Debates of March 23rd, 1999

Government Services Act, 1999

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Madam Speaker, it has been some time since I have been able to address the Chair and this chamber. I hope that my cough and my voice will allow me to conclude my speech.

Here we are again to debate Motion No. 21 tonight. Between 11 o'clock and midnight after we vote on this we will begin debating Bill C-76, an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of government services. We will go all night, until the wee small hours, until we have finally concluded with the vote on third reading of the bill. We will probably be here until about the time that most people will be thinking about getting up to go to work tomorrow morning.

Why are we doing this? Why are we pushing the bill through the House in this manner tonight? Why is the government's closure motion being debated right now? It is largely because of the slipshod, shoddy mediocre thinking that characterizes the Liberal government. This need not be the case tonight. There has been plenty of time for the government to meet with its employees, to negotiate a settlement that is fair and which is agreed to by all parties concerned, but that is not the case.

This government has allowed the process to go on and on without taking its employees seriously, without giving them the respect that is due to them. These employees have their backs against the wall and have said “We have to do something to force a settlement so we will begin rotating strikes”. We have been pushed into what is an emergency for thousands and thousands of Canadians.

The bill will force over 14,000 members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada back to work. They have been on rotating strikes this past month. The bill pretty much forces all PSAC workers back to work, regardless of whether or not they are on strike. Some of them are not on strike right now. The legislation intends to close the loophole for those correctional officers who will not be in a strike position until Friday. The government has allowed itself the slack to have cabinet proclaim this if it is needed. What kind of legislation is this where nobody really knows what is going on?

It is not unusual for this government. When the government was first elected in 1993 it came in with a promise to cancel the Pearson airport contract. By golly it did and it is still a mess. The Pearson airport is in such a mess that Air Canada is suing the corporation for hundreds of millions of dollars.

Think of the cancellation of the helicopters. Helicopters are needed by the emergency workers. Helicopters have still not been provided and the government is still debating about which machines to purchase.

Think of the immigration situation. People who would be a credit to our country are being denied entry at the borders. Instead, outlaws and criminals are allowed in.

Think of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. They are concerned that in the near future they could have a shortage of as many as 1,000 members across the country, with a shortage of 500 RCMP officers in British Columbia alone.

Tell me what kind of government that is. Tell me that it is not mediocre thinking by a slipshod government that allows our country to be served so poorly.

In my constituency of Cariboo—Chilcotin the trade agreements have been a problem for the producers of softwood. I think of the quota agreement, a quota which I spoke so vehemently against. Why could we not use the dispute settlement mechanisms that are available? No, we have a quota agreement. The best this agreement could do is close down the small mills and the new producers and have their quotas go to the large mills and the established producers. The worst it could do would be to have the large mills not find this an acceptable agreement. The worst is what we got. More mediocre thinking.

It occurs right across the country and it has been so detrimental, so harmful and so hurtful to our citizens. It is the people who go to work every day, the people who will get up tomorrow morning at about the time we pass this bill with the Liberal majority. It is those people who are hurt by these government policies. I hope they understand the seriousness of this kind of mediocre leadership.

I do not think we will find many people in the country who are surprised with what is happening here. They are not surprised about the dispute between PSAC and the federal government. They are not surprised by the rotating strikes by PSAC members.

They are not surprised by the number of federal services affected by this labour disruption. We are very sympathetic with those people. I am very sad to say that this has become such an emergency that we need some kind of resolution, so I will be voting for the bill but with deep regret.

We should think of our constituents who are in need of a resolution and think of the mediocrity that has brought us to this position. Canadian taxpayers are seriously affected by it. The Minister of National Revenue stood and said that they were about 1.2 million claims behind this time last year in terms of processing.

We should also think of grain farmers who have been suffering over past years with low grain prices and now have their backs against the wall. They desperately need to get their grain loaded on to ships and delivered to overseas customers.

This is undoubtedly the busiest time of the year for Revenue Canada. Many Canadians have already filed their income taxes and are anxiously awaiting a little bit of the money the government has taxed out of their hides. We should think of the rotating strikes that have caused the processing of these returns to be so slow and of farmers, many of whom have already gone bankrupt and many others who are threatened with bankruptcy. Are we to ignore them?

Even though this could be explained as a major inconvenience for Canadian taxpayers, there is a growing number of citizens who will be more than inconvenienced. They will be seriously hurt by the long term effects of the strike. The sad part of this strike is that it need never have happened.

Without the money from the sale of their grain many farmers will be unable to plant their crops and will face the consequences of lack of income for long periods of time. Thank goodness there have been no picket lines and the weighing has been able to continue during the strike by some 70 grain handlers. Thank goodness strikers have understood the seriousness of this consideration, and I thank them for that.

The official opposition called for an emergency debate on the issue last week. We called on the government to act. Farmers and taxpayers are depending upon a resolution of this problem. It is with real disappointment and reluctance that I have to support the legislation.

My colleagues and I strongly believe that this heavy handed approach, an approach I will talk about a bit later, is only a short term fix. It merely adds to the problems in the long term.

The government has not looked at other means of settling this labour dispute. It has not looked at a third party resolution to it. It has not looked at final offer selection arbitration, which is what we would propose as a reasonable way of doing it.

What is final offer selection arbitration? It would allow both parties to negotiate until they reach a conclusion that is satisfactory to both, unless it is not possible. Both parties would be invited to present their final best offer. The final best offers would be received by a neutral arbitrator and in the mind of the arbitrator the fairest offer would be accepted. There would be no cherry-picking of what is good from one and what is good from the other. One final offer would be accepted. This would focus the mind on the very best offer possible.

As many of my colleagues have mentioned throughout the debate leading up to this point, final offer selection arbitration is official policy within our party. We will be pushing the government in this debate to adopt this policy.

My NDP colleagues talk about this being the end of negotiations. Forget it. This is simply a mechanism for dealing with an intractable solution that leads to hardship for many people who are not involved. There has to be a better way and Canada is one of the countries that has the most difficulty in settling its labour disputes.

My colleagues and I know that legislation such as the bill before us tonight should only be used for national emergencies. I do not believe that the dithering, the waiting, the delaying and the lack of taking this situation seriously are acceptable reasons for allowing it to become a national emergency. There is no need for that kind of emergency. This is simply as a result of dithering, a lack of concern and a lack of respect.

Those people who are being hurt by this situation will agree that there must be a better means of resolving such disputes than what the government has put forward. There has to be a better way than ramming it through late at night. Their livelihood depends upon it. They deserve better.

Given the current financial hardships of many Canadians, and I think especially of farmers and those people who are unemployed and are depending upon a little bit of money in their tax refunds, they do not need more obstacles in making their living.

The approach that the government is using tonight is not a new approach. Anyone who has followed the events in recent years may recall that the Liberal government used the same heavy handed tactics to end the dispute with Canada Post last year. What has been the result? Sixteen months later it is not even negotiating with the postal workers. How is that for credibility?

While the union is still waiting for the negotiations to begin the government would have us believe that the current situation is all PSAC's fault. That simply is not true. The government's various stalling tactics have not helped the situation in any way. The current legislation will do nothing to help mend any relationship between the union and the government when they head back to the negotiating table.

Why does the government not have a long term policy that would allow the opponents to deal peacefully in these negotiations and would allow employers to deal peacefully with their employees to settle serious disputes? Why is there no means of third party mediation or arbitration? Why is the government not using these? Why is it bringing these issues to a conclusion through heavy handed legislation?

We should have known that the government would use last minute tactics to dissolve the current labour dispute. It is really not resolving it. It is sweeping it under the carpet, trying to hide it or get rid of it. The consequences are still there. We see it all the time in the House of Commons with the government's use of time allocation and closure.

Is it not interesting that less than six years after the government was elected to power this is the 50th time allocation or closure motion in the House of Commons. This is a dark anniversary. We have seen the Liberal government invoke censure of debate. Citizens of Canada elect their representatives to come to the House of Commons to represent them and then find that representation is not possible because of closure and time allocation.

Is it not interesting that one debate lasted 30 minutes before the vote after time allocation? This is the 50th time tonight. It is shameful and a total disregard for the democratic process. We oppose this restriction on our right as members to represent our constituents.

We oppose the government's last ditch ineffective approach to force legally striking workers back to work. We also acknowledge the overwhelming need for a resolution. This is the government's responsibility. It is the government's fault that it has come to the situation with which we are faced tonight.

I would like to make a couple of points about the legislation. Part I of the legislation, once assented to, comes into force 12 hours later. Once this occurs, this part of the bill will order all striking workers back to work and will prohibit any further strike activity so that government operations can resume.

What will this do to the morale of employees? They will not have a say and will be told to do it. The government is saying that it is not concerned about their needs and that their negotiations do not mean anything. Further, this part of the bill provides for the enforcement of these orders. Failure to comply with the provisions outlined in the bill will result in financial penalties of up to $10,000 a day.

Part II of the legislation covers basically the same provisions as part I. However, part II deals with the few correctional service officers who will shortly be in a legal strike position. They are not even in strike position but they are included in the legislation. This part of the legislation will not come into force unless it is proclaimed by order in council. Here we have cabinet taking over from the House of Commons once again.

Once again I voice my reluctant support of the bill. I am sorry to have to do so. We should have never been forced into this situation in the first place. The government has forced us into a position where there must be a resolution, but because of government intransigence and government lack of responsibility we are left with a much less than satisfactory means of settling the dispute on behalf of the nation.

The government should be condemned for its ill thought, heavy handed approach in forcing ends to disputes. However we need to keep in mind the need for important government operations. Government has become so big and has intruded so deeply into the lives of people that without these services Canadians suffer. We simply cannot cut them off. These services must be maintained.

As we do this on behalf of all Canadians, on behalf of grain workers and on behalf of taxpayers, I am sorry we have come to this position. I beg the government to think about what it is doing to our country as it so carelessly administers the affairs of the nation.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today social peace is in jeopardy.

Before making judgements on the situation, we might want to know what are the origins of the problem we are faced with today. We have Western farmers who want to move their produce, we have correctional officers who are negotiating improvements to their working conditions.

The government with surpluses in its coffers says it too wants to negotiate as stated by the spokesperson for the Treasury Board, who said on November 12 “We want to settle with the Public Service Alliance of Canada and ensure collective bargaining remains a key element of labour relations between the government and its employees”.

The government stated last November that it wanted to have good human relations, good labour relations with its employees. This must be translated into concrete actions.

The government implemented a reform of the labour code in 1967. It granted powers to its employees. It allowed them to be unionized, it gave them the right to negotiate work agreements. It granted them the right to refuse to work if they believed they were not getting the pay they deserved. This is called the right to strike.

When we give a right to workers, and at the same time the means to exercise this right, which is the least we can do, we have to expect that they will use every means at their disposal to get what they want.

If a union does not have the right to strike, how can it be heard? It is similar to the situation of Quebec, which has been putting demands before the federal government for 30 years but is still lacking the ultimate weapon it needs to be heard.

As soon as Quebeckers have expressed clearly their desire to achieve sovereignty, the federal government will have no choice but to sit at the table and negotiate.

We can see that the federal government, which has not yet yielded to this custom, refuses to negotiate, as it refuses to recognize the situation with Quebec.

There are 49% of Quebeckers who said “We have a human relations problem. We have an economic relations problem as well as a political relations problem with Canada. We should sit down to try and resolve these problems”. But the federal government says “There is no problem since 51% of Quebeckers say they want to stay with us. There is no problem. We do not need to listen to the mere 49% who say they want to separate”.

The federal government has the same attitude in the labour dispute we are facing today. There are only seven bargaining tables. Only two of those are causing problems at this time. It is not worth dealing with them. The government says it is dealing with them. It wants to crush the workers as quickly as possible to shut them up so life can go on and it is no longer bothered by these things. It will behave as if there never was a problem.

It will say “The problem has been resolved. You see, we just crushed them. We stomped on them. We stomped on them and now we can start afresh”.

But those people who have not had a negotiated agreement in seven or eight years, how do they feel today? There were given the right to strike, they were given the right to negotiate, but they cannot exercise that right. How does the government intend to deprive them of that right? Through special legislation.

A special bill on labour relations is like a notwithstanding clause in the Constitution. If Quebec—to name but one province—which has a notwithstanding clause, had used it for anything and everything, what would the federal government have said? It would have said “the notwithstanding clause is an exceptional tool which, ideally, should practically never be used. We should always manage to reach an agreement through discussion, through negotiation, before using this ultimate tool.

It is the same thing with labour relations. What happens when rights, and the means to exercise them, are given to a group, only to be removed later through special legislation?

The government has done that four times since 1971. Was it a life and death situation each time? Was it, on each of these occasions, the only means left? One only needs to look at the current situation to know. The other situations were no more serious.

It is true there are problems with the current situation. It is true that the two sides do not agree, but have all other means been tried? I say no because, at least at one of the bargaining tables, the union had accepted the majority conciliation report.

This being a minority report, drafted by an independent arbitrator, one of the solutions would have been to have the government say “We bow to the majority conciliation report, we accept the conditions, we sign”.

In the case of another table, the union, having been told by the government that its demands were exaggerated, and unreasonable, responded “We are prepared to take these demands before an impartial arbitrator. We are prepared to bow to the arbitrator's judgment as to whether our demands were really exaggerated and unreasonable”.

The government said no, because it feared the arbitrator could suddenly find it was in the wrong, and it could then no longer impose its philosophy, its way of thinking; it could no longer impose working conditions.

The government is acting as it does in all other areas. It assumes an arrogant stance, disdainful of the workers, of the smallest members of society, under the pretext that it is protecting the safety of Canadians.

Was the government concerned about the safety of Canadians when it picked their pockets to create an employment insurance surplus? Well in excess of 87% of PSAC members were among those affected. Hundreds of thousands, even millions, of ordinary workers had their pockets picked. I use that term advisedly, because they had no choice in the matter. There they were, and the government just helped itself.

Of course, this was probably for their own good. So much for their own good, that the government ended up with their worldly goods. It did not have anything to do with safety. At that time the government had no scruples.

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Beauce, QC]

It is always the fault of the federal government.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

My colleagues opposite would do well to be a little more attentive, and to consider what we are saying, because we are talking about the unreasonable things they are doing and they do not realize it because they are not listening. They rarely listen. They do not listen to the public, the unemployed, women, students and seasonal workers, who are saying “Stop, we are out of breath, we cannot go on”.

They are not listening to that. They are not listening this evening either, because they are afraid of hearing the truth. They are afraid of hearing people talking about real things. Each time we talk to them about it, they say any old thing to avoid listening. And this is what they are doing as I speak so they do not hear me. They are talking. They are trying to talk to me. I am certainly not going to listen to them this evening.

Special back to work legislation, I have experienced it in other lives, before I entered politics. I know what it means. I know what it means for the employer and for the employees as well.

In certain cases, 20 years later, the wounds are still there. They can be felt in society, in the family, in labour relations and I could even say in political terms.

It has always been possible to lead a horse to water, but it has never been possible to make it drink. While it is possible to use special legislation to force people to go back to work, by imposing thousands of dollars in fines to those who do not comply with the act, it is impossible to force them to put their heart into it. It is impossible to force them to work with zeal, to continue to work generously for their employer, to do a good job, to work with dedication, and to be respectful of their own responsibilities, including toward those to whom they must provide services as public servants.

We cannot force workers to do that because these are feelings. These are personal feelings. An employee is willing to behave in such a way if he feels his employer respects him and does not treat him like a number. An employee works hard if he knows he will be appreciated, if he knows his value will be recognized. Politicians across the floor should know what it means to get recognition, given all the millions they spend to ensure their visibility.

Why do we want visibility? To be recognized. But this is not only good for members of parliament. It is also good for employees who work with their heart, who work to provide for their families, including their children's education and future. This is why people work.

The salary is not an employee's first motivation. It is the employer's respect and the recognition of who we are, of our contribution. This is what respect from one's employer is all about.

Does the government expect to promote this kind of work atmosphere with a special bill? We would resign ourselves to such a measure if it were an exception, if we had been negotiating forever and if experience had taught us that there is really no way to reach an agreement, that we are in a cul-de-sac, that we are too far apart. Then we would have to accept resorting to special legislation, to an exceptional measure. However, this is not the case.

Since 1991, this exceptional measure has become the rule. It is the easy solution used to render workers powerless. Tomorrow morning, they will praise them in the House. At the first opportunity, a Liberal will jump up and make a member's statement saying that we have a wonderful public service and devoted public servants in Ottawa. There will be a ceremony next fall at which medals and awards will be handed out. The downside of that party is what is happening tonight.

I do not know what PSAC employees will be thinking at the next public service awards bash. I do not know how many of them will thank their employer. I do not know how many of them will comment on its kindness and sincerity in organizing an awards ceremony.

Can these people do this with any sincerity? To appear sincere, it is not enough to look the part. One must be sincere through and through, and that is harder to carry off because it involves actions and attitudes, not just words.

We should not be surprised that public service workers are frustrated and have taken the action they have. They believe in their demands. According to the our information, what they have asked for is similar to what has been offered in other job categories and, where there are differences, they are prepared to submit them to a neutral arbitrator.

If the government is truly sincere, it should also let an arbitrator decide. The problem will be sorted out. Employees will return to work tomorrow morning. Western farmers will be able to sell their wheat. Correctional services employees will be back on the job. Hospital workers at Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue who look after veterans will continue to do what they did before, and what they are still doing.

As evidenced by the information I obtained today, these people work conscientiously with patients and veterans who are hospitalized. They continue to provide services. They are doing their best to find other means of penalizing the employer without penalizing patients. This takes dedication, diligence and professionalism.

The government should be more grateful and should accept to go back to the bargaining table. I am not telling the government to start giving unions everything they ask for. That is not what a collective agreement is all about. That is not what bargaining is all about. Bargaining involves sitting down together and engaging in a process of give and take. But to do that, the parties must sit down face to face, discuss and determine what the demands are and what can reasonably be granted. To do that, one must also be able to listen.

The government ought to return to the bargaining table, listen to what the union has to say and then ask itself questions like: Is it in the national interest? Is it in the taxpayers' interest? Is it fostering social peace or is it continuing to refuse to give these workers a decent salary and decent working conditions while dipping into the pockets of taxpayers to accumulate huge surpluses?

I hope these thoughts will help government members take a more positive position before the night is through. Let us hope they do.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important debate. However, I think it has been some time since Canadians were advised of exactly what is happening.

Yesterday morning the government House leader took the initial steps to table in the House an appropriate motion that would lead us basically to back to work legislation. It is not as easy as simply tabling legislation, having a debate in the House, having a vote and dealing with the matter. Now we are having some procedural problems and I think it is worth reflecting on what is actually happening.

The debate started today and it is now 9 o'clock in the evening. We will be going until about 11 o'clock. However, we are not debating the legislation right now, as members know; we are debating whether we should limit the debate once we get there. I think that most Canadians watching will understand that they have heard a broad range of dialogue on a number of matters which are, quite frankly, unrelated to the issue before the House, which deals with what the government believes to be an urgent situation.

We have heard, for instance, an NDP member suggest that there has been, in her words, a little bit of a disruption for Canadians. That is probably the largest understatement of the facts. Now a Bloc member has risen to suggest that we go back to the table. There comes a point in time at which going back to the table does not work. We cannot make it work if the parties are not prepared to be at the table in good faith.

We are presently debating Motion No. 21, which is related to the government services act. The NDP and the Bloc Quebecois have strong union ties. They are here debating and arguing the union's position. They will be opposed to this legislation because of their strong union ties.

Reform Party members have also cautiously entered the debate today and have used it in a way to try to play both sides of the fence. However, they will be supporting this legislation tonight because they know that this is not a little bit of a disruption. Many of their constituents, the Canadian farmers, particularly the western Canadian grain farmers, are hurting, and they are hurting badly. There comes a point at which we have to act. That is why the Reform Party will be voting for this.

The legislation itself, Bill C-76, was tabled by the President of the Treasury Board yesterday, March 22. Basically it will impose an immediate return to work for some 14,000 operational group employees represented by the Public Service Alliance of Canada, known as PSAC.

The proposed legislation also seeks the authority to impose the terms and conditions of employment for these employees who are presently waging rotational strikes. Canadians will know what rotational strikes are. It is a common tactic of unions to disrupt services on a sporadic basis and in an unknown pattern. It is terribly disruptive, not just to those who are stricken by it, but also to those who at any point could find themselves being dealt with by the unions and the strikers.

I had important meetings with finance officials today and the finance building, just down the street from the Parliament Buildings, was totally sealed off. Federal employees of the federal finance department were unable to go to work today. They were unable to discharge their responsibilities.

Maybe Canadians are going to ask themselves whether this is constructive in dealing with labour relations matters, whether being at the table is better than being in front of some building stopping people from doing their job. It happens all the time. I think Canadians are probably getting a little fatigued at what the NDP might call a little bit of a disruption, which translates into a major disruption of virtually every facet of government business.

This does not only affect government. It also affects Canadians who have filed their tax returns and are waiting for refund cheques, and grain farmers who are losing millions of dollars each and every day because their grain cannot be moved.

These are not little disruptions. These are major disruptions in the economy and in the operations of Canada. It also seriously affects the small businesses which employ a tremendous number of Canadians. I want to emphasize that these are not little disruptions.

Canadians should know that for almost two years we have been negotiating this collective agreement. It is not something that has just started and, as the Bloc member would suggest, we should get back to the table. An awful lot of work has already been undertaken. Every reasonable option has been exercised to try to get a settlement in these rotating strikes.

However, it has not worked and there comes a point at which a responsible government has to say that it will not let Canadians be held hostage any longer on these matters and that it must act, which is exactly what is happening. Canadians should feel confident that the government is taking the best possible route to bring an end to this disruption to so many aspects of Canadian life by getting people back to work. That is what is important.

The President of the Treasury Board has said in the House on a number of occasions recently that the cost to our economy is millions and millions of dollars each and every day. The proposed legislation that the minister tabled yesterday is the last possible resort. The government's position is that this is the last possible resort. There is nothing else we could possibly do to end this situation without bringing in back to work legislation.

What are we talking about in terms of the urgency to deal with the strike? The government is of the view that it cannot allow any further disruptions in services, which inconvenience Canadians, especially when their safety and security could be at risk. There are actually safety and security issues on the table. We cannot tolerate any further impact on the Canadian economy and on our businesses. Real economic disadvantages to Canadian businesses are being affected by these rotating strikes.

We cannot afford to lose the revenues from operations for which we are accountable to the Canadian taxpayer. It is a responsibility of the government to be responsible to the taxpayer, to manage the affairs with which it is charged. The only way we can do our job at this point is to deal with this legislation.

Strikers do not have the right to impede the work of other employees providing services to Canadians. I believe this is a principle which has not been respected in this matter which we have been dealing with. The unions have not respected Canadians' rights to continue to operate their businesses and to provide services.

In western Canada the stoppage of the grain shipments has affected farmers and the business community. It has raised concern among our international customers about the reliability of grain deliveries. This is very, very important. Canada has contracts and agreements which it must meet. There are going to be consequences if we are unable to meet our contractual obligations because of these disruptions. There comes a point at which we cannot wait. That is why this legislation is a last resort.

The grain shipments at the port of Vancouver alone are worth $60 million per week. The cost keeps mounting every day the system is shut down by the striking workers. That is a lot of money and a lot of people are affected. Canadians have to know that.

Travellers are also being affected by the strike activity at airports across the country. I do not think I have to remind Canadians of the kinds of disruptions we have experienced at airports from time to time because of strikes. Why is it that Canadians so often are held hostage at the worst possible times? When are we going to have good faith bargaining so that collective bargaining can work? Does it work? It appears not when the Government of Canada has to come forward with back to work legislation. I think there has to be better faith shown by the bargaining units on this matter.

The strikes have also been causing some difficulty in our ability to collect taxes such as the GST. There have been delays, particularly with respect to reimbursements to taxpayers. Taxpayers get a significant amount of reimbursements, such as GST rebates. There are a number of taxpayers who are presently waiting for their income tax returns. As a chartered accountant I always tell my clients to file early if they are getting a refund because they will get a prompt refund.

The Minister of National Revenue stood two days ago, and I think even yesterday, and had to admit to the House that because of these strikes about 1.2 million Canadian tax returns have not been processed. They are behind. I suspect that of those 1.2 million about one million are owed refunds, which those people need. Because of these strikers, Canadians who need their tax refunds are not going to get them when they need them. Canadians are not going to get their refunds and that is not fair. It is not fair to hold Canadians hostage.

The operations of some departments have been severely impacted by the strike activity. They include, as we have heard many times today, national defence, the coast guard, Public Works and Government Services Canada.

With regard to the legislation, a proposal has been tabled asking parliament to authorize the government to impose an immediate return to work of some 14,000 workers represented by PSAC. The legislation also seeks the authority to impose terms and conditions of employment for these workers who have been waging these rotational strikes across the country for the past two months.

The proposed legislation allows the government to implement—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to communicate my views as a member of parliament. I respectfully listened to the NDP member speak in the House and now the NDP member is trying to disrupt again. I understand that the NDP member has a different point of view, but I respect her opinion to have a different point of view and I wish she would show the same respect to me.

To continue, the proposed legislation seeks the authority to impose terms and conditions of employment for the workers who have been waging these rotational strikes across the country for the past couple of months.

The legislation also allows the government to implement, if necessary, a collective agreement for some 4,500 correctional officers if their talks with PSAC break down. The government must fulfil its obligations to maintain the safety and security not only of the correctional institutions but of Canadians as well. There are safety considerations and the security of Canadians is at risk because of the rotating strikes.

The government's proposed legislation is presented to this place in fact as an action of last resort. Canadians must understand that every reasonable effort has been made. To demonstrate, I have here a document which shows the chronology of the negotiations that have been ongoing.

Canadians should know that this started back on October 17, 1996. On October 17, 1996 the parties signed a memorandum of understanding establishing the table structure for negotiations with PSAC. That is how long ago this started. We can look down the list at the various significant events that have occurred since October 1996. On March 12, 1999 the talks ended without reaching a settlement. They could not reach a settlement. At that point government had to act.

It has now become not just a collective bargaining issue, it has become an issue for all Canadians. All Canadians are now involved. All Canadians are impacted. The member who is heckling will understand that very well. She will understand it from her constituents who are going to call her and share with her some of the disruption in their lives as a result of the bad faith bargaining that has gone on.

With regard to the status, and I think this is also a very important aspect, the government's preferred option in these matters has always been a negotiated settlement. We have seen that before. I know that when we had the mail disruption the former labour minister continued to defend the collective bargaining process. Time after time the government has said that we must let the collective bargaining process run its course, that we have to respect it. And we did. But there came a point at which Canadians were involved and the impacts on them were such that the government had to act. And it did.

We respected the process and the same occurs here. It is the same situation. The situation is that Canadians have now been drawn into this in ways which were never intended. The collective bargaining process has now invaded the living rooms of Canadians. They have taken Canadians hostage by their actions. This has to stop. This is why the government has to be responsible in these matters, to respect the collective bargaining process, but also to respect the needs of Canadians, of Canadian small business, of grain farmers, of ordinary Canadians. They are who we have to protect.

Canadians will be interested to know that agreements have been reached with 87% of the unionized workforce, including more than 100,000 PSAC members. Significant progress has been made but until we get the rest of the union representatives on side, we cannot move forward. This thing is dead because the process is being held up by 13%.

Canadians are being held hostage by 13% of the PSAC members. This is absurd. This is why the government has to act responsibly and do the right thing by getting this legislation through the House. That is the job we were elected to do and it is the job we are going to do. Canadians should be assured of that.

The employer has also made concessions. Canadians should know that this is not a one way street. We do not dictate each and every thing. We act in good faith. Here is the good faith.

The government has accepted to reduce the number of regional pay zones by 30% for these workers. This is a very significant concession. In addition, wage increases of 2.75% in the first year and 2% in the second year have been offered. These increases are consistent with those already accepted by other public service employees. It is fair. It is equitable. It is acting in a responsible fashion on behalf of all Canadians, including those involved in the collective bargaining process.

With what has gone on today and in hearing this debate, members of parliament, all of whom have responsibilities not only in this place but in their ridings and also to their families, are going to be here tonight until about 11 p.m. at which time this segment of the debate on Motion No. 21 will be completed with a vote on it.

Then we are going to start the process of debating the actual piece of back to work legislation. After going through all of the stages of the bill in one sitting, if we are lucky sometime between 4 and 5 in the morning we will vote on the legislation and it will pass. I do not want Canadians to worry about staying up to see whether it will pass. It is going to pass. Before the rooster crows tomorrow, this bill will be law. Canadians will be back to work and small businesses will be taken care of.

It is too bad. Today is March 23, my daughter's 17th birthday. I would like nothing more than to spend a little bit of time with my daughter but I am here doing my job like all of these other members. Members will be tied up in this place until 4 a.m. or 5 a.m. because the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP have decided that their links and their responsibilities are to represent the union position only, rather than the position of Canadians and their constituents to do what is fair, to do what is right and to do what is right on behalf of Canadians. That is what is important.

We are here doing our job. Canadians will understand. They will hear some things. The Liberals are not going to be talking too much on this because the important thing is that we have to move forward on this legislation. We are not going to take advantage of the time of the House, of all the pages and all the people who are here keeping this place running. We want to get this legislation dealt with in a fair and democratic manner, which is our job in this place, and we will.

I thank the member from the NDP who has heckled me throughout my speech. I feel invigorated that I did not miss any of the points I wanted to make. I hope the member will get some sleep tonight because tomorrow is another day.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with some regret to speak on Motion No. 21.

I accept the premise of the government that the Treasury Board has painted itself into a corner from which it cannot extricate itself by any means other than back to work legislation. Because we are dealing with an emergency situation, I will support the government's initiative in this respect tomorrow morning when it becomes necessary but it will not be with any degree of happiness because this was not necessary. It never should have gone this far. There is no reason that it should be this way.

The hon. member obviously did not hear my speech last night because he says I changed my mind. I have often noticed that members of his party get confused.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

If the member will shut his big mouth for 10 seconds, I will repeat what I said last night. I said that the government's move to take in 14,000 workers who were in no way affected or in no way involved in the strike which is tying up the ports was a Machiavellian move, and I will stick by that. I did not say that I did not support back to work legislation. I hope the hon. member has that straight in his head now.

This is an emergency. It is an emergency on the prairies in particular. The livelihoods of thousands of people on the prairies, including farmers, truckers, elevator operators and railroaders, are on the line. PSAC made a strategic decision to target the grain terminals because it knew that was the tender spot. That was the most vulnerable target it could hit and it decided to go for broke. Now we are going to see the results of that.

Contrary to what my friends in the NDP might say, there is truly an emergency. This is not a joke. This is very serious. We have to do something about it. A grain train has not left the prairies for over a week. People are in a very bad state. The trains are not moving and we are getting into the season when road bans are beginning to go on. People will not be able to move their grain to the trains. Something has to be done. Because of the government's ineptitude, the only thing that can be done at this point is back to work legislation.

We have been having these problems for 30 years. There is nothing new under the sun. The grain movement in this country has been constantly victimized by labour disputes. It never seems to end.

Not too many years ago this government said that it was going to solve the problem and it brought in its wonderful Bill C-19. The only problem with Bill C-19 is that whoever drafted it was asleep. We tried to point out when the bill was being presented to the House that there were holes in it, that we cannot protect an entire system by forcing certain segments of the industry to perform. There will always be somebody left on the outside who can tie it up.

In this case it was the grain weighers in PSAC. Treasury Board has mismanaged negotiations with these people. Because the government has removed the right of arbitration for PSAC, we now have this situation in western Canada where we are being held hostage by a tiny little group of 70 workers. To deal with a 70 worker nuisance, the government has decided to burn the house down. It has brought in this legislation that will affect 14,000 people. This is indefensible. It is Machiavellian.

When a house is burning, and it is burning right now, the first thing that has to be done is to put the fire out. Then there has to be somebody watching to see that it does not flare up again. After the fire has been fully and properly quenched, then the necessary steps are taken to see that it is not going to happen again, that it is not going to restart.

In this case a very obvious solution would be to provide final offer selection arbitration. This is a solution we have been advocating in this House for three or four years. It is a solution that has been widely used. It works. The government is certainly not unfamiliar with the mechanism. It has used it. It is my understanding that in this particular instance PSAC would agree to it. It would accept final offer binding arbitration. The only people who do not care about arbitration and fairness are the members over there because it is not in their interests.

The government has boxed itself in and 14,000 workers are affected. Not all of them are even on strike. It is suspected they might go on strike. Since these folks are too lazy to be here over the Easter break, they have decided to legislate them back to work before they even hit the bricks to save time and energy.

The government also seems to think that some prison guards might walk out during the Easter break. It does not know that, but if I may use the word strike in a different connotation the government has decided to have a pre-emptive strike.

The government claims that Revenue Canada has a backlog of more than a million tax returns but PSAC flatly denies it. It says it is actually a little ahead of the average production compared with previous years. Somebody, whether it is the President of the Treasury Board or the leader of PSAC, is not telling the truth. I am not about to try to guess which one it is, but somebody is giving us the gears. That is a rather important consideration.

It is not surprising to me that the government introduced legislation that will affect 14,000 people in order to get 70 people back to work, which could have been done with a very simple targeted act. This is the same government that passed pre-emptive legislation against three or four million Canadian gun owners not too long ago in order to deal with a couple of hundred criminals who might have used guns. This is typical Liberal attitude: get them in the throat before they have a chance.

Many members want to address this question tonight. I will be addressing it again when we get to committee of the whole. With that I will let it go for now. I have made my position abundantly clear.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with a sense of deep sadness and anger that I rise in this House this evening to oppose this motion and this unjust and unfair legislation.

The government knows full well that the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois would never let such an anti-democratic bill be passed without putting up quite a fight. Therefore the Liberals used their majority in the House to limit debate. Make no mistake: this is an affront to democracy.

Usually back to work legislation contains a clause providing for binding arbitration as a way to settle disputes. But in this case, instead of arbitration, the legislation imposes on workers a collective agreement of the government's making. It also applies to federal prison guards, who are not even on strike. This is incredible and truly unfair.

This bill undermines the democratic rights of Canadian workers. We in the NDP oppose this unjust legislation.

I turned on the television news last night and witnessed with absolute astonishment in a rare moment of joy the Reform member who has just spoken in the House, the member for Cyprus Hills—Grasslands, saying that the Reform Party would stand up for workers and would oppose this Liberal legislation. He was huffing and puffing and saying that the Reform Party is here to speak on behalf of public servants.

I did my best. I could not believe it. This is the same Reform Party that has been so blatantly anti-worker from the time it first came to Parliament Hill. This is the Reform Party that spoke out in favour of right to work legislation, that slammed the labour movement and so on. Suddenly that articulate, loud mouthed little member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands is defending workers. It was incredible. It was too good to be true. Guess what happened today. We found that the Reform Party was in bed with the Liberal Party once again.

I say shame on the Reform Party. Shame on the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands. When Reformers had a chance to stand up for workers they caved in. Who will they vote with tonight? They will vote with the Liberals. They will vote against workers. They will vote against farmers. They are voting against some of the poorest paid public servants in the country.

Let us look at Canada's obligations under international law. Canada has signed a number of major international conventions with the International Labour Organization, the ILO, that oblige us to bargain collectively.

We have signed conventions that oblige us to respect the rights of Canadian and Quebec workers.

Last year Canada commemorated the 50th anniversary of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights. This legislation and this motion make an absolute mockery of Canada's international obligations under the ILO and under United Nations conventions.

Let us be clear. This is not the first time the Liberal government has shown contempt for our international obligations. Just a few months ago the United Nations committee on economic social and cultural rights pointed out in very harsh language, strong language, powerful language, that the government was not respecting the rights of poor people, homeless people and jobless people in Canada, and that the international covenant we signed on economic, social and cultural rights was being ignored by the government.

The government is ignoring our international obligations as it has done on more than one occasion under the International Labour Organization. It is not just doing that. We in Canada have a charter of rights that Canadians collectively adopted. I had the privilege of being a member of the committee which drafted that charter of rights and passed it with great fanfare. One of its basic rights is freedom of association. Those freedoms, those basic rights, those fundamental freedoms that all Canadians take for granted have once again been totally overridden in legislation.

We look at war veterans who fought hard for these rights and these freedoms. We look at merchant seamen who fought long and hard for these freedoms, who worked long and hard for these freedoms under very difficult circumstances. The legislation makes a mockery both of our international obligations under the ILO and of our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

A number of my colleagues have spoken very eloquently in opposition not only to this draconian closure motion but to the legislation itself. Again I pay tribute to my colleague from Winnipeg Centre who has led the fight on the legislation from the beginning. He is out of the labour movement himself. He knows firsthand the importance of respect for not only collective bargaining but for the basic freedom of association.

My colleague from Winnipeg Centre; my other colleague, the member for Churchill, who will be speaking to the legislation; and others have pointed out many of its very serious flaws. One of its most outrageous flaws is the fact that we have back to work legislation applying to correctional officers who have not even walked off the job, who are not even on strike yet. They are being sent back to work without any terms in writing. It is absolutely unbelievable and unprecedented.

Let me be very clear. For almost 10 years I had the privilege of sitting on the justice committee of the House of Commons. I travelled to many prisons in the country and met personally with correctional officers and prison guards. The working conditions of these prison guards are disgraceful. In many cases they are overworked and underpaid. The value of their work is not recognized through decent pensions. In many cases they face very dangerous and intolerable working conditions.

The government is treating these dedicated and hard working employees with absolute contempt. We in the New Democratic Party say shame on the Liberal government for its treatment of correctional officers.

Let us look at the working conditions of those who have been on strike. We are talking about some 14,500 members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. In my own province of British Columbia how many are we talking about? The largest group of these employees is at Esquimalt in Victoria. In Vancouver the largest group is at the grain commission. A significant number of these workers in British Columbia are those who work at Rogers Pass, at Glacier and at Mount Revelstoke National Park mainly doing highway maintenance. They also have folks who work in stores at Revenue Canada and other departments.

These are not fat cats. These are not people who are being paid excessive wages. These are hard working blue collar workers whose wages have been frozen for seven long years and who have not had a negotiated collective agreement for some fifteen years. All they are asking for is fairness, justice and collective bargaining, and the government says no to all of that.

The member who just spoke talked about grain commission workers. Grain commission workers were behaving very responsibly for most of the last eight weeks. They were going to work. They were not putting up any picket lines. However, when the elevators started applying for exemptions so that the grain would not have to be weighed they started picketing. By the way, they only picketed those elevators that had applied for exemptions. The ones that did not were not picketed.

I have personally spoken with the president of the Grain Workers Union, Ron Burton, who is one of my constituents. It took a responsible approach and is again treated with absolute contempt by the government.

These workers are particularly upset to hear the President of the Treasury Board saying that their wage demands are excessive. in his words. These workers point out that senior managers got increases of something like 17% to 25%. Members of parliament even got increases greater than what they were demanding.

I say on behalf of these workers that it is absolutely nonsensical to suggest that these increases were in any way excessive. Let us just take a moment to look at what was actually on the table when the talks broke down. When the talks broke down on March 12, about 10 or 11 days ago, the union's position on the table was 2%, 2.75% and 2% with a 30 cent sweetener in the last two years. That is not even catch up money. That does not even catch them up to seven long years with no increase whatsoever.

The government and the union were not that far apart. I think it was a little over 3% or 3.1% that they were apart or around $8 million between the two. Let us take a look at that figure for a minute. Eight million dollars would have ensured that farmers were able to get their grain through. Eight million dollars would have ensured that some of the lowest paid federal public servants would have been treated with dignity and respect.

The government has brought forward the hammer of closure and is imposing a collective agreement all for $8 million. I say shame when in fact one contract alone that was lost for a week was worth over $9 million. It makes no sense whatsoever.

These are hard working employees. I have spoken with a number of them in my constituency office. They have talked about some of the difficulties they face like any Canadian in a situation such as this. They have mortgages to pay, families to look after and kids they are putting through post-secondary education so they will get a decent education in the future. This Liberal government treats them with nothing but disrespect and contempt for the collective bargaining process.

I think it is important to point out as well, as my colleague from Winnipeg Centre noted in his remarks, that with massive cuts that have been taking place in the federal public service with this Liberal agenda, deregulation, privatization, fighting back against any progressive labour education, we have the same number of workers who are being called on to do more and more work. A heavier and heavier burden is being borne by these workers. There is a much greater stress and strain in the current workplace. Yet they are told forget it, and seven years without any decent increase whatsoever.

That is not the only way in which federal public servants are being hammered by the Liberal government. The fact is in a number of different areas the government has shown how little respect it has for its public servants. Women in the federal public service are still waiting for pay equity. The government continues to fight against equal pay for work of equal value.

It is totally unfair that women working in the public service still have to fight today for fundamental rights to justice and pay equity.

We know as well the government is anticipating a major public service pension grab, something like $30 billion in federal public service pensions and the government wants to get its hands on that. Instead of treating its employees with respect, what does it do? It tries to grab public service pension money.

This legislation has been thrown together in such a short time that in many respects there are some very serious drafting flaws in it. The new territory of Nunavut has been left out entirely from the legislation, completely ignored. In defining workers under the terms of the proposed collective agreement I note that the definition of common law spouse in English actually does reflect the collective bargaining position that was achieved through other public service negotiations and recognizes that common law spouse includes gay and lesbian partners.

However, in the French version of the text, “conjoint de fait”, or common law spouse, is defined as follows:

Il existe des liens de conjoint de fait lorsque, pendant une période continue d'au moins une année, un employé a cohabité avec une personne du sexe opposé et l'a présentée publiquement comme son conjoint et continue à vivre avec cette personne comme si elle était son conjoint.

We have a French version that denies the fundamental rights of same sex spouses, while the English version reads as follows:

Common law spouse includes those relationships. Mr. Speaker, I know that you have certainly taken an interest in this issue, recognition of same sex relationships and common law spouses, and I know you will be as concerned as I am with respect to this disparity in the recognition of the two statutes.

Certainly we will be seeking clarification of this issue during the debate in committee of whole. I have spoken already with the President of the Treasury Board and with the government House leader. They have both indicated that it is the intention of the government to recognize same sex relationships for purposes of these collective agreements, but I hope that will be clarified during the course of debate in committee of the whole.

While I am on this subject, it is also important that the relationships of gay and lesbian people be recognized under the public service pension legislation as well. We are still waiting for the government to move forward to amend that legislation which will hopefully come forward in the very near future.

I want to note as well the issue of correctional service members, those I talked about earlier who are covered by this legislation. These are the public service alliance members represented by the table 4 negotiating team. They went into a third party conciliation process.

There was a conciliation board report released on March 19. These workers accepted the recommendation of the conciliation board. They were prepared to accept that and live with that even though it represented a significant compromise on their behalf. They said they were prepared to accept that. Treasury Board walked away from the table and refused to sign that agreement. So much for that. So much for fairness to correctional service workers. It was a very different Liberal Party back in 1991.

[Lou Sekora, Liberal, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

I wonder if Clark pays for his jet.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

The loud mouth member from Coquitlam was not here then. I remember when other Liberals were here in 1991 and the position they took when the Conservatives were in government. The Liberals at that time stood up for the public service. They were prepared to defend the public service.

They were there with the public service, but now what are they doing? Absolutely nothing. They are imposing upon these same workers totally unacceptable working conditions.

Let me once again appeal to the government to recognize that these 14,545 members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada at the table 2 negotiations and the some 600 correctional service workers at the table 4 negotiating team deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. Instead, this government is using the jackhammer of closure to ram this legislation through the House.

We in the New Democratic Party will do everything we can to oppose this legislation and support these workers everywhere in Canada. This legislation, this motion is an affront to democracy.

This is an assault on our international obligations. This is an assault on freedom of association. I say shame on the Liberal government for betraying the workers of the public service of Canada.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I take no pleasure in rising today to speak to Motion No. 21 by the government house leader, introducing the President of Treasury Board's Bill C-76.

I would like to begin by pointing out that the result of the motion in question, which has been debated since around 11 o'clock this morning, and will be voted on later tonight, is that we are discussing this bill within a closure motion. This means that the government has restricted the time of debate, thus preventing all members of this House from voicing their concerns about this bill.

This way of proceeding is far from exceptional. It has become a habit with this government. It crops up as soon as there is any opposition to steps taken by this government. By refusing to allow the House to debate freely, by restricting debate, the government is denying the role the House must play in the legislative process.

This closure motion on the motion by the Government Leader is the 50th time this government has gagged the opposition members. It is an unfortunate reality that this is the 50th time the government of that little guy from Shawinagan has taken the House hostage by preventing it from debating.

Once again, this is a blatant denial of parliamentary democracy. It is not surprising that more and more people are questioning the real power MPs have in this House. By acting this way, the government shows it uses Parliament as it pleases, setting aside the usual rules of debate and preventing members from doing their job properly. It is with the same kind of logic that the President of the Treasury Board introduced Bill C-76.

This bill entitled an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of government services is special back to work legislation affecting two categories of workers, namely those in the operational services group, the federal government's blue collar workers, also known as table 2, and corrections officers, also known as table 4.

With this bill, not only does the government want to force the hand of the unions involved, but it also wants to set the rules and impose working conditions without negotiating in good faith.

This lack of good faith is nothing new; negotiations between the two parties have been dragging on for too long. The federal government's blue collar workers have been without a collective agreement for about two years and their salaries have been frozen for six years. The same goes for corrections officers.

And yet, these workers, like so many others, have done their share to help the Minister of Finance table a balanced budget. Like the unemployed, they helped eliminate the deficit. Unfortunately, these workers do not seem to deserve the generosity of the government, which prefers to invade provincial jurisdictions with their money.

It is interesting to illustrate the bad faith of the employer in the case of the blue collar workers, the famous table 2. At the start, the federal government offered them a 2.75% increase. It changed its mind however. Figuring that the offer was too generous, it reduced its offer to 2.5% for the first year in this bill.

In the negotiations over the past two years, it is understandable that table 2 union members had no hesitation using their right to strike, which they had obtained on December 16, 1998. So, in a perfectly legal context, the union is exercising its means of pressure by holding rotating strikes across the country since January 18.

That is permitted under the rules of bargaining. According to the government, the union's demands are unreasonable. If that is true, why is the government refusing arbitration in order to establish the merits of these demands? A party outside the two bargaining parties could decide on the merits of the union demands.

The reason is very simple, and the problem is a big one. The fact is that, as of February 15, the government, in its infinite wisdom decided to suspend the binding arbitration provided under the Public Service Staff Relations Act until 2001.

The attitude of the government leaves workers no option but to strike. The special legislation, in addition to denying the blue collar workers means of pressure will impose a collective agreement. How ironic, given that the expression “collective agreement” means an agreement between employees and employers governing working conditions.

The government could have resolved this dispute by negotiating in good faith, but it preferred to drag its heels and in the end impose its views and upset the balance between the parties. Naturally, it is easier to be both judge and judged. Under the false pretence of protecting the economy, the President of the Treasury Board is taking federal public servants hostage.

If we are to believe the government, the die is cast and this legislation is the final recourse. Yet, surprisingly, federal blue collar workers are not on a general strike. As for correctional officers, they committed the irreparable error of announcing their intention to use pressure tactics.

And yes, that is right, table 4 workers are not even on strike. They will be in a strike position on March 26. The government will force them to return to work when they have not even gone out, and will impose a collective agreement despite the fact that the union approved a majority conciliation report.

This is another edifying example of negotiation. In effect, the government is telling these workers to accept the offers it is making or have working conditions imposed through special legislation.

One wonders whether this government is aware of the working atmosphere it will be helping to create with such tactics. Respect for the principle of bargaining in good faith is a far better alternative than unilaterally imposing working conditions.

When a union applies pressure, it is true that the public can be inconvenienced. But the public is smart; it too understands that these workers are not getting their fair share. The government could end this situation by simply negotiating in good faith.

We demand that the government withdraw this undemocratic bill and get back to the bargaining table, this time with the intention of negotiating in earnest. Thus Quebeckers and Canadians will receive the services they are entitled to, and government employees will be able to provide these services under good working conditions negotiated between two partners respectful of each other.

It is obvious to me that beating workers into submission with back to work legislation will have very real consequences. We might see the labour climate degenerate without necessarily ensuring that services to the public are provided adequately.

This is not the first time that the government, with the little guy from Shawinigan and the President of the Treasury Board at its head, has raised arms against workers.

Let us mention among others that this same government is refusing to abide by the ruling on pay equity, which involves mainly women. Similarly, it is refusing to discuss the issue of orphan clauses which discriminate against young people, it is refusing to include antiscab provisions in the Canada Labour Code, while such a measure has proven to be very effective in Quebec. Let us remember the back to work legislation regarding postal services.

I could go on for ever. I have the feeling people opposite are listening, this is extraordinary. The examples of unfair action on the part of this government are increasing. One thing remains constant though: when it comes to depriving workers of their most fundamental rights, the government acts like grease lightning.

We should also point out that the right to negotiate has been abrogated for 8 of the last 15 years, and for 11 of those years, ships' crews and hospital personnel have worked under a non-negotiated regime imposed by the federal government.

There have been many such laws pushed through by both Conservative and Liberal governments in this House. 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. With Bill C-29 in October 1991, the employer threatened unilateral imposition of its offer if it was not accepted.

It is noteworthy that the Labour Relations Board characterized this latter approach to negotiations as unethical. It is curious that the portion of Bill C-76 that applies to correction services officers smacks of the same thing.

In 1992, we had Bill C-113, which imposed a wage freeze for two years, as well as working conditions. In 1993, Bill C-101 entitled the government to require unions to vote on offers. In 1994, Bill C-17 imposed two more years of salary freeze. Enough is enough.

Bill C-76 clearly demonstrates that the Liberal government denies its employees' and all unionized workers' right to negotiate. Since the right to negotiate of necessity goes along with the right to strike if negotiations reach an impasse, what the government is in fact also denying is the right to strike.

This is a striking conclusion to reach in a democratic society where the right to strike is an integral part of the right of association. In the case of the federal blue collar workers, the government is refusing binding arbitration and is preparing to pass back to work legislation which imposes a collective agreement, if one dares to call it that.

For these employees and their union, this is a dead end. It is in fact the denial of their freedom of association—after a six year salary freeze.

The only solution is for the government to bargain in good faith. These negotiations have been going on for two years, without an agreement. The blue collar workers have been using pressure tactics, rotating strikes, since January 18, about two months. It is now up to the government to show its good faith. It is high time indeed the government, which dragged its feet at the bargaining table, got down to serious business.

Georges Clémenceau, the great French statesman, said—listen carefully, this is a real eye opener—and I quote “Parliament is the greatest organization we ever invented for committing political errors, which have the great advantage of being reparable, whenever the country wants to repair them”.

There is a lot of wisdom in this quote from Clémenceau. It is not too late to prevent the occurrence of the political error the government is preparing to vote on. The conciliation report approved by the workers at table 4 need only be implemented and the arbitration involving workers at table 2 requires approval only. In choosing instead to suspend the sword of Damocles over the head of his employees, the President of the Treasury Board will clearly prove the claim of Machiavelli “Politics has nothing to do with morals”.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to enter into the debate today. In the event that members present or individuals watching on CPAC are not aware of what is happening, we are debating whether we should press a bill through in one day. It is called closure. It is called “Let's not debate the issue, let's just do it.” Of course that brings us to a real solid dilemma.

There are a lot of people in Canada whose futures depend on what is happening here. There are some people whose futures will only be marginally affected and there are others who will be affected in a major way.

I was just trying to think of some sort of analogy. Why did we get into this? It was a little over a year ago that we had a problem at Christmastime when the post office workers were no longer willing to work without a contract because their contract had expired. They went on strike.

It was not long before the government decided that it was time to take action, and it did. It brought in legislation and very quickly we, collectively in this House, legislated them back to work, even though they did not then have a contract and, incredibly, still do not. It is 16 months later and we still do not have a solution.

What do we do when there is a collision of interests?

I really have a soft spot in my heart for the farmers who are facing such a financial crunch these days. This has been such a tremendously difficult year for them. They are facing the next year with great trepidation. There are a lot of farmers who just simply do not have the cash flow to keep on farming. When that happens, not only can they not keep their farms going, the value of those farms really goes down because of the whole situation in the agriculture scene. What they have worked for all of their lives, and in some instances for more than one generation, is at risk. Their land and their farming operations are at risk.

Of course farmers have to put up with so many variables. They have the weather. They have the prices of grain. They have all of these different kinds of issues that affect their—

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am wondering about the matter of relevance in this case, because I thought the member was speaking against the bill and it strikes me that he is speaking in favour of it. Is the line of reasoning that he is following relevant?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In the opinion of the Chair, the hon. member for Elk Island was not only relevant, but cogent.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At this time of the night I need that kind of affirmation. Had I known I was going to be here at ten minutes after ten debating this tonight I would not have worked until twenty after one this morning.

This is a very important issue. We are talking about cash flow for farmers. We are talking about the delivery of grain. We are talking about the sale of grain which brings their income. These are the farmers who, as I was saying when I was so kindly interrupted, are at large risk because they do not have the cash flow to sustain their operations.

I do not know whether there are many members in the House who have had that experience. I have. I grew up on a farm. My father bought it. It was really tough in the 1930s when he got into farming. There were a number of years when he had no income, and if it was not for the fact that we kids did not eat very much I think he would have gone bankrupt. We saved him, and hon. members can see that later on we made up for it. It is certainly true that it is very, very tough to be a farmer.

These farmers are now facing the cost of putting in their crops for the coming year. They just had notice that the cost of fuel is going up substantially. They have all sorts of crunches, and at the same time we have a small group of people who, because of this government's failure to reach a contract with them, feel that they are forced or obligated to hold rotating strikes to press their particular issue. This is so unfortunate. It comes at such a bad time.

As a matter of fact, I do not think there ever is a good time for a strike or a labour conflict. It really is better if we can work together, bargain in good faith, come to agreements and motor on.

About 20 years ago a friend and I had a little business. It happened to be a dairy business. We had about 50 cows, or a little more, and we milked them morning and night, seven days a week. We never took Christmas Day or Easter off because when one has a dairy operation it demands one's attention every day, without fail. Whether one is sick or not, it does not matter; one has to look after the cows or they will not maintain their health. They need to be milked every day.

What happened? There was a strike at the dairy which picked up our milk. Suddenly, just like that, the truck did not come to empty our big chrome-plated tank of milk every day. We ended up putting 5,000 gallons of milk down the drain every other day. We lost our income and we really had a tough time. It set us back fantastically. It was simply because they did not have an agreement. It was a tremendous hit for us.

We have an obligation to each other. Often we hear in the House, particularly from the Liberals that we are such a compassionate society. I agree. We need to work very hard and care for and look after each other. There are times when we are in conflict. Sometimes our rights conflict and collide with the rights of others and desperately so.

I know it is essentially impossible to reach but there should be times when labour unions and others say, “We know we are entitled to this but we cannot let these other people down and put them at risk to that extent”. I think that is a breakdown. Right now I am putting the blame on the unions but I am also putting the blame on the employer, in this case the Government of Canada.

I had a great meeting with one of the PSAC members last Saturday. I am told it is their opinion that the government has not bargained in good faith. They have some requests, some demands, some positions they want in their new contract and the government is just saying nyet. The government is refusing. By the way, for the translator who needs to put it into English, nyet is Russian. The government is saying it will not do it.

The union wants to have the same salary for the different classifications across Canada or at least some move toward that. That does not seem to be terribly unreasonable to me. As the hon. member opposite has said, the government did move partially toward that. Perhaps it is part of a process. Maybe the unions should be a little more patient and say that it got a little bit this time and next time it will get a little more.

It is a required process. We need to consider what our actions mean to others. This Liberal government has to think of what this action means. It has already talked about the implications for thousands of Canadians who are waiting for their income tax refunds. The government needs to think very hard about what this means to the prairie grain farmers. We have emphasized it so much in the last four or five months. It has been a tremendously difficult crunch for them.

There is an attachment to the land. When one farms the same property, as my family has done now for over 60 years, one gets very close to the soil. I often think that I can empathize with the natives of our country who identify with the land. Some of us come to this part of the country, we cover it with concrete and asphalt and we do not get close to the land.

My dad is 87 years old and he still gets excited every time the harvest comes off. He still goes out every day to the farm during seeding and harvesting to see how the boys are doing and what is going on. He would love to drive the tractor but unfortunately with the huge equipment nowadays that is not always possible because it takes considerable skill. He has a great interest in this. It is devastating to families, to people like my brother and my dad, to even contemplate that their business operation is so threatened that they may lose what is theirs and what they have worked for, for now into the third generation.

I want to share an experience I had. I have indicated many times in the House that I worked as a mathematics instructor at the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology. In 1982 the institute went from being governed by the government directly to being operated by a board of governors. My colleagues honoured me by electing me as the founding chairman of the staff association. My responsibilities were to get the organization up and running, build a constitution that worked and all those things. We also had our first collective agreement.

As a matter of fact after serving for five years, my gift, my token, my memento of that five years of service was a beautiful work of wood art. One of the members of our woodworking section handcrafted a copy of the first collective agreement with our signatures on it. That sits on our coffee table with great pride.

I want to say something about that first agreement. Before we were under a board of governors, we were forced members of the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees. As professional staff, most of us would have chosen not to be under that union but we were obligated because we were civil servants of the province of Alberta. We did not like some of the things that happened. We thought that the union was sometimes unresponsive to us. When we formed our own staff association, we said one of the things that we were going to solve right at the beginning was the problem of dispute resolution.

There are two levels of dispute resolution when it comes to labour agreements. One is the ongoing one, where members who are under the collective agreement feel that they are not being treated fairly under the terms of that agreement. That usually yields a grievance or some other mechanism to try to solve that difference of opinion. The other area in which there is room for the correction of a disagreement is the negotiation process itself.

When an agreement cannot be reached in negotiations and hence an agreement cannot be signed, the old-fashioned way in Canada and in much of the western world is for the unions to withhold their services. They go on strike and force the hand of the other side.

In the case of industrial businesses and manufacturing plants there is a tremendous economic loss to the employer. In the case of educators, there is usually a gain to the employers when the employees go on strike. The employers save the money of the salaries when the employees are on strike and invariably the students catch up on their studies later on.

We argued that because we were in an educational institute, it was to the advantage of the employer if we went on strike and it did not force the employer's hand so could we come up with something better. I am very proud to say, and I think I had some leadership influence, that some very fine people worked on that original collective agreement. One of them was a guy by the name of Percy Bell. There were others as well but Percy in particular really leaned into the problem.

In our first collective agreement we had a provision that took away our right to strike. Many people in the union camp would say that was a huge error, but the fact is it was done by mutual consent. It was not forced by one side. We were able to persuade our members that under that regime we would be better off than if we were to have the right to strike.

We built into our collective agreement a very rigid process for resolution of a dispute at the time of contract negotiations. It was right down to the day. I do not remember the details but we said that so many days before the expiry of the contract each party had to present their opening positions, which clauses of the contract they wanted to open. Two weeks later they would give their positions on those contracts. There was a time line for arranging for meetings. There was a time line on how frequently those meetings could be held when people were named to meet and so on. It was all spelled out in the agreement.

I am proud to announce that it worked very well, at first. Now I will drop the bombshell. For the most part over the years the Government of Alberta has been a good government. Unfortunately, the government threw a monkey wrench into this process. We usually had a collective agreement before the old one expired. We would come to an agreement. There was no arbitration. There was no mediation, but when it finally came to that, we had the time lines set out for naming a mediator and the mediator's decision was binding and final. It was all spelled out.

What happened was the Alberta government made a mistake. It passed into its labour legislation a little clause that said that in the event that an arbitrator or a mediator is required to make a decision on a collective agreement, he is required to take into account government policy. That annoyed me because it totally skewed and really nullified a very good process.

What happened was that before the negotiations began, the government would simply make an announcement. For example, it would simply say that this year its policy was no raises more than 2%. We then knew that if we ever went into arbitration we would get 2% because the arbitrator was obligated to take into account that government policy.

That was a very unwise decision because it took away from the process the element of fairness which makes it trustworthy.

I wish we could do that with the post office and with PSAC. I wish we had a better way of resolving a dispute in the final agreement than simply clawing at each other with the power of strikes and all of the bad feelings that generates, the impasses which are brought along and the tremendous implications to so many innocent bystanders, like the farmers or the people waiting for their income tax refunds. It is long overdue.

I am very proud to say that one of the reasons I like the Reform Party and its policies is that in our policy for labour management we are promoting the idea of final offer binding arbitration. It is a mechanism which I am absolutely convinced will work because I have been in an environment where it did work.

I emphasize that it needs to be brought into being by consensus and not by a forced vote. A convincing case needs to be put forward to both sides that they would be better off under that regime than under a strike regime. If they buy into it and accept it, then it will work because the parties will be amenable to it. If they have agreed to it, they will make it work. If it is imposed on them, they will not.

I am so dead set against the high-handed government imposing its will on workers and other citizens simply by pulling the string of a majority government. It is wrong, anti-democratic and does not serve the best needs of Canadians.

When we come to the vote, we are asking to get the show on the road. I regret to say this but unfortunately I think it is necessary to get these people back to work while we solve this problem. However, I for one am not going to rest until we have a long term solution so we do not have this problem recurring over and over again. There is a better way.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention that the hon. member for Halifax West and I will be splitting our time.

Before I begin my discussion on this bill, I want to wish happy birthday to Whitney, the 17 year old daughter of the member for Mississauga South. Hopefully, we can have her father home sometime in the next few days to spend her birthday with her.

The issue we have been discussing is one of extreme importance. Sometimes in this House we tend to take for granted some of the things that greatly affect the lives of individual Canadians. We forget what we are doing to the workers and individual Canadians as people. We forget the effect we have on their lives in some of the actions we take.

That is what is happening today. The government is invoking back to work legislation. Make no bones about it. In essence, we are taking away the democratic right of individual Canadian workers to fair and collective bargaining and the result of collective bargaining.

The government will argue that it was backed into a corner and that Canadians are being held hostage. They would only be held hostage if they were taken somewhere, carted off into a corner and nobody gave them a chance to get out. The bottom line is that the government is not a hostage and Canadians are not hostages. The government willingly created the situation we are dealing with today.

In 1997 the government through legislation removed the possibility of binding arbitration. It vehemently indicated through this measure that the workers had to get back to work. Numerous Reform and Liberal members say that the farmers are suffering because of the workers.

The New Democratic Party and other members, as well as the workers, are made out to be enemies of farmers. What needs to be emphasized is that those workers gladly asked to be under the Canada Labour Code. Canadians need to know that grain weighers wanted to be under the Canada Labour Code and the government refused to let them be. Under the changes that took place to the Canada Labour Code in Bill C-19 they would not have been in this situation. They would have been working. The bottom line is that the Liberal government did not make any effort to allow those workers to be under the Canada Labour Code. That would have ended the whole situation of today. If we want to put blame, let us put the blame where it should be.

Let us talk about the other issues and the other workers that fall into this area. We must understand that when it comes to farmers and grain movement that did not have to happen. Correctional workers and guards, those who are not on strike, are being ordered back to work in the legislation. Where is their right to the free and democratic collective bargaining process? It does not exist with the government.

As each and every Liberal on that side of the House votes in the next few hours, let them remember that every vote they make stomps out the democratic rights of thousands of workers in Canada. That is the picture the government is portraying to all business in Canada and worldwide.

The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas was very eloquent in his comments that we are looked upon as an example of how labour action should take place, how collective bargaining should happen. Canada sells itself as a great place in that regard. What has been done today sets that back. No longer can we say look at us, we know how to do things. We are not perfect but we have processes in place that are beneficial and right for all Canadians, for workers, and ultimately for the benefit of society.

There is no question that the correctional workers who are not even on strike are being stomped on totally. The collective bargaining process was used with the postal workers and in many other instances. There was back to work legislation but they still had the right to conciliation, to work toward an agreement. That is not the case here. Heavens no. We have gone a step further. It is not just back to work and then a conciliation officer working with them. Even if they have not come up with an agreement yet, the bottom line is that we have allowed the bargaining process to take place, which is not happening here.

The government has gone a decade or two or three back in working relationships and labour relations by not allowing a conciliation process to take place with those workers. It has now imposed the entire contract on them with no conciliation process.

Next I will discuss regional rates of pay. I wonder if any member of the House could justify why it is okay for members of parliament from Sydney, Nova Scotia, Halifax and Charlottetown, or the solicitor general from P.E.I., to feel that they should be making less than the member for Mississauga South simply because of regional rates of pay.

Is that fair? Do they believe that east coast people and people in Saskatchewan should be paid less? If they believe that then each and every one of them should stand and say they should be giving the difference back to the Canadian people. Otherwise they should be opposing regional rates of pay. Each and every member that supports the bill tonight is saying that regional rates of pay are okay. If they really believe that they should put their money where their mouths are.

I would love to have more time to deal with this issue, but since I am splitting my time with my hon. colleague I will allow him to speak.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to have the opportunity tonight to address this issue. We are dealing with a motion concerning the disposition of a bill regarding the resumption of government services.

The motion speaks about Bill C-76 which in essence is back to work legislation that takes away from employees their legal right to strike. We are very concerned about this kind of legislation. Over the years employees have fought long and hard for ways to enhance their situation to make sure they are not dealt with unfairly. One of those ways is the right to strike if they are not being treated fairly. Now the legislation forces them to abandon that particular avenue of redress.

The interesting part is that we are dealing with a legal strike involving about 14,000 blue collar workers across our country, 1,500 of them being in Atlantic Canada. This is very significant for Atlantic Canadians.

Why are these workers striking in the first place? Many people have spoken about what has taken place and why these workers are striking. It has been mentioned over and over again that regional rates of pay is one of the key issues. It is of particular concern to Atlantic Canadians. Far too often we on the east coast find that we are receiving less than those in other parts of the country. Regional disparity is reinforced by regional rates of pay.

Right from the outset of the strike, members of the public in my constituency were calling and supporting the workers. They could not understand why the government could not see that it was patently unfair to have different rates of pay across the country for basically the same work.

It was interesting to note that the President of the Treasury Board stood on one occasion in the House to mention that MPs had different rates of pay. That was not true. MPs do not have different rates of pay. We all have the same basic pay. We may receive different budgets for operating our offices depending on where the constituency is located, but we all receive the same basic level of pay.

Therefore it is very difficult to understand why the government cannot understand how unfair it is to workers who are working day in and day out to put bread on their tables at a much lower wage than many other people are receiving in the country.

Why are we opposed to closure and time allocation? We are opposed because they take away the right of parliament to fully debate an issue. The government has seen fit on many occasions to use these tactics to draw to a conclusion issues that should be more fully discussed and debated so the public will have the benefit of knowing that its views are put forth through its elected representatives.

The government is not serious about allowing full debate or full examination on a lot of issues. The government is not serious about finding positive solutions to many of the problems facing society. This is particularly true in Atlantic Canada. Quite often we see situations within our constituencies that call for solutions. The solutions are pretty simple if there is a will to get to the answer. Far too often the government is not willing to resolve such issues.

I think for example of the issue of pay equity. We see people who are owed money because they have not been paid fairly. It has gone through several levels of adjudication and rulings have been made. Yet the government is not hurrying to end the issue. The government seems to be in a great haste to bring an end to this strike and resolve the issue we are now facing, but there are many issues that it seems to be very slow in bringing to a conclusion. Pay equity is one of them.

I recognize how much Atlantic Canada could benefit from a very positive and constructive national shipbuilding policy. We do not have such a policy and the government is not in any hurry to bring about a policy which will enable the trained labour force in our area to take advantage of its skills and come forth with a strong shipbuilding industry.

Let us look at the replacement of the Sea King helicopters. We see incident after incident where these helicopters are causing people concern. Accidents are taking place yet we are constantly told that it will be dealt with and a strategy will be brought forth in due course. We do not see the haste and urgency being displayed tonight surrounding this strike when it comes to such an important issue for our military and for our country as replacement of these search and rescue helicopters.

We can look at instances where industries are closing down in different areas. Not too long ago in my home riding of Halifax West the Volvo plant closed down, putting many people out of work. I have communicated with the government about trying to assist in finding an answer to the problem and trying to encourage new industry to come in to replace the plant that closed down. However there has been nothing but silence from the other side. We do not see that kind of urgency around problems that should be addressed. Yet we see it when it comes to depriving workers of their right to strike and their right to a fair and decent wage.

We do not see any urgency on the part of the government in dealing with the Devco situation where many miners are out of work or will soon be out of work. They are looking for fairness and a settlement that will enable them to carry on with their lives. We do not see any great plans taking place with respect to economic development for many depressed areas of the country. The government picks and chooses its priorities when it wants to come in full force and find a quick and easy solution.

There is a small black community in the riding in which I live inhabited by a lot of elderly people and a lot of young people. That community does not even have a central water supply to provide them with safe and clean drinking water. I have been struggling now for months on end to try to see what kind of help could be forthcoming from the federal government to assist the community in having a supply of good drinking water. The results are pretty pitiful thus far, but I will not give up.

I will continue pushing on this issue. If the government can move with the kind of haste we see tonight to bring an end to a legal strike and to bring an end to legitimate action that workers have taken to try to resolve their situation, it can move with the same kind of speed, interest and willingness to resolve an issue facing a community that has struggled for years and years to overcome discrimination. It has fought to maintain its place in society and it cannot even get hooked up to a water supply in an adjacent community.

That kind of thing causes me to wonder where government priorities are. It gives me great concern when I see grants being given to organizations to produce senseless books with jokes about females and such activities taking place and being supported by the government. That is tied in with the same concern I have about the action being taken here.

It is very important as we deal with these issues to deal with them from the point of view of asking ourselves whether we are treating people in the manner that we would like people to treat us. If we use that rule in our dealings with other people we will always find the right answer. We should treat other people in the same way we would want them to treat us. That should be our guide no matter what we are doing. Whether we are passing back to work legislation or looking for solutions to other problems, we should always ask ourselves if this is the way we would want to be treated ourselves and use that as a guide as we move forward.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, would you allow me to take part in this debate? I draw your attention to the fact that Bloc Quebecois members have not spoken for a long time.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve is quite correct. The purpose of the debate of course is to have one side heard and then the other side. Over the course of the evening, in the last three hours, there has been one Liberal, there have been many Blocs, many NDP and some Reform. Right now we are hearing from the member for Vancouver—Quadra.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to enter this august Chamber tonight to speak, but I was moved to tears by the splendid orations, Ciceronian in style, and I think we are all indebted to the member for Elk Island for that moving account of life on the prairies in an earlier age. His eloquence swept across the House. I can assure him that outside the Chamber grown men and women deputies were in tears. It was a moving and eloquent address. We are all indebted to him and we can assure him that the northern provinces of Canada, the northern regions of our western provinces, did him right when they gave him this hand-carved statement, the constitution of his association, which he founded and upon which he left his imprint, his style, his personality. It stands on his coffee table, as he said, as a constant reminder of what it is to be a Canadian.

One reads the rules, one studies what is carved, if not in stone, carved in wood, and one provides inspiration for generations of children.

This may not be mathematics in the new style, but it is certainly mathematics in the old style, back to the 19th century. We are indebted to the member for Elk Island.

Mr. Speaker, you were very indulgent to him because you were also I think moved by his oratory. I distinctly heard him utter words—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The Speaker should point out to the hon. member for Vancouver—Quadra that the Speaker is a graduate of the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology and certainly would allow a great deal of latitude when it comes to the laud of that fine institution.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when I heard him utter those forbidden words I remembered “Nyet. Sdez on ne govorut po russki”, but you allowed him the indulgence because oratory is so rare in this Chamber. We mumble our words and we perhaps are lulled to sleep by a monotonous cacophony of sounds, usually from the opposition, but sometimes even from this side.

The reminder of the 19th century drew me back to Mr. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, a household word for many people. Mr. Justice Holmes uttered the well known words upon businesses affected with the public interest.

I think we should perhaps examine the concept of rights of society, rights of individuals, rights of associations in a contemporary context.

What were the businesses affected with the public interest? Mr. Justice Holmes referred to people by these honourable professions: lock keepers; innkeepers. There is a distinction: people who conducted ferries; people who conducted rooming houses, not gaming houses; all of these objects. But the kernel of all this was that this was an area where state and the individual in society were in collision and rules and regulations were required. So I suppose one of the larger areas in which we could have benefited from northern Alberta's or northern Saskatchewan's learning was where to draw the line in these particular cases.

Businesses affected with the public interest have their own regime, their own regulations and certain privileges and immunities that the general public do not have. I suppose that is one of the issues for our society today, the growing public domain. Some would say it is too large. We think on this side of the House that we have the right balance. But nevertheless, are there privileges, are there immunities that ordinary citizens do not have? Is there, in that sense, an implied social contract to accept the continuance in work, even under conditions which would not be tolerated in a purely private domain?

It is a resolution that modern jurists, trained in the concept of balancing interests, balancing community interests, balancing individual interests, know that decisions can only be rendered in the context of specific cases. I think in this sense I would have preferred more argument on the other side of the House addressed to this issue.

I am getting this in letters and communications to me, and I have asked myself professionally, for example: Should teachers be allowed to strike? Should university professors be allowed to strike? Should nurses? Should doctors? Should people who perform essential services? I think we do need, in terms of defining a new social contract for the new millennium, to have an extended debate on issues such as this in the give and take to which this House is accustomed. I do not believe we have heard it tonight. I think that is a pity because an opportunity, at some length, has been lost.

I am reminded again of a point that was discussed with—can I say some heat—by the member for Elk Island and by members on his side of the House. It seems to me that some of the hon. members opposite were saying that they were barred from access to this House. None of us would attempt to bar the member for Elk Island from access to this House. That would be a formidable confrontation and we would certainly want to avoid it.

Nevertheless, in the 16th century the great preoccupation of parliamentarians was resisting people who tried to bar their access to parliament. It was the king and the king's courtiers and others, the commoner, rushing to the House who might never arrive.

In the Polish parliament it was said, because they had the strange concept of the liberum veto, that a single negative vote was enough to prevent any decision being made. The only thing to do was to apply the word that the member for Elk Island uttered so eloquently, nyet. However, before he could utter nyet and veto, they would lop off his head. The liberum veto, as late as the 18th century and the third partition of Poland, had its necessary corrective, the right to cut off heads. It is an old Polish custom, but I was reminded of it when I heard the eloquent speeches opposite of how members were barred from coming to parliament.

I once gave an opinion, free of charge I must say, to a member of the other house. Why do so many of us cast stones against that other house? I once visited the chambers, the rooms, the offices of members of the Senate and I saw those red carpets. Ours are green. The grass is green. When we visit the offices of the Senate we see that beautiful red plush velvet. I was overcome by a senator who embraced me and said “Somebody has committed a crime worse than death in relation to me”. I asked “What have they done?” The senator said “They tried to serve a process on a senator in the house”. Serving a process in the House, is that an impediment to the efficient conduct of a parliamentarian's work? Speakers of the House have been known to scribble notes during the hearings of the House. It has been observed. Is it an impediment to a member's or a senator's function to be served with a traffic ticket violation by a police officer?

I was appalled when I heard this. I empathized with the senator concerned, one of our most attractive senators. We discussed alternative, more moderate controls, to take a further step beyond Mr. Justice Holmes.

We do agree that senators are not above the law, that senators are subject to the principle of equality before the law. Senators should pay their traffic violation tickets too. But are they effectively to be immunized from this equality before the law because they cannot be served?

I think looking for a pragmatic resolution to this problem, Mr. Speaker, you would examine the issue: Are there alternative methods of service of summons?

The suggestion I made to the hon. senator was that she make herself available to be served in her residence or in her taxi coming to the Senate, but not in the Senate itself. The principle was an inviolate one. The House cannot be used for service of ordinary legal processes. A member cannot be arrested in the House. That is why I come back to the 16th century.

I sympathize with those who felt on a picket line that they were polite and maybe a member was not polite. Nevertheless, the inviolability established against an arbitrary king, a sovereign king who said “I am king and I am above the law”, was that he could not bar members from coming to parliament. When King James I said to Sir Edward Cook “You say I am subject to the law. Mr. Chief Justice, I am above the law. I am the source of sovereignty”, Chief Justice Cook replied in the eloquent phrase “Non sub homine sed sub Deo et lege”; not subject to God but subject to the law of the land. That is a very eloquent principle.

The member for Elk Island could well counsel his colleagues with the wisdom that comes from the accumulated experience in northern Saskatchewan. In those long winter nights he could say they are also subject to the law. The more moderate control in this case would be to advise the member for Elk Island's colleagues to step nimbly around those obstructing their passage. The alternative, more moderate control is that you can waltz around them. That is the way. The member for Elk Island would agree with me. He could exercise a skater's waltz around the obstruction.

If we have solved this problem of sanctity of parliament that members cannot be barred from coming to the Hill, it is worse now than the offences of the 16th century committed against parliament because then parliament had the remedy. It had its dungeons and it cast the miscreants into the dungeons. There is a case to be made for cleaning the dungeons, cleaning the Augean Stables. Let us have access to those dungeons. We can protect the member for Elk Island. We can protect his colleagues and his cohorts from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment on the way to the House. Bring back the dungeons.

It occurs to me that in considering this matter at this stage of the evening we have to study the old precedents. We have to reject, as the member for Elk Island would in his Ciceronian tones, the notion that all of the past is bad. We can learn from the past.

Mr. Speaker, you and I watched the Academy Awards two nights ago. We saw the resurrection of Queen Elizabeth in two personalities. We saw the past as beautiful. Life is beautiful. We do not expect the member for Elk Island to imitate La Vita é Bella and to dance on the backs of chairs. But we do expect from all members of the House respect for the past, respect for precedents, but in a very dynamic sense the interpretation of precedents in a creative way that responds to our expanding destiny for the new millennium. The time is with us. The new millennium is arriving.

To examine the dilemma of how to balance the conflicting interests in this period of rapid change, the societal interest, the individual interest, is the question. What is the answer? It calls for Solomonic judgment and the answers are to be found in those hidden valleys in northern Saskatchewan.

I ask the hon. member from the Trent University area, are there not hidden valleys in his original native land? There are parts of Wales that have not been visited since the Romans were there. People in these lost valleys have the virtues of yesterday. They have the old values. They have all the things that we depend on to build and maintain—