Debates of March 23rd, 1999

Division No. 358

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I will be using the full 20 minutes.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member has 12 minutes left.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the reasons workers take that drastic step of withholding their services. It is a tool and an instrument to apply pressure to a situation, an argument or a debate. We believe it is the only really effective tool workers have to try to elevate the standards of wages and working conditions for themselves, their families and the people they represent. It should not be tampered with and it should not be entered into lightly when one withholds anyone's rights. It is getting to be more and more common. It is a slippery slope in this House. Twice in the very short period I have been here we have had to go through this whole debate and we have seen people having that right withheld.

We come from a caucus that believes all labour has dignity. We believe that fair wages benefit the whole community. We believe that the workers involved in this job action have very justifiable grounds for doing what they did. It has been pointed out by many speakers that they have had seven years without a raise. Some of the trades people in table 2 have gone 15 years without a negotiated settlement. Their settlements have been imposed for that whole period of time.

Is this the country that believes in the right to organize and the right to free collective bargaining? This is the way it treats its own workforce. It really is fundamentally wrong.

Last June I had the honour of going with the minister to the ILO in Geneva. In light of the adverse pressures of this country that would see unions stamped out I was very proud to see our Minister of Labour stand up at the ILO and reiterate the fact that Canada does agree with and supports the right to organize, the right to free collective bargaining and yes, the right to withhold services, the right to strike if deemed necessary.

It is quite a contradiction to be standing in the House six or eight months later having this debate and watching the government side quite willingly go down the road that would simply strike those rights and freedoms that workers should have.

Unions have played a role in elevating the standards of the whole community as I pointed out. Whether it is health and safety issues, wage issues or whatever, we should be very grateful.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am really sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I wonder if the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia would mind sitting in one of the chairs.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

A woman died today in New York City who was the last survivor of a fire in 1911 at the Triangle Shirtwaist factory. This fire killed many factory workers in this terrible sweatshop. The reason I tell this story is that in 1991 in Hamlet, North Carolina a fire occurred at another factory for the third time from the same cause. The owners of this factory used to lock the doors from the outside because they were concerned factory workers were stealing chicken byproducts. The workers were stealing the gizzards and the wingtips to take home and make soup. This was a right to work state so the women were very poorly paid. This factory caught on fire for the third time and 128 women died scratching at the doors trying to get out. That happened in 1991.

Where unions are not given the ability to function and prosper and do their job, we see standards slide as in the right to work states which is what the Reform Party is promoting here. In the free states of the United States where free collective bargaining is still allowed and not legislated away, we see much higher social conditions on just about every measurement we can think of, whether it is wages, money spent on education or health care issues.

I think we should pause and reflect when we are engaged in such an unsavoury pastime as taking away worker rights. I think it is fitting that we take pause and reflect on what unions have done over the years to make our communities better places to live.

I want to dwell a bit on the actual case in point which is the strike that is about to be terminated by this back to work legislation. I have been getting a lot of letters sent to my office from public service alliance members. These are personal letters, some handwritten, from people encouraging and thanking the NDP for all we are trying to do to keep their issue alive.

These people are reminding us about the issues of not just the pay zones but the differences in pay between the public sector and the private sector. It used to be that it was almost comparable. As a carpenter I could work in the private sector for $20 an hour and I could also work in the public sector for a comparable amount of dough. Now that spread is $5, $6, $7 an hour different because wages have been frozen for so many years. Workers have fallen way behind.

Workers can take some comfort that even though they got a lower wage they had job security. Over the last couple of years there is no more job security. Everybody in the public sector is working with that sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. They are wondering who is next.

After that added insult to injury there was always the comfort level that they got lousy wages and not much in the way of job security but there was a reasonable pension plan. People could feel good about that. On April 15 the President of the Treasury Board announced he was going to loot the surplus of the pension plan, take the $30 billion surplus out of the pension plan and use it for God knows what.

I would think there is a huge political price this party will pay if it has the unmitigated gall to dip its hands into that pension plan and try to take that surplus. That is workers' money. It is deferred wages. It is paid to workers for their purposes. If there is any surplus, it should go to indexing the pension to raise benefits or give it back to the workers who actually deserve that.

When I talk about a political price, the irony is that an awful lot of public sector workers vote Liberal, which has been a long history and tradition of public sector workers. Everybody knows that Tory times are tough times. They got the heck kicked out of them by the Mulroney government and they were kind of relieved when the current Liberal government took over in 1993. I am sure they were optimistic that they would get some kind of break. I think a lot of them worked very hard to put that government in.

What do they get for it? Looted pension plans, about a third of the civil service laid off, kicked right out of a job, frozen wages for six, seven, eight years. Thanks a lot. I think they are fed up. I think the some 150,000 members of the public service alliance are justifiably angry and there will be a political price. The next time around I do not think the Liberals can count on that kind of support.

It hurts me as a trade unionist to even have this debate, especially in the middle of the night. It hurts all of us to be here, I suppose. It is such an unnecessary thing. As I said at the start of my remarks, we should not be here at all. If the government had the money to sweeten the offer tonight, why did it not have it on March 12 and prevent this whole disaster, this whole two or three weeks of misery that it put people through?

We cost out what the spread is. They were only three percentage points apart when the talks fell apart on March 12. Between the union position and the government position it was 3.1%, $7.8 million a year. They have lost more than that by closing down the ports and with the impact of the strike in that period of time. It is does not add up from a cost point of view.

Another matter is the way this whole back to work legislation has been treated. This is the package, 534 pages without an executive summary, without even any reference to what the wage increase was to be. People have to go up with this book the size of a Manhattan phone book to their offices to try to tabulate and calculate the offer that we are being asked to vote on. When government members give us a book that size and then tell us we are to have time allocation and closure, not only is there no time to debate this properly, there certainly was not time to go through it.

We think this collective agreement that forms part of the back to work legislation is probably loaded with all kinds of, if not deliberate changes that we cannot find, omissions that we do not have time to find, omissions such as the one on page 3 that in the English translation contemplates same sex couples and in the French translation says that a common law spouse is a union between a man and a woman or talks about people of the opposite sex. That is just one example we found without digging too hard. We found that in the first five minutes. How many more errors are there in this pile of stuff here that we are forced to deal with?

The real issue now is why will the government not accept the conciliation officer's report for the table 4 corrections officers. Why are we voting on back to work legislation for corrections officers who are not on strike? They have not lost a day's time. They are not on strike. How do we vote people back to work who are not even out on strike? It is ludicrous.

The question we need the Treasury Board minister to answer is why he will not accept his own conciliation board recommendations for settling the table 4 talks.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, tonight the government has achieved what some would consider previously to have been the impossible. It has united trade unionists with fervent believers in the free enterprise system in opposition to its inaction in creating this crisis tonight.

We just heard from a trade unionist describing his opposition to the government in its position on this issue which led to the crisis tonight. As someone who believes strongly in the free market, I recognize, as does our party, the importance of the trade unionist movement within the free market. Without the labour movement the free market cannot operate effectively.

This early morning debate on Bill C-76 is an example of what happens with a visionless, leaderless government. The direction that this government has refused to take has led to this crisis tonight. This is a government that only deals with issues once they have reached the boiling point. Only once the issues have reached a crisis will this government actually look seriously at addressing an issue. It will not deal with issues that appear on the horizon and take a long term approach to solving the problems. It waits until the crisis develops. It is 911 government and it is unacceptable.

For instance, we were told that there was a $9 million grain sale lost due to the government's inaction this week. Some information I have on the difference between the final offer that the government made and what the union had agreed to previously was about $8 million. This government spent $3.6 million on marketing the recent budget because the budget was not good enough to sell itself. It spent $500 million to cancel a helicopter contract.

This government has no sense of priorities, except the priorities of political expedience. This government is not interested in addressing the long term issues that affect Canadians, particularly going into a new millennium. The government is not focused on the long term future. It is solely focused on the next election.

To avoid these types of important issues affecting Canadians which lead to these kinds of crises is completely irresponsible. It is appalling for a government of Canada to behave in this manner.

Governments should play a leadership role in human resource management. Human resource management is evolving significantly and has evolved significantly over the past 20 years in the private sector. In fact, in Canada the private sector has leaped ahead of government in human resource and labour management. For instance, Chrysler Canada was one of the first companies in the auto industry to have unions represented on its board of directors. In companies today management is working with employees to create long term plans, to address issues, to develop better products and services for better prices for the consumers. In doing so they are creating better morale for their employees and better services ultimately.

The government, in its approach to labour management, is doing the exact opposite. It is bludgeoning the unions whenever it has the opportunity to do so. It is not interested in providing better services to Canadians. Frankly, it is shocking.

Government has a role to lead in labour management. If it will not lead, we would like to see the government follow the examples of some of the companies in the corporate sector that are actually doing the right thing. There are examples.

It is absolutely shameful what the government has done tonight. First the government let this crisis develop without taking any responsibility. Tonight when it had the information that there was a tentative agreement, it withheld that information until after a vote, denying it to members on both sides of the House. Members on that side of the House should be as upset as members on this side of the House. There has been a breach of the privilege of all members. Information about an agreement that had been reached was not provided to members. The government manipulated parliament tonight. It demonstrated a contempt for parliament. I was elected in June of 1997 and I have not seen this type of contempt. I think members who have been here longer are absolutely appalled that the government has behaved in this manner.

It is not surprising that the government is acting in this way. We have seen this government act irresponsibly and in contempt of this parliament on a number of issues. In fact, there has been a decline in the role of the private member that has been precipitated since this government was first elected.

I am going to speak to one of the issues concerning this labour dispute. It is the issue of regional rates of pay. Our party believes very strongly that it is fundamentally unfair that the government will pay people differently based on the regions in which they live in the country. It is hypocritical. All members of this House receive the same level of pay. It creates a ghettoization of the public service. It is not consistent with the type of labour-management practices in which the Government Of Canada should be leading.

Now that the government has allowed this dispute to boil into a crisis, the government has chosen to pit the interests of one group against another. That is typical of this government. The interests of the grain farmers and people involved in the grain industry in the west are being pitted against the interests of blue collar public sector employees.

There are a lot of agricultural interests in the Annapolis Valley, which is in my riding. One of the things I have always noted about farmers is that they are very fair people. I do not believe that any farmer in the west would feel comfortable with the fact that his or her interests were being pitted against those employed in the public sector as blue collar workers. It is absolutely shocking this divide and conquer attitude that the government is willing to take in pitting farmers against blue collar workers in the public service.

Tonight, after having withheld the information to this House of the fact that a tentative agreement had been reached, the government proceeded with the back to work legislation that should be used as a last resort when all other avenues have been exhausted.

In my opinion, it is a violation of good faith to use this back to work legislation as a sledgehammer to bludgeon labour to create some sort of advantage. It is not consistent with good faith negotiations. The government has hit an all-time low in labour relations. It is continuing to drive morale in our public service lower than it has ever been.

For any member of this House who has read the recent report from the Senate on the public sector, co-chaired by Senator Stratton and Senator Cools, they will know that our public sector in Canada is at a critically low point in its history.

There was a time when there was pride in participation or service to one's country through the public sector. This government has systematically worked to erode the confidence that our public sector employees have in their own government and in their service to the public. It is absolutely inappropriate.

Tonight the government has not only demonstrated contempt for parliament, it has demonstrated complete contempt for the collective bargaining process and contempt for the public service.

The government has refused to table the tentative agreement. Members of parliament do not have the ability tonight to study this agreement, to deal with it logically and to use that knowledge to help base a decision on the proceedings. The government has manipulated the opposition parties by withholding information. It has been a travesty of democracy. There has been no respect for parliament or labour.

The government deserves to be noted as having completely enshrined its role as the patron saint of hypocrisy. The Prime Minister claims that he cannot remember why he was marching with PSAC a few years ago. Perhaps he also cannot remember why he claimed that he was going to rip up the GST and the free trade agreement.

This government is not interested in consistency in policy. The Liberal Party opposite is not interested in doing the right thing or actually having any consistency on important issues facing Canadians. It is interested in one thing and that is winning elections at all costs, even if the casualties are Canadians, even if they are blue collar Canadians, even if the casualty is democracy and the sanctity of this House. All it is interested in is power at all costs.

The actual agreement is jeopardized by the government holding a gun to the union's head at this point. The government is actually still trying to tell the House that in some way it is negotiating in good faith. We do not buy that over here. The government is negotiating in bad faith.

I heard one person from the Reform Party say earlier that they felt they had been sucked in and manipulated by the government. There are members here who would have voted differently had they had the information.

I am pleased that our party did not support the closure motion.

[An hon. member]

What about the farmers?

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

I hear a Liberal member opposite ask “What about the farmers?” Perhaps he should have been standing up for the farmers when they needed help this past fall. The government sat on its hands during a time when there was a significant farm crisis and again waited until that crisis reached the boiling point before it even dealt with the issue.

Again the government is choosing to pit farmers against blue collar workers. It is absolutely unconscionable and unacceptable for parliamentarians to stand by and let this happen.

I am shocked tonight at how the government is treating blue collar workers. I am beyond being frustrated at how the government is treating parliament and I am ashamed to have played a role as a parliamentarian in this charade that the Liberals have created. It demeans parliament and it demeans the rights of workers in Canada.

I hope that with a little soul searching the Liberal members opposite will recognize, particularly those members on the back benches, that they too were manipulated tonight by a government with its power concentrated on a very small group of people. It not only has contempt for members on this side of the House, for the blue collar workers in PSAC, for the farmers against whom it pitted the interests of the blue collar workers, but it also has contempt for its own members on that side of the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Call in the members.

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

Division No. 359

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Milliken in the chair)

[The Chairman]

Order, please. House in committee of the whole on Bill C-76, an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of government services.

Shall clause 2 carry?

(On Clause 2)

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to start the debate with some questions. We have many unanswered questions on this bill that I think Canadians would like answered. It is only right that we get answers to those questions.

I am glad to see that the President of the Treasury Board and his officials are here. Perhaps he could give some clarification to the Canadian people.

He mentioned in the House that he has an agreement in principle. Could he describe whether he has any agreement from the striking PSAC workers that the rolling pickets would cease and desist during the time that this vote is being taken? It is important for Canadians to know what kind of assurances they have, if any, that the strikes or pickets are going to be held off.

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Chairman, there are no assurances from the union that they will stop the rotating strikes or that they will not have rotating strikes between now and the time of ratification.

Since we do not know if it will be ratified, if it were not to be ratified then there is a possibility the strikes would continue.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Chairman, just a follow-up question to that. If the union has recommended acceptance of this contract, and I assume then that it feels this is the best deal it can make, and the government is satisfied it is the best deal, it is fair to all concerned, does the Treasury Board president not feel that he may be endangering the ratification process by what we are doing here this evening? Basically what we are doing is sticking a sharp stick in the union's eye.

If it was all done in good faith and we are taking the union's word that it will promote this among its union workers, and this agreement in principle does that, I think all of us in the House say we are willing to live with it if the union and the government are happy.

Does the President of the Treasury Board not feel it is jeopardizing that ratification vote by telling the union workers “notwithstanding your agreement in principle, we are going to hit you with a great big club called back to work legislation”?

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

Mr. Chairman, we do not feel this because we know that if there had been no tentative agreement, the law would have been passed. The workers would have been sent back to work. The workers also know that we have come to a tentative agreement and they have not given us any assurances between the time of the tentative agreement and the time of ratification.

We have to protect Canadian people during that period of time. The workers will have to choose to ratify or not and they will have the choice between the collective agreement that would have been included in the law as presently drafted and the new one and another collective agreement, the one that has been agreed to in principle that contains more benefits than the one included in the law.