Debates of March 23rd, 1999

Division No. 360

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their understanding.

I would like to begin by thanking all my colleagues for their very significant moral and physical support throughout this long debate which, to all intents and purposes, has dragged on since last Thursday. All staff in the offices of the whip, the leader and the research unit have been of invaluable support throughout the debate.

Returning to the merits of the question, there are two categories of worker particularly affected to which I wish to draw attention.

And, before I forget, I also thank my administrative assistant, Lucien-Pierre Bouchard, who has, as usual, with the greatest of good will, been of inestimable help to me, especially intellectually.

There are, therefore, two categories of public servants affected by the measures taken by their employer, who is also the legislator.

First of all, obviously, I have in mind the correctional services officers, who are once again being pushed around. Yet these are the workers who experience, on behalf of society, what might be termed the decline of the American empire. Their working conditions continue to deteriorate, their work pressures are continually on the increase because of our overcrowded prisons and the risks of contracting serious illnesses—AIDS among others—from the slightest physical contact in which blood may be exchanged.

We know that these people are living the increasingly acute problems that our society is faced with, a bit like the schools, sadly. We can only hope that the government will perhaps be more understanding with this group of workers, who do not deserve to be treated the way they have been for years, because they do provide services, in dreadful circumstances, day in and day out. We must be aware of that, and try to imagine what it is like to face such dreadful working conditions constantly, doing a job that probably no one else would want.

So, it is incumbent on the employer, the President of the Treasury Board, the Department of Justice or of the Solicitor General to take all necessary measures to ensure that these people are treated with more dignity.

There is another group of employees that I want to talk about, that is the members of coast guard, because I am the Bloc Quebecois critic in this area.

I had the privilege of meeting them some weeks ago, in Quebec City. They are very courteous and very competent and they not only provide great services to the public, in particular to the recreational boaters, but they are also very important as a group for the economy, some carrying out important rescue duties on the St. Lawrence River. Furthermore, and this is what I want to underline and I would appreciate it if the President of the Treasury Board also took this into account, these people have made a considerable effort in terms of the restrictions, the downsizing and the restructuring in the federal public service.

These people have accepted to merge services that are not necessarily compatible, and to take training courses because their tasks have changed over the years. Through new operational procedures, they have made it possible for the Canadian government to enhance productivity and save $13 million a year. As a reward for the sacrifices they have made, they were promised special treatment when the great negotiations came around. But, in actual fact, these promises have not been kept.

They are being treated just like everybody else. They do not have any special status in the ongoing negotiations. I wish the President of the Treasury Board would pay attention, because these people are very deserving in view of their generous attitude towards their employer. They have been co-operative, innovative, creative, responsive, and they have made substantial savings possible in the operations of the department.

Today, the door is being slammed in their faces, when a commitment, at least a moral commitment, had apparently been given to them by their immediate supervisors that the government would reward them in due course. But nothing has been done.

This is not a big group. There are maybe 350 to 400 people who, we are told, have had an exemplary behaviour as servants of the state and of the public. But today, they receive the same harsh treatment from that giant employer, the Government of Canada, which is unable to make the distinctions that sometimes need to be made.

To come back in a more general way over this day, which is a historic one, once again, I have to say that every day we adopt special back to work legislation is a sad day, historically, a black day in parliamentary history.

To better understand what is going on, we have to give some background to indicate where today's back to work legislation fits into the strategy of the Canadian government. Therefore, we have to go back to 1982.

It can never be overstated that we are dealing here with a type of behavior that is deeply rooted in ideology. We are in the midst of a neo-liberal trend, where individuals like Mrs. Thatcher and Mr. Reagan had all the latitude in the world, in the new global order, to set the course, for which we are now paying the consequences.

However, it had all started earlier, when the powers of governments began to be limited in order to force them to curb their spending and give up more and more of their responsibilities. Important measures were taken during the 1980s and the 1990s that led to governments giving up their responsibilities and getting rid of thousands of employees, about 55,000 employees apparently.

As for giving up responsibilities, I will give an example.

To cut its costs and do its share in a collective effort to reduce costs or to expand the Consolidated Revenue Fund, as we all know, the coast guard has set a new fee structure, which was imposed arbitrarily on users, especially icebreaking service users.

The Bloc Quebecois has played a key role in bringing the government to show more compassion and wisdom. It made to government back off significantly in order that users, and above all foreign users, keep wanting to do business with Canada, in particular with Quebec and Montreal, at a reasonable cost.

Now an aspect that is less known, a natural phenomenon, or in any event one resulting from the way we use the St. Lawrence River is bank erosion. Previously, the riverbanks were under the Coast Guard's responsibility.

There were complaints about erosion. Now there is are very serious problems. It seems that, in some regions in Quebec, 15 feet a year are lost to erosion. This is a lot. Over three to five years, it is 60 feet of land that disappear due to erosion.

Previously, there was an organization that felt concerned, and that was the coast guard. But now, the coast guard does not care. Apparently, there was devolution of this responsibility to municipalities. To turn to the Government of Quebec is out of the question; it would be too embarrassing. But municipalities do not have money, they do not have a budget for that, and everyone is passing the buck. Municipal taxpayers, including private ones, could see their own property eroded year after year with nobody in the country feeling concerned. In the past, however, these people were looked after.

This is part of the so-called rationalization, and it is a result of the fact that employees were cut, a lot of employees were cut—55,000 of them—and now we are obliged to let go of responsibilities previously appropriately assumed by the public service.

I know that, in my region, Trois-Rivières, in the riding of Champlain, huge rocks were used for back filling so in the spring there would no longer be the disastrous erosion.

So, this is a very practical example of what happens when the public service is attacked rather blindly and much more ideologically than claimed. It all happens without discussion, vision or transparency. They administer Monday to Friday, biweekly. Years and months go by. The next day it rains. Out they go in it. There are no plans. No accounts are given. They say neither where they are going nor from whence they came.

[An hon. member]

We have had it.

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

It is just beginning. The minister responsible for regional development should get used to it, because if there is one department that is the subject of all our criticism, it is his.

They like to attend all sorts of meetings to sing the praises of Canadian federalism as part of the government's only strategy, which is to be visible on the eve of a new election. They excel with public coffers, as we saw recently in Trois-Rivières, where for $200,000 they were after rather abusive things in terms of visibility. This is the only real concern of the government.

In 1982, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996, there was special back to work legislation, an intrusion into the field of labour relations involved in existing collective agreements. It is disgraceful.

It means that negotiating in good faith has become the exception for this employer, who also makes the laws. It has become the exception when the exception should be—and common sense tells us this—that the government, at times, when a situation becomes too difficult and the public interest is at stake, would resort to its lawmaking powers.

Today, it prefers to legislate rather than negotiate. That is typical of this government.

The farmers know it and the International Labour Organization knows it too. It is not for nothing that the ILO has on four occasions blamed the government, Progressive Conservative or Liberal, it makes no difference. For those who are unaware, the ILO is made up not just of governments and unions, but also of bosses, the good old friends of this government.

When one thinks of the Liberal empire in Canada, one immediately thinks of the healthy campaign funds that keep it going. So when these influential people criticize the federal government, it is no small matter and should be a source of concern for the President of the Treasury Board. As a good manager, he should be worried. He should be embarrassed today to have behaved like certain of his predecessors and taken the extreme action he is still taking today to force people back to work.

The President of the Treasury Board and the minister responsible for regional development are not the only ones to have shown their true colours. We could mention the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, but especially the government House leader right now. We mentioned him in our first speech. The member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell is a good example. Historically, he has always been very aggressive.

The government House leader has been like that throughout his career. That was how he was seen by the Prime Minister in the days of the rat pack. He made a name for himself in labour disputes, even supporting PSAC members on picket lines. What has become of his motivation today? What has become of his convictions? They are nowhere in evidence.

He is now in charge of doing the government's dirty work, while he used to unequivocally support the positions of the unions, which look a lot like the positions the union is still defending nowadays.

Let me conclude, much to the relief of the two stooges, by once again urging the President of the Treasury Board to take some responsibility for the consequences these so-called negotiations and the passing of special legislation will have.

Can the President of the Treasury Board imagine what the atmosphere in the workplace will be like day in and day out in the departments, now that the government has again use its special power, which is becoming the rule, now that both management and workers have again realized that the government has shown them no respect and no recognition and has treated them badly. It will be nasty.

I used to be a Quebec public servant, and things can get very nasty when decisions come from on high, when arbitrary and drastic measures are taken, as they were today, and especially when workers realize that their employer, instead of showing them some respect, would rather make their lives miserable.

I am convinced that the people in the Outaouais, the federal public servants in the Outaouais whose political stripes are well known, will remember this when the time comes. And that time may come much sooner than we expect.

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

Madam Speaker, you seem to be full of energy this morning, just like me. First of all, I will begin by repeating that something extremely sad—

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask for unanimous consent of the House so that the members who unfortunately could not participate in the vote taken about an hour ago at the report stage of Bill C-76 could have their names recorded.

I will read the names of these members and I would ask for unanimous consent of the House so that they could be recorded as having voted.

These parliamentarians are the hon. member for Saint-Jean, the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, the hon. member for Rosemont, the hon. member for Témiscamingue, the hon. member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, and the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville.

I ask that they be recorded as members having voted against the government's motion at report stage. I will submit a copy to the clerk.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is there unanimous consent to allow the Bloc members whose names have just been read to be considered as having voted?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Madam Speaker, in spite of the fact that a new day is dawning on Parliament Hill, you can easily see that we are still very much in the gloom, because this is an extremely dark day for democracy.

No parliamentarian deserving of the name can be proud of what has occurred in the last few hours. What happened? The government imposed special legislation on workers, not just ordinary workers, but people who carry out their duties under extremely difficult conditions.

I am referring of course to correctional officers, who work in prisons. Their right to a negotiated collective agreement was denied, rejected and trampled on. There will be a price to pay for this.

This government has a rather ambiguous attitude. When it comes to equity, the general behaviour of government members is somewhat like The Silence of the Lambs . They are silent. They are not there when the time comes to act in fairness. However, when the time comes to act repressively, like a dictator and with a total lack of consideration for our most democratic values, I must admit that —and I will name him, even though I have some affection for him—the government House leader is among those most despicably involved in this repressive process.

We will remember that. We will remember this day in March, when the government stomped on people's most democratic rights.

Before going into the full significance of today's vote, I must thank those who have been with us through this night. I am referring to the guards, the library staff, the cafeteria staff, our support staff, particularly Jean-François Lafleur who was extremely helpful.

Those people showed strength in adversity because they knew that with the Bloc Quebecois they could build democracy. They have, through the years, allowed the voice of those who believe in negotiation to be heard in parliament.

I cannot find the words to say how sad and disappointed we are. All the more so since in our everyday contacts with the President of the Treasury Board, we found that he was rather a pleasant person to deal with. How could this man fall into this trap, which is the first step towards a lack of democracy, which will lead him to the worst abuses?

Nothing in his personality inclines him to such behaviour, except for a lack of vigilance we do not accept. We refuse, as members of Parliament, to be required, in 1999, to deny workers who fulfil an essential task in our society their rights. I have the greatest respect for workers of the public service, and even more for those who, downstream or upstream, deal with organised crime. I cannot understand why the President of the Treasury Board acted the way he did.

A few hours ago, he informed the House that an agreement had been reached with representatives of one of the bargaining tables. On the basis of what logic and for what reason did the minister not give negotiations another chance? Would it not have been possible to reach a negotiated agreement in the next few days?

There will be a price to pay for arrogance. Intolerance also has its price. This government cannot behave the way it does without exposing itself to being punished by the voters. It will be, and it will have deserved what it gets.

The saddest thing is to see how some government members are pharisees, whitened sepulchres. When they were in opposition, they could not find words strong enough to condemn those abuses and it was quite something to see them praising the values of dialogue, commitment and negotiation.

Do members think that our fellow citizens believe this kind of utterly hypocritical rhetoric, where, when they are on one side of the House, they say one thing, and when they are on the other, they say something else?

This is not the kind of political game we, in the Bloc Quebecois, want to play. We sovereignists have too much respect for the institutions of parliament to accept such a behaviour.

I would like to say a few words about the member for Outremont who, first of all, is a lawyer and has a great deal of respect for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a member of parliament who has a good knowledge of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and who knows that it is part of the modern Canadian identity, how can he accept that, today, the government is trampling on one of its principles, the right to negotiate one's working conditions? There is one word to describe that kind of behaviour and that word is pharisee.

What is really at stake here? Since it was elected in 1993, the government has been utterly incapable of showing respect for public servants. The federal public servants are the people who deliver services to our fellow citizens every day. They do so under trying conditions. As we know, they are doing it under trying conditions because of our ageing population, because of pressure on the public service, because our fellow citizens are living longer and need services more frequently.

These people are not paid a lot, and their demands are hardly excessive. Often they join the public service because they want to serve. On the darker side, the track record of the government is one of compulsive, chronic, recurrent and sustained incapacity to negotiate with its employees.

I say it again, the Liberals will pay for it at the next election because, in a few years, when we go over their track record we will remember their arrogance and intolerance. Again, the public can count on the opposition, the Bloc Quebecois, as an efficient ally to fight against this kind of behaviour, which is unacceptable in a democratic country.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Contempt will be short lived.

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

As my colleague for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans said, contempt will be short lived, even in ministerial garb.

This being said, I would like to show, through a number of examples, what this government is like in action, what makes it tick.

Is this government the one that passed pay equity legislation? Could a government member, could someone across the way rise and say “Yes, on the issue of pay equity, we delivered the goods”? The Silence of the Lamb . They cannot because they have not done it.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

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

Despite all the pressure, they have not moved on the issue; we will remember this. The obscure screams of the famous backbenchers will not change a thing. And the screams of the obscure backbenchers will not change a thing.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Order, please. I cannot hear our colleague who is addressing the House. I would ask you to please join me in listening to what he has to say.

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

Madam Speaker, you would do this House a big favour if you would provide a sedative, at the expense of the opposition if necessary, to the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, and I assure her that this is just a friendly remark.

On the issue of pay equity, this government's record is not good. But let me talk about another issue where, when the Liberals were on this side of the House—and I am thinking of the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel—they could not speak loud enough to criticize the government. That issue was anti-scab legislation. All the members of the rat pack were mobilized on this issue.

Can somebody tell us where we are today on this issue? Do we have in the Canada Labour Code provisions similar to those that exist in Quebec? The answer is a shameful no.

Let us look at this government's record.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

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

Madam Speaker, I would ask the members to remain calm because there is nothing I want more than to enlighten this House, especially government members.

The member for Trois-Rivières, whom the House should applaud for his excellent work—

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

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

An enlightened spirit like few others on that side, the hon. member for Trois-Rivières reminded us earlier that, in recent years, nearly 50,000 jobs were eliminated in the public service. And the President of the Treasury Board was the killer of those jobs.

Was that done democratically? Was that done through negotiations? Was that done with respect for the workers? No. They were forced to take severance packages that often fall short of their expectations.

The member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell must not forget that this behaviour is shameful and that the government should repent.

I also want to address another stigma. I feel so strongly about that that I have trouble talking about it. I am referring to the employment insurance reform. Where was the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine when the reform was brought down? The Silence of the Lambs. Where was she when it became increasingly difficult to qualify for maternity benefits? Where was she when the qualifying conditions for first time workers became tougher? Had it not been for the Bloc Quebecois, this would have gone unnoticed. That is the reality.

I cannot say it strongly enough, it is a sad day. It is a very sad day, indeed. You have before you a concerned and sorrowful man. Rest assured that we will never accept a situation where workers, the very ones who are building this society and giving the best of themselves, are deprived of their collective bargaining rights.

Let it be known that all the members for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell of this world will not be able to stifle the Bloc Quebecois.

Among the great international tools used for the promotion of human rights, we know very well that the right to collective bargaining is at the very top of the list of rights that are recognized. I know that certain government members went to law school. How could we, as parliamentarians, accept today that workers be denied this right? We cannot accept it, we will not accept it, and we will always be there to fight that battle.

I would like to talk about another reality, a reality that the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel must surely understand. The member offers an image of great stability, but the boundaries of his riding are more unsettled.

Let us talk about poverty. Let us talk about what the government has managed to do concerning the issue of poverty. Where is the just society promised by Pierre Elliott Trudeau when we know that 20% of Canadians, due to government policies, are getting poorer?

Who has solutions to propose for the fight against poverty? Certainly not members on the government side. I do not even want to look at them. Who has solutions to offer? The Bloc Quebecois has. Our colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques fought to improve the employment insurance system. My colleague from Shefford had also interesting things to say on this issue.

In a few hours, I will be tabling an anti-poverty bill. What is in an anti-poverty bill? I would appreciate some sign of support for such a bill.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

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

This bill will call for the inclusion of social condition among prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act. The member for Outremont studied law, but that is not where he spent most of his time, because I am told he skipped his social law courses. He took criminal law, was very keen on business law, but he was not there for social law.

Had he taken the social law courses, he would know that social condition led, in Quebec, to the improvement of the Quebec charter of human rights, the most thorough legislation in Canada, which has contained provision on social condition since 1977. This has led to a significant improvement in the situation of people on social welfare, single parents and persons with disabilities.

Imagine, as we speak, there are eight provinces with provisions on social condition, and the federal government is one of the last bastions permitting discrimination on such grounds. We will not tolerate that. I would hope that the member for Ottawa—Vanier will join with the Bloc Quebecois to speak with an enlightened voice for once.

We have a whole lot of solutions to propose on the subject of poverty. All we ask is a little attention. We do not think this is too much.

I would like those watching us this morning, with their orange juice and toast, to know that we have been sitting since Tuesday evening at 5:00 p.m., that we have been the voice of the workers, and that we will not let these people be deprived of the right to collective bargaining. We will continue to be this voice in Parliament.

We know that you cannot count on the ministers, and I do not pay them tribute.

[Michelle Dockrill, NDP, Bras D'Or, NS]

Madam Speaker, it would be a lie for me to say that I am happy to be standing here in this early morning light trying to convince this Liberal government from riding roughshod again over the backs of Canadian workers.

Why is it that it always seems to be the Liberal government that has the most difficulty with the working people of this country organizing and standing up for their rights as equal citizens of this great country? The Liberals, despite their lofty rhetoric, have always been the first to turn their guns, in some cases quite literally, on Canadian workers.

I look to my own island of Cape Breton and talk to people of my grandparents' generation. They remember the strikes of the twenties, thirties and forties. They remember a Liberal government that sent in soldiers to guard the property of British mine owners against the men who had worked and died in the pits, and that ordered Canadian soldiers to shoot Canadian workers on June 11, 1925.

It is a transforming experience for any community to have the army that is sworn to protect you ride down your city streets with guns drawn and blazing. Because you are a worker, because you refuse to stand the gaff of a government and society that treats you as a slave to foreign capitalists, you are now an enemy of the country you love.

Perhaps this is why Cape Bretoners have maintained a long and honourable tradition of union activism and have always been quick to speak out against oppression and exploitation.

It is that constituents from my riding support the Public Service Alliance of Canada members, the men and women who have in their hands the fragile structure of our public service; our health care system, our parks and national monuments and the agencies that connect Canadians to their government.

Over the past seven years these people have been on the front line as the Liberals here in Ottawa sold off the family silver to pay off the deficit. Not that that fight was not an important or necessary one. But why is it that the Liberal Party always seems to think that crises must be solved by attacking the middle class and working people? Why is that when they are presented with any dilemma they feel that they, the members of the private gentlemen's clubs of Ottawa, should create policies which the working people from coast to coast to coast are forced to pay for?

It is not the members of the government who have had to endure the cuts to health care. They have not had to endure the effects of their cuts to government departments where regular Canadians must often wait weeks before their case is dealt with by a stressed and overworked PSAC member. They have not been forced to see the effects of their cuts on their children in the schools. Not so for most children who endure leaking roofs, old books, and teachers whose class sizes go up and up as their colleagues are fired or pushed into early retirement.

No, it is a remarkable thing about the Liberal Party, this ability to hurt regular citizens and then to tell us that it is all for our own good. When banks pay not one penny in income tax, a single mom with a low paying job pays thousands. But that is for her own good. Telling a senior citizen that because of cutbacks his drug plan will not be processed on time, that is for his own good.

It is strange that the Liberal Party is viewed as the party of the centre in this country because when I look at its history I see a party that, when necessary, takes good ideas from wherever it can find them. I see a party that on its own has never had a good idea, that has never had any ideas beyond the absolute necessity of winning election after election, principles, policies and decency be damned.

I come from Nova Scotia where we have been cursed by a system of political patronage that could compete with the southern United States. We are used to having our roads paved if we vote the right way and having them torn up if we vote the wrong way. We are used to seeing the graveyards send ringing endorsements of Liberal candidates. For Liberals in my province, short term jobs with a Liberal contractor, just enough to qualify for EI, are the Liberals' ideas of good social programs.

That is why I have a tough time stomaching this government's endless speeches about how it is helping Canadians do this and that, how it has made life so much better for all of us, and how we should be grateful for the stewardship it has provided us.

Should my constituent who was refused federal housing assistance be happy for the piece of plastic sheeting that she uses as a roof for her trailer? Or the man who needs to decide between paying the rent that keeps him off the streets or paying for the drugs that keep him alive, should he be happy for that?

No doubt many people are happy with this government, the people that are in the top 1% income bracket who run the corporations and own the banks that give such huge donations to the Liberal Party every year. Those people who think Brian Mulroney was too progressive and too tough on business are thrilled with this government. Of course they are.

Instead of government of the people by the people for the people, we have a government of the people by the Liberals for the Liberals. They just cannot stand it when we the people say that we are fed up with that kind of government, when we want something that is for all the people, not just those fortunate enough to inherit fortunes from the shipping industry, an example that just happens to spring to mind.

Then the Liberals start to do the only thing they know how to do, they lash out. Just as they did on June 11, 1925 in Cape Breton when the troops ran down women and children in the streets. Just as they did in 1997 in Vancouver when Canadian students became the enemies because they were angered that their government supported and defended brutal dictatorships. They too have learned what it is like to have the Liberals decide they are the enemies of their government.

Now we have the strike by the PSAC workers who are upset that they are paid one wage while their contemporaries are paid more or less depending on where they live. What is so bad about that? It is a case of one rule for one and another for the other. While lower ranked staff are paid differential rates, their managers are not.

Here is a challenge for the Liberal members. If they are so supportive of regional discrimination as the President of the Treasury Board says he is, how about they volunteer here and now to have their salaries decided based on where they live. When I look across the way, it is no surprise that I do not see any takers. Maybe they are too tired to jump on board, or maybe deep down they see the obvious, that this issue is not what the government says it is about.

It is not about workers trying to sabotage Canada's public service. It is not about radical trade unionists trying to pull down the government. All this is is a group of Canadians supposedly protected under Canadian law and the Canada Labour Code. They exercised their rights to free and fair collective bargaining and they waited year after year for their employer to sit at the table with them and discuss demands that seemed obvious in their validity to most people. Equal pay, equal standards. What is so hard to deal with in those four words?

Equality has gone out of favour in this country. Now this government, not happy with making the rich richer and the poor poorer, has decided to create artificial divisions from province to province, territory to territory. No, this is not a surprise. We expect nothing different from this government.

That is why I am proud to sit on these benches, a member of the party that introduced universal health care and pensions to Canada, the party that believes in those things because they are right and not because it was electorally convenient to adopt them a few years ago. It is a party of conviction and principles and most important, a party that supports Canadian workers.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The hon. member for St. John's West on debate.

[An hon. member]

Give it to them, Charlie.