Debates of Dec. 2nd, 1997

Division No. 49

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabasca.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

I need only two minutes, Mr. Speaker.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

No.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member listened carefully, and I urge him to read Hansard , he will know that, when I spoke about Quebec, I was only giving one example among many.

I was saying that particularly in Quebec—

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

You criticized Quebec.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

One of my honorable Bloc colleagues talked about Quebec as being a paragon of social democracy, having no problem, no special legislation.

I was saying that, from one ocean to the other, from Newfoundland to British Columbia, special legislation has been introduced—

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

You spoke only about Quebec.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Yhat was the way to negotiate. The founder of the Bloc Quebecois, who has now moved to Quebec City, is willing to go ahead with special legislation anytime. And as for Quebec, I will always defend it.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that Canadians want their postal service back at this time of the year.

I know that the member is a former mayor and former municipal councillor and it was in that role when I was on regional council of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo that I first got to deal with the Canada Post Corporation. I must say that whether it be supermailboxes or junk mail, the post office management has been less than co-operative.

I can say that prior to the last election the process was changed so that homeowners could refuse junk mail or ad mail.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, just to complete the municipal aspect, for a number of years we had to battle to maintain or improve services in rural communities, in Quebec and elsewhere.

When I was a mayor and a regional councillor, there was one municipality, Saint-Camille by name, which became a cause in its efforts to keep its post office open. We fought for that. Yet today there is talk of negotiation, of special legislation.

What is being said is that we are the only party here today, and I would like everyone to remember this, the only one to table amendments to improve the process for negotiating and ratifying the collective agreement. No one else, no party in this House, rose to support us in this.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when looking at the union's wage demands, I wonder what his reaction is. Did he feel that they were excessive demands? Does he feel what is proposed in this legislation is appropriate?

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

No, Mr. Speaker, we do not think they were excessive demands, absolutely not. What we would have liked to see first of all is for the mediator-arbitrator to be able to have the opportunity to negotiate all working conditions with both parties, including pay.

In the parliamentary game of procedures and amendments here today, however, it has been impossible for us to support this request. However we feel that what is in the bill is an acceptable minimum for both parties. It is a worthwhile basis for negotiation, which also reflects what is being done elsewhere, as well as reflecting the rate of inflation in this country.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. It is about the way you allocate speaking time.

It seems to me that it is parliamentary custom in a debate to alternate between those in favour and those opposed. As the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party agree on the bill, would it not be usual for you to give preference in speaking to those opposed to it to create a healthier debate, as is normally the case in the House of Commons?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

There is no question this evening that that general principle has been followed. The Chair would also like to ensure that everyone who is here has a chance to participate in the debate and that it flows and ebbs and flows pretty well.

Hon. members will know that if there is more than one or two or three or four members who rise in question and comments who want to get a question in, you may notice that I tend to cut the questions off so that more people can participate and we can have a debate.

I will try to keep it going back and forth and I will try to keep it going quickly. Your comment is well made. We do have to get to debate but there is a whole House full of people here tonight.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

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.

[Réjean Lefebvre, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It takes unanimous consent to share one's time. The hon. member asked to share his speaking time with his colleague. He needs unanimous consent to do so.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Unanimous consent is not required at this time.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

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”.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will let the people decide whose attitude is more proper with respect to this bill, which led the Liberal government to accept an amendment by the NDP, supported by the Bloc Quebecois, an amendment that the Liberals accepted to ensure that negotiations would be carried out in accordance with the law governing the Canada Post Corporation.

I am not at all ashamed to go before the citizens of Quebec, to ask them to decide who had the more proper attitude with respect to this bill.

Is it the Liberal majority that spent four months, with the help of the minister of public works who is also responsible for Canada Post, behind these phoney negotiations to arrive at this special legislation?

What we, in the opposition, tried to do is to ensure two things, the first being that the rights that are part of the tradition of Quebec and Canada in the area of labour relations be respected, and the second being that the public can receive postal services as quickly as possible. We should not forget that there could have been three, four or five days of debate in this House, but there was appropriate co-operation. I am not ashamed to explain this to the people in my riding.

My question is for the member for Bourassa. Should he not be congratulating the Bloc, the NDP and all opposition parties for the co-operation and the professionalism they have shown?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when a member is asking questions and is on the defensive like he is, when he has to resort to crisis management in his speech, I think I was right to speak the way I did and that, once again, the government was right.

One thing is sure, we stood up for Canadians. I conducted a survey in my riding and 76% of the people agree with this kind of legislation. Of all those who called me, 76% said they agreed. There are even postal workers in my riding who told me they are eager to go back to work, that they understand and they will go back to work.

So it is clear that those people over there have lost touch with reality.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want ask the member a question, but I will make a comment first.

I think everybody in Canada knows that I am a unionist. I have worked hard for the workers of this country, especially those in my area which is economically disadvantaged. The member for Bourassa insulted us a while ago. He insulted the workers of this country when he insulted unions.

Would my colleague have the guts, the courage to stand up and apologize to the workers of this country?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to recognize the work the hon. member has done because he is an honourable man.

The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst is an honourable man. Those who know me know that, for 15 years now, I have been involved in public life and working for the workers. My father was a carpenter. I come of working-class stock and I have always stood up for the workers.

But when we put questions to workers instead of union representatives, we do not always get the same message. So, it is not because we do not agree with him that we are against unions or against union members. Surely this piece of legislation will help our citizens get their services back. It will preserve jobs and help the needy.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will not take up much time.

I agree with the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst who just spoke. I would like to give the hon. member for Bourassa the opportunity to make amends for what he said this afternoon. He just stated that he has some respect for unions and union members.

I want to remind the House of what he said earlier this afternoon. He said that the union refused a settlement. He said the employer came up with a settlement and the union turned it down, and that the rules of the Treasury Board must be applied. He added that it was time to introduce a special legislation—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We are running out of time. Please, give a short answer.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, again, it is too easy to quote things out of context. One thing is for sure, yes, it is true, a package deal was on the table that could have allowed these workers—