Madam Speaker, I would like to join with all my colleagues who consider that the government acted in a very cavalier way, to say the least.
The farce that took place last evening and last night left many members puzzled, particularly when they heard the President of the Treasury Board deliver his unexpected message around 2.30 a.m., if I remember correctly.
In my view, it was certainly unique. Having been in the labour movement for 20 years, I know that with back to work legislation pending, usually, if the government reaches a last minute agreement, workers agree to go back to work. But the government went even further.
I said it in my first speech and I repeat it. The government wanted this strike. The government did all it could to provoke this strike and then it did all it could to crush it. It could have crushed it just like that, without any offer from the workers. When it reaches an agreement at the last minute, I think it is important that the government say “Now, we will not add insult to injury and we will see to it that workers go back to work peacefully”.
One basic issue remains. What about the consequences? What will the consequences be in a union where the majority of the 14,000 workers accepted the government's offers and still are subjected to back to work legislation?
There is a problem there, and there could be trouble. I am thinking in particular of the 400 workers at the military base in Saint-Jean. These 400 people are mechanics. These are people who make the lowest salaries in the federal public service.
They looked at the negotiation process in general and saw the government make interesting offers to other tables. When their turn came, the government, which is both negotiator and legislator, said: “We do not have much money for you folks”. These people felt let down. I think this will certainly have an impact on their productivity.
To go back to work with a bowed head, with the feeling of having been whipped, is not always easy. People will say “Will I be loyal, totally loyal to my employer? Did my employer show me any respect?” These are all questions that people are asking.
Perhaps they are not all great trade unionists, but they are fathers, mothers, ordinary people who ply their trade as best as they can, and after more than 6 years without a raise, several collective agreements were imposed on them. My colleague from Trois-Rivières explained that clearly—over a period of about 15 years, there may have been 11 imposed agreements.
These people have had their collective agreements imposed on them often. They say “What is the point of trying to negotiate in good faith with an employer?”
I think the aftermath is always difficult, in such cases. I have seen employers being very hard on their employees. I have seen employers be very tough with their employees, but seldom as tough as what I just saw here in the last 24 hours.
When a negotiator in the private sector goes and negotiates with a union, there is a power relationship that comes into play. If the right to strike is legal and workers exercise that right, everybody understands. However, the dynamic here today is very different, because the government is the entity that will be legislating should negotiations fail, and the government is in a position to make negotiations fail.
I think that is what happened. This government made the negotiations fail in order to impose, by special legislation, a back to work order. I do not need to explain in any great detail that not only it imposed such legislation but also it did so after the employees, at the last minute, said “We have an agreement in principle, we are going back to work”.
So, I think this will be added to the government's record, a rather negative one, in my opinion, with respect to workers, because this is not the first time it shows it is anti-workers, and anti-unions too.
I raised several examples the other day. A few examples come to my mind. There is the surplus in the federal public service pension fund, to which the President of the Treasury Board said they were going to help themselves. I made a connection with former Singer employees, the Singer retirees. For more than two years, I have been asking the government, as the trustee for that pension fund, to give that money back to the workers. The government kept repeating no, no and no. Yet, the government was the trustee, the watchdog of the fund.
Why did the government say no? Because it intended to dip into the surplus in the federal public servants' fund.
There are no end of examples of this government's approach to labour relations with its employees and with the public in general.
What kind of example is the government setting for employers today? Is it a positive one? Is this not a negative message that is being sent, that acting in bad faith might work? But it only works in the short term, because in the long term people are less productive, more disloyal, because they feel they have been let down by the government.
Other examples given here over the past weeks and months include the EI fund to which employers and employees contribute. Once again, there is a huge surplus in this fund and the government should be using it to improve the system instead of using it to pay down the debt.
So there is all sorts of evidence that this government is going after workers. This is a rather sad day for me. When one removes one's union hat, as I have, and dons the hat of an MP, one has to remain pretty open-minded because in society, in our riding offices, in the House here, we run into people from all walks of life.
But is the first principle not to serve voters as well as possible? Has this government served voters well today? I think not. It is not just that it has wronged 14,000 people, but it will leave the public with the idea that it is alright to act in bad faith, that a government can block negotiations, bring them to a complete standstill, withdraw from the bargaining tables, and make offers way below what unions are asking for.
At the last minute, even though it knows that this will not work, the government withdraws and says “Now I will act as a legislator and I will impose back to work legislation and set the working conditions myself”.
On behalf of the 400 people I represent at the Saint-Jean military base, I think things will not go easily today at the military base. Of course, when I am back in my riding, I will contact the union president. However, I am proud that the Bloc Quebecois stood up throughout this debate.
We have managed, so far for almost 36 hours, to prevent the government from rushing this legislation through the House. This is not the first time; as I said in my speech, the Bloc Quebecois is the only party that has always defended the workers. When there was the postal strike or when the rail workers were legislated back to work, the Bloc Quebecois was on the side of the workers.
Hopefully, the workers will not forget that the Canadian government does not serve them. Hopefully, people in Quebec will see that the Bloc Quebecois is on their side. Fundamentally, it may have to do with our financing method, since many workers contribute to the Bloc Quebecois' campaign fund, and they do not contribute thousands of dollars.
We get $5 and $10 bills from unions and individuals. When the time comes to defend them, however, our hands are not tied, as the Liberal Party's are, by connections with the major corporations, and the big banks and insurance companies. When the time comes to force government workers back on the job, the Liberal Party will boast of it, for a multitude of reasons.
They claim income tax return processing was slowing down and that grain was piling up in the west. These are nothing but pretexts. The government would have grabbed onto any pretext for accomplishing its ends. I believe the government is a far from exemplary employer, since it is sending such a negative message to all those who are required to negotiate collective agreements, whether in the public or the private sector.
The Bloc Quebecois cannot, of course, subscribe to such a farce. Tonight we have been the spectators and performers in another performance, a dramatic comedy. The government turned up with offers at the last minute. So there we were at 2.30 or 2.45 a.m., saying “Hooray, at least we get to go to bed. It's over.” But this was far from being the case, for the President of Treasury Board arrogantly pulled his last ace out of his sleeve, and told us “We are still going to force these people back to work. We will continue with the legislation and we will take it to the very end”. I repeat, this was just adding insult to injury.
I am proud to say that not only did the Bloc oppose the measure from the beginning, but that it will oppose it to the very end. Everybody had a hard night, but I think that the Bloc will be in a position to tell the workers, in my riding as well as in all of Quebec, that we tried to set an example and to make the government change its mind.
Unfortunately, unless a new card comes out at some point—and I would be very surprised because it would be a trump card for the workers—it will not. It would be so nice if the government said “We will withdraw the bill. People will go back to work. There was an agreement and we are now confident that people will go back to work. They don't want to have back to work legislation hanging over their head”.
In conclusion, I will say that the government used the House of Commons to force employees back to work and to threaten them to the very last minute, and when the employees signed the agreement, the government decided to go ahead with its strategy, just the same. I find it unconscionable as I said yesterday. It is a sad day for the Bloc and for the workers and I hope that the government will pay a political price for its actions.
Members of the Bloc who have federal employees affected by the bill in their riding will make a point of explaining to these workers what really happened. I am sure that the workers will support the Bloc and say that it took the right decision in staying up all night, for 36 hours, to defend them and to oppose the government, which once again proved that it is against unions and against workers.