Debates of April 8th, 2003

Situation in Iraq

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Order, please. We do have quorum. Questions or comments, the hon. member for Windsor West.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member relates to the concerns I have heard about the situation with unilateralism as opposed to working together at the United Nations.

I had the chance to go to Washington a week ago and I talked to congressmen and women who opposed the U.S. pre-emptive strike in Iraq. They identified the concern of precedence setting and potentially the issue of the United Nations being undermined in the future for other potential conflicts.

The motion does not identify the United Nations at all in its actual delivery. Does the member feel that undermines the United Nations and, more important, does this open us up to any potential situations in the future that might make a unique turn in history with the United Nations itself?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I guess there are two parts to the question. Let me deal with the principle of pre-emptive strikes that underlie the doctrine that has been enunciated by the Bush administration.

The real hope I have is that at some point in the next administration in the United States that principle or right to pre-emptive strikes will be repudiated by a subsequent administration. If it is not and this becomes its doctrine, not only for this continent but for the whole of the planet, that does not bode well for peace and security in the world.

On the second issue of the role of the United Nations, I very much would have liked to address that. I just ran out of time. There is no question the final part of the motion dealing with the whole issue of reconstruction is glaringly blank about mentioning the United Nations.

As a party, it is our position that the United Nations should be involved, not only in the humanitarian effort that will be required to assist Iraq to get back on its feet, but also to assist, given what at this point seems the inevitability of the government collapsing, and play a key role in assisting the Iraqi people to take control of their government for themselves, by themselves.

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member make reference to the fact the Prime Minister did not in his remarks today convey our very firm conviction that the United Nations must indeed be a part of reconstruction. I did not have time to get it but I can offer to read it to him afterwards and look forward to doing that.

He made it very clear that Canada is in support and in discussion right now with the United States, the U.K., the United Nations and other multilateral groups with regard to what we and others intend to do on reconstruction. That is key.

Knowing the hon. member as I do, I am sure he most likely omitted to mention it or perhaps was not in the House for that reference.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was not in the House for the comment by the Prime Minister but I watched it on television, so I did hear it. My response has to be, if the government is serious, why is it not in the resolution in the final point? I say that in light of the history of this governing party over the last six or eight months as we watched it vacillate back and forth.

Initially the government said that it would only support any activity in Iraq if the UN sponsored it. Then we heard comments from some of the ministers, and even the Prime Minister on one occasion, that maybe we could go in without UN sponsorship. Ultimately, it decided not to and I again give it full credit for that.

The member will have to appreciate my reluctance to be totally convinced by the simple statement we had from the Prime Minister this morning.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to get the member's opinion on the change of heart by the Prime Minister on many occasions on this very issue. I am talking about regime change. The member knows full well that the Prime Minister stood in the House two weeks ago and supported regime change without any question. One day later he completely reversed his decision on that. Liberals do not like to hear that but it is on the record.

Why would the Prime Minister completely flip-flop on an issue as important as that?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a lawyer, if that was in a courtroom, it would be ruled out because I would have to try to put myself in the Prime Minister's mind.

The question is well taken that there has been this vacillation. I do not think his support of regime change is quite as strong as the member suggests, but the issue is still there. How solid is the Liberal government with regard to its role in this?

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the limited time left it is very difficult to choose which argument to develop in this very important debate.

I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues to an editorial which appeared in none other than the New York Times . This newspaper has been frequently quoted today by the members who have spoken on behalf of the official opposition. The editorial appears under the title “War and the Ruins of Diplomacy”. It makes a number of worthwhile points. I will quote only one paragraph because of the absence of adequate time. It states:

--America's current isolation began long before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. From the administration's first days, it turned away from internationalism and the concerns of its European allies by abandoning the Kyoto Protocol on global warming and withdrawing America's signature from the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court. Russia was bluntly told to accept America's withdrawal from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty and the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization into the territory of the former Soviet Union. In the Middle East, Washington shortsightedly stepped back from the worsening spiral of violence between Israel and the Palestinians, ignoring the pleas of Arab, Muslim and European countries. If other nations resist American leadership today, part of the reason lies in this unhappy history.

This is an interesting overall background painted by an editorial writer in the New York Times , who went on to state:

The American-sponsored Security Council resolution that was withdrawn...had firm support from only four of the council's 15 members and was opposed by major European powers, like France, Germany and Russia.

These elements somehow have a bearing in the evolution of events that we have witnessed in the last few weeks, namely, that there is a body of opinion in the United States that disagrees with the White House. There is also a criticism being levelled in relation to the handling of this whole issue at the Security Council on the part of the White House administration.

Last Friday I was struck by the fact that the employment figures released in Canada show a full time employment increase by some 23,000 jobs in March, which is a remarkable achievement considering the time of the year and the war in Iraq. By contrast, the economy south of the border showed a loss of 108,000 jobs. Evidently the war is beginning to have an impact on the U.S. economy.

If certain Alliance strategists on the opposition side and big business leaders had any good sense, instead of urging Canada to join in the war and further integrate with the U.S. economy, they would support Canada's position and urge a resumption of talks at the Security Council, for instance, to seek alternatives to Canada's huge dependence on one economy, as is the case now, by strengthening our economic bridges with Europe and Asia.

Today Canada's economy, by all accounts, is healthy. By contrast, the U.S. economy is not. Which is the model then that the official opposition and big business prefer? Canada has opted in favour of the United Nations Security Council and multilateralism. Does the official opposition want to replace the United Nations with the White House administration? This is a common question that I would dearly like to have answered by the official opposition spokespersons.

Last week at the council of Europe an important resolution was passed. I will relay to the House the comments made by that assembly in a resolution that was passed by a two-thirds majority. In one paragraph it states:

The Assembly notes that the great majority of the international community had opposed the military intervention at this stage, which was favoured by only four of the fifteen members of the United Nations Security Council.

Mr. Speaker, may I call it 6 o'clock?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Yes, and I wish to inform the hon. member for Davenport that he still has 15 minutes left in his speech if he wishes to use it when Motion No. 15 makes its way back to the House.

It being 5:52 p.m., the House will now proceed to private members' business as indicated on today's Order Paper.

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

moved that Bill C-419, an act to amend the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act (members' staff), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to debate second reading of Bill C-419. I introduced this bill on two previous occasions, but unfortunately in both instances it died on the Order Paper. I hope that all members representing all caucuses in the House of Commons will see fit to engage consideration of what is a matter of simple justice.

This bill proposes to amend the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act to ensure that staff of senators and members of the House of Commons who serve them in the capacity of member, leader, House leader or whip, would enjoy the benefit of being permitted, if they so choose, to organize a union, to belong to a union, and to enjoy the benefits of collective bargaining.

I do not need to tell members that this is a set of rights and privileges that is considered fundamental in a modern, democratic society such as Canada. In fact, we worked long and hard to ensure that those rights are protected and advanced for all working people.

I must say that for me it was a revelation. I was astounded when I arrived on Parliament Hill in 1995 to discover that only the New Democratic Party caucus had voluntarily recognized the organization of its staff on Parliament Hill in what is known as PASS, the Parliamentary Association of Support Staff. It was organized in the early eighties and not only were they the only staff on Parliament Hill working for members of Parliament or senators who enjoyed the benefit of that organization, but in fact they did not enjoy the full benefits of collective bargaining. It remains true to this day that neither the employer or the employee at this point in time enjoy the full recognition of a union or an employer that is engaged in a collective bargaining process and has obligations that go with that under the current legislation that governs this House.

As I said, it is a matter of simple justice. What these changes propose to do is alter the current legislation, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, so that parliamentary staff would not be prevented from organizing and negotiating with their employer through a collective bargaining unit.

I know there are members who have expressed concerns about what this would mean in the instance of confidential staff and political staff. This proposal would cover staff in a minster's office who would be hired under the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act but would not cover staff in a minister's office who would be hired under the Public Service Employment Act.

The bill proposes that staff working not just for ordinary members but for caucuses and for parliamentary committees would have extended to them the normal rights and protections that would be available to the majority of Canadian workers.

Let me outline what the bill would do. First, it would change the definition of employee in the act to exclude persons who are employees under section 2 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, essentially confidential and political staff.

Second, it would change the definition of employer in the act to include members of the House and Senate who have staff to assist their work as members in Ottawa or in their constituency, to assist members who are ministers, and to assist members in their role as leaders, House leaders, whips of recognized parties, and staff who serve the caucus of a recognized party.

Third, the bill would prohibit the employer from engaging in lockouts and would provide penalties for those causing lockouts. In so doing, Bill C-419 would not affect any provision of the Parliament of Canada Act that currently forbids strikes. It would create an even-handedness or a level playing field in that regard.

Finally, the bill would cause the entire act, parts I, II and III, to come into force on a date chosen by cabinet or upon royal assent of the private member's bill, whichever occurs first.

In November 2002, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that members of Parliament are required to abide by basic human rights legislation. In a unanimous decision, the court rejected the argument put forward by the House of Commons that parliamentary privilege somehow exempted MPs from the provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act. It would be accurate to say that Bill C-419, which I am introducing for debate this evening, would compliment that important court ruling by providing that the vast majority of Parliament Hill employees would enjoy some of the labour rights enjoyed by other Canadian workers.

When I arrived in Ottawa in 1995 as leader but without a seat, I was astounded to discover that employees of members of caucuses and staff of ministers at the constituency level were not confidential or political staff, and were effectively prohibited from forming a union.

One might ask how it is then that employees of the New Democratic Party caucus, as far back as the early eighties, did in fact put in place an employees' collective bargaining structure. It did so only because of one of the important principles, and I would be prepared to say raison d'être, of the NDP which is to ensure that workers enjoy the right to organize and to bargain collectively.

In that regard, the New Democratic Party caucus entered into a voluntary recognition that first established the Parliamentary Association of Support Staff which has evolved over the years with the full support and appreciation of the NDP caucus. This was not just the simple justice of having workers enjoy those rights that are enjoyed by the majority of Canadian workers, but that the orderly collective bargaining process was a better relationship between employer and employee. The PASS organization evolved into a much more fully functioning union and for all practical purposes, except for the lack of support that exists under the legislation governing employees on the Hill, it has without a doubt created a more positive and harmonious working relationship.

Why should employees who serve for many years in this place have no orderly provisions whereby they can receive fair increments in their pay despite the fact that we know that as a result of recent legislation there are automatic increments in the budgets of members through their MOBs?

We know now that as a result of recent legislation there are automatically budgetary increments in the budgets of members, through the MOBs of members. Let me say from the employers' side that this is an issue should there be a situation where there may be a dispute, which one would hope to avoid but nevertheless that is not always the reality in a workplace, in which an employer and an employee in fact need some of the benefits of the supports that go with the collective bargaining process through the broader system and through legislation such as the amendments to the legislation that I am introducing tonight. In fact, the opportunity for the employer and the employee to avail themselves of mediation services or of arbitration is simply denied to the employer and the employee alike. This can create severe unfairness and injustices.

It really is a matter of simple justice. Although there is some apprehension, I understand, from some members who have expressed their opposition to moving in this direction, I think it is past time for us to recognize that fair treatment of our employees surely requires that they be accorded and extended the basic rights that are available to the majority of Canadian workers.

I ask members to consider this from the point of view of the employer, to consider it from the point of view of what kind of precedent it sets and what kind of model it is for members of Parliament who have it within their realm of opportunity and I would say obligation to improve the legislative provisions and protections for those who serve us so ably and so capably here on Parliament Hill and who are denied those very basic rights.

I look forward to hearing from other members and other caucuses as we move forward to improve both the legislative and the working environment for those who are employed here on the Hill, both by senators and by members of Parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for introducing the bill and persisting with it. It has been a long journey to get the House to pronounce itself on the bill.

I would like to indicate to the member right off the bat that I intend to vote in favour of the bill. I believe that the principle is one that merits debate at the committee stage. It merits some attention and some detailed work, because there may be aspects of what the member proposes that perhaps should be modified. I think that the notion put forward here is one that has the merit that I explained and it deserves attention and closer scrutiny at committee.

I believe it touches indirectly also a very vital issue: that of defining privilege and how it relates to the legislation that we in this House and senators in the other House pass and which eventually becomes the law of the land. We have seen too many incidents of situations where there is a conflict between this legislation and questions of privilege.

I am personally involved in a case connected with the Official Languages Act and the House of Commons, the Quigley case. We know there was another case involving both the House of Commons and another Canadian law.

I hope that the hon. members will take advantage of this opportunity to refer it to committee for more thorough debate.

I would like to invite the member who is sponsoring the bill to reflect also on the possibility that, indeed, should the bill not pass--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but there are only five minutes for questions and comments and I want to give another hon. member a chance to ask a question of the hon. member for Halifax.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I finish my sentence?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Yes, very briefly.

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

There will be a need to define privilege and how it relates to Canadian law.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the support that the member has already indicated for the bill to go to committee. I remain absolutely open to the possibility that there could be some suggested improvements. I think it would be an important step to move it to the committee level and engage all members, all caucuses, in the debate.

I think there is the need to clarify really what is intended by privilege. I must say I was absolutely horrified when I heard some suggestion that the House of Commons, on behalf of all members, I guess, was going to appeal an important decision that was made in which it was made quite clear that privilege was not intended to allow members to evade some very basic human rights.

At the same time, I agree that there could indeed be the need to get some clarification of what privilege does mean. I think it was clearly understood as a protection for the absolute freedom of speech that needed to go on, but surely it is not to be able to discriminate against people on the basis of race or discriminate against them in their employment status and the rights and privileges that they should enjoy. I think that should be done. It could be done through a referral to the Supreme Court. That is a fairly customary thing to do.

I think what is very important here is for us to take up our basic responsibilities as employers and also, hopefully, as members of Parliament who should be exemplary in how we deal with our employees, not just sort of grudgingly acknowledging that people should enjoy basic rights that exist for most other Canadian workers.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find this bill very interesting in itself. Still, I think it is very general — it just gives very general guidelines.

I am wondering if the hon. member has foreseen the details: that is my first question. Second, with whom are the employees going to negotiate? At present, the employees are paid out of public funds, even though they are our employees. What position would we occupy in negotiations in such a case?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, let me say again I think that there is no absolute hard and fast model or formula for this. It is clear that in the instance of the New Democratic Party staff here on the Hill and in our constituency offices they form a bargaining unit and in fact are affiliated. They are very proud of this. We as employers are very proud of this. They are affiliated with the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada in this country, really an outstanding union. They are tough bargainers and good for them. They have won some major improvements in the working conditions and good for them. That is why one has a union.

Let me say that the way in which this could be organized would be the subject of debate. There could be strenuous arguments for there being separate bargaining units from one caucus to the next because it would not be correct to assume that the community of interests is identical across all of the political parties.

Those are details that can be worked out. I think the discussion that could go on in debate and then referring it to committee is an important step in that direction.

[Carole-Marie Allard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to take part in the debate on Bill C-419, an act to amend the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act (members' staff).

First, I think it is appropriate that this bill is being considered during private members' business, and it is not my intention to seem skeptical about the changes nor negative about unions, god forbid. I want to congratulate the member for bringing this issue forward again for debate in the House of Commons.

In my humble opinion and the opinion of my government, this bill would have a direct impact on how parliamentarians work and run their offices. It is, therefore, reasonable for us to discuss these issues in a non-partisan manner, which does not mean that we cannot try to come to some agreement.

Since the legislation was enacted in 1986, the government has considered many points raised by this bill. It must be said that no solutions were implemented because parliamentarians were unable to agree on these points.

Bill C-419, which the House is currently considering, proposes three major changes to the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, passed in 1986.

First, part I of the legislation would be amended to allow employees of members and senators to negotiate collective agreements. These provisions would apply to Hill and riding office staff, as well as caucus employees.

Each member and senator would be considered an employer by his or her employees. Hill staff would then be subject to the same act as employees of the House of Commons, Senate and Library of Parliament.

Under part I of the act, staff of Parliament could appeal to the Public Service Staff Relations Board, for arbitration and settlement of grievances.

Second, the bill would add a new provision prohibiting lockouts by employers. This would apply to the House of Commons, the Senate, the Library of Parliament and each member and senator as employers. Furthermore, this bill includes sanctions for employers who resort to lockouts.

Third, this bill would ensure that parts II and III of the act would come into force. Part II sets standards for hours of work, salaries and leave, and integrates part III into the Canada Labour Code.

Part III sets occupational health and safety standards, and also integrates part II of the Canada Labour Code. These two parts, parts II and III, apply to staff of members of Parliament, the Senate and the Library of Parliament.

Even though the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act was enacted on June 27, 1986, parts II and III—which deal with health and safety standards—never came into force because of concerns expressed by parliamentarians from both chambers that these provisions should not apply to parliamentary staff.

One of the concerns of parliamentarians who did not want parts II and III to come into force was that these provisions have financial and operational consequences.

Let us refer to the financial consequences first. Bill C-419 could provoke considerable expenses due to occupational health and safety standards set out in parts II and III. The new provisions that would allow for collective bargaining could also have significant financial repercussions for members and senators.

More important still, there would also be possible repercussions from parts II and III on the independence of members of Parliament and on their privileges. For example, employees could refuse to carry out certain tasks, or claim that certain jobs are dangerous. We can immediately imagine the consequences, which would prevent the House from sitting.

The work of members' offices would be disrupted. Among other things, government inspectors would have access to Parliament Hill and to members' offices.

As parliamentarians, we must ensure that our privileges are not unduly jeopardized. We must find the right balance between maintaining these privileges and respecting the interests of our employees. The House of Commons, the Senate and the Library of Parliament have managed to solve labour disputes informally. Yet, employees benefit from protections similar to those provided under the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act. This act has the benefit of not breaching our privileges.

As parliamentarians, we must ensure that we fulfill our duties as employers in such a way as to provide our own employees with good working arrangements.

The purpose of this bill concerns each and every one of us. I am pleased to see that we can deal with this topic in a non-partisan manner. In the end, the government recognizes the concerns expressed on this matter by parliamentarians over the years. For this reason, it does not wish to move forward with this bill without consensus among parliamentarians.

The most appropriate compromise, and I do say compromise, rather than solution, would be for the Board of Internal Economy to create a parallel non-legislative structure with the same purposes as those set out in this bill, but without the problems that would arise under Bill C-419, introduced by the member.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thought the Canadian Alliance would be speaking on this bill.

I would like to begin by congratulating the hon. member for Halifax for this initiative. I think that the reason this is being debated at this time is that the situation is a debatable one. We must see whether any improvements can be made. At any rate, it must be discussed.

If I am reading correctly, however, we are dealing with employees who do not have the right to strike yet could be locked out. We agree with that part of the bill, where the hon. member has changed the wording to the effect that those who do not have the right to strike may not be locked out. This, we feel is fair and just.

This bill:

—amends the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act to ensure that staff of members of the Senate and the House of Commons, who serve them in the capacity of member, leader, house leader or whip, will not be prevented from being included in a bargaining unit.

Or in another words, a union.

More specifically, the bill addresses:

caucus staff, parliamentary committee staff, and staff in a minister's office who are hired under the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act.

Staff in ministers' offices who are hired under the Public Service Employment Act are excluded from this bill.

Moreover, the bill forbids lockouts by employers of their employees and provides fines of up to $5,000 for those causing lockouts. That is nothing to be sneezed at.

The reason we are discussing this today is that the situation does exist. There are those who are dissatisfied, and the hon. member is right in pointing this out. On the other hand, judging from discussions with members of my party, there are many of us who do not support the bill as currently drafted. Some would, but most would not.

I will give their reasons, and will speak on their behalf as well as my own.

When there is an election, a party can end up with 54 MPs and so we hire staff. Things go along well for four years and then there is another election. We end up with only 20 MPs in the House, so what happens to those staff? Are we obliged to hire the ones with the most seniority? Are we obliged to take them for our offices?

That is of concern to me, because that is not how it should work. We have no control over these things. I know that in my party, at present, each member is the critic for an issue. I am the critic for labour, and if a staff person whose specialty is the environment was assigned to me, that would not work. I must be able to gather around me people who are knowledgeable on the issue I am responsible for and who are prepared to develop their knowledge and skills in that area.

Another concern that was raised was that the staff in our constituency and Ottawa offices do not necessarily perform the same duties. How can a job description be developed? It is impossible to list the duties of a political employee, because they vary. Say an election is called. An employee, if unionized, could tell me, “Elections are not part of my duties. I am not working past 5 p.m.”

There is this whole issue. In politics, we are politically involved, and our staff along with us. There is no doubt that all duties could never be identified. It is simply impossible because they vary. In the summer, these people are not as busy and work on other things. Come an election, there is an entirely different set of duties. This is true for everyone.

The third concern that my colleagues raised was about which union we would be involved with. Will there be a single union for all House of Commons employees? That cannot work. There is also the whole issue of confidentiality and political parties.

We are discussing it here in the House, and we will come back to it in the second hour, but for now, I think we have to seriously consider going through the Board of Internal Economy, as the hon. member suggested earlier. We must sit down and try to establish some parameters.

There is the issue of salary ceilings; for example, you will be able to go up to a certain amount, but there is no base salary for our employees. Perhaps it would be possible, through a committee, to decide that there would be a base, so that we would be providing at least a minimum income to employees.

There is also the question of working conditions. We could try to find a way for our employees to be happy and have decent working conditions. I think it would also be appropriate for employees, if they were really poorly treated, to have the possibility of lodging a complaint with some body other than a union. It is important that we be able to help them, that we help people get ahead. I know that happens on Parliament Hill. So we must find a formula, other than a union, that makes it possible to make such changes.

There is one other point that I see as potentially controversial, and that is the whole question of the budget. I have a budget assigned to me by the House of Commons. I can tell you that 75% to 80% of my budget is used for employee salaries. But if a union were to decide at some point to force my hand and say, “You are going to raise the salaries of your staff by such and such an amount,” I would not have enough money to do that. I do not control my own budget: the House allocates it.

There is a problem of logic in all this. If we want all staff members to be very well paid, there must be a specific budget for employee salaries, that budget must be used for no other purpose, and employees must be well paid. But I do not see a union coming to tell me, “Your budget is no longer good enough: you have to raise employee salaries,” forcing me to spend 90% of my budget on salaries. I will not be able to cope; it will not work. It could lead to layoffs and long-lasting disputes.

I think that other resources, other ways of helping our employees, must be found. It is important to respect politics, since we are politicians. I think that it is essential to show respect here. We must ensure proper working conditions. I do, for my employees. They are well paid and work normal hours. If they work overtime, they get time off. We agree on this. I think that we are mature enough to do this.

I am unable to manage my riding office as I do my office in Ottawa. It is impossible. I do not see how these people could be unionized in the same way. I think that other solutions must be found.

I congratulate my colleague on her initiative. I think this is a very broad bill, and it opens the door to many possibilities. I think it must be debated. I invite her, in the future, to better inform us of her real intentions, because things are not clear. We are looking at a broad picture and things are very unclear. I would like to have more information.

At the same time, I would like her to consider the possibility, given all the instruments and tools of the House of Commons, of perhaps taking a different approach. But it is essential to ensure, through the Board of Internal Economy or by another committee, that our employees are well paid and well treated on the Hill.

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to say a few words on Bill C-419, an act to amend the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act.

The purpose of the bill is to ensure that staff of members of the Senate and the House of Commons who serve the members in their capacity as member, leader, House leader or whip will not be prevented from being in a bargaining unit. Simply put, the bill affords collective bargaining rights to political staff. It would essentially turn political staff into quasi-civil servants. That is a move with which I think our party would have some very fundamental problems. I would have some fundamental problems with it as well.

This is not the general course I would normally pursue, because I generally support legislation that gives full collective bargaining rights, including the right to strike, to workers in the vast majority of situations. However, political staff are an entirely different kettle of fish. I do not know how it could possibly work when we consider the hours of work that political staff put in and the flexibility that is required of the political staff in putting in overtime and what have you. I cannot see how it could possibly work.

Political staff are not civil servants. Neither are they simply management level civil servants who are exempt from a given bargaining unit. Political staff are simply that, political staff. Their relationship to the member is essentially personal and political. The nature of that relationship is as varied as the number of members in the House of Commons. How could we possibly have one set of rules that would apply to everyone? In this particular instance I think it is fair to say that one size does not fit all.

Members hire a political staffer for a whole bunch of different reasons. There is no criteria set out to hire a political staffer. Sometimes a political staffer is hired because he worked on an election campaign with us, or he is a friend who has a talent we recognize in one particular area. He may not fit the criteria set out in a job description and it might be very difficult to fit him into a certain job description.

One of the ways in which the uniqueness of the relationship between a member and a staffer is acknowledged in the House is by the vacation pay a member's staff receives on an annual basis. That is in recognition of the fact that political staff often work long hours. They work very odd hours. They have no provision for overtime and have no realistic expectation of the usual annual vacation leave that applies in the case of a civil servant.

One thing which struck me as strange was that temporary House committee staff are excluded from collective bargaining rights but they are lumped in with political staff to acquire those rights under Bill C-419. To me that is mixing apples and oranges. House and Senate committees serve all political parties, and committee staff, be they temporary or full time, are essentially civil servants. Therefore I cannot see them as being in the same category as political staff as far as collective bargaining rights are concerned.

I want to congratulate the member from the NDP for taking the initiative. Maybe it requires some debate but I cannot help but say that perhaps the relationship between the NDP caucus and its staff operates a little differently from the rest of the political world with which I am familiar.

I have been in political life since 1979 and this is the first occasion in which I have seen a serious proposal to significantly alter the collective bargaining rights of political staff. Of course, they have no collective bargaining rights at the moment.

Political staff are not rank and file civil servants. They are not public service management staff. They occupy a unique position in the governmental spectrum and one which I feel is not suitable for the stated intentions of the bill.

Regrettably, I do not believe we can support the bill. Again I want to congratulate the member and say that it probably requires some further debate, but on the surface of it, I think we would have some difficulty in granting collective bargaining rights to political staff. It just does not seem to fit.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was in my office watching these exciting debates on my television while I was working on things when somebody said they did not know whether anybody from the Alliance would be talking to this. I thought l had better get in here and express our opinion.

I have some pretty good ideas and I have quite a bit of experience in the area of staff, hiring staff, relationships, collective agreements, all those things. I have some pretty strong ideas about the bill and I am very honoured to say a few things about it.

I believe that where there is a lot of staff, the only practical way of hiring that staff is with a collective agreement.

When I worked at the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology, we had 750 instructors. It was quite impractical to hire each one on an individual contract because of the diversity that was required in the different areas, the obvious problems of favouritism and that type of thing. A collective agreement was very much in order.

I was the union steward for a while, and the president of the staff association, and the president of the local of the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees. There were many times when I looked at the collective agreement and said that in a way one size does not fit all. Just as any woman would say when it comes to buying pantyhose that one size does not fit all, this is true in collective agreements as well.

We can have an agreement that says someone who has a certain amount of education and experience gets a certain salary and someone who is required to work from 8 in the morning until 4:30 every day gets one hour for lunch.

At the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology we taught classes. Our collective agreement said that we should all have one hour for lunch starting between 11:45 and 12 and ending one and one-quarter hours later. A person who started lunch at 11:45 would be back on the job at one and a person who started at 12 would be back by 1:15. It did not fit because a lot of us had classes starting at 12:15. When I was there all the classes started at 15 minutes after the hour and went for 55 minutes. Sometimes there were double classes which were basically two 55-minute periods.

We had some problems trying to get that through the collective agreement process. Some individuals said it was not a problem, that they would take their lunch hour from 11 to 12. I was one of those guys who was compliant. I remember one time in my schedule my lunch hour was from 8 to 9:15 in the morning. That is how I got the shape I have now; it started then, from eating at irregular hours. Others said that no, they would only take their lunch hour at the time the collective agreement stated.

What happened was that those of us who were compliant ended up teaching during the noon hour. Those who said that they were standing by the agreement got their lunch hour during the prescribed hours.

It worked out anyway because people were able to work around the system. But it was very difficult because of the variations in individual cases.

Then we had instructors who taught in other areas. I was in the academic department, but others taught in other areas. It was very difficult to come up with one collective agreement that fit the needs of a mathematics or physics instructor as opposed to someone who was teaching medical lab technology, as opposed to someone else who was teaching the paramedics, as opposed to someone else who was teaching heavy duty diesel mechanics. There were many variations.

Somehow the big union was not able to get its head around our particular needs there. We landed up spending almost as much time fighting with our union as we did with our employer, with the result that things really deteriorated.

The reason I am saying this is because in this particular environment we all have some very special needs. I strongly believe that it is absolutely important for us to be able to hire people to work strange hours if that is required. If we have people who work extraordinarily long hours, it would be fair for us to have the flexibility to pay them a little more, and perhaps others who work the more stringent hours, for whatever reasons, to get paid a little less. However, each one of us must be able to do that. It is important to provide a specific work plan for each individual in this environment because we have a relatively small number of employees.

I want to reiterate that when there are a large number of employees, even when I think back to NAIT, I really do not know how else we could have done it. It would have been difficult to start saying that we would have 750 individual contracts. It would have been an administrative nightmare. But here we have a leader of the party who, with his or her chief of staff, has made an arrangement for a staff of between about 50 and 150 people. I think the government probably has quite a few more than that. That is a manageable size. That is not out of capacity at all for individual contracts.

I reject the hypothesis that unless it is done by collective agreement that it will not be fair. The onus is on all of us, as individual members of Parliament and as directors in our respective parties, to ensure that the working conditions, the employment package, and everything there is fair.

When I was first elected way back in 1993, almost 10 years ago, I would have liked a few more statistics. We received this little sheet that said we could hire our staff and we could not pay them more than a certain amount. I had no idea as a neophyte what I should pay my staff. What were the standards and norms? I would have liked a little more actual help in that regard to say what the norm was and what members of Parliament were generally paying. I would have liked means and standard deviations. That may have been as useful as ranges of salaries based on experience and so on. That statistic should be available without divulging individual information.

That would have been helpful, but going to a collective agreement in this particular environment is not a good fit at all. The concept is good. We must ensure that we are fair. However, I reject the idea that unless there is a collective agreement guaranteeing the rights of the employees that they are not going to get them.

We all know the horror stories. I was involved in our staff association. I was the president and the chief guy that dealt with problems, and I dealt with problems continuously. That was in an environment where there was a collective agreement. We are going to have problems either way.

Perhaps what we ought to do is have a better liaison system where staff can go to their party bosses and say that one of our MPs is doing this and could we look at that. There might be a system there, but I would not support this particular initiative even though I do strongly believe in fairness to staff.

As an employer in charge of only three staffers right now, I have an obligation. If I expect loyalty from my staff, I must show them loyalty as well and ensure that they get paid adequately, that their working conditions are fair, and that they can look after their families if that is their need. I insist that we keep that flexibility and so with regret I will not support this particular bill.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to take part in this debate on Bill C-419, An Act to amend the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act. I will speak primarily to the provision in the bill that covers the coming into force of parts II and III of the legislation.

This provision, clause 4, changes the provision of the act concerning the coming into force. The Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act was passed by Parliament and received royal assent on June 27, 1986. Nevertheless, parts II and III of that act, the ones dealing with employment standards and health and safety standards, have never come into force.

Part II, establishing the obligations related to normal working hours, salaries and holidays, incorporated part III of the Canada Labour Code.

Part III of the act, setting health and safety standards, incorporated part II of the Canada Labour Code.

Both parts of the legislation were intended to apply to staff in the House of Commons, the Senate and the Library of Parliament as well as the staff of senators and members of parliament.

It may seem odd that they have never come into effect, since the bill has been law for 17 years. The government acknowledged that the unions, as well as a number of employees and members, have called for these provisions to be applied.

The government has acted upon their requests by addressing this matter and consulting parliamentarians and other stakeholders. It did not move on the matter after that consultation because of a lack of consensus. As well, the government feels that the requirements of the law are properly respected, albeit informally.

The standards imposed by part II are already in collective agreements. As well, parliamentary employers respect the spirit of the law as far as health and safety is concerned. In many cases, they go beyond what the law requires.

For instance, the House of Commons has struck a joint health and safety committee made up of representatives of management and labour.

The hiring of MPs' staff is governed by the regulations of the Board of Internal Economy, and employee benefits are set out in the directives of the Manual of Allowances and Services , which apply to parliamentarians in their capacity as employers.

Two main concerns were raised by members of Parliament concerning the coming into effect of parts II and III.

First, part II requirements might have financial and operational implications for MPs and senators.

Each parliamentarian is aware that we must carry out our activities within the framework of the limited funds made available for staff.

Second, the coming into effect of part III might impact upon the independence of members of Parliament and breach their privileges.

For example, employees might refuse to work if they deemed their working conditions to be dangerous, and this might be considered a matter of privilege it if prevented the House or its members from sitting.

Part III would give government inspectors access to the parliamentary precinct, in particular the MPs' and senators' offices, without the authorization of the person concerned or of the Speaker of the House.

As parliamentarians, we need to act with caution when laws are proposed which might conflict with parliamentary privileges.

As I have already noted, parts II and III apply the provisions of the Canada Labour Code to parliamentary staff. Yet that code was never designed to apply to the legislative branch.

It does not in any way take into consideration the distinct nature of the House of Commons or the Senate, rights and parliamentary immunity of MPs, or the constitutional independence of the House from the executive branch.

I would point out that the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act has not undergone a comprehensive parliamentary review since 1986.

It is now proposed in Bill C-419 that parts II and III come into force without our first ascertaining that they remain as relevant as they were 17 years ago.

As I just said, perhaps we should consider further amendments to the act before enacting parts II and III, to ensure that they do not conflict with parliamentary privileges.

We should make sure that all the amendments made to the Canada Labour Code since 1986 actually do apply to parliamentary staff.

That having been said, this bill only changes the coming into force of the act and does not make any substantive changes to parts II and III.

To conclude, it was in response to concerns expressed by parliamentarians that the government held off enacting parts II and III.

The working conditions of our staff matter greatly to us, but I believe that the House was able to settle the matter informally, without breaching our privileges in the process.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise tonight and expand on a question I asked the Minister of Finance on February 26, 2003.

I will preface my remarks with the fact that municipal infrastructure is something that, in recent days, weeks and months, has fallen to the back as the nation is faced with other important issues. However, it is important that we do not forget this issue and that we continue to move forward. That is why tonight I have the pleasure to expand on my question.

I was asking the finance minister about a comment made by the Minister of Transport. He introduced a plan that involved no new funds and described toll roads as an innovation. He described toll roads as the way for municipalities to recoup their finances because of the lack of infrastructure dollars from the federal government. The response I received from the government was that since 1993, when the Liberals had a $42 billion deficit, it had put $2 billion into infrastructure.

We have had surpluses over the last several years. We have seen less money going into infrastructure and that is my major concern. The last budget significantly failed municipalities. There is $150 million available for infrastructure this year and it will only provide a mere pittance for what is required. After this year it will be $300 million for the next 10 years.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has identified a $57 billion infrastructure deficit. If we were to use that formula to address this deficit it would take until the year 2193 to actually reach that deficit.

The problem that we have affects everything from the investment in the short term to jobs and employment. More importantly, our national infrastructure must be able to compete with the world regardless of whether it is roads, waste water treatment, hard bridges, or infrastructure related to housing. Those things are important for our economy. The infrastructure has been underfunded for many years.

My concern is the lack of sincerity by the government to municipalities and the fact that it has simply played lip service to municipalities. A good example is the Prime Minister's task force on urban issues which states in the preamble:

Let us have the courage and the vision to take the next steps on our journey.

We then go to the throne speech which identified that municipalities needed to be encouraged and supported. We get to the budget and, lo and behold, everything drops off the map. We see a plan that does not have any type of merit for municipalities in the long term. It does not provide them the support and, more importantly, the ability to generate the actual projects that are desperately needed in their communities.

I would like to ask the following questions: How can the government continue to say that it is going to support municipalities when it is not providing them with any financial resources to do so? When will the government present a long, sustainable program that will empower them before we lose out on more investment strategies because we did not have the wherewithal to invest in them now?