Debates of March 23rd, 1999

Division No. 358

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The government knew a couple of hours ago apparently that it had a settlement. The minister is standing in the House speaking about the settlement.

What I would like to know is if there is anybody today, right now, on job action. If that is not the case, I would like the minister to—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. House leader for the official opposition may have an excellent question but this is not the time for questions and comments. This is debate and the minister has the floor. I am afraid that is not a point of order.

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in Vancouver harbour, scores of ships are sitting idle, waiting to be loaded, which translates into expenses in the millions of dollars in each case. The impact of this situation on western farmers is very serious, since they can no longer move their grain to foreign markets. Farmers cannot afford such losses and bear the negative consequences of the strike any longer.

The situation is so serious that the president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, the biggest farmers co-operative in the country asked—

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is this settlement agreed upon or is it not?

[The Deputy Speaker]

That is not a point of order. The minister is making a speech on second reading of this bill. He is entitled to do so and I invite hon. members to allow him to conclude his remarks.

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if there has been an agreement it does not mean that it will be ratified, unfortunately. That means that there has been an agreement at the level of the negotiators and if we want to stop the strikes, if we want to ensure the movement of grain, we have to pass this law. Ratification may take a number of weeks. It may be rejected by the workers. What we want to stop is the movements that have been taken by the strikers in blocking the movement of grain. I am sure farmers in the west understand that situation.

The Canadian Wheat Board has revealed that it has lost sales worth millions of dollars because the delivery of the grain could not be ensured. At present, unless the law is passed the delivery of grain cannot be ensured.

If parliament does not authorize the government to force workers back to work, we might lose further contracts abroad.

This in turn would cause job losses in Canada, and tarnish our international reputation in a world where prosperity depends on foreign trade.

Increased tensions on the picket lines have resulted on occasion—

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to know from this government whether or not there has been agreement to stop job action.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am afraid the hon. member is out of order. The minister is making a speech on a bill. The member is asking questions. He is not raising a point of order. I would ask him to please refrain from interrupting so that we can get on with the debate.

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

In the public interest, Mr. Speaker, the government must exercise its responsibilities with concern both for the principles that underline healthy labour relations and for sound management of the country's affairs. This is a delicate balance that pits respect for a bargaining process we believe in against the need to ensure the common good.

The dispute between the employer and the correctional group is of a different nature and represents a particularly worrisome threat to public safety.

Without an agreement on the number of correctional officers necessary to maintain order in federal institutions, the government can no longer ensure the safety of both inmates and employees working in these institutions.

The government has the obligation to protect the safety of the public, but I would also like to stress the moral obligation of the union with regard to the common good and the protection of Canadians. This is why this legislation must be implemented even if we have reached an agreement with the negotiators.

With the agreement we have with the negotiators, while it ensures that if it is ratified the situation is solved, we cannot say that at present and the only way to prevent the strikes from affecting the movement of grain is to pass this law.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to seek the unanimous of the House to have questions and comments of the minister.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the President of the Treasury Board has reached an agreement that none of us were made aware of as these proceedings were going along. This is indicative of the process of negotiations over the past two or three months, in fact, over the past two or three years. Canadians are kept in the dark along with the union negotiators.

While there may be an agreement in principle, the minister clearly did not indicate to me that this covered all the bargaining tables, the blue collar workers and the corrections workers. No one is left uncovered by this agreement in principle. That was not totally clear to us in this House. A bit of discussion with the House leaders before announcing it would have made all the difference in proceeding smoothly tonight and getting on with this business of getting the workers back on the job.

Up to this point no minister on that side of the House has stood up and said “I am responsible for the mess that we find ourselves in today. I am responsible for the negotiations that did not happen. I am responsible for not coming to an agreement before we got into an emergency debate and got into back to work legislation” which no one in the country wanted to see except the government.

We are left in the situation of looking at faulty back to work legislation tonight. There was a simple solution available to this government and that was to bring in back to work legislation with final offer selection arbitration as part of the terms.

What we have is back to work legislation which will impose an interim settlement penalizing the workers from the position the government had last offered; i.e., they were going to have lower pay and the question of increments was not covered.

What we have here at this late time is a government trying to poke and penalize the negotiators and the union people with whom it will have to start renegotiating with tomorrow.

The President of the Treasury Board did not sound very confident that it would not go through. We are left in the same situation of not knowing what is going on. He said he has an agreement in principle but only time will tell.

We will support this but only to ensure that farmers get their grain moving and their income sustained and so workers can get back to work. We will be bringing in amendments to this final offer arbitration to rid of the dictative terms of this minister and this government that are totally unsatisfactory to the union people on whom he is imposing it.

We have had unanimous agreement to allow me to share my time and I will be sharing it with the member for Wetaskiwin.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent for the member to share his time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, being a man of few words, I am sure I will not use the remaining 35 minutes.

I have been looking forward to the debate here tonight but when the minister comes into the House and makes an announcement as he has—

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

It seems to me that my colleague from the Reform Party rose on a point of order. You took his intervention as a point of order, but it would appear that we have resumed debate without your saying so and inviting the speakers to identify themselves.

Are we still on a point of order about the sharing of time or have we resumed debate?

[The Deputy Speaker]

We have resumed debate, but there is a case where time will be shared with the unanimous consent of the House.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

I have nothing against that, Mr. Speaker, except that you never indicated to the House that we were resuming debate.

[The Deputy Speaker]

We resumed debate because the member indicated that the member for Wetaskiwin would use the rest of his time, and that is why he has the floor.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if the government was this close to coming to a resolution of the problem in the beginning it is, to say the least, jumping the gun to bring in back to work legislation.

I have said in the House I do not know how many times in the last few days that this is no way to cement relationships with staff. This is no way to work on labour relations, to bring in back to work legislation when a tentative deal has been all but hammered out and the government brings in back to work legislation.

I suggest that is using the official opposition and everybody on this side of the House in a very suspicious manner. I object strenuously. This is a despicable move. Why is it done at this late hour?

It would seem to me that the timing of all this is simply for the convenience of the government since we will be on a two week break and the minister thought it would be a perfect opportunity to suck in the opposition parties and have them go through all this terrible debate, spend all night here and well into the morning, working on something the minister knew darn well was nothing but a pressure tactic to make his agreement come to fruition.

I still think it would be a great idea if we were able to question the minister under these circumstances. I ask once again for the unanimous consent of the House to have questions and comments of the minister for 10 minutes.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the House give its consent to have questions and comments to the minister for 10 minutes?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.