Debates of March 23rd, 1999

Government Services Act, 1999

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad I now have the attention of members opposite. I will carry on from where I left off, with my observations as a new member of parliament less than two years ago. I held out great hope that democracy would be a model for this country and for this parliament.

Instead I saw two things in very short order. First I saw a government that was more right wing and regressive than the previous Brian Mulroney Conservative government had been, absolutely and without question. The second thing I noticed was a government of unprecedented arrogance. It is unbelievable that any time an issue has become difficult or the debate has become complex this government has resorted to the undemocratic measures of closure, of speed-up motions as we have today, of killing parliamentary debate and of the chance for public input.

After many attempts over the last couple of years by this government to bring in closure and to bring down arbitrary, undemocratic measures, today we have before us a mean-spirited motion. It is an absolute abuse of power. What else can we call this attempt on the part of the government to fast track and limit debate on some very serious legislation pertaining to forcing workers back to work? It can only be described in terms of abusing power, of violating the very basic tenets of any democratic society.

Why in the world did this government feel it had to bring a heavy sledgehammer into this Chamber on an issue that is so fundamentally critical in terms of our history as a country and our traditions in terms of democracy?

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I call for a quorum check. I see the House is virtually empty.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I see we now have quorum.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would take it that it is a contempt of this House for a member to make colourable quorum calls. I take note that the previous call was made by a member who immediately quit the Chamber. I therefore call upon you, Madam Speaker, to exercise your discretion and to refuse frivolous quorum calls.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Madam Speaker, I was here when the previous member made the call for quorum. I was present while she stayed in the Chamber. She did not leave immediately after she called for a quorum count.

I think I have been the only one who has been here throughout the whole thing.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I find the hon. member's remarks totally unacceptable. The government must make sure there is quorum and must have members present in the House. As long as the government does not make sure there is quorum, we have a right, as members of this parliament, to call for a quorum count.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

This is not a point of order but a matter for debate.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When the opposition called for a point of order there were more government members present in the Chamber.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, what we are dealing with is deep-felt shame and embarrassment on the part of members of the Liberal government. Otherwise they would not be rising to their feet on points of order and commenting on those who are trying to seek a quorum in this Chamber.

Let us face it, it is an embarrassing moment for Liberal members. It must give them a terrible sense of shame and dishonour to have to sit here and be a part of a process that is denying fundamental basic democratic rights in the House of Commons. They have to be ashamed and embarrassed. They are probably also very ashamed and embarrassed about the legislation behind this motion, Bill C-76, which is an attempt to apply the most undemocratic process to deal with a labour dispute in our country.

Let us keep this in perspective and try to bring some sense to members on the government benches. This is not an isolated incident. This is part of a pattern of governing that is absolutely loathsome and absolutely repulsive for Canadians everywhere. This is just one in a series of examples.

I would like to remind members opposite how often we have had to deal with closure on important legislation, how often we have heard about decisions being made by the government outside parliament, how many times parliamentarians have been bypassed in critical decisions being made for this country and how often bodies without any democratic responsibility and accountability determine the future of this country.

Let us not forget the past week when we asked a simple question about the denial of postal subsidies for religious publications in this country. We were told that was part of the WTO, the World Trade Organization, reaching its tentacles into something as basic as the right of this country to produce religious publications that reflect the values of this country.

Let us not forget that if it had not been for the vigorous efforts on the part of non-governmental organizations, justice coalitions everywhere across this country and some members of parliament, we would not have had the multilateral agreement on investment before this Chamber for discussion. It would have proceeded in secret and arbitrarily. It would have become a fait accompli, causing much harm and destruction to the future of the country, if people had not called the government to task and demanded some sense of democratic process.

Let us also look at the way in which members of parliament have been raising their concerns over the last while and pointing out how much parliament is bypassed on a day to day basis.

My colleague, the member from Kamloops, was very clear last week in the House when he said that the government is working very hard to make all of us into political eunuchs. It is attempting at every step of the way to deny us the opportunity to exercise our democratic rights and to represent the people who elected us to this Chamber.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I would like a quorum call please.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I do not see a quorum. Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

We now have a quorum.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, a minute ago I heard the member for Ottawa West—Nepean suggest the reason it had been hard to keep members in the House was that there were many committees going on. I want the member and all others members on the Liberal benches to know that many of us here would like to be in committee as we speak but we are forced to be in this place because of the unilateral, arbitrary and undemocratic actions of the government. If the government could see the light and realize that if it allowed democracy to pursue its natural course, we could all get the work of this place done efficiently and effectively.

I will try to wrap up the first part of my speech pertaining to closure, this arbitrary move on the part of the government, by referencing a couple of other incidents and events flowing from this place.

It should come as no surprise to members opposite that when it comes to serious matters like detailed analysis of the budget committees are barely given an opportunity for active scrutiny. The decisions are made outside this place. That is an undemocratic practice. When it comes to big decisions of vital importance to the country and to the world, especially when it comes to questions pertaining to peacekeeping troops being sent into wartorn countries, as a matter of course this place is consulted after the fact.

The government may allow for a few hours to be spent on a take note debate, but when it comes to final decisions around whether or not troops will be sent into an international scene of conflict the government makes those decisions before parliament has had a chance to have any involvement or say on those issues.

Let me mention another example having to do with the incident we all had to deal with over the last year. Scientists in the health protection branch were being threatened, intimidated and placed under gag orders because they chose to speak up and inform Canadians about the possible harmful effects of something being added to our milk. In that case we were talking about bovine growth hormone. It is a very clear example of what has happened in the country and the kind of arrogance that is so pervasive with the Liberals across the way.

It means that civil servants who are doing their jobs are threatened, intimidated and made to shut up so that the government does not have to deal with the hard facts and take those concerns into account. There are numerous more examples of how undemocratic the government has become.

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Not only are the member's facts inaccurate, but I do not think she is speaking to the topic.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, the motion before us is a motion to speed up the process around the approval for the most undemocratic legislation we have ever seen. We are talking about closure.

Every incident I have referred to has do with the way in which the government wields the heavy hand, cuts off debate, makes decisions outside parliament and denies the fundamental tenets of a democratic society. I am right on topic.

Let me move toward the actual anti-democratic nature of the legislation around which the motion is trying to speed up the process with regard to Bill C-76, the back to work legislation. Why in the world did the government feel compelled to go the route of fundamentally bypassing the democratic collective bargaining process and bringing in this heavy handed back to work legislation?

It is absolutely shameful the government had to resort to such tactics when there were many other options which the government with a bit of courage, leadership and conviction could have used to ensure that the concerns of workers, farmers and the public service were all addressed. Canadians could then feel there was some framework of harmony and consensus at play and the tools in place by which they would have the ability to take on the future with all the rapid technological change and global forces at work in this country and around the world.

We are talking today about the most anti-democratic process to bring in and to force the most anti-democratic legislation imaginable.

I do not think many Canadians will take solace in the government's suggestion that this heavy handed legislation was the only solution to the problem. Canadians know full well that the process of collective bargaining involving members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada was not respected. They know full well that legitimate issues and demands were being raised by alliance workers that were not taken into account.

I would like to take a couple of minutes to read a few letters I received today in my office in Winnipeg and some letters I received over the course of the last couple of months while public service alliance workers have been trying to convince the government of the need to deal with their grievances and, in particular, to deal with the whole question of inequity and discrimination in the regional rates of pay.

I quote from a letter by Alice, sent to me today at my office. She wrote:

I thought that being a federal employee would entitle me to equal treatment like everyone else that works for the government, but I guess (the President of the Treasury Board) doesn't see it that way. This is discrimination with a capital D . Our prime minister does nothing to help us. I feel we have no rights as Canadian citizens.

Alice does not feel she has any rights as a Canadian citizen. We do not feel we have any rights as members of parliament. Is there any sign of people feeling like they are able to use their full rights as citizens of the country?

Let me go on and read from Leona who wrote:

Dear Judy:

I am writing in protest to being legislated back to work by the federal government. I can't believe that our Prime Minister condones (the President of the Treasury Board's) behaviour towards the blue collar workers of Canada. (The Prime Minister) openly shows his discrimination, by not stepping in to stop (the President of the Treasury Board) and the treasury board from once again sending us back to work without a proper raise.

Let me quote from Mike who wrote to me today:

I am an employee of the Federal Government of Canada and a member of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. As an employee represented by Public Service Alliance of Canada-Table 2 I urge you to intercede on our behalf—

We are doing that today. We are trying to intercede on behalf of workers who are members of the public service alliance and part of the table two negotiations seeking to have their concerns heard and taken seriously.

It is absolutely unnecessary and unexplainable. It takes the words right out of my mouth to try to figure out why the government felt it had to resort to back to work legislation when there were options before it, when it was a matter of respecting the rights of workers and respecting the role that the labour movement plays in the country.

I urge members today to consider their actions and to remember people like Stanley Knowles who would have been appalled by the kind of anti-democratic motion put before the House today. I ask members to remember the contribution of the labour movement throughout the history of the country in seeking a more just and equitable society. I ask members to remember the words that when one among us suffers we all suffer. When we work to ensure the collective good and find co-operative solutions, therein lies our hope for a secure, healthy and peaceful future.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this debate. Honest to goodness, I cannot for the life of me understand what is going on and why we are playing these games.

There should have been a settlement a long time ago. We have asked the government many times, over and over again, to keep the grain moving. It has to be kept moving for the sake of our farmers everywhere, not just farmers throughout Saskatchewan and throughout Alberta in small towns or communities.

I talked with a number of businessmen just this weekend who reassured me once again that the success of the town, the community and the small business that exists relies totally on the success of farmers in their community. Over and over again every year we go through this nonsense.

I am pleased to hear that the grain is moving today and that we are not having a little demonstration, strike, picket line or whatever to stop its flow. It should have never come to that in the first place. We asked the government over and over again to bring in such things as final arbitration that would put an end to the harassment that farmers have to go through.

I realize what the NDP colleagues are saying about faithfully negotiating. If negotiations are supposed to take place, for heaven's sakes get to the negotiating table. I do not think there has been negotiating going on with the prison guards for I do not know how long.

People are pushing hard for negotiations and to reach a settlement. I would like to try an experiment after 1999, in the new millennium, that will change the role. Somehow or another we will get farmers to go on strike. They will just stop producing. We will not be able to legislate them back to work. We will not be able to do anything, because they will choose to pull the pin and go on strike. I wonder where all the picket lines would be if there was no grain to move, or if they did not have any of this or that to do.

The farmer has had the short end of the stick long enough. They have no alternatives. They do not have a negotiating table to go to. They do not get to sit around a table and say “We are going to negotiate. What are you going to do for me? How much money are you going to bring me this year? How are you going to increase my wages?”

They have absolutely no say. They put their seeds in the ground and pray that it does not hail or there is not a drought. They go through the headache of getting a crop together and getting it to the right places so they can get it moving and into the hands of society so people can eat. Contrary to what some people on that side of the House must believe, food does not come from grocery stores. It comes from other places.

Farmers have no representation whatsoever in terms of who will look after their needs. When it comes to 70 grain weighers or a few dock loaders, man do we have people jumping to their rescue all over the land. They go on strike and stop the movement of grain. It does not matter if the farmer needs cash or his crop will go down the tube the next year if he does not get some cash.

Some people in my riding asked me not too long ago whether the Liberal government was trying to destroy them. That is what they asked. Why do hon. members think that a relief package is going out?

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I must apologize to the member.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would you please check if there is indeed a quorum?

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

We do not have a quorum at this time so we must call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

We now have a quorum.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, we have to play a few more games. We have to go through these things. I do not know why.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member who just called for quorum, whose party I notice is fairly underrepresented in the House today, is the same member wearing a badge on his lapel that I think is not according to the rules of the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

If the member rises wishing to speak, we will go into the matter at that time.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

There we go again, Madam Speaker. It is a good thing the grain movement strike is not in effect in Vancouver right now because that—