Pauline Picard

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 23rd, 1999]

He will be accountable to his constituents.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 23rd, 1999]

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

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 23rd, 1999]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Racial Discrimination, March 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we celebrated the international day for the elimination of racial discrimination.

This is an issue which involves every individual and every state in our daily struggle to eliminate the obstacles to equality between people. We must work together to make society a fairer and more democratic one.

Yesterday, during the activities celebrating this event in Montreal, the Bloc Quebecois made a commitment to hold symposiums in the near future to specifically address the issues of democracy and citizenship. These will provide an unequalled opportunity to reflect on ways to bring Quebeckers of all backgrounds closer together.

The Bloc Quebecois also wishes to congratulate the Government of Quebec for the decision, just announced by Robert Perreault, the Quebec minister of citizens relations, to make the Quebec public service more accessible to minorities.

[Supply, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, before Oral Question Period, I carefully listened to the debate on our motion and the speech by the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. He carefully explained why a special committee should be struck to consider the creation of a pan-American monetary union. There is a possibility we might participate in the creation of a pan-American monetary union.

In his speech, my colleague argued the response of members on the government side was quite weak. Their arguments are half baked. They are putting them forward saying “No, we do not want such a committee, we do not want to debate the possible creation of a pan-American monetary union”.

Moreover my colleague for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot reported the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions had argued that Canada's monetary policy was very important for Canada's sovereignty.

My question is this: could my colleague tell me how independent Canada's monetary policy is from the United States? Is this not merely an illusion?

[Supply, March 15th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this opposition day debate on the motion introduced by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and by the hon. member for Charlesbourg. I thank them for their initiative.

The motion reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, a Special Committee of the House of Commons should be struck in order to consider the possibility of Canada's participation in the creation of a pan-American monetary union.

On January 1, a new currency came to existence: the Eurodollar. Over the next three years, national currencies, some of which have been in existence for several centuries, will be relegated to museums and private collections. The decision to have a new reserve currency, in addition to the U.S. dollar and the Japanese yen, is an important event in the economic history of the world.

The signing of the Maastricht treaty allowed European Union members to enjoy the free movement of people, goods, services and money on their whole territory. A monetary component has now been added to that economic alliance, with the result that, in the future, there will be only one currency and one key interest rate in effect in 11 countries of Europe. One cannot witness these changes without wondering what is going on in America.

The lesson to be learned from the adoption of the Eurodollar is that, sooner of later, economic integration raises the issue of monetary integration. Within about 50 years, Europe has gone from experiencing one of history's most bloody wars to creating a common market, which was restricted at first but later expanded through the Treaty of Rome, and finally establishing a true monetary union.

Why? Because there are many benefits associated with using a common currency when there is a high volume of trade between countries: it reduces uncertainty and the costs of currency transactions, there is increased pricing transparency, resources are better allocated, and there are many other pluses.

Naturally, there is a downside to abandoning national currencies. A currency is first and foremost a trade tool and a store of value, but it can serve as a buffer when our economy is undergoing stresses different from those of neighbouring nations.

The new currency must also be given time to settle in. Some people are still worried about the initial performance of the Euro in the markets and will wait until it is well established before they are prepared to trust it.

But the decision to convert to the Euro means that the 11 nations that did so felt that these disadvantages were offset by the benefits associated with the new currency. Otherwise, the Euro would never have seen the light of day.

The immediate result of the arrival of the Euro on money markets is the drop in the number of so-called intermediate currencies. The Euro replaces the French, Belgian and Luxembourg franc, the German mark, the Finnish markka, the Italian lira, the Austrian schilling, the Irish pound, the Dutch florin, the Spanish peseta and the Portuguese escudo.

In the medium term, the Euro will very likely also replace the English pound, the Greek drachma, the Swedish krona and the Danish krone. This is of direct concern to us; with so many currencies disappearing, what currency will international speculators settle on?

We have only to remember the ravages of the Asian financial crisis, when everyone rushed to the safety of the American dollar, to understand the concrete impact of the Euro. If the Canadian loonie had a rough ride in 1998, so did most European currencies to some degree.

However, it seems clear that, with the Euro on the scene, a new international financial crisis would not have the same repercussions in Europe. Unfortunately, such a crisis would still hit Canada just as hard, perhaps even worse, because those speculating on the rise and fall of currencies during a financial storm have now lost 11 of the horses they can bet on, thus increasing our chances of attracting their interest.

In 15 or 20 years from now, what major currencies will there be left, apart from the U.S. dollar, the Euro, the Japanese yen and maybe the Chinese yuan? In that context, in order to protect ourselves from the harmful effects of the growing speculation on currencies, some have proposed a tax on financial transactions, like the so-called Tobin tax.

But we cannot avoid analysing seriously the alternatives offered to us if we do not want to become one of the main targets of international speculators. For example, we could abandon our marginalized national currency and replace it by a strong currency. But still, which one should we choose?

Both Americas may be destined to have a common currency, from the north pole to the south pole, under an extended free trade agreement. But before we consider creating an all new currency, we should remember that there already exists a very strong currency very close to us, a currency which is used as a refuge when the global economy crumbles, that is the American dollar.

The Canadian money supply totals approximately $600 billion Canadian, or almost $400 billion U.S. In comparison, the American money supply is close to $6,000 billion U.S. and increased by approximately 10% in 1998 over 1997.

Considering that the Canadian money supply in American dollars represents only 6 or 7% to the American money supply, the “dollarization” of Canada, that is the conversion of our economy to the U.S. dollar represents, from the American point of view, barely several months of growth for the American money supply.

It is also interesting to note that in some regards, the new European central bank operates like the U.S. federal reserve. In both cases, the central bank establishes the common monetary policy in consultation with a number of regional bank representatives. Therefore, a system where the Bank of Canada would be the thirteenth regional bank of an American network is quite conceivable.

All this is hypothetical, at least for now. But this issue is already raising hackles, particularly in Canada. The main argument is that by giving up its currency, either through freezing the exchange rate relative to another currency or adopting the U.S. dollar, Canada will lose all flexibility with regard to its economic policies.

However, looking at the evolution of the Canadian and American bank rates over the last 50 years, one is forced to recognize that the independence of Canada's monetary policy exists only in some people's mind. In fact, the best way to determine the bank rate in Canada from 1950 to 1986 is to take the bank rate they had in the United States at a particular point during that period and increase it by 1.1 percentage point.

Of course, some may point out that in 1996 and 1997, the Canadian bank rate was lower than the American bank rate for the first time in 50 years. However, we became very aware of the limits of this so-called monetary autonomy on August 27 of last year, when the loonie plunged to record lows and the Bank of Canada had to intervene by raising the bank rate to support the Canadian dollar.

By rejecting this motion as if they were holders of the absolute truth, the Liberals are burying their heads in the sand, as if what goes on elsewhere will never affect us. This refusal to accept change reminds us of their historical position against the free trade agreement.

Recent developments in Europe, including the introduction of the Eurocoin, raise new issues. From whichever point of view, Quebec's or Canada's, federalist or sovereignist, one cannot escape the issues related to economic globalization. These issues are being raised today, and by addressing them in a timely fashion, we increase our chances of taking in stride this inevitable and already noticeable turn towards a new economy. This requires a great deal of thought. That is why the Bloc Quebecois is inviting all members of this House to think about this issue, to take part in this debate and to vote in favour of this motion.

[Petitions, March 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people in the riding of Drummond, who sincerely believe in equality between men and women and in justice, I have the honour of tabling a petition bearing 590 signatures demanding that the government withdraw its appeal against the public service pay equity decision and give effect to the court ruling requiring it to ensure pay equity for its employees.

This petition combines with those presented by my other Bloc Quebecois colleagues.

[Rcmp, March 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the potential closure of RCMP offices in Drummondville, Saint-Hyacinthe and Granby is creating a lot of turmoil. All the community stakeholders are concerned about the potential departure of the force, whose work is vital in the fight against organized crime among other things.

My question is for the Solicitor General. Has the minister had time since yesterday to see whether the rumours of a move are true and, if so, could he tell us how centralizing services outside our regions will increase the quality of services locally?

[Reproductive Technologies, March 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, ten years after the establishment of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies, Canada is the only country still without a clear policy regulating the use of medically assisted human reproductive technologies.

How does the Minister of Health explain that, after all this time, the only standard in the matter is a voluntary moratorium, whose effectiveness is not measurable?

[Canada Winter Games, March 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois congratulates the residents of Corner Brook, Newfoundland, on the warm and well-organized welcome they extended to the 350 athletes and those accompanying them who descended on their city for the Canada Games. One quarter of the city's 26,000 inhabitants served as volunteers. Bravo to all of them for their role in the games' success.

The Canada Games Council took the opportunity to pay tribute to the dedication of Claude Hardy, who has been working with young people for 30 years and who chairs Quebec's delegation to the Canada Games. An award was even named after him.

Ontario won the most medals, with 116, just eight more than Quebec. The Bloc Quebecois congratulates athletes from Quebec and from all of Canada on their performance.

This being international women's day, it is interesting to note that women outnumbered men in Quebec's delegation. We congratulate all the athletes and those accompanying them on their commitment, and the residents of Corner Brook on their hospitality.