Debates of March 23rd, 1999

Government Services Act, 1999

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

I hope my colleague from Beauce will continue to listen carefully to what I have to say because even people from his own riding call me regularly because they are dissatisfied with their member.

I was saying that not only do we know the mentality of government members, of those Liberal backbenchers who are nothing but doormats, but also that of the President of the Treasury Board. All his actions over the last few years have gone against the interests and the rights of workers.

I can give a few examples that will help a lot of people understand what I am talking about. I hope the Liberal members who are here today are listening to me and will see the undemocratic and anti-worker attitude exhibited by the President of the Treasury Board since he took up his duties in 1993.

Now for the examples. He has refused to comply with the ruling on pay equity. My colleague, the member for Longueuil, who has done an extraordinary job on this issue, will be able to attest to that. If I am not mistaken, on this very day, the Canadian Human Rights Commission blamed the President of the Treasury Board for appealing its ruling. The commission has asked the government to withdraw the appeal. How did the government react? Because it lives on another planet and because it is deaf, it has decided to go ahead with the appeal.

I am happy to see that the member for Mississauga West is listening carefully. I am sure he will learn a lot of things from my speech.

I was talking about the President of the Treasury Board, who has refused to discuss the issue of orphan clauses and to recognize the problem.

The consensus in Quebec is almost unanimous, particularly among young people, that orphan clauses are discriminatory for young people who represent the future and to whom totally unfair and discriminatory clauses are applied. And what is the President of the Treasury Board doing while this discrimination is going on? Nothing. He does not even acknowledge the problem.

What is the President of the Treasury Board doing? He is completely reforming, and failing on all counts, the Canada Industrial Relations Board, where appointments are still being made along party lines and smack of patronage instead of being made according to merit.

As I said earlier, in my introduction, this government harks back to the Duplessis era, it is out of touch with reality, behind the times, old-fashioned, undemocratic and despicable.

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

Outdated.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

And outdated.

I was also saying that the President of the Treasury Board has refused to pass antiscab legislation. This type of legislation exists in Quebec since 1977, if I am not mistaken.

It is a masterpiece of harmony, an example of the harmony that well-thought out legislation can bring.

Since 1977, this wonderful legislation, which was introduced if I remember correctly by Pierre-Marc Johnson, has been universally acclaimed in Quebec. I think it deserves a try in the rest of Canada. But what did the President of the Treasury Board do? He refused even to consider passing such a bill, although it improved union-management relations tremendously in Quebec.

What did the President of the Treasury Board do in addition? He refused to pass part III of the Canada Labour Code concerning the preventive withdrawal of pregnant workers.

I have two children, who have just turned one. Nothing is more precious than a child, but before we can think about children, we must think about pregnant women. They must be protected. They are often in a vulnerable condition and must be removed from environments that can sometimes be dangerous both to them and to the child they are carrying. What did the President of the Treasury Board do? He refused to pass part III of the Canada Labour Code concerning the preventive withdrawal of pregnant workers.

As I have only two minutes remaining, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to speak for another 10 minutes.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Will the member please repeat what he said. I did not catch the member's request.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

I sought unanimous consent to speak for another 10 minutes.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Before everyone came back, there was unanimous consent.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Charlesbourg has requested unanimous consent to extend his speaking time by 10 minutes. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not at all surprised to have been denied unanimous consent.

The government will not allow this house to discuss such an important bill, just like it would not let it examine the possibility of having a pan-American monetary union. This tyrannical, undemocratic, duplessiste government, which is also prone to patronage, continues to operate in its usual fashion.

As for the President of the Treasury Board, it is unfortunate that I only have a minute and a half left, because I could talk about him for a long, long time.

I will conclude, and this unfortunate, because all the members were listening so intently to my comments and I could have gone on for a long time. Freedom of association exists in Canada. When workers have good reason to do so, they go on strike. This is part of a fair balance of power, except when the employer, which happens to be the government, abuses its legislative power, as it is doing in this case.

Back to work legislation should only be a last resort. In the meantime, the government must get back to the bargaining table with an offer acceptable to workers, and it must settle the dispute in a democratic and civilized manner, through negotiation.

I will end on that note. It is unfortunate. I could talk forever about this issue. It is always a pleasure to address this House, through you, Mr. Speaker.

I hope the member for Mississauga West, who is unfortunately not here, and the member for Beauce listened carefully and will be voting with the Bloc Quebecois tonight, for the workers of Quebec and Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the likeable and dynamic member for Charlesbourg asked for unanimous consent, I trust you could note that there was unanimous consent. I would not be able to understand our colleague's being denied the opportunity for the most democratic action possible in this house, that is voicing his opinion and speaking on behalf of his constituents. I would ask that you check again, because it is my firm conviction that it would be a loss if our colleague were not able to continue.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Unfortunately, there is not unanimous consent. The hon. member for Drummond.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Charlesbourg for his highly intelligent and interesting remarks. It is a pity that the House has not consented to his speaking for another ten minutes, for I am certain that he could have enlightened the House still further on what is going on at the present time.

These last two days have marked some extremely sad moments in our history. In my time here since 1993, I would never have thought I would see the present federal government attacking the most precious thing there is in this country, that is the totally legitimate right to democracy.

Through the President of Treasury Board, the federal government has introduced Bill C-76. This bill is rife with demagoguery, historic revisionism, dishonesty, and worst of all, it represents an attempt to stir up public opinion against workers who have been deprived of their most basic right.

It shows the arrogance of this government, which has no respect for its citizens, or for this House, or for its own employees. We have seen that it also lacks respect for us as parliamentarians, by not allowing us to go any further in our discussions, as has just happened to my colleague from Charlesbourg.

I would like to give a historical background to this bill in order to truly show our listeners, all Canadians and all Quebeckers, what an odious piece of legislation this is.

The current bill is intended to bring back to work public service employees who are currently on strike. These workers are at bargaining table 2. The bill also gives the government broad latitude to impose the working conditions and salaries it wants, and on the correctional officers too, who have a strike mandate.

In addition, it says to those bargaining “You will come back to work under duress, and we will set the conditions”. This is a breach of a legitimate right, that of striking to claim one's rights from a centralizing government. It has decided it will act as police and no longer negotiate. It is bringing employees back forcefully, under the nightstick, otherwise it will penalize them. That is what it is saying.

In addition, the federal government is justifying these bulldozing measures by claiming loss of revenues by farmers in the prairies and delays in the processing of income tax returns because of the picketing. If the government were operating in good faith, it would have sat down at the bargaining table and negotiated.

It is holding people hostage. It is the one acting in bad faith. It is the one saying, in an authoritarian fashion “Some people will be penalized. We are going to bulldoze that and we will fix that for you”, because it does not want to negotiate. To the farmers and the people waiting for their income tax refunds, it is giving the impression that the workers in the public service, its employees, are taking people hostage. It is crazy. It is terrible.

The negotiations currently underway with table 4, that is the correctional service officers, have led to a majority conciliation report unanimously accepted by the members of the union. The minority report was tabled by the employer. The government should take into consideration this majority report submitted by a third party.

Reference was made earlier to negotiations with table 2, and I want to specify the groups that are represented at that table. They are general labour, trades, ships' crews, hospital services, general services and firefighters.

These are not people who earn huge salaries. These are people who work for the government, government employees who earn relatively modest salaries. They have not received a raise for a long time. The government is telling them “We no longer want to negotiate with you. We will impose on you what we want and give you what we want”.

These negotiations could not lead to a majority conciliation report, since the chairman at the conciliation table, the employer and the union tabled three different offers. The gap between the employer's offer and the union's offer is not insurmountable, as long as the government shows good faith, and we know how arrogant this government is.

What is contained in the bill is the government's offer for table 2, which is lower than its previous offer. The federal government had offered a 2.75% increase; it has now reduced it to 2.5%. The government is clearly trying to take advantage of a situation where it is both judge and jury. This is democracy according to the government.

It must be noted that table 2 workers have had their salaries frozen for six years. Workers are not asking for the moon. They have not had a wage increase in six years. They asked for 2.75% and the government said “We will give you 2.5% and no more. We want to hear no more. We will decide and fix everything for you”.

Apart from the pay issue, the other sticking point was regional pay rates. The employer's offers in this respect have apparently been negligible. The government's offer for table 4 is not known right now. There is a majority conciliation report that the government seems to be ignoring. However, the bill would allow the government to impose whatever conditions it wanted without taking into account this conciliation report that was unanimously approved by the union.

It has already negotiated and everyone agreed. The government then said that was that. It said it no longer had an agreement with them, that it would impose whatever conditions it wished, without taking into account the conciliation report that had nevertheless been unanimously approved.

The government is once again trying, through this special legislation, to impose a collective agreement on table 2 and 4 workers, supposedly in the interest of taxpayers. This is nonsense. What the government wants is to use the public to violate—and I mean violate—the rights of workers.

In fact, if that was what the government wanted, picketing could stop today. All it would have to do is approve the majority conciliation report for table 2 and binding arbitration for table 4.

Generally we oppose back to work legislation that would trample the fundamental right to strike, particularly in the case of workers against whom this kind of legislation has been used a number of times.

On the other hand, we regret the inconvenience that the picketing by public servants has caused to Quebeckers and Canadians. What we in the Bloc Quebecois want is for the government and table 2 and 4 workers to come to an agreement, and for citizens to regain access to the services they are entitled to. There is a way to achieve this, provided the government sits down at the bargaining table and negotiates in good faith.

As I said before, the union unanimously endorsed the majority conciliation report regarding table 4. The legislation ignores this report. Why? This is a worthwhile proposal made by an independent conciliator, which meets with the approval of the union and could prevent a strike; all the basic labour relations' principles would be respected.

At table 2, the union says it is fully prepared to go to arbitration. It is willing to abide by the ruling of an independent arbitrator, in which case picket lines would immediately come down. The problems cited by the government to ram this legislation down our throat would be solved.

But what is the government saying? That the union demands are unreasonable. If they are so unreasonable, why refuse to go to arbitration? What has the government to lose?

Obviously, this bill is nothing more than strong arm tactics to impose a collective agreement outside the normal process. I repeat, strong arm tactics to impose a collective agreement outside the normal process. This is what the government wants to do to the employees of the public service.

Blue collar workers of the federal government are presently on strike and their picket lines are hindering the transportation of grain. Those picket lines hurt prairies farmers. A member asked for an emergency debate to discuss means to bring this situation to an end.

Among the options proposed, an act forcing blue collars back to work was demanded. What is going on right now in this House is inadmissible and very sad. As I said at the outset, this strikes a blow at a fundamental and democratic right.

This government travels around the world to talk about democracy in the “most beautiful country in the world”, as the Prime Minister likes to say. People who are looking at us throughout the world can see that this government is striking a blow at the most fundamental right. I believe government members who will voter for this special legislation should be ashamed, in front of the rest of the world, to strike a blow at the most fundamental right, democracy.

We should never pass a special act such as this before having exhausted all other avenues. Have they been exhausted? We do not believe so.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

That's right.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Going out on strike is a right of the workers. The member for Mississauga who has supported this special legislation should be ashamed.

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

His father is a union man.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

He will be accountable to his constituents.

This is completely anti-democratic. The government did not think about the people who would be affected by this legislation.

The Liberal government is a very centralizing government. But to pass a bill like this one leans toward dictatorship. This is no longer democracy at work. When the government acts in this way, we have a dictatorship and it is a shame.

As I said earlier, the right to strike is a fundamental right for workers. This special legislation would deny them their right. The government would have us believe that it has exhausted all its options, but it is not true. Arbitration is still an option. If the federal government were to agree to arbitration, the blue collar workers would put an end to their pressure tactics.

Since 1991, the federal government has renewed the framework agreement with the civil service through legislation passed by this parliament. Now that this framework agreement has been subdivided into seven bargaining tables, it is crucial for the government to negotiate an agreement in good faith.

By introducing such a bill, the government is clearly not acting in good faith.

If the blue collar strike is hurting Canadians, one needs to understand that exercizing the right to strike is bound to have a direct or indirect impact on our society. If we were to forbid a strike every time it affected our fellow citizens, the right to strike would no longer exist.

Instead of asking for special legislation, the Reform Party should urge the government to negotiate in good faith. Reform members who support this special legislation and will vote with the government should be ashamed of themselves.

We know the mentality of this government and of the President of the Treasury Board. All their actions over the last few years have struck a blow at the interests and the rights of workers, and I will give a few examples: refusal to comply with the ruling on pay equity; refusal to discuss the issue of orphan clauses and to recognize this problem; total failure to reform the Canadian Industrial Relations Board, where appointments are based on partisan and patronage considerations rather than on merit; refusal to pass antiscab legislation; refusal to pass part III of the Canada Labour Code regarding preventive withdrawal for pregnant women.

I repeat, women represent 52% of the population, and yet this government has refused to pass part III of the Canada Labour Code regarding preventive withdrawal for pregnant women. It is outrageous.

In conclusion, as I was saying earlier, it is absolutely shameful that, in a country such as ours, a country that prides itself on its democratic tradition, a government be allowed to legislate its own employees back to work and to impose a collective agreement upon them. I said it before and I will say it again, this is dictatorial.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this bill. It does not, however, please me to see the situation our beautiful country has come to. This is not the first time such a thing has happened, either.

First of all, I want to quote from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Which states as follows:

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;

b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

d) freedom of association.

Freedom of association implies the freedom to negotiate a collective agreement. The preamble to the Canada Labour Code, as quoted by the supreme court, states the following:

Whereas there is a long tradition in Canada of labour legislation and policy designed for the promotion of the common well-being through the encouragement of free collective bargaining and the constructive settlement of disputes; and whereas Canadian workers, trade unions and employers recognize and support freedom of association and free collective bargaining as the bases of effective industrial relations for the determination of good working conditions and sound labour-management relations; ...and whereas the Parliament of Canada desires to continue and extend its support to labour and management in their cooperative efforts to develop good relations and constructive collective bargaining practices—

Today we have Bill C-76, an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of government services. It is as if people working for the Government of Canada did not have the same status as other workers in the country.

Today reference is being made to different bargaining tables. There is talk of table 2 and table 4. Table 4 is that of the correction service officers, who will be in a legal strike position on March 26. The table 4 negotiating team voted to accept the bargaining committee report and has asked Treasury Board to sign a collective agreement.

In the bill the government wants passed, which is totally undemocratic, and of which it ought to be ashamed, these people are put in the same position. PSAC is in the process of negotiating a collective agreement in which employees in the Atlantic provinces, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, do not have the same salaries as their counterparts in Alberta or British Columbia.

I am certain that Atlantic region MPs are only too pleased to be paid the same as those from the west. When the President of Treasury Board comes and tells us this is not true, that the salaries are not the same, that they get more money in the west because they live in remote areas, this is wrong. Salaries are the same, it is their expenses that are not.

If a person has to take the plane to northern Manitoba, it costs more, but when it comes to salaries, the salary is the same.

What has been said in the House is wrong. We cannot accept the way Canadians are being treated. Whether they come from the east or the west, people doing the same work deserve the same salary. The problem is not the creation of the workers, but of the government, once again.

Once again the government is going after the workers. Once again, it is committing another injustice in our country. That is where the problem lies.

They do not want it discussed in parliament. They do not want it discussed in the House, so they introduce bills. They say “You are the bad guys. You, the workers, are the bad ones. You are not on the job to give people their tax cheques, and so you are the bad ones. You are not moving the farmers' grain”. They take the growers and try to make them like other government workers.

But it is you, Liberals on the other side of the House, who are creating the problem. You should be ashamed. You should be ashamed of the way you are treating your workers. They are not in reality the best paid.

Some of them are being paid $24,000 and $25,000 a year to do the dirty work of the government, which then turns around and wants to legislate to force them back to work and not give them the opportunity to bargain, an opportunity enjoyed by other Canadians under the charter and legislation.

The Liberals are not the only ones to do that. The Conservatives did it in 1989 and 1991. At that time, I was a union member, and the Liberals were in opposition. They boasted, saying “We would never do that. We would never do that if you put us in government. We would not treat our employees like that”. Today, they have an opportunity not to treat their employees like that, but they are treating them exactly like the Conservatives did in 1989 and 1991, when Brian Mulroney was Prime Minister. This is utterly shameful.

Fourteen years after the pay equity legislation was passed, the federal government should be ashamed to still be dragging its feet and trying to make Canadians believe that it will cost them $4 billion for pay equity, when in fact the government will tax back 60% of that money on people's paycheques. Let the government tell the truth.

I am disappointed at how the House is acting toward democracy and at how it is treating the workers who have helped build our country. Correctional officers are still negotiating and this legislation will force them back to work when they have not even gone out on strike, when they have not even had a chance to go ahead with a committee's recommendation. This is unbelievable. What are things coming to? It looks like we are following Mexico's lead. We are not there yet, but we are headed that way. We are losing our democracy.

I am convinced that, during the election campaign, the Liberals did not tell these workers “We will legislate to force you to go back to work. We will not pay you the same salary in New Brunswick as in Alberta, in Newfoundland as in British Columbia. You do not deserve as much as the others”.

I remember when RCMP officers were paid less if they worked in the maritimes than if they worked in western Canada. They asked my predecessor, Doug Young, to go and see his Liberal colleagues and tell them that it was not right that an RCMP officer in the maritimes was paid differently than an officer out west. They did not pass legislation for the RCMP. They turned to their friend, Doug Young, whom I turfed out with the help of the voters in my riding. They went after a collective agreement and a contract with the same rates of pay Canada wide.

If the RCMP can be paid the same throughout the country, Canada's public servants deserve to be paid the same, whether they work in Newfoundland or Vancouver, in Prince Edward Island, Ontario or the Gaspé. They deserve to be paid the same.

Once again, what is going on is unacceptable. They should not be boasting. This is the 50th time they have legislated workers back to work and that they are denying democratic and collective bargaining rights. What is going on is a disgrace. Their attempt to pass a bill such as this without debate in the House is a disgrace.

We have a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms giving us the right of association. We have legislation giving us the right to bargain collectively, and this government says that it has the power to set all that aside.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I must unfortunately interrupt the hon. member. When debate resumes, he will have approximately 10 minutes remaining.

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from February 3 consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

Tax On Financial Transactions

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been the usual consultations among all the parties and you should find unanimous consent for me to make a small wording change to my motion to help clean it up.

I would like to ask for unanimous consent to remove from my Motion No. 239 the following words “show leadership and”. The amended motion would then read:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should enact a tax on financial transactions in concert with the world community.

I have had the usual consultations with the government across the way, the Bloc Quebecois House leader, the whip of the Reform Party, the whip and the leader of the Conservative Party and also with my own party.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to make the change that he has just mentioned?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

When the motion was last before the House, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans had the floor. He still has five minutes remaining.