the minister explain why she was in such a hurry to pass back-to-work legislation only a few hours after a lockout was declared in the railway transportation industry, but has yet to appoint the mediator requested by the workers to help settle the dispute at the port of Montreal?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, action has already been taken. I met both parties, the employers and the union, this morning. I asked them to go back to work immediately and to resume negotiations. I also appointed a mediator who is to report to me in ten days' time.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the minister has finally responded to the wishes of the union, which has been asking for a mediator for quite some time, because previously, labour relations have been excellent. What is needed is a permanent solution to the dispute.

Why did she not take similar action in the case of the railway transportation dispute?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, each situation must be considered separately, especially where labour relations are concerned, and I think the hon. member for the Bloc Quebecois will agree that no two situations are alike.

In the case of the port of Montreal, no conciliation commissioner had been appointed. There had been only one conciliation phase, so this is entirely different from the situation at the railways, where we had another very long phase, from November 1994 until February 1995, when a conciliation commissioner intervened.

So I assume the hon. member for the Bloc Quebecois is quite satisfied with the decision I made today.

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

Mr. Speaker, for weeks a rail strike was expected. Now, after millions of dollars in lost wages and profit, and aggravating delays for commuters, farmers, and exporters, the Liberal government is finally ready to heed Reform's call for back to work legislation.

The Bloc and the NDP are holding up speedy passage of the legislation, adding to the loss of Canadian jobs and exports. It should not have come to this and it need not, had the government acted.

Since Reform knew weeks ago that legislation would be necessary to end this dispute, since the unions knew it, CN-CP knew it and the government knew it, why did the government not act sooner to avert this costly rail strike?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, the government still believes in collective bargaining. It still believes that the best solution is when the parties involved reach an agreement. And in every situation, we will do the impossible, before we consider legislating.

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately millions of Canadians are held hostage by this work stoppage and they need to be heard as well. It is the government's shortsightedness and bumbling that is to blame for the rail stoppage.

Thirty-six hundred people in Montreal and Toronto are stranded because of the government. Farmers cannot get their grain to market because of the government. Manufacturers are shutting down production and workers are being laid off because of the government.

What is the government planning to do to ensure rail stoppages will be a thing of the past?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, we are very much aware of the economic impact of a work stoppage. However, one of the principles of good government is that a way must always be found to establish a balance between the forces involved. It is certainly not the intent of this Liberal government to side against the workers, as the Reform Party is doing. We want collective bargaining that is fair to both parties in the majority of cases.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the government was serious about preventing future transportation stoppages, it would have supported Reform's private member's bill this morning.

The Minister of Labour floated the idea of binding arbitration last night. If she had really believed what she was saying, the minister would have stood in her place and voted for the best offer selection bill introduced by the member for Lethbridge.

I ask the Minister of Labour this. What steps will the government take to prevent future rail disputes? Please, no speeches and no lectures about the collective bargaining process. It rings pretty hollow to 45,000 public servants.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, most disputes are resolved without government intervention. We must be aware of this. Secondly, when the government does intervene, most disputes are resolved without a strike or a lockout. We therefore have a very good system. There is always room for improvement, but we are not going to change it 150 per cent as the hon. member for the Reform Party would have us do.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Alain Pineault, vice-president of CBC planning and regulations said that the future of CBC regional TV stations had become uncertain following the funding cuts announced in the last federal budget.

Since the CBC decided against asking the CRTC to renew its regional stations' broadcasting licences because of the uncertainty created by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, can the minister confirm or deny once and for all today-and could he please be clear-that the CBC is facing cuts of $44 million, $96 million and $165 million over the next three years, as Mr. Manera was told by his deputy minister?

[Michel Dupuy, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the budget is clear with respect to the figures available concerning the CBC. I have already covered this ground and I have nothing to add.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the budget calls for $40 million in cuts next year. That much we know and is clear. But does the minister not realize that Radio-Canada has announced that more than 750 positions will disappear in the next few years, and now that the entire regional network will disappear as well? Does he? And having undertaken to provide multi-year funding to this crown corporation, does he not think that his first duty today is to make things clear, to put things plainly and honestly to the CBC, to allow for sound financial planning?

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, again, the honesty of the answers must never be called into question. All the hon. members always answer honestly.

[Michel Dupuy, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, our colleague just made reference to decisions announced by the CBC. I assume that his sources are the press and certain statements made by a vice-president of the CBC's French network. I would like to quote what she said with respect to the number of job cuts. She said that it was "an estimate, not a firm figure". She also said that this estimate will have to be approved by a board of directors. That is exactly what I said last week.

I said that there were, of course, dealings between the vice-president and her staff, but that no decision had been made. I said so last week and I repeat it today, supported by a quote from the source herself.

Canada Post

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday the Prime Minister told the House that he would not undertake an investigation into the Perez affair. On Friday, however, the Solicitor General admitted that the minister of public works was conducting his own investigation into the incident.

What type of investigation is this? What assurances will the minister give the House that the investigation will be open and non-partisan?

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. member that I am monitoring the situation and reviewing a number of allegations that have been made.

This event occurred well before our mandate commenced. It was back in 1991. It is the subject of litigation. A number of accusations have been made by a variety of different parties. In fact the CBC had made an allegation against two of the individuals.

For the benefit of all members, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the retraction which was published: "Last week the CBC broadcast a story which implied payments had been made to Senator Pierre DeBane and to Canada Post Corporation President, Georges Clermont, in connection with the awarding of a contract for construction by Perez Construction of the new headquarters building of Canada Post in Ottawa. On investigation, CBC has determined that that story was false and unjustified. CBC retracts the story and apologizes to Senator DeBané, Georges Clermont, José Perez and the Canada Post Corporation for any embarrassment caused by the erroneous report".

I anticipate that additional allegations will come forward. Until such time as the litigation comes to a close, we will continue to monitor the situation.