Debates of March 23rd, 1999

Division No. 358

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there consent that the hon. member's vote be changed on the previous motion to an abstention?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the government House leader said yesterday, in his presentation, that it was a sad day.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

We have talked about this tentative agreement. As a member of parliament I feel I have every right to have knowledge of what it is about before we carry on with the debate.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There has been the request. The minister has given his answer previously.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying—

[An hon. member]

For the third time.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

—for the government House leader, it was a sad day, yesterday. Today is a very sad day too.

We are witnesses to the tragicomic behaviour of the government, which is showing the world, on television, how arrogant it can be, of what disdain it is capable. There is a sort of deception in its behaviour, given what it hid from us earlier.

This confirms completely all the claims, all the frustrations that the union movement and the public service unions have criticized for a long time, whether we are talking about the Public Service Alliance or the members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who complained of this government's day to day operations. We have a perfect and glaring illustration of that this evening.

We will get back to the basic issue. We will get back to the substance as if nothing had been said, because there is not much there. It is all right not to bother about what the President of the Treasury Board said earlier, because it is not worth it.

Let us get back to the context of the legislation used by the government to force back to work employees who belong to the general labour, ships' crews and trades groups, that is table 2, and the correctional officers, or table 4. As members know, the bargaining process was divided in seven tables.

This is what the minister should talk about, instead of rambling like he did earlier.

Incidentally, workers in the general labour group earn an average of $31,000 per year. A salary increase is, therefore, definitely in order. There is nothing outrageous about such a measure, on the contrary. This would show some openness, particularly considering that the salaries of these workers have been frozen for six years and that they are now paid an average of $6 less per hour than blue collar workers in the private sector or at the municipal level. These Canadian public servants are earning an average of $6 less per hour than workers who hold similar jobs.

Before the minister's rambling, the state of negotiations was that a conciliation report had been submitted by a third party, the conciliator, and that report had been accepted by the union.

Perhaps the President of the Treasury Board should begin by listening and by taking a closer look at the conciliator's opinions and the results of his research, which was endorsed by the union. Perhaps it would be easy for the government, the employer, to take this route.

I think this is already expecting too much. The President of the Treasury Board prefers talking with another distinguished colleague, who likes to dip into workers' pockets, much like he does. They make a fine pair during this debate about the future of public sector workers and of workers in general, nattering on when it would be more in the public's interest if they were to listen.

We can see that Quebec is very well represented in this cabinet, the people with the real power.

So, for table 4 there is a conciliator's report that has been approved by the union, while for table 2 it is high time the parties, particularly the government, agreed to binding arbitration to try to resolve the situation.

It must never be forgotten that this is a legal strike, where in fact a strike is going on, by a legally recognized union that is part of our institutions and that has the right to strike when it feels that the offers being made are not acceptable. It is therefore based on a balance of power which is also inherent to our labour relations and should include bargaining in good faith and in a civilized manner. This is precisely what the employer, the government, has not demonstrated, in our opinion.

We want the government to negotiate. The government is in a period of negotiation, but it seems to be more inclined to legislate than to negotiate.

Instead of saying that the government is more inclined to legislate than to negotiate, we should rather say that, in the recent past, since 1982 actually, bona fide bargaining has been the exception. The government would rather legislate.

Since 1982, it has obviously given the preference to its role as a legislator, and it has outrageously neglected its role as an employer who should be bargaining in good faith, like any employer, and taking legislative action only when public interest is at stake—which is not the case now.

Historically, legislative action in labour relations have been a constant occurrence since 1982. Let me give a list.

I did not pick year 1982 out of the blue. We should remember the context. The neoliberal philosophy was all the rage then, and the likes of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were in full flight and having an influence on all governments in the western countries. Canada has been part and parcel of the devastation that spelled setbacks in existing social benefits, and in collective agreements, including working conditions and the union movement itself. The Liberal government gleefully entered the fray with Bill C-124, an act concerning compensation that affected everybody. Its purpose was to control the compensation of 500,000 workers in sectors directly or indirectly under the Canadian government. That was in 1982.

In 1989, we had Bill C-49, an act to provide for the resumption of certain government services. That title is almost identical to that of the bill now before the House. It was back to work legislation for workers in hospitals and for ship crews, and these groups are again today the target of a special treatment.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

When my colleague from Trois-Rivières talks about the workers' fate, when he talks about the employer's responsibilities, would it be possible for the President of the Treasury Board and for members of the Liberal Party of Canada to listen instead of throwing paper at each other—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Order, please. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot makes a good point. It is getting late. We could give each other the dignity of paying attention to each other. If we do not want to do so, there are the lobbies for social events.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in 1989, we had Bill C-49, a second special bill, the Government Services Resumption Act, which provided for the return to work of a particular group of employees, who were as much a problem for the government then as they are today and who have been the victims of government policy, namely hospital workers and ship crews. That was in 1989.

In 1991, two years later, the Public Sector Compensation Act imposed all conditions of employment, leaving no room for negotiation, mediation and arbitration.

In 1992, the next year, Bill C-113, the Government Expenditures Restraint Act, provided for a two year extension of the salary freeze and the term of the collective agreement.

In 1993, Bill C-101, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act, gave the government the right to impose a vote on its final offers in the course of any negotiations within the public service.

In 1994, Bill C-17, the Budget Implementation Act of 1994, extended the collective agreement and the wage freeze for another two years, for a total of six years of wage freezes. The government pushed back the collective agreements already signed, arbitrarily using and abusing its legislative powers when it was in fact acting as an employer in this context.

The same thing happened in 1995. As members can see, almost every year, some special legislation was passed. Bill C-76, the Budget Implementation Act of 1995, provided for the elimination of 45,000 positions in the civil service. In fact, it was more like 55,000 jobs that were abolished.

This was direct interference in the collective bargaining process and had devastating effects on some classes of employees, including the general services group represented at table 2 who saw the number of positions reduced by 41% between 1995 and 1998. In the general labour and trades group, the number of positions dropped by 33%. For a government that brags about creating jobs, it introduced bills that had a devastating impact on the labour movement and on the job situation.

The last of this series of legislation, except for the bill before the House tonight, was Bill C-31, the Budget Implementation Act of 1996, which truly undermined the financial security and job security of employees. This bill provided for contracting-out and also suspended—and we are still reeling from that initiative—for three years the right to go to arbitration as a way to settle disputes.

There is one point to be made on this issue. It is a little easy in the government's situation. Besides, it does not matter whether it is Conservative or Liberal, this proves our point that it is all the same. In that regard, it always boils down to the same thing, more or less, with respect to the Constitution. As for labour relations, it is more or less the same people who think the same way.

It is a little too easy, when we see how the government can restrict the recourse to arbitration and, at the same time, refuse to limit and suspend its power to designate employees who, as we know, have different prerogatives and powers since they are designated.

In 1999, we have this Bill C-76, which is a back to work legislation.

This legislation can legitimately be referred to in terms of a bludgeon or big stick legislation. It suits this government's culture, because when talking about big stick we can think of baseball bat, and when talking about baseball bat we can think of cayenne pepper. When we think of the very modern means this government used in its response to demonstrators who came legitimately to show their discontent, we know that dogs were used. We have seen it here in Ottawa. Some people have been bitten. In the history of that culture, when talking about demonstrators, we know that police grab people by the throat in order to intimidate ordinary citizens.

This illustrates very well the culture of this government, which is going nowhere and has in fact been the object of the interest of not only Canadian organizations but also international organizations.

The Canada Labour Relations Board, in its wisdom, blamed the government at least twice for its actions as a legislating employer. The International Labour Organization also blamed the Canadian federal government four times. The “most beautiful and best country in the world” was blamed four times by the International Labour Organization, which represents not only governments but also unions and employers.

On four occasions since 1982, this government has been blamed internationally in its management. We know what it means to belong to the ILO, the International Labour Organization. The ILO's statement of principle provides—and the Government of Canada has made a commitment to it, as member—that:

In freely joining the ILO, all Members have endorsed the principles and rights set out in its Constitution and in the Declaration of Philadelphia, and have undertaken to work towards attaining the overall objectives of the Organization—

All Members, even if they have not ratified the Conventions in question, have an obligation arising from the very fact of membership in the Organization, to respect, to promote and to realize, in good faith—

—the principles concerning the fundamental rights which are the subject of those Conventions.

These principles include, the freedom of association and effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining; the eradication of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.

Unless it can be proven otherwise, Canada is still a member of the ILO. That means that it is violating both the spirit and the letter of the convention it signed.

[An hon. member]

Shameful.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

The way this government has dealt with labour relations has resulted in a negation of the Public Service Alliance members' right to negotiate freely during eight of the last fifteen years. During eight of the last fifteen years, we have been forced to adopt legislation and our working conditions were legislated on.

In the case of the hospital services and ships' crews groups, salaries and working conditions have been legislated on during eleven of the last fifteen years. This is totally unacceptable. It is a shame. It proves the carelessness and the incompetence of this Liberal government.

This rather bizarre behaviour is once again illustrated by the government House leader. The hon. leader, who represents Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, is a great parliamentarian.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

He is not here.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

No. He is one of those who do not listen.

He distinguished himself when he was in opposition, much more so than as a government member for that matter. He distinguished himself as a member of the so-called rat pack. He was very aggressive then. So aggressive, so compassionate that a few years ago he was on the picket lines with the Public Service Alliance members to condemn the conservative government.

And today? He is now one of the main participants in this debate to oppose the same Public Service Alliance of Canada, which he supposedly supported only a few years ago.

This is typical of this government: a bunch of hypocrites.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

There is an aspect that this government seems to completely overlook, and that is what happens the day after workers have been forced to go back to work.

What about the managers' attitude? What kind of attitude can we expect from these people? Where is the incentive for public service managers and, more importantly, for the public servants who are being treated with such arrogance and contempt today?

If the government can show such contempt for the House of Commons as it did this evening, imagine what these people are capable of on a daily basis, with employees who must be respectful and loyal, particularly since job security is very tenuous within the federal public service.

Underneath all this lies a real human resources management issue. There is an issue of actual productivity to be expected from employees who are well treated, well understood and well respected by their employer. We do not have that. Even the tiniest of small businesses, whose owner is all worked up because of the market situation, is not worse. This government manages like an incompetent boss with a piecemeal approach to dealing with human resources.

Let us hope that there will be a huge political price to pay. I am thinking about the members from Quebec, starting with the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Human Resources Development. They will have to pay a huge political price for their lack of credibility.

When they come to us with their talk of social union, we will remember, because this is the same disdain that we sense in the House today for workers as for in the provinces, Quebec in particular, where there is no recognition of Quebeckers as a people, no longer even any recognition of Quebec as a province like the others. Slowly but surely, the provincial governments are becoming regional governments in this new Canada they are concealing from us, this unitary and centralized Canadian.

[An hon. member]

Totalitarian.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Totalitarian it is. What we are dealing with here is a dictatorship in the making. No need to mince words. A dictatorship in the making that is re-elected every four years, particularly with the unique Liberal Party of Canada, which acts as if it personally owned all the institutions.

In my opinion, the reign and the domination of this government are coming to an end. As for Quebeckers, we know how to leave all this behind in short order.

We should all be feeling a great sadness. The government House leader was right in his opening remarks. This is all very sad, exceedingly so. What worries me is seeing these employees treated with so little respect and so much disdain. I wish public service managers all the best in the days, weeks and years ahead, because this sort of event is not forgotten.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to join the debate even though it is the middle of the night. I have mixed feelings about being able to speak now.

I firmly believe that we are being dragged through nonsense for nothing, to sum it up. We know now that in the last few hours there has been some movement on the government's part in terms of reaching the tentative settlement we are talking about. In fact we saw the government move very close to the union's position when talks broke off on March 12.

Everybody seems to want to know what was in the tentative agreement. I know exactly what was in it. It went from 30 months to 24 months. It went from 2.5% to 2.75%, which was the union's position on March 12, although it wanted a 30 cent upper. In the last year the 1% gets knocked off. We were very close, so why was the country dragged through weeks and weeks of rancour, animosity, hostility and inconvenience if the government had the money in its pocket? It has found it now. Why have we been dragged through all of this nonsense and why do we find ourselves here now? I cannot understand it. Personally it is very frustrating. That is table two, the 14,500-odd trades people. The government seems to have found a way to solve the problem and put these folks back to work.

Another thing in the agreement is the zones, the real reason the workers from Atlantic Canada felt it was necessary to take the drastic measure of withholding their services. The zone pay is offensive to everyone who has spoken to it. The government found satisfaction there. Now it will merge the Atlantic provinces with Quebec into one zone. That makes sense. That is what the union was calling for all along. The government wanted to merge Atlantic Canada with Saskatchewan. That was its great idea for merging into one zone. Yes, it will go down from 10 zones to 7, but that was ludicrous.

Another thing the union recommended was that one of the zones should be the three prairie provinces combined: Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. That is common sense. It is a natural district with a community of interest and similar costs of living. Now the government seems willing to let the union do that.

The third difference is that Banff will be rolled into British Columbia for the purposes of pay zones. Again that is exactly what the union asked for on March 12 before talks fell apart and the workers had to hit the bricks.

If we found the will, the money and a way a couple of weeks later, it begs the question why. Why did we force this strike and why did we put all these people out? It is beyond reason. That is why I say it is absolute nonsense.

It leads me to believe that it was ideologically driven. I am not trying to imply ideological driven as in bust the union or something like that, but there was a secondary goal, a secondary objective the government was trying to achieve by coming in through the back door, that is the 600 to 800 corrections workers, the table four corrections workers.

The government had it within its ability to settle in that regard as well. The conciliation board came down with a ruling on March 19 to which the union agreed. It said it could live with it but the government said no and two days later tabled back to work legislation.

Given there is no justifiable or good reason to keep table two out or to even go through the whole painful process of back to work legislation for table two, the government is really shooting for table four. It is trying to do what it did with the postal workers strike, trying to achieve some secondary goal through the guise or through the packaging of back to work legislation.

Why is the government not honest about what it really wants to do? Why does it not come through the front door and say it wants to designate these 800 workers as essential services? Then we could deal with it. We could have an honest debate about it. It should not try to achieve something by subterfuge or by stealth, which is what it boils down to.

We have been hearing a lot of passionate speeches from very odd sources. We have had to listen to members of the Reform Party, although I see they do not have the same courtesy to stay and listen to us. It has been painful to me as a trade unionist to listen to them paint themselves in the last couple of days of debate as the champions of the working class. Somehow they are the saviours of workers and champions of the union movement. What a crock, frankly.

I do not know how much we can get away with saying after midnight, but what absolute excrement.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if you would inform my hon. colleague who is speaking now for the socialists that there are Reformers in the House and that it is not up to him to mention whether or not members are present.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member is quite correct. We do not refer to the presence or absence of other members in the House.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. While we are on the subject of the Reform Party and its role with unions and its reputation about being great trade unionists, that party sent around a book to the various members of parliament. It is about unions and right to work laws, how to bust unions essentially. That book came to every member of parliament to promote right to work legislation which everybody here knows is a misnomer for a legislative agenda specifically designed to stop workers from doing their job of elevating the wages and working conditions of the people they represent. It is a very detailed, complex book.

What we have heard over the past couple of days is the Reform Party saying that it has been speaking on behalf of workers, et cetera, and then tonight voting for closure, voting to shut down debate. They are always saying that this government has introduced closure or time allocation 50 times, so here is the 50th anniversary and they all stand up and vote for it because they are so eager to take away the workers' democratic right to withhold their services. The great champions of the working class. It is actually quite galling. It is very galling for me as a trade unionist to have to listen to that.

It is valuable to spend some time and talk about that basic democratic right. Now that we have moved off the debate on closure we are on the substance of the issue, the actual bill, the back to work legislation.

The right for workers to withhold their services is basic and fundamental. It is recognized in our charter of rights and freedoms. It is recognized at the ILO and the United Nations and it is recognized as a peaceful means for settling an impasse, the most peaceful means, frankly. In the history of impasses and any kind of long protracted arguments or battles things used to fall to violence, whether it was a skirmish over a border or any other kind of long disagreement like that.

What we have in labour relations is a way to try to solve that. It is through free collective bargaining—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am really sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre. Was it the hon. member's intention to split his time with the hon. member for Palliser?