Bill Blaikie

[Government Contracts, October 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Public Service Alliance of Canada pointed out the skyrocketing cost of contracting out. Far from being a way to save money, contracting out is actually way more expensive. A Manitoba example helps to illustrate the point.

As Local 704 of the Union of National Defence Employees argues, figuring the total cost of the base support budget and other costs into the allegedly hourly cost of doing a job currently done by DND employees at Camp Shiloh not only grossly misrepresents the cost but creates an artificially high ceiling that is easy for private contractors to come in under.

Contracting out is a scam designed for patronage. A government serious about saving money should cut back on contracting out. It should not cut back on employees who will do the job for a lot less than what the private sector now charges the government, thanks to the government's own misleading way of calculating the cost of doing it in house.

[The Economy, October 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the government's review of social policy should be accompanied by a review of the policies which really caused the deficit. Social spending in Canada is not out of line with what is spent in other developed countries. It is how we finance that spending that needs a hard look.

On the revenue side, successive Canadian governments have given up billions of dollars in the form of tax breaks of one kind or another, starting with John Turner's budgets in the mid-1970s. On the monetary policy side, a policy of high interest rates combined with a diminishing of the role of the Bank of Canada in the financing of Canada's debt has led to a deplorable dependence on foreign lenders and bond holders.

Of course on the economic side, the so-called free trade and free market fetish has destroyed hundreds of thousands of jobs and stressed the social system designed for less stupid economic policies.

The government would do well to look at these things rather than blaming social programs and/or their recipients for our fiscal problems.

[Canadian National Railways, September 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Transport could guarantee today that in whatever process the government undertakes to consider this proposal, the employees who might be affected, the communities that might be affected, and the regions that might be affected, that all these stakeholders will be consulted appropriately and their views will be taken into account.

[Canadian National Railways, September 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. It concerns the proposal made last week by Canadian Pacific to purchase that part of Canadian National Railways which exists east of Winnipeg.

Could the minister tell this House today what the position of the government is with respect to this proposal? Is the minister prepared today to reject not just the proposal but the idea out of hand? If he is not, can he tell the House what process he has in mind for consulting the shareholders, who are basically the Canadian people, as to what the position of the government should be with respect to this proposal?

[Immigration Act, September 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on June 7, 1994, I asked a question of the Minister of Transport having to do with transportation subsidies. At that time I expressed my concern to the minister about a speech he had given and which I had subsequently read. I felt the minister had given undue attention to the way in which the rail sector in our transportation system was subsidized.

Having gone through the speech, I noticed he was making a general argument about the subsidization of our transportation argument, but every time he gave an example it was from the rail sector.

I rose at that time to complain about this singling out of the rail sector, asking the minister to make sure that whatever he did or whatever he planned for our transportation system-it is still unclear at this point exactly what he does have in mind-that he not operate on the basis of this bias that he had revealed in this speech with respect to the rail sector.

Not surprisingly, of course, as ministers are wont to do, he got up and assured me that he would take everything into account. I still have that concern. It is something I want to follow up today.

Subsequent to that question, the minister has said a great deal about other elements of our transportation system, particularly with respect to airports and the commercialization plans that he has for the air sector as well as other transport sectors.

A lot of Canadians see through this. They see behind the word commercialization basically the same consequences and the same agenda as what the previous government used to call privatization.

There may be some fine difference between commercialization and privatization, but I am sure it is a difference that will be lost on the people who either lose their jobs or whose wages are reduced and whose standard of living is consequently reduced when the jobs they used to have go from the public sector to the private sector and they no longer receive the same benefit that they received before.

As with so much of this privatization, commercialization, deregulation, free trade, et cetera, a lot of this is simply an agenda for reducing the incomes and the standard of living as a consequence of a great many Canadians who over the years have come to be paid decently in the public sector and for that matter in the private sector.

What is happening now in so many ways is that these well paid working Canadians are on the hit list. They are the working middle class whose wages are being targeted for reduction. I would like to say that when the minister takes into account the relationship between the various transportation sectors, he ought to take into account the views of my constituents.

He wrote me a letter at the end of June saying that he wanted to know what my constituents feel. I can tell him what my constituents feel. They feel that the minister should take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that we have a healthy rail sector in this country.

When he does that and when he is doing that, he should take into account the way the trucking industry is subsidized, not just through the financing of public highways, but by the people who work in the trucking industry. One of the characteristics of the trucking industry and one of the reasons why it has been able to be so competitive with railways-using that awful word competitive which hides a great many injustices-is that its average hourly wage is so much lower.

Why is it more? It is a result of deregulation. Anyone with the capital to finance a few trucks has the ability to set up a trucking business and to operate almost free of governmental constraints and regulations. There is this downward pressure on wages. Therefore many people who used to expect to make a decent living in trucking or for that matter in a great many other industries no longer have that expectation.

One of the ways in which various transportation modes are being subsidized, but particularly in this case, trucking, is through the wages of the people who work there. I can say on behalf of the people who work in the rail sector in my riding, whether they work for VIA, CPR or CNR, they do not want to subsidize the rail sector by reducing their wages but that is exactly what is being asked of them now.

I hear it in the minister's voice when he says: "Well we don't want to go ahead with the VIA cuts but it depends on the labour negotiations". The minister is deliberately trying to set up the employees of VIA and other railway employees as the scapegoats for whatever cuts he is already planning to make. I urge him not to scapegoat those employees. They are trying to hang on not just to a way of life but to a way of life for all Canadians, that is to say a way of life in which working Canadians are able to be well paid.

The agenda which this government is following is the same as the last government's. It is an agenda which means that the middle class will disappear. The wages people were paid on the railway and in other organized industries will disappear. We will have a fragmented society. A few people at the top, the minority, will make a lot of money while more and more people at the bottom will make less and less all the time as a result of so-called competition, deregulation, globalization and all of the other things I have come to despise since I came to this place.

[Military Bands, June 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to protest a recent decision by the Department of National Defence concerning the status of pipers in the bands of the 15 highland regiments of the Canadian militia.

The removal of pipers from the militia role and the likely damage caused by this to many fine bands like that of the Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders in Winnipeg or the Black Watch in Montreal is a sad and infuriating attack on a good tradition and on the morale of these regiments and their supporters.

No such requirement has been laid on brass bands. I call on the Minister of National Defence to reverse this discriminatory foolish decision. The Black Watch Pipe Band is a well loved Canadian institution in Montreal. Liberals should protect it instead of being up to their old tricks and trying to eliminate anything that smacks of British tradition.

[Internal Trade Agreement, June 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern about the current negotiations between federal and provincial governments to complete an internal trade agreement by the end of this month. I share these concerns with the labour movement and organizations such as the Canadian Environmental Law Association and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

The drafts of this agreement are not available to the public. It is being negotiated behind closed doors and with little consultation. I call upon the governments involved to open up this internal economic constitution to an open and public debate and delay the signing date until this consultation has taken place.

It is one thing to negotiate co-operative agreements which put a stop to practices of some governments, like tearing up bricks in a sidewalk because they were purchased in the wrong province. It is another to duplicate within Canada a free trade agreement that will hamper the ability of governments to establish, maintain and improve labour, consumer and environmental standards, and to regulate corporate activities.

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to have been able to predict what the Reform Party would do, or for that matter the government whip.

Whatever is going on here, Mr. Speaker, I just want it to be absolutely clear that the NDP caucus wants to support the motion of the Treasury Board allocating money to VIA Rail and to Industry grants. Then we want to be recorded as voting against the main estimates in their entirety.

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I am sorry but that was not my understanding. I was waiting for the whip to get up after this particular motion. If we were to do what he suggests, we would end up voting in a way we do not wish to vote, so I cannot agree.

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify with the government whip. Is he sure he means in reverse? It is the motion of the hon. member for Fraser Valley West with respect to Parliament. Now it is the motion of the hon. member for Lethbridge with respect to VIA Rail. My understanding is that we would want the same vote. Am I mistaken? It is not in reverse.