House of Commons Hansard #202 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was grain.

Topics

Division No. 358Government Orders

12:05 a.m.

Reform

Randy White Reform Langley—Abbotsford, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know from the minister just when he found out that there was a tentative agreement. At what time did he know that?

I feel that the opposition in this House has been truly sucked in by this government. Government members knew darn well there was a tentative agreement coming and they set us up in this House. They made an announcement as though we should stand here and clap for them when they knew all along there was a tentative agreement.

Why is there not cessation of job action when they have a tentative agreement? According to the Treasury Board official here in the back room, he says that was not attained. I would like to know why it was not. As far as I am concerned, this official opposition has some real problems now with the integrity of what went on over there.

Division No. 358Government Orders

12:10 a.m.

Liberal

Marcel Massé Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Mr. Speaker, I knew about the agreement taking place at about 10.10 tonight. The agreement was the result of difficult negotiations that have continued with the blue collar workers. This afternoon I heard about the various elements that were involved. I indicated that I was ready to agree to the various contents. The negotiations took place between our main negotiator and Daryl Bean's negotiators tonight between 8 o'clock and 10 o'clock. I was told at 10.10 that they had initiated an agreement.

The problem of course of having an agreement of that type is that since we now have a negotiated collective agreement this is what eventually, if it is ratified, must become the agreement between the parties.

However, the possibility of the blue collar workers continuing their strike is not only there but it was mentioned to us that it was likely that it would continue because until that agreement, which is an agreement between our representatives and those of the union, is ratified by the membership, which may take one, two or three weeks, the right to strike continues.

Therefore, we still need to pass the law as it is. I will introduce amendments at the next stage with the possibility that the collective agreement that we have just negotiated, if it is ratified, will become the conditions of work with the parties.

Division No. 358Government Orders

12:10 a.m.

Bloc

Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, what is going on here tonight is very surprising. I will tell you that I worked in the labour movement for 20 years and this is the first time I see anything like this.

I said in my speech, and I will repeat it for the minister, that this government has done all it could to push these 14,000 public servants to go on strike. It did all it could to provoke this strike and it did all it could to crush it.

Now the minister is telling us that there is an agreement in principle. We all know that, when an agreement in principle is reached under the sword of Damocles, when one is under the threat of back to work legislation, usually that agreement in principle is final.

Therefore, not only has the government succeeded in provoking that strike, but it has used the House of Commons to apply extra pressure on its employees. People say they agree, thinking they can go back to work and everything will be settled, but that is not so. Moreover, the government will even force these employees to go back to work even though there is an agreement in principle. I find this totally unacceptable.

Division No. 358Government Orders

12:10 a.m.

Liberal

Marcel Massé Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Mr. Speaker, you will have noted that there are two groups of persons mentioned in this bill. The first are the blue collar workers. I believe it is incorrect to say that, if there is an agreement in principle, it is automatically ratified because in the case of the prison guards there was an agreement in principle with our negotiators and a recommendation for acceptance by PSDAC, but then the employees rejected it. This is an immediate example of non-ratification of an agreement in principle.

Continuing, there are two groups of workers. The prison guards are designated as essential, anyway, and as I have said, some 500 or 600 of them are not covered by the essential service designation. Clearly they must be covered, and this is why we must have the bill.

Since the rotating strikes cannot be stopped by agreement in principle, the bill must be passed so as to put an immediate stop to the rotating strikes.

Division No. 358Government Orders

12:15 a.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, my question may seem quite similar. If the table two bargaining group has reached a tentative agreement, and seeing as there is an order from the new CIRB about the picketing on the west coast, grain shipment is not a factor any more even if the table two workers were to carry on any kind of a job action. Would it not seem, then, that we are carrying on with the legislation for the table four workers, the CX workers?

It seems to me that this is no longer back to work legislation. This is legislation to designate the table four CX workers as an essential service to take away the right to strike for any of the corrections officers who are left there. Is it still back to work legislation or is it designating these CX workers?

Division No. 358Government Orders

12:15 a.m.

Liberal

Marcel Massé Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Mr. Speaker, the act is still necessary for the CX workers. Once again, they should be designated essential and they are not. We need back to work legislation to prevent them from striking. It is still necessary for blue collar workers, because the agreement in principle by itself does not prevent them from striking. There have been indications that they want to continue their rotating strikes unless there is back to work legislation that prevents them from striking.

Given the fact that they can still interrupt the movement of grain, by the way all through the period until ratification and continuously if it is not ratified by them, which is a possibility, we therefore need back to work legislation.

Division No. 358Government Orders

12:15 a.m.

Progressive Conservative

Gerald Keddy Progressive Conservative South Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, my question for the minister is very simple. Everyone here wants to see farmers being able to ship their grain. How do you expect us to support the legislation when you are standing here before us tonight—

Division No. 358Government Orders

12:15 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Order, please. The hon. member will address the Chair, please. The hon. member for South Shore will please address the Chair.

Division No. 358Government Orders

12:15 a.m.

Progressive Conservative

Gerald Keddy Progressive Conservative South Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, how does the minister expect us to support the legislation when he stood before parliament tonight and said he had negotiated in bad faith? He has not negotiated in good faith. The question is simple.

Division No. 358Government Orders

12:15 a.m.

Liberal

Marcel Massé Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I understand what the member means. We have been negotiating with the union. We have been at the same table. We knew what the differences were between the two of us and finally tonight at 10 o'clock we reached an agreement.

However, the agreement itself is an agreement in principle. If it is not ratified the strikes can continue over time. Therefore we need the act to prevent the strikes in the meantime, to prevent the strikes if there is no ratification by the employees, and to prevent a strike by the prison guards.

Division No. 358Government Orders

12:15 a.m.

Reform

Howard Hilstrom Reform Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, seeing as that the President of the Treasury Board saw fit to raise tonight that he and his government had an agreement in principle, is he willing to table that agreement in principle so that we can work with it tonight?

Division No. 358Government Orders

12:15 a.m.

Liberal

Marcel Massé Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Mr. Speaker, I know that our negotiators have initialled that agreement. I do not know if it can be tabled tonight. We obviously have at least one copy that has been initialled. I am not sure it is available. If it is, we will produce it for the hon. member.

Division No. 358Government Orders

12:15 a.m.

Reform

Randy White Reform Langley—Abbotsford, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask for unanimous consent of the House to adjourn until we get the tentative agreement.

Division No. 358Government Orders

12:15 a.m.

Liberal

Marcel Massé Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Mr. Speaker, I did not say that it could be produced. I indicated that I would check if it could be produced.

I have my main negotiator here. I can probably get the answer in a few minutes. If it cannot be produced, it cannot be produced.

Division No. 358Government Orders

12:15 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is there unanimous consent to adjourn until the document is produced?

Division No. 358Government Orders

12:15 a.m.

Some hon. members

Yes.

Division No. 358Government Orders

12:15 a.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Division No. 358Government Orders

12:15 a.m.

Reform

Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege to explain why I believe my privileges and the privileges of the opposition parties in general have been compromised this evening by this evening's activities.

Approximately an hour ago we were asked to vote in the House on Government Order No. 21 which dealt with the way the bill before the House at this time was to be handled. What that motion said was that all stages of the bill must be dealt with and we would continue debating, without ceasing, all stages including committee of the whole until such time as the bill was completed.

Prior to that vote having taken place, the President of the Treasury Board and others on the government side of the House knew that a tentative agreement in principle which directly affected the bill had already taken place. That information was knowingly withheld from the official opposition and the other opposition parties on this side of the House because the government knew it would affect the vote that took place on Motion No. 21. In other words, the government withheld information that was critical to the decision making process of every member of parliament on this side of the House, and it did so deliberately.

Not only does the tentative agreement affect the entire process we are to go through tonight, but by deliberately keeping this information, by holding it to its chest and just saying “vote on that, commit yourself, make a decision as a member of parliament and I will just keep this information secret”, everyone on this side of the House had to make a decision based on half-truths and innuendo when the government knew that the truth was available and yet refused to share it with us.

When a vote comes before the House and the government deliberately withholds information that affects my decision on how I voted, I believe my privilege has been compromised. I would ask you to rule in that way, Mr. Speaker, because I consider it a travesty that the vote was taken when the minister kept that information from me and from every member in the House. That is not right and he knows it.

Division No. 358Government Orders

12:20 a.m.

NDP

Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, I can certainly understand the hon. member's frustration. He makes a good point that we did not have all the knowledge we might have been able to have before the vote. His frustration is compounded by the fact, as his House leader said, that they were sucked in. They voted for closure and now they are embarrassed that they voted for closure, that they voted for the government.

Division No. 358Government Orders

12:20 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I am not sure that the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona is addressing himself to the question of privilege that has been raised.

Division No. 358Government Orders

12:20 a.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Speaker, just to respond to the question the hon. member across the way raised, which he says is a question of privilege, I do not believe the privileges of anyone have been negatively affected by anything government has done.

Division No. 358Government Orders

12:20 a.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

Division No. 358Government Orders

12:20 a.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

I beg hon. members to listen briefly to what I will say because I intend to state to the House that in fact such was not the case. The President of the Treasury Board indicated that shortly after 10 o'clock this evening a tentative agreement had been reached.

He rushed over to the House of Commons to inform us as soon as possible. A vote started at eleven o'clock. While the division bells were ringing, I alerted all the other House leaders that I had heard an announcement was imminent and immediately after the vote was taken the President of the Treasury Board made that announcement to the House. In fact what has been demonstrated is the exact opposite of what has been alleged.

On the point raised by the hon. House leader from the New Democratic Party, if members are entitled to vote against a measure, others are entitled to vote for it. Both propositions are equally legitimate and there is no question of privilege.

Division No. 358Government Orders

12:20 a.m.

An hon. member

A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Division No. 358Government Orders

12:20 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I am dealing with a question of privilege. I will not hear a point of order until I have dealt with the question of privilege. I will deal with the point of order after the question of privilege has been disposed of.