Debates of March 23rd, 1999

Division No. 355

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

The division will take place in the same way as the previous one.

(The House divide on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 356

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from March 17 consideration of the motion that Bill C-219, an act to amend the Criminal Code (using or operating a stolen motor vehicle in the commission of an offence), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal Code

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to order made on Wednesday, March 17, 1999, the House will now proceed to the taking of deferred division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-219.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 357

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion defeated.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Government Services Act, 1999

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the House will now resume consideration of the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, before the vote I spoke on the motion before the House. I spoke for about 10 minutes in French. I could do 10 minutes in French and 10 minutes in English and do the same speech again, but I will try not to do that.

As I said in my 10 minute speech, I am very discouraged and displeased with the way the government has acted again. We could call it the 50th anniversary of the Liberal Party legislating people back to work, which I do not believe is democratic at all.

When we look at the charter of rights and freedoms, we have equality of rights. When we talk about equality of rights in a country, how can there be equality of rights when the Atlantic provinces do not deserve the same wages as the rest of the country? That is not equality of rights. That is not what Pierre Elliott Trudeau was talking about at that time as a Liberal, and supported by the Liberals.

Every time the government has negotiations it goes the easiest way. It comes to the House and legislates the workers back to work. It makes sure we cannot debate it to defend the people we were elected to work for. Those people we were elected to work for are not only in one group, the group which has all millionaires. It is not only those people. It is the little people, the ones who get up in the morning to make sure that industry continues, the ones who get up in the morning to make sure that all the programs of the government are working.

The senators did not have to go on strike. The MPs did not have to go on strike. We did not have to go on strike, but we had our increase. I think it is a shame, when we talk about equality of rights, that the people who are working for the Government of Canada in the Atlantic provinces have different pay. What is the problem? Are we not allowed to have industry in the Atlantic provinces? Are we not allowed to have work? We have to punish those people by cutting employment insurance because they are using it too much because the government is not doing its work and creating a good economic atmosphere.

The government says that we have to take food off the tables of the working people and their families. That is not enough. Now we have to treat the workers of the government differently. The workers who work in an office in Bathurst, New Brunswick are not treated the same as the ones who work in an office in Edmonton, Alberta. Does that make sense? No.

The people of Atlantic Canada are not pleased with the Liberal members of the government who send them letters which say “While talking to some P.E.I. strikers, it was indicated that they plan to lobby local Liberal MPs to ask whether or not these MPs will vote against their government to support their constituencies in Atlantic Canada”. They say that they receive letters from MPs from the Atlantic provinces saying “We are supporting you”. The people of the Atlantic provinces do not only want words, they want action. They want the Liberal MPs who have been elected to support them, not just in words and letters, but to stand for them because they were elected, the few that are left, by the people of Atlantic Canada.

There are no Liberals left in Nova Scotia. There are just a few in P.E.I. There are only three in New Brunswick and there probably will not be any left after the next election because of the way the Atlantic provinces have been treated by the Government of Canada, this Liberal government.

The Liberals are acting the same way as the Conservatives did in 1989 when they legislated people back to work under the Brian Mulroney government.

That happened again in 1991, under the Conservative government, under Brian Mulroney. The Liberals said “Let us in there and we will not do that. We will treat our workers the right way”. That was until they got elected and we see what is going on today.

Today they want to put farmers against workers. They want to put workers against farmers. Whose fault is it? It is the fault of the Liberal government which is not taking its responsibilities. Do like the charter of rights and say equality for everybody.

Whether a worker comes from New Brunswick or Manitoba they should be paid the same because they are doing the same job.

I am an MP from New Brunswick. I get paid the same as the members from Windsor. I get paid the same amount as the members from Saskatchewan. That is what is called equality.

What did the minister say? “No, it is not true. We pay MPs differently. Some are getting paid more because they stay in the region”. He is not telling the truth. The wages of the MPs are the same across the country.

I remember not too long ago that there were some who were not paid the same, the RCMP. I remember they went to see my predecessor, Doug Young, and he negotiated with the government to get the same wages. I never heard about them again. Does PSAC have to go to see Doug Young? Is he the one who will save this country? Is he the only one who will be able to get the wages for the people of PSAC? Is that the way it works? Does somebody in the Liberal Party have to be paid by the back door? Is that the way it goes?

It is very sad that this government does not treat its people across the country equally. Those people did not have to go on strike. There is a way to do it if the government is serious and if it cares about democracy. The people of PSAC have proposed something. “Why does the government not give us binding arbitration? If it gave us binding arbitration we would agree with the arbitrator”. The arbitrator would come down with a decision. He would evaluate both sides and give a good contract to both sides, and PSAC would agree to that, but it will not agree with what the government is doing today.

There are people working in prisons. What has the government done for them? There are even recommendations on the floor and the government will not even wait for those recommendations. Those people will have to take the 2%, the 2.5% and the 1%. That is not democracy. That is not the way to do things. We are beginning to be treated in the same way as the people in Mexico are. That is wrong. It is totally wrong. The people of this country never thought the Liberals would be that bad, as bad as the Conservatives. People thought if they put the Liberals in things would be a lot better, but no way.

If we look at the wages of the people working for the government and the way they are getting treated, if we look at the people who are having their EI cut and the way people who are suffering every day, that it is not something to be proud of. They cannot be proud of the Liberals. The Atlantic region has learned its lesson now. In Nova Scotia they got rid of every one of them. In New Brunswick we are almost there. We have a bit of work to do yet, and we are going to do it. It needs to be done.

We have to be proud of the workers in our country. We have to be proud of those who get up in the morning to work hard for our country. We have to respect them. They are the base of our country; our working people, men and women. The NDP and I will never accept our working people being treated this way.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this important debate tonight on the special legislation forcing certain public servants back to work. But before we deal with the actual content of the bill, what we are debating now, and until 11 p.m., is the gag the government is imposing on us. This is an attack on democracy, at least on parliamentary democracy.

The government is in such a rush to get this bill passed that it wants to gag parliamentarians. In my opinion the special legislation is already a breach of democracy, but to deprive parliamentarians of their right to speak is an attack on democracy.

The people in my riding elected me to represent them, not to sit in my seat and passively watch as special legislation is passed constraining much of the population, because it involves public servants. The people want their members of parliament to express their fears. I think many public servants met with their members individually and spoke of their expectations and claims.

I have had the privilege of serving my electors, who are affected by this bill. The union members, including the general labourers with the coast guard working in Quebec City, came to me to say they considered it unfair they were being treated differently according to regions, they did not consider one category of worker should have a different salary because of where they live in Canada.

That is the case. They objected and came to ask me “Do you think your salary should be the same as that of a member of parliament from Vancouver or Newfoundland?” I answered “Naturally, it is a matter of equity”. There is a lot of talk in the House about—and increasingly, Bloc Quebecois members are talking about it—pay equity. We must eliminate the differences in pay for jobs traditionally considered masculine or feminine. We must not only reduce the gap, but eliminate the differences. We consider that an important right.

I heard people in my riding, not only women but also men, say they agreed with that. All this has come up in the negotiations on labour relations.

Yesterday, the government had a knee-jerk reaction. Today, it is resorting to closure to quickly end the matter. Why is the government so anxious that it is using closure?

I am convinced that the majority of Liberal members are not very proud to adopt special legislation. I would even say that some are ashamed of such a measure. They are ashamed, they are not proud of such a measure, but they are forced to support it. As we know, the government imposes the party line when members vote on such issues. Members do not agree with that legislation, but they are forced to follow the party line and support it, because they fear that they will be ejected from the party and perhaps even have to sit as independent members. They prefer to side with the majority and, in some cases, not be present during debate, and certainly not take part in debate.

Many members can vote against their own opinion, but it is quite a bit harder to do so during a vote in the House. I understand why there are very few Liberal members here this evening. We cannot allude to members' absence, but we can talk about their presence. Very few are here this evening to discuss the issue of freedom of speech for parliamentarians. Very few want to enjoy this freedom which is limited, since the debate will come to an end at 11 p.m.

Today, I was at the industry committee. Throughout the day, for hours on end, I had to fight with other members so that the hon. member for Mercier could finish the speech she spent a whole weekend preparing and which summarized the testimony heard in the past two or three weeks.

It was unbelievable the trouble we had getting permission for her to finish her speech. Almost every week lately, this government has been moving time allocation. It is as though our constituents had elected us to sit in our places and do exactly what the majority or the establishment required of us, to keep to ourselves what our constituents tell us and not to make it known in the House.

But is this building, this institution, not called parliament? What is a parliament? The last time I looked in a dictionary, it was a place of speech, the site of democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure your knowledge of history is as good as mine, so I do not need to remind you that not just hundreds of thousands, but millions, of people died fighting for freedom of speech. They died so that their fellow citizens could continue to exercise their democratic rights.

We are in this place, supposedly the very symbol of democracy, and the party in power wants to limit the time spent debating a topic as important as the right to strike.

There is another right and that is the right of association. If we recognize that people have the right to form unions, we should be logical and ensure that they can exercise the other rights that flow from the right to negotiate.

If we look at the history of this government and its predecessor, what do we see with regard to the labour rights of federal public servants? In 1982, a bill was introduced to freeze the salary of some 500,000 workers. In December 1989, back to work legislation was passed. In October 1991, we had legislation saying that the employer's offers would be imposed unilaterally if they were not accepted. There were threats.

In April 1992, we had Bill C-113, which imposed a two year freeze and a unilateral extension of the collective agreement. In June 1993, Bill C-101 gave the government the right to require a vote on its final offers during any negotiations. In June 1994, Bill C-17 extended the freeze for two more years as well as the collective agreement. Salaries were frozen for six consecutive years. Again, this approach was criticized by various stakeholders.

Then, in 1996, we had Bill C-31, through which this Liberal government wanted to start contracting out. In 1992, the federal government closed the Pay Research Bureau, thereby avoiding taking into account facts and figures which contradicted its claims. In 1993, Bill C-26 on public service reform gave a great advantage to the employer by making it judge and jury on issues related to the workplace.

We could go on and on. I want to protect federal public servants. Some people may wonder why a sovereignist would do that. There are federal public servants everywhere, including in Quebec. Since Quebeckers pay federal taxes, part of that money is used to pay public servants. Some of these people do a good job. I am not one of those who think that federal public servants are necessarily bad people. On the contrary, many of them are competent and qualified workers.

What we are dealing with here is the right to strike, to bargain, to organize. This is one of the rights recognized by the United Nations, which makes us a supposedly democratic society.

I have been in this House since 1993 and have had numerous opportunities to note that the Liberal government is not motivated by a very keen sense of democracy. Anytime it runs into a problem, gag orders are used., not just at the end of a session.

At this point in time we are not faced with a huge legislative agenda. I am not the only one to say so; a number of political observers have said the same thing. There are not very many bills. There would probably be enough time. There is no great urgency, yet we are being forced to get the discussions over quickly.

It was the same thing in committee, as I have said.

On top of that, we Quebeckers are dealing with an increasingly centralizing government, which is flouting the Constitution and its various provisions.

Bill C-54 clearly establishes trade as a provincial jurisdiction, yet e-commerce is being used as a pretext for passing a bill aimed at creating federal legislation to protect personal information in the context of commerce. This is a provincial jurisdiction.

We have seen the strategies the government is making use of, for instance the millennium scholarships. The government knows very well that it cannot hand out grants to students in other provinces, in Quebec and elsewhere, directly. What does it do? It creates a foundation that will go over the provinces' heads to give grants to students. This is a way of circumventing democracy, of doing indirectly what it cannot do directly.

When it can take direct action, it is often borderline, a bit dubious, as in the case of the environment, and the member for Jonquière knows what I am referring to.

The environment was not mentioned in the Constitution of 1867. This is a concept that comes up more now. Since it was not specifically mentioned in 1867, much as it did when it patriated the Constitution in 1982, the government is using grey areas to justify invading these jurisdictions.

It sees the provinces as lesser governments and itself as a higher government to which all others are subordinate, a government that wants to set national standards.

There is another point to consider as well. I often meet young people, as all members do in their ridings. Young people often express their opinions of the Bloc Quebecois, but they do not always realize what is going on. They tell us all the parties look the same and ask us how we are different. My reply is that Bloc Quebecois members have always defended democratic values, respect for freedom of speech, respect for the right of association, fundamental freedoms that must be preserved. We constantly have to uphold such rights.

In the present system, questions must be asked. I am not saying this has to be sorted out this evening. In the United States, they hold presidential elections. Here, we hold an election to elect a party and members to represent ridings, but it is the party that gets the most members elected that forms the government and the majority rules.

The Liberal Party did not receive 50% plus one of the votes in the latest federal election. The Liberal Party got the most ridings, which gives it a majority of five seats. Supported in its position, the government is trying to dish that up all the time, in committee and in the House, forcing us to act at its speed and to pass its policies.

They say “Keep talking, you members, it will get you nowhere. We will do the deciding”. For government backbenchers, it is the will of cabinet that counts, and the ministers impose the will of the Prime Minister.

If we look at that, Canada is not the United States. It is not as powerful as the United States, but if we compare the powers of the Prime Minister and of the President of the United States—with a veto in Congress and in the Senate, which is not the case here—the Prime Minister can do what he wants most of the time.

This person who is currently the Prime Minister is imposing the party line on the people in his party. We have special legislation before us, even though many members, men and women, oppose it, because they find it too precipitous and they do not support different pay for different regions.

Let us discuss that a little. I listened to my New Democratic colleague from Acadie—Bathurst. He is quite right. He comes from one of the poorest regions in Canada. Moreover, people there are told “You come from a poor region. You have less benefits. We know that the industrial strategies of the federal government are targeted so as to make Ontario rich”. There is no other way to put it. This is done at the expense of the regions.

People in remote areas are told “In addition to that, the public servants who work in your region will be paid less”. We are talking here about workers who belong to groups such as general labour and trades and ships' crews. Because they work in poor regions, these public servants are paid less.

This increases regional inequalities. If public servants are paid less in these regions, they cannot spend as much as other public servants. They cannot make the same contribution to their region's economic development. This is not fair.

Public servants have come to my constituency office, including people who belong to groups such as general labour and trades, ships' crews, hospital services, general services, and even firefighters. I promised them I would tell my colleagues in the House what they told me, since I was elected to represent them. I promised them I would try to make government members realize that it is not right to force these workers to immediately go back to work by passing special legislation. I must also say on their behalf that it is not right for the government to use closure, so that other citizens cannot hear what we have to say on this issue.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-76, an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of government services, is to get the public service workers who are currently on strike back to work.

The bill also gives wide latitude to the government in imposing the working conditions and salaries it wants, including those for the 4,500 correctional officers who have a strike mandate.

With this bill, with its pernicious effects on correctional officers, according to its press release of March 22, the government wants to “ensure the safety of the Canadian public”. This is a totally fallacious argument.

This government knows very well that, if it wanted to ensure public safety, it had only to bow to the majority conciliation report, which was unanimously accepted by the unions representing the correctional officers. From that point on, the threat of a correctional officer strike would have been avoided, without any need of unjustified special legislation.

The federal government justifies these drastic measures in the form of Bill C-76 with the pretext that the prairie farmers are losing income and people's income tax returns are not being processed because of the picketing. In my riding of Jonquière. we have a taxation data centre. I think the workers who demonstrated had the right to do so, and the Revenue Canada workers at the Jonquière centre respected their right.

I cannot say the same for the government. I thought that in Canada people still had the right to unionize and that workers, when they had good reason to do so, could strike, because they had followed the entire process that could lead them to a strike mandate.

Today, I am not so sure. The government's approach right now, introducing special legislation, makes me think there are things to hide. It is part of a fair balance of power.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

What? Speak up. What is there to hide?

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when my dear colleague opposite speaks, I will listen. So I ask you to tell him to allow me to speak.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I would ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to give the hon. member a chance to speak.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the hon. member opposite says the government has things to hide, let her say what they are, but she has no intention of doing so. It is easy to make statements and gratuitous insinuations.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am afraid this is not a point of order.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we recognize your great wisdom.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

You cannot say what we are hiding. It is easy to make accusations.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Please, calm down. We have the whole night to talk. So, cool it. Your turn will come.

Mr. Speaker, let me recapitulate.

Negotiations with the officials representing the 4,500 correctional officers at table 4 led to a majority conciliation report—and I emphasize the words “majority conciliation”—that was unanimously approved by union members. Unfortunately, the employer, which happens to be this government, tabled a minority report. I wonder why. Why did it not take into account the majority report tabled by a third party? This is one reason why I do not think the government is very honest in its approach.

Negotiations at table 2, which involved workers from groups such as general labour and trades, ships' crews, hospital services, general services and firefighters did not lead to a majority conciliation report, because the chair of the conciliation board, the employer and the union tabled three different offers. The gap between the offers from the employer and the union is not insurmountable, provided the government acts in good faith.

Here is what is included in the bill. The government's offer for table 2 is lower than its previous proposal. The cat is out of the bag. The government is using its power to introduce a special bill to lower its offers. Before tabling its bill, the federal government was offering 2.75%, compared to 2.50% now.

The government is obviously trying to take advantage of the introduction of this bill to get the upper hand in a situation where it is both judge and judged.

Have table 2 workers not had their salaries frozen for 6 years? I would like go over what has been happening to employees in various sectors for the last six years. I will take the case of construction workers in my riding of Jonquière.

Carpenters in Quebec's federally regulated sector earn $14.75 an hour. That is because their salaries have been frozen. In Jonquière, carpenters earn $21.46 an hour, and the Office de la construction du Quebec pays $24.94 an hour.

A federal government mechanic is paid $14.05 an hour. In Jonquière, a class B mechanic earns $20.92 an hour and an FTQ mechanic in construction is paid $24.49. Clearly, this wage freeze put in place six years ago has dealt a serious blow to the purchasing power of these workers. And this is not the offer being made by this government, which it has reduced since introducing the bill. Something must be done to eliminate the ever-widening gap vis-à-vis comparable sectors in the private sector.

Apart from the pay issue, there are regional rates of pay. This is ridiculous. Do people realize that the rates of pay of federal workers in Quebec, Newfoundland and British Columbia are not the same? How can this be? They are doing the same work but have three different salary scales.

The government's offer to table 4 was known. There was a majority conciliation report. Why did the government choose to ignore it? The bill will allow the government to impose its conditions and to pay no heed to this majority report which, I repeat, was produced by a third party, and unanimously endorsed by the union.

Through this back to work legislation the government is trying to impose a collective agreement on workers at table 2 and 4 claiming it is standing for taxpayers' interest. I doubt this very much. This could not be further from the truth. What the government really wants to do is set the public against the rights of the workers. In fact, if the government was really interested, picket lines could come down today. All it would have to do would be accept the majority conciliation report concerning table 2, and binding arbitration for table 4.

In general, we oppose back to work legislation. Why? Because it should only be a last recourse. Have all the other options been exhausted? We believe they have not. Striking is a worker's fundamental right and back to work legislation would abolish this right. The government should accept going to arbitration. The blue collar workers would then put an end to their pressure tactics.

Since 1991, the federal government has renewed the framework agreement in the civil service through legislation passed by this Parliament. Today, as the framework agreement has been divided into seven bargaining tables, it is essential for the government to reach a settlement negotiated in good faith.

If the strike by blue collar workers is harming the interests of other Canadians, it must be understood that exercising one's right to strike always has direct or indirect repercussions on society. If we were to prohibit any strike that harmed other people, the right to strike would no longer exist.

I come from a unionist background. The riding of Jonquière is a workers' riding. For the last 50 years, these people have worked hard in their negotiations with their employers to achieve collective agreements in which they made sure their bargaining power and the balance of power between them and their employers was respected. I do not think this government has any respect for that.

Let us review briefly what happened in the past. I am astonished. The federal government has constantly used its legislative power to pass special legislation. I will give a list of some of these measures.

In 1982, it passed Bill C-124 to freeze the salaries of some 500,000 workers. In December 1989, we had back to work legislation, Bill C-49. In October 1991, it passed Bill C-29 which said that the employer's offers would be imposed unilaterally if they were not accepted. The Canada Labour Relations Board said this measure was unfair.

In April 1992, we had Bill C-113 which imposed a two year freeze and a unilateral extension of the collective agreement. Even the International Labour Organization chastised the government for its lack of support for union rights.

In June 1993, another bill was brought in, Bill C-101, which gave the government the right to impose a vote on its final offer in any negotiation. In June 1994, the current government introduced yet another, Bill C-17, which imposed two more years of wage freezes and added two years extension to the collective agreement, for a total of six consecutive years of wage freeze. Once again, the International Labour Organization denounced this process.

The year 1996 brought Bill C-31, with which the federal government moved into contracting out. In 1992, the federal government closed the Pay Research Bureau, thus avoiding being forced to deal with contradictory facts and figures. Bill C-26, on public service reform, in 1993, gave the employer a major advantage, making it once again both judge and party in workplace related matters.

As the member for Jonquière and as a member of this House of Commons, I am opposed, as are all members of the Bloc Quebecois, to this bill which tramples on the fundamental rights of workers.

[Angela Vautour, NDP, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Madam Speaker, having been an employee of Parks Canada and been in the GS group, I understand the situation well, but it is still very difficult to comprehend what is going on with what we have before us today.

Today, for the 50th time, the government has resorted to time allocation and closure. Not only is it denying Canadians the right to strike, but it is denying democratically elected members of parliament the right to debate it.

Members will not have the time to debate this bill forcing a return to work and will not have the time to properly study it to make changes to it.

What I am saying here is that we were elected democratically to debate issues in the House. Unfortunately due to this undemocratic process we cannot debate it in the House like we should be allowed to.

As my colleague from Winnipeg Centre was saying yesterday, the bill was prepared on the run. There is no mention of Nunavut, for example. It does not harmonize regional rates; it does not reflect the best offers the government made at the bargaining table. The blue collar workers have not had a salary increase in years, but the workload has increased because a number of jobs have been cut.

Regional rates of pay discriminate against 14,000 blue collar workers in Canada, including 1,500 in the Atlantic provinces. Atlantic federal blue collar workers are the ones most discriminated against. We get discriminated against quite often in the Atlantic.

Can someone argue that a maritimer deserves less money than a westerner doing the same job? That is what we are seeing here. This government seems to think it can.

It is important to look at the situation. Employees are asking the government to eliminate the discrimination that exists with regional rates of pay. It all seems very complicated. The government is trying to tell us that it keeps regional rates because they are in line with those in the regions' private sector, but we have proof that this is not true.

From 1981 to 1997, when I worked for the public service, I held several positions in the CR and GS groups. When I was a CR, that is a clerk—

[An hon. member]

In PEI.

[Angela Vautour, NDP, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

—In PEI, my salary was the same in Prince Edward Island as it would have been in Vancouver. This is fair, because these positions were evaluated and the same salary was paid for the same work. This is not complicated.

When I bought my milk in Prince Edward Island, where I was a CR, I was paying the same price as the GS who worked in Prince Edward Island national park. However, that person was paid less than the one working in the national park in British Columbia.

How can this government tell us it is impossible to remove this discrimination for all sorts of reasons?

It is not hard to understand. It does not matter where one lives. Do we really think people living in Newfoundland are paying less for their food than someone in central Canada? Newfoundlanders are being paid less and I can guarantee that they are not paying less for their groceries. It is the opposite. We have a government today that keeps pushing inequity and discrimination among employees.

I am hoping that Canadians are realizing what these employees are asking for. It is simple. They just want to be paid the same amount of money for the same work they are doing no matter where they are living in this country. The way it is now, the government has actually divided the whole country. Depending on where one lives a different salary is being paid.

I want to stress that when a secretary is working in New Brunswick, if that secretary is a CR-03 that CR-03 gets the same salary as a CR-03 in B.C.

The loaf of bread for the CR-03 in New Brunswick is the same price as the GS category in New Brunswick whose salary is up to $3 less than the one in B.C.

If anybody can figure this one out and say it can be justified I will be available after my 20 minutes to sit down and listen to their argument. There is no argument even though my colleague from P.E.I. on the other side of the House is saying there is an argument. There is no argument, none that makes sense to anybody.

We do not have to be accountants to figure this one out. I worked in both those positions and not once did my level of standards change because I was into one and then the other. I still had to pay the same amount for everything.

It is very important that the public realize that what we are talking about here is total discrimination. Every blue collar worker across the country should be supported on this because the only thing we are fighting for in the House is justice and equality.

We have a government that loves inequality. Look at the pay equity issue. We have the Prime Minister's signed letters saying “Yes, we shall honour the tribunal decision”. All of a sudden they get the decision and oops, no, I guess he is allowed to change his mind.

But that does not make it right. This government likes to say one thing and do another. The regional rates affect 1,500 people in Atlantic Canada. These people work in Kouchibouguac national park, Fundy national park, Louisbourg and Cape Breton Island. They are everywhere. All they are asking for is to be paid fairly for their work like their colleagues in other parts of the country.

We depend on blue collar workers. We need them. There are firefighters, hospital workers, workers in national parks. They supply goods and services to Canadian military troops. They fight fires in national defence bases. In some airports unfortunately they are starting to disappear because they are cutting them. In Nova Scotia 22.1% were cut, 24.4% in New Brunswick and 27% in Newfoundland. Instead of getting rid of the regional rates of pay we will just get rid of the employees and take care of the problem. I guess that is the direction the government is taking.

[An hon. member]

Some cuts don't heal.

[Angela Vautour, NDP, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Exactly. Some cuts don't heal. We have our workers in national parks. We have a whole team that is trying to fight this, the team at table 2.

I was actually one of these members when I was elected because I was the GS. I am not inventing this. I was one of them. I was actually sitting at table 2.

When I was elected in 1997, I was a member of the table 2 negotiating team. The table 2 members are as follows.

The negotiating team at table 2 is Paul Anstey representing the Atlantic. We have Gary Smith, Rene Kitson, John Shaw, Gary Fraser representing B.C., Paul Brewer, Leslie Hamill, Judith Scott representing NCR, Kevin King, Steve Covell representing the prairies, Mike Benoit, John Irving representing Ontario, Abdelkader Elkak, known as ElKak, Denis Dupre representing Quebec, Byrun Shandler representing the north, Nycole Turmel as an officer, and the negotiator is Luc David. Their researcher is Doug Marshall.

It is important to recognize these workers because they have been fighting at the table. They have been fighting for all the blue collar workers. It is important. There is a team that wanted to negotiate.

Unfortunately, the other side, the Treasury Board, had no intention of negotiating. It does not need to negotiate any more. It pretends that employees have the right to strike, until there is a disruption, such as this rotating strike, a little inconvenience here and there. We have to remember that when employees inconvenience us a little bit, they are fighting for our children's future.

My 13 year old will be looking for a job, hopefully when he is out of university, that is if I am still here and can afford to put him through university. I may be back to where I was before. Today a lot of poor people will never go to university, but let us assume my child will make it through university. I want him to be able to find a good job with good security and with half decent pay.

That is all the negotiators are asking for. They are asking for what we want for our children.

But the thinking is that, because there are strikes that inconvenience us, we must stop this, that and the other. These people are fighting for our children's future.

Do people who earn good money today know why that is? Is it because we have a government that offered everything?

Who negotiated the good benefits enjoyed by employees nowadays? Who negotiated leave to care for a sick child. Who negotiated health insurance? The unions did. These benefits were not handed over on a platter. This was negotiated in the hope that it would benefit our children, our children's children, and would last a long time.

But governments keep on wanting to destroy it all. It is important for Canadians to understand that workers are fighting for them. They are fighting for young people. We have young pages working here. They will want to have good jobs later on. They will want to buy a house, have a family. People cannot do this if they do not earn money. They cannot do this if they do not enjoy job security. We know the government does not want to give it to us unless we fight for it. It is important to remember how things work.

For the past two years, federal employees have been trying to negotiate a collective agreement with Treasury Board. It is very difficult to negotiate with a government which is still promoting inequality in this country. The gap between the rich and the poor is widening. Hundreds of thousands of people are homeless across the country and the government keeps on closing its eyes.

Thousands of unemployed workers have no income while there is a $25 billion surplus in the employment insurance fund.

These decisions perpetuate inequalities in this country, let us not forget it. Canadians must remember this. The government wants to ignore all kinds of people. What was the unfair treatment of students at the APEC summit in Vancouver all about?

Another example of the unfairness encouraged by the Liberal government is its refusal to abide by the decision of the human rights tribunal on pay equity. It is all the same. I myself was a victim of pay inequity when I was a CR and an ST. Promises are things of the past. They are forgotten now that they got elected.

They are saying: “Sorry, we do not need to keep our promises. We only make promises to get elected”. We remember that. The elections in Nova Scotia are a case in point. The results of the next elections in Nova Scotia remain to be seen. I believe there is a risk in New Brunswick as well. I could name many more.

Even today we see another example of unfairness. The federal government is refusing to recognize a national pay rate, which means equal pay for equal work. This is not complicated.

It is time this government shouldered its responsibilities and did the right thing for its workers.

One Liberal member appears to believe that MPs' salaries are not the same country-wide. Let us correct that immediately. My salary as an MP—not my operating budget, but our actual salary, the cheque that is made out to me—is the same as that of a member for Vancouver or for Winnipeg. The salaries are equal, unless a person is a minister or a parliamentary secretary. Perhaps, though, the Liberals are paying themselves more. That may be what is going on.

Speaking of raises in salary, I was in table 2 for the negotiations. Then I was elected, and then people said to me “Now you will be in a position to vote yourself an increase”. Imagine that.

Public servants can never turn up at the table and announce “Mr. President of Treasury Board, we have voted ourselves a raise, and that is what we want”. But we can. I did not accept my raise, because I do not believe in such a system. It is a rotten system.

There are some employees who want to sit down and negotiate. They accept that they cannot give themselves a raise like we can, but even then we have to contend with a Liberal government that has refused to negotiate.

When we see that MPs can vote themselves a raise, this raises questions. A recommendation was even made for there not to be a raise, but it was not heeded. A committee decides whether we should have a salary increase or not, and we have to accept these decisions.

We were able to give ourselves an 8% increase as MPs, but how many public service employees got an 8% increase? We must not forget that 8% of $25,000 is a lot less than 8% of $65,000. And yet this is what we see, and it goes on.

Let us look at employment insurance. In the Atlantic region, we would say we are being hit on again, and again and again. When they made these cuts, 31 of 32 members were Liberal. When that all changed after the federal election, they said “What will we do? No one is representing the Atlantic”. Things could not have been worse than when there were 31 out of 32. The 31 of the 32 said to the other members “Go ahead, cut. Forget the Atlantic”.

At least today, there are voices speaking on behalf of the poor, women and workers seeking justice and the elimination of the discrimination to be found in regional rates, workers who are working very hard and who deserve the very best.