Debates of March 23rd, 1999

Transitional Jobs Fund

[The Speaker]

The question is in order. The hon. Minister of Human Resources Development.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I can give the member full assurance that the process was thoroughly reviewed following the incident that the member is raising in this House. On behalf of the government, I asked the RCMP to investigate, if there was a need for it. Following that incident, I asked my deputy minister to thoroughly review the way we were conducting the consultations on the transitional jobs fund. I was assured that everything was absolutely correctly done.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in less than two years we have seen the transitional jobs fund become a source for Liberal Party kickbacks. We have seen the Liberal fundraiser convicted—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order. I want the member to go directly to his question with no more preamble.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, last fall the human resources minister announced the creation of a Canada jobs—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford.

Endangered Species

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.

Six hundred and thirty-one scientists have written to the Prime Minister protesting the scientific process surrounding the assessment of species at risk. They have contended that it has been and continues to be politicized and thus compromised.

What is the government doing right now to respond to the concerns of the scientists?

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, today the Government of Canada along with the provincial and territorial ministers responsible for wildlife further increased the role of scientists to protect species at risk in Canada. Eight scientists have been added as voting members to COSEWIC, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. As Minister Stewart said, this change to COSEWIC's composition will ensure its continued scientific integrity.

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, I would remind you not to use the names of any members.

Building Contracts

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is what a blatant conflict of interest looks like: there are excuses, there are evasions and there is miscommunication.

Can the Prime Minister not see what every other Canadian can see, that his actions were unbecoming of a Prime Minister and unethical?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely not at all embarrassed to get up in the House. As a member of parliament I have done my job for my constituents. I have only done what any member of parliament does, what any member of the Reform Party or any other party in parliament can and is doing. Those who qualify, qualify. Okanagan—Shuswap got money for Moose Mulligan's Pub. I could talk about many other projects of the Progressive Conservative Party.

Every member of parliament is entitled to help his constituents to get money in order to create jobs so that people will not be on EI anymore and will have the dignity of work.

Social Condition

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, given the devastating effects of poverty and the Liberal government's lack of desire to do anything about it, my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve yesterday tabled a bill to include social condition as a prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Does the Minister of Justice intend to support this initiative and make social condition discriminatory under the law?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member may be aware, I indicated some time ago that we would be undertaking a major review of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The act has been in existence for some 20 years, and I plan to announce that review in the coming weeks.

Points Of Order

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to register my unhappiness with the way that question period unfolded today. Again the smaller parties are being punished for the time that is taken up by rows that basically happen between the government and the official opposition, or between the government and the Bloc Quebecois.

I see no point in any more encouraging my colleagues to be quiet and to show respect during question period if they are going to be punished by not having their questions heard. They might as well just get into it with everybody else.

It seems there is latitude at 3 o'clock to make sure that at least the NDP gets its third question, and perhaps the Conservatives, but this is not happening. It has happened a couple of times now that we do not get our third question.

What is the point, Mr. Speaker? It seems to me that your role is to reward and punish according to behaviour, not according to the clock, and we are getting the short end of the stick. If that is the way it is going to be, we will have to take that—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member is a veteran parliamentarian and he has raised this point before. Once again, we try to measure it all out and we will try to see if over the days ahead we can balance things out so all parties have a chance to ask questions and to have them answered in the House.

I wish I could be optimistic and say that at all times all members keep to the rules and are very quiet. I am sure the hon. House leader of the New Democratic Party will know that from time to time—it does not occur often—there are lapses in all parties and I have to take that into consideration.

I will see what we can do to see to it that we get in the maximum number of questions in every question period. If there are any problems we will try to even it out by the end of the week, or surely by the end of a number of days. I undertake to do that.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a totally unrelated matter, although I agree very strenuously with the comments put forward by the House leader of the New Democratic Party.

This morning in the British parliament Prime Minister Blair made a lengthy statement to the British House of Commons concerning the deterioration of the situation in Kosovo. This appears to be a situation that will also involve Canadian military forces and their involvement in the possible military action.

I ask the government when we will hear a similar full statement in the House of Commons concerning Canadian citizens who will perhaps be called upon to be put into action with respect to the situation in Kosovo. Our armed forces are waiting.

[The Speaker]

Surely this type of question would be in order during question period. I do not think I will allow it to be raised as a point of order in the House.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Government Services Act, 1999

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before Oral Question Period, I was congratulating Flamingo, a company operating in Joliette and in Berthierville, because we are on the topic of labour relations and negotiations. I was saying that, when parties sat down and tried to reach a solution, when parties acted in good faith, something could be done.

The newspapers—to continue with this issue that concerns some of my constituents—reported good news, that an agreement in principle has been reached at the Flamingo abattoirs in Joliette and Berthierville that will, if approved by union members, end a five month dispute. This is concrete and very topical proof that opposing parties can reach an agreement if they act in good faith.

The following questions come to mind: Is the government opposite acting in good faith? Does the government opposite want to resolve the dispute fairly for all parties? In order to answer these questions, we must examine the facts. We must understand what the issues and the facts are.

We know that, since 1991, the federal government has established seven bargaining tables with its employees. It divided all its employees into seven such tables for bargaining purposes. One might say that the federal government divided to conquer, an old principle even Julius Caesar used to use. I dare hope this was not its main motivation, but the fact remains that there are seven bargaining tables.

Two of them, tables 2 and 4, are currently involved in a dispute. Who are the people involved? Table 4 comprises correctional service officers, and table no 2 general labour and trades, ships' crews, hospital services, general services, and firefighters. Clearly, we are not dealing with deputy ministers making twice as much as the minister in charge of the matter, but people at the bottom of the pay scale. They are not highly paid civil servants.

These two tables were bargaining and, since they were not making progress, union members resorted to pressure tactics, including going on strike.

At this point I believe we need to go back over the history of bargaining in the public service to have an overview of the situation and form an opinion on the matter.

Labour relations in the federal public service come under the Public Service Staff Relations Act. This act came into force in 1967. This new negotiating framework removed public servants from the more liberal framework of the Canada Labour Code.

There are many differences between the Canada Labour Code and the Quebec Labour Code. I believe the latter is far more specific, and probably more advantageous for workers. We do have a labour code, but the adoption of the Public Service Staff Relations Act effectively removed public servants from the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Code.

It is very important to remember that one of the reasons given by the government of the day to justify the removal of public servants from the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Code was that it considered itself a good employer because it paid its employees well and gave them good working conditions. We were told then that no government would ever abuse the situation and use its size and power to control the market, to muzzle its employees or to bludgeon them into submission, if I may use that expression.

In other words, we were told that since the Canadian government was such a good employer, its employees would be removed from the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Code and would instead be governed by a law that would apply only to them and over which the government would have total control.

Is that what is really going on? I think history has shown us that it is not the case. Since the adoption of the new legislation, and particularly since the Liberals took office in 1993, those principles have been betrayed in every possible way by the government, especially through its legislative power. The government distorts, undermines and dominates the bargaining process like no other employer can, legally. It has the power to do so.

The government made a series of cuts which impacted heavily on civil servants, and attempted to manipulate the taxpayers with demagoguery and the government's sizeable communications resources. As well as misinforming the public, it has abused the House of Commons. We, the MPs, cannot even debate such a vital matter, thanks to the gags the government keeps using.

I would like to ask a legitimate question, for the sake of those following this debate. Is this the first time the federal government is acting in this way? Is this the first time it is trying to impose its will as heavy-handedly as this?

One would have to look at past legislation to see whether this is a first or not, and if it is true that what goes around comes around, it will surely not be the last time either.

In August 1982, Bill C-124 froze the salaries of some 500,000 public servants. In December 1989, there was the back to work legislation, Bill C-49. Later, in October 1991, there was Bill C-29, with which the employer threatened unilateral imposition of its offer if it were not accepted. “Those are the offers. If you do not accept them, you will end up with them anyway”. That was more or less what Bill C-29 was all about.

But something rather special happened then. The Labour Relations Board characterized this move by the federal government of the time as unethical. Worse yet, the International Labour Organization commented that this action by the federal government imposed serious restrictions on the bargaining process and urged the government to return to free bargainiing. The ILO found the way the federal government was treating its employees shocking.

Members will understand our having a few doubts today about the federal government's statement that it is a good employer. The International Labour Organization had doubts then.

In 1992, there was something else. In 1993, 1994 and 1996, there were in this House a series of laws imposing working conditions on these public servants. One of my Bloc Quebecois colleagues said “We are forced to conclude there is no difference between Conservative and Liberal”.

When we look at labour relations with public servants, both the Conservatives and the Liberals forced their will on their employees using the legislative tools at their disposal.

In conclusion—I will have the opportunity to come back about 11 p.m. or midnight, I am pleased to say—what we want the government to do is sit down and bargain, as they are entitled to do.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today to Bill C-76. Unfortunately this bill should never have been brought to the House.

If the government had done its job PSAC workers would not be on a strike platform right now. If it had treated PSAC workers fairly we would not have the imposition on the grain handlers and the economy taking place right now.

The government has not been negotiating in good faith with PSAC workers. It has not treated them fairly. When PSAC workers wanted to come to the table for discussion with the government, it turned its back on them. Why is that? This is the third time PSAC workers are to be legislated back to work. We understand the reasons why the government will do that.

We cannot have an economy that is held hostage to strikes. We cannot have situations such as those taking place now with grain handlers being unable to carry on with their jobs; 70 PSAC workers striking and holding up 112,000 grain handlers should not be allowed to occur. On the other hand, PSAC workers should have the right to get a fair resolution to their problems.

There is a way of resolving this issue. How do we ensure that people will not go on strike? How do we ensure the economy will not be hurt? How, on the other hand, do we enable workers to get a fair resolution?

The solution put forth by the Reform Party is an excellent one that is built into the contract of essential services and built into the contract of PSAC workers. I suggest that some of these workers such as prison guards be made essential. In the process of doing that, these individuals must have an out, an ability to get resolution to their grievances.

The way to do that is by binding arbitration or final offer arbitration. In other words, give workers in various disciplines the opportunity to negotiate a settlement. If after a certain period of time no settlement is arrived at, be it on the lack of good faith on the part of the government or the people who are negotiating from outside the government, then a situation will happen where resolution has to occur.

Rather than have people go out on strike and hurt the economy, hurt Canadians, hurt other workers, the solution is to write into the contract that both sides come together for binding offer arbitration or final offer arbitration.

Final offer arbitration would ensure that both sides, the government and in this case PSAC workers, would put forth the best solution they can possibly come to themselves. A third party, acceptable to both sides, would then make the decision.

The other option is binding arbitration. In that case a third party, again one acceptable to both sides, would deliberate on the situation, take the offers from both sides and construct an offer they find would be the best at that point.

That would enable workers to get a fair and quick resolution to their situation. PSAC workers, like other workers, just want to get back to work. They want to be treated fairly. On the other hand, it will prevent strikes from taking place and prevent the inconvenience and damage that is taking place to our economy, to other citizens and to the functioning of government. Therein lies the solution and we have put that solution forth to the government.

I will not be supporting Bill C-76 unless the clause of binding offer arbitration or final offer arbitration is accepted by the government. If it does not accept that, I cannot support the bill because members in my constituency of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca are very angry with the government and want a resolution.

What are they asking for? Are they asking for things that are unreasonable? No, they are not. Their pay has been frozen since 1992. They are asking for a fair wage increase. I submit that if PSAC workers were to get the same wage increase as members of parliament receive that would be fair.

On the issue of pay and equitable playing fields for people across the country, right now people are paid different amounts depending on where they live, and that is to take into consideration the fact that the cost of living in some places is different from that in others.

A better way of doing that would be to pay people the same for doing the same job. On the other hand, people are being forced to live in an environment where the cost of living is higher than in another. For example, in Victoria the cost of living is higher than in Halifax. The people working in Victoria would receive a supplement to what they are making at this point. That is done in the military with an accommodation assistance allowance.

A similar type of situation can be built into the contract. In that way we would not have the perception and the reality that people across the country are being paid different amounts for doing the same job. Pay them the same but give them the accommodation assistance allowance which would account for the differences in cost of living. That way everything would be very transparent and available to all concerned.

The other thing that we see happening is the issue of fairness in terms of labour-management relations. Labour unions have sometimes done a good job and sometimes have not. We need to clean up the labour situation and we need to ensure that the people working under labour union laws have the choice of whether to participate in the union.

Right now there are obligations for people in various jobs to participate. That is not fair. People should have a choice without being penalized for being a participant or not being a participant in the union.

Right to work legislation exists in some parts of the United States. Where that has taken place the income of those people is about $2,500 to $3,500 a year greater than for those people who are living in states where there is not right to work legislation.

Unions have to be in a position where they will be acting not in the best interests of the union leadership but in the best interests of the people they represent. That is extremely important.

In my riding we have quite a number of PSAC workers. One of the examples I would like to give is the non-military blue collar workers at the maritime forces base in Esquimalt. These people have been working for wages at or just slightly above welfare for a very long time. They have been asked to downsize significantly. Many of them have downsized 40%. They multitask. They have streamlined their jobs. They have streamlined their work. They have not asked for much at all. They have been working for rates far lower than what they could be making in other parts of the country doing the same job in other parts of the government. They stuck with it because they believed, out of a sense of duty, they were doing the right thing for the military.

After doing all this the government has kicked them in the teeth. It has not given them a level playing field to work on, and that is completely unfair. The workers in the base in Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca want to have a level playing field where they can compete with others fairly for their jobs and they want to be treated fairly.

The other issue, which I think is a very legitimate grievance, is that people doing the same job with the same skills working in PSAC are paid less than those individuals doing the same job with the same skills in the government, in other unions. Why is that? That should not happen. If a person is doing the job, if they have the same skills, they should be getting paid the same wage regardless of what union they are in within the government. That is called parity.

On the issue of employment equity, it is wise for us to understand what that means. Many people think it is for equal pay if people are doing the same job, with the same skills and the same experience regardless of their gender or any other characteristic we would like to name. That is not what employment equity is all about. Employment equity says that if person A is doing a job and person B is doing a different job, some arbitrary third person says those two people should be getting paid the same.

We do not believe that is fair. We do not support that. The reason we do not support that is we believe the market should decide what the value of those two jobs are. Should someone working in a clerical position get paid the same as someone working in a blue collar job because some arbitrary third person in the government says those two jobs are equivalent? We do not believe so. What we believe in having is a level playing field where people can compete fairly for the jobs they would like to pursue.

We also believe very strongly that people doing the same job with the same skills in the same way should get paid the same amount of money. We very much support that. That is not taking place right now in the unions and the government has not addressed that.

The amount of money the government has given these people is pathetically small, given the impositions it has imposed on these workers and the challenges they have met. The blue collar PSAC workers have tried very hard and have met the challenges that have been put in front of them. They are hardworking individuals who are the backbone of our country. Yet the government has not treated them fairly.

The longer the government does this, the longer it continues to treat PSAC workers in this way, the less and less it will get out of them as workers and the less faith these workers will have in the system they work in. Who will be hurt by that? The people who rely on these PSAC workers to do their job and the country.

Does it not make sense if we are to have a stronger economy, a more cohesive society, that these people are treated fairly? That is all they are asking. Yet the government will force these people back to work and engage in strong, punitive legislation with huge fines for people who will not agree to that.

The failure of the government to deal with the situation in a proactive fashion has brought us to the catastrophe we have today, a situation that no one relishes. Why it does not do this I do not understand.

I challenge the government to do the following with the PSAC workers. It should identify other workers it believes are essential. It should put into the contract with their agreement that if the negotiations are not concluded with a fair resolution on both sides, binding final offer arbitration is put into the system, into their contract. In that way strikes will not take place, the economy will not be compromised, people will not be compromised and quick resolutions to this thorny problem will occur in a fair and equitable fashion so that the government, the economy, the public and the union workers will ultimately be treated fairly. To do anything less is grossly unfair to all concerned.

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

Madam Speaker, I regret that we are engaged in this debate, period. Let us be clear about what is before the House today. We have before us the most anti-democratic motion possible by any government anywhere.

Yesterday we had introduced in the House the most anti-democratic legislation imaginable for a democracy anywhere. Today we have the double whammy, an anti-democratic process on top of anti-democratic legislation.

The purpose for the debate this afternoon is to come to grips with this arbitrary, heavy handed approach by the Liberal government. It is yet another example of how arrogant this government has become.

Less than two years ago, when many of us were elected for the first time to this Chamber, we were given an opportunity to see democracy at work. We held out great hope that the rights of every individual member and the views of every Canadian would be heard and heard well. Lo and behold, that hope was short-lived for many of us.

I was elected in June 1997 and one of the very first measures of this government was to impose closure on Bill C-2, the bill to amend the Pension Act. Just when it became clear that this government was embarking on major changes that would have serious and widespread ramifications for Canadians everywhere, just when—

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

With all due respect, I note unfortunately that there is no quorum in the House. I request your co-operation, Madam Speaker.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Indeed, I note there is no quorum. Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I see we now have quorum.