Debates of March 23rd, 1999

Government Services Act, 1999

[An hon. member]

National defence.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

National defence is meeting with members from all parties as we speak. The justice committee is meeting as we speak in this place.

There are members of parliament from all parties who are working in committee. As the Bloc chirps on, we all understand that the process requires us to be in committee. Why? Because there are bills which go to committee, as well as the reports of the auditor general, which one would think the opposition members might possibly be interested in. But no. What do they do? They simply continue to call quorum. They are trying to perpetrate the fraud upon the Canadian people that members of parliament—

[An hon. member]

And we will keep doing it until the cows come home.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Go ahead, you just assist me when you chirp like that.

They are trying to perpetrate the fraud that members of parliament are somehow lying around and not doing any work. Members are at committee. If they are not at committee they are working in their offices with their televisions on so that they can follow the debate. But the Bloc is not interested in that. We know that it is in the very clear interest of the Bloc to try to bring disrepute to anything Canadian. It is in its interest to try to show the Canadian people that somehow this place does not work. That is all it is doing.

We know that Bloc members would not want to go back to their ridings and tell the people there, some of whom may have voted for them and some of whom may have not, that the committee system actually has a purpose in the Canadian Confederation, that for the bills introduced in this place to get proper scrutiny they are sent to committee, at which time members of the Bloc, if they choose to attend, and often they do not, would have the opportunity to put something forward that just might, in some small way, be important to their constituents. But it is much more interesting for them to bring disruption to this place. They could care less.

If the strikes were to continue on a rotational basis, if the grains—I say to the hon. member for Wild Rose—were to rot in western Canada, they would not care. In fact, they would like that because they could turn around and say “See that? There are strikes. Canada does not work. Food is rotting”.

We can tell by their excited interventions and their chirping that they are a little excited about this because the truth really hurts. When someone puts the point across and outs them for what they are, destructive separatists dedicated to destroying the greatest country in the world—and it does not matter to them what tactics they use—of course they will get excited. I understand that.

In spite of the fact that the Bloc continues to waste the time of this place at $27,000 per hour, it is now 4.25 in the afternoon and we are going to be here until 11 o'clock debating this bill. That is no problem. We have lots of members. We are ready and willing to stand to defend Canada. We are ready and willing and able to stand to defend legislation that will put Canadians back to work, that will save $60 million worth of wheat that is rotting, which they do not care about, that will bring safety back to our airports and that will bring back safety to national defence. We are quite prepared to do that.

In spite of the obstructionist, childish, immature, nonsensical tactics of the Bloc, we will vote on this at 11 o'clock. And guess what, boys and girls? We are going to win. How do you like them apples?

Once that happens we will go on to a new bill which is the actual bill that will put an end to the strikes. It is, of course, back to work legislation. Is that something any government wants to do? I would say not. Ordering one's own workers back to work through legislation is absolutely a last resort.

However, we were asked to have an emergency debate, and we did so. We looked for alternatives. Negotiations have been ongoing with the members of the union in various areas. Agreements have been arrived at which were not ratified in certain areas, such as for the correctional officers. There have been problems. Labour negotiation is a very complicated and difficult process to go through.

I know a little of what I speak because my dad was a labour leader. When I stand to support this government's legislation, which I will do proudly, sadly my father will likely once again turn over in his grave. He will not be particularly pleased that the son of the past national director of the United Steel Workers would actually vote for legislation that would send workers back to work.

[An hon. member]

Your uncle Ed will be happy.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

It is uncle Ted. My Uncle Ted is a farmer, I say to the member for Wild Rose. He only farms rocks mostly. In any event, my dad would say that he did not agree with it. However, he would understand democracy. My father would understand that this kind of nonsense is destructive to the very fabric and fibre of democracy.

The games that people play are quite remarkable. What do we do? We sit here because we are unable to make a deal—

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not always agree with the members opposite, but I would like to hear what they have to say. I would ask that you attempt to keep order in the House so that the speakers can be heard. I would appreciate that, Madam Speaker.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am going to ask all members present to exercise a little courtesy and to listen along with me to what their colleague has to say.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the assistance of the member opposite who would be somewhat loath I think, under normal circumstances, to provide me with any assistance. I must admit I am a little surprised that she is having difficulty hearing me. I will try to speak up. Perhaps that will help, although I doubt it.

What the member is really saying, once again, is that these people, the Bloc, have been outed for what they are. Their only defence is to yell, stamp their feet, pound their desks and be childish.

What are some of the problems? More than one million Canadians are awaiting their income tax returns. How many of those might be in la belle province I wonder. How many of those people would like to ask the Bloc why it is intentionally holding up their income tax returns. Why are the Bloc members doing that?

There are a lot of people in Quebec and in all of Canada who those income returns are pretty darn important to. We have to find a way, as distasteful as it is to legislate a union back to work. I personally and strongly believe in the right to strike, in collective bargaining and in the process. I also believe that while one gets the right to strike in a free and democratic country, one does not get the right to use that instrument to block other people from doing their work. One does not get the right under Canadian labour law to prevent parliamentarians from going into buildings. That is simply not right.

I say to the member opposite from the New Democratic Party, you do not get the right to be disruptive to the point where you are actually taking away other people's rights. The right to strike means the right to demonstrate in a public place. It means the right to picket. It means the right to withhold services.

For people in the labour movement the only thing they have is the right to withhold their services. I understand that. At a certain point we as a government have a greater responsibility to all Canadians. Do we say to those million people awaiting their tax returns that we are sorry we cannot help them?

Members of the union who work for us are unhappy with the offer we have made. We have not made a deal so we are saying that they will not be getting their cheques. Frankly even the New Democrats who would pretend to support the unions in this cause, and in fairness I am sure they do, would have difficulty telling people in their ridings that they will not get their cheques because rotating strikes are going on.

At some point in time part of the responsibility of being a government is having the guts to govern. That is plain and simple. We have arrived at that point with this legislation.

[An hon. member]

Yell louder.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

No, I do not have to yell louder. The microphone is on. They have to yell louder because their microphones are not on. Once again they are simply showing their frustration because their tactics are not working.

The government has introduced responsible return to work legislation. The government recognizes that we have to bring safety back to those sectors in the Canadian economy that are in jeopardy. We have to get grain moving again. How can we in good conscience sit back and simply say that we will not do anything?

That brings me to an interesting point. I heard members of the Reform, and I hesitate to be too unkind since they were being somewhat gentle, say they would not support the bill. I have to be honest. I heard members opposite when they were outraged. In fact I heard their critic being interviewed and saying that the solution was final offer arbitration.

Is that not wonderful? Where have they been? They want to come along now. They see the government doing what they would do in spades every day of the week. If we want to talk about democratic principles and the right to strike, the agenda the Reformers would bring forward would destroy the labour movement, and they know it.

They had to find a way to oppose back to work legislation so they came up with the magical final offer arbitration. They are not fooling the labour unions if that is what they are trying to do. They understand the agenda. They know where that is going. They are certainly not fooling us.

The farmers my friend from Wild Rose so eloquently spoke about must be shaking their heads and wondering what is going on. Farmers out in western Canada who voted for some of these people thought members of the Reform Party were their friends. Why are they not supporting the government in getting the legislation through quickly? Why are they continuing to debate, rag the puck, stall, delay and cause problems in the House of Commons? That is what farmers must wonder.

I also suggest the business community in western Canada must be wondering. There is no question that west of Manitoba is beautiful country, but there is an attitude out there because they sent Reformers here to protect their interest and unfortunately for them this is what happened. How can they assume they are protecting their interests? They are not. They are voting against a bill that would get the economy going again. I am sure they find that bewildering.

When Reformers go home for the two week Easter break they might find that there are some questions. Never mind the united alternative. They will be asked whether they were in bed with the Bloc, whether those two parties were being obstreperous. They have not heard the Tories calling for quorum and that kind of nonsense.

I see the collaboration between members of the Reform Party and of the Bloc which tends to be more of a left wing socialistic party that we would expect to be on the side of the NDP. How did that happen? How does that work? That is an interesting bed to find themselves in. It must be awful crowded. They would not want to turn over too quickly because they would not be sure exactly whom they are in bed with.

Some interesting dichotomies exist because the opposition, with perhaps the exception of the New Democrats, recognizes that this is needed legislation. If Bloc members were honest and it were not in their interest to destroy the credibility of Canada in every possible way, they would say that.

I cite the example last week when I spoke at some length and I understand upset some members of the Bloc. It is their desire to eliminate the Canadian dollar from our economy and to replace it with some Pan-American dollar. I suggested it might be a coupon, that maybe they would use a coupon. The reality is that they would wind up using the American dollar if that happened. That does not bother them because anything that would discredit Canada, anything that would discredit anything Canadian, is in their interest.

I want to touch on the proposed legislation. Parliament is being asked to pass legislation that would authorize the government to impose the immediate return to work of some 14,000 blue collar workers represented by PSAC. It also seeks authority to impose certain terms and conditions of employment on workers who have been waging rotational strikes across the country for the past two months.

I have been involved in other situations where a labour strike had to be ended by legislation, for example the teachers in Ontario when I was part of the Peterson government. We had problems even during the Bob Rae days. NDPers must roll over every time they think of the Rae days because of the things he did that were totally opposite to the policies of the NDP.

[An hon. member]

Tell us about Bill Mahoney.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

That member should be in the back taking notes rather than sitting out here publicly witnessing anything. He has not heard anything because he is not listening. He does not like the fact that this is responsible legislation. He is just trying to be disruptive.

The proposed legislation will allow the government to implement a collective agreement for some 4,500 correctional officers. If NDPers do not think that is important, God bless them. Correctional officers are extremely important to ensure the safety of everyone that works in that system.

We have pride. The government has negotiated. We have sat at the table. We have put deals forward and taken deals back. The system has bogged down and the bottom line is that it is not working now because it is causing disruptions in areas that impacts our farmers, the recipients of tax refunds, safety and national defence. The government is responsible enough to know that cannot happen. It is an utter shame, particularly for members of the Bloc, that they feel the need to be so negatively disruptive and uncooperative.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is with some apprehension that I rise to speak today. There are not many members with the oratorical talent of the member for Mississauga West. He is capable of working himself into a frenzy for minutes on end without saying anything, when he is not spouting nonsense.

I must therefore congratulate the member for Mississauga West on his exceptional ability as a speaker and it is with some trepidation that I rise to speak today.

I hope that the member for Mississauga West, along with his colleagues, will follow the example of the Bloc Quebecois, who listened calmly to his speech, and that he in turn will listen very calmly to everything I have to say and hang on my every word, as I took in every word that he had to say.

It is important to have a clear picture of what we will be talking about. We have to know the text of the motion that was introduced by the government House leader. Here is what it says:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of this House—

All that goes out the window.

—a bill in the name of the President of the Treasury Board, entitled an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of government services, shall be disposed as follows:

Commencing when the said bill is read a first time and concluding when the said bill is read a third time, the House shall not adjourn except pursuant to a motion proposed by a minister of the crown and no Private Members' Business shall be taken up;

The said bill may be read twice or thrice in one sitting;

After being read a second time, the said bill shall be referred to a committee of the whole;

During consideration of the said bill, no division shall be deferred.

I want to tell my colleagues opposite, who were talking about the huge cost of keeping the House of Commons running, that it is their own motion that says the House shall not adjourn except pursuant to a motion proposed by a minister of the crown. We know full well that it is a lot more expensive to keep this place running at night than during the day.

If they want to complain about the even greater costs that will result from this debate, they just have to talk to their House leader who is forcing the House to sit extended hours at a cost of $22,000 an hour, I think. It must be more expensive when there is overtime involved. At time and a half, it is $33,000 an hour. At double time, it is $44,000 an hour. It is outrageous. And they are the ones accusing the opposition of wanting to spend the taxpayers' money.

I would be ashamed to say such things in the House. It is their fault that the House will be sitting so late.

Since I have been here in this House, I have been terribly surprised at the attitude of Liberal backbenchers, who are nothing but doormats. We heard over the week-end that the Senate was going to debate the possibility for Canada to use a common currency. This is what the outstanding speaker from Mississauga West suggested.

Senators are going to debate the issue whereas, in this House, we will not, although we are the only elected chamber, and willing to do it. It is absolutely incredible that such an archaic, outdated and undemocratic body will debate a proposal so vital to the future of Canada and Quebec when the House of Commons will not. This is due to the trained seal attitude of the Liberals, who decided this issue would not be discussed in the House.

They refused to discuss such a forward thinking idea as the creation of a pan-American monetary union. They similarly decided not to discuss such a fundamental issue as the right and freedom of Canadian workers to strike.

This harks back to the Duplessis area. As members know, Duplessis was a member of the National Assembly and Premier of Quebec from 1936 to 1939, and from 1944 to 1959, if my memory serves me right. My colleague from Trois-Rivières will confirm this. Am I right?

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Yes, you are.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Premier Duplessis used to say “You know, in a good government there is no need for an opposition”. This is the same attitude we are seeing from this Liberal government, which is telling us that no matter what the opposition has to say, it will not listen and will ram this piece of legislation down our throats.

It is important to remember that the Liberal Party of Canada was elected with only 38% of the vote. This means that 62% of Canadians voted against it. This highly democratic party is using its questionable legitimacy to force back to work Canadian workers who are legally exercising their right to strike.

This is a disgraceful, undemocratic, bulldozer policy, in short an illegitimate policy on the part of a so-called democratic government.

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Beauce, QC]

Bulldozer?

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

I see my colleague, the member for Beauce, getting excited already. As soon as he hears anything that makes sense, we know that he either votes against it because it comes from the opposition, or he leaves and does not give people a chance to say their piece.

In fact, the member for Beauce, who says he represents his constituents well, voted against striking a committee to examine the idea of single currency, while the business community, which is exporting over 80% of what it produces to the United States, is calling for this kind of study so that it can maximize cross-border exports.

I hope the member for Beauce will, for once, stand up instead of bowing down before the sacred cow represented by the government—

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

—and that, this time, on behalf of his constituents, he will vote against forcing the workers of Canada and Quebec back to work.

A motion like this one leaves me speechless, as I channel all the expressions of anger I have heard from the workers I have met, all their outrage at the government's attitude.

Just recently some of my office staff spoke with Viviane Mathieu, the union president at Donnaconna penitentiary. She was on the verge of tears. “What can we do,” she said, “if we are no longer able to exercise our right to negotiate a collective agreement freely? What can we do?” She felt she was at the end of her tether, and rightly so. What can be done, when workers are forced back to work against their will, when they have every right to continue to negotiate?

Not only that, but this is done in an underhand manner. It is done through the back door. It is done hypocritically. We know very well that the Liberal Party is very familiar with closed door policies, with deals made behind closed doors. This is what happened in 1981, when the Minister of Justice of the day, now the Prime Minister of Canada, negotiated a new constitution behind Quebec's back. That was called the “night of the long knives”.

We know that this highly undemocratic party is continuing the same odious tradition, one which in my opinion merits absolutely no consideration by Canadians.

Special legislation ought to be a last-ditch effort. As my colleague from Beauce is well aware, not all avenues have been exhausted, far from it. We believe that workers have the right to strike. This is a fundamental right, and one which is in a number of international conventions. It is a right that is recognized by the International Labour Organization, of which Canada is a member, moreover.

What is the Canadian government doing? To our great shame, it is trying to abolish this fundamental right with a stroke of the pen, with special legislation. This is a right for which millions of workers have fought throughout the world. Those who are familiar with French literature may remember the stunnning novels written by Zola on this subject. I cannot believe that the government would revert to the attitude that prevailed during the industrial revolution, when workers counted for nothing practically.

The government is reverting to a reactionary policy. Where are we headed? Let us reread Zola, the great thinkers and the great novelists of the late 19th century. Where does the government want to take us? To the abolition of the right of Quebec and Canadian workers—

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Les misérables

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Yes, Les misérables , among others. Incidentally—

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

They are in front of us.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Indeed, les misérables are in front of us, as the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve has pointed out.

In fact, my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, to whom I pay tribute today, introduced a bill yesterday to fight and almost eliminate poverty. While it may be an impossible dream, we must always aim to do so. It is surely not—and I am sure he will agree with me—by passing such odious and undemocratic legislation that the rights of workers and the poor will be respected.

I was saying then, before paying tribute to my colleague and friend from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, that if the strike of the blue collar workers affects the interests of other Canadians, as was said earlier, with the tax refunds and so on, we have to understand that the exercise of the right to strike inevitably has a direct or an indirect effect on society, because if every strike that affected the interests of the public were prohibited, there would be no more right to strike.

I studied law in Quebec at Laval University and in Ontario at the University of Western Ontario. In all law courses, and especially in the basic labour law course, we learned that one of the basis of a free and democratic society is the right of workers not only to associate freely, but to bargain freely with the employer.

When the government takes this right away from workers, it creates, I would say, a terrible imbalance between the powers of the workers, often the more vulnerable, and the powers of the employer, often the stronger.

So, once again, this government has decided to come down on the side of the stronger. This time, it is coming down on its own side, because it is the employer. There is a terrible imbalance. They are failing to respect the rights of the workers, the ordinary folk, the real people, with whom the government has lost contact. It lives in a bubble, on another planet.

What does it mean, living on another planet? It means imposing regulations and laws that are completely ridiculous. This is a totally hateful attitude, worthy of Duplessis, and we must keep saying that.

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Beauce, QC]

This is not the Parti Quebecois here, this is the Liberal Party.